MAYA POLITICAL ORGANIZATION DURING THE TERMINAL CLASSIC PERIOD IN THE COCHUAH REGION, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SECONDARY SITE
A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by Tatiana Zelenetskaya Young July 2016
Examining Committee Members:
Anthony Ranere, Advisory Chair, TU Department of Anthropology Michael Stewart, TU Department of Anthropology Patricia Hansell, TU Department of Anthropology Dave Johnstone, co-director of Cochuah Region Archeological Survey Lisa Lucero, External Member, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
i
© Copyright 2016
by
TatianaZelenetskayaYoung
ii ABSTRACT
The dissertation examines the political organization of the ancient Maya during the Terminal Classic Period in the Cochuah Region of Quintana Roo. It evaluates the architecture and site layout of the secondary sites of Sacalaca and San Felipe, and tertiary and quaternary sites surrounding them in order to test political models. Our understanding of the ancient Maya political organization largely comes from Classic
Period hieroglyphic texts recorded by Maya kings on public monuments. This reliance on only these kinds of data creates a limitation on the interpretation of political organization, and does not address the local scale of political institution within Maya polities. It also creates the illusion of a centralization of political organization and biases towards primary sites where hieroglyphic monuments are located.
The alternative data available for the evaluation of political organization are the regional settlement pattern, individual site layouts and site architecture. Certain types of architecture such as acropoli, mortuary temples, formal plazas and ballcourts, are representative of the institutions of rulership permitting to determine the type of political organization. The distribution of this architecture within the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites will correlate to respective political models.
Three models were chosen to be tested after reviewing the various models proposed for the political organization of the ancient Maya. These models are Dynastic
Kingship, Mul Tepal, and the Segmentary State. The archaeological correlates of these models are identified and compared with the evidence provided by twenty sites in the
Cochuah Region for both the early Terminal Classic Period (the Florescent Phase) and
iii the late Terminal Classic Period (the Post-Florescent Phase).
The conclusion is made that during the Florescent Phase the political organization in the Cochuah Region was a Segmentary State. In the Segmentary State the institution of rulership is found in sites occupying different levels in the settlement hierarchy.
Sacalaca and San Felipe and their satellites exhibit a duplication of the institutions of rulership on a smaller scale. During the Post-Florescent Phase data indicate the absence of authorities capable of providing order or enforcing laws and perhaps the absence of rulers during this time in the region.
This case study demonstrates that some types of political organizations would be only visible through examination of secondary sites and their satellites. Also, this approach addresses the problem of relying on hieroglyphic texts and helps to overcome a bias of centralized political organization created by investigation limited to the primary centers.
iv
To my father, Alexander Zelenetskii, who started me on my Journey
v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without CRAS director Dr. Justine
M. Shaw and co-director Dr. Dave Johnstone who welcomed me to the project. I am grateful for all their support during the field seasons. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Justine Shaw without whom it would not have been possible to conduct this research and who always was willing to help. I am indebted to Dave Johnstone, who challenged my ideas and helped me to shape and clarify them; who gave his knowledge and time so generously, and who was patient, supportive, and encouraging throughout the process.
I have been fortunate to have my advisor Dr. Anthony Ranere and my committee member Dr. Michael Stewart. I would like to thank them for the help and guidance they have given me. I would like to offer my special thanks to Dr. Lisa Lucero for her useful and constructive recommendations on my dissertation. Finally, most of all, I would like to thank my son Sebastian Alexander Young for his support and understanding while I was working towards my goal.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... iii
DEDICATION ...... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vi
LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background...... 4
Political Organization ...... 4
Time Period ...... 6
Organization of Chapters ...... 8
2. MAYA POLITICAL ORGANIZATION ...... 15
Maya Political Units : Hyroglyphic Accounts ...... 17
The Scale of Maya Polities ...... 19
Super State ...... 21
Regional State ...... 23
City-States ...... 23
Maya Political Organization: Spanish Colonial Documents ...... 25
Maya Political Organization: Enthnohistoric Documents ...... 28
A Mul Tepal Model ...... 29
Maya Political Organization: Comparative Approach ...... 31
vii Segmentary State Model...... 31
Theater State/Galactic Polity Model ...... 32
3. ARCHITECTURE AS AN EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION ...... 38
Types of Architecture in the Region ...... 38
Foundation Braces ...... 39
Circular Foundation Braces ...... 39
Platforms ...... 39
Acropoli ...... 39
Range Structures ...... 41
Palaces ...... 41
Unexcavated Mounds ...... 42
Popol Nah ...... 44
Open-Fronted Architecture ...... 44
Stela-Altar Complexes...... 44
Plazas ...... 45
Alignments ...... 46
Ballcourts ...... 47
Sacbeob ...... 48
Site Ranking ...... 50
Archeological Expectations ...... 51
A Dynastic Kingship ...... 52
A Mul Tepal ...... 53
viii A Segmentary State ...... 54
4. THE COCHUAH REGION IN CONTEXT ...... 63
The Terminal Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands ...... 63
The Southern Lowlands ...... 64
The Northern Lowlands ...... 65
The Political and Physical Setting ...... 68
Natural Permanent Features ...... 71
Natural Seasonal Features ...... 71
Human Made Features ...... 72
Soils ...... 73
Research in the Cochuah Region...... 74
Early Explorations...... 74
The Proyecto Arqueologico Yo’okop ...... 75
The Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey ...... 76
Timeline of the CRAS Study Area ...... 78
Dynastic History of Yo’okop ...... 81
Interpretations of Hieroglyphic Texts ...... 83
5. RESEARCH METHODS AND FIELD WORK ...... 100
The Research Methods ...... 100
Mapping...... 101
Excavations...... 101
Nohcacab ...... 102
ix San Juan ...... 107
Parcela Escolar ...... 110
Sacalaca-Parcela Escolar Transect ...... 111
6. SACALACA, SAN FELIPE AND THEIR SATELLITES ...... 145
The Case Study...... 146
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites ...... 146
Sacalaca ...... 146
Chakal Ja’as...... 149
Parcela Escolar ...... 151
Ramonal Oriente ...... 153
Ramonal Poniente ...... 155
Aktun...... 155
San Andres ...... 156
San Diego ...... 156
San Pedro ...... 156
Yo’dzonot ...... 158
Ichmul ...... 159
Sacbeob of Ichmul ...... 163
San Felipe and Surrounding Sites ...... 166
San Felipe ...... 166
Benito Juarez ...... 170
Ramonal Quemado ...... 171
Sisal ...... 172
x San Lorenzo ...... 174
Candelaria ...... 176
Hopemul ...... 178
San Fernando ...... 179
Yo’okop ...... 179
Summary of Data ...... 185
Florescent Phase Architecture ...... 185
Post-Florescent Phase Architecture and Settlement Pattern ...... 191
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 227
Evaluating the Models of Political Organization in the Florescent Phase ...... 228
Dynastic Kingship ...... 228
Sacalaca and its Surrounding Sites ...... 230
San Felipe and its Surrounding Sites ...... 230
Mul Tepal ...... 231
Sacalaca and its Surrounding Sites ...... 232
San Felipe and its Surrounding Sites ...... 232
Segmentary State ...... 233
Sacalaca and its Surrounding Sites ...... 233
San Felipe and its Surrounding Sites ...... 233
Evaluating the Models of Political Organization in the Post-Florescent Phase ...... 235
Dynastic Kingship ...... 235
San Felipe, Sacalaca and Their Surrounding Sites ...... 235
xi Mul Tepal ...... 235
Sacalaca and its Surrounding Sites ...... 235
San Felipe and its Surrounding Sites ...... 235
Segmentary State ...... 236
Sacalaca and its Surrounding Sites ...... 236
San Felipe and its Surrounding Sites ...... 236
Concluding Remarks ...... 238
Contributions ...... 241
Future Research ...... 243
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 247
APPENDICES
A. CERAMIC TABLES FOR SITES IN WHICH THIS AUTHOR DIRECTED
AND/OR PARTICIPATED IN THE MAPPING AND EXCAVATIONS ...... 286
B. CERAMIC TABLES FOR THE CASE STUDY SITES ...... 291
xii LIST OF TABLES
1.1: Site Keys ………………………………………………………………….. 14
3.1: Archeological Expectations ……………………………..………………… 62
5.1: Abbreviations of Time Periods ……..……....…………………………….144
6.1: Summary of Data for the Sites of the Case Study ………………………..225
6.2: Ballcourts Dimensions in the Case Study……………………………..…..226
6.3: Sites Alignments in the Case Study……………………………..…...... 226
xiii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Sites Analyzed in the Case Study ……………………………………. 11
Figure 1.2: Yo’dzonot, Structure S1W1 Circular Foundation Brace, Redrawn from
Kidder (2012)………………………..…..…….……………………………..... 12
Figure 1.3: Open Fronted Building (Nohcacab, Structure N1E1-8), Adopted from
Shaw (2004)……..……....……………………………...... …………………13
Figure 2.1: Early Colonial Map Showing Sixteen Maya Polities, Redrawn and
Modified from Roys (1957)……………………………..…...…………..…….36
Figure 2.2: Three Types of Rulership, Type A, B and C Modified from Roys
(1957)…………………………………………………………………………..37
Figure 3.1: Circular Foundation Brace, Sacalaca, Photo by Dave
Johnstone)………………………………………………………………………57
Figure 3.2: Mound, Parcela Escolar………………………………………………...58
Figure 3.3: Ballcourt, Ramonal Quemado, Photo by Justine Shaw………………...59
Figure 3.4: Sacbe, Sacalaca…………………………………………………………60
Figure 3.5: Locations of Institutions of Rulership within the Primary, Secondary,
Tertiary and Quaternary Sites………………………………………………….61
Figure 4.1: Sites in the Northern Lowlands………………………………………...87
Figure 4.2: Location of CRAS……………………………………………………...88
Figure 4.3: CRAS Study Area……………………………………………………...89
Figure 4.4: Location of Tertiary and Quaternary Sites……………………………..90
Figure 4.5: Location and Distances between Secondary Sites……………………..91
Figure 4.6: Location and Distance between Primary Sites…………………………92
xiv Figure 4.7: Stela 3, Yo’okop………………………………………………………...93
Figure 4.8: Stone 1, Yo’okop…………………………………………....…….....….94
Figure 4.9: Stone 2, Yo’okop……………………………………………….....…….95
Figure 4.10: Stone 3, Yo’okop………………………………………………...... 96
Figure 4.11: Stone 4, Yo’okop………………………………………………...... 97
Figure 4.12: Stela 1, Yo’okop………………………………………………...... ….98
Figure 4.13: Stela 2, Yo’okop………………………………………………...... 99
Figure 5.1: Investigated Sites Highlighting Those Sites in Which this Author Directed
and/or Participated in the Mapping and Excavations………………………….121
Figure 5.2: Nohcacab………………………….…………………………………….122
Figure 5.3: Nohcacab, Structure S1E1-2……………………………………………123
Figure 5.4: Nohcacab, Location of Operation 4………………………………….....124
Figure 5.5: Spindle Whorl, Redrawn from Lloyd (2004) …………………………..125
Figure 5.6: Nohcacab, Operation 4………………………………………………….126
Figure 5.7: Nohcacab, Operation 4, South and West Walls Profile………………...127
Figure 5.8: Nohcacab, Cut Stones, Operation 4, Level 2, Lot 1…………………….128
Figure 5.9: San Juan, Location of Operations 1 and 2………………………………129
Figure 5.10: San Juan, Operation 1………………………………………………….130
Figure 5.11: San Juan, Operation 1, North and East Walls Profile………………….131
Figure 5.12: San Juan, Operation 2, East and South Walls Profile………………….132
Figure 5.13: Parcela Escolar, Sketch Map…………………………………………...133
Figure 5.14: Parcela Escolar, Transect, Southern Part (Northern Edge of Sacalaca)..134
Figure 5.15: Parcela Escolar, Transect, Southern Part (Northern Edge of Sacalaca)..135
xv Figure 5.16: Parcela Escolar, Transect, Northern Part……………………………..136
Figure 5.17: Parcela Escolar, Operation 1………………………………………….137
Figure 5.18: Parcela Escolar, Operation 2………………………………………….138
Figure 5.19: Parcela Escolar, Operation 2, West Wall Profile……………………..139
Figure 5.20: Parcela Escolar, Operation 3………………………………………….140
Figure 5.21: Parcela Escolar, Operation 3, North Wall Profile…………………….141
Figure 5.22: Parcela Escolar, Operation 3, West Wall Profile……………………...142
Figure 5.23: Parcela Escolar, Platforms………………………………………….....143
Figure 6.1: Case Study……………………………………………………………...194
Figure 6.2: Sacalaca………………………………………………………………...195
Figure 6.3: Sacalaca, Northern Margin…………………………………………...... 196
Figure 6.4: Sacalaca, Old Palace…………………………………………………....197
Figure 6.5: Chakal Ja’as…………………………………………………………….198
Figure 6.6: Petroglyphs, Chakal Ja’as Adopted from Dave Johnstone (2004)…...... 199
Figure 6.7: Parcela Escolar…………………………………………………..……..200
Figure 6.8: Ramonal Oriente……………………………………………………….201
Figure 6.9: Ramonal Poniente……………………………………………………...202
Figure 6.10: San Diego……………………………………………………………..203
Figure 6.11: San Pedro……………………………………………………………..204
Figure 6.12: Yo’dzonot…………………………………………………………….205
Figure 6.13: Ichmul………………………………………………………………...206
Figure 6.14: Ichmul, Central Acropolis…………………………………………….207
Figure 6.15: Ichmul, Eastern Acropolis…………………………………………….208
xvi Figure 6.16: Ichmul, Sacbeob……………………………………………………....209
Figure 6.17: San Felipe……………………………………………………………..210
Figure 6.18: San Felipe, Acropolis…………………………………………………211
Figure 6.19: San Felipe, Southern Group…………………………………………..212
Figure 6.20: Benito Juarez, Redrawn from Normark (2008)……………………....213
Figure 6.21: Ramonal Quemado…………………………………………………...214
Figure 6.22: Sisal…………………………………………………………………...215
Figure 6.23: San Lorenzo………………………………………….……………….216
Figure 6.24: Candelaria…………………………………………………………….217
Figure 6.25: Candelaria, X-Shaped Stones from Structure S1W1-1, Photo by
Shaw……………………………………………………………………………218
Figure 6.26: Hopemul………………………………………………………………219
Figure 6.27: Yo’okop………………………………………….……………………220
Figure 6.28: Yo’okop, Group A…………………………………………………….221
Figure 6.29: Yo’okop, Group B…………………………………………………….222
Figure 6.30: Yo’okop, Group C…………………………………………………….223
Figure 6.31: Yo’okop, Group D…………………………………………………….224
Figure 7.1: Sites with Archeological Evidence for the Florescent Phase…………..245
Figure 7.2: Sites with Archeological Evidence for the Post-Florescent Phase……..246
xvii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The goal of this research is to use the presence and distribution of elements of rulership reflected in site layout and site architecture to determine the political organization of the ancient Maya in the Cochuah Region, Quintana Roo, during the
Terminal Classic Period. In contrast to the near abandonment of the Cochuah Region during the Late Classic Period, the population of the region was dense and widespread during the Terminal Classic Period. This dissertation addresses the question of how this newly repopulated region was governed. It focuses on characteristics of secondary centers Sacalaca and San Felipe and their satellites, tertiary sites and quaternary sites, to evaluate competing political models (Figure 1.1). The examination of these settlements provides insights into the political organization of secondary centers and their smaller satellites which should help overcome the bias created by investigations limited to the primary centers.
The interpretation of Maya political organization has shifted dramatically over time. Thompson (1954) depicted Maya public life as being solely centered on ceremonial centers dedicated to worship of great cycles of time and celestial bodies. Since the hieroglyphs were still largely undeciphered, Thompson regarded the glyphs as "largely esoteric" and non-historical. Deciphered parts of May hieroglyphics (the calendar) influenced his ideas about astronomy and time worship. Thompson (1954) proposed that the Maya lived in small agricultural settlements while the religious centers were uninhabited. Thompson views were shaped by the nature of the data during that time,
1 because he did not have access to accurate or entire maps of settlements.
It wasn't until Proskouriakoff's (1960) discovery that the hieroglyphs contained dynastic history that the esoteric “traditional” model was replaced by a Dynastic
Kingship ”traditional” model. Our understanding of ancient Maya political organization largely comes from Classic Period hieroglyphic texts. Maya kings recorded dynastic histories on public monuments such as stelae and stairways. These histories are often portraits of foreign affairs including warfare, alliance, and marriage relations between sites. A focus on the hieroglyphic texts results in viewing Maya political organization as a strongly centralized hierarchical system. The heavy reliance on these data creates limitations in the interpretation of the political organization of the ancient Maya. These hieroglyphic accounts were written by the ruling elite and, therefore, only provide an understanding of the elite culture of the ancient Maya. Moreover, these accounts, because they often portray foreign affairs, do not address in any detail the nature of political organization on the local scale within Maya polities.
The quest for additional hieroglyphic data has resulted in research focused on the large centers. The research on Maya political organization, which predominantly focuses on large centers (Fox et al. 1996:796), tends to bolster the arguments about the degree of centralization present in the political organization of the ancient Maya. Webster
(2002:165) noted that "Because our perspective on Maya political arrangements emphasizes the importance of large centers, especially with their own emblem glyphs, archaeologists have usually worked out from center to periphery when analyzing Late
Classic settlement patterns, which of course are valuable clues to political organization."
This focus of research on large centers has created a bias towards high ranking sites
2 (Webster 2003: 186-188) and the view “that the basic structures of civilizations are hierarchically organized major cultural institutions” (Adams et al. 2004:327).
While the large ceremonial and political centers hold a great deal of information they were not the only components on the Maya landscape. Secondary and tertiary sites, and particularly quaternary sites (small villages), were prevalent on the landscape and their investigation can add to a more balanced view of ancient Maya life. Tourtellot noted that “The investigation of small and single-period sites is an opportunity to counterbalance the upsurge in insights gained from major royal centers and our often limited glimpses of appurtenant settlement”(1993:235). LeCount and Yaeger also emphasized the need for a study of political organization focused more on “subject polities” and “away from its current focus on paramount centers” (2010:29). I believe that examining political organization of the Maya from the perspective of secondary sites represents an alternate but complementary approach to the study of Maya political organization.
Scholars have proposed alternative forms of political organization for the ancient
Maya, but have not suggested a way to test such hypotheses. The testing of the alternative political models requires going beyond the primary centers, as well as examining different data sets. How can the nature of political organization be identified for the Lowland Maya in the absence of hieroglyphics and extensive archaeological evidence from primary centers? The data available to evaluate differing models of political organization during the Terminal Classic Period in the case study area are the regional settlement pattern, individual site layouts and site architecture. The goal of this research is to evaluate models of political organization by focusing on the distribution of
3 the institutions of rulership within a polity. There are significant changes in the settlement pattern and architecture during the Terminal Classic Period in the case study area that makes this region well suited for this goal.
Background
Political Organization
Political organization can be described as a decision-making institution that dictates and regulates policies in a given population (Rice 2004). The relationship between a decision-making institution and the general population is based on the ability of leaders to legitimize their authority and power. A decision-making institution utilizes different strategies to obtain and maintain the right to rule (Kurtz 2001). These strategies include military force, ideological influence, religious indoctrination, cooperation and subornment. The distribution of the decision-making authority in any polity is a major
(but not the only) factor in how that polity is defined. Political organization can be characterized as centralized and non-centralized. Political centralization according to
Roscoe (1993:113) can be defined as the “concentration” of power in the hands of a few.
Centralized political systems would need a group of officials, termed a bureaucracy or administration, created and delegated with official responsibilities, among them being to deliver decisions from a ruler to the populace.
The nature of Maya political organization is a topic of debate among scholars.
Arguments about the nature of ancient Maya political systems are the result of conflicting interpretations of hieroglyphic accounts, Maya oral histories and Spanish Colonial documents. Mayanists using the hieroglyphic texts from the Classic Period (A.D.250-
4 1100) differ in their interpretation of political organization; a number of scholars favor the presence of a centralized political system; some propose various degrees of decentralization, while others argue for hegemonic rule. There are three controversial opinions about the nature of Maya political organization which were derived from the interpretation of the same hieroglyphic texts. Martin and Grube (1995, 2000) interpreted hieroglyphic texts as indicating the presence of hegemonic rule of two Super States -
Tikal and Calakmul. Marcus (1993) interpreting the same hieroglyphic texts proposed four to eight Regional States - Uxmal, Coba, Rio Bec, Calakmul, Yaxchilan, Palenque,
Tikal and Copan. Lastly, Matthews’s (1991) interpretation of these hieroglyphic writings led him to argue for the nonhierarchical political organization of seventy self-governing
“city-states”.
Our understanding of ancient Maya political organization to a lesser extent comes from Spanish Colonial accounts written by conquistadores and friars; and the Books of
Chilam B’alam the Maya oral documents written by indigenous priests during Colonial times. Scholars suggested various forms of political organization during Colonial time ranging from regional polities to small loosely organized polities. Ralph L. Roys (1957) classified data from various colonial accounts (A.D. 1546-1821) into three different types of political systems in place in Yucatan – centralized, non-centralized and loosely organized political organizations. Quezada (1993, 2014) proposed two types of political systems where polities controlled by political, military and religious means exercised by either a single ruler or by three different rulers. Schele and Freidel (1990) suggested a councilor rulership (a joint rule) was present during the Colonial period, while Restall
(1998, 2001) rejected this type of political organization.
5 Political organization is not static, but has a dynamic nature, undergoing changes that are distinct to place and time. These changes leave marks that are visible in the material culture left behind by the ancient Maya such as written records, iconography, settlement patterns, site layouts and architecture. Ancient Maya political organization undoubtedly varied from one region to another as well as over time within regions.
Therefore, an individual regional analysis of political organization at specific time periods is needed. The Terminal Classic Period in the Cochuah Region is one such time and region.
Time Period
The Terminal Classic Period (A.D. 750-1100) is the period in Maya civilization that can be viewed as the disappearance of carved stelae with hieroglyphic texts, large- scale architecture, and the institution of K’uhul Ajawob (Divine Kingship). Webster
(2002:177) states that "The Classic collapse in one sense manifests itself as the downfall of a distinctive form of ritual-political leadership."
In the Cochuah Region the Terminal Classic Period is divided into an Early or
Florescence Phase (A.D.750-900), and a Late or Post-Florescence Phase (A.D.900-1100).
In the region the Terminal Classic Period exhibits the re-occupation of previously existing settlements and also the establishment of new ones. The abandoned Late Classic sites were reoccupied and witnessed resurgence in the construction of public and domestic architecture. There were also significant changes in settlement pattern, sites layout and changes in the architectural style (Johnstone 2006, 2010, 2015; Shaw 2008,
2015).
6 Re-occupation of previously existing sites and establishment of new settlements could be the result of h a) an influx of people from outside the region or, b) the reorganization of the existing population in the region. One of the possible explanation could be the arrival of refugees from the Southern Lowlands, following the collapse of governments in major centers like Tikal and Calakmul, to the Northern Lowlands
(Demarest et al. 1997; Demarest 2004:119-121). However there is no architectural or ceramic evidence discovered so far in the Cochuah Region to support this theory (Shaw
2008:143). Populations also could spread out from primary centers to rural areas due to a reformulation of political organization during this time.
The Terminal Classic Period witnessed the disappearance of some cultural institutions, and the expansion of others. The Florescent Phase includes changes such as the disappearance of monuments with hieroglyphic writings that were present during the
Late Classic Period; i.e., the abandonment of formal alignments of buildings, the construction of ballcourts in sites other than the primary settlements, the appearance of mortuary temples in the tertiary settlements, the construction of sacbeob and the establishment of new settlements. During the Post-Florescent Phase there were the appearance of a new form (circular in shape) of foundation brace (stone alignments outlining buildings) (Figure 1.2), a new style of construction - open-fronted buildings that consist only of three walls (Figure 1.3). Also appearing during this time was the appearance of a new macro settlement pattern – settlements established in locations without previous occupation (so-called Greenfield sites), and a new micro settlement pattern – an informal plaza accompanied by a nearby mound (Figure 6.8). The disappearance of the altar-stelae complex and formal alignments, the changes in
7 architectural style and in site layouts and the establishment of new settlements could be interpreted as signs of the reformulation of political power in the region during the
Terminal Classic Period.
Organization of Chapters
This dissertation is an investigation into the nature of Maya political organization in the Cochuah Region during the Terminal Classic Period. Chapter Two describes the depiction of the Maya political organization as shown in the Maya Colonial manuscripts, ethnohistoric accounts and hieroglyphic texts. The Colonial accounts described at least three different political systems in place in the Yucatan and the division of land into a number of small autonomous polities. Scholars such as Marcus, Adams, Mathews,
Martin and Grube while studying the same hieroglyphic texts and colonial accounts arrived at different conclusions about the degree of centralization in Maya political organizations. The models of the Maya political organization based on these lines of evidence are presented in this chapter. In addition to these models there are also models that has been borrowed from different regions of the world and applied to ancient Maya political structure. Those models are also analyzed and described in Chapter Two.
Chapter Three describes the classes of architecture found in the case study area. It also examines the classes of architecture such as acropoli, altar-stelae complexes, palaces, a formal alignment, mortuary temples, formal plazas, ballcourts and sacbeob (causeways) that could serve as diagnostics for the institutions of rulership. The chapter ends with a list of the different archaeological expectations associated with each proposed model of
Maya political organization described in the previous chapter.
8 Chapter Four reviews the Terminal Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, and the changes that occurred in the Northern Lowlands during that time. It also describes the
Cochuah Region’s environment, the history of research and the chronology of the
Cochuah Region, including an expanded discussion of the hieroglyphs from the primary site of Yo’okop. The field work conducted in the region by the Cochuah Regional
Archeological Survey (CRAS) is summarized as well.
Chapter Five discusses the field research methods involved in the collection of the data by CRAS. It also describes in detail the field investigations conducted by the author at the sites investigated by CRAS such as Nohcacab, San Juan (Ichmul sacbeob termini),
Parcela Escolar, and the transect between Sacalaca and Parcela Escolar.
Chapter Six provides descriptions of the twenty sites that are the focus of this case study with the primary focus on two secondary sites, Sacalaca and San Felipe, and their satellites and, to a lesser degree on two primary sites – Yo’okop and Ichmul. These descriptions include the location, chronology, ranking and distribution of architecture at the each of these twenty sites. Also, this chapter summarizes all modifications and changes in site layouts and architecture that occurred during the early and late phases of the Terminal Classic Period.
Chapter Seven describes the archeological evidence for the Florescent Period and the Post Florescent Periods. It also examines political organization during this time. It evaluates the degree to which the results found in this case study conform or do not conform to the archeological expectations for the models defined in Chapter Three.
This chapter also presents the conclusion on the nature of the Maya political organization in the case study area during the Florescent and Post-Florescent subdivisions
9 of the Terminal Classic Period. A Segmentary State was determined to be the form of political organization during the Florescent Period and a non-state form of political organization was determined to be the form present in the Post-Florescent Period in the case study area. Finally, this chapter discusses the value of using a bottom up approach in analyzing Maya political organization.
10
Figure 1.1. Sites Analyzed in the Case Study are Named (see Table 1.1. for the key to site names for the other sites examined by CRAS).
11
Figure 1.2. Yo’dzonot, Structure S1W1 Circular Foundation Brace, Redrawn from Kidder (2012).
12
Figure 1.3. Open Fronted Building (Nohcacab, Structure N1E1-8), Adopted from Shaw (2004).
13 Table 1.1. Site Keys
Site Name Site Name 1 Xquerol 43 Yo'pila 2 Calotmul 44 Ramonal 3 Chan Mahas 45 Aktun 4 Chikin Ichmul 46 Chakal Ja'as 5 Ichmul 47 Cortada 6 Poxil 48 La Esperanza 7 San Andres 49 Parcela Escolar 8 San Cristobal 50 Ramonal Oriente 9 San Juan 51 Ramonal Poniente 10 San Pedro Chan Ichmul 52 Rancho Guadalupe 11 X-ma-kabba 53 Sacalaca 12 Xbequil 54 San Andrés 13 Abuelos 55 Trincheras 14 Aktun Huay Max 56 San Diego 15 Balche 57 San Isidro 16 Chuun Katzin 58 San Juan 17 Chuun Pich 59 San Pablo 18 Fortín de Yo'okop 60 San Pedro 19 Gruta de Alux 61 Santa Cruz 20 Huay Max 62 Santa Elena 21 Kancep 63 Xbalcheil 22 La Trinchera 64 Xbaquil 23 Nenela 65 Xtojil 24 Palomar 66 Yo'aktun 25 Pancho Villa 67 Yo'dzonot 26 Rancho Rosales 68 Hopemul 27 Saban 69 Ramonal Quemado 28 Sahkabch'en 70 San Felipe 29 Sak Chikin 71 San Fernando 30 San Francisco 72 San Jose Sisal 31 San Isidro 73 San Lorenzo 32 San Manuel 74 Sisal 33 San Pedro 75 Candelaria 34 Santa Rita 76 Rancho Chankunai 35 Venadito 77 Rancho San Francisco 36 Xkanil 78 San Salvador 37 Xnicteil 79 Santa Elena 38 Yache 3 (x-Copó) 80 Tabasquito 39 Yaxche 81 Benito Juarez 40 Yaxche 2 82 Xlapak 41 Yaxche 4 83 Xnicteil 42 Yo'okop 84 Nohcacab
14
CHAPTER 2 MAYA POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
In order to determine which of the many models that have been proposed to describe Maya political organization might be applicable to the Terminal Classic Period in the Cochuah Region, these models must first be described and their archaeological expressions identified. Chapter Two is focused on describing these models while
Chapter Three focuses on their archaeological expressions. In the absence of hieroglyphic texts during the Terminal Classic Period in the Cochuah Region, the ability to assess the appropriateness of any model for this time period and this region must rely on site layout and site architecture. Chapter Two examines the ancient Maya political organization from the point of view of hieroglyphic accounts, Spanish Colonial and ethohistorical documents, as well as models of political organization borrowed from different regions of the world and applied to the ancient Maya. Ethnohistoric accounts provide scholars with a body of information about the Maya political organization during the time of the
Spanish conquest and beyond. These accounts are derived from documents such as descriptions by missionaries, conquistadores and tax collectors. They are an outsider’s perspective for the things they witnessed. Additional information about political organization can also be derived from the linguistic data found in dictionaries recorded during Colonial times (Hernandez 1930; Aulie and Aulie 1978).
Oral history is passed down by word of mouth within a culture. This history eventually is written down, but often much later in time from the events that it describes.
Examples of such Maya documents are the books of the Chilam B’alam; indigenous
15 manuscripts dating to the 18th century. A Chilam B’alam is a local priest/shaman called an h-men in Maya. In these books the h-men recounted what they were told by the h-men who they apprenticed under. These books have many events in common but differ in dates and some details.
In contrast to either the Spanish Colonial documents, or the Maya oral histories, the Classic Period hieroglyphic accounts show how the ancient Maya elite envisioned themselves.
Indigenous writings are important because they provide accounts that are contemporary with ancient inhabitants and were written down at the time of the events.
Some scholars applied a comparative approach to modeling Maya political organization drawing on case studies that are culturally and geographically distant from ancient Maya settings. They used models derived from studies of polities in Africa,
Southeast Asia, medieval Europe and ancient Greece. Aidan Southall (1956) studied the
African Alur society of northwest Uganda and the Congo. In his study Southall noted a dominant polity controlled the external relations of a lesser polity, while allowing a lesser polity to manage their own affairs (Southall 1985:64-65). Dominant polities had a centralized but weak administrative bureaucracy that was administered by numerous dependent peripheral settlements. The administrative staff of the core was replicated at a smaller scale at the peripheral settlements. Peripheral settlements would switch allegiance from one power polity to another. Southall (1956) also noted that Alur rulers used ideology as the basis for political power. Their legitimacy was based on their ability to control rain and also to deliver justice to the populace during quarrels. Southall called this model a Segmentary State.
16 Clifford Geertz (1980) studied nineteenth century Bali. He described a political structure that used ideology as a tool for power. In his studies he observed that rulers did not rely on coercion for the legalization of their authorities but used ceremonies and rituals. These divine rulers resided in the centers of their dominant polities with subordinate settlements around them. There was a constant shifting of alliances between dependencies. Geertz named his model a Theater State.
Analogous to Geertz’s model in terms of the basis of political authority was
Stanley Tambiah’s (1976) model of a Galactic polity. Tambiah studied Thai Kingdoms of South Asia. The name itself results from the concept of mandala (Hindu or Buddhist graphic symbol of universe). The structure of a state was envisioned to mirror a mythological universe. Rulers drew their power through religious means and needed to reproduce the “mandala” at many places in the realm. The mandala served as a frame for a geopolitical concept representing a pulsating circle of polities surrounding a dominant polity in the satellite arrangement with what Tambiah identified as governors at different levels called kings, lesser kings and chiefs (Tambiah 2013:503-504,509; Tambiah
1992:173).
Maya Political Units: Hieroglyphic Accounts
Much of our knowledge about the Classic Maya (A.D.250-1100) political units comes from hieroglyphic texts. These texts were carved or painted on stone monuments, pottery, jade and bones. Hieroglyphic accounts, once deciphered, have been invaluable in comprehending Maya political systems of the Classic Period. Scholars have used hieroglyphic texts in order to understand the Maya political organization from the time
17 when Proskouriakoff (1960) discovered that the hieroglyphic texts of the Classic Maya contained dynastic history. Berlin (1958) referred to some hieroglyphic signs of Maya sites as emblem glyphs due to their repeated standardized form. These glyphs read as
K’uhul (Divine) (a name of a site) Ajaw (Lord). Berlin identified these emblem glyphs for eight Classic Maya sites: Palenque, Copan, Tikal, Naranjo, Seibal, Yaxchilán,
Machaquilá and Piedras Negras.
Maya rulers commemorated their deeds, accessions and death, titles and dynastic histories on the stone monuments using hieroglyphic texts. Hieroglyphic texts from monuments are personal narratives of Maya Kings. These texts do not talk about the nature of Maya political organization, but Mayanists infer aspects of the political system from the use of certain titles mentioned by Maya kings. According to these texts, Classic
Maya kings were descendants of gods; they traced their dynastic line back to the original gods (Huston and Stuart 1996). They used titles such as an Ajaw, K’uhul Ajaw, and
Kaloomte. An Ajaw was a title for a lord defined by royal ancestry. A K’uhul Ajaw shows the sacred quality of a ruler and translates as a Divine Lord. Divine kingship has its roots in the Maya creation myth. This myth is described in the Popol Vuh (sixteenth century
Quiche Maya creation story). This story portrays the sacrificial death of the Maize God by the Lord of Underworld and his resurrection - the struggle for life over death. The masa (dough from corn flour) made from the ears of the Maize God was thought to be the origin of human flesh. One of the major duties of Maya kings was to impersonate gods from their creation myth and to connect to the supernatural by wielding divine power. By claiming themselves descended from gods, Maya kings claimed religious authority and reinforced their power. The Classic Maya worshipped gods through divine kingship
18 (Freidel 2008); they envisioned a K’uhul Ajaw as an intermediary to approach deities.
Houston and Stuart (2001:55) state that “For the Classic Maya, power was almost a unilateral quality of the lord, a fiery essence, hotter than hearth, coursing through the blood and scorching the breath.”
A title of Kaloomte (overking), according to Martin and Grube (2008:17), belongs only to the most prestigious dynasties. This title probably was introduced from the
“West”, and is associated with Teotihuacan (Grube et al. 2003:12). Hieroglyphic texts also mention a title of Sahal (Batab in the Northern Lowlands) - a “provincial”, dependent ruler. Titles of Ajaw and Sahal sometimes have prefix of “Y”(Y-Ajaw and Y-
Sahal). A possessive form Y-Ajaw “the lord of” defines the relationship of a noble to a higher ranking ruler such as a K’uhul Ajaw or Kaloomte as a subordinate lord (Martin and
Grube 2000, 2008). This relationship was very personal and extended beyond the death of a higher ranking ruler (Houston and Inomata 2009).
The Scale of Maya Polities
Barthel (1968) proposed that emblem glyphs of Stela A at Copan (A.D. 731) may indicate four different political capitals or regional states representing the four cardinal directions. He also suggested that capitals as representations of the four cardinal directions were symbolic because it did not correspond with the actual geographic locations of these sites. Palenque was associated with the north but was geographically located in the west and Calakmul was located in the north but associated with the south.
One of the problems with Barthel’s interpretation that he did not address how other sites would fit into this four capitals scheme.
19 Barthel’s four capitals idea was adopted by Joyce Marcus (1973, 1976) who, relying on Maya cosmology (emphasizing the four cardinal directions) and emblem glyphs, identified Tikal, Yaxchilan, Palenque and Copan as four equal regional capitals.
Marcus (1973) stated that emblem glyphs also referred to the territories that a capital controls. In order to examine the nature of settlement patterns of the Lowland Maya,
Marcus (1976) proposed that emblem glyphs and their distribution reflected the ranking of settlements. She noted that the regional capitals had their emblem glyphs mentioned often by secondary sites and, while secondary sites had their own emblem glyphs, their emblem glyphs were “mentioned” less often by regional capitals.
Stephan Houston (1992) challenged Marcus’s original "reading" of the four capitals. He proposed that instead, the hieroglyphics were about four kings witnessing a ritual. He also noted that the expected acknowledgement of primary sites by secondary sites did not happen. Additionally, Houston (1992) challenges Marcus’ claim that the four capitals controlled large territories, concluding that polities in the Southern Lowlands were relatively small.
Later, Marcus (1993) proposed six regional state capitals in the Southern
Lowlands: Palenque, Yaxchilán, Calakmul, Tikal, Petexbatún, and Copan, all of which controlled large geographic regions. Based on the archaeological evidence available at the time, she stated that the tertiary and quaternary centers were without any emblem glyphs altogether (Marcus 1993:144-5). The problem is that some of the sites that she described as tertiary and quaternary were not surveyed completely in 1970’s. Some of these smaller sites were found to have emblem glyphs upon later investigation.
20 Hammond (1991a) argued that the focus of glyphs on capitals and the absence of frontier markers points out that the Classic Maya did not have territorial boundaries.
Tokovinine (2008) stated that the emblems glyphs confirm that the Classic Maya polities were not tied to the territory but rather to specific locations associated with ancestors or deities. In addition, Tokovinine’s research shows that some sites such as Dos Pilas and
Tikal had the same emblem glyph which according to Tokovinine perhaps suggests political independence. Clearly the interpretive value of the emblem glyphs for characterizing Mayan political organization is not a straightforward affair.
Super State
Martin and Grube (1995, 2000) proposed that the Maya had even larger political units than the ones proposed earlier by Marcus and others that they called Super States.
Such larger political units were hegemonically linked by alliances, subordination and warfare. Martin and Grube (1995:45) based their arguments about a Super State on
Gramsci’s view of hegemony as ideological domination. Their view of hegemony also includes the use of physical force in order to create new subordinate polities that have economic and political obligations to their conquerors. Martin and Grube (2008:20) proposed that military victories and threats promoted the loyalties of old patrons and alliances of new ones. They note that the utilization of physical force is supported by the inscriptions of the Classic Maya which often mention warfare. They hypothesized that hegemonic rule was based on the economic and political obligations between supreme rulers and their dependencies. Warfare could be one means for establishing the dominance, for example by slaying the opposing lineage; other options could include
21 royal marriages, planting dynasties, visitations and gift exchange (Grube and Martin
1998a). They argued for long-lasting hegemonic relationships between patrons and their client dependencies (Martin and Grube 2000:20). They noted that wealth and power was distributed unequally and that only a few polities would have the massive economic and political power to dominate others polities. Martin and Grube (2008:21) argued that in the Southern Lowlands Calakmul and Tikal were the only Super States able to control the number of polities across Maya Lowlands.
According to Martin and Grube, the key element in the formation of a Super State was competition for clients - other Ajaw’ob (kings). They stated that the appearance of the title of a K’uhul Ajaw is not indicative of political independence but rather a title of paramount rulers distinguishing themselves from the rulers of lesser settlements (Martin and Grube 2000). Martin and Grube stated that a title of an Ajaw in some cases has a prefix “Y “(Y-Ajaw – “the vassal of”) - that indicates subordinations of some rulers to higher ranked overlords (Martin and Grube 2000, 2008). The kings of Super States were mentioned in hieroglyphic texts with an expression of u-kahi (“under supervision of”) authorizing the events of accession or inauguration of rulers of subordinate states (Martin and Grube 2000, 2008). This expression was a key to Martin and Grube’s Super State notion. Subordinate lords would be allowed to have political power only under supervision of dominant kings.
One of the characteristics of a Super State is the greater size of their centers in comparison to others (Martin and Grube 1998). Dominant centers are able to create monumental architecture at the site core surrounded by a dense population as a reflection of their economic prosperity. The economic prosperity for a Super State is founded on
22 resource exploitation and the collection of tribute. The problem with this is that there are only a few hieroglyphic descriptions that talk about the occurrence of tribute during the
Classic Period. Therefore, the lack of descriptions of tribute is one of the weaknesses of relying only on the hieroglyphic data.
Regional State
A Regional State is a hierarchical political organization governed from a capital
(Marcus 1993). Marcus’s four-tired hierarchy was comprised of primary (regional capitals), secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites. The primary sites were equal in rank.
These centers had more stelae and monuments than other settlements in their regions
(Marcus 1976:46). The nature of the relationship between primary centers was that of alliance, subordination and warfare. Warfare between primary centers could end up with one center becoming subordinate to another, but the whole Maya region was never consolidated under a single ruler (Marcus 1976:151). Secondary centers were located at a regular distance from primary centers and tertiary and quaternary settlements were located near secondary centers (Marcus 1976:46).
City-States
Mathews (1991:29), examining the same hieroglyphic texts, offered a different interpretation of the Classic Maya political organization. He argued that emblem glyphs did not indicate differential status in rank, but actually “equal political status” and were hereditary titles (Mathews 1991:29). He proposed up to seventy self-governing “city- states” and argued that Maya polities were autonomous because each ruler identified
23 himself/herself as an Ajaw of his/her political entity (Mathews 1985). According to
Mathews (1989:9) the size of a Maya polity was approximately 2,500 square kilometers.
Mayanists who support decentralized political organization argued that the hieroglyphic texts speak about rituals and lineage, but do not refer to bureaucracy, standing armies, or laws (Fox et al. 1996). Like other models of hierarchy, the City-State also deals with the relationship between polities and does not look into relationships within a polity.
To summarize, there are some limitations for any research that relies only on the hieroglyphic data. One of such limitations is looking only into the ruling elite culture because hieroglyphic texts were commissioned by kings to display their victories, histories and dynasties, and they could be viewed as instruments of propaganda (Houston et al. 2001). Also, since these hieroglyphic texts were usually located at primary sites, this encouraged a focus on these large sites.
Marcus’ work inspired debates between centralists, who believed in centralized regional states with multi-tiered hierarchies and bureaucracy, and decentralists, who viewed Maya polities as autonomous, smaller in size with limited political control.
Centralists (Adams 1981, 1986; Chase and Chase 1992; Marcus 1973, 1976) argued that the evidence in support of a centralized political organization for the Classic Maya is the presence of large-scale monumental architecture, sacbeob, and the size of such sites as
Tikal, Calakmul, and Copan (Fox et al. 1996). They argued that the number and size of constructions at primary sites required a large labor force and a centralized bureaucracy for planning and managing the construction (Folan 1992; Scarborough 1998).
24 In summary, the hieroglyphic data only refer to single type of political organization, that of Divine Kingship (Boot 2007). The creation of monuments with hieroglyphic texts glorifying the ruler and linking him to the gods undoubtedly played a part in legitimizing his right to rule. The existence of these monuments and the content of these texts also led many Mayanists, who relied heavily on them, to conclude that Maya political organization was under strong central control without due consideration of alternatives.
Maya Political Organization: Spanish Colonial Documents
One of the first attempts to comprehend Maya political organization using the colonial accounts was undertaken by Roys (1957). These early sixteen century chronicles describe the land of the Yucatan Peninsula upon arrival of the Spanish conquistadors as divided into sixteen small autonomous polities with three types of rule (Roys 1957)
(Figure 2.1). According to Roys these small autonomous polities were called, in Maya, cuuchcabal.
Roys summarized the information into descriptions of three different types of political systems in place in the Yucatan during that time: types A, B and C. The political centers of these polities were governed by Halach Uinico’ob (True Men). A Halach
Uinic also could carry a title of an Ajaw (Lord - defined by a royal ancestry). Below
Halach Uinico’ob were smaller, dependent rulers - B’atab’ob (governors), whose function was to unite the population under the regulation of a Halach Uinic. The position of B’atab was an institutionalized office and was not strictly hereditary or vassal-oriented to a Halach Uinic (Roys 1962:192; Thompson 1999:34).
25 Type A had a single, hereditary ruler (Halach Uinic) who resided in a palace located in a jol cah (head town, province capital) (Marcus 1993) with a smaller dependent rulers - B’ atab’ob (usually related by kinship ties to a Halach Uinic). These rulers governed from smaller towns and governed lesser polities within that province
(Roys 1972). Halach Uinic was entitled to collect tribute and collect the male populace from all of the towns in his polity during wars (Roys 1957:6; 1972:61). Only members of a specific lineage were able to hold a Halach Uinic office. This type of political organization was present in the provinces of Cehpech, Cochuah, Champoton, Cozumel,
Hocaba, Tutul Xiu, Sotutu, and probably Ah K’in Chel, Tazes, and Tayasal (Roys 1972:
59).
Type B did not have a single ruler (Halach Uinic) but had a political apparatus comprised of a council of powerful members of the same lineage - B’atab’ob. Even though B’atab’ob were connected by kinship ties, there was a lot of competition for power between these rulers, and they were not always united (Roys 1957:6). This type of rule was present at Ah Cunul and Cupul. The b’atab’ob’ of the Ah Canul province were of the same lineage according to Roys (1957:6).
Type C consisted of groups of towns that were not controlled by larger centers but were independently governed by leaders - B’atab’ob who did not share kinship affiliations (Roys 1957:6). These leaders could join forces in order to avoid submission to stronger or more organized neighbors. This type of political organization is non- hierarchical and was present in the peripheral zones such as Ecab, Uaymil, Chakan, and
Chikinchel (Roys 1957:6). Perhaps here Roys is talking about chiefdoms. These three classes of rulership, Type A, B and C, are displayed on the map shown in Figure 2.2.
26 Quezada (1993, 2014) also examined Maya political organization by studying
Spanish manuscripts. Quezada proposed two types of political systems to which I will refer here as Type 1 and Type 2. The Type 1 political system included polities controlled by political, military and religious means exerted by a single ruler from a powerful lineage - a Halach Uinic. In the Type 2 political system military, political, and religious powers were exercised by three different rulers. Quezada also argued that the powers of
Maya Lords were maintained by personal ties and were more “personal (jurisdictional) than territorial” (Quezada 2014: 8).
Additionally, Quezada and Okoshi-Harada, studied linguistic data from colonial dictionaries. They argued that the basic unit of Maya political organization was not cuuchcabal as Roys proposed, but b’atabil. Cuuchcabal, according to Quezada (1993), was an assemblage of b’atab’ob who accepted the political rulership of a Halach Uinic.
A Halach Uinic resided in a capital and tried to attract by personal ties as many b’atab’ob as possible to his Cuuchcabal (Quezada 2014:23-24). Cuuchcabal was continually changing due to the reorganization of alliances between lineages (Okoshi-Harada 1992).
B’atabil was the place where a B’atab ruled (Okoshi-Harada 2012:289). A B’atab was a town headman who maintained his power not by defending territorial boundaries but through a personal association (Quezada 2014:4-6). Some b’atab’ob were wealthier than others because they had a higher number of vassals who recognized their authority.
B’atabil was comprised of three to five cuchteelo’ob. Cuchteelo’ob were comprised of a cluster of houses included areas for farming activities occupied by extended families
(Okoshi-Harada 2012:300). Each Cuchteelo’ob had its own Ah cuch cab (lineage head), administration and subordinate populace (Quezada 1993, Isendahl 2010).
27 Restall (2001) also examined Spanish colonial manuscripts and concluded that only Roys’s Type C existed. He proposed a cah (town) as a basic unit of Maya political organization. A cah, according to Restall (2001), consisted of a residential settlement and land controlled by that town and was ruled by a b’atab. He further stated that “pre-
Conquest polities [were]…. loosely organized, with subject communities governed neither directly from the center nor by representatives sent from the center but surviving as self-governing entities [the cah]whose subordination was expressed through tribute relations. There were multiple layers of subordination, and all were potentially open for negotiation” (Restall 2001:349). Restall (2001) and Quezada (1993, 2014) both concluded that b’atabil was the basic unit of Maya political organization.
In summary, scholars have arrived at different interpretations of Spanish Colonial documents ranging from regional polities ruled by a Halach Uinic to small loosely organized polities governed by b’atab’ob. Studies conducted by Roys, Quezada and
Restall suggest that there were various forms of political organization in sixteenth century
Yucatan. All three scholars mentioned rulers of secondary sites - b’atab’ob who used their personal ties to govern. Quezada and Restall stated that a Halach Uinic had loose power over a polity because of the influence of b’atab’ob in subordinate communities.
Maya Political Organization: Ethnohistorical Documents
The books of Chilam B’alam described the political system of Mayapan as a Mul
Tepal (“Mul” - a group and “tepal” – to govern). A Mul Tepal was the form of government of Mayapan before the time of the Spanish conquest, and consisted of two powerful lineages of the Yucatan Peninsula – the Kokom and Xiu (Edmonson 1982:7;
28 Roys 1962:46-48). According to Chilam B’alam accounts, the Mul Tepal was relatively short-lived due to the overthrow of one of the lineages by the other. The fall of the Mul
Tepal was followed by the division of the land into the sixteen autonomous polities described by the Spanish colonial accounts.
A Mul Tepal Model
A Mul Tepal is a decentralized political organization of two or more independent parties who agreed to form a government. Schele and Freidel (1990) call this kind of government a councilor rulership. They (1990) argued that the Mul Tepal was present during the Terminal Classic Period in Chichen Itza. Schele and Freidel (1990) base their argument on the iconography on buildings of Chichen Itza (the Upper Temple of Jaguar) and the interpretation of hieroglyphic writing “his sibling” as a joint rule – Mul Tepal.
The iconography in Chichen Itza depicts a group of lords all participating in rituals previously performed only by a king. These lords are portrayed sitting on jaguar skin pillows (a king’s status item) while a royal throne is empty – suggesting the absence of a single ruler and the presence of a joint rule or confederation.
Boot (2007) on the other hand rejects the presence for a Mul Tepal in Chichen
Itza during the Terminal Classic Period. He states that there is no hieroglyphic text found at the site that depicts the term Mul Tepal. Boot further argued that the initial interpretation of the term “his sibling” instead reads as “accompany by (a god)” (Boot
2007:111-115, 137-139). He states that this term was not political but religious in nature.
Boot only rejects presence of a Mul Tepal in Chichen Itza during the Terminal Classic
Period, but not in Mayapan during the time of the Spanish conquest.
29 In contrast Restall (1998, 2001) rejects a joint rule altogether and proposes a
“factional rule” (1998:141). He describes “factional rule” as “negotiation and persuasion” rather than “power over” by joint rule (Restall 2001:98). He states that “No one man, or even one family, ruled a Maya community or polity alone; the members of the court, to degrees depending on their rank, participated in rulership” (Restall
2001:364). Restall continues to say that the court consisted of “previous rulers; relatives of the ruler eligible to succeed him; prominent members of allied or competing noble families; the rest of the general pool of principal men, including those with specific offices; representatives of commoner families holding lesser offices; and non-office- holding servants and dependents, including in pre-Colonial times, slaves” (2001:359).
According to Restall (1997) the fact that a Halach Uinic’s court gathered together to deal with the Spanish invasion shows how important a court was and points to “factional rule”.
Ringle and Bey (2001:275) also argued that “Mul tepal refers not to joint rule but a type of court composed of powerful ‘vassals” who, although acknowledging subservience to a paramount, nevertheless retained considerable holdings and rights”
There is also a contradiction between the Maya ethnohistoric documents and the
Spanish Colonial accounts. The books of Chilam B’alam mention a Mul Tepal as the political system of Mayapan, while Roys calls it an “empire”(probably his Type A) – ruled by a single supreme king. The Chilam Balam and Roys might be talking about two different political systems in play, or perhaps Roys is talking about the time after the overthrow of the Kokom by Xiu lineage.
30 Maya Political Organization: The Comparative Approach
Segmentary State Model
Southall defined a Segmentary State “as one in which the spheres of ritual suzerainty and political sovereignty do not coincide” (1988:52). Southall made a fundamental distinction between a centralized state organization in which an apparatus of power was exercised by a specialized administration with defined territorial limits and a segmentary state in which a central government is extant, but there are also peripheral centers of management. In the latter case, a central government has the power to mobilize labor and demarcate its territory but has no authority to control or integrate peripheral centers (Southall 1988:52). Rulers without the backing of a strong military force establish ceremonial centers to reinforce their supremacy by rituals, public architecture and symbolism. Rulers use rituals and ceremonies to demonstrate to the populace their ability to have control over the supernatural. The rituals are public in nature, focused on a ruler, directed towards the populace and superior to the rituals of competing elite. Rulers’ palaces are located near or within sacred places. The ritual sovereignty of a central ruler is recognized by rulers of secondary centers who retain a degree of political and military power. The secondary centers are able to switch their allegiance to another primary center, or become independent if their rulers are sufficiently powerful (Southall 1988).
Using examples from Colonial India Fox (1977) proposed an urban type of settlement associated with the Segmentary State. He called this type of settlement regal- ritual centers. These centers, according to Fox, exist because of their ritual importance rather than the prominence of their economy or their dense population. Houston (1993)
31 has applied a Segmentary State Model to India. He has used Vijayanagara (an ancient city in the southern part of India) as an example of a ceremonial center.
Ball and Taschek (1991), Dunham (1990, 1992), Fox and Cook (1996), and
Houston (1992b) used a Segmentary State Model (Southall 1956) as the analogy for the
Classic Maya political organization. They used the commonality of the structure of the
Maya lineage system from different parts of the Maya region to suggest its presence dating back to the Classic Period.
Southall (1991) and Houston (1993) stated that a Segmentary State and a Galactic
Polity (see below) are structurally similar. Goody (1980) argues that a Segmentary State
Model is identical to a feudal system (drawn from medieval Europe).
Theater State/Galactic Polity Model
Theater State: In Bali, Clifford Geertz (1980) described a political organization which relied on spectacle and public staging as the main principle of governing rather than by force and named this a Theater State. Extravagant ceremonies, mass rituals, dedication rites, sacrifices, pilgrimages, and body adornments were key components in the legitimization of elite power (Geertz 1980:13). Ceremonies performed at a center were visible and acknowledged by all. Such events pulled in the subject population and demonstrated political authority without coercion, violence or bureaucracy.
Galactic Polity: The concept of the Galactic Polity was developed by Stanley
Tambiah (1976) from the analysis of Thai Kingdoms. Political organization in the
Galactic Polity exhibited duplication of functions between the capital and its satellites. In this arrangement a concentric circle represented the center-periphery relationship: with a
32 capital with a supreme ruler at the center, encircled by a ring of lesser polities ruled by governors appointed by a supreme ruler, which in turn are surrounded by tertiary more or less autonomous polities (Tambiah 2013:509). Territories here are characterized by fluidity of boundaries dependent on the diminishing or increasing power of the core
(Tambiah 2013:509, 514). The emphasis in a Galactic Polity is on cosmology and rituals as the tools for political power.
Thai kingdoms had charismatic leaders establishing their power through ritual performances, ascetic practices or even by auspicious birth (Tambiah 2013:516-517). The rulers embody the myth. The cosmology is evident in the capital’s layout and architecture where the cosmic rituals were performed. A city represents a sacred cosmological map (for example important buildings or temples would be placed in the cardinal directions of a settlement). The governors of the lesser polities replicated the actions of the supreme ruler in performing cosmic rites on a diminished scale (Tambiah
2013:514). Prestige, status and ritual performances stressed the privileged connections of the elite with the cosmos and ancestors (Ball 1993:264).
The Galactic Polity is characterized by political instability since subordinate centers shifted their alliances and oftentimes sought to become independent centers. One of the characteristics of a Galactic Polity was factionalism between elites (Tambiah
2013). Tambiah states that the Galactic Polity exhibited “Circles of leaders and followers that form and reform in highly unstable factions….[in] a political-economic system premised on the control of manpower as its chiefs resources” (1977:92). The stability was dependent on the rulers’ charisma and their performance in war.
33 In the Maya area the Galactic Polity and Theater State models are associated with the work of Demarest. Demarest (1992) argues that the Classic Lowland Maya shared numerous characteristics of decentralized power with Theater States such as: charismatic leaders establishing their power through ritual performances and ideology, decentralized control over labor and production, shifting of alliances, and elite warfare (Demarest 1992;
Dunning and Kowalski 1994; Houston 1993). Hammond (1991a) also argued that Maya polities were similar to the Galactic Polity in their functionalism and the focus on the control of manpower rather that territorial boundaries. Some scholars stated that rulers of
Theater State and Galactic Polities relied on their charisma and kinship ties to maintain power (Houston 1992b). Demarest (1992, 1996) argued that the evidence for the importance of ritual in the Maya realm is very strong. Rulers participated in bloodletting rituals on specific dates according to their calendar and commemorated those events on stelae and pottery. Demarest emphasized that the rights of Maya elite for tribute, labor and control of economic settings were affirmed through ideology (2013:376). A Theater state and Galactic Polity are indistinguishable in their interpretation of sources of political power. Moreover, Demarest (1992) also argues that Galactic Polity and Theater State are just local variants of a Segmentary State.
The interpretation of the Spanish Colonial and ethohistorical documents by different scholars has provided us with various kinds of political organizations such as regional polities ruled by a Halach Uinic, small loosely organized polities governed by b’atab’ob and joint rule. This suggests that various kinds of political organizations were in use at the same time in sixteenth century Yucatan. The Mul Tepal model derived from ehtnohistorical accounts is a suitable model to be tested in the Cochuah Region because a
34 joint rule was described in the books of the Chilam B’alam. Additionally, joint rule was also proposed by Schele and Freidel (1990) for Chichen Itza during the Terminal Classic
Period.
Political models derived from the comparative approach, such as a Galactic Polity and Theater State are variants of a Segmentary State (Demarest 1992), and a Segmentary
State models is suitable to be tested in the Cochuah case study area during the Terminal
Classic Period. Demarest (1992) argues that the Classic Lowland Maya shared many characteristics of political organization of a Theater State. One shared characteristic is factionalism among elites (Tambiah 1977) and “factional rule” was also noted in Contact
Period Yucatan by Restall (1997). Another of these characteristics is charismatic rulers who rely on ceremonies and ritual performances to validate their power. Demarest (1992,
1996) argued for the importance of ritual for the Classic Maya and for a Theater State as a political organization for the Classic Maya.
The next chapter will focus on settlements pattern and architecture as the manifestations of political power. It describes the types of architecture found in the case study area and also talks about the architecture that is representative of the institutions of rulership. This type of architecture could be used for determining the type of political organization in the case study area during the Terminal Classic Period.
35
Figure 2.1. Early Colonial Map Showing Sixteen Maya Polities, Redrawn and Modified from Roys (1957).
36
Figure 2.2. Three Types of Rulership, Type A, B and C Modified from Roys (1957).
37 CHAPTER 3 ARCHITECTURE AS AN EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
Architecture can be a source for understanding about many aspects of Mayan life that have disappeared, such as social and political institutions, hierarchical systems, religious rites, ideology and funeral ceremonies. Buildings become the voices of a once- living people, telling a story about their identity, religion and history. Architecture embodies political symbolism and has the potential to communicate rank, social status, and type of political institution (Quezada 2014). Architecture, because it involves the organization of human labor, costs and decision making, expresses political relationships
(Abrams 1994). Certain types of architecture are representative of the institutions of rulership, which provides important information regarding the type of political organization. This chapter describes the types of architecture encountered in the CRAS study area. It also describes how the various sites in the region are ranked based on the presence or absence of certain types of architecture. Additionally, this chapter provides archeological expectations for the testing of political models in the Cochuah Region during the Terminal Classic Period.
Types of Architecture in the CRAS Study Area
Each of the following types of architecture can be a reflection of the centralized or decentralized nature of a state (although potentially indicative architectural types are not limited to those mentioned for this dissertation).
38
Foundation Braces
A stone foundation brace is a stone alignment that provides support for the walls of a perishable structure. These braces are designed to delay decay of the wooden walls of the construction. Foundation braces can be situated on a platform or a natural rise such as bedrock. Foundation braces are typically rectangular in shape.
Circular Foundation Braces
Circular foundation braces are also stone foundation braces for the walls of perishable structures but are round in shape (Figure 3.1). Based upon excavation of test pits, these features are dated to the Florescent Phase of Terminal Classic in the CRAS study area.
Platforms
Platforms are artificially raised surfaces which provide a base level for the building of residential and other types of structures (Shaw et al. 2000:43). They were constructed with rubble and chich (small cobbles and soil) and might be plastered by lime. They range in shape and size. Some platforms can support an entire complex of buildings.
Acropoli
An acropolis is a large platform that provides a foundation for an entire complex of architecture; pyramidal mounds, range structures and other buildings (Proskouriakoff
39 1963:4-8). The difference between a platform and an acropolis is in scale and function
(Shaw et al. 2000). An acropolis is an artificial construction which is raised at least 2.5 m in height above the natural topography. While a platform is smaller and may be built with the labor of kinship, an acropolis cannot presumably be built in this way. Acropoli represent the coordinated effort of an entire community. In order to build an acropolis, the community members need to be obligated by ideology or forced to do it.
An acropolis was associated with the Maya cosmos, and symbolized an axis mundi (the center of the world where the sky connects with earth) in the city (Valdés
2001:138). In Maya cosmology the axis mundi was represented by a ceiba tree and was called the Wakah Chan (the World Tree). The World Tree was associated with the Milky
Way – the stars of the Milky Way were believed to form a tree from which all life originated. The roots of this tree reached the Underworld, while the branches extended into the sky – the Upperworld – with the trunk piercing the earth – the Middleworld. This axis mundi served as a channel through which the souls of the deceased traveled to the
Underworld and ancestral spirits could be petitioned into the Middleworld. The Milky
Way was the road along which souls traveled into the Underworld. K’uhul Ajawob
(Divine Kings) performed ceremonies on acropoli and, consequently, a ruler was the representation of the living axis mundi possessing the ability of channeling ancestral spirits (Schele and Miller 1986:77). Acropoli served as a vertical connection of Maya rulers to the cosmos.
40 Range Structures
A range structure is a linear, multi-room building. Rooms in this structure are organized along a longitudinal axis separated by perpendicularly placed walls (Harrison
1970). These multi storied and multi roomed range structures are often associated with elite and royal residences.
Palaces
A palace is a residential unit/governmental seat of a king or ruling elite (Clark and
Hansen 2001). It is a locality where the royal lineage resided and from which they governed. Palaces were institutions which played an active role in the political realm
(Quezada 2014:326). Palaces had multiple functions such as residential compounds, ritual spaces, administrative centers, elite meeting places and storages areas (Thompson
1954; Vogt 1964; Pollock 1965; Quezada 2014:325). Palaces contained many rooms. At
Labna (a site in Puuc region) a palace contains a total of 67 rooms; in the Sayil (a site in
Puuc region) the three-story palace contains 94 rooms (Kowalski 2003). A palace differs from an elite residence in scale, number of rooms, and the kinds of activities hosted such as feasts, ceremonies and business affairs (Demarest 2006). A royal palace according to
Abrams (1994) requires 500 times more labor then a commoner house. The scale of construction shows the ability of the ruling authorities to coerce or otherwise convince the community to build structures for them.
41 Unexcavated Mounds
A mound could be viewed as an arrangement of artificially raised platforms of a pyramidal shape that usually supported constructions such as a temple or residence
(Proskouriakoff 1963:6) (Figure 3.2). Mounds differ in their function as much as in design, size and location. In the case study area an unexcavated mound could be either a mortuary temple or vaulted residence.
Vaulted residences
Vaulted buildings most likely were residences of the elite. Some pyramidal mounds could be the remains of vaulted residences formed into a pyramidal shape by collapse. A maximum height for a collapsed vaulted building is from 2 to 4 m. Pyramidal mounds less than 4 m high could be considered as collapsed vaulted residences. Classic
Maya residences could serve as a home and also as a burial space (Satterwaite 1954). At some point in time the residences would be abandoned. Residences that were not in use anymore as living spaces were still important because they continued to hold the burials of ancestors. Burials were found in residential structures at Tikal (Haviland 1992),
Copan (Fash and Stuart 1990), Seibal (Tourtellot et al. 1992) and other sites. They were often transformed into mortuary temples that served as ancestral shrines.
Mortuary Temples
Pyramidal mounds that are 4 m and taller could serve as bases for temples.
Ancestors entombed in the residences were honored by new structures built over them In
Copan, Andrews and Fash (1992) excavated elite residences containing multiple burials that had been transformed into ritual structures such as shrines and temples.
42 A temple in this context is a pyramidal mound constructed to support a summit structure. A summit assembly is a vaulted structure or structure with a thatched roof that is positioned on the top of the pyramidal mound and most often interpreted as a temple
(Proskouriakoff 1963:6; Shaw et al. 2000).
For the Classic Maya the principal pyramidal mounds at site cores most likely had political significance and multiple purposes (Lucero 2007). Pyramidal mounds served as stages for ritual and performance, as areas of worship, as places for political competition and as attractions for the general populace (Lucero 2007:407). They also were used for ancestor veneration (McAnany 2001:136).
Schele and Miller (1986) noted that the Classic Maya iconography shows that rituals evoking ancestors were performed at shrines for ancestral veneration. The Classic
Maya rulers had the ability to manifest the axis mundi, communicate with the dead, connect to ancestors and to be reborn (Freidel et al. 1993). This relationship of rulers and the supernatural continued after the death of kings by the transformation of the dead rulers into venerated ancestors. There were no religious specialists able to communicate with deceased rulers, only reigning kings had that ability. A mortuary temple could then be a stage on which a ruler performed ceremonies to invoke the spirits of ancestors.
These rituals performed at mortuary temples perhaps were done in public settings to support rulers’ connections with the supernatural and to reinforce their authority and special status.
43 Popol Nah
Popol Nah is a council building. Maya nobility sat on mats and Popol Nah translates as a house of mats. A Popol Nah carries specific iconography sculpted in stone
- a pop. It is a linear, vaulted multi- chambered structure that has wide steps in front of it.
This type of house was designed for group meetings of elite lineage members (Bey III and Ciau 2014).
Open-Fronted Architecture
These are open fronted buildings that are composed of three walls that support a perishable roof. In other words, these buildings do not have a wall in front. These buildings are interpreted in the CRAS study area as residences due to the presence of sleeping benches inside them (Johnstone 2006) and as administrative buildings by Bey et al. (1997). This type of architecture comes in a variety of plans such as C, L and T
(Figure 1.3).
Stela-Altar Complexes
A stela is a free standing stone monument often adorned with sculptured relief and hieroglyphic writing (Figure 4.12 and 4.13). An altar is a circular stone positioned in front of a stela, it also may be decorated, or bear a hieroglyphic inscription. Stela-altar complexes are associated with Dynastic Kingship. Their function is to glorify the king by recording his deeds and dynastic history. It takes a lot of effort and labor coordination to mine, move, erect and carve stela-altar complexes. Beside the physical force necessary to erect the monuments, community members and artisans who carved the deeds of the
44 kings need to be ideologically motivated, or obligated to do so. These monuments are typically found in capitals where a Dynastic King has his seat.
Plazas
A plaza is a bounded space deliberately left open, in other words there is nothing built in that space. Rulers need to have the power to control an open space and to maintain restrictions for building inside a plaza. The surface of a plaza can be made from tamped earth or chich or covered with limestone plaster. Plazas can have many functions
– sacred and mundane (Inomata and Tsukamoto 2014). They were employed for rituals and ceremonies performed by the rulers or elites to appease gods, for theatrical performances and dances to unite communities, for presentations of historical events to express political power relationships, and also for games and festivals (Demarest
2013:373; Inomata 2006:807; Martin 2001:168). Plazas were highly ritualized places where rulers could ideologically influence masses via paraphernalia and charisma; the arenas for performing sacred ceremonies in which a ruler, ”K’uhul Ajaw was a principal actor” (Demarest 2013:373). These performances involved the physical presence of actors (rulers) and also spectators (commoners). A plaza can be formal or informal.
Formal plazas were created by the orientation of structures following celestial alignments. Alignments carried significance for the ancient Maya (see Site Alignment).
Formal plazas are orthogonal and typically are square or rectangular in shape (Figure
6.4). The buildings surrounding formal plazas had a specific significance; they often depict iconography associated with Maya mythology (Inomata 2006). A formal plaza surrounded by these types of buildings served as the horizontal connection of Maya rulers
45 to the cosmos. The performances conducted by rulers at these plazas surrounded by these buildings reinforced the authority of the rulers while symbolism represented by the buildings was easily “read” by illiterate masses (Inomata 2006). The construction of a formal plaza requires a large amount of the labor, time and people and would seem to demand a powerful authority to oversee the project and to insure that the proper alignment was followed.
An informal plaza is formed by buildings that do not follow celestial alignments
(Figure 6.8), but likewise can be a place for ritual, ceremonies and gatherings. Plazas are dynamic and could change or lose their meaning through time. This is also true of any kind of architecture.
Alignments
An alignment is an orientation of buildings in a certain direction corresponding to the rising and setting positions of celestial bodies. Because the ancient Maya believed that the sky revealed future events a building’s alignment was important for them
(Ashmore and Sabloff 2002, 2003). Some buildings were aligned with the solar annual passage - the time when the sun is positioned at the highest point in the sky and directly crosses overhead, or to nadir passage which is the opposite of the zenith (Aveni 2001).
The other important events of the sun’s annual passage are solstices and equinoxes. The two solstices are the longest and the shortest day of the year, and the equinoxes are two days when the day and night are equal in the length. Chichen Itza’s Castillo has a formal alignment approximately 18 degrees east of north coinciding with equinoxes. At the site
46 of Coba the formal alignment is 25 degrees east of north (Folan et al. 1983), and in Ek
Balam it is 15 degrees east of north (Ardren et al. 2010).
Divine Kings were responsible for maintaining the cosmic order. By re-creating the cosmic order on earth through the alignment of architecture rulers connected with the cosmos and the supernatural. By doing this Divine Kings would show their ability to connect to the supernatural hence reinforce their power (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002,
2003). This act would serve as a legitimization of their rule (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002;
Demarest et al. 2003; Hook and Zaro 2010). Moreover, the placement of structures with specific alignments would be easily understood by non-literate masses (Ashmore and
Sabloff 2002; Demarest 2013:373). It would give commoners the security of living in the accordance with the cosmic order.
Ballcourts
Ballcourts were areas of both religious and political significance. A ballcourt is a long, narrow playing field flanked by two parallel sloping platforms (Figure 3.3).
Occasionally, a stone ring or other marker is anchored to the side of the wall on each platform. The playing field of the ballcourts represented the place where two worlds, humans and gods, met. The Maya envisioned their universe comprised of three levels: the
Upperworld, the Middleworld and the Underworld (Schele and Freidel 1990:66;
Demarest 1992:147). The Underworld, or Xibalba, was the domain in which gods and ancestors resided while the Middleworld was occupied by humans. Symbolically, ballcourt fields also were viewed as entrances into the Underworld - Xibalba (Freidel et al. 1993:355) and as sacred spaces where Dynastic Kings performed ritual activities.
47 The ballgame was one of a Dynastic King’ ritual responsibilities (Taladoire
2001:97) with the purpose being to reenact the actions of the Hero Twins described in the creation myth (Schele and Miller 1986:241-264; Freidel et al. 1993). Dynastic Kings dressed as ballplayers reenacted these stories to reinforce their divine nature (Gillespie
1991:340). The presence of ballcourts also reflected the rulers’ ability to sponsor events hence to display their power and also unite the populace. Scarborough (1991:144) states that, "The court was a public statement of the integration in which households, villages, and districts came together to reaffirm sociopolitical and ideological alliances." He continues that "The enduring quality of the game is demonstrated by the longevity and distribution of the masonry court...such longevity not only required the strictures of the elite, but the enthusiasm of the sustaining population" (Scarborough 1991:143).
Ballcourts were typically built at high ranking sites where the political focus was located
(Iannone 2003:16-19; Scarborough and Valdez 2004, 2009).
Sacbeob
Sacbeob (causeways) are artificially raised roads of stone and rubble fill, usually covered by powdered limestone and plastered (Shaw 2008:05) (Figure 3.4). Sacbeob were designed to connect architectural groups and settlements. Although there are many different ways to classify Maya sacbeob, there are at least two basic kinds of sacbe – external and internal. An external sacbe connects a lower ranking settlement to a higher ranking site, while an internal sacbe links architectural groups within a site (Shaw
2008:80). For the Classic Maya a sacbe was associated with the Milky Way, the road, along which souls travel into the Underworld. The Maya inscription och b’ih translates as
48 “he entered the road” symbolizing the death of an individual (Montgomery 2002). A sacbe also was the manifestation of the World Tree on earth. It was symbolic of an umbilical cord and represented the connection between the living and the deceased
(Freidel et al.1993). Sacbeob were used for ritual processions and theatrical performances
(Landa 1998:72-78; Ringle 1999; Inomata 2001a; Reese-Taylor 2002; Flores 2015).
Sacbeob also had a practical purpose of just connecting one point to the other. Roads provide means to move people and goods, for exchange, for communication, ceremonial and ritualistic purposes. Therefore, the economic, social, and political meanings of sacbeob were interrelated (Shaw 2008:106-9). The construction of a sacbe can be labor intensive depending on size and the length. One of the biggest Maya architectural investments in labor is the 100 km long Yaxuna-Coba sacbe.
Some architectural forms have religious and political significance and collectedly represent the seat of government and, therefore, could be used to identify the type of political organization present. I argue that acropoli, stela-altar complexes, temples, plazas and ballcourts are such architectural forms. These architectural features are used by rulers during their reign as tools for legitimating their rights to govern. Acropoli symbolized an axis mundi served as a place where rulers were channeling ancestor spirits
(Valdés 2001:138, Schele and Miller 1986:77). At ballcourts Divine Kings reenact stories from the Maya creation myth to demonstrate their divine nature while ballgames were rulers’ ritual responsibilities (Gillespie 1991:340; Taladoire 2001:97). Mortuary temples were tied to the local landscape (because ancestors were entombed in them) and they were used by Divine Kings to connect to powerful ancestors (McAnany 1995). By aligning the buildings Divine Kings were maintaining the cosmic order which was their
49 responsibility (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002, 2003). The formal alignment of buildings created formal plazas – the arenas on which Maya kings claimed their divine origins
(Ashmore and Sabloff 2002; Demarest et al. 2003; Hook and Zaro 2010). All of these architectural features were the means for Divine Kings to legitimize their power and their right to rule and, therefore, represented the institutions of rulership.
Site Ranking
Montmollin points out that “for a study of politics we need a classification that produces a hierarchy of political centers: locales for public political activity above the domestic level” (2003:78). Sharer also noted that “A center’s size, together with the elaborateness of its buildings, the quantity of its monuments and hieroglyphic inscriptions, and its other characteristics, undoubtedly reflected its relative political and economic power” (1994:493). The number of levels of political hierarchy used is different from region to region.
Settlements in the Cochuah Region are classified using a four-tiered hierarchy based on the presence or absence of certain types of architecture that require a certain level of labor coordination for their construction (Johnstone 2003).
Rank Four sites (villages) include architectural features that could be built by a family. They are small in size and do not require specialized workers for their construction. These features are foundation braces for perishable structures and residential platforms.
Rank Three sites (small towns) include architectural features that are mentioned for Rank Four sites plus larger and more complicated architectural features that would
50 require the labor of a lineage to complete. Rank Three sites usually consist of foundation braces, residential platforms and pyramidal mounds 4-6 m in height.
Rank Two sites (big towns) would have features that could not be completed by a lineage and require the labor coordination of multiple lineages. Rank Two sites would include all architectural features mentioned for Rank Three sites, plus features that could not be completed by a lineage such as acropoli, pyramidal mounds higher than 4-6 m in height, vaulted residences, palaces and formal plazas.
Rank One sites (cities) would have architectural features grander and more complex than found in a Rank Two and that require the coordination of labor on a higher level than found in a single town. Rank One sites would include architectural features present in a Rank Two, plus pyramidal mounds higher than 10 m in height, hieroglyphic monuments, internal and external sacbeob.
Archeological Expectations
Three forms of government were chosen to be tested in the Cochuah Region during the Terminal Classic Period with the archaeological data collected during multiple fieldwork seasons (see Chapter 5 and 6). These political models include Dynastic
Kingship, Mul Tepal (joint rule), and the Segmentary State (see Chapter 2 for the discussions dedicated to political models). In order to examine political organization in the Cochuah Region during the Terminal Classic Period I propose that certain types of architecture are representative of the institutions of rulership (Table 3.1). Furthermore, the locations of this architecture within the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites will correlate with respective political models (Figure 3.5).
51
Dynastic Kingship
In a Dynastic Kingship power is hereditary and in the hands of a royal lineage. A
Divine King was the living head or the representative of that particular dynasty. The dynasty was a source of a king’s power, particularly his dynastic ancestors. A mortuary temple containing the remains of an important ancestor of that dynasty would tie a king to the capital. Mortuary temples served as a binding mechanism between powerful ancestors, the royal dynasty and a local landscape (McAnany 1995). A king would connect to these ancestors with the help of ritual whereby the ancestors on his behalf would connect to the gods. These ancestors would be mentioned during the accession ceremonies and these events would be commemorated on monuments by hieroglyphic texts. A seat of government would be characterized by grand monumental, “regal- centric” architecture (Grube 1994b; Grube and Schele 1995).
I propose that for a Dynastic Kingship political organization a complete set of the institutions of rulership comprised of grand monumental architecture would be located only in a single locus in a primary site where a king had his seat. This complete set would include: acropoli, ballcourts, formal plazas, sacbeob and most critically, mortuary temples housing the ruler’s dynastic ancestors on which one could perform ceremonies to legitimize their rule. Also, it would include stelae-altar complexes that would record the ruler’s descent and dynastic history. All of these architectural features would be large in scale and would be located in a capital.
A capital would be surrounded by a hierarchy of smaller subordinate centers which would receive services from the primary center. Such services included military
52 support, administrative management, decision making and socio-political cohesion through religious indoctrination. Smaller settlements, in return, would supply larger centers with manpower and commodities. There would be no complete set of the institution of rulership located in the secondary sites and/or their satellites, because in this kind of political organization powers are not repeated. Because power is concentrated, the institutions of rulership would be too.
Tikal and Calakmul, among other Southern Lowland Centers, had the presence of
Dynastic Kingships before the end of the ninth century (Martin and Grube (1995, 2000).
In the CRAS study area Yo’okop exibited the the presence of a Dynastic Kingship during the end of the Early Classic and during the Late Classic Periods.
Mul Tepal
In a Mul Tepal (joint rule) power is divided between two or more independent parties such as different lineages- it has multiple rulers. I propose that this political organization would exhibit the location of the institutions of rulership at multiple loci in a single site. A capital (a primary site) would have multiple sets of institutions of rulership for religious and public celebrations, social and political affairs. A redundancy of these assemblages in a primary site (Ringle and Bey 2001) would be because this institution of the rulership would be needed for each ruling party. In Mul Tepal each faction would appoint their administration (bureaucrats) in order to run the state. This would create multiple loci (duplication of institutions of rulership) because each faction would need their institutions of rulership, but all would be located in a single site (Ringle and Bey
2001). Carmean et al. state that “…the site of Xcalumkin may have had some kind of
53 joint government similar to multepal as known from Mayapan, and as suspected for
Chichen Itza, rather than the regal-centric organization much more common for the
Classic Maya (Carmean et al. 2004:437; see also Grube 1994b; Grube and Schele 1995).
They continue that “The site center lacks any truly monumental architecture generally suggestive of divine kingship – rather, it possesses numerous midsized compounds”
(Carmean et al. 2004:437). Also, there would be the presence of a Popol Nah (council building) in a primary site where these factions came together to discuss political affairs
(Ringle and Bey 2001). Also, a Mul Tepal would not have stelae-altar complexes recording a single ruler‘s descent and hierarchy. I argue that there would be no complete set of the institutions of rulership located in the secondary sites and their satellites.
A Mul Tepal was the political system in Mayapan during the time of the Spanish conquest (Edmonson 1982:7; Roys 1962:46-48). Fash et al. (2004) proposed a Mul
Tepal in Copan in the beginning of ninth century. Also, Freidel (1986b) and (Ringle
1990) suggested the presence of a Mul Tepal in Uxmal, and Schele and Freidel (1990) suggested the presence of a Mul Tepal in Chichen Itza during the Terminal Classic
Period.
Segmentary State
In a Segmentary State (Cuuchcabal’ob) the political system included multiple communities controlled by political, military and religious means exerted by a single ruler from a powerful lineage (Quezada1993, 2014). Power in this political organization was still in the hands of a king, but the means of the legalization of his power differs.
Similar powers (batab’il and cuchteelo’ob) are found in sites occupying different levels
54 in the settlement hierarchy unlike a centralized political organization where powers are not repeated (Southall 1956:251). Political organization in this model exhibits duplication of functions between the capital and its satellites (Tambiah 2013:509). A king would appoint his administration only in a capital. Leaders in secondary sites would appoint their own bureaucrats which would create duplication of the institutions of rulership at sites at different levels of hierarchy. Primary centers do not have full power over other self-governed and self-contained units that can switch their alliances to other neighboring centers (Southall 1988).
This kind of state organization relied on spectacle and public staging to govern the populace. Rulers in this type of state organization support their power by ceremonies and rituals (Southall 1988). The rulers used ceremonies, rituals, public architecture and symbolism rather than formal bureaucracy or force to legitimize their power. Hence, the emphasis in this kind of state is on ceremonial architecture for performing rituals to reinforce the authority of the rulers. These charismatic rulers use cosmology, temples, palaces and other religious structures for rituals and festivals to reinforce their rulership
(Geertz 1980).
I argue that the archeological expectation for a Segmentary State would be the presence of the institutions of rulership throughout the site hierarchy. Southall (1956:251) states that in a Segmentary State the institution of rulership were replicated on a smaller scale at the peripheral sites. The rulers of primary centers would not have sufficient power to completely control or integrate these peripheral sites while rulers of secondary centers would have some degree of political power and autonomy. It would show a high
55 degree of architectural redundancy (Southall 1988). I propose that secondary sites would exhibit the presence of some of the institutions of rulership on a smaller scale.
The Segmentary State as the type of political organization for the Classic Maya was suggested by Ball and Taschek (1991), Dunham (1990, 1992), Fox and Cook (1996),
Houston (1992b) and Demarest (1992).
Before these archeological expectations could be used to test proposed political models, there is a need to discuss the changes that happened during the Terminal Classic
Period in the Maya Lowlands in general and in the Cochuah Region in particular. The next chapter will look at the Cochuah Region in context, describing the physical settings, political settings and chronology of this region.
56
Figure 3.1. Circular Foundation Brace, Sacalaca, photo by Dave Johnstone.
57 Figure 3.2. An Unexcavated Mound at Parcela Escolar.
58
Figure 3.3. The Ballcourt at Ramonal Quemado, Photo by Justine Shaw.
59
Figure 3.4. The Unfinished Sacbe at Sacalaca.
60
Figure 3.5. Locations of Institutions of Rulership within the Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary Sites Under Different Political Organizational Types.
61 Table 3.1. Archeological Expectations for Three Different Forms of State Governments
Architecture Dynastic Kingship Mul Tepal Segmentary State Site Rank 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 Acropoli Palaces
Popol Na
Temples 9 m and taller Temples 4- 8 m Ballcourts
Plazas, formal
Sacbeob, Internal Sacbeob, External
62
CHAPTER 4 THE COCHUAH REGION IN CONTEXT
Chapter Four discusses the changes that happened during the Terminal Classic
Period in the Maya Lowlands (Figure 4.1). These changes include the disappearance of carved stelae with hieroglyphic texts, large-scale architecture, and the institution of divine kingship (Chase and Chase 2004; Demarest et al. 2004). Scholars often refer to the
Terminal Classic Period as a collapse or the downfall of a distinctive political organization of Dynastic Kingship. Additionally, this chapter presents the physical and political settings of the Cochuah Region and also the history of research and chronology of this region. The history of research covers the time from the first expedition in 1926 to the ongoing investigation conducted by the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey
(CRAS).
The Terminal Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands
The Terminal Classic Period in a temporal sense varied from region to region from A.D. 750 to A.D. 1100 (Forsyth 2005). It was a long process rather than an “event” that began in the Southern Lowlands and continued into the Northern Lowlands within an interval of 250 years (Andrews et al. 2003). In the Southern Lowlands this period refers to the time of decline and abandonment of primary centers at the end of the Classic
Period. During this time the erection of stelae, monumental constructions and the institution of K’uhul Ajawob (Divine Kingship) came to an end, and many of the densely populated urban centers were abandoned (Andrews V and Sabloff 1986).
63 The Terminal Classic decline of the sites in the Northern Lowlands was a delayed version of the societal collapse that happened in the Southern Lowlands in the ninth century (Robles and Andrews 1986).
The Southern Lowlands
Calakmul
In the beginning of eighth century this site was one of the greatest polities of
Maya Region (Braswell et al. 2004:189). The Emblem Glyph of Calakmul is found in many hieroglyphic texts of other sites (Braswell 2005). The decline of Calakmul started in the Late Classic and continued into the Terminal Classic Period. The last dated stela, indicating the presence of K’uhul Ajawob (Divine Kingship), was erected in Calakmul between A.D. 899 – 909. In the later phase of the Terminal Classic, after the end of dynastic rule, Calakmul suffered abandonment (Braswell et al. 2004:190-192).
Tikal
Tikal, a rival of Calakmul, was one of the powerful polities in the Southern
Lowlands. According to Martin and Grube (1995, 2000) these super states dominated
Classic Maya Lowlands. The last dated stela associated with K’uhul Ajawob (Divine
Kingship) was erected at A.D. 869 and the site suffered a decrease in population and finally abandonment after A.D.900 (Valdes and Fahsen 2004).
Copan
One of the prominent sites in the Southern Lowlands, Copan, reached its peak in the beginning of the Late Classic. Shortly after this time, the site begins to decline, with the collapse of dynasty in A.D. 820 (Fash et al. 2004:285). A council house was built
64 after the collapse of the dynastic rule suggesting a different form of government - a joint rule (Fash et al. 2004:285). This site has a wealth of hieroglyphic inscriptions found on stelae, benches and the Hieroglyphic Stairway depicting dynastic histories of the rulers.
The Northern Lowlands
Ek’Balam
This site was occupied from the Middle Formative to the Spanish Conquest
(Ringle et al. 2004:490). Ek’Balam reached its apex at the end of the ninth century
(Ringle et al. 2014:487). The site acropolis and buildings in the epicenter were constructed during this time (Vargas et al. 1999). Core-veneer architecture structures, vaulted buildings, decorative architectural components such as colonettes and mat design appeared during this period (Ringle et al. 2004:496-497). The traditional iconographic styles representing a K’uhul Ajaw (Divine King) were also used during this time (Ringle et al. 2014:500, 514). This site has an Emblem Glyph which is rare in the Northern
Lowlands (Ringle et al. 1991a). Also, during this time there was an appearance of militaristic scenes and construction of fortifications at the site, perhaps connected to the military quarrels with Chichen Itza (Ringle et al. 2004:506-508, 514). The last hieroglyphic text in Ek’Balam dates to A.D. 841, but unlike sites in the Southern
Lowlands, Ek’Balam was not abandoned (Bey et al. 1997).
Coba
Between the eighth and ninth centuries this site oversaw large construction projects (Robles 1990:131-217). The Nochoch Mul Group, which contains a 42 m high pyramidal mound, was modified during this period and the 100 km long Coba-Yaxuna
65 sacbe was built during this time (Robles and Andrews 1986). Also, during this time the last dated stela, A.D.780, was recycled into the plaza floor of this complex during construction (Robles and Andrews 1986:66). This site declined in the tenth century
(Cobos 2004).
Dzibilchaltun
This site was the prominent polity in northern Yucatan between A.D. 700-1000
(Andrews V. 1981:326). By A.D. 800 many of monuments with hieroglyphic texts associated with K’uhul Ajawob (Divine Kingship) were erected in Dzibilchaltun. This site has an Emblem Glyph (Schele et al. 1991). The ruler of Dzibilchaltun who governed around A.D. 840 had a title of Kaloomte (Grube 2003). This was also the date of the last stela erected at the site. At the end of ninth century this site witnessed a decline in construction activities and population numbers (Andrews V. 1981:333).
The Puuc Area
Between the eighth and ninth centuries this area witnessed the rise of sites such as of Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil and Labna. During the Terminal Classic Period the settlements in the Puuc area reached their peaks (Carmean et al. 2004:424). At Uxmal, most of the construction happened between A.D. 770 and 950, with the major construction occurring towards the end of this time (Kowalski 1987). Also, the construction of sacbeob from
Uxmal to Kabah and Nohpat happened during theTerminal Classic (Dunning 2002). This site has an Emblem Glyph (Kowalski 1987). Most of the stelae at Uxmal during this time exhibited the Classic iconography of a K’uhul Ajaw (Divine King). However, some of stelae exhibit imagery of a ruler and two lords with the glyph located between them, which most likely represent shared power (Carmean et al. 2004:424-430). The site of
66 Uxmal and the site of Sayil perhaps were governed under a joint rule (Mul Tepal)
(Freidel 1986b:106; Ringle 1990:233–234). The last hieroglyphic monument in Uxmal dates to 909. Also, there was some kind of relationship between Uxmal and Chichen Itza, perhaps an alliance, around A.D 900 (Kowalski 1994, 1998).
At the end of the ninth century fortifications were built at the epicenter of Uxmal
(Walters and Kowalski 2000) and open-fronted buildings were constructed in the central plazas (Harera and Ayala 2000). The alliance between Uxmal and Chichen Itza did not last and Uxmal fell to Chichen Itza in the beginning of the tenth century (Suhler et al.
2004:457). Also, many of the Puuc sites had no monumental constructions and were abandoned after A.D.950, although some continued to be occupied into the Postclassic
Period (Carmean et al. 2004:425).
In constrast to the common interpretion of Uxmal’s history, Cobos and others
(2014) suggest that the collapse of Uxmal happened much later. They state that according to a recent revision of the archeological data Uxmal dominated Western Yucatan in the tenth and eleventh centuries (Cobos et al. 2014:56-90). Also, the construction of sacbe between Uxmal and Kabah according to Cobos and others (2014) happened during this time. These scholars argued that Uxmal declined in the eleventh century (Cobos et al.
2014).
Yaxuna
This site was prosperous during the Late Classic; it was governed by Divine
Kings during this time (Suhler and Freidel 1995). During the Terminal Classic Period this site witnessed the construction of two palaces and also the fortifications located at both acropoli at the site (Suhler et al. 2004:470, 482-484). Additionally, a council house,
67 adorned by elaborate decorative stones was built on one of the acropolis during this time
(Ambrosino 2003), which suggests that Yaxuna experimented with a different form of government such as a Mul Tepal (joint rule). This site was conquered by Chichen Itza around A.D. 900 (Suhler et al. 2004:471).
Chichen Itza
Chichen Itza has an Emblem Glyph (Grube 1994). The last hieroglyphics from this site date between A.D. 832 and 897 (Andrews et al. 2003). This site reached it apogee during the tenth and eleven centuries (Andrews et al. 1989; Andrews and Robles
1985). Schele and Freidel (1990) argued for the presence of Mul Tepal (joint rule) in this site during the Terminal Classic Period. The monumental construction stopped at
Chichen Itza about A.D. 1000 (Andrews et al. 2003), and Chichen Itza declined after
A.D.1100 (Cobos et al. 2014).
The Political and Physical Setting
The Yucatan Peninsula was divided into sixteen Maya provinces (cuuchcabal’ob) upon the arrival of Spanish conquistadores (Figure 2.1). The Cochuah Region is one of these provinces. The Cochuah Cuuchcabal(a province) during the contact period was governed by the ruler Nohocum Cochuah. His seat during this time was in Tihosuco
(RHGY 1983). The Maya meaning of the name Cochuah is literally translated as “our many tortillas or tamales”(c-our, och-many, uah- tortillas or tamales) or “well-fed province that has never found itself in need” (RHGY 1983).
The Cochuah Region is located in the modern states of Quintana Roo and
Yucatan (Figure 4.2). These states are located on the eastern coast of the Yucatán
68 peninsula. The peninsula is situated between 21° 30’ and 18° N latitude and 86° 25’ and
91° 40’ W longitude and bordered to the north and west by the Gulf of Mexico, and the east by the Caribbean Sea. The Peninsula is a flat, low plain, the greater part sits at elevations between 0 and 50 meters above mean sea level (Lesser and Weidie 1988). The average elevation of the state of Quintana Roo is 10 meters above sea level. The state of
Quintana Roo is bordered on the northwest by the state of Yucatan, on the west by the state of Campeche and on the south by Belize. The state covers 50, 212 square kilometers.
The climate is hot and humid, the average temperature in January is 23.5 C and in
July is 28 C. The vegetation, in the absence of human interference, would be primarily categorized as dry tropical forest (INEGI 1996). There are two seasons in this zone: rainy, from June to December, and dry, from January to May. Annual rainfall varies from 1000 to 1200 mm and falls mostly during the rainy season (INEGI 1996).
The limestone bedrock of the peninsula is covered with a layer of thin, shallow, low fertility soils (Weisbach et al. 2002). The limestone landscape of this area has great significance for surface water distribution (West 1964). There are few surface rivers in the state of Quintana Roo due to the karst nature of the landscape. Porous limestone allows rain water to leach into the bedrock creating underground rivers. The fresh water layer is about 70 meters thick and floats above seawater. The water table is located about one meter above sea level (Coke and Easley 2002). When the rainwater reaches the water table with underlying seawater it creates a halocline (transition between fresh and saline water).
69 The process of mixing fresh and saline groundwater is responsible for the development of cave systems in the Yucatan Peninsula (Smart et al. 2006). Water slowly dissolves the limestone forming caverns; eventually they collapse creating deep-vertical sinkholes – cenotes (in singular locally known from Maya language as a dz’onot). There are approximately 7,000 cenotes in the Yucatan Peninsula (Schmitter-Soto et al. 2002).
Collapsed cenotes are common in the state of Quintana Roo (Beddows et al. 2007b).
Northern Yucatan without cenotes would be a waterless place due to the absence of the rivers (Ward et al. 1985).
The portion of the Cochuah Region investigated by the Cochuah Regional
Archeological Survey (CRAS) covers approximately 900 square kilometers. It is divided into two zones influenced by fractures that give access to the water table (Campos-
Enriquez et al. 2004). These zones are termed by CRAS as the Northern and Southern
Portions. The major source of water in the Northern Portion was/is cenotes. The
Southern Portion is lacking such features but does have one lake. Water can be scarce during the dry season, especially in the Southern Portion, if the settlement is not positioned near a permanent water source.
The water sources in the study area can be divided into natural permanent, natural seasonal and human made (Johnstone 2010). Natural permanent features are lakes, rejolladas, cenotes and caves; natural seasonal sources are rainfall, haltuns, and aguadas.
Human made water features are chultuns, buktes and wells.
70 Natural Permanent Features
A lake is a water-filled depression in the land. Lakes vary in size and depth and can be open or closed. An open lake has an outlet, while in a closed lake water leaves only by evaporation. In the CRAS study area the only lake is located at the site of
Yo’okop. A cenote is a permanent water source, a large surface cavity formed by water dissolution of the soft limestone bedrock in contact with the groundwater. In the survey area cenotes were discovered in three sites: Sacalaca, Xcabil and Yo’dzonot. A cave is an underground cavity, usually created by geological processes such as erosion and dissolution. A cave is usually large enough to allow entry of a human. Caves were documented in fifteen sites: Chakal Ja’as, San Pedro, Yo’Aktun, Xbaquil, Santa Cruz,
Xtojil, Yodzonot, Aktun Huay Max, Gruta de Alux, Aktun Abuelos, Aktun San Felipe,
Aktun Santa Elena, Aktun San Salvador, Chuum Katzin and Aktun Sac Chikin.
Natural Seasonal Features
An aguada is an ephemeral lake, a body of water that exists for only a short amount of time. Aguadas appear in low basins collecting rainwater. They have no outlets and the water stays until it evaporates. A rejollada is a “dry” cenote. It is a natural sinkhole which is not in contact with the groundwater, but it can be flooded seasonally. It also could provide access to the water table by hand-digging a well or bukte. Rejolladas can range from 15 meters to 140 meters in diameter (Munro-Stasiuk and Manahan 2010) and could also contain soils suitable for growing crops (Houck 2006:64). In the study area rejolladas were documented at five sites: San Pedro, Chakal Ja’as, Yo’Aktun, Sisal and Yo’dzonot. A haltun is a cavity in the caprock. The caprock is more resistant rock
71 that overlies a weaker rock. Haltuns collect rainfall which occurs primarily during the rainy season. Haltuns were documented in three sites: Yo’dzonot, Rancho San Isidro and
Aktun Burro.
Human Made Features
A chultun is usually considered a water basin made to capture rain water such as roof runoff during the rainy season. Chultuns were documented in ten sites: Yo’okop,
Sacalaca, San Felipe, Nohcacab, Sisal, Hopemul, Abuelos, Xtojil, Aktun Kuluub and
Parcela Escolar. Chultuns documented in the region are lacking a catchment area to funnel rainwater into them and most likely were used for agricultural storage rather than for capturing water.
A bukte is a stone-lined, bell-shaped pit excavated in the ground used as a walk-in water basin. There only bukte discovered in the study area so far is located at the site of
Chakal Ja’as. A well is a deep shaft dug in the bedrock. A well could be easily hand-dug through the soft limestone in the Northern Lowlands were the water table is comparatively high (Fedick 2014). According to INEGI (1983–1985) there were over
1000 wells in the Yucatan Peninsula in the early 1980’s. Water from a well can easily be obtained by using a rope and a vessel up to a depth of 20 meters. After that depth hand excavating a well and also obtaining water would be challenging (Winemiller 2007;
Harrison 1993:78). The depth of 21 surveyed wells in the Cochuah Region averages 27 meters in depth (Huerta 2010).
72 Soils
Landa’s colonial writings described the Yucatan as a place which has minimal soil depth (Tozzer 1941:186). According to INEGI (1998) the Yucatan Peninsula is mostly covered by leptosols and also some luvisols. These soils are formed on a karstic limestone landscape of flat outcrops and shallow depressions. A leptosol is a shallow soil over bedrock which contains a large amount of gravel. A luvisol consists of organic matter mixed with mineral matter. Mayan farmers use their own traditional soils classification for agricultural practices. They identify several types of soil according to location, color, amount of gravel and water retention. Box lu’um, chak lu’um and k’ankab are some of the Maya terms. Box lu’um is a black alluvial soil which consists of high organic matter (Johnson and Hunn 2010) and also are soils of mounds which were identified by research as Leptosols (Estrada-Medina et al. 2013). Chak lu’um is a red
(Barrera 2003), gritty, iron-rich fertile soil. K’ankab is a reddish-yellow hard clay soil of the plains which has been identified as Leptosols and Luvisols (Estrada-Medina et al.
2013).
The farmers prefer to grow most of their crops on chak lu’um (Estrada-Medina et al. 2013). The farmers (milperos) cultivate their crops in milpas. A milpa is an agricultural field that in this area today has a two or three year cultivation period following by a six-eight year fallow period (Perez et al. 1981). Farmers also use depressions for growing crops (G´omez-Pompa et al. 1990; Houck 2006:64; Kepecs and
Boucher 1996:77). The depressions can vary in size and depth; they range from large rejolladas to small cavities in the bedrock (Fedick 2014:75). Soils in these depressions can remain moist for several months (Houck 2006; Kepecs and Boucher 1996; Munro-
73 Stasiuk and Manahan 2010). The Southern portion of the Cochuah region contains a greater area of chak lu’um soil than the Northern portion.
Research in the Cochuah Region
There were no investigations of archaeological sites in the Cochuah Region in the
19th century. During the Caste War (1847 until the early 1900’s), Maya rebels dominated two-thirds of the Yucatecan territory and sporadic attacks continued into the early
Twentieth Century (Reyers B.1902:238). The hostile situation created by the Maya
Rebellion and its after effects negatively influenced the amount of research conducted in the Cochuah area during and long after the Caste War (Shaw and Mathews 2005:3-5).
Early Explorations
The first expedition to the Cochuah Region was in 1926 by journalist Gregory
Mason and the archaeologist Herbert Spinden. They were the first to report the site of
Yo’okop which they discovered during a water break for their mules at Yo’okop’s lake
(Mason 1927). The explorers were impressed by the scale of Yo’okop’s main pyramidal mound (Mason 1927). They also reported on what later will be called Group A, which included a patio group, a large pyramidal mound, a subterranean passageway and a total of 18 buildings in all (plus an altar which still is not relocated) (Mason 1927).
In 1954 Stromsvik and Pollock (Stromsvik et al. 1955) visited the Cochuah
Region. They reported the sites of Yo’okop, Ichmul and Calotmul. At Yo’okop
Stromsvik and Pollock (1955) described pyramidal mounds between 9 and 15 meters in height, Groups A and B, sacbeob, stelae and the Terminal Classic Puuc style of
74 architecture. They also visited Ichmul - the other major site of the region where they noted an immense acropolis, three pyramidal mounds about 8 m in height, terraces and smaller mounds. At the time of their visit Ichmul’s architecture was already in poor condition. The ancient Maya buildings were robbed of building materials for later constructions. Stromsvik and Pollock also collected small samples of ceramics from
Ichmul dating to the Terminal Classic and Postclassic Periods. Based on the observed architecture, they concluded that Ichmul’s major occupation was during the Late Classic
Period (Stromsvik et al. 1955). In Calotmul Stromsvik and Pollock reported four pyramidal mounds one of which had a Puuc style wall (Stromsvik et al. 1955:169). In
1966 Jack Walker and Reginald Wilson also visited the site of Yo’okop; they returned in
1972 to describe the main groups and take measurements of important structures and features (R. Wilson 1974).
The Proyecto Arqueologico Yo’okop
From 2000 to 2002 the Proyecto Arqueologico Yo’okop led by Shaw and
Johnstone conducted field work at Yo’okop (Shaw et al. 2000). The Project conducted surveys, mapping and test pit excavations in the four major architectural groups of
Yo’okop: groups A, B, C and D. These groups were linked by sacbeob. Located between these groups are pyramidal mounds, small residential structures, and platforms. The only source of water at the site is a lake, which early investigators called an aguada.
Group A contains the largest monumental architecture of the site (Shaw 2000).
Five carved stone blocks, probably stairway raisers were found in this group (Wren and
Nygard 2005:170-171). One of the blocks depicts the title of a kaloomte (overking,
75 warlord, a person in charge of a large territory). The glyphs on these blocks date to the
Late Classic Period.
Group B has two acropoli. The North Acropolis was built during the Late
Formative and Early Classic Periods and the central Acropolis was built during the Late
Classic Period (Shaw 2002). The Central Acropolis has a ballcourt. Three stelae were found at Group B, one of the stela depicts a ball player (Johnstone 2008). The political structure during the Early Classic Period was judged to be an institutionalized kingship
(Johnstone 2008:189).
Group C consists of a platform with a single pyramidal mound. Group D does not have large monumental architecture. It was established during the Late Classic Period, and was occupied during the Terminal Classic and Postclassic Periods (Johnstone 2002).
The Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey
In 2003, with the aim to investigate Yo’okop in its regional settings, the Proyecto
Arqueológico Yo’okop became the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey (CRAS)
(Shaw 2003). During the 2003-2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 field seasons CRAS investigated an area measuring approximately 900 square kilometers located between the
Rank One sites of Yo’okop in Quintana Roo and Ichmul in the Yucatan. A total of 84 archeological sites were documented, 72 of these sites are Prehispanic (Figure 4.3).
CRAS conducted surveys, mapping and test-pit excavations at the site of Ichmul, a Rank One site and a modern settlement. This site has a radial sacbe system. Five sacbeob run from Ichmul to the sites of Xquerol, San Andres, San Pedro, San Juan and
San Christobol. Ichmul’s occupational history includes the Middle Formative, Early
76 Classic, Terminal Classic and Postclassic Periods (Johnstone 2001c:55; Johnstone
2004:95-96).
CRAS also surveyed, mapped and excavated test pits at Rank Two sites such as
Sacalaca, San-Felipe and Yo’pila. Sacalaca has been damaged by a modern settlement.
This site contains a cenote, and a sacbe. Sacalaca’s occupational history begins in the
Middle Formative and continues through the Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal
Classic Periods, with the most of site’s constructions dating to the Terminal Classic
Period (Johnstone 2012:207). San Felipe is, after Yo’okop, the second most intensively investigated site in the region. A portion of the site of San Felipe is occupied by a modern pueblo. San Felipe has an aguada and a sacbe. San Felipe’s occupational history encompasses the Late Formative, Early Classic, Terminal Classic and Postclassic Periods
(Johnstone 2010b:258). The site of Yo’pila was only partially mapped and test pits were excavated. The site was only occupied during the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw 2012;
Reyes 2012). There is a one more Rank Two site Calotmul, but it was not mapped, test pit excavated or surveyed by CRAS.
The other 66 sites documented by CRAS consist of tertiary and quaternary settlements. The uniform spacing between primary and secondary sites that Harrison
(1990) recognized in Belize and Southern Quintana Roo corresponds with the distances between sites identified in the CRAS study region. Following Harrison’s aforementioned assessment, the tertiary and quaternary sites are located approximately up to 5.5-km radius from the larger centers. Sites such as Chakal Ja’as, Parcela Escolar, Ramonal
Poniente, San Pedro, Hopemul, Ramonal Quemado, San Lorenzo, and Sisal and
Yo’dzonot seem to fit in this category (Figure 4.4). Rank Two sites are positioned
77 approximately 13 km from each other and Rank One sites (Figure 4.5). For instance, the
Rank Two site of Yo’pila is located 12 km from San Felipe and Sacalaca, and Calotmul is located 12 km from Sacalaca. Sacalaca and Calotmul are positioned 10-12 km from the primary site of Ichmul. Lastly, larger primary centers are placed roughly 26 km away from each other. The Rank One sites of Yo’okop and Ichmul are almost exactly 26 km apart (Figure 4.6).
Only 20 of 72 Prehispanic sites recorded by CRAS are examined in this dissertation. Two secondary sites, Sacalaca and San Felipe and their satellite settlements are the primary focus in this case study. Two primary sites in the study region, Yo’okop and Ichmul, will also be examined.
Timeline of the CRAS Study Area
There are no carbon-14 dates for the CRAS study area due to poor preservation of any organic material and because the slash and burn technology currently used by the
Maya represents a potential source of sample contamination. The ceramic chronology is based on cross correlation with other regions that themselves are dated by a number of written monuments with legible dates, architectural details and carbon-14 dates. Because the test pits were excavated mostly in plazas, all ceramics were included in materials used as construction fill were not in primary contexts and often include materials from earlier occupations (Johnstone 2015:34). The most recent manufactured ceramic type found in the excavations was used to date the time when construction fill was deposited. In other words, the fill episode could not date any earlier than the date of the latest ceramics incorporated in it. Because construction fill includes materials from different site
78 occupations, dating any charcoal found in this fill would not necessarily be associated with the time it was deposited. Therefore, the ceramic chronology is the most reliable way to date construction activities at the settlements.
Architectural features were a second dating technique; they provide evidence for the time period in which they were constructed by correlation with similar features in other regions with legible dates. The sites examined in this dissertation have their own unique occupational history and date from the Middle Formative through Postclassic
Period.
The Middle Formative Period (600/500–300 B.C.) is the earliest time documented for occupation in the CRAS study area. To date, no primary deposits associated with the
Middle Formative Period have been discovered, all associated ceramics have been discovered in secondary or tertiary contexts (Johnstone 2010:261). The Rank One site of
Yo’okop was occupied during this period. Initial settlement also occurred during this time period at the sites of Yo’dzonot and San Lorenzo (Johnstone 2010).
The Late Formative Period (300 B.C. - A.D. 250) represents an occupational peak for the region (Shaw 2010:5) with the initial construction of public architecture and plazas occurring during this period. The Rank One sites of Yo’okop and Ichmul were occupied as were Rank Two site of Sacalaca occupied during this time. In addition, settlements such as Parcela Escolar, Yo’dzonot, Hopemul, San Lorenzo, and Sisal were occupied during the Late Formative Period (Johnstone 2010).
During the Early Classic Period (A.D. 250-550) a majority of sites in the Cochuah
Region saw a decline in occupation. Nonetheless, the Rank One sites, Ichmul and
Yo’okop, thrived and appeared to attract the populace from the neighboring vicinity
79 (Shaw 2008:136). The Rank Two site of San Felipe was also occupied during this time.
The sites of Parcela Escolar, Yo’dzonot, Sisal and San Lorenzo were occupied during the
Early Classic Period (Johnstone 2010).
The lowest occupational density in the region occurred during the Late Classic
Period (A.D. 550-750). Only two sites were occupied during this time: Yo’okop and
Nohcacab (Shaw 2010:5). Ceramics of the Late Classic Period are rare throughout the study area with exception of the site of Yo‘okop.
The Terminal Classic Period (A.D. 750–1100) has two segments: the early phase part of the Terminal Classic is the Florescent Phase (A.D. 750-900), and the late part of the Terminal Classic Period is the Post-Florescent Phase (A.D. 900-1100). The Florescent
Phase represents the occupational peak for the Cochuah Region (Shaw 2010:5). During this time the region experienced a florescence and construction boom. Every site registered in the region was occupied during this time (Johnstone 2005:182).
Re-occupation of preexistent sites and the establishment of new settlements could have resulted from growth in the regional population or the reorganization of the existing population. Reorganization might have involved a dispersal of people from primary centers to rural areas during the wet season when they could rely - on the water collected during rainfall. During dry seasons the populace would then return to the centers, which had permanent water sources. Some tertiary sites in the Puuc Region were used only seasonally, specifically during the wet period (Carmean et al. 2004:441). Another possible explanation could be the arrival of refugees from the Southern Lowlands
(Demarest et al. 1997; Demarest 2004:119-121). However there is no architectural or ceramic evidence discovered thus far in the Cochuah Region to support this theory
80 (Shaw 2008:143). Lastly, the changes in population distribution between the Late Classic and Terminal Classic in the Cochuah Region could have occurred due to the reformulation of political organization during this time.
During the Postclassic Period (A.D. 1100 – 1546) most of the sites in the region were abandoned (Shaw 2005:229, 2010). The Rank One sites of Yo’okop and the Rank
Two of San Felipe, also sites of Sisal, San Diego and Candelaria were occupied during this time. However, none of the sites has yielded a functionally complete ceramic assemblage. To date, the understanding of the Postclassic Period is still poor, in part because it was not targeted for the investigation (Johnstone 2010).
Dynastic History of Yo’okop
In the CRAS study area there are only a few monuments with hieroglyphs. These were discovered at Yo’okop and date to the Early and Late Classic Periods. These monuments were found in secondary contexts and their original locations are unknown.
The monuments include a carved altar, three carved stelae and five carved stones from a hieroglyphic stairway (Johnstone 2008:189).
The earliest monument, Stela 3, dates to the end of the Early Classic Period and portrays an individual standing up straight with legs wide apart and hieroglyphic inscriptions on the left side (Figure 4.7). This individual is wearing a belt mask with three hanging celts (Shaw et al. 2000:64). The belt mask with celts is symbolic of the maize god (Miller and Taube 1993). The inscriptions represent dates between A.D. 534 and
554, and seem to describe the ceremony of accession of a young king (Johnstone
2008:190). Altar 1 probably also dates to the end of the Early Classic Period because it
81 shares the same style of hieroglyphic writing as Stela 3. The altar depicts concentric rings, small circles and eroded hieroglyphs (Shaw et al. 2000:64).
The hieroglyphic stairway stones exhibit similar hieroglyphic writing styles as
Stela 3 but dates to the beginning of the Late Classic Period. Each of five stones measures approximately 40 cm square (Shaw et al. 2000:54). Stairway Stone 1 has a hieroglyph representing a title of Kaloomte (overlord) (Figure 4.8). This title was used by the rulers of the Southern Lowlands such as Tikal and Copan (Harrison 1999:79; Schele et al. 1991), and in the Northern Lowlands by the rulers of Ek Balam, Dzibilchaltun and
Coba. The next glyph on this stone represents a prefix na - a “lady,” followed by glyphs that suggest a self-sacrifice. In all probability the title of a Kaloomte refers to this female because it preceded the prefix na (Johnstone 2008:189-191). There were a few Maya queens that had the title of Kaloomte. The examples are K’awiil Ek’ of Coba, Ix Wak
Chan Ajaw of Naranjo, Ix K’abe’l of Waka and Ix Ik Skull of Yaxchilan (Reese-Taylor et al. 2009:58). The last two mentioned queens were from the ruling dynasty of the Kaan
(Calakmul) Kingdom (Reese-Taylor et al. 2009:58). Stone 2 depicts a name Sky Witness, a prefix ya – “a subordinate lord” and also a title the Lord of Kaan (Figure 4.9). Sky
Witness was the Lord of the Kaan Kingdom (Calakmul) and ruled during A.D. 561-572
(Martin and Grube 2008:102-115). Stone 3 depicts a title of Ajaw Pop (Lord of the mat) and a supernatural being Kauil (deity of divine lineages) (Figure 4.10) who permits communication with ancestors (Friedel et al. 1993). Stone 4 depicts a date of A.D. 593 and the phrase “under the subordination of ” (Johnstone 2008:191) (Figure 4.11). Sky
Witness, the King of Calakmul, was dead by the time these glyphs were carved.
Therefore, it suggests a retrospective presence of Sky Witness or the manifestation of the
82 ancestral spirit of the Calakmul king. Stone 5 is only partially readable and seems to depict a Venus sign (Johnstone 2008:191). The Venus sign is associated with warfare
(Schele and Freidel 1990). Hieroglyphic stairways often were erected in newly conquered sites to commemorate military campaigns.
Stela 1 dates to the Late Classic Period and portrays an individual holding a serpent bar (Johnstone 2008:192) (Figure 4.12). The serpent bar depicts the double- headed serpent which represented the ecliptic and sky (Freidel et al. 1993). An ecliptic is the annual path of the sun and was important in Maya cosmology. The possession of the serpent bar connects a ruler to the sky and deities and reinforces his/her divine status.
This serpent bar is also decorated with a mat motif which symbolized authority (Freidel et al. 1993). The lower part of this serpent bar has the portrayal of Sak Hunal (Jester
God) (Johnstone 2008:192). The Jester God symbolizes power and rulership in Classic
Maya art (Schele 1974:49).
Stela 2 dates to the Late Classic Period and depicts a ruler as a ball player adorned with elaborate game gear and hieroglyphic inscriptions (Figure 4.13). The ballplayer’s headdress has a bird symbolizing the underworld God L (Johnstone 2008:193). In Maya art this god is often associated with ballplayers (Cohodas 1991). The inscription translates as “a Kaloomte (overking) was born on A.D. 692” (Johnstone 2008:192-193).
Interpretations of Hieroglyphic Texts
These hieroglyphic data provide us with the evidence of political organization in the Cochuah Region at the end of the Early Classic Period and during the Late Classic
Period. It illustrates the responsibilities of Maya kings during these times (Johnstone
83 2008:193). Stela 3 dates to the end of the Early Classic Period and portrays the inauguration of a young king holding objects of power and authority (Johnstone
2008:190). Those objects suggest that the rulership is inherited and divine in its nature.
Stela 1 dates to the Late Classic Period and represents a ruler holding an object of power and authority of divine kingship. The hieroglyphic stairway blocks date to the Late
Classic Period. It is difficult to determine the exact meaning of the stairway hieroglyphic text because the blocks are not in their original context. None-the-less, the text definitely suggests some kind of relationship between Yo’okop and Calakmul during this time.
According to Martin and Grube (2000) the Kaan dynasty had great influence on the sites located in what are now the modern states of Campeche and Quintana Roo. It could suggest a marriage or military alliance between Yo’okop and Calakmul. The retrospective presence of Sky Witness’s ancestral spirit and the statement of subservience suggest that Yo’okop was subordinate to Calakmul. Alternatively, Yo’okop might have been conquered by the Kaan dynasty and a female Kaloomte installed as a ruler.
According to Martin and Grube (1995) the kings of Super States were mentioned in hieroglyphic texts authorizing the events of inauguration for rulers of subordinate polities. This conquest could be a part of a larger campaign meant to install members of the Kaan dynasty in other powerful sites in the Northern Lowlands such as Yaxuna and
Coba. Yo’okop, positioned 100 kilometers away from the powerful Coba, would be a desirable vassal for political dominance between the Super States – Calakmul and Tikal.
Stela 2 dates to the Late Classic Period. This stela depicts a king as a ballplayer. Kings dressed as ballplayers reenact stories from the Maya creation myth to show their connection with the supernatural (Freidel et al. 1993). Collectively, these monuments
84 record the political and religious responsibilities of a king (Johnstone 2008:194). The presence of the title of Kaloomte suggests that Yo’okop kings had great power (Johnstone
2008:194). As religious figures kings were responsible for performing rituals and connecting to the supernatural to insure well-being of the populace; as political leaders they were responsible for patronage networking (Johnstone 2008:194). The hieroglyphic texts also suggest the presence of a Dynastic Kingship during the end of the Early Classic
Period and during the Late Classic Period in Yo’okop. The hieroglyphic stairway texts also indicate that this dynastic kingship was associated with the royal Kaan dynasty at least during the Late Classic Period.
The hieroglyphs informed us about the presence of Dynastic Kingship in Yo’okop and the involvement of Yo’okop with the major center of Calakmul. Does knowing this about Yo’okop also hold true for the rest of the Cochuah Region? And, how are we to assess political organization in the sites like Ichmul, where no hieroglyphic writings have been discovered? Also these hieroglyphic data do not inform us about the political organization within a polity such as relationship between Yo’okop and secondary sites.
Moreover, no hieroglyphic writings have been discovered during the Terminal Classic
Period, likely because stelae with hieroglyphic writings were not erected during this time.
What is more, all stela-altar complexes at Yo’okop were found in secondary contexts.
Stela 2 and an altar were moved from their original location and dumped on top of
Terminal Classic constructions; a sacbe and a building, respectively.
In order to examine political organization in the Cochuah Region during the
Terminal Classic Period the presence or absence of the architecture representative of the institution of the rulership had to be determined for individual settlements of all ranks.
85 This was accomplished by surveying, mapping and test pit excavations of the sites. These methodologies will be explained in detail in the next chapter.
86
Figure 4.1. Sites in the Northern Lowlands.
87
Figure 4.2. Location of the Cochuah Regional Survey Project (CRAS).
88
Figure 4.3. CRAS Study Area (see Table 1.1. for the key to site names).
89
Figure 4.4. Location of Tertiary and Quaternary Sites.
90
Figure 4.5. Location and Distances between Secondary Sites.
91
Figure 4.6. Location and Distance between Primary Sites.
92
Figure 4.7. Yo’okop, Stela 3 Depicting an Individual Wearing a Belt Mask with Three Hanging Celts Symbolizing the Maize God and Dates between A.D. 534 and 554.
93
Figure 4.8. Yo’okop, Stone 1 Depicting a Title of Kaloomte (Overking).
94
Figure 4.9. Yo’okop, Stone 2 Depicting “a Subordinate Lord” to Sky Witness.
95
Figure 4.10. Yo’okop, Stone 3 Depicting a Title of Ajaw Pop (Lord of the Mat) and a Supernatural Being Kauil (Deity of Divine Lineages).
96
Figure 4.11. Yo’okop, Stone 4 Depicting Dates of A.D. 593 and the Phrase “Under the Subordination of ”.
97
Figure 4.12. Yo’okop, Stela 1 Depicting an Individual Holding a Serpent Bar.
98
Figure 4.13. Yo’okop, Stela 2 Depicting a King as a Ball Player.
99 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH METHODS AND FIELD RESEARCH
Chapter Five describes the research methods used by the Cochuah Regional
Archeological Survey (CRAS). It includes surveying, mapping and test pit excavations conducted at the settlements. CRAS has an extensive database of sites that will permit the investigation of the architectural forms and site layouts necessary for the identification of the institution of rulership in these sites. CRAS carried out numerous test pit excavations but had limited permission for the excavation of buildings. Nonetheless, site layouts, architectural features, building techniques, decorative styles and ceramics identified by
CRAS in the region does permit identification of site occupations dating to the Early
(Florescent Phase) and Late (Post-Florescent Phase)Terminal Classic Period, as well as periods which date to earlier or later times. Additionally, this chapter includes my field work conducted at the sites in the Cochuah Region investigated by CRAS during the
2004, 2005, 2008 and 2010 field seasons.
The Research Methods
The approach that CRAS uses for survey and site evaluation in the region entailed the documentation of the largest architectural features and surrounding smaller buildings.
These features included pyramidal mounds, plazas, platforms, foundation braces, walls, sacbeob and other auxiliary constructions. These archeological remains were first cleared of vegetation, and then surveyed, photographed and mapped. The mapping typically began from the largest structure at a site and continued throughout the settlement. After a
100 site was mapped the next procedure was to excavate test pits which typically were located at plazas, near pyramidal mounds and sacbeob, and other architectural features.
Mapping
Prior to initiating mapping, local Maya were hired to assist in locating and clearing archeological remains in the area. Mapping was carried out using a Topcon
GTS-213 total station with a TDS-48 data collector. The data were recoded as coordinates N, E and Z relative to the site datum. Topographic relief and in situ archaeological features were recorded. The resulting maps were produced by Surfer software (version 8.0) and usually were presented with a 50 cm contour interval. These maps were used for studying architectural components within settlements, hierarchical relationships between the sites and the settlement pattern in the region.
Excavations
2 x 2 m test-pits were excavated to provide ceramics that could be used to date the sequence of deposits. All test pits were excavated in natural strata and arbitrary (10 cm) levels within large strata, with materials separated according to the operation, level and lot. Soils were removed using a hand pick and trowel, then transferred to buckets and screened. All excavated material was passed through a 5 mm mesh screen. Upon the completion each level of an operation was photographed. Excavations were usually terminated at bedrock. The excavation profiles were drawn and test pits backfilled. After being documented, photographed and studied all excavated materials were returned to the
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) in Chetumal.
101 Ceramics from the excavations were washed and marked with the number of operation, level and lot. Discovered lithics also were recorded and analyzed. The ceramics were analyzed using the type-variety system (Smith et al. 1960) by project co- director Dave Johnstone. The results from this detailed ceramic analysis were used to determine occupation episodes of the settlements and the chronology of the region (Table
5.1). In order to assign a time period of occupation to a site based on the ceramic record, an arbitrary number of 100 sherds from a test excavation had to be diagnostic of the period (Johnstone 2015:34). For example, only if a test excavation contained 100 or more sherds diagnostic of the Late Formative Period, the site would be considered to have a
Late Formative occupation.
Below is a description of mapping and excavations that I conducted at the sites of
Nohcacab, San Juan, Parcela Escolar and the Sacalaca-Parcela Escolar Transect (Figure
5.1). The operations at Nohcacab and San Juan were part of my field training, while the
Parcela Escolar excavations and transect mapping were associated with my dissertation research. I conducted my fieldwork with the help of one to three Maya and in some cases with assistance of other CRAS members. The directors of the project, Justine Shaw and
Dave Johnstone, supervised all work.
Nohcacab
The site of Nohcacab is located 7 km to the north of Sacalaca. Nohcacab is the most fully mapped site in the Cochuah Region - a total of 14.6 ha were mapped (Figure
5.2) Excavations in Nohcacab were undertaken to generate ceramics in order to date the site and to explore the potential presence of Chichen Itza at the site. See Appendix A,
102 Table 1 for details about the ceramic types and their frequencies recorded in the
Operation 4 test pit levels.
Mapping
In order to further the investigation of the Structure S1E1-2 area, the structure was cleared of zacate grass. Clearing revealed a more detailed view of the surface remains of the structure, which allowed more precise mapping (Figure 5.3). Structure S1E1-2 seems to contain fragments of buildings from different time periods. The earliest visible occupation is represented by the remains of a wall, which is better preserved on the north side of the structure. Another structure, adorned by decorative stones is positioned on top of this earlier feature. The decorative stones were precisely arranged trapezoid-shaped cut stones, which formed a V-shaped openings between each of them. The structure was decorated with colonettes, which are nicely preserved on the its south side. These decorative stones date to the Terminal Classic Period. The remains of what looks like a
Postclassic altar are visible on the top of the Terminal Classic structure. One of the colonettes and some cut stones (Figure 5.8) were used for construction of the altar.
Test Pit Excavations
Operation 4 (2004), a 2 x 2 test pit, was situated to the north of the foundation of
Structure S1E1-2 (Figure 5.4). Structure S1E1-2 is a mixture of wall remains and architectural components from different time periods. The test pit was situated about 1 m from the remains of a wall line of the described structure. Operation 4 was intended to provide artifacts that could be used to date the structure and to define its architectural style, as well as to explore the possible influence of a Chichén Itzá-related group in the
103 area. The test pit was excavated by the natural levels, aside from Level 1, which was excavated as an arbitrary 10 cm level.
Level 1 was excavated as an arbitrary 10 cm level, since no change in soil color or composition was present in the zone near the surface. A total of 364 sherds was recovered from this level. Numbers of artifacts were higher on the north side of the test pit. One of the significant finds from this level was a spindle whorl (Figure 5.5). This spindle whorl was made from limestone and had a design in form of triangles radiating from the center.
The presence of the spindle whorl suggests the use of cotton thread at this site. Existing at this site, but rare elsewhere in the CRAS study area, are deeper pockets of soil that could indicate this was a suitable place for growing cotton. Operation 4, Level 1, Lot 1 was closed at approximately 10 cm below the surface. Soil color of Level 1, according to the Munsell book, was dark brown (10Y 2/2). Ceramic analyses revealed primarily Puuc
Slate Wares.
Taking into consideration a change of soil color to a lighter brown shade (7.5Y
2.5/3), Level 2 was excavated as a natural level. A few floor fragments were recovered: burned and unburned. They were randomly scattered throughout the level. However no gravel or cobbles, as a foundation for the floor, were discovered. A total of 680 sherds was recovered from this level. Artifacts included large ceramic fragments such as the whole base of a plate and a few handles of vessels. Distribution of artifacts remained the same as in Level 1 – richer in the north area of the test pit. One of the distinctive artifacts was an obsidian microblade fragment. Chert artifacts, tok tunich in Maya, were also discovered. In the northeast corner of the test pit, a cut stone was located, with more cut stones discovered in the center and southwest corner at a greater depth. A decorative
104 stone was located in the northeast corner. It was a square-shaped stone, with dimensions of about 23 x 23 x 4 cm. One of the sides was adorned with a design of two incised crossing lines resembling a letter X, while the other side appeared to be rough. The stone was positioned with the X-side down when discovered. The presence of this decorative stone indicates a Terminal Classic occupation.
Operation 4, Level 2, Lot 1 was terminated at a depth of approximately 34 cm below the surface. The Munsell reading of the sediment was very dark brown (7.5 Y
2.5/3). Analysis of sherds indicated that 80% were Puuc Slate Wares dating to the
Terminal Classic Period. Similar to Level 1, only a few pieces of Chichen Slate Ware were present.
Level 3 was also excavated as a natural level. The southwest corner of the test pit contained a fragment of floor and a stucco fragment, possibly crushed by a collapse. A large fragment of what appeared to be wall plaster was located at 38 cm below the surface in the test pit’s south face. At the bottom of Level 3 was a well-made, hard, and relatively level floor, located at the depth of approximately 43 cm. The floor was located in the south part of the test pit and covered about a half of the test-pit surface. The north part of the test pit revealed bedrock. The floor itself was white (5Y 8/1). The total of 201 sherds was recovered in this level. Operation 4, Level 3, Lot 1 was terminated at a depth of approximately 43 cm. The sediment was dark yellowish brown (10Y 4/4). The total count of cut stones from the 2nd and 3rd levels, including decorative stone, was seven.
Ceramic analysis indicated an occupation dating to the Terminal Classic using Puuc Slate
Wares; Chichen Slate Wares were absent.
105 Level 4 was significant because of the presence of a well-made plaza floor. This level was separated into two lots: Lot 1 was located on the south side of the test-pit and contained the floor. Lot 2 was located in the northern part of the test pit and contained the bedrock. The decision was made to excavate Level 4, Lot 1 first, in order to preserve and uncover any features that might have been present under the sealed floor. In the northwest corner of the test pit, numerous rocks with dimension of about 2.5 x 4.5 cm were located, perhaps a chich or sub-floor. The northeast corner contained exposed bedrock at this level. Appearance of a chak lu’um (red soil) indicated completion of
Level 4, Lot 2. The results of ceramic analysis indicated the presence of Puuc Slate
Wares. The stratigraphy between Lot 2 and Lot 1 revealed the details of floor construction: boulders as a foundation situated on top of red soil; followed by cobbles and chich located on top of the boulders with the cobbles/ chich layer covered by plaster.
Present day Maya houses contain a similar profile.
Thickness of the floor in Level 4, Lot 1 was approximately 7 to 10 cm, with higher numbers at the southeast corner. The test pit’s south face exposed a carbon-rich feature that was also slightly visible on the floor; perhaps this represented a burnt post, but it could as well have been the residue of a root (Figures 5.6 and 5.7). The amount of artifacts collected in Level 4, Lot 1 was slighter higher than that in Lot 2. Ceramic analyses indicated predominately Puuc Slate Wares with only one sherd of Chichen Slate
Ware.
Operation 4, Level 4, Lots 1 and 2 were terminated at a depth of approximately 59 cm. The floor sediment at the southeast corner was pale yellow (2.5 Y 8/2). The
106 sediment at center - dark reddish brown (5 Y 3/4); reddish brown (5 Y 4/4) at southwest corner and dark reddish brown (5 Y 3/3) at northwest corner of the test pit.
The last level, Level 5, was within the red chac luum, and continued until it revealed irregular bedrock over the entire surface of the test pit at its base. This level produced few artifacts; the ceramics present were largely Puuc Slate Wares. Operation 4,
Level 5, Lot 1 was closed at a depth of approximately 85 cm. The sediment was reddish brown (5 Y 4/3). The profiles of the south and west sides were drawn upon completion of the test pit (Figure 5.5 and 5.6). The test pit was backfilled using excavated materials.
In summary, all five levels of Operation 4 point to a Terminal Classic occupation, associated with Puuc Slate Wares. Chichen Slate Wares were quite rare in the test pit near Structure S1E1-2 (Appendix A, Table A.1). Perhaps, the cut stones discovered in this test pit were extracted from the earlier structure and used for floor leveling during the construction of a Postclassic building. It seems that the site/structure from which cut stones were used was abandoned for some period of time. The period of inactivity is indicated by vertically distributed deposits of soil between the discovered cut stones. The
6-7 cm deposits of soil between the stones indicate a considerable period of abandonment. Perhaps, a neglected structure naturally collapsed, stone by stone; these stones were later used as material for a plaza floor during a new Postclassic occupation.
San Juan
San Juan and at least four other sites are connected by sacbeob to Ichmul. Today, the white cupola of The Church of Ichmul can be observed from the top of the main structure of San Juan. Perhaps, the Church replaced some important structure, that was
107 once also visible from site of San Juan. The San Juan sacbe heads in a northeast direction to or from Ichmul. The length of the San Juan sacbe is about 1.65 km long, 13 m wide and 0.7 m tall with a bearing of 68 degrees east of north. The sacbe seems to begin in the eastern part of Ichmul; however, the origins of it have been destroyed by colonial and modern settlement. One of the examples of destruction to the San Juan sacbe occurred during colonial times, when the sacbe was used as a rock source for the construction of albarradas (stone walls built without mortar).
The sacbe enters San Juan at an odd angle in the southwest corner of the plaza.
The sacbe’s terminus is not aligned with the plaza at an angle of 90 degrees as might be expected if the two were constructed in the same episode. A similar pattern of sacbeob entries is found at other settlements surrounding Ichmul such as the sites of Xquerol and
San Andres.
The goal of the research was to date the sacbe connecting the site of San Juan and the primary site of Ichmul, and also to understand the possible role that the sacbe of San
Juan played in Ichmul’s sacbe system.
Test Pits Excavations
Operation 1(2005), a 2 x 2 m test pit, was located in the area where the plaza and the sacbe meet (Figure 5.9). The test pit was aligned with the sacbe on the southwest side. The surface of the test pit was covered by fine and coarse gravel and yielded no ceramics. It was anticipated that no features would be present during the excavation of the test pit, and a decision was therefore made that Level 1 would be a 10-cm arbitrary level.
108 Operation 1, Level 1, Lot 1 contained dark, organic sediment mixed with gravel.
Cobbles, probably hard fill, appeared at the completion of the level. The deposit produced a small quantity of ceramics, which were exclusively from the Terminal Classic
Period.
In Level 2, Lot 1, the sediment continued to be black and organic. Cobbles noticeably increased in size from approximately 20 cm to the size of boulders - approximately 30 cm in diameter. It became impossible to maintain a 10-cm arbitrary level due to the presence of boulders. Chak lu’um (red soil) appeared at a depth of approximately 70 cm below surface and, along with the presence of bedrock from the southwest side to the center of the test pit, indicated a change of natural level. The color of the sediment in the northeast part of the test pit was reddish brown and in the southwest part, very dark brown. All collected ceramics were found in approximately the first 10 cm of Level 2, Lot 1. After that, the matrix became culturally sterile. Boulders mixed with dark red sediment, which had a soft consistency, were the only inclusions until bedrock was exposed all over the test pit. The ceramics in this second level were almost exclusively from the Terminal Classic period (Appendix A, Table A. 2). After recording stratigraphy of the north and east sides (Figure 5.10 and 5.11) the test pit was back filled.
Operation 2 (2005), a 2 x 2 m test pit, was situated about 50 m to the north of the main range Structure S1E1-1, in the intersection between the two other buildings,
Structures N1E1-3 and N1E1-4 (Figure 5.9). The south side of the test pit was facing the front of the main structure. All levels of San Juan’s Operation 2 were excavated as natural levels.
109 At approximately 20 cm depth below surface, the sediment changed color in the southwest side of the test pit to a dark reddish brown and in the northeast side to very dark brown. This appearance of chak lu’um(red soil) indicated a change of natural level approximately at 30 cm in depth below surface. Operation 2, Level 1, Lot 1 yielded artifacts that were dated to the Terminal Classic Period, with a trace amount of ceramics from the Late Formative, Early Classic, and Late Classic.
Level 2, Lot 1 contained fewer artifacts and exposed bedrock in all corners of the test pit. Based upon ceramic evidence, this deposit also dated to the Terminal Classic
Period. Operation 2 was a shallow test pit, not even reaching 1 m in the depth
(Appendix A, Table A. 3). Upon completion the stratigraphy of the east and south sides of the test pit was drawn (Figure 5.12). After completing all necessary recording the test pit was back filled.
In summary, it seems that the plaza postdated the sacbe and was added in order to integrate with the sacbe and the site of Ichmul. The portions of the San Juan site, including the main range structure, whose front faces in the opposite direction from the sacbe entry, is older than the sacbe itself. Dates produced by ceramic analysis point out that construction of the plaza and the sacbe occurred after the start of the Terminal
Classic Period.
Parcela Escolar
Mapping
During the 2005 field season, the site of Parcela Escolar was recorded for the first time using a tape, Brunton compass and GPS (Garmin 12 CHGPS) (Figure 5.13).
110 Approximately 2 m wide brechas (paths) were cut through the overgrown vegetation around and between the visible architecture; this allowed us to map the site. However, most of structures remained covered by dense vegetation, which permitted only preliminary observations on the variety of archaeological remains at Parcela Escolar.
Twenty-three structures were mapped during this season. Three other structures as well as the rancho portion of the site were noted but not mapped, due to time constrains. Except for a deep, probably colonial well no other water related features were revealed. The site is characterized by three pyramidal mounds, six rectangular buildings and fourteen auxiliary structures. The height of the major mound, Structure 7 is approximately 5.5 m tall and 25 m in diameter. Two rectangular buildings, Structure 4 and Structure 5 are sited between the two larger mounds. These almost adjoining rectangular structures, which are approximately 15-16 m long and 7 m wide, are similar to each other. Structure 15, Structure 16 and Structure 17 are located on an informal plaza. Structure 15 is a rectangular building about 20 m long and 5 m wide. Structure 16 is also a rectangular structure, approximately 7 m wide and about as long as Structure 15.
Structure 17 is a small rectangular building about 5 m long and 4 m wide. These three structures seem to form a quadrangle enclosing a court or patio, and probably represent a residential unit.
A sascabera (a limestone mine) which measurers about 40 m long,18 m wide and
1.5 deep is located between the smallest mound, Structure 13, and the group of buildings which seem to form a residential unit (Structure 15, Structure 16 and Structure 17). This sascabera, in all probability, was used for construction in this part of the site. The site was mapped by a Topcon GTS-213 during 2008 field season (Figure 5.14).
111
Sacalaca-Parcela Escolar Transect
The 2008 field season was a continuation of research into two previously studied sites; the secondary site of Sacalaca and the tertiary site of Parcela Escolar. Previous research proposed affiliation or some degree of dependence of Parcela Escolar on
Sacalaca based upon the territorial extent, layout and makeup of the sites. The major goals of the survey during the 2008 season were to determine if the sites of Sacalaca and
Parcela Escolar were a single aggregate or two distinct sites, and, if the latter possibility was the case, to identify the boundaries of the sites.
To check the earlier proposed hypothesis of continuous settlement, an approximately one-km-long transect was cleared between Sacalaca and Parcela Escolar
(Figure 5.15). The transect was 4 m wide with about 10 m visibility on each side, for a total sum of 24 m east-west visibility.
The Southern Part of the Transect
The transect began at the group of six structures at the northern edge of the
Sacalaca site (Figure 5.16). A rectangular shaped platform - Structure N1E3-1, is located in the northern part of the group. About 10 m eastward structure N1E3-2 is situated.
Northern of these structures there exists an approximately 50-m-long albarrada (stone wall built without mortar). The aforementioned structures were likely robbed of their stone for construction of this albarrada. On the eastern side of the group two structures are located, Structures N1E4-1 and S1E4-1. Structures N1E4-1 is a square platform. A rectangular platform, Structure S1E3-2 is positioned at the southern side of the group. In the front of the structure, an albarrada approximately 100 m in length runs in a northerly
112 direction. Structure S1E3-1 is located in the southwestern corner of the group. To the west and south of the structure albarradas were found. This group of structures is located on a natural rise which slopes down to the north towards to a natural depression.
Approximately 120 m north of this group on the eastern side of the transect a platform and sacbe were found. The platform and sacbe are positioned within modern milpas. The rectangular platform consists of megalithic stones, suggesting construction during the Late Classic Period. A sacbe runs from Sacalaca northward in the direction of
Parcela Escolar. A 70-m-long portion of the sacbe was cleared to where it ended, therefore its real destination is unknown. In places, boulders are positioned vertically on the west side marking the boundary of the sacbe over bedrock. The significance of the boulders is that they were employed to augment a specific segment of the sacbe where normal masonry work could not be accomplished. An approximately 100 by 100 m square-shaped albarrada runs around the sacbe. In addition, a half-size smaller albarrada is positioned in front of the platform.
No structures were discovered for about 200 m northward towards the site of
Parcela Escolar, until reaching what is now referred to as Structure N5E2-1. This structure consists of a square-shaped platform and a superstructure.
The Northern Part of the Transect (Figure 5.17)
The next three structures are located about 90 m to the north of Structure N5E2-1.
Structure N6E2-1 is a rectangular platform with a superstructure, N6E2-2. For the next
200 m the transect runs through a modern milpa without the presence of any structures.
Next, the transect proceeds to Structure N7E1-1 which is the wall of a platform; and then Structure N7E1-2, a semi-oval shaped superstructure. Structures N8E1-1 and
113 N8E1-2 - positioned 10 m northwards - are near concentric circles. A square shaped platform - Structure N8E1-3 - with two superstructures (N8E1-4 and N8E1-5) is located about 20 m away from the previous structure.
The next platform, Structure N8E1-6, with Superstructure N8E1-7 is positioned about 17 m away. On the last part of this transect, a group consisting of five structures were discovered – Structures N9E1-3 through N9E1-7 - located approximately 30 m from
Structures N8E1-6 and N8E1-7. The fronts of these structures faced north.
The transect reaches a mound, Structure 18, from a previous season’s (2005) sketch mapping. This mound corresponds with Structure N9E1-1. Before reaching
Structure N9E1-1, the transect exposed several new buildings of Parcela Escolar,
Structures N9E1-3, N9E1-4, N9E1-5, N9E1-6 and N9E1-7. This group of structures is positioned from 30 to 150 m away from Structure N9E1-1. Because of its proximity and orientation to the north (as the other Parcela Escolar structures), these structures are considered part of Parcela Escolar. The transect reveals that Parcela Escolar is at least three times larger than was previously suggested.
Test Pit Excavations
During the 2005 and 2010 field seasons, three test pits, Operation 1, Operation 2 and Operation 3 were excavated at the site of Parcela Escolar. Operation 1 (2005) was a 2 x 2 meter test pit located on the artificially raised platform, Structure N10E1-1, and between two buildings; Structures N10E1-2 and N10E1-3. The platform is 1 and 1/2 meters in height. Structures N10E1-2 and N10E1-3 form a semi-enclosed court or patio; and, most likely, formed a residential area. The purpose of Operation 1 was to date the occupational span of the site and also date the structures.
114 The surface of the test pit was covered with a dark matrix (7, 5 Y 2.5/1) mixed with leaves, gravel and pebbles. Surface collection produced no ceramics. Level 1, Lot 1, contained many pebbles and chich (fill for the plaza floor). A small piece of stucco was discovered in Level 1, Lot 1. Level 1, Lot 1, also yielded an obsidian blade 3 cm long, which was broken into two pieces possibly during excavation. Boulders increased in size to approximately 30 cm in diameter. The southwest corner of the test pit had a deposit of grayish sediment, color (7, 5 Y 3/1) and at a depth 90 cm below surface; the matrix changed color and became less organic and compact. It is worth noting here, that exposed boulders were much larger in size and heavier than we anticipated. The appearance of the sediment, which was more brown in color ( 7,5 Y 2,5/2 ) and the fact that the last boulders were resting on, without penetrating, the boundary of a new matrix color, indicated a cultural level change. Ceramic analysis revealed that this level dated to the
Terminal Classic Period with a few sherds from the Late Formative and Late Classic
Periods admixed.
The next level, Level 2, Lot 1, yielded a chert core. This material is not commonly found in this area and may have originated as far away as Belize or
Guatemala. Bedrock was reached in the west side of the test pit at a depth of 100 cm below the surface. Level 2, Lot 1, had no Chak lu’um (red soil) which is usually present before the appearance of the bedrock. At 120 cm, below surface, the matrix became mixed with gravel and was more compact. Sediment color was 7, 5 Y 2, 5/2. Bedrock became exposed in all corners of the test pit. The ceramic sample indicated a Terminal
Classic Period occupation with a limited number of sherds from the Late Formative,
Early Classic, and Late Classic Periods.
115 The profiles of Operation 1 show the presence of chich fill and a large number of boulders beneath the chich which represents a floor foundation (Figure 5.18). These boulders were greater in quantity and larger than anticipated, indicating that more than the normal effort would have been required for building a floor. The plastered surface of the floor did not survive due to human damage and/or exposure to the natural elements.
The formation processes of Operation 1 were cultural and natural. Ceramic analysis indicated a Terminal Classic Period occupation with limited number of sherds from the
Late Formative, Early Classic, and Late Classic Periods (Appendix A, Table A. 4).
Operation 2 (2010) was a 2 x 2 meter test pit positioned in the plaza, between
Structure N11E1-3 and the pyramidal mound, Structure N11E1-1. A pyramidal mound could serve as a support for a temple on its summit or it could be a collapsed residence formed into pyramidal shape. However, Structure N11E1-1 exhibits no building on the top. It also appears that the top of the mound is not leveled. Perhaps it was not finished or it is a collapsed residence. Operation 2 was aligned to the north and located about three meters away of Structure N11E1-1.
The purpose of Operation 2 was to recover ceramic samples in order to estimate the periods during which the plaza was constructed and occupied, as well as determine the nature of the plaza. All lots of Operation 2 were excavated as natural levels. The surface of the test pit was composed of dark organic sediment (5 Y 2.5/1). Surface collection yielded no ceramics.
Level 1, Lot 1 contained box lu’um soil (black soil) with stones 5-10 cm in diameter, many roots, and one lithic flake. The ceramics (n = 39) in this lot were dated to the Early and Terminal Classic Periods. At approximately 20 cm depth below the surface
116 the sediment changed to a more reddish color (5 Y 3/3); with inclusions of angular gravel about 3-5 cm in length and 1-3 cm in width. In Level 1, Lot 2 the quantity of sherds stayed the same as in lot 1. The ceramics in this lot were a mix of the Late Formative,
Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods.
Level 2, Lot 1 produced four speleothems (a mineral deposit formed in caves) about 3-4 cm long and one cm in diameter. The presence of speleothems points out that a fill for the plaza was brought from some other location at the site. The areas from which a fill was brought could be any sheltered place with an environment rich in permeating minerals. Such environments are present at caves or sascaberas (limestone mines). Fifty- two sherds were recovered from this level dating from the Late Formative, Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods.
At about 58 cm in depth from the surface the quantity of sherds decreased, and cobble sized pieces of sascab (decomposed limestone) were present. Level 3, Lot 1 witnessed an increase in the quantity (n = 151) and size of ceramics. The sherds became larger and thicker. These dated to the Middle Formative, Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal Classic Periods. Level 3, Lot 1 was terminated due to the change of sediments to dark red color (2, 5 Y 3/6), approximately 100 to 110 cm below the surface.
Level 4, lot 1 was material contained in the chac luum. The ceramics were a mix of Middle Formative, Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods. Approximately 135 cm from the surface the matrix became culturally sterile (Figure 5.19 and 5.20). Bedrock was exposed all over the test pit, appearing at a depth of approximately 147-151 cm below the surface.
117 On the whole, ceramic analysis of Operation 2 indicated a construction phase during the Terminal Classic Period (Appendix A, Table A. 5). Profiles of the north and west wall were completed. Profiles of Operation 2 exhibit no plastered floor present at the plaza. The formation processes of Operation 2 were both cultural and natural. It includes purposeful and accidental discard of objects during construction of the plaza.
The purposeful discard is represented by the fill which was brought for construction of a surface of the plaza. On the other hand, a natural accumulation of sediment is present too. The surface of plaza was constructed during the Terminal Classic Period. The presence of a sascab deposit on the Formative Period sherds, discovered during the excavation, suggests that some of the sherds came from sascaberas. Sascaberas were used as mines to acquire necessary building material for project construction. Sascaberas could be also used as a dump for the garbage by ancient inhabitants, then later would be mined again to obtain building material and/or construction fill. The occurrence of a large amount of sherds from the Formative Period suggests a sustained occupation during this time. A large amount of sherds in sascaberas or caves points out that a secondary deposit of the Formative Period probably is located somewhere in the site of Parcela
Escolar or in a site nearby.
Operation 3 (2010), a 2 x 2 m test pit, was located between Structure N9E1-1 and
Structure N9E1-4. This location was chosen because rubbish could accumulate between these two structures. Structure N9E1-1 was situated at the center of the naturally raised area. This structure is raised from 50 cm to one meter above the surrounding terrain and has megalithic blocks present on three sides of the platform.
118 The purpose of Operation 3 was to recover ceramic samples in order to estimate periods of site occupation. An additional aim was to date the platform - Structure N9E1-
1, and the smaller building, Structure N9E1-4, located to the east of the platform.
Excavation proceeded in natural levels. Excavated lots were positioned horizontally, 1 x 1 meter in size, for more controlled excavation. The surface of the test pit of all 4 lots was covered by dark sediment (5 Y 2.5/1) and produced no ceramics.
Level 1, Lot 1, produced a small amount of ceramics and reached the bedrock approximately 27 to 52 cm below the surface. Level 1, Lot 2 exposed the bedrock at a depth of approximately 27 to 40 cm, and also produced a small quantity of ceramics.
Level 1, Lot 3 yielded a similarly small amount of sherds and was terminated after reaching the bedrock in all corners at about 25 to 39 cm below the surface. Level 1, Lot
4 also yielded a small quantity of sherds and exposed the bedrock in all corners 18 to 48 cm below the surface. The matrix of all 4 Lots of Level 1 was dark reddish brown (5 Y
2.5/2). Excavated ceramics in all lots were entirely from the Terminal Classic Period
(Appendix A, Table A. 6). Profiles of the north and west wall were completed. The formation processes of Operation 3 seem to be more natural than cultural (Figure 5.21,
5.22 and 5.23). There was no purposeful discard of artifacts in the test pit area. The excavation profiles showed that residences N9E1-4, N9E1-5 and N9E1-6 were built on top of bedrock without the use of any artificially raised material.
During the 2010 field season a 200 meter long transect was made originating from
Structure N11W1-1, to the location of Operation 3, revealing at least two more artificially raised platforms (Figure 24). The platforms were positioned almost directly
119 south from the smallest pyramidal mound (about 2 ½ meters tall), structure N10W1-1.
The platforms were relatively tall, about one meter in height. Large stones, about 50-70
cm in length and height, constitute the foundation of the platforms. It appears that the platforms had perishable structures because quantities of collapsed stones were not sufficient for permanent residences. The platforms were situated about three to four meters away from each other. Both platforms were facing in a northeast cardinal direction. Just behind the platforms to the west a large sascabera was located.
Additionally, one more large platform was visible (though not cleared) toward the west.
The transect and the platforms were not mapped during this season due to time constraints.
This chapter presented research methods that applied to all sites studied by CRAS in the Cochuah Region, but only the operations carried out under my direction are discussed in detail. The next chapter describes the twenty sites included in the case study for this dissertation using the research methods presented in this chapter.
120
Figure 5.1. Investigated Sites Highlighting Those Sites in Which this Author Directed and/or Participated in the Mapping and Excavations (see Table 1.1. for the key to site names).
121
Figure 5.2. Nohcacab Site Map.
122
Figure 5.3. Nohcacab, Structure S1E1-2.
123
Figure 5.4. Nohcacab, Location of Operation 4.
124
Figure 5.5. Spindle Whorl, Redrawn from Lloyd (2004).
125
Figure 5.6. Nohcacab, Exposed Bedrock, Operation 4.
126
Figure 5.7. Nohcacab, Operation 4, South and West Wall Profiles.
127
Figure 5.8. Nohcacab, Cut Stones from Level 2, Lot 1, Operation 4.
128
Figure 5.9. San Juan, Location of Operations 1 and 2.
129
Figure 5.10. San Juan, Exposed Bedrock, Operation 1.
130
Figure 5.11. San Juan, Operation 1, North and East Wall Profiles.
131
Figure 5.12. San Juan, Operation 2, East and South Wall Profiles.
132
Figure 5.13. The Initial Pace and Compass Map of Parcela Escolar.
133
Figure 5.14. The Southern Section of the Transect Between Sacalaca and Parcela Escolar Looking North from the Edge of Sacalaca.
134
Figure 5.15. The Map of the Southern Section of the Sacalaca to Parcela Escolar Transect.
135
Figure 5.16. The Map of Northern Section of Sacalaca to Parcela Escolar Transect.
136
Figure 5.17. Parcela Escolar, Operation 1, South and East Wall Profiles.
137
Figure 5.18. The Operation 2 Excavation in Parcela Escolar.
138
Figure 5.19. Parcela Escolar, Operation 2, West Wall Profile.
139
Figure 5.20. The Excavation in Parcela Escolar, Operation 3.
140
Figure 5.21. Parcela Escolar, Operation 3, North Wall Profile.
141
Figure 5.22. Parcela Escolar, Operation 3, West Wall Profile.
142
Figure 5.23. Unmapped Platforms in Parcela Escolar.
143 Table 5.1. Abbreviations of Time Periods
Abbreviations Time Periods Dates MF Middle Formative 600/500 - 300 B.C. LF Late Formative 300 B.C - A.D. 250 EC Early Classic A.D. 250 - 550 LC Late Classic A.D. 550 - 750 TC Terminal Classic A.D. 750 - 1100 PC Postclassic A.D. 1100 - 1546
144
CHAPTER 6 SACALACA, SAN FELIPE AND THEIR SATELLITES
Chapter Six provides detailed descriptions of the sites included in this case study
(Figure 6.1). It describes the physical location of the settlements, the architecture, the test pit excavations, time periods during which they were occupied and provides maps of these sites. These sites are the Rank Two (secondary) sites of Sacalaca and San Felipe and the Rank Three (tertiary) and Rank Four (quaternary) sites that cluster around them.
The Rank One (primary) sites of Ichmul and Yo’okop are also discussed. These sites are identified according Harrison’s (1990) uniform distance spacing and Johnstone’s (2003) ranking system, which is based on the presence or absence of certain types of architecture
(see Chapter 3).
The Rank Two sites, Sacalaca and San Felipe are located 12 km from each other.
They are towns (cah). The satellite sites surrounding Sacalaca and San Felipe range from
Rank Three to Rank Four sites, and are positioned within an approximately 5 km radius from the Rank Two sites. Third Rank sites such as Chakal Ja’as, Parcela Escolar,
Ramonal Poniente, Ramonal Oriente, Benito Juarez, Ramonal Quemado, Sisal, San
Lorenzo and Candelaria are small towns (chan cah). Rank Four sites such as Aktun, San
Andres, San Pedro, San Diego, Yo’dzonot, Hopemul, and San Fernando are villages.
There are additional sites located around Sacalaca and San Felipe but they are not included in this chapter, because they have occupations known only from the Colonial
Period. The sites of Sacalaca and San Felipe with their satellites were chosen for this study because they are more fully investigated and mapped than most other sites in the
CRAS database and, therefore, are good candidates for the investigation of political
145 organization in the region. The detailed maps of these sites allow the examination of site layouts and architecture necessary for this research.
This chapter also provides a summary of the changes in settlement pattern and architecture between the Florescence and Post-Florescent Phases of the Terminal Classic
Period (Table 6.1). The detailed investigation of these settlements is aimed at determining the presence or absence of architecture associated with the institution of rulership. These data will be used for testing the political models described in Chapter Two.
The Case Study
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
Sacalaca
The Rank Two site of Sacalaca is located within and under a modern settlement, and consequently, it is extensively damaged by contemporary residences and road construction allowing only a partial mapping of the core of Prehispanic remains (Figure
6.2). An additional part of the settlement (Sacalaca’s northern margin) is not damaged by modern construction and is located 280 m north of Sacalaca’s core (Figure 6.3). Sacalaca is affiliated with the primary site of Ichmul. Sacalaca is situated just over 10 km to the south of Ichmul.
Sacalaca has a 20 m deep cenote, one of three found in the study area, located 600 meters to the northwest of Sacalaca’s core. Two other cenotes are located within 5 km of Sacalaca. Sacalaca’s cenote, in all probability, was an essential source of water for residents of the site in a region otherwise devoid of naturally occurring sources of water
(Shaw 2003:39-50). Sacalaca has an acropolis which measures 100 x 170 x 6 m. Data
146 from a test pit (Operation 1) demonstrated that the acropolis began to be built during the
Late Formative Period. Atop of the acropolis are located: (1) a palace, Structure S5E5-2;
(2) two platforms, Structure S5E5-3 and Structure S5E6-1, flanking the palace on the east and west sides; (3) Structures S5E6-2, S5E6-3 and S5E6-4 and (4) a plaza. The test pit
(Operation 1) located in the center of the formal plaza (50m x 25m) on which the palace is situated revealed five floors construction episodes, two from the Late Formative Period and three from the Terminal Classic Period. The acropolis in this area was raised up 1.50 m during the Late Formative Period and raised up 50 cm during the Terminal Classic
Period (Flores 2003:54-59).
The palace (Figure 6.4) has 8 rooms on the upper level, two rooms on the middle level and an unknown number of rooms on the lower level. It is situated atop an 8 m tall platform with rounded corners. During the Terminal Classic Period this palace, Structure
S5E5-2, was buried and a temple was built on top of it. The burial of the palace suggests the reverential termination of this structure. This palace is currently a public area covered by modern houses and outbuildings (Shaw 2003:39). Structure S5E6-2, which sits on
Structure S5E6-1 and is located to the east of the palace, has core-veneer architecture and dates to the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw 2003:43). Structure S5E5-3 is located on the west side of the palace and is severely damaged by modern construction. Two large platforms, Structures S5E6-7 and S5E6-5, and a 3.5 m tall mound, Structure S6E7-1, are located to the east of the acropolis. Structures S5E6-7 has a vaulted passage which leads to a sascabera. The test pit (Operation 4) located on this platform revealed ceramics predominately dating to the Terminal Classic Period (Johnstone 2012).
147 Located to the southwest of the acropolis is the square of the modern pueblo. This area is densely populated which limited mapping of that area (Shaw 2003:39-43).
A new vaulted residence, Structure S10E2-2, was erected 600 m south of the old palace during the early phase of the Terminal Classic Period (Structure S5E5-2). Now it is a 6 m high mound that sits on a platform (Johnstone 2012:207). A test pit (Operation 2) located on the platform which held this new elite residence revealed that the construction in this part of the site happened predominantly during the Terminal Classic Period
(Johnstone 2003; Johnstone 2012:207). It also dated the elite residence to the Terminal
Classic Period.
Sacalaca’s Northern Margin consists of thirty structures including what seems to be the collapsed mounds of three vaulted buildings, seven platforms and foundation braces (Johnstone 2008a:99-100). The pyramidal mounds - Structures N4E6-1, N4E6-2 and N4E6-3 - are located on an artificial platform. Together Structures N4E6-4, N4E6-5 and N4E6-6 created an informal plaza dating to the late phase of the Terminal Classic
Period. Structure N4E7-1 is a platform constructed of monolithic blocks associated with the Late Formative Period. The surrounding area contained residences of perishable materials and deep soil pockets (Johnstone 2008a:99-100). The well associated with the
Northern Margin Group was also excavated to determine its construction timelines. The excavation (Operation 3) revealed only the modern, 15-20 years old artifacts (Shaw
2012:206).
Structure N5E6-4 is a 5 m in diameter circular foundation brace. It is located in front a 10 m long rectangular building - Structure N5E6-5 (Johnstone et al. 2016:256).
The excavation (Operation 5) of the circular foundation brace revealed that it was
148 constructed from uncut stones. No trace of mortar was uncovered. This suggests that stones were dry laid or perhaps k’ankab (iron rich clay) mortar was used to construct this foundation brace. The excavation revealed that Structure N5E6-4 dates to the Post
Florescent Phase of the Terminal Classic Period, and also blocks the access to Structure
N5E6-5 (Johnstone et al. 2016).
A sacbe begins at a 50 cm tall platform northwest of the Northern Margin Group which represents the northern end of Sacalaca, and extends in the direction of the tertiary site of Parcela Escolar. Only a 70-m-long portion of this sacbe was cleared.
Ceramic examples collected during the test pit excavations identified occupations for Sacalaca during the Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods (Appendix B,
Tables B. 1-5). The Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods also are represented by architectural components. Most of Sacalaca’s visible constructions date to the Terminal
Classic Period (Johnstone 2012:207).
Chakal Ja’as
The site Rank Three of Chakal Ja’as is located 4 km to the northeast of Sacalaca
(Figure 6.5). This is a Greenfield site – a new settlement established during the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period. This site has a rejollada (sinkhole which is not in contact with the groundwater) which contains a cave and petroglyphs. These petroglyphs, are located along the eastern side of the rejollada, they include the Chaak (God of Rain) and the Step-Fret petroglyph (Normark 2003; Shaw 2004a) (Figure 6.6). They are positioned at easily reachable heights underneath a natural overhang that protects them (Shaw
2004a:141). The test pit (Operation 1) in the rejollada produced human bones – the
149 lateral malleolus from an adult male and a piece of cranium (Shaw 2005a:113). These human bones had crystal growth on their surfaces suggesting that they had once been in the cave. Skeletal remains of animals such as a deer and small birds were also recovered
(Huerta 2012:150-155). According to the ceramics collected during the excavation the rejollada area was utilized during the Late Formative and Terminal Classic Period (Shaw
2005a:113). In addition, the rejollada contains a bukte (a water storage feature or walk- in-well) and a stairway. The stairway has a north-south alignment ascending to the north
(Huerta 2012:155-156). The stairway probably enabled access to the bottom of the rejollada. The excavation (Operation 3) of the bukte only reached 3.10 m in depth before it was terminated. This feature was dated to the Terminal Classic Period by associated ceramics (Johnstone 2012).
The main concentration of the site architecture is located on a natural rise. The site includes fifteen mapped structures. The western group of structures is up to 3 m above the surrounding terrain. The western group includes Structure N1W1-3 a platforms and a circular foundation brace, Structure N1E1-4.
Structures N1W1-2, S1W1-1, S1W1-3, S1W1-5, S1W1-11 and N1E1-3 formed an informal plaza with a nearby mound, Structure N1E1-1. This settlement pattern element emerged during the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period – the Post
Florescent. The test pit (Operation 2) revealed that the plaza was constructed during the
Terminal Classic Period according to the ceramic analysis (Johnstone 2005a:114). The test pit excavation located 30 m to the west of Structure N1W1-3 produced 64 lithic samples such as pressure and tertiary flakes, perhaps the inhabitants of this building were involved in retouching of tools (Reyes 2012:160).
150 Located on a natural rise, Structure S1E1-1, are two circular foundation braces,
Structures S1E1-3 and S1E1-4, and Structure S1E2-2 - a foundation brace with Terminal
Classic double wall lines. The pockets of chak lu’um soils and additional structures are located between the platform and the rejollada. Based on the recovered ceramics, the occupation of this site dates to the Terminal Classic Period (Johnstone 2005a:181)
(Appendix B, Tables B. 6&7). The architectural components all date to the Terminal
Classic Period.
Parcela Escolar
The Rank Three site of Parcela Escolar is located less than 2 km to the north of
Sacalaca. Thirty-six structures were mapped at the site including three pyramidal mounds, five rectangular structures, five platforms, circular foundation braces and thirteen auxiliary structures (Figures 6.7, 5.16 and 5.17). The site contains deep soil pockets of chak lu’um.
One larger pyramidal mound flanked by two smaller ones, Structures N11E1-1,
N11W1-1 and N10W1-1, are positioned in the central part of the site. The height of these pyramidal mounds ranges from 3 to 5.5 m (Young 2005, 2008). The tallest pyramidal mound at Parcela Escolar, the Structure N11E1-1, exhibits no evidence of a structure on the top. A looter’s pit on the summit of the mound may have removed evidence of a structure or it was not present in the first place. The exposed veneer wall of Structure
N11W1-1 dates this mound to the Terminal Classic Period (Young 2008).
The three pyramidal mounds and other adjacent constructions create a plaza. The absence of a formal orientation of constructions surrounding this plaza indicates that the
151 plaza is informal. The test pit (Operation 2) at this plaza produced ceramics associated with the Terminal Classic Period. This excavation (for results of test pits, Operations 1-3, see Chapter 5) indicated the construction phase of the plaza surface occurred during the
Terminal Classic Period (Young 2010:80-81).
Structure N10W1-2 is a circular foundation brace located to the south of the 3 m tall pyramidal mound - Structure N10W1-1. Structural excavation (Operation 4) in the intervening area between these two structures dated Structure N10W1-2, a circular foundation brace, to the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period and Structure N10W1-
1 to the Late Formative Period (Johnstone 2014) (Appendix B, Table B. 8).
Structures N10E1-2 and N10E1-3 are located on the platform, Structure N10E1-1.
These structures form a private patio. The platform is 1. 5 m in height, and probably hosted a residential area. The test pit (Operation 1) excavated between Structures N10E1-
2 and N10E1-3 indicated the Terminal Classic Period occupation in this area of the site
(Young 2005b:118-120).
A group of five structures - Structures N9E1-1, N9E1-2, N9E1-3, N9E1-4 and
N9E1-5 is located at the center of the naturally raised area. The platform, Structure
N9E1-1, is raised from 50 cm to one meter above the surrounding terrain and has megalithic blocks on three of its sides. This platform contains two buildings - Structures
N9E1-2 and N9E1-3. Excavated ceramics (Operation 3) dated these structures to the
Terminal Classic Period (Young 2008).
To the south from the group of five structures a platform and circular foundation braces Structures N7E1-2, N8E1-1 and N8E1-2 are located. Two metates (stone basin for grinding food stuff) were found near these circular foundation braces. Structures
152 N8E1-1 is 5 m in diameter and 40-50 cm in height. The excavation (Operation 5) of this structure revealed that it was built by vertically positioned unmodified stones. There was no trace of mortar perhaps k’ankab (iron rich clay) was used for the construction of this foundation. There was no evidence of a plastered floor (Johnstone 2016). A cache of a
Xanaba Red basin covered by an inverted bowl of the same type was encountered during the excavation well beneath the circular foundation brace construction layer. This cache was probably a dedicatory deposit during the structure’s construction. The ceramics in this level and the vessel itself date to the Early Classic Period. During this time the area also was raised 70 cm and the cache was entombed. During the Terminal Classic Period this area was leveled and a circular platform to support the circular foundation brace,
Structure N8E1-1 was constructed (Johnstone 2016) (Appendix B, Table B. 9).
The site of Parcela Escolar was occupied during the Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal Classic Periods (Johnstone 2005c:180; 2011:258; 2016). The site was initially settled during the Late Formative Period. This period is represented by ceramics and architecture. The Early Classic Period is represented by architecture, ceramics and the cache of a Xanaba Red bowl. A veneer wall and ceramics represent the Terminal
Classic Period.
Ramonal Oriente
The Rank Three site of Ramonal Oriente is located 5.2 km to the northeast of
Sacalaca (Figure 6.8). This is a Greenfield site – a new settlement established during the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period. The site includes twenty-two mapped structures. The site has a large platform, Structure N1E1-1, with megalithic stones placed
153 vertically. Megalithic stones are typically associated with the Late Formative period; however a vertical placement is uncommon (Johnstone 2010:87).
Structure S1W1-1 is 4 m tall mound. The informal plaza made by the arrangement of the Structures S1W1-3, S1W1-6, S1W1-7, S1W1-9, S1W1-11, S1W1-12, N1W1-4,
N1W1-2, and N1W1-1 with a nearby pyramidal mound, Structure S1W1-1, represents a settlement pattern element that emerged during the late phase of the Terminal Classic
Period (Flores 2012:162; Johnstone 2012:385). This new Post Florescent settlement plan consists of a series of residential platforms arranged around an informal plaza accompanied by a small pyramidal mound. The test pit (Operation 1) excavated in front of the pyramidal mound (Structure S1W1-1) dates this area to the Terminal Classic
Period (Flores 2012:160).
The Structure S1W1-4 is an example of Terminal Classic open-fronted architecture (Johnstone 2011:87). The structures surrounding the plaza N1W1-1, N1W1-
2, S1W1-3/4 and S1W1-12 have cut veneer stones - an architectural feature of the
Terminal Classic period (Johnstone 2010:87; 2012:295). Five Postclassic shrines are located on top of these structures (Johnstone 2011:87). The test pit (Operation 2) located inside this plaza near Structure S1W1-12 reveled predominately Terminal Classic ceramics (Flores 2012). The test pit (Operation 3) excavation located between two platforms, Structures N1W1-1 and N1W1-2, also produced Terminal Classic ceramics
(Flores 2012).
The occupation period of the site is the Terminal Classic Period. The informal plaza dates to the Post-Florescent Phase of the Terminal Classic Period (Flores 2012:160)
(Appendix B, Tables B. 10-12).
154 Ramonal Poniente
The Rank Three site of Ramonal Poniente is located 4 km to the west of Sacalaca.
This is a Greenfield site – a new settlement established during the late phase of the
Terminal Classic Period. Only three structures at the site were mapped (Figure 6.9).
Structure N1W1-1 and Structure N1W1-2 are platforms and Structure S1E1-1 is a 3.5 m high pyramidal mound. There are at least a few more structures located at the site which were not mapped. The test pit (Operation 2) near Structure S1E1-1 revealed a plastered floor dated based on ceramics to the Terminal Classic Period (Flores 2012:195). The test pit (Operation 1) near Structure N1E1-1 revealed predominantly the Terminal Classic ceramics. Consequently, the site occupation history dates to this period (Appendix B,
Tables B. 13&14).
Aktun
The Rank Four site of Aktun is located 3 km to the west of Sacalaca. This site today is used as a cattle ranch. The visible structures are comprised of a 1.5 m high mound, small platforms and foundation braces (Huerta 2008:166). The preliminary results indicate that the pyramidal mound has a 6.5 m wide stairway on its southern side and a foundation brace on its summit. A small platform with foundation braces is located
100 m to the northwest from the pyramidal mound. These structures have not yet been mapped.
155 San Andres
The Rank Four site of San Andres is located 3 km to the northwest of Sacalaca.
This site was not mapped or excavated, only visited by Dave Johnstone in 2012. This site has no pyramidal mounds or plazas and consists of platforms located on natural rises
(Johnstone: personal communication 2014).
San Diego
The Rank Four site of San Diego is located 3.4 km to the southeast of Sacalaca
(Figure 6.10). This is a Greenfield site – a new settlement established during the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period. Three structures of this site were mapped -
Structure N1E2-1, Structure N1E2-2, Structure N1E2-3. Structure N1E2-1 is a 1.6 m high pyramidal structure that has a Postclassic shrine atop. Structure N1E2-2 is a 1.2 m high platform and Structure N1E2-3 is an 80 cm high platform (Huerta 2011:90). The majority of the ceramics from the test pits (Operations 1 and 2) dated to the Terminal
Classic Period (Ronsairo 2016; Huerta 2016), dating the site to this time. Also, the
Postclassic shrine dates the occupation to the Postclassic Period (Appendix B, Table B.
15).
San Pedro
The Rank Four site of San Pedro is located 3 km to the northeast of Sacalaca
(Figure 6.11). This is a Greenfield site – a new settlement. It was established during the late phase of the Terminal Classic Period. The site consists of eleven mapped structures, a rejollada and a cave (Johnstone 2005b:125). The entrance to the cave was enclosed with
156 uncut stones inhibiting passage. This wall however was penetrated during the study
(Shaw 2004a:134). The cave contained deposit of sherds, but did not exhibit any modification or decoration on the cave walls. The excavation at the entrance of the cave did not produce any ritualistic ceramic assemblage but suggested that the cave was utilized during the Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods (Johnstone 2005b:129).
A large platform, Structure N1W1-3 with several structures atop was located near the front of the cave. Another platform, Structure N1W1-1, is located to the west of the cave. The walls of the platform and a foundation brace were constructed from large uncut stones, up to 1 m in length (Shaw 2004a:134). Between about 50-150 m to the west, two additional large platforms are located - the Structures S1W3-1 and N1W2-1.
This area has a small plaza. The Structure S1W3-1 is defined by large uncut stones at the eastern side and is connected by a bench-like feature to small rooms, Structure S1W3-3
(Shaw 2004a:137).
A wall, about 80-cm-wide and approximately 56 m long, runs across from this group to the platform at the north-east, Structure N1W2-1. This wall seems to be contemporaneous with Structures S1W3-1 and N1W2-1(Shaw 2004a:137), connecting these two platforms. The wall was constructed of large stones with cobbles in its core
(Shaw 2004a:137). It seems to be too narrow for a sacbe. Structure N1W2-1 also is a platform and contains a patio and three structures atop. The patio was dated to the
Terminal Classic according to the associated ceramics (Johnstone 2005b:125). The architecture of the site dates to the Terminal Classic due to the presence of veneer stone
(Johnstone 2005b:125). The occupation of the site is confined to the Terminal Classic
Periods (Johnstone 2005b:181) (Appendix B, Table B. 16).
157
Yo’dzonot
The Rank Four site of Yo’dzonot is located 3 km to the west of Sacalaca (Figure
6.12). Yo’dzonot has a cenote. This cenote is positioned near one of the most fertile soils in the study area (Shaw and Flores 2010:113).
Twenty-six structures of this site were mapped. A 3 m tall pyramidal mound,
Structure N1E1-1, is positioned on the top of natural bedrock. The western wall of the mound contains the remains of stepped terraces. The southwest side of the mound has a stairway (Shaw and Flores 2011:113). Structure N1W1-3 is an unusual building resembling an open corridor to access two rooms (Shaw and Flores 2011:116).
On top of one platform, Structure S1W1-1, there are three structures with the
Structure S1W1-2 being the principal construction. At the north end of the platform a private plaza is formed by enclosure walls (Shaw and Flores 2011:116). Circular foundation braces, Structures S1E1-4, S1W1-4 and N1E1-1, are located at the site. The test pit (Operation 1) near the Structure S1W1-4 dated this circular foundation to the
Terminal Classic Period (Kidder 2012:231).
Operation 2 was located north of Structure N1E1-1. The test pit reveled number of chert flakes and cores, and two pits dug into the bedrock. The recovered ceramics dated primarily to the Terminal Classic Period (Johnstone 2012:236).
Operation 3 was located in patio between Structures S1W1-1, S1W1-2 and S1E1-
3. It revealed two Late Formative floors. There was also an Early Classic cut through both Late Formative floors that was patched during the Early Classic Period.
158 A limestone plug measuring 190 mm x 180 mm x 35 mm dating to the Terminal
Classic was discovered in Level 1. The plug once capped the side of hollow log used as beehive (Cohn 2005). They were made to give access to honey. Wooden plugs are occasionally still used by modern Maya beekeepers. Also, 24 pieces of lithic debitage was discovered in this test pit. Lithic debitage included: 1 secondary flake, 1 thinning 11 tertiary flake, 9 shatter, 1 primary flake and 1 bipolar core (Reyes 2012).
According to the ceramic analysis, the periods of occupation of the site are the
Middle Formative, Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal Classic Periods Periods
(Reyes 2012). All of the three test pits excavated at the site produced ceramics associated with the Terminal Classic Period, which date the constructions and foundation braces associated with these test pits to this time period (Johnstone 2012:237-238, Kidder
2012:231-232; Reyes 2012:242) (Appendix B, Tables B. 17-19).
Ichmul
Ichmul is a Rank One site located in the southern Yucatan, near the border with
Quintana Roo. This town, besides the modern occupation, has remnants of Prehispanic,
Colonial and Caste War occupations. Sacalaca is one of Ichmul’s secondary sites.
Ichmul has a single site core (a major architectural group) (Shaw 2008:156) and radial sacbeob (Shaw 2005:41). At the central portion of Ichmul there is a large plaza (Great
Plaza) and two acropoli: the Central Acropolis and Eastern Acropolis (Figure 6.13). It is highly unlikely that this modern plaza functioned as a plaza in the past. There are extensive patches of laja (bedrock) exposed at the surface indicating that this area was
159 not raised by artificial construction, and also there are no buildings to the west or the north that would bind this open area and define it as a plaza.
At this large Great Plaza a few ruined colonial churches are located, including the Black Christ Sanctuary and the Franciscan convent (built in 1571). They are built atop a large platform which is constructed on this Central Plaza. The test pit excavations at the plaza produced ceramics dating to the Late Formative, Early Classic and the
Terminal Classic Periods. A deep, dry well and a water tower, are located at the plaza near the convent. A colonial manuscript mentioned existence of two cenotes at the site of
Ichmul. According to Bretos (1992:24) the Spaniards often constructed wells upon a
“cenotes mouth.” This was the case at the site of Yo’dzonot. However, there is no confirmation of the existence of a cenote at Ichmul.
The test pit (Operation 3) on the platform which holds the colonial churches revealed seven burials of individuals from 1.5 to 22 years old with no intentionally deposited burial goods. The skull of a female burial exhibited teeth filed into points thus dating it to Prehispanic times. Complete burials were oriented on an east-west axis with the head oriented toward the west. These burials were a part of flooring episodes and seem to be entombed during floor construction (Kaeding and Flores 2005:38). The construction of the floor according to the ceramic samples happened during the Terminal
Classic Period, but it is not clear when the burials were entombed since they lack any grave goods. The platform itself was dated by ceramics from the test pits to the Terminal
Classic Period (Kaeding and Flores 2005:31-39; Shaw 2005:19) but the burials could be later intrusions into an already constructed platform.
160 The large Central Acropolis 210 x 190 m is located to the southwest of the Great
Plaza (Figure 6.14). This acropolis has eleven structures, low platforms, two pyramidal mounds and six plazas. Plaza 1, approximately 40m x 20m, is the highest one in elevation. This private plaza is enclosed by three buildings, Structure S2W1-2, Structure
S2W1-4 and Structure S1W1-1. Plaza 2 is located to the east from Plaza 1. A building,
Structure S2W1-4 is bordering its east side. Plaza 2 is bounded by the pyramidal mound,
Structure S2W1-3 and opens to the north towards the Great Plaza housing colonial churches. A test pit (Operation 2) dated the major construction phase of this plaza to the
Early Classic Period. During this time the plaza was raised more than a meter. There was
60 cm of collapse material on the top of the Early Classic Period floor. The plaza was covered in rubbish and showed signs of abandonment during the late phase of the
Terminal Classic Period (Flores and Normark 2005: 12). Plaza 3 is located at the lowest elevation at the ground surface. It is confined by Structures S2W1-4 and S2W1-5 (Flores and Normark 2004:58-63). This plaza is cut by a modern road. A large platform,
Structure S2W1-6 has an electric post atop and it also cut by the modern road.
A 10 m tall pyramidal mound, Structure S1E1-1 is 70 x 75m at its base and the largest single structure at the site (Flores and Normark 2005:12). There are traces of a small patio and a small platform on the top of this mound (Flores and Normark 2004:58).
To the south the modern clinic is positioned at the base of the pyramidal mound. Near the clinic is a terraced garden and traces of a Terminal Classic wall with red pigment still visible. On the northern edge of the acropolis are traces of a stairway and a 2 m high “T” shaped vault of which the main axis is aligned north-south (Stromsvik et al. 1955).
161 Plaza 4 is located to the south of the 10 m tall pyramidal mound. On its western side Plaza 4 is bordered by Structure S2E1-2 with no structures on its eastern side. The hole dug by the owner of one of the houses in the middle of the plaza indicates at least one level of construction (Flores and Normark 2005:15), however, the date is uncertain because no investigation was conducted in that hole. Structures S2E1-2, S2E1-3, S2E1-5,
S2E1-7 and S2E1-8 surround Plazas 5 and 6. Structure S2E1-7, a 7 m tall range structure, has an indication of the presence of a vaulted room. Structure S2E1-8 is 6.5 m tall range structure measuring 80m x 20m with at least ten rooms (Flores and Normark 2005:16).
Number of structures at the acropolis have walls representing the historic Caste War fortifications. The walls of these fortifications are constructed of reused stones from
Prehispanic structures.
The Eastern Acropolis is 140m x 140 m and consists of six range structures, a pyramidal mound and a large plaza (Figure 6.15). The pyramidal mound, Structure
N2E3-1 is 4 m tall and the base is 45m x 45m. The plaza measures roughly 60 m x 60 m.
This plaza has foundation braces – Structures N1E3-2, N1E3-3 and N1E3-4. Structure
N2E2-2 has at least six rooms; some of them are vaulted (Flores and Normark 2005:16-
17).
The occupations of the site of Ichmul began in the Late Formative Period with more significant occupation during the Early Classic and Terminal Classic Periods
(Johnstone 2004: 95-96) (Appendix B, Tables B. 20-22).
162 Sacbeob of Ichmul
Five sacbeob run to or from the Central Portion of Ichmul. These five sacbeob are connections between Ichmul and San Juan, San Andres, San Cristobal, Xquerol and
San Pedro (Figure 6.16).There are two types of sacbeob in Ichmul: one linking Ichmul and vaulted residences and other connecting Ichmul and pyramidal mounds in outlying sites. These sacbeob are dated by ceramics recovered from adjacent test pits to the
Terminal Classic Period. This dating is consistent with other sacbeob in study area which were dated directly (Shaw 2008).
The Ichmul-San Juan sacbe is 1.65 km long, 13 m wide and averages 0.7 m in height (Flores and Normark 2005:71). The site of San Juan has twenty-six structures that were mapped. There is a large platform 45 m x 55 m between Structure S1E1-1 and the sacbe. The angle between the sacbe and the San Juan platform to which it connected is not the expected 90 degrees but 125 degrees. This implies that this part of the site and the range structure itself predates the sacbe (Young 2005a:75-76). The tallest construction of the site is Structure S1E1-1 which is facing to the north-east while the sacbe enters the site from the south-west direction (Flores and Normark 2005a:71). This structure consists of a large 3 m high platform which supports a vaulted range building, Structure S1E1-2, and also small platforms and foundation braces. The vaulted range structure is 2 m tall and has three entrances located at the northern part of building and five rooms. The excavation near the intersection of the sacbe and the platform yielded ceramics that date the construction of this platform to the Terminal Classic Period (Young 2005a:75-76).
Ceramics from the test pit located in the north part of San Juan facing the range structure dated from the Late Formative to the Terminal Classic Periods. In Ichmul this sacbe runs
163 from or to Structure N2E3-1 at the Eastern Acropolis (Flores and Normark 2005a:71).
This structure is a 4 m tall pyramidal mound.
The Ichmul-San Andres sacbe is 2.64 km long, 13 m wide and averages 0.7 m in height (Flores and Normark 2005e:45) San Andres consists of twenty-three mapped structures. The sacbe arrives at a platform supporting a large 2.5 m tall structure,
Structure S1E1-8. This structure is an elite residence measuring 75 x 35 m. and it has column fragments and a patio on its summit. The angle between the sacbe and the platform to which it arrives is 57 degrees. The angle suggests that the sacbe and the platform were not simultaneous constructions, with the sacbe postdating the platform
(Flores and Normark 2005e:45). The test pit excavated between the sacbe and the platform dates this plaza to the Terminal Classic Period (Huerta 2005a:53-55). The test pit excavated at the platform under Structure S1E1-8 dated this structure to the Terminal
Classic Periods (Huerta 2005:56-60). The terminus of this sacbe in Ichmul is unclear, but the Central Acropolis seems likely (Flores and Normark 2005e:45).
The Ichmul-San Cristobal sacbe is 910 m in long, 6.5 m wide and averages 0.5 m in height (Flores and Normark 2005f:61-64). The site of San Cristobal consists of sixteen mapped structures. The sacbe terminus is at a plaza that is formed by a 3.5 m tall pyramidal mound, Structure N1W1-4, foundation braces and Structure N1W1-2. The angle between the sacbe and the platform, to which it arrives, is 90 degrees. This implies that the sacbe and the platform are contemporaneous. The test pit excavated at the terminus of the sacbe revealed that it had been constructed during the Terminal Classic
Period (Huerta 2005:65-67). At the north part of the site there is a 3 m tall mound,
Structure N2E1-2, which faces north and has vaulted rooms facing to the south (Flores
164 and Normark 2005:61-64). The test pit in this portion of the site produced a mix of ceramics of different periods. It is unclear where in Ichmul this sacbe terminates (Flores and Normark 2005f:61).
The Ichmul-Xquerol sacbe is 2.53 km long, 13 m wide and averages 0.8 m in height (Flores and Normark 2004:75). This sacbe is heavily impacted by modern development. The test pit (Operation 1, Ichmul), located near the northern end of the sacbe, produced a sample of Terminal Classic ceramics. The terminus of the sacbe in
Xquerol is located near an 8.5 m tall pyramidal mound with a summit structure, Structure
N1E1-1(Shaw 2003:6). The pyramidal mound faces south away from the sacbe (Shaw
2003:6), and perhaps predates the sacbe. The test pit excavation on the south-east corner of Structure N1E1-1 revealed occupation during the Late Formative and Terminal
Classic Periods (Flores and Normark 2004:73). It is unclear where in Ichmul the terminus of this sacbe is located, perhaps at the Central Acropolis (Flores and Normark 2005:84).
The Ichmul-San Pedro sacbe is 1.1 km long, 6 m wide and averages 0.25 m height. The sacbe arrives to a 3.5 m tall mound, Structure N1E1-1 at San Pedro. The angle between the sacbe and San Pedro is 90 degrees. This mound is facing the sacbe, which implies it is contemporaneous with the sacbe. There is a circular foundation brace,
Structure N1E1-2, right at the point where the sacbe meets the pyramidal mound. San
Pedro also has a 3 m tall platform, Structure S1E1-1, located to the south from the pyramidal mound. It is unclear where in Ichmul this sacbe terminates, perhaps at the
Central Acropolis (Flores and Normark 2005a:79-80).
165 San Felipe and Surrounding Sites
San Felipe
San Felipe is a Rank Two site. A portion of the site is covered by a modern pueblo. Thirty eight structures of the site were mapped (Figure 6.17). The actual extent of the San Felipe site is undetermined, but the platforms and mounds are visible throughout the pueblo of the same name. These features are cut by modern roads and constructions exposing plastered floors and construction fill (Shaw and Flores 2008:181).
The core of the site is located on a natural rise which was enlarged in the construction of a 100 x 100 m acropolis. Altogether fourteen structures are located on the acropolis (Figure 6.18). It has nine mounds from 1.5 to 3.5 m in height Structures N3E4-
1, N4E4-4, N4E4-1, N4E5-1, N4E5-2, N4E5-3, N3E5-1, N3E5-2 and N3E4-1 crowning the acropolis together with other small structures and foundation braces (Shaw and Flores
2008:175). These structures form an informal plaza.
Four test pits were placed within the acropolis. A test pit (Operation 1) near
Structure N4E5-2 revealed that the occupation in this central part of the site acropolis occurred during the Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods. There were five Late
Formative floors adding 60 cm to the acropolis (Lloyd 2005a:161). The test pit
(Operation 5) in the western part of the acropolis to the west of Structure N4E4-6 revealed five floor episodes. Two Late Formative floors and three Early Classic floors were constructed raising the acropolis up 90 cm (Flores and Shaw 2010:154-159). In the northwestern part of the acropolis during the Early Classic a bench or partial wall built prior to this time was leveled to create public space (Flores and Shaw 2010:162). The test pit (Operation 6) excavation near Structure N3E4-1 revealed a long occupation and
166 large artificial leveling of at least seven floors with two major construction episodes during the Late Formative and Early Classic Periods (Huerta 2012:265-266). This area was raised 1.5 m with 6 floor episodes during the Early Classic Period (Huerta 2012:265-
266). The test pit (Operation 4) excavation near Structure N4E4-3 identified three Late
Formative floors and two Terminal Classic floors raising the acropolis 52 cm (Flores and
Shaw 2010:155-156).
Two open-fronted buildings, Structures N4E4-3 and N4E5-6, were built in the center of this informal plaza. The placement of these buildings in the center of the plaza violates an open plaza design favored in this region. Excavations of these buildings
(Operations 9 and 10), revealed that they were constructed on previous platforms (Huerta et al. 2016; Flores et al. 2016). Those open fronted buildings were constructed during the late phase of the Terminal Classic period (Shaw and Flores 2008:175) on the Early
Classic plaza floor.
San Felipe is the only site in the region having large rectangular stones which appear to be door jambs (Shaw and Flores 2008:175). They were found in secondary contexts such as the base of some structures, and on the top of Structures N4E4-1 and
N4E3-1, indicating reuse of building materials by ancient inhabitants. However, door jambs in situ were found in a residential group of an unmapped portion of the site.
A residential area with many metates is located at the southwestern edge of the acropolis (Shaw and Flores 2008:175). An open fronted building, Structure N3E4-6, was constructed facing the beginning of a sacbe. The test pit (Operation 2) next to this structure dated it to the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw and Bosch 2010:146). To the
167 south of this structure is a raised area constructed with large-uncut stones which is characteristic of Late Formative platforms (Shaw and Flores 2008:178).
A sacbe, 300 m length, runs south from the acropolis. This intrasite sacbe connects the Northern and the Southern Groups of the site. At 125 m before the sacbe reaches the Southern Group two unusual features were recorded. These features appear to be a part of an original construction. They seem to have been disassembled recently into a pile of rocks (Shaw and Flores 2008:178). The test pit (Operation 7) located near these features but off the sacbe produced ceramics dated to the Terminal Classic Period (Reyes
2012:268), indicating that the construction of the sacbe occurred during this period.
A 7.5 m high pyramidal mound, Structure N2E5-1, is situated in a deep soil zone.
Its placement is very unusual because monumental architecture in the area was generally built on platforms or acropoli. This structure is heavily looted. The test pit (Operation 3) excavation conducted near this structure revealed the construction took place during the
Terminal Classic Period. This excavation also revealed part of a circular foundation brace located next to the pyramidal mound, Structure N2E5-1. Ceramic analyses indicated that the circular foundation brace was constructed during the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw and Hernandez 2010:149-152). Circular foundation braces appeared during the late phase of the Terminal Classic – the Post-Florescent Period.
The Southern Group consists of three small private plazuelas (courtyards) that are aligned in a northeast-southwest direction (Flores and Reyes 2012:280) (Figure 6.19).
These plazuelas were created by the formal alignment of buildings 35 degree east of north. The first plazuela, measuring 35 x 24 m, is formed by low structures ranging from
50 cm to 2 m in height (Structures S1E5-1, S2E5-1, S1E4-1 and S1E4-2). The test pit
168 (Operation 12) located in the middle of the front of Structure S2E4-1 dated this area to the Terminal Classic Period (Badillo 2016b). The formal plazuela also was constructed during the Terminal Classic Period (Flores and Reyes 2012:276-280). The test pit
(Operation 8) excavation located next to the southeast corner of Structure S1E5-1 produced the Terminal Classic ceramics (Flores 2012:270-275).
The next plazuela is 30 x 20 m and is formed by Structures S2E4-1, S2E4-2,
S2E4-3, S2E5-3, and S1E4-4. The northwest side of the plaza is enclosed by two small structures, Structures S2E4-2 and S2E4-3, which are open to the west, in the opposite direction of the plaza. The test pit (Operation 13) located next to Structure S1E4-4 exposed the wall of the platform supporting this structure with two floors dating to the
Terminal Classic Period (Badillo 2016c). The third one of these plazuelas is flanked by
Structure S1E4-4 and a dry (probably colonial) wall made with large stones. This dry wall is also visible behind Structures S2E5-3 and S2E5-1 (Flores and Reyes 2012:279-
280).
Structure S1E4-1 is a low pyramidal mound. The original height is unknown because it was used as a quarry for construction materials for the nearby modern houses.
It has five looters holes and has been stripped of any architectural features (Flores and
Reyes 2012:276). The test pit (Operation 11) next to Structure S1E4-1 produced small sample of ceramics dating this area to the Terminal Classic (Badillo 2016a).
San Felipe was occupied during the Late Formative, Early Classic, Terminal
Classic, and Postclassic Periods (Johnstone 2010b:258). The Late Formative Period is represented by associated ceramics and architectural components. The Early Classic
169 Period is represented by ceramics and construction activities in the northern portion of the site. This site hit its peak in the Early Classic Period (Johnstone 2012).
The Terminal Classic Period is represented by ceramics obtained from the northern part of the site and associated architecture. Also, a lot of constructions at the site of San Felipe happened during the Terminal Classic Period (Huerta 2012b:266). The informal plaza at the North Group and the South Group’s small plazas were constructed during the Terminal Classic Period. The Postclassic is represented by associated ceramics and shrines on the acropolis (Appendix B, Tables B. 23-32).
Benito Juarez
The Rank Three site of Benito Juarez is located 2 km east of San Felipe (Figure
6.20). The site consists of eleven sketched mapped and at least 35 unmapped structures.
The sketched- mapped part of the site made by using a GPS includes a pyramidal mound, a small platform and nine rectangular structures. A 6.5 m high pyramidal mound has a small platform adjacent to its northwest corner (Normark 2008:197). This platform is 2.5 m wide and 6 m long.
There are nine structures near this pyramidal mound which together with the pyramidal mound form an informal plaza. There is an 18 m opening at the western side of the plaza between the small platform adjacent to the pyramidal mound and one of the rectangular structures. The biggest rectangular structure is 25 m long and 10 m wide, and it is positioned in the northeast direction directly opposite of the pyramidal mound. The pattern consisting of a pyramidal mound and surrounding structures forming an informal
170 plaza is seen at a number of other sites dating to the Post-Florescent Phase of the
Terminal Classic Period.
Ramonal Quemado
The Rank Three site of Ramonal Quemado is located 2 km northeast of San
Felipe. This site consists of eighteen mapped structures (Figure 6.21). A large rectangular platform is located at the north end of the site core. Two buildings are located on its summit. Structure N1W1-2 is a large rectangular structure 5.5 m in height and 42 m in length. This structure faces south towards the core of the settlement.
Structure N1W1-1, is a smaller rectangular structure positioned to the south of Structure
N1W1-2. The test pit (Operation 1) revealed that this platform was raised 20 cm during the Terminal Classic Period (Flores 2010:124-128). Structure N1W1-1 serves as a restriction between this platform and informal Plaza 1. The test pit (Operation 5) next to this building revealed that this platform was raised 20 cm during the Terminal Classic
Period over an Early Classic floor (Shaw et al. 2010:145).
Plaza 1 is defined by the arrangement of Structures N1W1-3, S1W1-1 on the western side S1E1-2 and S1E1-1 on the eastern side, a tall rectangular structure, Structure
N1W1-2, on the north and the ballcourt on the south. Excavated ceramics (Operation 4) revealed that occupation in this area of the site occurred during the Early Classic Period and the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw and Hernandez 2010:138-139).
At the southern end of Plaza 1 are two parallel rectangular structures 30 m long,
25 m wide and 2.5 m high – Structures S1W1-5 and S1W1-6. The structures are aligned in a north-south direction.
171 Those structures form a ballcourt. The test pit (Operation 2) between Structures S1W1-5 and S1W1-6 produced insufficient samples of ceramics to date this ballcourt directly
(Flores 2010:130). Two small mounds about one m tall, Structures S1W1-3 and S1W1-4 are situated atop a small platform and located at the north end of the ballcourt. The test pit (Operation 3) near this platform also produced insufficient samples to date this are directly (Shaw and Carillo 2010). At the south end of the ballcourt there are two small mounds Structures S1W1-8 and S1W1-9 (Shaw and Flores 2008:173). Structure S1W1-7 is a mound 2.5 m high positioned near the ballcourt.
Survey around the core of the site did not produce any cultural features beyond those that were mapped with one exception. The immediate area around Structure
N1W1-4 had a group of platforms that were not recorded due to the time constraints
(Shaw and Flores 2008:171).
The test pits excavation at the site dates this settlement to the Terminal Classic
Period (Flores 2010:133). Small samples of earlier ceramics might indicate a potential
Early Classic occupation (Appendix B, Tables B. 33&34).
Sisal
The Rank Three site of Sisal is located 4 km to the east of San Felipe. The forty- four structures of the site were mapped (Figure 6.22). The site is surrounded by fertile pockets of soil – chack lu’um. The only sources of water are a well and chultun covered by a stone lid (Shaw and Flores 2008:188). The well is located 60 m from the site’s tallest structure, Structure S1W1-1, and does not exhibit any historic modifications (Shaw and
172 Flores 2008:188). Excavation of this well produced only Prehispanic ceramics (Shaw
2010:184).
Sisal has a large informal plaza measuring 80 m x 100 m. The eastern side of this plaza is lined by Structures N1E1-8, N1E1-10, N1E1-11 and N1E1-12. Structure N1E1-
12 is an open fronted building (Shaw and Flores 2008b:185). The western side is lined by Structures N1W1-1, N1W1-2 and N1W1-3 as well as the 8.5 m high pyramidal mound, Structure S1W1-1. Structure N1W1-1 is a Postclassic shrine. Structure N1E1-1 and Structure N1E1-3 are later additions to the original site plan because they violate an open plaza design favored in this region (Shaw and Flores 2008b:185). These structures also served to divide this plaza into two separate parts.
The test pit (Operation 1) between Structure N1E1-1 and Structure S1W1-1 produced evidence of the occupation sequence in this part of the site. The occupation in this part began in the Early Classic Period (Shaw 2005). During this time a sequence of five floors raised the plaza 1 m. A further floor was added during the Terminal Classic
Period raising the plaza 40 cm (Shaw 2005).
Operation 3 was located between Structures S1W1-1 and N1W1-7 revealed the eight flooring episodes that raised the plaza 1.20 m (Flores 2010:193). Later, at some point the Structure N1W1-1, a Postclassic shrine, was constructed.
The excavation (Operation 7) near Structure N1E1-3 dated the latest plaza floor on which Structure N1E1-3 was constructed, to the Terminal Classic Period. Prior to this floor six more floor were discovered dating to the Early Classic Period raising this plaza
1.10 m (Davenport 2010:212). Three test pits showed a series up to eight Early Classic
173 floors. In contrast, only a single Terminal Classic floor was found in two of three test pits.
A cluster of buildings located 150 m west of the large plaza was mapped and test pitted (Operations 4, 5 and 6). Six metates were discovered near these structures.
Metates are usually associated with a residential area. The excavation (Operation 6) located between Structures N2W2-3, N2W2-4 and N2W2-5 dated this area by ceramics to the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw and Bosch 2010:203-204).
Structures N2W2-1, N2W2-5 and N1W3-1 are circular foundation braces. The excavation (Operation 4) near Structure N1W3-1 showed that this area was filled for residential use during the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw et al. 2010:197).
To the west there are milpa and at least two 2.5 m platforms housing foundation braces and buildings. Structure N1W3-5 and Structure N2W3-1are located near a natural depression. The excavation (Operation 5) near this depression showed no modification done by ancient inhabitants for the purpose of water collecting (Shaw and Hernandez
2010:199).
The site of Sisal was occupied during the Early Classic, Terminal Classic and
Postclassic Periods of occupation (Johnstone 2010b:259). The Early Classic and
Terminal Classic Periods are represented by architectural components. The construction peak at this site happened during the Early Classic Period (Appendix B, Table B. 35).
San Lorenzo
The Rank Three site of San Lorenzo is located 1.2 km to the south of San Felipe
(Figure 6.23). The twenty-two structures of the site were mapped. A large,
174 approximately 70 x 80 x 1 m platform, Structure S1E1-6, includes an informal plaza
(Flores 2010b:163). This plaza is formed by eight structures of varying height: two pyramidal mounds, Structure N1E1-1 and Structure S1E1-3; two rectangular structures,
Structure S1W1-7 and Structure S1E1-1; and Structures N1E1-4, S1E1-2, S1E1-4, N1E1-
3.
The pyramidal mounds are 3-4 m high. One pyramidal mound, Structure N1E1-1, has an additional platform on its south side. The rectangular structure, Structure S1W1-7, has five steps leading to the plaza. A small structure, Structure S1E1-2 retains four steps
(Shaw et al. 2010; Flores 2008:182).
Two test pits were placed in the platform Structure S1E1-6. Operation 1 was located the east side of the platform near Structure S1E1-3. This excavation revealed that the platform was raised 70 cm and capped by pavement of stones during the Terminal
Classic Period (Flores 2010b). Operation 2 was located on the west side of the platform at the center line of Structure S1W1-7. At the depth of 20 cm it revealed a pavement of stones in all but the portion of the north-west corner of the unit. A Terminal Classic
Chum Unslipped pot containing sherds from a Muna Slate plate and surrounded by three stones was discovered below pavement. This pot was deposited through the Terminal
Classic pavement and probably served as a dedicatory offering (Shaw et al. 2010b:172).
The profiles of those two test pits were quite similar in their construction phases.
A 40 m long irregular platform is located to the west of this large platform
(Structure S1E1-6). It has an inset entrance facing the large platform’s west side. This irregular platform includes Structures S1W1-1, S1W1-2, S1W1-3 and S1W1-6 (Flores
2010:177). The test pit (Operation 4) located on this irregular platform revealed three
175 construction phases dated to the Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal Classic
Periods (Flores 2010). A circular foundation brace, Structure S1W1-5, is located southeast of this platform.
In addition, to the east of the large platform (Structure S1E1-6) is a series of foundation braces and auxiliary buildings. Structure S1E1-7 is a low platform and
Structure S1E1-6 is a circular foundation brace (Flores 2010b:181). The test pit
(Operation 5) located east of this circular foundation brace produced a sample of
Terminal Classic ceramics (Flores 2010b).
Operation 3 was located south of Structure S1E1-2. This test pit revealed two construction phase of the Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods.
San Lorenzo displays the same periods of occupation as the site of San Felipe –
Middle Formative, Late Formative, Early Classic and Terminal Classic(Johnstone
2010:259). The Middle Formative, Late Formative and Early Classic Periods are represented by recovered ceramics. The Terminal Classic Period is represented by architecture, ceramics and the dedicatory pot discovered on the platform Structure S1E1-
6. The Post Florescent Period or Late Terminal Classic is represented by circular foundation braces and an informal plaza found at this site. The most significant occupation happened during this period (Flores 2010:166). The Postclassic Period is represented by a shrine belonging to the same period (Appendix B, Tables B. 36-40).
Candelaria
The Rank Three site of Candelaria is located 4 km west of San Felipe. The site has deep pockets of soil, but no water sources have been discovered thus far. The site has
176 been damaged by a modern road which cuts through it. Nineteen of the structures at the site were mapped (Figure 6.24).
The main part of this site consists of an informal plaza with a nearby a 3.5 m mound (Structure N1E1-2). The informal plaza is bordered by a series of low platforms and buildings. Structure N1E1-1 is 2.5 m in height and has the remains of a wall line on the summit. This structure is connected to the platform of Structure N1E1-5. Structures
N1E1-7, N1E1-6 and N1E1-9 are also connected to each other. Structures S1E1-2 is also connected to Structure S1E1-3. Structure S1E1-2 is damaged by a modern road. There is a largely demolished mound located to the southwest of Structure S1E1-2 which was not mapped. Structure S1E1-4 is a 50 cm high circular platform located in the middle of this plaza. The circular platform violates the open-space design of this informal plaza. This pattern of an informal plaza is similar to other small sites in the area (Shaw et al.
2008:196).
A series of buildings are located to the east of the plaza including a circular foundation brace, Structure N1E1-3, and a Postclassic shrine made from recycled
Terminal Classic cut stones, Structure N1E1-4. Structure S1E1-1 is an open-fronted building (Shaw et al. 2008:196).
A large residential platform Structure N1W1-1, is located forty meters west of the informal plaza. The western side of this platform has a rectangular foundation brace.
Positioned next to Structure N1W1-1 is Structure N1W1-2 - a circular foundation brace.
The southern portion of the site consists of Structure S1W1-1, a 4 m high residential mound that has three vaulted rooms. This mound was built on a natural rise.
Mosaic elements, two x-shaped stones, are located on the front of this structure (Figure
177 5.25). More X-shaped stones were found partially intact in the front of the face of the building. Mosaic elements and core-veneer architecture date the building on top of this mound to the Florescent Phase of the Terminal Classic Period. Structure S2W2-1 is built on a terrace near the pyramidal mound. Two additional low mounds were located to the southwest, but were not mapped due to time constraints (Shaw et al. 2008:192).
The site’s occupational history dates to both phases of the Terminal Classic
Period and the Postclassic Period. Dating is based on architectural components such as core-veneer architecture with decorative stones mosaics, an open- fronted building, circular structures and an informal plaza.
Hopemul
The Rank Four site of Hopemul is situated 2 km south of San Felipe. Seven of the site’s structures were mapped (Figure 6.26).
Structures N1W1-4 and N1E1-1 are 20 m long, 15 m wide and 2 m high and located parallel to each other oriented north-south. These structures form a ballcourt.
Structures S1E1-1 and N1W1-3 are located at the north and south ends of the ballcourt.
The test pit (Operation 1) revealed construction phases dating to the Late Formative and
Terminal Classic Periods (Shaw 2010; Johnstone 2010:260) (Appendix B, Table B. 41).
Surrounding the ballcourt is a series of small platforms and foundation braces.
Structure N1W1-1 is a mound 2 m in height (Shaw and Flores 2008c:169).
Approximately 50 m southwest of the ballcourt is a platform with foundation braces.
About 120 m east of the ballcourt is series of platforms and a chultun. These structures
178 were not mapped due to time constrains. The ceramics excavated at the site date to the
Late Formative and Terminal Classic Periods.
San Fernando
The site of San Fernando is located 1.1 km southwest of San Felipe. San Fernando is a Rank Four site. The site was not mapped or test pit excavated, only the coordinates of this site were recorded. The preliminary results indicate that this site has a large L shaped platform and a few mounds located in the proximity to this platform (Normark
2008:197).
Yo’okop
Yo’okop is a Rank One site. This site, also known as Okop or La Aguada
Yo’okop, has a multiple nucleus core and linear sacbeob (Shaw 2005:41). Yo’okop consists of four major architectural groups: groups A, B, C and D linked by sacbeob
(Shaw et al. 2001:18-19) (Figure 6.27). Pyramidal mounds 5 to 6 m in height, platforms and small structures are located between these groups. The only source of water at the site is a lake, called by local Maya aguada, located immediately to the east of Group A
(Shaw et al. 2001: 18-19). This lake is 700 m long and 50-100 m wide.
Group A is built on a hill and measures 200 x 400 m. It contains the largest monumental architecture of the whole site (Shaw et al. 2001:18-19) (Figure 6.28). This group has formal alignments of all architecture which is 25 degrees east of north (Shaw et al. 2001:18-19). A pyramidal mound, Structure S4W1-1 is 28 m tall. It exhibits rounded corners and a stairway dating to the Late Classic Period. This pyramidal mound because
179 of its rounded corners resembles the Temple of the Magician at Uxmal (Saenz 1972) or
Xaybe at Coba (Shaw 2008). A Postclassic addition was constructed on its summit which has two vaulted rooms and still exhibits stucco and blue paint (Shaw 2000:22).
A test pit (Operation 3), located in a depression to the northwest of Structure
S4W1-1, was designed to test the hypothesis about this feature was built for water collection. This test pit did not encounter any lining, thus implying that this is a natural feature. This test pit recovered ceramics dating to the Late Formative and continuing through the Terminal Classic. There are two more pyramidal mounds, a 14 m tall
Structure S4W2-1 and an 11 m tall Structure S5E1-1. The test pit (Operation 9) located at the base of the east side of Structure S4W2-1 produced ceramics dated to the Late
Classic, Terminal Classic and Postclassic Periods (Kashak 2002:72-76 ). The test pit
(Operation 17) located at the front stairway of Structure S5E1-1 produced predominantly
Early Classic ceramics (Reyes 2016).
There is a large formal plaza located at the terminus of Sacbe 1 east of Structure
S4W1-1. The test pit (Operation 16) located in this plaza produced predominately Early
Classic ceramics (Flores 2016).
Substantial vaulted range structures, Structures S4E2-1 and S4E2-9, form a private plaza with restricted access (Shaw et al. 2001:20-21). Structure S4E2-1 is a large
57 x 33 m building with a stairway and Structure S4E2-9 measures 20 m x 38 m.
Structure S4E2-1 has four documented doorways and overlooks the aguada (Shaw
2001:27-28, Shaw 2008). The test pit (Operation 5) on the lower terrace near Structure
S4E2-1 exposed a Terminal Classic floor (Shaw 2001) but it is unclear how it is related to the structure above. Structure S5E1-1 is a building of an unusual shape. It has a square
180 base with a depression inside and a pyramidal mound rising from this depression (Shaw et al. 2001:23-24). A sweatbath, Structure S3E1-5, is also located near the aguada. The excavation (Operation 6) of this structure dated it to the Late and Terminal Classic
Periods (Shaw 2002:62-63). Five carved stones have been found in Group A (see Chapter
4). Group A is linked to Group B by Sacbe 1 which is 718 m long.
Group B measures 300 x 450 m and has two acropoli: a North Acropolis and
Central Acropolis (Figure 6.29). The North Acropolis at Yo'okop was built during the
Early Classic Period (Shaw 2002:117). This acropolis houses twenty-three mapped structures. The four largest buildings, Structures N8W1-2, N8W1-4, N7W1-9 and
N8W2-3, form an informal plaza. Structure N7W1-4 in all probability is a Popol Nah
(counsel house), however an excavation is needed to test this notion. A possible fortification is located to the north of Structure N8W1-2 (Shaw 2008:56). The test pit
(Operation 8) at the foot of Structure N8W1-2 revealed floor episodes of the Early
Classic, Late Classic, Terminal Classic and Post Classic Periods (Johnstone 2002:67-71).
The Central Acropolis was constructed during the Late Classic Period and the
Terminal Classic Period (Shaw 2002). The test pit (Operation 2) located in the main plaza
(Structure N5W1-1) of acropolis revealed that it was raised 2.5 m during the Late Classic
Period (Johnstone 2001: 42-44; Shaw 2002:117). This acropolis houses sixty-two mapped structures. A long 55 x 20 m range structure, Structure N5W1-3, is located on the
Central Acropolis. This range structure has a small foundation brace, Structure N5W1-5, and a Postclassic temple, Structure N5W1-4 on its top (Shaw et al. 2001:31-32). A formal plaza is formed by Structures N5W1-3, N5W1-2 and N5W1-6. Structure N5W1-2 is a smaller 42 x 12 m range building. A pyramidal mound, Structure N5W1-6, has a
181 Postclassic shrine on its summit (Shaw et al. 2001:31-32). There are flooring episodes at the plaza of the Central Acropolis dating to the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw 2002).
There are possible fortifications located to the west of the Sacbe 1 terminus in this acropolis that perhaps date to the Terminal Classic or Postclassic Period. The test pit
(Operation 1) excavation located between the plaza and the terminus of the Sacbe 1 revealed Terminal Classic dates (Johnstone 2001:36; Shaw 2002:118).
The ballcourt, Structures N5W2-6 and N5W2-7 is located northwest on the
Central Acropolis. The parallel range structures forming the sides of the ballcourt are 30 m long, 25 m wide and 6 m high. Structures N5W2-6 and N5W2-7 both have Postclassic
Period shrines on their summits. A ballcourt ring was found on the eastern slope of
Structure N5W2-6. The ballcourt dates to the Late Classic Period (Johnstone 2008). To the south and north of the ballcourt two restricted private plazas are located. Three stelae were found at Group B (see Chapter 4). Group B is connected to Group C by an 1800 m long sacbe. This sacbe has two segments marked by a small gap between them. Segment
B is the northern portion of the sacbe located near Group C and Segment A is the southern portion of the sacbe located near Group B. In 2012 (Flores 2012b:109), these segments were recognized as two distinct sacbeob - Segment A became Sacbe 5 and
Segment B became – Sacbe 2. Sacbe 5 is 250 m long and 2 m high and runs from the
North Acropolis in Group B to Xa’aybeh (a crossroad). Xa’aybeh is composed of a 1.5 m high platform, Structure N11E1-1 which houses a 4 m tall pyramidal mound, Structure
N11E1-2. After reaching Xa’aybeh the Sacbe 5 terminates (Flores et al. 2008:13-18). The test pits (Operations 10 and 11) located in the southwestern part of Sacbe 5, next to the
Structures N11E1-1 and N11E1-3 produced Terminal Classic ceramics (Flores 2012).
182 Sacbe 2 begins 30 m to the north of Xa’aybeh and runs to Group C. This sacbe is a 1550 m long, 10 m wide and in some areas up to 4 m high (Flores et al. 2008:13-18). The test pit (Operation 12) located 420 m northeast of the Xa’aybeh along the side of this sacbe produced Terminal Classic ceramics (Flores 2012). On its way, it runs by a few platforms with foundation braces located on the west side. A platform, Structure N13E2-1 is located 400 m from the starting point of the sacbe, it houses foundation braces; one of them is a round foundation brace, Structure N14E2-1. Another platform, Structure
N15E2-3, is located 650 m from the beginning of this sacbe. It houses a rectangular foundation brace, Structure N15E2-4 and a circular foundation brace, Structure N15E2-5.
A small Postclassic shrine, Structure N15E2-1, is located on top of Sacbe 2 (Flores et al.
2008:27). A vaulted passage under the sacbe is located 800 m from the beginning of the causeway. This subterranean passageway is 1.8 wide and 3 m tall (Flores et al. 2008:23).
The test pit excavation between the platform, Structure N15E1-2, and Sacbe 5 revealed that they are contemporaneous and date to the Terminal Classic Period (Flores
2012b:115-121). After this the Sacbe 2 arrives to Group C.
Group C consists of a platform with a single pyramidal mount on its top (Figure 6.
30). This is not a group per se, because it consists of a platform with a single structure.
This designation was given by those who first recorded the pyramid before any mapping had been done. Group C is similar to Xa’aybeh which also contains a platform and pyramidal mound – those two mounds probably are mortuary temples linked by Sacbe 2.
Structure N25E6-1 and Structure N25E6-2 are two sides of the same platform.
Dimensions of each structure are 10 m x 50 m. The test pit (Operation 14) located at the intersection between Structure N25E6-2 and Sacbe 2 produced insufficient number of
183 ceramics to established dating of this area (Flores 2012). Structure N25E6-3, an 8 m tall pyramidal mound is situated on the platform (Flores et al. 2008:27). The test pit
(Operation 15) located north of the Structure N25E6-3 produced ceramics dating to the
Terminal Classic Period (Flores 2012).
Group D is different from all other groups in Yo’okop in two ways: (1) it lacks the formal alignments present in all other groups, and (2) it does not have large scale architecture (Shaw et al. 2001:37). This group is about 100 x 100 meters in size and contains twenty-three mapped structures (Johnstone 2002) (Figure 6.31). The two larger rectangular structures, Structures N2W7-8 and N2W7-2, a 5 m tall pyramidal mound,
Structure N2W7-3 and Structure N2W7-4 form an informal plaza. The excavation
(Operation 7) at this plaza indicates that it was raised during the Terminal Classic
(Johnstone 2002:67). The test pit (Operation 4) located to the west of Structure N2W7-8 revealed two to three floors dated from the Late Formative through the Terminal Classic
Periods (Shaw 2001). Structures N2W7-12, N2W7-13 and N2W7-14 are located to the north and west of this plaza.
Based on test pit excavations this group was established during the Late Classic
Period (Johnstone 2002) and was occupied during the Terminal Classic and Postclassic
Periods. The most robust occupation happened during the Terminal Classic Period
(Shaw 2005:57-58). Group D is connected by the 690 m long Sacbe 3 to Group A. The test pit (Operation 22) excavation located at the area where Sacbe 3 connects with the plaza produced ceramics dating predominantly to the Terminal Classic (Badillo 2016), dating this sacbe to the Terminal Classic Period (Shaw 2005:63). Foundation braces and vaulted structures are located along this sacbe running between two groups (Johnstone
184 2002). This group consists of 22 mapped structures. Structure N2W7-3 is a 5 m tall pyramidal mound. Structures N2W7-12, N2W7-13, N2W7-8 and N2W7-1 are rectangular buildings. Structure N2W7-1 is the largest of these four buildings, and measures 5 m in height and 17 m length. The test pit (Operation 23) located at the base of this structure revealed well-cut stones located on the north wall of the test pit and the ceramics predominately dated to the Early Classic Period (Flores and Reyes 2016).
The occupation of Yo’okop begins in the Middle Formative Period and continues through the Postclassic Period (Johnstone 2005:165) (Appendix B, Tables B. 42-52).
During the Early and Late Classic Periods the site witnessed the major construction of monumental architecture (Shaw 2005). The site of Yo’okop flourished during the
Terminal Classic Period. During this period the site had internal changes visible in the settlement pattern and architecture. There were flooring events of the major plaza in
Group A. A plaza was constructed upslope of the aguada and the sweatbath located near the aguada was remodeled (Shaw 2005:155-156). Possibly during this time or perhaps during a later time period, the fortifications were built at Group B (Shaw 2005:155-156).
Groups B and D also witnessed major construction activities during the Terminal Classic
Period. Also, the sacbe system at Yo’okop was built during the Terminal Classic Period
(Shaw 2008:62-63). The site of Yo’okop continued to be occupied during the Postclassic
Period.
Summary of Data
Florescent Phase Architecture
Acropoli were noted in the following sites
185 There were no new acropoli built during the Florescent Phase. Sacalaca’s acropolis was initially built during the Late Formative period.
The site of Yo’okop has two acropoli located in Group B: a Central Acropolis and a North Acropolis. The Central Acropolis was built during the Late Classic period and the North Acropolis during the Early Classic Period.
The primary site of Ichmul also has two acropoli. The dates for the Eastern
Acropolis are not known because excavations were not conducted there. The Central
Acropolis was built during the Early Classic Period.
Ballcourts were noted in the following sites
The ballcourt in the site of Yo’okop, built during the Late Classic Period, was formed by structures measuring 30 m long, 25 wide and 6 m high. It is the only ballcourt built prior to the Florescent Phase discovered in the CRAS study area to date.
During the Florescent Phase ballcourts were built at the tertiary and quaternary sites of Ramonal Quemado and Hopemul. The measurements of Ramonal Quemado’s ballcourt walls are 30 m long, 25 wide and 2.5 m high. This ballcourt has the same the length and width measurements as the ballcourt of Yo’okop, while Yo’okop’s ballcourt structures are 3.5 m taller. The structures of the Hopemul ballcourt are smaller than those at Ramonal Quemado and measure 20 m long, 15 m wide and 2 m high (Table 6.2).
Alignments were noted in the following sites
A formal alignment of 22 degrees east of north was used at Sacalaca prior to the
Florescent Phase. A formal alignment was not used in Sacalaca subsequently. San Felipe showed no evidence of formal orientation of platforms at the investigated part of its acropolis. Buildings built during the Florescent Phase at the Southern Group of San
186 Felipe where the elite residences were located followed a formal alignment 35 degrees east of north. None of the tertiary and quaternary sites established during the Florescent
Phase followed a formal alignment.
At Yo’okop a formal alignment of 25 degrees east of north was used for at least for 700 years prior to the Florescent Phase and was a distinctive feature of Yo’okop groups A and B (Shaw 2001:19). During the Florescent Phase this formal alignment was abandoned at Yo’okop (Johnstone 2008a) with the exception of Group A’s nine doorway structure. This was most probably done based on the convenience of using a previous foundation.
The formal alignment of 18 degrees east of north was used at Ichmul prior to the
Florescent Phase. There were also no new constructions with a formal alignment in
Ichmul during the Florescent Phase (Table 6.3).
Formal plazuelas were noted in the following sites
Formal plazas were not constructed during the Florescent Phase in any of the studied sites. Plazuelas (courtyards) that followed formal alignment of 35 degrees east of north were built in the Southern Group of San Felipe. However, a plazuela is a small, private space which precludes it from having any political function due to its scale.
Palaces were noted in the following sites
There were no palaces built during the Florescent Phase in the secondary sites.
The palace built prior to the Florescent Phase in Sacalaca underwent reverential termination, and a temple was constructed on top. To date there is no known structure that could be identified as a palace at San Felipe.
187 Yo’okop has three palaces in Group B and one palace in Group A. The palaces in
Group B were constructed at or before the Late Classic Period. The possible palace located in Group A dates to the Terminal Classic Period. It is possible that this structure is a religious building rather than a palace. This structure has four documented doorways and perhaps was a nine door building. This type of building at Tikal was interpreted by
Coggins (1975) as symbolic of the underworld which was ruled by nine lords.
There are two palaces on the Ichmul Central Acropolis built prior to the
Florescent Phase. While there are no data specifying if these palaces were used during the
Florescent Phase, there were no palaces discovered so far that where constructed during the Florescent Phase at Ichmul.
Vaulted Residences were noted in the following sites
Some of the pyramidal mounds which appeared during the Florescent Period in tertiary and quaternary sites could be the remains of vaulted residences formed into a pyramidal shape by collapse. There were no excavations carried out inside the structures to identify the functions of these mounds so assigning building types to these features is problematic. However, pyramidal mounds from 2 to 4 m (a maximum height for a collapsed vaulted building) could be considered as collapsed vaulted residences. The vaulted structures were usually associated with elite residences due to the quality of the stones (cut veneer) and the amount of labor necessary for their construction
(Carmean1991). The sites of Parcela Escolar, Ramonal Poniente, Ramonal Oriente,
Yo’dzonot, Sisal, San Lorenzo, Candelaria and Hopemul display pyramidal mounds of 2 to 4 m height. However, vaulted stones, most likely from an elite residence, were only recorded from one pyramidal mound in Candelaria, a tertiary satellite site of San Felipe
188 (Shaw et al. 2008:192). A new vaulted residence was built 600 m south of the buried palace at Sacalaca. A few vaulted residences were built in the center of Ichmul and one of them was built at the foot of an existing palace. Vaulted residences were also constructed in the outlying sites of Ichmul, such as the terminus sites of San Juan and San Andres.
Some of the facades of Terminal Classic vaulted residences throughout the study area were adorned with decorative stones not present prior to the Florescent Phase. These decorative stones were comprised of geometric elements and colonettes. These stones were discovered on the pyramidal mound at the tertiary site of Candelaria. Column fragments were present at the sites of Sisal and San Lorenzo.
Mortuary Temples were noted in the following sites
At the site of Sacalaca the palace built prior to the Florescent Phase was filled and a mortuary temple was built on top of it. It suggests that a person who resided in this palace was transformed into a venerable ancestor. Also, during this time pyramidal mounds taller than 4 m in height that might have served as bases for mortuary temples were built at the secondary site of San Felipe and the tertiary sites of Sisal and Parcela
Escolar. The heights of these pyramidal mounds are 7.5 m, 8.5 m and 5.5 m respectively.
It is possible that these temples hold lineage ancestors or lesser elite ancestors. There were no excavations carried out to identify functions of these mounds but these pyramidal mounds may have been mortuary temples.
Sacbeob were noted in the following sites
All of sacbeob in the Cochuah region were constructed during the Florescent
Phase, and served two purposes: (1) to connect vaulted residences and acropoli and (2) to provide a connection between mortuary temples and acropoli. In San Felipe, a sacbe was
189 built to connect the residences of the Southern Group and the earlier acropolis located in the center of the site. This sacbe probably was constructed from the Southern Group to connect with the acropolis. At Sacalaca, only a 70-m-long portion of the sacbe was cleared therefore its real destination is unknown. This sacbe begins at Sacalaca’s rectangular platform and extends in the direction of the tertiary site of Parcela Escolar.
Yo’okop’s sacbeob were built to link groups within the site during the Florescent
Phase (Shaw 2008:63). Sacbe 3 connects residences in Group D and the acropolis in
Group A. Sacbe 1 connects the palaces and the ballcourt in Group B and the acropolis in
Group A. A sacbe that runs between Group B and Group C is recognized as two distinct sacbeob: Sacbe 2 and Sacbe 5. Sacbe 2 connects the mortuary temple in Group C and
Structure N11 E1-2 which also is a mortuary temple. Sacbe 5 links these temples to
Group B.
At Ichmul, five sacbeob were constructed during the Florescent Phase between
Ichmul and several smaller surrounding sites. Ichmul-San Juan and Ichmul-San Andres sacbeob connects to vaulted residences. The angles between sacbeob and the sites with these residences suggest that they were built prior to the construction of sacbeob. The
Ichmul-San Juan sacbe runs between the Eastern Acropolis and San Juan’s elite residence. It is possible that the sacbe originated in San Juan with the purpose of connecting to Ichmul’s Eastern Acropolis. The Ichmul-San Andres sacbe runs between
Ichmul and the elite residence in San Andres. It is also possible that this sacbe originated in San Andres to connect to the acropolis in Ichmul.
The Ichmul- Xquerol sacbe runs between Ichmul and an earlier constructed pyramidal mound. This 8.5 m high pyramidal mound in Xquerol is, in all probability, a
190 mortuary temple. Ichmul-San Christobol and Ichmul-San Pedro connect between Ichmul and mortuary temples. These sacbeob were built from the direction of Ichmul because there was no one residing in the mortuary temples to construct this sacbe.
Post-Florescent Architecture and Settlement Pattern
Modification of pre-existing spatial patterns and the appearance of new architectural features occurred during the Post-Florescent Phase. The sites that were reoccupied or established during this period exhibited informal plazas and modification of the previous formal plazas by the construction of open-fronted buildings within the plazas.
A Macro Settlement Pattern (Greenfield sites) was noted in the following sites
Greenfield settlements are settlements established in locations without previous occupation during the Post-Florescent Phase. This term was coined by Demarest (2006).
The sites of Chakal Ja’as, Ramonal Oriente, Ramonal Poniente, San Pedro and San Diego were established during this time. 60% of Post-Florescent sites in the study case are
Greenfield sites, representing a fundamental break with previous settlement patterns.
A Micro Settlement Pattern (an informal plaza with a nearby mound) was noted in the following sites
This new micro settlement consisting of structures forming an informal plaza with a nearby mound emerged during the Post-Florescent Phase. This pattern was found in
Ramonal Oriente, Chakal Ja’as, Sisal, Benito Juarez and Yo’okop. In Benito Juarez this layout is represented by nine structures which together with the mound form a circular
191 plaza. In Sisal it represented by six buildings forming a plaza along with a nearby mound
(Figure 6.24). Eight of ten of the Post-Florescent sites contain informal plazas.
Open-Fronted Buildings were noted in the following sites
Open-fronted architecture appeared during the Post-Florescent. These buildings, composed of three walls supporting a perishable roof, perhaps were residences due to the presence of interior benches. If these buildings served as residences they would provide limited privacy for their inhabitants. These buildings were constructed in eight of ten of the Post-Florescent sites in the case study area: the secondary sites of Sacalaca and San
Felipe; the tertiary sites of Chakal Ja’as, Sisal, San Lorenzo and Candelaria; the quaternary site of Yo’dzonot, and also, in the primary site of Yo’okop. In the Northern portion of San Felipe, on the acropolis, the open plaza was violated by open-fronted constructions dating to the Post- Florescent Phase. Two open-fronted buildings were constructed in the center of the plaza as well as other locations at the site during this time
(Shaw and Flores 2008:175). At the site of Sisal the Eastern Plaza seems to be an addition during the Post-Florescent Phase due the presence of the open-fronted buildings in this plaza. These buildings were also recorded in other sites in the Northern Lowlands such as Dzibilchaltun (Santiago 2004), Chichén Itzá (Ruppert and Smith 1957), Yaxuná
(Johnstone 1993), Ek Balam (Bey et al. 1997; Ringle et al. 2004) and Uxmal (Huchim and Garcia 2000). Bey et al. (1997) argued that open-fronted buildings were
“kin/administrative units” of the Maya “traditional Classic authority” who survived collapse. However, Johnstone (2006) suggested these buildings probably served as residences for the inhabitants of these sites because of the presence of the benches that are thought to be for sleeping.
192 Circular Foundation Braces were noted in the following sites
A new architectural feature which appeared during the Post-Florescent is the circular foundation brace. Circular foundation braces were discovered in nine of twenty surveyed sites in the case study area. These consist of the secondary sites, Sacalaca and
San Felipe; the tertiary sites of Chakal Ja’as, Parcela Escolar, Ramonal Quemado, Sisal,
San Lorenzo and Candelaria; and the quaternary site Yo’dzonot. Circular foundation braces range from 9.6 to 19.6 sq. m (Johnstone 2016). These foundation braces are typically constructed from uncut stones without mortar. A perishable k’ankab (iron rich clay) mortar may have been used to hold these stones in place. Excavations inside of these structures suggested that these buildings served as storage facilities (Johnstone
2016). Johnstone (2016) argued that these structures functioned as granaries or kitchens because of their small size, the absence of a prepared floor or any features within them.
Circular foundation braces also are present at other sites in the Northern Lowlands such as Sayil (Tourtellot and Sabloff 1994), Yaxuna (Shaw 1996) and Cobá (Benevides and
Manzanilla 1985).
The data presented in this chapter (see Table 6.1) will be used for testing
Dynastic Kingship, Mul Tepal and Segmentary State political models in the case study area during the Florescent and Post-Florescent Phases. This will be done by analyzing architecture representing the institutions of rulership and, most importantly, the distribution of these types of architecture in the secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites.
The next chapter also will present conclusions on the political organization in the study case area during the Florescent and Post-Florescent Phases using the evaluations discussed in this chapter.
193
Figure 6.1. Case Study Map.
194
Figure 6.2. Sacalaca Site Map.
195
Figure 6.3. Sacalaca, Northern Margin Map.
196
Figure 6.4. Sacalaca, Old Palace
197
Figure 6.5. Chakal Ja’as Site Map.
198
Figure 6.6. Petroglyphs, Chakal Ja’as, Adopted from Dave Johnstone (2004).
199
Figure 6.7. Parcela Escolar, Site Core Map.
200
Figure 6.8. Ramonal Oriente Site Map.
201
Figure 6.9. Ramonal Poniente Site Map.
202
Figure 6.10. San Diego Site Map.
203
Figure 6.11. San Pedro Site Map.
204
Figure 6.12. Yo’dzonot Site Map.
205
Figure 6.13. Ichmul Site Map.
206
Figure 6.14. Ichmul, Central Acropolis.
207
Figure 6.15. Ichmul, Eastern Acropolis.
208
Figure 6.16. Ichmul, Sacbeob
209
Figure 6.17. San Felipe Site Map.
210
Figure 6.18. San Felipe Acropolis.
211
Figure 6.19. San Felipe, Southern Group.
212
Figure 6.20. Benito Juarez, Redrawn from Normark (2008).
213
Figure 6.21. Ramonal Quemado Site Map.
214
Figure 6.22. Sisal Site Map.
215
Figure 6.23. San Lorenzo Site Map.
216
Figure 6.24. Candelaria Site Map.
217
Figure 6.25. Candelaria, X-Shaped Stones from Structure S1W1-1. Photo by Justine Shaw.
218
Figure 6.26. Hopemul Site Map.
219
Figure 6.27. Yo’okop Site Map.
220
Figure 6.28. Yo’okop, Group A.
221
Figure 6.29. Yo’okop, Group B.
222
Figure 6.30. Yo’okop, Group C.
223
Figure 6.31. Yo’okop, Group D.
224 Table 6.1. Summary of Data for the Sites of the Case Study
Pyramidal Open Circular Vaulted Mounds Fronted Foundation Rank Acropolii Palaces Residence Altars Plazas (meters) Ballcourts Sacbe Buildings Braces Timelines Formal Informal Ichmul 1 (4-10M) LF,EC,TC Sacalaca 2 (6M) LF,TC Chakal Ja'as 3 (1.5M) TC Parcela Escolar 3 (3-5.5M) LF, EC,TC Ramonal Poniente 3 (3.5M) TC Ramonal Oriente 3 (4M) TC Aktun 4 (1.5M) San Andres 4 TC San Pedro 4 (1.5M) TC San Diego 4 (1.6M) TC,PC Yo'dzonot 4 (3M) MF,LF,EC,TC Yo'okop 1 (5-28 M) MF,LF,EC,LC,TC,PC San Felipe 2 (1.5-7.5M) LF,EC,TC,PC Benito Juarez 3 (6.5 M) TC Ramonal Quemado 3 (2.5M) TC Sisal 3 (2.5-8.5M) LF,EC,TC,PC San Lorenzo 3 (3-4M) MF,LF,EC,TC Candelaria 3 (2-4M) TC,PC Hopemul 4 (2M) LF,TC San Fernando 4
225 Table 6.2. Ballcourts Dimensions in the Case Study
Measurements Yo’okop Ramonal Hopemul of range structures Quemado Length (m) 30 30 20 Width (m) 25 25 15 Height(m) 6 2.5 2 Time Period Before TC TC TC
Table 6.3. Sites Aligments in the Case Study
Site Rank Formal Alignment Degree Sacalaca 2 22 East of North San Felipe 2 35 East of North Ichmul 1 18 East of North Yo’okop 1 25 East of North
226 CHAPTER 7 POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE COCHUAH REGION DURING THE TERMINAL CLASSIC PERIOD: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Chapter Six presented the evidence for the twenty sites chosen for examination in the current study and the detailed analyses of changes that happened in these sites during the Terminal Classic Period. This chapter will show how this evidence permits the evaluation of three political models - Dynastic Kingship, Mul Tepal and Segmentary
State - using data from these twenty sites. It will also show how this evidence leads to conclusions about the political organization of the CRAS study area during the Florescent and Post-Florescent Phases of the Terminal Classic Period.
The Terminal Classic Period brought many changes throughout the Maya region in general (Robels and Andrews 1986; Andrews V and Sabloff 1986; Braswell et al.
2004; Demarest 2004; Rice and Rice 2004; Webster et al. 2004; Tourtellot and Gonzales
2004; O’Mansky and Dunning 2004; Fash et al. 2004; Andres and Pyburn 2004;
Carmean et al. 2004; Suhler et al. 2004) and the Cochuah Region specifically (Johnstone
2006, 2010, 2015; Shaw 2008, 2015). The twenty sites chosen for the case study in the
Cochuah Region with occupations dating to the Terminal Classic Period displayed many changes in architecture and site layout from the preceding Late Classic Period. These changes in the early Terminal Classic or Florescent Phase include: (1) the disappearance of monuments with hieroglyphic writings; (2) the abandonment of formal alignments of buildings which existed for 900 years prior to the Terminal Classic (Johnstone 2000); (3) the construction of ballcourts in sites other than the primary settlements; (4) the appearance of mortuary temples in tertiary settlements; and (5) the construction of
227 sacbeob (Figure 7.1).
The changes in the late Terminal Classic or Post Florescent Phase include: (1) a new macro settlement pattern – the settlements established in locations without previous occupation (Greenfield sites); (2) a new micro settlement pattern – an informal plaza with a nearby mound; and (3) the appearance of two new architectural features - open-fronted buildings and circular foundation braces (Figure 7.2).
Political organization can be examined through the distribution of certain architectural types within a site hierarchy because these architectural forms embody the organization of human labor, cost and decision making. Additionally, certain architectural forms represent the institutions of rulership. These features are acropoli, formal alignments, formal plazas, palaces, temples, ballcourts and sacbeob.
The evidence for the twenty sites was used to test three models of political organization:Dynastic Kingship, Mul Tepal (joint rule), and Segmentary State.
Archeological expectations for these models are presented in (Table 3.1).
Evaluating the Models of Political Organization in the Florescent Phase
Dynastic Kingship
In a Dynastic Kingship we expect the complete set of the institutions of rulership to be concentrated in a primary site. Kings, who resided in these primary sites, used the full set of institutions of rulership to legitimize their rule. There would not be a set of these institutions located in the secondary or smaller sites. Ashmore (1992:175) points out that “Maya rulers used monumental architecture…to make pointed statements reinforcing the strength of their sovereignty in the minds of both peers and subordinates.”
228 To naturalize their political power kings used their association with supernatural and/or divine origins to claim that they have a “natural” right to rule (Kertzer 1988; McAnany
2008, 2010). The institutions of rulership which Dynastic Kings use to legitimize their rule were hieroglyphic monuments, acropolis, formal plazas, ballcourts and temples.
Dynastic Kings recorded their dynastic histories on stelae. These monuments were typically erected in capitals where a Dynastic King has his seat.
An acropolis symbolized an axis mundi, and was a place where a ruler could connect to the cosmos and channel ancestral spirits (Schele and Miller 1986: 77).
Ballcourts had religious and political significance, and were typically built at sites where the political focus was located (Scarborough and Valdez 2004, 2009) permitting kings to perform sacred ceremonies impersonating gods to reinforce their divine nature and rights to rule.
Formal plazas, aligned by building with specific directions which accentuated spectacles, served as arenas where a ”K’uhul Ajaw was a principal actor” (Demarest
2013:373). These plazas carried ceremonial significance and cosmic symbolism, and were easily “read” by an illiterate populace (Demarest 2013:373).
Ballcourts representing sacred space, an entrance into the Underworld - Xibalba
(Freidel et al. 1993:355), a place on which Dynastic Kings performed ritual activities to show their connections with the supernatural and to reinforce their right to rule.
The relationship of rulers and the supernatural continued even after the death of kings by the transformation of the dead rulers into venerated ancestors. These ancestors permitted a connection between kings and gods. A king was tied to a capital because the
229 dynastic ancestors were buried there and mortuary temples were built over their entombments.
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
The construction of mortuary temples in secondary and tertiary sites contradicts the Dynastic Kingship archeological expectations in which temples carrying remains of dynastic ancestors necessary for legitimization of the dynasty authority were located only in a capital. Formal plazas would be essential to Divine Kings as arenas in which a ruler would play the role of a divine persona able to communicate with ancestors and connect to the cosmos. A formal plaza surrounded by buildings with symbolic meanings is the supporting evidence for the sacred origin of a ruler. There were no formal alignments used in the CRAS study area during the Florescent Phase. Also, there were no constructions of acropoli, mortuary temples or the erection of stelae-altar complexes in the primary site of Ichmul during this time. These all imply that there was no need for them.
San Felipe and Surrounding sites
The presence of the institutions of rulership such as mortuary temples in secondary and tertiary sites, as well as ballcourts in tertiary and quaternary sites contradicts the expectations for the presence of a Dynastic Kingship in San Felipe and its satellites during the Florescent Phase.
During the Florescent Phase in the case study area there were no stelae-altar complexes erected to commemorate dynastic histories. What is more, in the primary site of Yo’okop, the Early Classic Altar 1 and Late Classic Stela 2 were removed from their original context and dumped on top of Florescent Phase constructions (Johnstone 2008)
230 suggesting a rejection of the previous political institution. Villamil (2008:209) argued that “the destruction of religious and elite architecture, the appropriations of previously formal spaces like plazas…..may be interpreted as an overt rejection of the previous social order.” There were no new acropoli, palaces or formal plazas built in primary sites during Florescent Phase. Formal alignment was abandoned in the CRAS study area during this time. There was no need for these institutions of rulership because Dynastic
Kingship had come to an end.
In contrast, elements of the institutions of rulership such as: mortuary temples and ballcourts were built outside of the primary center. The appearance of these smaller ballcourts in low ranking sites indicates that hosting ballgames was no longer exclusive to primary centers suggesting a change in the political nature of the ballgame
(Scarborough and Valdez 2004, 2009). Perhaps during this time it was necessary to change the location of ball courts or a ballgame was played by lesser elite.
All together, these data show the absence of some attributes of K’uhul Ajawob
(Divine Kingship) in primary sites and the presence of other institutions of rulership dispersed in lower ranking sites. This evidence clearly rejects the presence of a Dynastic
Kingship in the case study during the Florescent Phase.
Mul Tepal
In a Mul Tepal power is shared between two or more lineages. We expect multiple sets of the institutions of rulership concentrated in a primary site, and possibly the presence there of a Popol Nah (council house). These multiple complexes (“courts”) comprised of architecture associated with institutions of rulership should be located in the
231 core of the primary site (Ringle and Bey 2001:278-286). Palaces would be absent because their function would be replaced by council houses. Also, there would be no complete set of the institutions of rulership in the secondary sites.
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
A Mul Tepal Model would not have any of institutions of rulership outside of the primary site, but the data show the presence of institutions of rulership such as mortuary temples in the secondary and tertiary sites. Finding the institutions of rulership outside of the primary sites rejects a Mul Tepal in the study case area.
San Felipe and Surrounding Sites
A Mul Tepal Model would not have any of institutions of rulership in secondary or smaller sites, but the data show the presence of ballcourts in tertiary and quaternary sites and mortuary temples in the secondary and tertiary sites. Finding the institutions of rulership outside of the primary sites rejects a Mul Tepal in the study case area.
Neither Ichmul nor Yo’okop exhibits multiple sets of the institutions of rulership in their core during the Florescent Phase. There was no Popol Nah discovered in Ichmul
– the primary site associated with Sacalaca. However, the evidence for these structures may have been destroyed or covered over by the colonial and modern occupations of the site. The presence of institutions of rulership such as mortuary temples in the secondary and tertiary settlements, and ballcourts in tertiary and quaternary sites suggests a different political organization and rejects a Mul Tepal during the Florescent Phase in the case study.
232 Segmentary State
In a Segmentary State some of the institutions of rulership would be located in sites occupying different levels in the settlement hierarchy replicated on a smaller scale.
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
In Sacalaca the old palace which was build prior to the Florescent Phase had a reverential termination, was buried and then converted into a mortuary temple. This temple perhaps served as an ancestor veneration shrine for the local ruler. This mortuary temple also might have been used as a stage for performances to connect with ancestors thus legitimizing the authority of the local ruler and his membership in a certain group
(McAnany 1995) such as a lineage. Another mortuary temple was built during the
Florescent Phase in one of Sacalaca’s tertiary sites.
The presence of institutions of rulership in the secondary and tertiary sites shows the duplication of institutions of rulership in the lower levels of the site hierarchy, which conforms to the requirements for a Segmentary State.
San Felipe and Surrounding Sites
Mortuary temples were constructed at secondary site and tertiary sites, probably for the ancestor veneration of local rulers. Also, ballcourts were constructed in tertiary quaternary sites. A ballcourt was once a privilege only of primary sites where kings had their seats (Scarborough and Valdez 2004, 2009) before the Florescent Phase.
In order to reject a Segmentary State Model, we expect the institutions of rulership to be concentrated in the primary sites. Instead, the secondary sites of Sacalaca and San Felipe and their satellites exhibit the duplication of some of the institutions of rulership on a smaller scale.
233 The appearance of mortuary temples in the secondary and the tertiary sites, and ballcourts in the tertiary and quaternary settlements, suggest the duplication of institutions of rulership and the corresponding decentralization of power (a heterarchy).
Sacbeob in the study area were all constructed during the Florescent Phase and, therefore, are associated with the Segmentary State. Sacbeob were constructed in Sacalaca, San
Felipe, Ichmul and Yo’okop during the Florescent Phase. In Ichmul sacbeob were used to link institutions of rulership such as acropoli with newly built mortuary temples, and residences in outlying sites. These roads represent a symbolic connection between certain elite and the institutions of rulership. Ringle and Bey (2001:297) state that
“residences at court were linked either to noble complexes outside the site core via sacbeob or to ruling households in subject communities.”
This political organization seems to bear a resemblance to a Cuuchcabal - the political organization described in the Spanish Colonial Accounts. Cuuchcabal was an assemblage of b’atab’ob who accepted the political rulership of a Halach Uinic. A
Halach Uinic tried to attract by personal ties as many b’atab’ob as possible to his
Cuuchcabal. This is probably why sacbeob between the primary center of Ichmul and local ruling elites in the communities immediately surrounding area were constructed. A
Cuuchcabal was continually changing due to the reorganization of alliances between lineages (Okoshi Harada 1992).
This evidence makes it difficult to reject the Segmentary State Model in San
Felipe and Sacalaca during the Florescent Phase. I conclude that during the Florescent
Phase the political organization in the case study was a Segmentary State.
234 Evaluating the Models of Political Organization in the Post-Florescent Phase
Dynastic Kingship
Sacalaca and San Felipe and Their Surrounding Sites
There were no constructions of architectural forms that are associated with the institution of Dynastic Kingship such as hieroglyphic monuments, palaces, acropoli, formal plazas and ballcourts in any site in the case study area during this phase. Also, the desecration of earlier sacred space such as the construction of open-fronted buildings in the middle of pre-existing plazas suggests the rejection of previous order. This data rejects Dynastic Kingship in Sacalaca and San Felipe during the Post-Florescent Phase.
Mul Tepal
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
Sites were established in new locations (Greenfield sites) around Sacalaca. There were no constructions of multiple sets of the institutions of rulership and a Popol Nah
(council building) at Ichmul. The presence of the new settlement pattern and the absence of the institutions of rulership reject a Mul Tepal in Sacalaca during the Post-Florescent
Phase.
San Felipe and Surrounding Sites
The absence of the institutions of rulership and the construction of open-fronted buildings on the pre-existing plazas suggests the desecration of earlier sacred space and rejects a Mul Tepal in San Felipe during this time.
235 Segmentary State
Sacalaca and Surrounding Sites
There were no architectural forms associated with the institutions of rulership such as acropoli, mortuary temples, formal plazas or ballcourts built in Sacalaca or its satellite settlements during the Post-Florescent Phase. This suggests that none of the characteristics of a state were present and rejects the Segmentary State model in Sacalaca during this time.
San Felipe and Surrounding Sites
In San Felipe and its satellites there were no architectural forms associated with the institutions of rulership built in the Post-Florescent Phase. Instead, on San Felipe’s acropolis, the open plaza was violated by the construction of open-fronted buildings dating to the Post-Florescent Phase. These data rejects the presence of Segmentary State in San Felipe.
During the Post-Florescent Phase the political situation in the case study underwent additional changes. There were no new acropoli, palaces or formal plazas built or stelae-altar complexes erected in primary sites during Post-Florescent Phase.
These were no Popol Nah constructed in Ichmul or Yo’okop, or any of the institutions of rulership built in the core of primary sites. None of the institutions of rulership were built in the secondary, tertiary or quaternary settlements during this time. There was no evidence of a political hierarchy present in the case study during this time which rejects
Dynastic Kingship, Mul Tepal and Segmentary State models. Instead, new macro and micro settlement patterns appeared during this time. New settlements (Greenfield sites) were established around the secondary sites of Sacalaca and other sites in the region.
236 Some of these Greenfield sites had a new micro pattern. The new pattern of an informal plaza with a nearby pyramidal mound was constructed during this phase in the primary site of Yo’okop and in tertiary sites. Unlike formal plazas, with sacred symbology, this new pattern reflects a departure and the rejection of the previously established canon.
Two new architectural forms, circular foundation braces and open-fronted buildings, appeared during this phase. Circular foundation braces, likely granary foundations (Johnstone 2016), were constructed in secondary and tertiary sites, and the quaternary site of Yo’dzonot. Prior to the Post-Florescent Phase the Maya probably used chultuns for the grain storage and also designated spaces in their houses as they do it today (Johnstone 2016). Johnstone suggested that the change in the location of grain storage happened due to changes in the design of the residences. He speculates that perhaps it was impractical to store grain in open-fronted buildings because of the absence of the front wall (Johnstone 2016).
Open-fronted buildings, which functioned as residences (Johnstone 2016) or administrative buildings (Bey et al. 1997), were constructed at secondary and tertiary sites. Some of these buildings were built in the center of earlier plazas, violating the previously favorite open- plaza design, suggesting a change in world view at this time.
Bey et al. (1997:250) state that “The placement of C-shaped structures in or near the site centers indicates that the canons covering the traditional use of space were breaking down at the time of constructions.” Bey et al. (1997:251) argue that “the Terminal
Classic occupations associated with the appearance of C-shaped structures….represent the response of surviving Maya kin/administrative units to the collapse of traditional
Classic Maya authority”.
237 To summarize: the Post-Florescent Phase is characterized by the absence of most of the institutions of rulership and the establishment of new locations and the rejection of the previously established order. The political organization present during the Post-
Florescent Phase seems to resemble the political organization described in the Spanish
Colonial Accounts where groups of towns are not controlled by larger centers but independently governed by leaders - B’atab’ob (Roys 1957). The data suggest that despite all the efforts rulers undoubtedly made to unite and govern the populations on the state level this structure of political organization was rejected during this time. I conclude that during the Post-Florescent Phase a non-state political organization was in play in the case study area.
Concluding Remarks
The Terminal Classic Period is viewed by many Maya scholars as a collapse or the disappearance the institution of K’uhul Ajawob (Dynastic Kingship) (Demarest et al.
2004). A collapse of any political system brings changes in the ruling class and political organization overall. In the Southern Lowlands, the collapse is defined by the absence of stelae with royal imagery and hieroglyphic inscriptions, the vanishing of elaborate tombs, the cessation of massive monumental architecture, and the abandonment of densely populated large centers (Chase and Chase 2004). The Southern Lowlands experienced the waning of Dynastic Kingship and the decline of powerful sites such as Tikal and
Calakmul. Unlike many other sites in the Southern Lowlands, the site of Copan adopted a joint rule, Mul Tepal, during the Terminal Classic Period (Fash and Stewart 1991; Fash et al. 2004: 266, 285-286).
238 The collapse in the Northern Lowlands also varied from region to region, but it differed from the collapse in the Southern Lowlands. During this time many sites in the
Northern Lowlands, including sites in the Cochuah Region, experienced a florescence and construction boom. Although the long tradition of stela erection was abandoned at
Coba and Yo’okop during the Terminal Classic Period, the tradition continued in
Dzibilchaltun and Edzna. In Uxmal this tradition was adopted for a brief time, while other areas like Xcalumkin never adopted it at all. It is worth mentioning that often in the
Northern Lowlands a title of “Ajaw” on the pre-Terminal Classic monuments was lacking the prefix of “K’uhul.” Grana-Berrens (2006) noted that in the northwestern Yucatan, a title of “B’atab” or “Ajaw” was often used instead of a “K’uhul Ajaw.” In the site of
Xcalumkin of 14 rulers mentioned in the hieroglyphic texts none of them carried a title of
“K’uhul Ajaw” (Grube 1994:321). Johnstone (2008:191) also noted that Stone 3 from the
Yo’okop Early Classic hieroglyphic stairway depicts a title of “Ajaw” without the prefix of “K’uhul.” Foias (2013:159) suggests that in the Northern Lowlands “Rulership may have become disassociated from divinity and ruler cults. Instead, rulers became more tied to council organization”.
Sites in the Northern Lowlands also were experimenting with different forms of political organizations (Demarest 2004) during the Terminal Classic Period. The rulers of Puuc sites, such as Sayil, Oxkintok and Kabah practiced a joint rule or Mul Tepal type of government (Carmean et al. 2004). Yaxuna (Suhler et al. 2004) and Chichen Itza
(Schele and Freidel 1990) also had a Mul Tepal type of government. Popol Nahs were constructed in Sayil (Freidel 1986b), Yaxuna (Suhler and Freidel 1995; Suhler et al.2004) and other sites in the Northern Lowlands during the Terminal Classic Period.
239 Undoubtedly, there is no single cause accounting for the collapse of the Classic
Maya, but rather the combination of interrelated factors. Climatic and environmental conditions such as deforestation and droughts are among of the causes of the collapse in the Cochuah Region. Deforestation was documented in pollen profiles (Curtis et al. 1996;
Rice 1996). Production of plaster requires a lot of fuel in the form of wood which could contribute to deforestation (Abrams and Rue 1988). Lime plaster was used to cover the walls and floors of elite residences, temples and other structures and also to maintain these buildings (Abrams 1994). However, the adoption of the core veneer construction technique during the Terminal Classic Period reduced the need for a surface coating by plaster.
Circular foundation braces and other buildings in the Cochuah Region were constructed with kankab (mud) mortar probably due to the scarcity of wood needed for the production of lime mortar during that time. Additionally, using wood fuel for everyday cooking and slash and burn clearing of the forest for fields would add to deforestation (Shaw 2008). Disappearance of trees would also prompt soil erosion which in turn would influence the productivity of crops and could leading to a shortage of foodstuffs.
Droughts would be another factor contributing to the collapse. Drought was one of the reasons for decline of Calakmul (Braswell et al. 2004). Data which comes from
Lake Chichancanab located 20 km from the Cochuah Region (Hodell et al. 2001) is consistent with data from Punta Laguna located near Coba (Curtis et al. 1996) that suggests that the Terminal Classic Period consisted of several droughts following one the other. These droughts occurred between A.D. 800 and 950 and lasted 10 to 20 years
240 (Medina et al. 2010). A prolonged drought combined with deforestation would result in crop failures (Shaw 2003, 2008). Not having food surpluses would weaken rulers’ power because one of their responsibilities was to insure good harvests. This would force the populace to make choices necessary for survival, such as resistance to “support” rulers’ life style and the rejection of the previous order.
Contributions
There is no single mode of political organization found among the ancient Maya, therefore the focus only on the “traditional” model of Dynastic Kingship is limiting our understanding of ancient Maya political organization. The use of hieroglyphic texts written by Maya rulers to determine ancient Maya political organization has resulted in the widely held view that the political organization of the Classic Maya was centralized and ruled by Dynastic Kings. A focus primarily on an examination of primary centers, particularly the monuments with hieroglyphic texts that extoll the ruler’s deeds, dynasty, and connections to gods, introduces a bias in favor of viewing strong centralized control as the governing mechanism for these Maya polities.
Scholars such Fox (1977), Ball and Taschek (1991), Dunham (1990, 1992),
Schele and Freidel (1990), Fox and Cook (1996), Houston (1992b) and Demarest (1992) have proposed the presence of alternative forms of political organization for the Maya, but have not suggested a way to test such hypotheses. The testing of the alternative political models requires going beyond the primary centers, as well as examining different data sets.
241 This case study used the distribution of architecture associated with the institutions of rulership located in secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites to determine political organization within the CRAS study area during the Florescent and Post-
Florescent Phases of the Terminal Classic Period. Using a bottom up approach, the dissertation shows that some types of political organization are only visible – or at least best visible – through examination of non-primary centers. The approach would broaden our understanding of the degree of centralization present in different polities and draw attention to the fact that different forms of government could occur at the same time over the broader region.
The investigation of architecture and site layouts in non-primary centers for the determination of political organization could also be applied to other regions in the
Northern and Southern Lowlands, as well as other parts of Mesoamerica. For example, in the Northern Lowlands this approach could be used to determent if a Mul Tepal was present in Chichen Itza during the Terminal Classic Period as was suggested by Schele and Freidel (1990). The site of Chichen Itza and the secondary and smaller settlements in its vicinity could be investigated for the distribution of the institution of rulership to determine the type of political organization in play. Sanders (1989) proposed that in eighth century A.D Copan had a Segmentary State. He stated that in Copan “the power of the king is sharply circumscribed by councils of chiefs of local lineages” (1989:104), however, this description also suggests the presence of a Mul Tepal. Therefore, this approach can be used to determine if Copan had a Mul Tepal or Segmentary State during that time by examining Copan’s secondary settlements. My study provides the means of evaluating alternative political models in the absence of hieroglyphic data. It also adds to
242 the anthropological study about the range of people living in the secondary, tertiary and quaternary settlements.
Future Research
Outside of the Cochuah Region and beyond the Terminal Classic Period it would be insightful to apply my approach to primary centers with already determined political organization such as Mayapan. It would be interesting to see the distribution of the institutions of rulership in the secondary sites of Mayapan.
To gain further insight into the political organization of the Cochuah Region it is necessary to understand the functions of pyramidal mounds. This could be achieved by the excavation of these buildings to clarify if they do continue to serve as ancestral shrines during the Terminal Classic Period and remained significant in Maya ideology. It would be insightful to know if there is any connection between informal plazas and open- fronted buildings. This could be achieved by investigating how many sites with informal plazas have open-fronted buildings.
It would be worthwhile to fuller investigate other secondary sites and their satellites in the CRAS study area to determine political organization in these settlements.
Also, it would be useful to discover the primary site for San Felipe that could be studied to provide additional information on the political organization in the region during the
Florescent and Post-Florescent Phases.
In spite of the research carried out by CRAS, a large area that includes the
Cochuah Region remains a blank space on the map of Maya archaeology sites. Clearly the CRAS discovery of the repopulation of a nearly abandoned landscape during the
243 Early Terminal Classic Period suggests that this entire large region deserves a closer look by Maya scholars.
244
Figure 7.1. Sites with Archeological Evidence for the Florescent Phase.
245
Figure 7.2. Sites with Archeological Evidence for the Post-Florescent Phase.
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Elliot 1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Abrams, Elliot and David Rue 1988 The Causes and Consequences of Deforestation Among the Prehistoric Maya. Human Ecology 16 (4): 377-395.
Adams, Richard E. W. 1981 Settlement Pattern of the Central Yucatan and Southern Campeche Region. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, Wendy Ashmore (ed.), pp. 211-257. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1986 The Maya City of Rio Azul. National Geographic 169(4):420–51.
Adams, Richard E. W., H.R. Robichaux, Fred Valdez Jr., Brett A. Houk and Ruth Mathews 2004 Transformation, Periodicity, and Urban Development in the Three Rivers Region. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice, and D. S. Rice, 324–41. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Aimers, James J. 2007 What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:329–377.
Ambrosino, James N. 2003 The Function of a Maya Palace at Yaxuna: A Contextual Approach. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Jessica J. Christie, pp. 253–273.The University of Texas Press, Austin.
Andres, Christopher R., and K. Anne Pyburn 2004 Out of Sight: The Postclassic and Early Colonial Periods at Chau Hiix, Belize. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice, and D. S. Rice, 402–23. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
247 Andrews, Anthony P., Thomas Gallareta Negron, and Rafael P. Cobos 1989 Preliminary Report of the Cupul Survey.” Mexicon 11:91–95.
Andrews, Anthony P., E.Wyllys Andrews V, and Fernando Robles C. 2003 The Northern Maya Collapse and Its Aftermath. Ancient Mesoamerica 14:151–156.
Andrews, E. Wyllys V 1981 Dzibulchaltun. In Archeology, ed. J.A. Sabloff.pp.313-341.Supliments to HMAI vol. 1. Victoria A.Briker, gen. ed.
Andrews E. Wyllys, V. and Barabara W. Fash 1992 Continuity and Changes in a Royal Maya Residential Complex at Copan. AM 3:63-88.
Andrews V, Wyllys, Jodi Johnson, William Doonan, Gloria Everson, Kathryn Sampeck, and Harold Starratt 2003 A Multipurpose Structure in the Late Classic Palace at Copan. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. Christie, pp. 69- 97. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Andrews, E. Wyllys V, and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1986 Classic to Postclassic: A Summary Discussion. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. pp. 433- 456. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ardren, Traci T. Kam Manahan, Julie Wesp, and Alejandra Alonso 2010 Cloth Production and Economic Intensification in the Area Surrounding Chichen Itza. Latin American Antiquity 21:274–289.
Ashmore, W., & Sabloff, J. A. 2002 Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American Antiquity, 13: 201- 215.
2003 Interpreting Ancient Maya Civic Plans: reply to Smith. Latin American Antiquity, 14: 229-236.
Aulie, Wilbur, and Evelyn Aulie. 1978 Diccionario Ch’ol-Español / Español-Ch’ol. México: Instítuto Linguistíco de Verano.
248
Aveni, Anthony 2001 Skywatchers, 2nd ed., University of Texas Press, Austin.
Badillo Sánchez, Alejandra 2016a San Felipe, Operation 11. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 352-358. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016b San Felipe, Operation 12. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 359-367. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016c San Felipe, Operation 13. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 368-382. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016d Yo'okop, Operation 22. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 368-382. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Ball, Joseph 1993 Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A .D., edited by J. A. Sabloff and J. S. Henderson, pp. 243-272. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek 1991 Late Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization and Central-Place Analysis.” Ancient Mesoamerica 2(2):149–65.
Barrera N, Zinck JA. 2003 Ethnopedology: a Worldwide View on the Soil knowledge of Local People. Geoderma. pp.111:171–195. doi: 10.1016/S0016 7061(02)00263- X.
Barthel, Thomas S. 1968 El complejo “Emblema.” Estudios de Cultura Maya 7:159-193.
Beddows, Patricia A., Peter Smart, Fiona Whitaker and Samantha Smith
249 2007b Decoupled Fresh-Saline Groundwater Circulation of a Coastal Carbonate Aquifer: Spatial Patterns of Temperature and Specific Electrical Conductivity. J. Hydrol. 346, 18e32. Beddows, P.A., 2004. Groundwater Hydrology of a Coastal Conduit Ca.
Benevieds, Antonio and Linda Manzanilla 1985 Unidades Habitacionales Excavadas en Cobá, Q.R. In, Arquitectura y Arqueologia: Metodolagias en la Cronologia de Yucatán pp. 69-76. Collection Etudes Mesoamericains Series II-8, Mexico.
Berlin, Heinrich 1958 El Glifo Emblema en las Inscripciones Maya. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 47:111–19.
Bey III, George, Grag Hanson, and William Ringle 1997 Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural and Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American Antiquity, Vol.8, No. 3, pp. 237-254.
Bey III, George and Rossana May Ciau 2014 The Role and Realities of Popol Nahs in Northern Maya Archeology, in Maya and Their Central American Neighbors: Settlement Pattern, Architecture, Hieroglyphic Text and Ceramics ed.by Geoffrey E Braswell, pp. 335-356. Routledge, New York, NY.
Boot, Erik 2007 Multepal 'Joint Rule or Government' at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico: Historic Reality, or Not?
Bradford, Michael 2016 Yo‘okop, Operation 19. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 176-183. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Bradford, Michael and Justine M. Shaw 2016 Yo‘okop, Operation 18. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 172-175. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Braswell, G. E., J. D. Gunn, M. del Rosario Domínguez Carrasco, W. J. Folan, L. A. Fletcher, A. M. Morales López, and M. D. Glascock
250 2004 Defining the Terminal Classic at Calakmul, Campeche. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice, and D. S. Rice, 162–94. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Bretos, Miguel A. 1987 Arquitectura y Arte Sacro en Yucatán., Mérida, Yucatán, México: Editorial Dante.
Campos-Enriquez, J.O.,F.J. Chavez-Garcia, H. Cruz, J.G. Acosta-Chang, T.Matsui, J.A. Arzate, M.J.Unsworth and J.Ramos-Lopez. 2004 Shallow Crustal Structure of Chicxulub Impact Crater Imaged with Seismic, Gravity and Magnetotelluric Data: Inferences About the Central Uplift. Geophysical Journal International 157:515-525.
Carmean, Kelly 1991 Architectural Labor Investment and Social Stratification at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2:151-165.
Carmean, K., N. Dunning, and J. K. Kowalski 2004 High Times in the Hill Country a Perspective from the Terminal Classic Puuc Region, in The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowland Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, Don S. Rice, pp. 424-449, University Press of Colorado.
Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of Mesoamerican Elites. In Mesoamerica Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase, 303–17. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
2004 Terminal Classic Status-Linked Ceramics and the Maya “Collapse”: De Facto Refuse at Caracul, Belize. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice, and D. S. Rice, 342–66. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Ciudad Ruiz, Andrés 2001 Los palacios residenciales del Clásico Temprano en las ciudades del sur de las Tierras Bajas Mayas”. In Reconstruyendo la Ciudad Maya: El Urbanismo en las Sociedades Antiguas, edited by A. Ciudad Ruiz, J. 251 Iglesias, M. Del Carmen Martínez, pp. 305-340. SEEM Publications No. 6. Madrid: SEEM.
Ciudad Ruiz, Andrés and M. Josefa Iglesias 2001 Un Mundo Ordenado: La Ciudad Maya y el Urbanismo en las Sociedades Antiguas”. In Reconstruyendo la ciudad maya: el urbanismo en las sociedades antiguas, edited by A. Ciudad Ruiz, J. Iglesias, M. Del Carmen Martínez, pp. 11- 40. SEEM Publications No. 6. Madrid: SEEM.
Clark, John E., and Richard D. Hansen 2001 The Architecture of Early Kingship and the Origins of the Mesoamerican Royal Court. In The Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Vol 2: Data and Case Studies, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, 1-45. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Cobos, Rafael 2004 Chichen Itza: Settlement and Hegemony during the Terminal Classic Period. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 517–544. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Cobos, Rafael, Guillermo de Anda Alanis and Roberto Garcia Moll 2014 Ancient Climate and Archaeology: Uxmal, Chichen Itza, and Their Collapse at the End of the Terminal Classic Period. In Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 24, pp. 56–71, ISSN 1551-823X, online ISSN 1551-8248.
Cohn, Diana 2005 Xunan Kab, the Stingless Bees of the Yucatan: Preserving Meliponiculture in Mayan Communities (Part 1 of 2). American Bee Journal, August 2005. pp. 656-660.
Cohodas, M 1991 Ballgames Imagery of the Maya Lowlands: History and Iconography. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. by Scarborough, V.l., and Wilcox, D.pp.251-288. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Culbert, T. Patrick, Laura J. Kosakowsky, Robert E. Fry, and William A. Haviland
252 1990 The Population of Tikal, Guatemala.” In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, edited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, 103–21. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Curtis, John H., David A. Hodell, and Mark Brenner 1996 Climate Variability on the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) during the Past 3500 Years, and Implications for Maya Cultural Evolution. Quaternary Research 46:37–47.
Dahlin, Bruce 2000 The Barricades and Abandonments in Chunchucmil: Implication for Northern Maya Warfare. Latin American Antiquities 11:283-298.
Davenport, Bryce 2011 Sisal, Operation 7. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season. pp. 207-213. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
De Montmollin, Olivier 1989 The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a Classic Maya Polity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Demarest, Arthur A. 1992 Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W. Conrad, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 135-58.
1996 Closing Comment in “The Maya State: Centralized or Segmentary?” by John Fox, Garrett W. Cook, Arlen F. Chase, and Diane Z. Chase, 821-24. Current Anthropology, 795-830.
2004 After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the Terminal Classic in Western Peten. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, 102–24. Denver: University Press of Colorado.
2006 The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse. Vanderbilt University Press.
253
2013 The Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms of the Southwestern Petén: Implications for the End of Classic Maya Civilization. In Millenary Maya Societies: Past Crises and Resilience, edited by M.-C. Arnauld and A. Breton, 22–48. Paris: Musée du Quai Branly.
Demarest, Arthur A, Matt O’Mansky, Claudia Wolley, Dirk Van Tuerenhout, Takeshi Inomata, Joel Palka, and Hector Escobeda 1997 Classic Maya Defensive Systems and Warfare in the Petexbatun Region: Archeological Evidence and Interpretations. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2):229-253.
Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, 2004 The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Dunham, Peter S 1990 Coming Apart at the Seams: The Classic Development and the Demise of Mayan Civilization: A Segmentary View from Xnaheb, Belize.” PhD diss., State University of New York, Albany.
1992 Sociopolitical Variation and Change among Segmentary States: The Classic Maya of the Southern Lowlands. Paper presented at the conference “The Segmentary State and the Classic Maya: A New Model for Ancient Political Organization,” Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, October 14–18.
Dunning, Nicholas, and Jeff Karl Kowalski 1994 Lords of the Hills: Classic Maya Settlement Pattern and Political Iconography in the Puuc Region, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:63–95.
Edmonson, Munro S. 1982 The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Estrada-Medina, Francisco Bautista, Juan José María Jiménez-Osornio,José Antonio González-Iturbe,and Wilian de Jesús Aguilar Cordero 2013 Maya and WRB Soil Classification in Yucatan, Mexico: Differences and Similarities. ISRN Soil Science, Volume 2013.
254 Fash, William L., and David Stuart 1990 Dynastic History and Cultural Evolution at Copán, Honduras.” In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. Patrick Culbert, 147–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fash, William, Wyllys Andrews and Kam Manahan 2004 Political Desentralization. Dynastic Collapse and the Early Postclassic in the Urban Center of Copan, Honduras. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 260-287 Denver: University Press of Colorado.
Fedick, Scott 2014 A Reassessment of Water and Soil Resources in the Flatlands of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Archeological Papers of the American Association, Vol. 24, pp. 72–83, ISSN 1551-823X,online ISSN 1551- 8248. C _ 2014 by the American Anthropological Association.
Flores Colin, Alberto G. 2003a Operation 1 at Sacalaca. In, Final report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2003 Field Season pp. 54-59, edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2003b Archaeological Reconnaissance of Outlying Sites in the Ejido of Sacalaca. In, Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2003 Field Season pp. 62-65. edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2010a Ramonal Quemado, Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 124-129. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2010a San Lorenzo, Operation 4. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 177-180 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2010b San Lorenzo, Operation 5. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional
255 Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 181-183 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2012a Ramonal Oriente, Operation 1. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 162-170. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2012b Yo’okop, Operation 11. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 162-170. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2015 Artificial Causeways: Metaphors of Power and Death. In the May of the Cochuah Region: Archeological and Ethnographic Perspective on the Northern Lowlands. pp.133-156. Edited by Justine Shaw. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2016a Yo'okop, Operation 16. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 157-165. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016b Yo'okop, Operation 20. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 184-194. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Flores, Colin, Alberto G., Dave Johnstone, Justine M. Shaw, Jorge Pablo Huerta Rodríguez, and Johan Normark 2008 U Chibal Be: A Road of Lineage, the Mapping of Yo’okop’s Sacbe 2. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 7-36. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Flores Colin, Alberto G., and Johan Normark 2004 Ichmul and its Surrounding. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2004 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 55–71. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005 The Central Portion of Ichmul. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, pp. 7- 24, edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
256
2005a San Juan Terminus Area. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 76–79. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005b San Pedro Terminus Area (Chan Ichmul). In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 85–87. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005c The Central Portion of Ichmul. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 7–24. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005e The San Andres Terminus Area. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 45–51. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005f The San Cristobal Terminus Area. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 61–64. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Flores, Colin, Alberto G and Leslie Reyes 2012 Mapping of San Felipe South Group. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 276-280. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016 Yo’okop, Operation 23. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 217-227. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Flores Colin, Alberto G., and Justine M. Shaw 2010 San Felipe, Operation 4 and 5. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 178–92. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
Flores Colin, Alberto G., Justine M. Shaw and Leslie Reyes 2016 Yo’okop, Operation 21. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 195-208. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
257
Flores Colin, Alberto G., Justine M. Shaw and Karleen Ronsairo 2016 San Felipe, Operation 10. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 316-351, edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Foias, Antonia 2013 Ancient Maya Political Dynamics. University Press of Florida.
Folan, William J. 1992 Sacbeob y Fuentes Hidráulicas de los Antiguos Mayas. In Antropología Mesoamericana: Homenaje a Alfredo Villa Rojas, edited by Víctor Manuel Esponda Jimeno, 335–49. México: Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas.
Folan, William J., Ellen R. Kintz, and Laraine A. Fletcher. 1983 Cobá: A Classic Maya Metropolis. New York: Academic.
Forsyth, D. W. 2005 A survey of Terminal Classic Ceramic Complexes and their Socioeconomic Implications. In Lopez Varela, S. L., and Foias, A. E. (eds.),Geographies of Power: Understanding the Nature of Terminal Classic Pottery in the Maya Lowlands, BAR International Series 1447,British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 7–22.
Fox, John W 1987 Maya Postclassic State Formation: Segmentary Lineage Migration in Advancing Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fox, John and Garrett W. Cook 1996 Maya State: Centralized or Segmentary? Constructing Maya Communities: Ethnography for Archaeology.” Current Anthropology 37(5): 811–30.
Fox, John, Garrett W. Cook and Arlen F Chase and Diane Z. Chase 1996 Constructing Maya Communities: Ethnography for Archaeology. Current Anthropology, Vol. 37(5):811-830.
Fox, R. G.
258 1977 Urban Anthropology: Cities in Their Cultural Settings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freidel, David 1986b “Maya Warfare: An Example of Peer Polity Interaction”. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 93–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2008 Maya Divine Kingship. In Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. N. Brisch, pp. 191-206. Oriental Institute Seminars, n. 4. The Oriental Institute of University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois.
Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele 1992 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. Quill William Morrow.
Geertz, Clifford. 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali, Princeton: Princeston University Press.
Freidel, David, Linda Schele and Joy Perker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. William Morrow and Company.
Garcıa Moll, Roberto, and Rafael Cobos 2009 Chichen Itza, Patrimonio de la Humanidad.M´exico, D.F.: Grupo Azabache.
Geertz, Clifford 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali, Princeton: Princeston University Press.
1983 Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic.
Gillespie, Susan D. 1991 Ballgames and Boundaries. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by V. L. Scarborough and D. R. Wilcox, 317–45. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
259
2000 Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing “Lineage” with “House.” American Anthropologist 102(3): 467-484.
Gómez-Pompa, Arturo, J. S. Flores-Guido, and M. Aliphat 1990 The Sacred Cacao Groves of the Maya.” Latin American Antiquity 1:247– 57.
Goody, J. 1980 Technology: Tradition and the State in Africa. London: Hutchinson.
Graña-Behrens, D. 2006 Emblem Glyphs and Political Organization in Northwestern Yucatan in the Classic Period (A.D. 300–1000). Ancient Mesoamerica 17:105–23.
Grube, Nicolai 1994 Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwestern Yucatan. In Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the Northwest Yucatan Peninsula, edited by Hanns J. Prem, pp. 316–58. Acta Mesoamericana vol. 7. Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl.
2000 The City-States of the Maya. In A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures,edited by M. H. Hansen, pp. 547–65. The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen.
Grube, Nicolai, Alfonso Lacadena and Simon Martin 2003 Notebook for the XXVIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, March, 2003. Chichen Itza and Ek Balam: Terminal Classic Inscriptions from Yucatan. University of Texas at Austin.
Grube, Nikolai and Simon Martin 1998a Deciphering Maya Polities. In Notebook for the XXIInd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, March 1998. The Department of Art and Art History, The University of Texas, Austin.
Hammond, N. 1991a Inside the Black Box: Defining Maya Polity. In Classic Maya Political History, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 253–84. Cambridge University Press, New York.
260 Harrera, Huchim and Garcia Ayala 2000 In The Ancient Maya of Mexico: Reinterpreting the Past of the Northern Maya Lowlands, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell. Routledge, New York, New York.
Harrison, Peter D. 1970 The Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: a Preliminary Study of Functions of its Structural Components during the Late Classic Period. University of Pennsylvania. PhD Dissertation.
1981 Some Aspects of Preconquest Settlement in Southern Quintana Roo, Mexico. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, ed. by W. Ashmore, pp. 259-286. SAR, Albuquerque.
1990 The Revolution in Ancient Maya Subsistence, In Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, ed. by Flora S. Clancy and Peter D. Harrison, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1993 Aspects of Water Managements in the Southern Lowlands. In Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehispanic New World, edited by Vernon Scarborough and Barry Isaac, pp. 71-120.JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
1999 The Lords of Tikal: Rulers of an Ancient Maya City. Thames and Hudson, London.
Haviland, William A. 1992 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: The View from Tikal. American Anthropologist 9 4:937-940.
Hernandez, Juan Martinez 1930 Diccionario De Motul: Maya Español: Atribuido A. Fray Antonio De Ciudad Real Arte De Lengua Maya. Talleres De La Compañía Tipografia Yucateca, Mexico.
Hodell, David, Mark Brenner, Jason Curtis, and Thomas Guilderson 2001 Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands. Science 292: 1367-1370.
Houck, Charles W., Jr.
261 2006 Cenotes, Wetlands, and Hinterland Settlement. In Lifeways in the Northern Maya Lowlands:New Approaches to Archaeology in the Yucat´an Peninsula. Jennifer P. Mathews and Bethany A.Morrison, eds. Pp. 56–76. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Houk, Brett A., and Greogory Zaro 2010 Evidence for ritual Engineering in the Late/Terminal Classic Site of La Milpa, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 22-178-198.
Houston, Stephen D. 1992 Weak States and Segmentary Structure: The Internal Organization of Classic Maya Polities. Paper Presented at the Conference “The Segmentary State and the Classic Maya: A New Model for Ancient Political Organization,” Cleveland: Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, October 14–18.
1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Houston, Stephen D., Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, and David Stuart 2001 The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Houston, Stephen, and Takeshi Inomata 2009 The Classic Maya. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huchim, Jose and Cesar Garcia 2000 La Arquitectura que Denota una Ocupacion Tardia en Uxmal, Yuc. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 8(1): 138-154.
Huerta Rodríguez, Jorge Pablo 2005a San Andres Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 57–59. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005b San Andres, Operation 2. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 60–65. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
262 2005c San Christobal, Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 70–72. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005d San Christobal, Operation 2. In Reporte Final del Proyecto de Reconocimiento Arqueológico de la Región de Cochuah, Temporada 2005, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 73–75. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2008 Reconnaissance in the Ejido of Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 131-168 edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2010 The Site of Ranch San Diego. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 90-93 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2012a Chakal Ja‘as, Operation 3. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 143-159. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2012b San Felipe, Operation 6. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 244-266. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016 San Diego, Operation 2. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp 270-274. edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Huerta Rodríguez Jorge Pablo, Leslie Reyes and Alberto G. Flores Colin 2016 San Felipe, Operation 9. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 292-315 edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Iannone, Giles 2003 Problems in the Definition and Interpretation of ‘Minor Centers’ in Maya Archaeology with Reference to the Upper Belize Valley.” In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research,
263 edited by James F. Garber, 273–86. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
INEGI Map 1996 Comision Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Habitat and Land Use Classification Database Derived from Ground Truthed Remote Sensing Data Insitituto Nacional de Estastica, Geografia, e Informática (INEGI). Map at a Scale of 1:1,000,000.
Inomata, Takeshi 2006a Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47(5):805-842.
2006b Politics and Theatricality in Mayan Society. In Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence S. Coben, 187–221. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Isendahl, Christian 2010 Greening the Ancient City: The Agro-Urban Landscapes of the Pre- Hispanic Maya. In the Urban Mind: Cultural and Enveromental Dynamics. Paul J.J.Sinclair, Gullog Nordquist, Frands Herschend, and Christian Isendahl, eds. Pp.527-552. Uppsala:Uppsala Iniversity.
Johnstone, Dave 1994 Residential Excavations. In, The Selz Foundation Yaxuna Project Final Report of the 1993 Field Season pp. 83-88. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
2001a Sacbe 3. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 34–35. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2001b. Operations 1 and 2. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 36–44. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2002a Operations 7 and 8. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2002 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 64–71. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods. 264
2002b Residential Mapping in the Site Center. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2002 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 7–11. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2003 Operation 2 at Sacalaca. In, Final report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2003 Field Season pp. 60-61. Ed. by J.M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2004 Cerramic Report from Ichmul and Nohcocab. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2004 Field Season, pp. 95- 133. edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2005a Chakal Ja’as Operation 2. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 114-115 edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2005b San Pedro, Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 125-129 edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2005c Ceramic Summary from the 2005 Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey. In, Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season pp. 179-227. edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2006 Changes in Internal Site Settlement within Cochuah Region of the Northern Lowland, paper presented at SAA Puerto Rico.
2008a The Prehispanic Settlement of Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 99-102 edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2008b Kings Rule!—Not: Changes in Ancient Maya Power and Ideology in the Cochuah Region.” In Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations: Ancient and Medieval Cultures, edited by L. E. Grinin, D. D. Beliaev, and A. V. Korotayev, 189–203. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences.
2010a The Site of Ramonal Oriente, Sacalaca. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 87-89 edited by
265 Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2010b Ceramic Summary from 2010 Season of the Cochuah Regional Archeological Survey. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 258-341 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2010c Summary and Analysis. In, Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season. pp. 34-345. Ed. by J.M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka, CA.
2012 Ceramic Summary In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 281–354. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2015 Ceramic Exchange in the Cochuah Region. in the May of the Cochuah Region: Archeological and Ethnographic Perspective on the Northern Lowlands. pp.41-56. Edited by Justine Shaw. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2016a Parcela Escolar, Structures N10W1-2 and N8E1-2, Operations 4 and 5. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 241-255, edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016b Ceramic Results from the 2014 Field Season. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 383- 503, edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016c The Dating and Function of Circular Structures. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 538- 543, edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Johnstone, Dave, J. Pablo Huerta Rodriguez, and Leslie Reyes 2016 Sacalaca, Structure N5E6-4, Operation 5. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 256-262, edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
266 Johnson, Leslie Main and Eugene Hunn 2010 Landscape Ethnoecology: Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Volume 14, Studies in Environmental Anthropology and Ethnobiology. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Kaeding, Adam and Alberto G. Flores Colin 2005 Ichmul Operation 3. In In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp. 31-44. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Kashak, Maya Christopher Lloyd, and Veronica Miranda 2002 Final Report of the Proyecto Arqueológico Yo'okop's 2002 Field Season. College of the Redwoods: Eureka, CA.
Kepecs, Susan, and Sylviane Boucher 1996 The Pre-Hispanic Cultivation of Rejolladas and Stone-Lands: New Evidence from Northeast Yucatan. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use. Scott L. Fedick, ed. Pp. 69–91. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Kertzer, David 1988 Ritual, Politics and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Kimmel, M. S.
Kidder, Barry 2012 Yodzonot, Operation 1. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 231–235. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Kowalski, Jeff Karl 1987 The House of the Governor: A Maya Palace. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1994 The Puuc as Seen from Uxmal. pp. 93-120.
1998 Uxmal and the Puuc Zone. Monumental Architecture, Sculptured Facades and Political Power in the Terminal Classic Period. In Maya, ed. P. Schmidt, M.de la Garza, and E.Nalda, pp.401-425. Rizzoli, New York.
267 2003 Evidence for the Functions and Meanings of Some Northern Maya Palaces”. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. Christie, pp. 204-252. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kurjack, Edward B. and E. Wyllys Andrews 1976 Early Boundary Maintenance at Northwest Yucatan, Mexico. American Antiquity 41:318-325.
Kurtz, Donald V. 2001 Hegemony: Anthropological Aspects. International Encyclopedia of the Social-Behavioral Sciences Volume 10: 6642-6645.
Landa, Diego de. 1994 Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán. México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.
LeCount, Lisa and Jason Yaeger 2010 Provincial Politics and Current Models of the Maya State”. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by L. LeCount and J. Yaeger, pp. 20-45 Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Lesser, J and A.Weidie 1988 Region 25, Yucatan peninsula, chapter 28, The Geology of North America, Vol. 0-2 Hydrogeology, The Geological Society of America, pp. 237–241.
Lloyd, Christopher 2005a San Felipe, Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 154-161 edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2005b Non-ceramic Artifacts from the 2005 CRAS Field Season. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, ed. by Justine Shaw, pp. 171-172. College of the Redwoods, Eureka, CA.
Lucero, Lisa J. 2007 Classic Maya Temples, Politics, and the Voices of the People. Latin American Antiquity, Vol.18, No. 4, pp.407-427.
268
Marcus, Joyce 1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180:911– 16.
1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach Washington D.C. Dumbarton Oaks Other Titles in Pre- Columbian Studies.
1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization, in Lowland Maya Civilization in The Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, 111-83. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Martin, Simon 2001a Under a Deadly Star: Warfare Among the Classic Maya. In Maya: Divine Kings of the Rain Forest, edited by Nikolai Grube. 174-185. Konemann, Germany.Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 2000. Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson.
Martin, Simon and Nikolai Grube 1995 Maya Superstates: How a Few Powerful Kingdoms Vied for Control of the Maya Lowlands during the Classic Period (A.D. 300–900). Archaeology 48(6):41–46.
2000 Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson.
2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering The Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Second Edition. Thames & Hudson.
Mason, Gregory 1927 Silver Cities of Yucatan. New York: Putnam.
Mathews, Peter 1989 External Political Organization Among the Classic Maya. (Paper presented at the Seminar “New Interpretations of Maya Writing and Iconography,” State University of New York at Albany, October 20- 21.1989).
269 1991 Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphs and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. Patrick Culbert, 19–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAnany, Patricia A. 1995 Living with Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin.
2008 Shaping Social Difference: Political and Ritual Economy of Classic Maya Royal Courts. In Dimensions of Ritual Economy, edited by E. C. Wells and P. A. McAnany, pp. 219–47. Research in Economic Anthropology vol. 27. Emerald Publishing, Bradford.
2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Medina Elizalde, Mart´ın, Stephen J. Burnsa, David W., Lea,Yemane Asmerom, Lucien vonGunten,Victor, Polyak, Mathias Vuille, and Ambarish Karmalkar 2010 High Resolution Stalagmite Climate Record fromthe Yucat´an Peninsula Spanning the Maya Terminal Classic Period. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 298:255–262.
Miller, Mary and Karl Taube 1991 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. London: Thames and Hudson.
Montgomery, John 2002 Dictionary of Maya hieroglyphs. New York: Hippocrene.
Morley, Sylvanus G. 1915 An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 57. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
1936 Yucatan, Home of the Gifted Maya. Two Thousand Years of History Reach Back to the Early American Temple Builders, Corn Cultivators, and Pioneers in Mathematics. National Geographic Magazine LXX (5): 590- 644.
Munro-Stasiuk, Mandy J., and T. Kam Manahan
270 2010 Investigating Ancient Maya Agricultural Adaptation through Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Analysis of Karst Terrain, Northern Yucatan, Mexico. Acta Carsologica 39(1):123– 135.
Normark, Johan 2003 Caves and Settlement in the Ejido of Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2003 Field Season, pp.70-91 edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2008 Ranch Benito Juarez. In Final Report of Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 197-198. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Okoshi-Harada, Tsubasa 1992 Los Canules: Analisis Ethno-Historico del Codice de Calkini. Ph.D dissertatiom. Instituto de Investigaciones Anthropologicas. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
2012 Postclassic Maya ‘Barrios’ in Yucatan: An Historical Approach. In The Neighborhood as a Social and Special Unit in Mesoamerican Cities, edited by M. Charlotte Arnauld, Linda R. Manzanilla, and Michael E. Smith, 286–303. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Okoshi-Harada , Tsubasa , and Sergio Quezada. 1990 Tzucub y Cuchcabal dos Términos para Entender la Organización Territorial de los Mayas Yucatecos del Tiempo de la Invasión Española (El Caso de la Llamada Provincia de los Cupul). In Perspectivas Antropológicas en el Mundo Maya, edited by Ponce de León María Josefa Iglesias and Perramon Francisco de Asís Ligorred, 363–70. Spain: Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas.
Pollock, H. E. D. 1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
1965 Architecture of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAL, vol. 2, part 1, ed. R. Wauchope and G.R.Willey, pp. 378440.
271 1980 The Puuc: An Architectural Survey of the Hill Country of Yucatan and Northern Campeche, Mexico. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 19, Cambridge, MA.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1963 An Album of Maya Architecture. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. RHGY.
Quezada, Sergio 1993 Pueblos y Caciques Yucatecos, 1550–1580. México DF: El Colegio de México.
2014a Maya Lords and Lordship: The Formation of Colonial Society in Yucatán, 1350–1600.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
2014b The Royal Palace of Cancuen: The Structure of Lowland Maya Architecture and Politics at the end of the Late Classic Period. Ph.D manuscript, Nashville, Tennessee.
Reents-Budet, Dorie 1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Durham: Duke University Press.
Rees-Taylor, Kathryn 2002 Ritual Circuits in Maya Civic Center Designs. In Hear of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of Linda Schele, ed. by Andrea Stone, pp 143-165. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Rees-Taylor, Kathryn, Peter Mathews, Julie Guernsey and Marlene Fritzler 2009 Warriors Queens Among the Classic Maya. In Blood and Beauty: Organized Violence in the Art of Mesoamerica and Central America, ed. by Heather Orr and Rex Koontz, pp.39-72. Cotsen Institute of Archeology Press, Los Angeles.
Restall, M. 1997 The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550–1850. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
1998 Maya Conquistador. Beacon Press, Boston.
272 2001 The People of the Patio: Ethnohistorical Evidence of Yucatec Maya Royal Courts.In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya: 2, Data and Case Studies, edited by T. Inomata and S. Houston, pp. 335–90. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Reyes, Bernando 1902 Memoria de la Secretaria de Estado y Del despacho del Guerra y Marina. Presentada al Congreso de la Union por El Secretario del Ramo Gral. De Division Bernando Reyes. Comprende del 1 de Enero de 1900 al 30 de Junio de 1901. Tomo II, Mexico.
Reyes, Leslie 2012 Chakal Ja‘as, Operation 4. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2012 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 160-162. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2016 Yo’okop, Operation 17. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 166-171. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
RHGY 1983 Relaciones Histórico Geográficas de la Gobernación de Yucatán, 2 Vol.,Mercedes de la Garza (ed.). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México. (Relacion de Tihosuco y Chikindzonot, RHGY 1983, II:198).
Rice, Prudence M. 2004 Maya Political Science Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Ringle, William M. 1990 Who Was Who in Ninth-Century Chichen Itza. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:233–43.
1999 Preclassic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics Among the Early Lowland Maya. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, ed. D. Grove and R.Joyce, pp. 183-223. DO.
Ringle, William M. and George J. Bey III
273 2001 Post Classic and Terminal Classic Courts of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya: Data and Case Study. Vol. 2, pp. 266-307, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston. Westview Press, Colorado.
Ringle, William M., Bey, G. J., III, Freeman, T. B., Hanson, C. A., Houck, C. W., and Smith, J. G. 2004 The Decline in the East: The Classic to Postclassic Transition at Ek Balam, Yucatan. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse,Transition, and Transformation, eds. Demarest, A.,Rice, P. M., and Rice, D. S. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 485–516.
Ringle, William M., Bey, G. J., and C. Peraza Lope 1991a Preliminary Report of the Proyecto Ek Balam, Temporada 1989. Report Submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City, and the National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Robles Castellanos Fernando, 1990 Le Secuencia Ceramica de Regionde Coba, Quintana Roo. Colección Cientifica no. 184. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City.
Robles Castellanos Jose Fernando, and Anthony P. Andrews 1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatán. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, 53–97. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ronsairo, Karleen 2016 San Diego, Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp 263-269. edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Roscoe, P. B. 1993 Practice and Political Centralization: A New Approach to Political Evolution. Current Anthropology 34(2):111–40.
Roys, Ralph Loveland
274 1952 Conquest Sites and the Subsequent Destruction of Maya Architecture in the Interior of Yucatán. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 596, Washington, D.C.
1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya., Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 613,. Washington, DC.
1962 Literary Sources for the History of Mayapan. In Mayapan Yucatan Mexico, edited by H. E. D. Pollock, R. L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. L. Smith, 24–85. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 619, Washington, D.C.
1972 The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ruppert, Karl and A. L. Smith 1957 House Types in the Environs of Mayapan, and at Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil, Chichén Itzá, and Chacchob. Carnegie Institution of Washington Current Reports No. 39 pp. 573-597.
Sáenz, César A. 1972 Exploraciones y Restauraciones en Uxmal (1970-1971). INAH Boletin Epoca 2(2):31-40.
Satterthwaite, Linton 1954 A Modified Integration of the ‘Giant Glyph’ Altars at Caracol, British Honduras. New World Antiquity 1: 1-3.
Scarborough, Vernon L.. 1991 Water Management Adaptations in Nonindustrial Complex Societies: An Archaeological Perspective. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Michael Schiffer, 101-154. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1998 Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya.” Latin American Antiquity 9(2):135–59.
Scarborough, V.L., and F. Valdez 2004 The Engineered Environment and Political Economy of the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatan Peninsula ed. by
275 V.L. Scarborough, F. Valdez and N. Dunning, pp. 3-13. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2009 An Alternative Order: The Dualistic Economies of the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity, 20 (1), pp. 207-227.
Schele, Linda 1974 Observations on the Cross Motif at Palenque. In Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, Part 1, pp.41-62. Pebble Beach: Robert Louis Stevenson School.
Schele, Linda and David Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings. William Morrow and Co., New York.
Schele, Linda and Peter Mathews 1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. New York: Scribner.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art, Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.
Schele, Linda, David Stuart, and Nikolai Grube 1991 A Commentary on the Inscriptions of Structure 22A at Copan. Copan Note 98. Copan Mosaics Project and Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia.
Schmitter-Soto, J. J., F. A. Comín, E. Escobar-Briones, J. Herrera-Silveira, J. Alcocer, E. Suárez-Morales, M. Elías-Gutiérrez, V. Díaz-Arce, L. E. Marín, and B. Steinich 2002 Hydrogeochemical and Biological Characteristics of Cenotes in the Yucatan Peninsula (SE Mexico).” Hydrobiologia 467:215–28.
Shang, S and H.Tiessen 2003 Soil Organic C Sequestration and Stabilization in Sarstic Soils of Yucatan. Biochemistry. February 2003, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 177-196.
Sharer, Robert 1994 The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Shaw, Justine M.
276 1996 Community Settlement Pattern Study during the 1996 Field Season. In, The Selz Foundation Yaxuna Project Final Report of the 1996 Field Season. Ed. by J.M. Shaw and D.A. Freidel. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
1998 The Community Settlement Patterns and Residential Architecture of Yaxuna from A.D. 600–1400.” PhD diss., Southern Methodist University.
2000 Final Report of the 2000 Yo’okop Field Season: Initial Mapping and Surface Collections, edited by Justine M. Shaw with contributions by Dave Johnstone, Ruth Krochock, and Justine Shaw. College of the Redwoods: Eureka, CA.
2001 Final Report of The Selz Foundation's Proyecto Arqueológico Yo'okop 2001 Field Season: Excavations and Continued Mapping, edited by Justine M. College of the Redwoods: Eureka, CA.
2001a Group D. In, Final Report of the Selz Foundation‘s Proyecto Arquelogico Yo‘okop 2001 Field Season: Excavations and Continued Mapping pp. 31- 33. edited by Justine M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
2001b General Site Layout.” In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.17–18. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2001c Group B. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.21–29. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2001d Group D. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.31–33. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2001e Operations 3–5. In Final Report of Proyecto Arqueológico Yo’okop’s 2001 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.45–53. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2003 Ejido of Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2003 Field Season, pp. 39-53 edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
277
2004a Sites with Caves in the Ejido of Sacalaca. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2004 Field Season, pp. 134-146 edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005a Chakal Ja’as Operation 1. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2005 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, 107–13. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2008 White Roads of the Yucatan: Changing Social Landscapes of the Yucatec Maya. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
2010 Foci of the 2010 CRAS Field Season. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season. pp.1-5. Ed. by J.M. Shaw. College of the Redwoods, Eureka, CA.
2015 The Cochuah Region and the CRAS Project in The May of the Cochuah Region: Archeological and Ethnographic Perspective on the Northern Lowlands. Pp. 117-132. Edited by Justine Shaw. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2016 Foci of the 2014 CRAS Field Season. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2014 Field Season, pp. 1-5. edited by Justine M Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine M., and Carrillo Vania Bosch 2010 San Felipe, Operation 2. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 166–171. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine M., and Alberto G. Flores Colin 2008a San Felipe. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 175-181 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2008b Sisal. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 185-191 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
278 2008c Hopemul. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 169-170 edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2010 The Site of Yo‘dzonot, Sacalaca. In, Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season pp. 113-120. edited by Justine M. Shaw, A.G. Flores C., and D. Johnstone. College of the Redwoods, Eureka.
Shaw, Justine M., Dave Johnstone and Ruth Krochock 2000 Final Report of the 2000 Yo’okop Field Season: Initial Mapping and Surface Collections. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine and Luis Fernando Hernandez Lara 2010 San Felipe, Operation 3. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 149–153. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine, Thania E. Ibarra Narváez, and Alberto G. Flores Colin 2010a Sisal, Operation 4, in Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, pp. 197-198. Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2010b San Lorenzo, Operation 2. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 168-172. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine, Jorge Pablo Huerta Rodríguez and Joan Normark 2008 Candelaria. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, pp. 192-196. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
Shaw, Justine M. and Jennifer P. Mathews 2005 Quintana Roo Archaeology eds. Justine M. Shaw and Jennifer P. Mathews. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
279 Smart, Peter L, Patricia A, Beddows, Jim Coke, Stefan Doerr, Samantha Smith and Fiona F. Whitaker 2006 Cave Development on the Caribbean Coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico.InHarman,R.S.,Wicks,C.(Eds.),Perspectives on Karst Geomorphology, Hydrology and Geochemistry - A Tribute Volume to Derek C. Fords and William B. White. Geol. Soc. America Special Paper 404, pp. 105e128.
Smith, A. T. 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Smith, Robert E., Gordon R. Willey, and James C. Gifford. 1960 The Type Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity 25(3):330–40.
Smyth, Michael P. 1998 Before the Florescence: Chronological Reconstructions at Chac II, Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica, 9:233-57.
1999 A New Study of the Gruta de Chac, Yucatan, Mexico. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Crystal River, Florida.
Southall, Aidan 1956 Alur Society: A Study in Process and Types of Dimension. Cambridge, Heffer.
1985 The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 30(1): 52-82.
1988 The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 30(1):52–82.
1991 The Segmentary State: From the Imaginary to the Material Means of Production. In Early State Economics, edited by H. J. M Claessen and P. van de Welde, 75–96. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Stahle, D.W., Diaz, J.V., Burnette, D.J., Paredes, J.C., Heim, R.R., Fye, F.K., Soto, R.A., Therrell, M.D., Cleaveland, M.K., and Stahle, D.K.,
280 2011 Major Mesoamerican Droughts of the Past Millennium: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 38.
Stromsvik, Gustav, H.E.D. Pollock, and Heinrich Berlin 1955 “Exploration in Quintana Roo.” In Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book No. 53, July 1, 1953–-June 30, 1954. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Suhler, Charles, Traci Ardren, David Freidel, and Dave Johnstone 2004 The Rise and Fall of Terminal Classic Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 450-484. Denver: University Press of Colorado.
Suhler, Charles and David Freidel 1995 The Sack of Chichen Itza: Reinterpreting the Early Stratigraphic Excavations. Paper Presented in the Maya Meetings, March 9-18, University of Texas, Austin.
Taladoire, Eric 2001 The Architectural Background of the Pre-Hispanic Ballgame: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Whittington, E. M. (ed.), The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, Thames and Hudson, New York, pp. 96-1 15.
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja 1976 World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand Against a Historical Background, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2013 The Galactic Polity in Southeast Asia. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3 (3): 503–34.
Thompson, J. Eric 1931 Archeological Investigation in the Southern Cayo District, British Honduras. Anthropological Series, Publication 31, vol. 17, no. 3. Field Museum of National History, Chicago.
1954 The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
281
Thompson, Philip C. 1999 Tekanto: a Maya town in Colonial Yucata´n. Publication no. 67. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University.
Tokovinine, A. A. 2008 The Power of Place: Political Landscape and Identity in Classic Maya Inscriptions, Imagery, and Architecture. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
Tourtellot, G., III 1993 A View of Ancient Maya Settlements in the Eighth Century. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by J. Sabloff and J. Henderson, pp. 219–42. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Tourtellot, Gair, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Kelli Carmean. 1992 Will the Real Elite Please Stand Up? An Archaeological Assessment of Maya Elite Behavior in the Terminal Classic Period.” In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, 80–98. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Tourtellot, Gair and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1994 Community Structure at Sayil: A Case Study of Puuc Settlement. In, Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the N.W,. Yucatan Peninsula pp. 71-91. Ed. by H.J. Prem. Verlag Von Fleming, Mockmuhl.
Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941 Landa’s Relacíon de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 28. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. [Kraus Reprint Co., New York, 1966].
Tsukamoto, Kenichiro and Takeshi Inomata 2014 Mesoamerican Plazas: Arenas of Community and Power, edited by Kenichiro Tsukamoto and Takeshi Inomata.
Valdés, Juan Antonio 2001 Palaces and Thrones Tied to the Destiny of the Royal Courts in the Maya Lowlands. In Royal courts of the ancient Maya, Volume Two: Data and Case Studies, edited by T. Inomata and S. Houston, pp. 138-164. Boulder: Westview Press. 282
Valdes, Juan Antonio, and Federico Fahsen 2004 Disaster in Sight: The Terminal Classic at Tikal and Uaxactun. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, 140–61. Denver: University Press of Colorado.
Vargas de la Pena, Leticia, Victor Castillo B., and Alfonso Lacadena G. 1999 Textos Glificos de Ek’Balam (Yucatan, Mexico): Hallazgos de las Temporadas de 1996-1998. IICM 7, tomo 1 pp. 172-187.
Villamil, Laura P. 2008 Creating, Transforming, Rejecting, and Reinterpreting Ancient Maya Urban Landscapes: Insights from Lagartera and Margarita. In “Negotiating the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archeological Research”, ed. by Norman Yoffee, pp. 183-214. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Vogt, Evon Z. 1964 Some Implications of Zinacantan Social Structure for the Study of the Ancient Maya. Actas y Memorias, XXXV CIA, vol. 1, pp. 307-319. Mexico, D.F.
Walters, Rachel E., and Jeff Karl Kowalski 2000 Los Murales de Mulchic: La Guerra y la Formaci´on de un Estado Regional Puuc. In La Guerraentre los Antiguos Mayas: Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. Silvia Trejo, ed. Pp.205–223. M´exico, D.F.: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes e Instituto Nacional de Antropolog´ıa e Historia.
Ward, W. C., A. E.Weidie, and W. Back 1985 Geology and Hydro- geology of the Yucatan and Quaternary Geology of Northeastern Yucatan Peninsula New Orleans Geological Society. New Orleans, LA.
Webster, David L. 1978 Three Walled Sites in the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field Archeology 5:375-390.
283 2002 The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse. Thames & Hudson.
Webster David, AnnCorine Freter and RebeccaStorey 2004 Dating Copan-Culture History: Implication for the Terminal Classic and the Collapse. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp.231-259 Denver: University Press of Colorado.
Weisbach, C., H. Tiessen, and J.J. Jimenez-Osornio 2002 Soil Fertility During Shifting Cultivation in the Tropical Karst Soils of Yucatan. Agronomie 22:253-263.
West, Robert C 1964 Surface Configuration and Associated Geology of Middle America.” In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1: Natural Environment and Early Cultures, edited by Robert C. West, 33–83. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wilson, Reginaldo 1974 Okop: Antigua Ciudad Maya de Artesanos. INAH Boletín Epoca II:9: 3- 14.
Winemiller, Terrance L. 2007 The Chicxlulub Meteor Impact and Ancient Locational Decisions on the Yucat´an Peninsula, Mexico: The Application of Remote Sensing, GIS, and GPS in Settlement Pattern Studies. Tampa, Florida: Proceedings of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2007 Annual Conference. http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/proceedings/ tampa2007/0080.pdf, accessed September 9, 2012.
Wren, Linnea, and Travis Nygard 2005 Witnessed at Yo’okop: Images and Texts of Rulers in a Watery Realm. In Quintana Roo Archaeology, edited by Justine M. Shaw and Jennifer P. Mathews, 166–80. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Young, Tatiana
284 2004 Nohcacab’s Operation 4. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2004 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.29-35. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005a San Juan Operation 1 and 2. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.75–78. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2005b Mapping and Excavation at Parcela Escolar. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp. 116–124. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2008 Hierarchical and Spatial Relationship between the Sites of Sacalaca and Parcela Escolar. In Final Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2008 Field Season, edited by Justine M. Shaw, pp.103–110. Eureka, CA: College of the Redwoods.
2010 Parcela Escolar, Operations 2 and 3. In Annual Report of the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey’s 2010 Field Season, pp. 78-86. edited by Justine M. Shaw, Alberto G. Flores Colin, and Dave Johnstone, Eureka: College of the Redwoods.
2015 Maya Political Organization during the Terminal Classic Period in the Cochuah Region, Quintana Roo, Mexico. In The Maya of the Cochuah Region: Archeological and Ethnographic Perspective on the Northern Lowlands. pp. 97-116. Edited by Justine Shaw. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
285 APPENDIX A
CERAMIC TABLES FOR SITES IN WHICH THIS AUTHOR DIRECTED AND/OR PARTICIPATED IN THE MAPPING AND EXCAVATIONS
Table A. 1. Nohcacab, Operation 1
Type Operation/Level/Lot 4/1/1 4/2/1 4/3/1 4/4/1 4/4/2 4/5/1 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 4 2 2 Polvero Black 1 Sierra Red 1 1 2 8 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 1 Arena Red (LC) 1 Muna Slate (LC) 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 100 305 115 81 28 Yokat Striated var. Xquerol 1 Muna Slate (TC) 80 154 52 19 4 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 17 2 2 2 Tekit Incised 5 1 Teabo Red 3 13 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 Dzitas Slate 4 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 1 1 Chacmay Incised (PC) 2 Ycman Striated 2 1 Chan Mul Modeled 5 Mama Red 1 Unidentified 159 177 26 7 31 76 Total sherds 174 374 524 181 140 118
286
Table A. 2. San Juan, Operation 1
Type Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 Sierra Red (LF) 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome(EC) 2 Muna Slate(LC) 1 Teabo Red (TC) 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 4 3 6 Unidentified 9 6 Total sherds 14 11 8
Table A. 3. San Juan, Operation 2
Type Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 Chancenote Uncliped (LF) 1 Xanaba Red (EC) 4 Tituc Orange Polychrome v.Tituc (EC) 1 1 Arena Red (LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome(LC) 2 2 Muna Slate (LC) 2 2 Ticul Thin Slate(TC) 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 19 6 Teabo Red (TC) 1 Unidentified 134 20 Total sherds 165 32
287 Table A. 4. Parcela Escolar, Operation 1
Type Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 1 5 Sierra Red(LF) 13 40 Xanaba Red (EC) 2 8 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome(EC) 4 Arena Red(LC) 14 Yokat Striated (TC) 46 57 Muna Slate(TC) 26 27 Sacalum Black on Slate(TC) 1 1 Teabo Red(TC) 7 Becal Incised(TC) 1 Unidentified 256 299 Total sherds 359 449
288 Table A. 5. Parcela Escolar, Operation 2
Type Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 2/3/1 2/4/1 Yotolin Petterned Burnished(MF) 4 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 4 6 NacolalIncised (MF) 5 4 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff(MF) 47 5 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 1 6 7 Tancah Unslipped (LF) 4 Laguna Incised (LF) 1 45 9 Sierra Red (LF) 3 6 4 Lagartos Punctate (LF) 1 4 Flor Cream (LF) 5 Polvero Black (LF) 4 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Balanza Black (EC) 4 Aquila Orange(EC) 4 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Arena Red(LC) 2 Yokat Striated (TC) 1 8 7 1 Chum Inslipped (TC) 4 Muna Slate (TC) 1 3 5 6 Teabo Red (TC) 1 Unidentified 35 32 5 48 Total sherds 39 52 151 102
289 Table A. 6. Parcela Escolar, Operation 3
Type Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1-4 Yokat Striated (TC) 5 Muna Slate(TC) 3 Teabo Red(TC) 4
Unidentified 28 Total sherds 40
290 APPENDIX B
CERAMIC TABLES FOR THE CASE STUDY SITES
Table B. 1. Sacalaca, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/3/2 1/4/1 1/4/2 1/5/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 6 Nacolal Incised 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 3 4 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 13 1 Sierra Red 1 12 3 4 5 8 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 10 2 Xanaba Red 21 2 Caucel Trickel on Red 3 Aguila Orange 2 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 4 6 Maxcanu Buff 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 3 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Yokat Striate var Applique(TC) 5 12 2 9 12 Muna Slate 14 16 5 10 1 Yacman Striated(PC) 5 Chen Mul Modeled 12 17 Mama Red 1 Unidentified 20 27 2 68 23 6 22 Total sherds 60 72 74 98 52 21 31
291
Table B. 2. Sacalaca, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped(MF) 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 Sierra Red 10 4 Laguna Verde Incised 2 Lagartos Punctate 1 Sacalaca Striated(LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 72 Muna Slate 26 1 Teabo Red 12 4 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 Mama Red 1 Unidentified 83 20 Total sherds 210 31
292
Table B. 3. Sacalaca, Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 Type Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Sierra Red 1 Dos Caras Striated 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Arena Red 15 Muna Slate (LC) 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4 Yokat Striated var Applique 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat 158 Muna Slate 107 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 11 Ticul Thin Slate 4 Unidentified 124 Total sherds 435
293
Table B. 4. Sacalaca, Operation 4
Operation/Level/Lot 4/1/1 Type Xanaba Red (LF) 1 Sierra Red 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Arena Red 15 Muna Slate (LC) 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4 Yokat Striated var Applique 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat 158 Muna Slate 107 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 11 Ticul Thin Slate 4 Unidentified 124 Total sherds 433
294
Table B. 5. Sacalaca, Operation 5
Operation/Level/Lot 5/1/1 5/1/2 5/1/3 5/1/4 5/1/5 5/1/6 Type Joventud Red (MF) 1 Sierra Red(LF) 1 Laguna Verde Incised 3 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Arena Red 2 Chum Unslipped (TC) 2 7 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 8 4 13 6 12 Muna Slate 5 4 30 5 1 40 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 1 6 2 31 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Unidentified 29 54 80 20 116 Total sherds 44 70 134 31 1 208 Operation/Level/Lot 5/1/7 5/1/8 5/1/9 5/1/10 5/1/11 5/2/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 4 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Sierra Red 6 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 10 Muna Slate 5 8 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 1 1 2 3 Unidentified 2 2 2 75 Total sherds 2 1 3 2 18 98
295 Table B. 5. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 5/2/2 5/3/1 5/3/2 Type Achiotes Unslipped(MF) 20 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 3 1 Joventud Red 4 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 16 Tumben Incised 1 Canaima Incised Dichrome 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 13 2 Xanaba Red 3 Sierra Red 56 7 25 Laguna Verde Incised 5 2 Alta Mira Fluted 1 Polvero Black 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 6 Balanza Black 2 Chum Unslipped (TC) 1 Muna Slate 11 6 4 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 Teabo Red 1 Unidentified 16 68 Total sherds 137 32 109
296
Table B. 6. Chakal Ja’as, Operation 1
1 1 / / 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1 1 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 0/ 1/ 2/ 3/ / / 6/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 1 1 1 Xanaba Red 10 2 8 7 1 1 1 1 Sierra Red 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Laguna Verde Incised 1 1 1 Polvero Black 1 Caucel Trickel on Red (EC) 1 Yokat Striate (TC) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 Muna Slate 58 7 9 4 6 7 6 5 7 2 1 3 1 Teabo Red 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unidentified 11 0 6 4 2 4 2 2 1 4 6 4 2 1 Total sherds 88 7 0 0 2 5 7 2 7 9 4 3 4 1 2 2
297
Table B. 7. Chakal Ja’as, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/1/2 2/2/1 Type Yokat Striated var Yokat(TC) 1 3 3 Muna Slate 1 1 1 Navula Unslipped (PC) 1 Unidentified 2 1 Total sherds 3 6 5
Table B. 8. Parcela Escolar, Operation 4
Operation/Level/Lot 4/1/1 4/1/2 4/1/3 4/1/4 4/1/5 4/1/6 Type Chancenote Unslipped (MF) 1 Sierra Red(LF) 7 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Balanza Black 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 1 1 3 12 1 Muna Slate 1 2 9 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 1 5 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 14 5 25 59 3 Total sherds 17 6 31 98 1 4 Operation/Level/Lot 4/1/7 4/1/8 4/1/9 4/1/10 4/1/11 4/1/12 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 2 6 Muna Slate 3 7 Teabo Red 6 Unidentified 4 39 30 3 Total sherds 9 60 0 30 0 3
298 Table B. 8. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 4/2/1 4/3/1 4/3/2 4/4/1 4/5/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 1 Chancenote Unslipped 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 2 Sierra Red 3 1 8 Alta Mira Fluted 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 Balanza Black 1 Unidentified 3 2 2 Total sherds 0 10 5 11 1
Table B. 9. Parcela Escolar, Operation 5
Operation/Level/Lot 5/1/1 5/1/2 5/1/3 5/1/4 5/1/6 5/1/8 5/1/9 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 13 4 6 Xanaba Red 3 1 1 Aguila Orange 2 4 San Blas Red on Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 7 1 1 Arena Red(LC) 3 4 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 55 25 24 38 7 9 9 Muna Slate 36 4 6 24 7 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 1 1 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 3 1 2 1 Ticul Thin Slate 3 3 4 1 Unidentified 54 36 27 30 39 37 3 Total sherds 182 73 70 107 54 46 12
299 Table B. 9. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 5/2/1 5/2/2 5/3/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 2 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 16 10 Xanaba Red 4 5 Aguila Orange 1 1 1 San Blas Red on Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 4 3 Arena Red(LC) 3 Halacho Impressed 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 7 34 Muna Slate 6 15 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Teabo Red 1 2 Ticul Thin Slate 3 Unidentified 56 11 Total sherds 96 76 19
300
Table B. 10. Ramonal Oriente, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/4/1 Type Desvario Chamfered (MF) 1 Sierra Red (LF) 2 2 Yaxcaba Striated (EC) 3 1 Xanaba Red 1 1 Caucel Trickel on Red Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 3 Yokat Striated var Applique 2 5 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat 38 78 103 1 Muna Slate 22 49 95 3 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 5 1 1 Tekit Incised 2 2 3 Teabo Red 1 9 Ticul Thin Slate 1 6 Unidentified 24 36 90 4 Total sherds 94 176 320 13
301 Table B. 11. Ramonal Oriente, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 2/3/1 2/4/2 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 7 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 8 Tumben Incised 5 Majan Red on Cream 2 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 Sierra Red 8 2 1 Polvero Black 1 Xanaba Red (EC) 2 Aguila Orange 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 7 26 Yokat Striated var Yokat 2 2 1 Muna Slate 9 4 6 1 Teabo Red 4 2 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 219 15 11 66 Total sherds 274 25 23 94
302 Table B. 12. Ramonal Oriente, Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 3/2/1 3/2/2 3/2/4 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 6 Tumben Incised 1 13 Majan Red on Cream 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 2 Dzalpach Composite Sierra Red(EC) 1 3 17 Laguna Verde Incised 2 3 2 Polvero Black 1 Aguila Orange 1 Arena Red (LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 1 2 10 2 Yokat Striated var Applique Yokat Striated var Yokat 7 58 Muna Slate 9 51 33 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 3 2 5 Ticul Thin Slate 2 2 Unidentified 22 30 11 1 Total sherds 50 155 102 4
303 Table B. 13. Ramonal Poniente, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/2/2 1/3/1 1/4/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 1 Dzalpach Composite Sierra Red 1 1 Polvero Black 1 Xanaba Red (EC) 4 Balanza Black 2 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4 Yokat Striated var Yokat 2 4 7 Muna Slate 6 4 10 12 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 2 Teabo Red 3 3 1 2 1 Unidentified 17 30 1 36 24 Total sherds 21 43 6 64 48
304 Table B. 14. Ramonal Poniente, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/3/1 2/3/2 2/4/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 2 Tumben Incised 1 Canaima Red/Cream Incised 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 3 1 Sierra Red 6 2 Polvero Black 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4 Yokat Striated var Yokat 56 1 Muna Slate 74 6 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 Tekit Incised 2 Teabo Red 8 1 Ticul Thin Slate 7 Balancan Fine Orange 1 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 4 Unidentified 96 4 1 1 Total sherds 269 17 1 1
305 Table B. 15. San Diego, Operations 1 and 2
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/2 2/1/1 2/2/1 2/3/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 2 Muna Slate 5 9 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Teabo Red 3 Unidentified 4 17 3 10 3 Total sherds 4 23 4 24 4
Table B. 16. San Pedro, Operations 1 and 2
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/2/2 2/1/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 1 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 2 1 Nacolal Incised 2 1 Desvario Chamfered 1 Guitarra Incised 3 3 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 4 4 Chancenote Unslipped 1 2 Sierra Red (LF) 4 8 8 16 Laguna Verde Incised 1 1 8 Yokat Striated var Applique (TC) 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat 31 2 9 Muna Slate 36 4 3 6 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Tekit Incised 1 4 Teabo Red 9 1 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 2 Unidentified 109 8 7 12 Total sherds 195 20 30 28
306
Table B. 17. Yo’dzonot, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 3 Joventud Red 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 8 Tumben Incised 4 Chancenote Unslipped 3 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 1 Sierra Red 22 Laguna Verde Incised 3 Balanza Black(EC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Applique(TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 26 6 Muna Slate 36 12 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Teabo Red 4 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 143 49 Total sherds 214 113
307 Table B. 18. Yo’dzonot, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 Type Saban Unslipped (EC) 16 Yaxcaba Striated 143 Xanaba Red 11 82 Caucel Trickel on Red 7 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 8 Aguila Orange 1 7 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 6 23 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Camichin 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 4 Arena Red (EC) 3 Batres Red 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 23 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 159 32 Muna Slate 131 21 Sacalum Black on Slate 7 1 Tekit Incised 2 Akil Impressed 2 Teabo Red 6 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Tabi Gouged-Incised 1 Unidentified 83 144 Total sherds 406 523
308 Table B. 19. Yo’dzonot, Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 3/2/1 3/2/2 3/2/3 3/2/4 3/3/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 2 1 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 1 19 3 1 Nacolal Incised 2 Joventud Red 20 3 Desvario Chamfered 5 Guitarra Incised 6 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 3 32 10 1 Tumben Incised 1 3 1 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 21 2 Xanaba Red (EC) 25 8 Sierra Red 1 27 28 2 1 5 Laguna Verde Incised 2 12 9 2 1 Alta Mira Fluted 2 Yaxcaba Striated 1 14 18 1 Xanaba Red 1 27 1 Balanza Black 3 1 1 Dos Arroyos Orange 1 Arena Red 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4 36 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 46 4 Muna Slate 52 1 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 Akil Impressed 1 Teabo Red 9 2 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Unidentified 108 198 58 4 11 18 Total sherds 242 459 133 7 25 28
309 Table B. 20. Ichmul, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/4/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 7 3 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 4 2 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 4 1 1 Sierra Red 5 4 3 5 Laguna Verde Incised 1 2 Polvero Black 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 4 1 3 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 Sacalaca Striated(LC) 1 Arena Red 3 Muna Slate (LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 3 2 2 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 1 4 1 2 Muna Slate 4 9 2 4 Teabo Red 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 5 3 Unidentified 10 27 23 14 Total sherds 29 67 52 45
310 Table B. 21. Ichmul, Operation 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / 1 2/ 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 6 2/ / 1/ / / / / / / / 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ / 7/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 1 1 Nacolal Incised 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 2 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 5 4 4 3 Sierra Red 1 2 5 8 1 4 Laguna Verde Incised 1 2 2 Flor Cream 2 1 Saban Unslipped(EC) 3 5 1 9 2 2 4 Yaxcaba Striated 9 2 2 2 7 2 7 8 3 6 2 3 9 Xanaba Red 9 2 5 1 3 3 3 2 4 5 3 3 0 4 2 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 7 3 2 0 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 3 1 2 Balanza Black 1 5 3 1 Aguila Orange 3 1 8 2 Dos Arroyos Orange 2 Polychrome 6 3 9 4 1 Yalchak Striated 5 Maxcanu Buff 1 3 Hunabchen Red 1 Sacalaca Striated(LC) 1 Arena Red 1 Petkanche Orange Polychrome 1
311 Table B. 21. Continued
2 / 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 5 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ Operation/Level/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ / 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 6/ 7/ Lot 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 Yokat Striate 3 2 3 (TC) 3 4 2 9 94 2 4 1 3 Muna Slate 4 4 6 9 37 5 1 3 Teabo Red 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 Unidentified 1 7 1 0 26 5 1 3 2 4 10 35 86 6 20 3 9 6 4 16 8 4 1 1 25 14 16 4 19 Total sherds 0 0 6 9 5 5 6 1 9 5 4 5 6 0 2
312 Table B. 22. Ichmul Operation 3
3 3 3 / / / 3/ 3/ 1 3/ 3 3 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 1/ 1/ / 2/ / / 3/ 5/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 7/ 7/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 3 7 1 3 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 1 3 Majan Red on Cream 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 1 1 Xanaba Red 6 7 1 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 Sierra Red 4 2 1 3 8 Balanza Black(EC) 1 1 Aguila Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 2 5 2 San Blas 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 1 1 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 2 1 1 1 Yokat Striate var Applique 1 2 1 1 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat 2 2 3 9 7 2 5 1 Muna Slate 2 4 4 8 8 7 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 4 2 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 4 7 4 2 1 1 1 2 Unidentified 3 5 4 2 0 7 2 1 8 9 5 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 7 Total sherds 9 7 1 8 5 2 6 9 1 9 4 6 2 8
313 Table B. 23. San Felipe Operation 1
1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 3 1/ 1/ 4 5 5 1/ 1/ 7 1/ 2/ 2/ 3/ 3/ / 4/ 4/ / / / 6/ 6/ / Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 1 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 Nacolal Incised 1 1 1 Desvario Chamfered 1 Guitarra Incised 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 2 3 2 6 Tumben Incised 1 1 4 1 8 2 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 1 6 2 2 5 9 2 Tancah Unslipped 5 Xanaba Red 6 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 Sierra Red 6 2 8 9 9 2 2 5 5 6 9 7 6 Laguna Verde Incised 2 1 1 5 Ciego Composite 1 6 Repasto Black on Red 1 Polvero Black 2 Saban Unslipped(EC) 2 3 1 Yaxcaba Striated 5 3 3 1 1 5 1 1 Xanaba Red 3 0 6 9 1 2 Caucel Trickel on Red 4 3 2 Balanza Black 1 Aguila Orange 4
314 Table B. 23. Continued
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 1/ 2/ 2/ 3/ / / / / / / / / / / Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 Type Yaxcaba Striated 35 13 3 1 1 Xanaba Red 3 10 56 19 1 2 Caucel Trickel on Red 4 3 2 Balanza Black 1 Aguila Orange 4 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 4 19 11 2 1 Caldero Buff 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 11 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 10 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Arena Red 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 4 1 Yokat Striate var Applique(TC) 8 15 Yokat Striated var Yokat 458 4 11 1 1 Muna Slate 133 55 21 5 3 3 3 Sacalum Black on Slate 7 15 3 1 Tekit Incised 15 5 1 Teabo Red 7 7 Ticul Thin Slate 18 3 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 4 15 1 4 2 3 1 Unidentified 468 5 72 51 6 2 1 1 3 7 7 115 44 25 14 5 8 5 1 9 7 1 Total sherds 0 4 6 8 0 5 4 4 6 2 0 1 3 8
315
Table B. 23. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 1/7/2 1/7/3 1/8/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 3 Sierra Red 2 Unidentified 2 Total sherds 0 0 7
316
Table B. 24. San Felipe Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/1&1/1 2/2/1 2/3/1 2/4/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 3 Nacolal Incised 1 2 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 3 1 Tumben Incised 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 1 Sierra Red 1 3 2 16 49 Laguna Verde Incised 2 2 Mateo Red on Cream 2 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 6 Xanaba Red 4 7 7 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Balanza Black 3 2 5 Aguila Orange 1 1 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 2 1 Maxcanu Buff 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Arena Red 1 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 Yokat Striate (TC) 221 81 184 94 Muna Slate 88 18 54 37 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 1 3 4 1 Nohcacab Composit 1 Teabo Red 5 2 4 2 Becal 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 9 7 4 1 Yacman Striated(PC) 2 Unidentified 123 47 343 192 299 Total sherds 454 152 615 375 378
317 Table B. 25. San Felipe Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 3/1/2 3/2/1 3/3/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 1 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 3 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 1 Sierra Red 1 1 8 Laguna Verde Incised 1 2 Mateo Red on Cream 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 4 3 Muna Slate 4 7 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 Unidentified 21 5 19 32 Total sherds 32 5 31 49
318 Table B. 26. San Felipe Operation 4
4/1/ 4/2/ 4/3/1 4/3/ 4/4/ 4/5/ 4/5/ 4/7/ 4/9/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 &2 3 1 1 2 1 1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 5 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 4 7 Guitarra Incised 49 7 9 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 5 8 Canaima Incised 4 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 4 6 6 5 Yaxcaba Striated 5 Xanaba Red 3 7 9 8 4 Sierra Red 48 9 44 Laguna Verde Incised 6 6 9 8 Repasto Black on Red 4 4 Polvero Black 7 5 Lechugal Incised 4 Xanaba Red(EC) 54 6 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 4 Balanza Black 4 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 7 5 Dos Caras Striated (LC) 6 Chum Unslipped (TC) 9 Yokat Striated 7 8 43 3 Muna Slate 3 7 9 53 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 Tekit Incised 6 Becal Incised 2 4 6 4 8 Unidentified 59 33 58 3 27 1 58 71 7 Total sherds 66 51 140 32 113 5 182 119 182
319 Table B. 27. San Felipe Operation 5
5/1/ 5/2/ 5/3/ 5/3/ 5/4/ 5/5/ 5/6/ 5/7/ 5/8/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 7 Nacolal Incised 4 Joventud Red 4 4 4 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 4 5 7 4 Tumben Incised 4 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 4 Xanaba Red 5 Sierra Red 4 7 7 43 Polvero Black 4 Yaxcaba Striated (EC) 4 Xanaba Red 43 5 4 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 4 6 4 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 5 Yokat Striated var Yokat(TC) 55 Muna Slate 9 4 Teabo Red 4 7 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 4 Unidentified 57 5 4 1 7 8 14 3 Total sherds 141 21 53 8 40 74 29 12 0
320 Table B. 28. San Felipe Operation 6
Operation/Level/Lot 6/1/1 6/3/1 6/4/1 6/8/1 6/8/1 6/10/1 Type Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff (MF) 1 Xanaba Red(LF) 2 2 1 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 3 4 4 1 7 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 3 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat( TC) 45 31 1 Muna Slate 2 Tekit Incised 39 36 4 Nohcacab Composit 1 Teabo Red 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 Balantun Black on Slate 3 Navula Unslipped (PC) 2 7 1 Mama Red 6 Unidentified 81 53 13 5 1 Total sherds 179 129 25 14 5 9 Operation/Level/Lot 6/12/1 6/13/1 6/14/1 6/15/1 6/16/1 6/16/2 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 2 1 1 Joventud Red 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 4 2 1 6 Tumben Incised 1 1 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 8 Xanaba Red 11 Sierra Red 1 7 Laguna Verde Incised 1 1 Saban Unslipped (EC) 1 Xanaba Red 2 2 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 6 8 5 12 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 2 1 Aguila Orange 1 Yokat Striated var Yokat (TC) 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 Unidentified 2 1 7 10 11 3 Total sherds 13 15 25 21 25 28
321 Table B. 28. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6/17/1 6/17/2 6/18/1 6/18/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 2 1 Joventud Red 2 2 2 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 12 5 5 Tumben Incised 1 1 Tipikal Red on Striated (LF) 2 Chancenote Unslipped 4 Xanaba Red 1 Sierra Red 1 8 1 3 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Navula Unslipped (PC) 1 Unidentified 22 31 11 11 Total sherds 25 59 22 25
322
Table B. 29. San Felipe Operations 7and 8
Operation/Lev/Lot 7/1/1 8/2/1 8/2/2 8/3/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 13 1 1 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 4 Nacolal Incised 5 Joventud Red 1 Guitarra Incised 14 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 4 1 Tipikal Red on Striated(LF) 8 Dzalpach Composite 59 1 7 Sierra Red 7 1 Ciego Composite 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 3 1 Xanaba Red 4 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 7 Aguila Orange 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna (LC) 3 Yokat Striate var Applique (TC) 31 13 3 14 Sacalum Black on Slate 73 15 3 4 Ticul Thin Slate 9 1 1 Balantun Black on Slate 2 Unidentified 220 70 14 68 Total sherds 966 107 21 97
323 Table B. 30. San Felipe, Operation 9
Operation/Level/Lot 9/1/2 9/1/3 9/1/12 9a/1/1 9a/1/2 9b/1/1 Type Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Balanza Black 2 Oxcutzcab Applique (LC) 4 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 16 2 4 74 61 Muna Slate 11 1 5 4 45 52 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 1 3 7 Tekit Incised 3 3 Teabo Red 3 Opichen Gouged Incised 1 Ticul Thin Slate 3 Holactun Black on Coarse 9 7 Cream Balantun Black on Slate 1 Tojil Plumbate 1 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 11 1 1 1 6 Unidentified 39 5 10 107 230 Total sherds 77 2 15 19 255 369
324 Table B. 30. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 9b/1/2 9b/1/3 9c/1/1 9c/1/3 9c/1/6 9c/1/10 Type Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Oxcutzcab Applique(TC) 3 Yokat Striated var. Applique 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 54 81 6 2 Muna Slate 34 83 2 1 11 8 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 7 1 1 Tekit Incised 2 5 Teabo Red 5 5 Ticul Thin Slate 3 Holactun Black on Coarse 9 25 Cream Dzitas Slate 2 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 1 Altar Fine Orange 1 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 2 8 Mama Red 6 Unidentified 74 232 7 8 16 14 Total sherds 187 459 9 9 36 26
325 Table B. 30. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 9d/1/1 9d/1/2 9d/1/3 9e/1/1 9e/1/11 9f/1/1 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 35 15 6 4 9 12 Muna Slate 24 18 8 3 6 8 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 1 Tekit Incised 1 Akil Impressed 1 Teabo Red 4 2 Ticul Thin Slate 2 2 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 1 Unidentified 51 36 12 3 39 30 Total sherds 113 77 29 10 56 55 Operation/Level/Lot 9f/1/2 9f/1/3 9g/1/1 9g/1/3 9g/1/4 9h/1/1 Type Xanaba Red(EC) 1 2 Aguila Orange 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Oxcutzcab Applique(TC) 2 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 31 26 10 18 2 Muna Slate 20 40 10 37 4 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 2 1 2 Tekit Incised 1 1 Teabo Red 3 1 Ticul Thin Slate 2 1 3 Holactun Black on Coarse 32 2 Cream Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 11 5 Unidentified 35 188 23 55 5 Total sherds 101 304 48 116 11 0
326
Table B. 30. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 9h/1/2 9i/1/1 9i/1/3 9j/1/1 9j/1/1 9k/1/1 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 2 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Aguila Orange 1 Halacho Impressed(TC) 1 Tepekan Composite 6 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 30 11 57 1 2 Muna Slate 19 11 68 2 3 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 7 Tekit Incised 1 Akil Impressed Teabo Red 3 1 3 Ticul Thin Slate 1 2 10 Holactun Black on Coarse Cream 2 Xuku Incised 4 Thul Applique 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 22 3 11 1 Unidentified 39 17 75 2 7 3 Total sherds 130 50 235 5 11 6
327 Table B. 30. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 9k/1/3 9k/1/4 9k/1/8 9k/1/9 9l/1/1 9l/1/2 Type Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. 1 5 Tituc Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 15 2 6 8 19 Muna Slate 14 1 5 1 7 23 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 3 Tekit Incised 1 1 2 Teabo Red 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 Tabi Gouged-Incised 1 Holactun Black on Coarse 1 23 Cream Dzitas Slate 4 Tojil Plumbate 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 26 9 12 10 13 Unidentified 33 3 5 11 11 114 Total sherds 94 16 16 25 41 206 Operation/Level/Lot 9m/1/1 9m/1/2 9m/1/3 9m/1/4 9n 1/1 9n/1/2 Type Saxche Orange 1 Polychrome(LC) Oxcutzcab Applique(TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 13 4 1 90 3 5 Muna Slate 8 9 4 83 3 4 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 1 1 9 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 1 6 1 Ticul Thin Slate 12 Tabi Gouged-Incised 1 Xuku Incised 1 Yacman Striated 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 2 1 10 4 Unidentified 13 11 4 188 18 3 Total sherds 35 29 11 400 31 13
328
Table B. 30. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 9o/1/1 9o/1/3 9p/1/1 9p/1/2 9p/1/4 Type Tumben Incised(MF) Laguna Verde Incised(LF) 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Huachinango Incised Bichrome Balanza Black 1 Aguila Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome Oxcutzcab Applique(TC) Yokat Striated var. Yokat 2 6 6 14 66 Muna Slate 4 8 3 9 53 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 2 4 Tekit Incised 1 6 Teabo Red 1 2 Becal Incised Opichen Gouged Incised 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 2 7 Holactun Black on Coarse Cream 6 1 Dzitas Slate 2 1 Navula Unslipped(PC) Chen Mul Modeled 6 3 8 11 Unidentified 14 10 12 51 156 Total sherds 27 32 23 94 308
329 Table B. 31. San Felipe Operation 10
Operation/Level/Lot 10/1/7 10a/1/1 10a/1/2 10a/1/3 10b/1/1 10c/1/1 10c/1/4 Type Chunhinta Black v. 1 Ucu (MF) Dzudzuquil Cream to 1 Buff Tumben Incised 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 1 Laguna Verde 1 Incised Xanaba Red (EC) 1 Tituc Orange 1 Polychrome v. Tituc Huachinango Incised 4 Bichrome Dos Arroyos Orange 2 Polychrome Halacho Impressed 1 2 Oxcutzcab Applique 1 1 1 Yokat Striated var. 89 16 12 2 10 12 14 Yokat (TC) Muna Slate 141 28 31 4 13 15 15 Sacalum Black on 19 1 4 3 Slate Tekit Incised 2 2 1 4 Teabo Red 8 1 1 2 Becal Incised 1 Ticul Thin Slate 13 4 2 2 1 Holactun Black on 74 4 Coarse Cream Dzitas Slate 2 Balantun Black on 1 2 Slate Navula Unslipped 1 Chen Mul Modeled 1 1 2 2 3 (PC) Unidentified 398 48 62 9 28 39 26 Total sherds 795 102 118 16 58 73 69
330 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10c/2/1 10d/1/1 10e/1/2 10e/1/3 10e/2/2 Type Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff(MF) 1 Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Arena Red 1 Yokat Striated var. Applique(TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 12 18 8 14 19 Muna Slate 4 18 14 6 16 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 7 1 2 3 Tekit Incised 1 1 1 Teabo Red 5 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Holactun Black on Coarse Cream 1 Dzitas Slate 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 3 4 Unidentified 11 32 41 5 28 Total sherds 28 77 72 33 73
331 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10f/1/3 10f/1/5 10f/2/1 10f/2/2 10g/1/1 10g/1/2 Type Arena Red(EC) 1 Halacho Impressed(LC) 1 1 1 Oxcutzcab Applique 1 1 Yokat Striated var. 8 4 33 21 15 10 Yokat(TC) Muna Slate 11 3 49 20 20 8 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 8 3 Tekit Incised 2 Teabo Red 1 2 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Holactun Black on Coarse 1 3 Cream Dzitas Slate 2 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 Navula Unslipped(PC) 11 Unidentified 21 4 66 42 51 23 Total sherds 47 11 174 88 90 45 Operation/Level/Lot 10g/1/3 10g/1/4 10h/1/2 10h/1/3 10i/1/1 10i/1/2 Type Caucel Trickel on Red(EC) 2 Oxcutzcab Applique(LC) 4 1 Yokat Striated var. 46 1 21 36 5 27 Yokat(TC) Muna Slate 38 4 16 37 9 13 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 1 3 2 Tekit Incised 1 2 Teabo Red 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 17 1 Holactun Black on Coarse 3 1 2 Cream Dzitas Slate 1 2 1 Balantun Black on Slate 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 1 Unidentified 124 8 63 101 29 37 Total sherds 237 14 108 178 48 82
332 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10i/1/3 10i/1/4 10i/2/1 10/j/1/3 10j/4/2 10k/1/1 Type Xanaba Red (EC) 2 1 Dos Arroyos Orange 1 Polychrome Halacho Impressed 1 Oxcutzcab Applique (LC) 1 1 Yokat Striated var. Applique Yokat Striated var. Yokat 1 18 36 17 12 Muna Slate 1 17 42 12 15 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 3 1 Tekit Incised 2 1 Akil Impressed 1 Teabo Red 1 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 2 1 4 Dzitas Slate 4 Balantun Black on Slate 2 Unidentified 4 58 129 56 62 Total sherds 3 6 105 218 87 99
333 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10k/1/2 10k/1/3 10k/1/6 10l/1/1 10l/1/2 10l/1/3 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 1 Xanaba Red 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Dos Arroyos Orange 1 Polychrome Oxcutzcab Applique(LC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 4 32 1 16 6 29 Muna Slate 8 21 3 20 11 35 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 2 1 8 Tekit Incised 3 Teabo Red 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 1 4 Tabi Gouged-Incised 1 Holactun Black on Coarse 1 5 Cream Dzitas Slate 1 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 Altar Fine Orange 1 Yalton Black on Orange 1 Unidentified 43 118 8 78 41 103 Total sherds 58 177 20 118 62 188
334 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10l/1/4 10m/1/1 10m/1/2 10m/1/3 10n/1/1 10n/1/4 Type Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 Sierra Red(LF) 2 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 2 1 Huachinango Incised 1 Bichrome Balanza Black 1 Aguila Orange 2 Halacho Impressed(LC) 1 Oxcutzcab Applique 4 1 Yokat Striated var. 1 17 11 46 1 Yokat(TC) Muna Slate 2 8 5 22 28 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 5 1 Tekit Incised 1 1 Teabo Red 2 3 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 2 Holactun Black on Coarse 4 42 Cream Balantun Black on Slate 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 7 1 Unidentified 5 33 9 105 154 11 Total sherds 9 73 19 197 240 16
335 Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10o/1/1 10p/1/1 10q/1/1 10r/1/1 10r/1/4 10s/1/4 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Aguila Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange 1 Polychrome Halacho Impressed(LC) 1 Oxcutzcab Applique 1 1 Yokat Striated var. 1 Applique(TC) Yokat Striated var. Yokat 22 18 11 9 Muna Slate 15 18 8 21 8 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 1 3 1 Tekit Incised 2 1 Teabo Red 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 1 1 Tabi Gouged-Incised Holactun Black on Coarse 1 3 1 2 Cream Dzitas Slate 3 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 4 Unidentified 77 83 38 30 10 Total sherds 125 126 63 40 42 15
Table B. 31. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 10s/2/2 Type Tumben Incised (MF) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 5 Muna Slate 5 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Unidentified 55 Total sherds 68
336
Table B. 32. San Felipe, Operations11-13
Operation/Level/Lot 11/1/1 11/2/1 12/1/1 12/2/2 12/3/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 Sierra Red (LF) 1 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Molas Composite 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. 1 Tituc (EC) Aguila Orange 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 23 6 3 2 Muna Slate 10 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Teabo Red 4 Unidentified 6 25 21 6 7 Total sherds 6 67 27 12 10
337 Table B. 32. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 12/3/2 13/1/1 13/2/1 13/2/2 13/3/2 13/3/3 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 Sierra Red(LF) 4 Encanto Striated v. Sacna(EC) 1 Arena Red 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 9 2 2 Muna Slate 1 Teabo Red 2 Unidentified 47 2 2 4 13 Total sherds 65 4 2 4 16 1 Operation/Level/Lot 13/4/1 13/4/2 13/5/1 13/5/2 13/6/2 13/6/3 Type Tumben Incised(MF) 1 Chancenote Unslipped 1 Sierra Red(LF) 4 1 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Polvero Black 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 2 Xanaba Red 2 Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 2 6 1 Muna Slate 4 2 Teabo Red 1 Unidentified 7 1 3 3 38 11 Total sherds 9 1 5 5 57 17
Table B. 32. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 13/7/1 Type Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 2 Muna Slate 5 Teabo Red 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 13 Total sherds 22
338
Table B. 33. Ramonal Quemado, Operations 1-3
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 2/1/1 3/1/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 2 Tumben Incised 3 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 2 1 Laguna Verde Incised 2 1 3 Polvero Black 1 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome(EC) 1 Muna Slate (TC) 13 1 1 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 2 Unidentified 27 0 9 1 6 Total sherds 54 1 14 1 12
339 Table B. 34. Ramonal Quemado, Operations 4 and 5
Operation/Level/Lot 4/3/1 4/4/1 5/1/4 5/2/1 5/3/1 5/4/1 5/5/1 5/6/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 Nacolal Incised 4 4 Joventud Red 5 Sierra Red(LF) 5 6 2 5 4 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 4 5 Xanaba Red 1 4 Lucha Incised 4 Aguila Orange 1 Muna Slate(TC) 48 2 Teabo Red 4 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 7 Unidentified 13 2 8 16 5 6 8 Total sherds 21 4 73 24 10 5 11 30
340 Table B. 35. Sisal, Operation 1
1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 4/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 6/ 7/ 7/ 8/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 1 3 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 3 2 Sierra Red 1 4 1 3 6 16 Flor Cream 2 2 Saban Unslipped(EC) 1 1 8 16 Yaxcaba Striated 4 1 9 2 43 1 44 5 13 Xanaba Red 3 11 22 1 2 20 108 13 29 Caucel Trickel on Red 7 2 17 1 6 1 10 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 Balanza Black 1 3 1 San Blas 1 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 2 1 10 22 Caldero Buff Polychrome 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Muna Slate (LC) 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 3 6 1
341 Table B. 35. Continued
1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 4/ 4/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 6/ 7/ 7/ 8/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 Type Chum Unslipped (TC) 2 Yokat Striate var Applique 2 Yokat Striated var Yokat 115 80 Muna Slate 126 80 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 14 35 Tekit Incised 3 1 Akil Impressed 2 1 Teabo Red 2 1 Ticul Thin Slate 3 5 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 2 1 Mama Red 2 Unidentified 83 54 1 3 11 20 5 19 38 Total sherds 356 305 6 54 2 2 0 5 96 3 211 34 91 60
342
Table B. 36. San Lorenzo, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/5/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 Guitarra Incised 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 Xanaba Red (LF) 2 Sierra Red 1 6 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Balanza Black 7 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 5 Yokat Striated(TC) 31 21 20 7 Muna Slate 10 9 11 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 1 Tekit Incised 1 Akil 1 2 Teabo Red 2 1 Balantun Black on Slate 1 Yacman Striated(PC) 1 Chen Mul Modeled 5 Unidentified 29 29 65 20 Total sherds 81 61 104 50
343 Table B. 37. San Lorenzo, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/2/1 2/3/1 2/3/2 2/4/1 2/4/2 2/5/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 7 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 1 1 6 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 57 Tumben Incised 4 6 Canaima 7 Chancenote Unslipped (LF) 7 Dzalpach Composite 8 Sierra Red 1 7 4 5 Laguna Verde Incised Ciego Composite 4 Lagartos Punctate Repasto Black on Red Flor Cream 4 Mateo Red on Cream Polvero Black 4 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Balanza Black 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 11 4 1 1 Muna Slate 10 2 3 1 Teabo Red 3 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 4 2 Unidentified 48 14 23 14 96 2 Total sherds 77 23 32 18 195 18 15
344 Table B. 38. San Lorenzo, Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 3/2/1 3/3/1 3/4/2 3/5/1 3/6/1 3/7/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 5 4 Nacolal Incised 4 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 6 4 Sierra Red(LF) 4 5 8 8 45 Laguna Verde Incised 5 Polvero Black 4 Balanza Black(EC) 4 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 4 Yokat Striated (TC) 2 5 5 5 1 Muna Slate 2 1 5 7 Tekit Incised 4 Teabo Red 4 4 4 Unidentified 13 5 14 28 12 3 14 Total sherds 25 23 42 40 24 18 76
345 Table B. 39. San Lorenzo, Operation 4
4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 2&3/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 8/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 4 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 6 47 Nacolal Incised 6 Joventud Red 4 4 Desvario Chamfered 4 4 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 4 4 46 6 458 Tumben Incised 4 77 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 6 6 45 5 8 Xanaba Red 6 84 Sierra Red 8 5 85 9 4 Laguna Verde Incised 4 6 Ciego Composite Lagartos Punctate 4 5 4 4 Repasto Black on Red 4 4 Polvero Black 5 Saban Unslipped(EC) 4 4 Yaxcaba Striated 7 44 44 Xanaba Red 44 43 43 68 Caucel Trickel on Red 7 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 6 4 Balanza Black 4 4 5 Lucha Incised Aguila Orange 5 4
346 Table B. 39. Continued
4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 2&3/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 8/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Aguila Orange 5 4 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 8 Elote Impressed 4 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 8 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 Saxche Orange Polychrome 5 4 Yokat Striated (TC) 56 8 5 Muna Slate 435 8 47 Sacalum Black on Slate 5 5 5 Akil Striated 4 Teabo Red 43 Ticul Thin Slate 5 Unidentified 687 12 111 103 80 7 5 Total sherds 1347 37 310 336 235 20 6 702
347
Table B. 40. San Lorenzo, Operation 5
Operation/Level/Lot 5/1/1 5/2/1 5/3/1 5/3/2 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 4 Tumben Incised 4 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 4 Sierra Red 5 Laguna Verde Incised 4 Xanaba Red(EC) 4 6 Balanza Black 4 Lucha Incised 4 Yokat Striated(TC) 6 48 4 Muna Slate 53 7 7 Teabo Red 6 5 Ticul Thin Slate 4 Unidentified 84 24 2 30 Total sherds 149 88 7 75
Table B. 41. Hopemul, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 6 Nacolal Incised 2 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 10 Tumben Incised 4 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 2 2 Sierra Red 18 31 Laguna Verde Incised 1 7 Xanaba Red(EC) 2 Yokat Striate (TC) 33 Muna Slate 7 Teabo Red 2 Unidentified 112 Total sherds 179 62
348 Table B. 42. Yo’okop, Operation 1
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/4/1 1/4/2 1/4/3 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 5 8 Chunhinta Black v. Ucu 1 3 7 7 Nacolal Incised 2 3 Joventud Red 2 12 Desvario Chamfered 1 Guitarra Incised 1 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 3 4 5 Tumben Incised 2 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 13 150 20 Sierra Red 1 2 28 257 95 10 Laguna Verde Incised 3 3 Ciego Composite 2 Lagartos Punctate 1 Repasto Black on Red 1 3 Flor Cream 9 14 Mateo Red on Cream 1 Polvero Black 7 Saban Unslipped(EC) 4 13 Yaxcaba Striated 7 20 82 Xanaba Red 2 8 19 Balanza Black 1 4 Aguila Orange 1 13 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 5 10 Cetelac Fiber Tempered 1 Elote Impressed 1 6 Sacalaca Striated(LC) 7 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 2 1 Arena Red 7 5 5 Batres Red 4 Muna Slate 2 2 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 4
349 Table B. 42. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/3/1 1/4/1 1/4/2 1/4/3 Type Yokat Striated 2 4 6 Muna Slate 9 5 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 1 Teabo Red 1 Mama Red(PC) 1 Unidentified 21 24 38 155 29 11 Total sherds 48 54 156 788 226 67
350
Table B. 43. Yo’okop, Operation 2
Operation/Level/Lot 2/1/1 2/1/2 2/2/1 2/3/1 2/3/2 2/3/3 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 3 17 2 11 2 Tancah Unslipped 14 10 Sierra Red 2 8 14 1 25 Flor Cream 4 Saban Unslipped(EC) 12 19 1 Yaxcaba Striated 5 1 36 12 38 Xanaba Red 2 4 25 12 45 3 Caucel Trickel on Red 12 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 2 2 3 1 Balanza Black 1 1 Lucha Incised 1 Aguila Orange 1 8 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 3 2 10 1 Elote Impressed 1 Maxcanu Buff 1 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna(LC) 40 7 2 Arena Red 2 6 4 4 1 Batres Red 1 Muna Slate 3 15 2 22 7 Sacalum Black on Slate 6 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 3 12 Sayan Red on Cream 1 Chum Unslipped (TC) 3 Yokat Striated 1 6 14 Muna Slate 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 Unidentified 7 50 13 23 7 Total sherds 28 66 210 55 256 43
351 Table B. 44. Yo’okop, Operation 3
Operation/Level/Lot 3/1/1 3/2/1 3/3/1 3/3/2 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 2 1 Tancah Unslipped 1 Sierra Red 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 2 Encanto Striated v. Sacna(LC) 8 7 7 Muna Slate 5 6 Yokat Striated (TC) 8 Muna Slate 6 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 Tekit Incised 1 Unidentified 127 123 7 25 Total sherds 160 138 7 36
352 Table B. 45. Yo’okop, Operation 4
Operation/Level/Lot 4/1/1 4/2/1 4/3/1 4/3/2 4/3/3 4/4/1 Type Achiotes Unslipped (MF) 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 3 4 1 12 Tancah Unslipped 3 Xanaba Red 1 Dzalpach Composite 4 Flor Cream 1 Polvero Black 3 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 1 Xanaba Red 5 1 1 2 Caucel Trickel on Red 5 3 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 Balanza Black 1 Aquila Orange 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 22 Sacalaca Striated 17 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 20 6 1 Arena Red 8 2 3 Muna Slate 11 3 2 2 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 6 2 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 41 Muna Slate 19 Sacalum Black on Slate 6 Teabo Red 12 Ticul Thin Slate 7 Balantun Black on Slate 2 Navula Unslipped (PC) 11 Unidentified 121 7 2 5 7 49 Total sherds 313 39 9 12 16 83
353 Table B. 46. Yo’okop, Operation 5
Operation/Level/Lot 5/1/1 5/2/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Sierra Red 1 Maxcanu Buff(EC) 1 1 Yokat Striated (TC) 1 1 Muna Slate 1 4 Unidentified 20 18 Total sherds 25 24
354 Table B. 47. Yo’okop, Operation 6
Operation/Level/Lot 6a/1/1 6a/1/2 6a/1/3 6a/1/4 6a/1/6 6a/1/7 6a/1/8 6a/1/9 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 12 5 1 Xanaba Red 8 Sierra Red 4 1 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 Xanaba Red 11 6 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 1 Sacalaca Striated 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 3 1 Arena Red 9 1 1 Lakin Impressed 1 Muna Slate 3 Sacalum Black on Slate (LC) 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 23 4 6 7 1 2 Muna Slate 2 1 Unidentified 278 16 8 47 4 1 Total sherds 322 21 8 59 11 2 0 3 Operation/Level/Lot 6a/1/11 6a/1/12 6a/1/13 6a/1/14 6a/1/15 6a/2/1 6a/2/3 6a/2/4 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 1 1 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Xanaba Red 6 10 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 1 Chum Unslipped(TC) 2 Yokat Striated 1 1 11 8 2 Muna Slate 1 2 2 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 1 2 27 21 35 Total sherds 1 0 2 2 1 46 33 39
355 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6a/2/5 6a/2/6 6a/2/7 6a/2/8 6a/2/9 6a/2/10 6a/2/11 6a/2/12 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Xanaba Red 2 Sierra Red 2 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 4 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Muna Slate 3 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 1 Chum Unslipped(TC) 3 Yokat Striated 1 5 Muna Slate 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 Unidentified 7 11 8 1 2 Total sherds 8 15 18 2 0 0 3 0
356 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6a/2/14 6a/2/15 6a/3/1 6a/3/2 6a/3/4 6a/3/6 6a/3/8 6a/3/9 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 2 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 24 10 1 1 1 Sierra Red 11 2 Ciego Composite 2 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 3 2 Xanaba Red 117 33 4 1 2 Caucel Trickel on Red 11 4 Balanza Black 1 Lucha Incised Aguila Orange 1 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 6 1 1 1 Maxcanu Buff 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Bandas 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 4 2 Sacalaca Striated 21 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 6 2 Arena Red 3 3 1 1 Muna Slate 7 1 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 23 5 1 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 85 12 4 Muna Slate 10 7 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 3 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Yacman Striated(PC) 7 2 Unidentified 213 11 11 4 17 Total sherds 0 0 358 40 14 41 5 25
357 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6a/3/10 6a/3/11 6a/3/12 6a/3/13 6a/4/1 6a/4/6 6a/5/1 6a/6/1 Achiotes Unslipped(MF) 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 3 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 1 Xanaba Red 1 9 Caucel Trickel on Red 2 1 Balanza Black 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome(LC) 1 1 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 6 Unidentified 18 2 2 9 Total sherds 24 2 1 0 2 10 0 1
358 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6a/7/1 6a/8/1 6b/1/1 6b/2/1 6c/1/1 6c/1/2 6c/1/3 6c/1/7 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 1 Sierra Red 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 Xanaba Red 2 6 1 3 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 2 1 Sacalaca Striated 1 Arena Red 1 4 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 1 2 1 3 Yokat Striated(TC) 1 1 3 2 Muna Slate 1 3 2 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 2 2 Unidentified 1 17 11 1 5 19 2 Total sherds 1 3 26 12 1 10 28 9 Operation/Level/Lot 6c/2/3 6c/2/4 6c/2/5 6c/2/6 6c/2/7 6c/3/1 6c/3/2 6c/3/3 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 1 Sierra Red 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 1 Xanaba Red 1 2 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Maxcanu Buff 1 Muna Slate (LC) 1 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 3 1 Muna Slate 3 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 1 Unidentified 1 3 5 7 3 3 Total sherds 5 4 5 8 0 7 3 3
359 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6c/3/6 6c/3/7 6c/3/8 6c/4/1 6c/4/2 6c/4/3 6c/4/6 6c/4/7 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 2 1 Dzalpach Composite 2 1 1 Sierra Red 1 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 1 Xanaba Red 2 1 3 3 1 Caucel Trickel on Red 3 1 3 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 4 2 1 Hunabchen Red 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 3 Sacalaca Striated 1 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Arena Red 1 Sacalum Black on Slate 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 3 1 Juleki Cream Polychrome 1 Chantori Black on Orange 1 Chum Unslipped 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 1 14 4 9 4 1 5 Muna Slate 8 1 3 4 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 1 5 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 2 2 9 11 5 1 Total sherds 11 17 7 31 26 14 3 17
360 Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6c/4/8 6d/1/1 6d/1/2 6d/1/3 6d/1/4 6d/1/6 6d/2/2 6d/2/5 Type Xanaba Red (LF) 2 Sierra Red 1 Xanaba Red(EC) 4 3 1 1 Yalchak Striated 1 2 Maxcanu Buff 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome(LC) 1 1 Juleki Cream Polychrome 1 Chantori Black on Orange 1 Chum Unslipped(TC) 2 Yokat Striated 3 9 11 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Chen Mul Modeled(PC) 1 Unidentified 4 Total sherds 9 2 20 4 1 0 14 2
Table B. 47. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 6d/2/6 6e/1/1 6e/2/1 6e/3/1 6e/4/1 Type Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Xanaba Red 1 1 Yokat Striated(TC) 1 Muna Slate 6 Unidentified Total sherds 1 0 0 1 8
361
Table B. 48. Yo’okop, Operation 7
Operation/Level/Lot 7/1/1 7/1/2 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Sierra Red 1 2 Xanaba Red(EC) 1 Cetelac Fiber Tempered 1 Dos Caras Striated(LC) 6 Sacalaca Striated 8 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 2 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 Yokat Striated(TC) 2 8 Muna Slate 3 8 Teabo Red 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 2 Yacman Striated(PC) 1 Chen Mul Modeled 1 Unidentified 4 30 Total sherds 12 67
362 Table B. 49. Yo’okop, Operation 8
8/3/ 8/4/ 8/5/ 8/6/ 8/7/ 8/7/ 8/8/ 8/9/ 8/10/ 8/10/ 8/1/ 8/2/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 2 1 1 Joventud Red 1 2 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 2 1 13 16 1 Tumben Incised 1 Tipikal Red on Striated 2 Chancenote Unslipped 4 5 1 1 1 1 3 Tancah Unslipped Xanaba Red (LF) 2 2 Sierra Red 2 7 1 19 7 12 57 18 2 6 Laguna Verde Incised 1 2 Flor Cream 2 2 3 1 Mateo Red on Cream Polvero Black 2 Yaxcaba Striated (EC) 6 4 6 Xanaba Red 5 2 6 2 Balanza Black 1 Aguila Orange 3 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 5 2 Dos Caras Striated 4 3 Sacalaca Striated 3 7 Encanto Striated v. Sacna Arena Red 1 3 Saxche Orange Polychrome(LC) 1
363 Table B. 49. Continued
8/3/ 8/4/ 8/5/ 8/6/ 8/7/ 8/7/ 8/8/ 8/9/ 8/10/ 8/10/ 8/1/ 8/2/ Operation/Level/Lot 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Type Yokat Striated (TC) 11 18 Muna Slate 38 14 Sacalum Black on Slate 4 Tekit Incised 4 11 Tekit Incised v. Dzib 1 Teabo Red 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 3 Yacman Striated (PC) 8 22 Chen Mul Modeled 345 25 Mama Red 2 Unidentified 7 8 1 6 8 1 11 12 3 2 41 Total sherds 29 32 16 24 0 8 1 11 12 3 423 150
364
Table B. 50. Yo’okop, Operation 9
Operation/Level/Lot 9/1/1 9/2/1 9/3/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped (MF) 3 4 Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 1 Xanaba Red 1 Dos Caras Striated 6 Sacalaca Striated 12 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna 1 Arena Red 2 Sacalum Black on Slate (LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 Yokat Striated (TC) 11 1 Yacman Striated (PC) 8 Unidentified 55 1 Total sherds 127 9 1
365 Table B. 51. Yo’okop, Operations 10-15
10/1 11/1 11/1 12/1 12/2 12/3 13/1 14/1 15/1 Operation/Level/Lot /1 /1 /2 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 Type Nacolal Incised(MF) 1 Sierra Red(LF) 2 4 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 3 4 1 Balanza Black 1 Saxche Orange 1 Polychrome(LC) Yokat Striate var 1 Applique(TC) Yokat Striated var 5 10 12 2 1 4 1 1 Yokat Muna Slate 3 1 10 2 4 6 1 2 Sacalum Black on Slate 8 Teabo Red 2 4 1 1 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 2 3 2 Unidentified 42 6 70 17 5 6 6 4 Total sherds 53 1 44 91 24 11 17 10 12
366 Table B. 52. Yo’okop, Operations 16-23
Operation/Level/Lot 16/1/1 16/2/2 16/2/3 17/1/1 17/2/1 17/3/1 Type Dzalpach Composite(LF) 1 Sierra Red 3 2 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 146 37 1 Xanaba Red 81 6 Caucel Trickel on Red 24 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 7 Lucha Incised 1 Aguila Orange 14 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 16 10 Arena Red 2 Muna Slate (LC) 3 Yokat Striated var. Applique (TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 3 3 25 Muna Slate 2 3 4 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 1 3 Teabo Red 1 1 Chen Mul Modeled (PC) 3 Unidentified 19 53 11 11 9 51 Total sherds 29 345 75 16 17 88
367 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 17/4/1 17/4/2 17/4/3 17/5/1 17/6/1 18/1/1 Type Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 3 Alta Mira Fluted 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 49 25 153 123 Xanaba Red 28 1 14 50 27 Caucel Trickel on Red 12 4 9 10 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 2 4 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Camichin 1 Balanza Black 2 1 1 Lucha Incised 1 1 Aguila Orange 1 5 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome(LC) 5 2 15 9 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 5 Muna Slate 2 11 Teabo Red 1 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 49 2 29 49 37 59 Total sherds 148 3 75 314 218 77
368 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 18/1/2 18/2/1 19/1/1 19/1/2 19//1/3 19/1/4 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu (MF) 1 1 Nacolal Incised 2 Desvario Chamfered 1 Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff 1 1 Tumben Incised 1 Petjal Red on Black and Cream inc. var 1 Chancenote Unslipped(LF) 1 Sierra Red 2 1 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Xanaba Red (EC) 1 9 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Balanza Black 1 1 Lucha Incised 1 Aguila Orange 1 San Blas Red on Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 3 2 2 Arena Red(LC) 1 Muna Slate 5 Chum Unslipped(TC) 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 8 Muna Slate 18 3 2 Tekit Incised 1 Teabo Red 4 1 1 Becal Incised 1 1 Unidentified 4 4 44 27 10 9 Total sherds 8 7 84 38 16 33
369 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 19/1/5 19/1/6 19/2/1 20/1/1 20/2/1 20/3/2 Type Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff(MF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 2 1 Xanaba Red 2 Lucha Incised 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 2 Arena Red(LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 Yokat Striated var. Yokat(TC) 6 3 Muna Slate 1 1 5 Sacalum Black on Slate 1 Teabo Red 6 Unidentified 5 3 1 55 9 Total sherds 14 4 2 75 13 2
370 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 20/3/3 20/3/4 20/4/1 20/5/1 21/1/1 21/1/2 Type Nacolal Incised(MF) 1 Sierra Red(LF) 1 2 1 1 Lagartos Punctate 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 5 1 1 4 5 Xanaba Red 7 1 1 5 10 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 Aguila Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 2 1 Encanto Striated v. Sacna(LC) 2 Arena Red 1 Yokat Striated var. Applique(TC) 3 Yokat Striated var. Yokat 1 10 13 Muna Slate 10 14 Teabo Red 5 2 Ticul Thin Slate 1 Unidentified 19 6 7 35 24 Total sherds 38 1 10 11 77 69
371 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 21/2/1 21/3/2 21/4/2 21/4/3 21/4/4 21/4/5 Type Chunhinta Black v. Ucu(MF) 1 2 Uchben Incised Dichrome 2 Xanaba Red (LF) 3 Sierra Red 6 11 2 Alta Mira Fluted 1 Yaxcaba Striated(EC) 21 4 6 22 29 Xanaba Red 25 2 7 22 47 Caucel Trickel on Red 1 3 3 6 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 2 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Camichin 2 Balanza Black 2 Aguila Orange 2 1 2 San Blas Red on Orange 1 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 2 1 3 Saxche Orange Polychrome(LC) 1 Muna Slate(TC) 1 Teabo Red 1 Unidentified 31 5 28 33 Total sherds 91 11 23 88 127 5
372 Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 22/1/1 22/2/1 22/2/2 23/1/1 23/2/2 23/3/1 Type Sierra Red(LF) 1 Yaxcaba Striated (EC) 2 8 Xanaba Red 4 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 1 Arena Red(LC) 1 Muna Slate 1 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 2 Muna Slate 1 1 Unidentified 1 24 14 14 20 5 Total sherds 1 29 18 15 21 19
Table B. 52. Continued
Operation/Level/Lot 23/3/2 23/4/1 23/4/2 23/5/1 26/3/1 Type Dzudzuquil Cream to Buff (MF) 7 Sierra Red(LF) 7 Laguna Verde Incised 1 Lagartos Punctate 1 Yaxcaba Striated (EC) 7 23 29 36 Xanaba Red 1 11 18 52 Caucel Trickel on Red 2 7 5 Tituc Orange Polychrome v. Tituc 1 2 Aguila Orange 1 2 Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome 1 3 1 Sacalum Black on Slate (LC) 1 Saxche Orange Polychrome 2 7 Yokat Striated var. Yokat (TC) 3 Muna Slate 1 1 Unidentified 5 10 10 72 4 Total sherds 15 47 71 193 8
373