Ancient Maya Houses and Their Identification: an Evaluation Of

West Chester University Digital Commons @ West Chester University

Anthropology & Sociology College of Arts & Sciences

1982 Ancient Maya houses and their identification: an evaluation of archictectural groups at Tikal and inferences regarding their functions Marshall Joseph Becker West Chester University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Becker, M. J. (1982). Ancient Maya houses and their identification: an evaluation of archictectural groups at Tikal and inferences regarding their functions. Revista española de antropología americana, 12, 111-130. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/ anthrosoc_facpub/20

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ West Chester University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology & Sociology by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ West Chester University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ancient Maya houses and their identification: Art evaluation of architectural groups at Tikal and injerences regarding their functions *

Marshall Joseph BECKER

(West Chester .State College)

INTRODUCTION

Despite the apparent clusíering of small structures at Maya sites the focal poiní of lowland Maya arehaeology was for many years the individual building. To sorne extent thís empliasis reflected the early interesí in large seale architecture found in the central or adminis- trative and ritual, of Ihese ancient cities. While mosí small síructures are found ni discrete groups íhe density of síructures ni the adminis- trative zones, such as the Central Acropolis al Tikal (Carr and Hazard, 1961), rendens difieult Ihe recognition of separable aggregations of buildings. Only diligení excavation and analysis can render compre- hensible such architectural eoncentrations (see Harrison, 1970). Beyond the cute zones of íhese sprawling cities, groups of struct- tires at most sites are spatially distinct (e. g. Wauchope 1934). Ihis becarne evident ¿it Tikal once detailed mapping bad begun, ¿md has been recognized al other sites (e. g. Willey et al., 1979). The tradí- tional focus on single buildings, however, continued to guide research designs even after scholars generally became aware of the importance

* Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Ihe Direetors and staff of the Tikal Project aud the liniversity Museum (University of Pennsylvania> for their support and encouragement in condueting the field work and research fundamental Lo this paper. My sincere thanks are cine lo each of my eolleagues who bave helped in the formulation of Ihese ideas. Spccial tbanks are due W. Ashmore for the interest shown in this approach to Maya archaeology aud for discussions regarding applications at various sites. Thanks are also due L. Miteheil for the considerable effort expended in Ihe preparation of Ihis manuscripí. The ideas and theories presented herein, as well as any errors of fact or inter- pretation, are solely the responsability of the author.

Revista española de antropología americana, vol. XII. Ed. tlniv. Complutense. Madrid, 1982 112 Marshall ioseph Becker of investigating small strucíures as a part of modern site studies. Recognizing the analogy between groups of buildings at Classic Maya sites and the ethnographic data of Wauchope (1938), 1 surnmarized the possible architectural groups at Tikal (Becker, 1970) and suggested that most of these groups represented extended farnily households. Ihe intení of that exercise was to provide a handy reference system for these unjis as -well as lo suggesí Ihe importance of Ihese clusíers as cognituve units worthy of study. A «group» was defined in that paper as any series of contiguous or proximal síructures arranged around one or more proxirnal plazas. Ihe assumption basic to this research is that the proximity evident on the map reflected sorne cognitive aspect of Maya culture, for the most part probably the simple clustering of the different buildings or sheds which comprised a honse compound. A useful history of the terms «group», and «unit», as well as other related concepts is presented by Ashmore (in press).

BACKGROUND Among íhe prirnary research goals of the Tikal Project was the investigation of specific groups of structures to determine if individual building funcíjon could be inferred from relationships with other constructions or from artifactual and intemal contextual evidence. This work led lo the identification of several distincí groupings or clusíers of buildings which coulcl be recognized through examination of the map alone (Jones, 1969; Becker, 1971). Plaza Plan 1 (íhe twin-pyranxid group pattcrn) described by Iones (1969) appears lo exist in a variant form at Yaxhá. Plaza Plan 2 (a residential group with an oratorio or chapel on the east) exist at a number of oíher Maya sites and can be used to predict traits such as the locations of burials (Becker, 1972; Jones el al., 1977: 11). More recently an atíempí was made (flecker, 1979) to apply this idea íhroughout the Maya area, but the efforí was limited in its re- sulís due lo the paucity of site maps of adequale extení and quality. Aside from the maps published with Peabody Museum reports, and Ihe recení Copán maps (Willey el al., 1979) very few archaeological projects appear willing to invest the considerable time and money needed lo produce these fundamental bases for data. Ihe utility of identifying groups or clusters of buildings at a site rather than exarnining each recognizable síructure lies in being better able lo organize a site mío cognitive unlís reflecting, in theory, Ihose held by the Maya occupanis and builders. lo sorne extení we can demonstrate that we recognize the cognilive realities of the inhabitanis of Ihese cities when predictions can be made regarding regularities in the forrn or arrangements of Ihese groups, and by inference re- Ancient maya houses ami their identijication: an evaluation... 113 1

o ¡O bl.

FIGUIU 1.—Tikal Group 4G-1, ant! exam pie of Plaza Plan 2. 114 Marshall Joseph Becker cognize ihe functions of individual síructures or of Ihe group as a whole. Attempts lo focus on single siructures have been found wanl- ing unless each such síructure is considered as but a single aspecí of the unit of which it is but a pan. Despite or recognition of an interrelationship between the structures comprising a group, and our implicil understanding of ihe specific functions of individual buildings —such as kiíchen, or domestie unit (read «sleeping quarters») . sorne clarification of the meaning of «house» would be useful, and sorne justification given for identifying rnosí of ihese groups as «houses’>. Ihe terrn «house» continues to be applied lo specific strucíures raiher Ihan the entine cluster of buildings, reflecting a resistance lo accepting such a series of sirucí- ures as being a residential complex equivalent in overalí function to the series of rooms (sharing adjacent walls and a common roof) which is a «Norteamericano’> house. That the different functions of ihe roorns of a modern house equate lo Ihe different (sepanate) structures of Maya honses, anciení as well as rnodern (see Wauchope, 1938), seerns lo me lo be self-evident. Evon Vogt’s (1961: 136) recognized, or imp- lied, a primarily residential funclion for such groups with bis use of Ihe term «sitio» to refer lo ihe cluster, and his note that an extended family would occupy each group. Thai each group served as a residence is a vaniation of the «pninciple of abundance» proposed oniginally by Chowning and Havilaud (1961). Ihe principIe assumes thai Ihe greal number of buuldings at Maya sites provides the mdi- cation thai the majoriíy musí have served residential functions. 1 agree with this thesis, but suggest thai proximiíy ofien suggests how ihese various uniis were grouped. While designaiing a group as ihe possible residence of an extended family, Haviland (1963: 508) cleanly assumes thai each s~tructure in the group is a «house». The total numben of structures in these groups becomes ihe basis for bis figure reflecting the number of «houses» present, despite bis designation of sorne of Ihese síiructifres as «kitchens>~. The recognition thaI the concep of «house» as it exisís in coní- emporary socieíy includes nurnerotis rooms of different function does not appear lo have been recognized as similar lo ihe Maya rcsidence pattern in which several proximal structures with discrete functions form a unu. Ibis unil musí be considered as a «house» in ihe same way ile several rooms under one roof are considered a «house>~. Ibe Maya residence ibus has separate roofs, buí is linked by proximity and sbaring of functions by Ihe «bouse-hold’>, or resident members (Waucbope, 1938). Ethnographic evidence suggests thai such extended households included approximately 25 individuals, including kin, resident servants, and oíbers alfillated by less clear relationships. In esíimaíing Ibe population of a town utilizing ibe concept of «group» Áncient maya ¡muses ant! their identification: att evatuation... 115 ile result is an estimated total numben of inhabitanís no sigTtificantly disíinct from tbat derived from considening each structure as if it were a house. A fine example of claniíy in Ihe study of Maya residential groups may be found u G. R. Willey’s work on prehistorie Maya selílemenis. Willey ¿md his colleagues (Willey el al., 1965: 572) suggested thaI each group consisís of a pnimary síructune plus secondary outbuildings (storehouses, kitchens). Tbey logically wení on lo note íbat larger groups were probably residences fon people of differenl social status. However, tbe powerful influence of Ihe «ceremonial centen» concept (see Becker, 1979), led Ihese scbolars lo assume Ibal ¿II of the largesí groups bad non-residenlial functions. Tbey Ihen inferred tbaí a ma- joniíy of tbe groups noted could be considered lo be «larges>. Exca- vations oven Ihe past 15 years has autered this concepí and provided a more dynamic model of Classic Maya Culture.

THEORY Tbe identification or delineation of groups of síructures al Classic Maya sites enables us lo consider Ihe ways in which the elemenís in sucb clusters rnay be anranged. The recognilion of distincí paltenns bas uíiliíy in undersíanding how a single site may be organized. Such patterns (Plaza Plans) also permil us lo make companisons in time and space. On a more simple level ihe identification of groups enables us to understand Ihe basic way in whicb a site is organized. Tbe lisí- ing which follows derives from Ibe rnap of Tikal (Carr and Hazard, 1961) focusing only on Ihe 9 square kilomeíers in whicb mapping was done to large scale and within wbicb are each síructure was given a number. Ibis procedure recognizes only mounds, on tbe re- inains of plaíforms with or withouí sione síruclures upon them. No provision is made fon possible pole and íhatcb constructions builí direcíly upon tbe gnound (archaelogically «invisible» without excava- don). Por Ihe Late Classic peniod, and mucb of Ibe Early Classic lbs problem is aol a pnimary concera at this time. Once architeclural groups are recognized and iníensively tesled tbe evidence garnered may permil evaluaíions lo be made of individual building fuaction and of group fuaction. Al Ihis lime Maya scholars appear lo be agneed thaI Ibe vasí majonily of groups served primanily residenílal or domestic funcliotis. ThaI specific bousebolds rnay bave been Ihe praclitioners of a single occupalion, in addition lo farming, bas been noted (Becker, 1973a, 1973b). Once we have made these observations Iben Ibe next slep in the analysis of a complex socieíy is lo determine if etbniciíy or social class may be inferred from Ihe evidence. 116 Marshall Joseph Becker

o lo /M,

FIGURA 2.—Tikal Group 411-1, cm exampie of Plaza Plan 2 with tite variant of att associated long platfonn Co tite north of Che oratorio. Ancient maya ¡muses ant! their identification: a» evaluation... 117

David Gilmore (1977: 437) notes íhat class is nol simple how people are placed by an observen mío categonies buí musí neflecí Ihe mental image or paradigm by wbich Ibe people íbemselves order Ibeir own universe of cultural and natural phenornena. Gilmone’s concern is wiíh bow people use spalial orientations (anea). The applicability of Ihese concerns lo our understanding of ibe anciení Maya is evident. How íhey used space or arranged buildings, as in a plaza plan, may be as diagnostic of internal social differentials as Ibe colors used lo painí Ibe síructures or ile antifacís used by Ibe inbabiíants. Fox (in press) is arnong Ibe firsí lo ulilize dala regarding Ihe size and po- sition of plaza groups, of wbaíever form, in an atíempí lo interprel Ibe nature of Ihe kin units in residence or to infen Ihe status of tbe in- habitanís. Alíbough such inferences may exisí in early reponis, aítempts lo documení sucb evalualions íbrougb tbe use of ancbaeo- logical evidence from group form, size, or location is relatively new in Ibe Maya anca. The configuration of a plaza plan, wbere it can be recognized by mapping, provides a far more efficient predictor Iban Ihe evaluation of dala recovered by expensive and time consum- ing excavation, alíbougb confirmation íbrough excavation is essential. When excavaíing a íown or city mapping and subsequení evaluation before any digging is initialed offers tbe mosí efficient means by whicb specific bypotbeses may be establisbed, and by whicb excavation programs may be developed.

PLAZA PLANS Tikal Plaza Plan 1 (Twin-pyramid groups; Jones, 1969) and Ihe Temple (oratorio) on Ibe Easí anrangemení (including a specific burial pattenn) descnibed as Tikal Plaza Plan 2 (Becker, 1971) were idení- ified in Ibe early pbases of Ihe tlniversiíy Museum’s Tikal Projecí. Botb P. P. 1 and 2 have been tesled extensively lhrougb excavations supponted by Ibe Tikal Projecí. Tbe program of excavalion launched in 1963 designed lo validate predictions regarding Ihe presence of P. P. 2 helped lo identify whaí 1 have described as P. P. 3 al Tikal (see Haviland, 1963). In addiíion, it demonsírated Ibe validity of ibis theory as regands P. P. 2 (see Hecker, 1971). In addition lo Ibe two plaza plans idenlified and tested, six other regular anrangemenis of síruclunes in groups bave been suggested as appeaning al Tikal (Eec- ker, 1979b). Tbese are as follows: P. P. 3: Rectangular arrangemení, rectangular plalforms un lwo or more sides, usually srnall, buí oflen witb stone buildings un one or more. Regularity ibe mosí charactenistic feature (e. g. Gr. 3B-11). 118 Marsitalí Joseph Becker

Pv’

~I.

u el •4

el w

e A

m fl~E-

o -v

oc Al.

FIGURA 3-A—Tikal Group 4E-4, an exampíe of Plaza Plan 1 (see Jones 1969). FIGURA 3-B.—Tikal Group 3B-11, an example of Plaza Plan 3. Ficu¿i~ 3-C.—Tikal Group 65-2, arz exampie of Plaza Plan 4. FIGuRA 3-D.—Tikal Group 4F-1, arz exanipie of Plaza Plan 5. Por exampíe of Plaza Plan 6 see Tikal Repon 11, Croup SD-1 (tite Great Plaza ant! North Acropololis group). Plaza Plan 7 is represented by Tikal Group SD-9 (Structures .5D-78/99). Ah of ti-tese plans are derived from Becker, 1971. Ancient ,naya ¡‘muses ami titeir identification: att evatuation... 119

P. P. 4: Rectangular group, buí with diagnoslic low rectangular pial- form occupying center of Ihe plaza (e. g. Gr. 6E-2 and Gr. 6E-3). Tbis arrangemení oniginally bad been termed «Paltern W». Site TC 8 in tbe Teolibuacán Valley (Sanders, 1965: 110-112, 179; fig. 12) and one pan of Sitio Ruiz (Lowe, 1959: 32) bave a similar pattern. Trophy beads offered in cacbes witbin Ihe platform or sometimes in ihe struclure on Ibe east (less ofíen tbe wesí) seem lo be an archaeologically detecíable charactenistic whicb is predicted fon sucb gnoups, and is also diagnosíic of lbem. P. P. 5: Groups with irregularly arranged síruclunes of relatively small size (e. g. Tikal Gr. 4F-2) rnay be considened lo confonm lo P. P. 5. P. P. 6: Nonth Acropolis Plan: This includes Ihe temples on tbe North, West, ¿md South of a relalively large plaza. This pallern, limited to ihe ritual zone, occurs on tbe Nonth Acropolis during Ibe Eanly and Late Classic Peniod (Coe, 1964: 411; 1967: 42). E. g. Gr. 50-1. P. P. 7: Seven Sisters Plan: Tbis is a varianí of P. P. 2 buí one wbich is only found on created in lange groups. The diagnostic feal- une is the appeanance of 7 temples in a row on ihe easl of a rectangular plaza; e. g. Gr. 50-9 (including Strs. 50-92/99). Anoiher possible example is ihe archaeologically demons- trated carlier aspect of Group 5D-1 (the Greal Plaza> mc- luding Strs. 5D-1, 29/31, 71/74, witb Strs. 50-29/31 being pan of the 7 strs. in allignment. SIr. 50-1 covcrs an eanlier cons- truction whicb may have been Ibe central unu of ibis part 7 series. P. P. 8: Hall Counls Tbe tbree ballcourts known from Tikal include a single count (SIr. 50-74) located lo the south of Temple 1, ¿md a triple count (Strs. 50-78/81) south of Ibe Temple Reservoir (Coe, 1967: 90). Tbe íbird couní (Strs. 50-41 and 42, SE-31) is in Ibe East Plaza, lo Ibe rear of Temple 1 (Coe, 1967: 73). Numerous ballcourís are known from sites througbouí Meso- amenica (see Andrews, 1975: Fig. 7). Apparently ibese groups functioned in similar way lo balícotinís known from ihe time of tbe Conquesí. Holb ritual and aíbletics were involved, ¿md 1 suspecí politics and trade (Becker, 1975).

OTHER TYPES OF «GROUPS» Groups of olber composition may be recognized and described by otben scholars, including «groups» wbich may consisí of buí one 120 Marsl-zall Joseph Becker visible siructure. Sweathouses (Saítenthwaite, 1952; Ichon, 1977) may be funclional units eacb related to a specific gnoup, buí also a sweal- house might be defined as a unu iíself.

TIKAL GROUPS Sevenal possible groups (hidden or invisible housemounds) inferred in ihe original lisling (Becken, 1970) have been deleled as bave ¿11 references to ihe chultunes ¿ssociaíed ‘with each group. Structure numbers wene assigned by ihe mappers (see Carn and Hazard, 1961). Subsequent excavaíions in vanious squanes led to numbers being given to gnoups in a sequence wbich does not follow tbe sequence of numbers given lo ihe struclures. Tbe provision of each group wiíh a specific number (Becker, 1970) to sorne exíení provided sorne corres- pondence in the síructune and group numben sequences Sorne limited excavaíions ouíside ihe central 9 square kilometers, such as in Square 4H, have led lo Ihe groups tested being numbered, and ihese are included in Ihis lisling. Surnmarizing the data frorn Tikal we find thai 2,280 siructures habe been identified and íhey can be clustered into 691 groups. Of ihese groups some 8, with a total of 34 sínuctures, can be identified wilh case as confonming to Jones’ (1969) Plaza Plan 1. This anrange- mení appears to be a reflection of sorne kind of ritual funcíjon, althougb some of Ihe síructures included may posídale ihe original buildings ¿md have served non-ritual funcíions. Al leasí 97 gronps al Tikal conforrn lo Plaza Plan 2 (Becker, 1971). Tbis is ihe minimum number wbich can be identified wiíh ease and comprises 14 ~o of Ibe total number of groups lisíed fon tbis site. Funíher note musí be made of Ibe disínibution of vanious P. P. beyond Ihe central 9 square kilomneíers whicb is tbe focus of ihe Table. Nol only is P. P. 2 found distnibuled mi the peripbenies of Tikal buí ihe late 0. Puleston’s 500 meter wide transecís beyond ibe central anea of the site found numerotis oíber examples (see Becker, 1970; also Puleston, pers. com). Tbe findings of A. Ford in ibe anca between Tikal and Yaxbá, more recently invesligated, should add to our knowledge regarding ihe disínibution of various types of groups (plaza plans). An iníeresíing coincidence is ihe discovery that tbe Harvard Uni- versity mapping projecí al Copán, Honduras, necognized 690 groups (tenmed «sites») in Ibe Copán Valley affiliaíed wiíh tbe central zone which had been Ibe traditional focus of archaeological acíivily (Willey el al., 1979). Altbougb tbe incidence of P. P. 2 al Copán bas nol been calculated, companisons wilb Ibe frequency al Tikal should provide inieresíing infonmation. Diacbronic dala from Copán reganding ihe Ancient maya ¡-muses ant! their identification: a» evaluation.., 121 firsí evidence fon P. P. 2 and its frequency and distribution will be very iníeresting. 1 have speculaíed on ibe significance of P. P. 2 al ihese vanious siles (Becker, 1980), and believe ibal ihese dala are imporíant lo understanding ile history of Quirigná as well. Tbe following table provides a listing of alí the groups (cluslens of sínuctures presumed lo be a single functioning unil) identified al Tikal (see Eecken, 1970). Note sbould be made of one vanialion in P. it 2 noted al Tikal. Some of Ibe groups identified as conforrning lo P. P. 2 acíually bave a pair of ritual síruclures on tbe east. Tbese have been identified in ibe table as «P. P. 2T». Furtben investigation may demonstrate that tbis form migbt warrant a sepanate number, buí at presení tbe difference is noled only by appending ihe lellen «T» tú tbe plan number. One should note that tbis forrn of P. P. 2 also has widc distribuuion in ube Maya area (Fox, In Presa) and may be an irnponíant featune al Post Classic sites and evidence of one aspect of culture cbange. Fox> after Sloane (1974), suggests lhat íwin temples derive from ibe Quiché, buí 1 am uncertain of ihe origina as wcll as of tic distnibution of tbis paítern (see Becker, 1979). One rnight note, as a point of inlerest, tbat five balf kilometer square (e. g. 3F, 4C) have 15 gnoups witbin tbem (Becken, 1970: 26-27). Despite the local vaniation in terrain, and given that ihe map of Tikal was arbiíranily laid down oven ihe site, and without resonting to Tbiessen polygnams (see Harnrnond, 1974), simple listings of dala provide clues lo ihe way in wbicb ihe Maya al a specific site arranged themselves oven ile land. Ihese obsenvations in íurn offer oíhers means by wbich details of ancient Maya settlement pattenns may be studied.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Plaza Plan 2, witb iís distinclive bunial complex in ibe diagnostie structure on tbe easl, appeans to become a more common ancbi- tectural featune at Tikal duning ihe Classic peniod. 2. Groups once lacking ihe diagnostic ritual síructure have been demonsunated tú have autered uhe architectural forrn of the bulíd- ing on the casI and add a burial iniruded mio ibe bedrock. Str. 404 (Temple 1) is Ihe mosí notable example of ibis procedure. 3. Plaza Plan 2 is found in gnoups of ¿11 sizes, fnorn nelatively small groups with fcw mounds to tbe Banningen Gnoup (Gr. 6B-2). Group 50-1, although in Ibis form, doca not appean lo have bad pnimanily nesidential functions. 4. Al pnesent 7 other group forma can be recognized al Tikal, and alí probably bave analogues at otber Maya sites. For example, Plaza Plan 1 al Tikal appeans lo be neplicated al Yaxbá, buí ihe 122 Marsitohl Joseph l3ecker

associaíed monumenís at Ibe laller site appear in froní of ihe wesíern síruclure (ratber than Ihe easíern ¿a al Tikal). 5. Altbough ibe structures al mosí lowland Maya sites are generally found in clusíera, relaíively little atíention has been paid to ihese aggregaíions in ibe pasí. Many of ibese grotipa are believed to be funcíionally nelated units eacb of whicb representa a single domesíic unit bousing a single extended famiJy. Tbis concepí nol only enablea accurate evaluationa lo be made of populationa, but to ideníify «house» function and even to auggest ibe social class of ibe occupanís in ibis clasa síratified society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANnnews, George E.: 1975 Maya Cities: Placemaking orzó Urbanizotion. Tite lJniversity of Oklahoma Press. Nonínan. ASIIMORE, Wendy: fu prcss Sorne issues of metitod orzó titeory in Lowland Mayo Scttlement Ar- citaeology. BECKER, Marsitail Joseph: 1970 A surnn¡ary of architecturol groups ot Tikal, Guatemala. Manuscnipí on file at Tite American Section (Tikal Roorn>, Tite University Museurn, Phi- ladelpitia. 1971 Tite ¡‘den titicotion of a Seconó Plaza Plan ot Tikal, Guatemala, orzó jts Imphications for Ancient Moya Social Complexity. Doctoral Disscrtation, tite University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms: Aun Arbor. 1972 Plaza Plaus aL Quinigná, Guatemala. Katunob, 8: 47-62. 1973a Archaeological evidence fon occupational specialization among tite Classic period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala. American Aníiquity, 3S: 396-406. 1973h me evidence for complex excitange systems among ihe Ancient Maya. 79a Pniesta,Americanpeasanta,Antiquity,and38:ceremonial222-223. centers: Tite Intellectual History of a 19 Mode!. In, Moyo Archaeology orzó Etitnohistory. Edited by =4. Harnmond and G, R. Wiley. University of Texas Press. Austin. Pp. 3-20. 19791, Plaza Plans and Settlement Patterns: Regional aud temporal distribu- tiona Rs indicatora of cultural interactions in tite Maya arca. Paper presented at tite 43rd International Congress of Americanisís; Symposium: Jnterdisciplinary Approaches Lo Maya Studies. Vancouver, 16 augusí. 1980 Plaza plaus and tite development of polity in Mesoamenica: Tite case for tite Central Mexican 1-Iighlands and tite Maya Lowlands. Papen prepaned for tite Dumbarton Oaks Symposiurn «lnterdisciplinany Approaches Lo ihe Study of Mesoamenican Highland-Lowland Intenaction”. 18-19 october. CÁIZR, R. E, aud HAZARO, J.: 1961 Map of Tikal, El Petén, Guatemala. Tikal Report, u? 11. Museum Mono- grapita, Uuivensity of Pennsylvania. CPOWNING, Ann, ami HAVILAN», William A.: 1961 The Structure of Classic Maya Cities. Papen presented aL Ihe annual meetings of tite American Antitropological Association. Pitiladelphia. CoE, William R.: 1967 Tikal: A Handbook o/tite Ancient Moya Ruins. Philadelphia: The Univer- sity Museum. Ancient maya ¡muses ant! iheir identification: att evaluation... 123

Fox, John W.: In press Tite Fastern Frontier of Mesoamerica: Cultural Innovation Aiong tite Periphery. Cunrení Anthropology. GILxí ORE, David: 1977 Tite social onganization of space: Class, cognition, and residence in a Spanisb town. American Etitnologist, 4: 437-451. IIÁM MONi» Norman: 1974 The disinibution of Late Classic Maya major ceremonial centres in Ihe Central Anca. In, Mesoamerican Arcitaeology, edited by N. Hammond. Univensity of Texas Pness. Auslin. Pp. 313-334. HAruusoN, Pelen: 1970 Tite Central Acropohis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Prehiminary study of tite Functions of its structural Components during tite Late Classi.c Period. Doctoral Dissentation, University of Peunsylvania. HAVILANO, William A.: 1963 Excavations of small structures fu tite nortiteast quadrant of Tikal, Gua- teniala. finiversity Micnofihns. Ana Anhon. Ia{oN, Alaiu: 1977 A Late Postclassic Sweathouse in the Highlands of Guatemala. American Antiquity, 42: 203-209. Jo~E5, Cúnistopher: 1969 Tite Twin-pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Architectural Assem- blage at Tikal> Guatemala. Doctoral Dissertation, Tite University of Peun- sylvania. SONES, Citnistopiter; ASUMORE, Wendy, and SEÁRER, Roben J.: 1977 Tite Quirigud Project 1977 Report. Tite Universiíy Museum, Pitiladelpitia. Mirneognapited. Iowa, Garcih: 1959 Archacological Explorat ion of tite Upper Grijalva River, 0Citiapas,2. Orinda,México.Cali- Papers of tite New World Archacological Foundation, n. fonula. SÁÑoaris, William 1.: 1965 Cultural Ecology of tite Teotihuacán Vahley. Pennsylvania State Imniversi- Ly, Depantment of Sociology and Anthropology. SATTERIHWMTE, Linton: 1952 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Arcititecture. Pant y, Sweathouses. Univer- sity Muscum, Philadelpbia, Vocv, E. Z.: 1961 Sorne Aspects of Ziuacanlan Settlement Patlerns and Ceremonial Organi- zation. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 1: 131-146. WMTCHOPE, Robent: 1934 House Mounds of Uaxactun, Guatemala. Carnegie Thstitution of Washing- Loo, Publication 436. Contributions to American Aroitaeology, vol. 2 (7): 107-171. 1938 Modern Maya buses-a study of titeir aréhaeologicaí significance. Carne- gie Institution oit Washington, Publication 502. WILLEY, Gordon R.; BULLARD, W. R., Sn.; Guss, 1. E., aud GnmoRn, 5. C.: 1965 Preitistorie Maya Settlements in tite Behize Valley. Papers of tite Peabody Museum, Harvard ljnivensity, vol. 54. WILLEY, O. R.; LEVEI-ZTHAL, R. M., and FÁSH, W. L., Sr.: 1979 Tite Rujus of Copán, Honduras, C. A. Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer- sity. Cambridge. 124 Marshatl Joseph Becker

Group ~ Map Designation r No. Map Designation Des¡g. ~ Pa of inStructuresÚroup Deszg.roup PlazaPlan of fuStructuresGroup

28-1 1 28-1 2F-8 3 2F-20/22 28-2 3 3? 28-2/4 2F-9 4 2F-23/26 28-3 1 28-5 2F-10 3 2F-27/29 28-4 4 2 28-6/9 20-1 5 20-56/60 28-5 2 5 28-10/11 2G-2 3 20-13/15 28-6 4 2 2B-12/15 20-3 10 21 20-1/10 2B-7 3 3 28-16/18 20-4 2 20-11,12 28-8 3 28-19/20 20-5 2 20-16, 17 28-9 4 3 28-21/24 20-6 6 2 20-18/23 28-10 5 3 28-25/29 20-7 2 20-24, 25 20-1 5 3 20-1/5 20-8 2 20-26, 27 20-2 9 2 20-6/14 20-9 6 20-28, 33 20-3 3 3 20-15,16,21 20-10 1 20-34 20-4 4 3 20-17/20 20-11 5 20-35/39 20-5 3 3 20-22, 23; 30-1 20-12 3 2 2040/42 20-6 5 2 20-24/28 20-13 3 20.43/45 20-7 4 3? 20-33/36 2 0-14 2 20-46, 47 20-8 6 3 20.37/42 20-15 1 20-48 20-9 4 3 2C-29/32 20-16 20-49 20-10 5 3 20-43/47 20-17 6 3 20-50/55 20-11 3 3? 20-48/50 38-1 2 38-1, 2 20-12 2 20-51/52 38-2 2 38-3, 4 2 0-13 2 20-55,56 38-3 2 38-5, 6 20-14 4 3? 20-53, 54, 57, 58 38-4 3 38-7/9 20-15 2 3? 20-59, 60 38-5 38-10 20-16 5 3 20-61/65 38-6 38-11 20-17 7 3? 20-66/67 38-7 5 38-12/14, 16,17 20-18 6 3 20-73/78 38-8 4 38-15,18/20 2D-1 2D-1 38-9 3 38-21,22,25 2D-2 4 2 2D-9/12 38-10 2 38-23, 24 2D-3 9 2D-2/8; 2E-1, 2 38-11 4 38-26/29 2E-1 3 2E.3/5 38-12 5 38-30/34 2E-2 9 2T 2E-6/14 38-13 1 38-35 2E-3 2E-15 38-14 2 38-36, 37 2E-4 2 2E-16, 17 38-15 2 2 38-38,39 2E-5 2 2-E1S, 19 38-16 4 38-40,41; 48-11,12 2E-6 3 2E-20/22 38-17 3 38-42/44 2E-7 2 2E-23, 24 38-18 5 2 38-45/49 2E-8 5 2 2E.25/29 30-1 3 2 30-13/15 2E-9 4 2E-30/33 30-2 2 3 0-2, 3 2E-10 2 2E-34, 35 30-3 1 30-4 2E-11 2 2E-36, 37 30-4 3 30-5/7 2E-12 2 2E-38, 39 3C-5 3 30-8/10 2E-13 ¡ 2 2E-40, 41 30-6 2 30>11,12 2E-14 3 2E-42/44 30-7 6 30-16,21 2E-l5 2 2E-45, 46 3C-8 3 30.22, 24 2E-16 4 2 2E-47/50 30-9 12 30-25/36 2E-17 6 2E-51/56 3 0-10 1 30-37 2F-1 3 2F-1/3 30-11 2 30-38, 39 2P-2 1 2F-4 30-12 1 30-40 2F-3 3 2 2F-5/7 3 0-13 1 30-41 2F-4 2F-8 30-14 lo 30-42/51 2F-5 5 2F-9/13 3 0-15 4 30-52/55 2F-6 3 2F-14/16 3C-16 7 30-56/62 2F-7 3 2F-17/19 30-17 2 3 0-63, 64 Ancient maya houses ami their identijication: a» evatuation... 125

No, Map Designatian No. Group Plaza Group Plaza Map Designation of of .Structures of Plan of Structures Desig. Strs. Plan in Group Desig. Strs. in Group

30-18 5 30-65/69 3F-5 2 3F-2, 3 30-19 2 30-70,71 3F-6 1 3F-4 30-20 4 ¡ 30-72175 3F-7 4 3F-5/8 30-1 3 130-98/100 SF-8 2 3F-9, lO 3D-2 4 13D-44/47 3F-9 2 3E-16, 17 30-3 3 3D-8/10 3F-10 1 3F-18 30-4 4 2T 30-1/4 3F-11 2 3F-19, 20 30-5 3 30-5/7 3F-12 3 3F-21/213 3D-6 4 30-11/14 3F-13 4 2 3F-30/33 3D-7 3 30-15/17 3F-14 6 2 3F-34/39 30-8 3 ~3D-18/20 3F-15 1 3F-40 30-9 2 3D-21/22 30-1 5 30-1/5 3D-lo 6 30-23/28 30-2 4 30-15,16, 20, 21 3D-li 2 3D-29, 30 30-3 6 30-6/11 30-12 2 30-31, 32 ¡ 30-4 3 30-12/14 30-13 4 30-33/36 30-5 3 30.17/19 30-14 5 30-40/43, 121 30-6 4 30-22/25 30-15 7 3D-48/54 30-7 4 30-26/29 3D-16 8 30-55/62 30-8 5 30-30/34 3D-)? 3 30-63/65 30-9 5 30-35/39 3D-lS 4 3D-66/69 3H-1 8 311-1/8 30-19 3 3D-70/72 48-1 48-1 30-20 4 30-73/76 48-2 48-2 3D-21 30-77 4B-3 4 48-3/6 3D-22 4 30-78/81 43.4 4B-7 3D-23 5 2T 30-82/86 48-5 3 48-8./lO 30-24 7 3D-87/91, 96,97 4B-6 6 2 48-13/18 30-25 4 30-92/95 48-7 4B/19 30-26 6 2 3D-101/106 48-8 3 2 48-20/22 30-27 3D-107 48-9 4 3 48-24/27 30-28 14 3D-l08/120; 4D-2 40-1 4 40-1/4 3D-29 3 30-122/124 40-2 10 40-5/14 3E-1 3 3E-l/3 40-3 4 40-15/18 3E-2 3 3E-4/6 40-4 40-19 3E-3 2 3E-7, 8 40-5 4 40-20/23 3E-4 2 3E-9, 10 40-6 3 40-24/26 3E-5 4 2 3E-lt/14 40-7 3 40-27/29 3E-6 2 2 3E-15116 40-8 4 40-30/33 3E-7 4 2T 3E-17/20 40-9 2 40-34; 40-26 3E-8 18 3E-21/38 40-10 4 40-35/38 3E-9 2 3E-39, 40 40-11 2 40-39,40 3E-10 11 2 3E-41,42,48/54; 4 0-12 1 40-41 30-37, 38 40-13 2 40-42,43 3E-11 2 3E-43, 44 40-14 5 4044/48 3E-12 3 3E-45/47 40-15 4 40-49/52 3E-13 3 3E-55, 56; 30-39 40-1 4 40-31/34 3E-14 2 3E-57, 58 40-2 10 40-16/25 3E-15 3 3E-59/61 40-3 40-1 3E-16 5 3E-62/66 4D4 3 40-3/5 3E-17 3E-67 40-5 4 406/9 3E-18 3 3F-68/70 40-6 6 40-10/15 3F-1 2 3F-24, 25 40-7 4 40-27/30 3F-2 4 2 3E-26/29 40-8 4 40-35/38 3F-3 5 2 3F-11/15 40-9 5 40-39/43 3F-4 1 3 F-1 40-10 1 4044 126 Marshall Joseph l3ecker

Group No. Plaza Map Designation No. Plaza Map Designation Desig. Strs. Plan of inStructuresGroup Deszg.ro~p Strs.of Pian offuStructuresGroup - 4E-l 5 4E-14/18 50-5 1 50-1 4E-2 4 4E-50/53 50-6 2 50-2, 3 4E-3 4 1 4540/43 50-7 3 SC 11/13 4E-4 4 1 4E-36./39 50-8 6 2 5619/24 4E-S 10 4E-1/1O ¡ 50-9 4 50-25/28 4E-6 1 4E-11 50-10 4 2 50-29/32 4E-7 2 4E-12, 13 50-11 2 50-33/34 4E-S 2 4E-19, 20 50-12 4 50-36/39 4E-9 3 4E-21/23 50-13 6 50-40/44; 50-76 4E-1O 5 2 4E-24/28 50-14 3 5045/47 4E-11 2 4E-29,30 50-15 3 2 SC-SS; 60-14,15 4E-12 3 4E-32/34 50-1 9 2,6 50-1, 2,29131,71,73 4E-13 1 4E-35 50-2 48-14 6 4E-44/48; 58-1 ¡ 50-3 2 8(7) 50-74 4F-l 8 4F-2/7, 10; 4E-31 * 50-4 13 50-20/28, 32/35 4F-2 8 4F-13/L8,42,43 50-5 4 50-36/39 4F-3 4 4F-21, 47/49 50-6 7 8 50-40/43; 58-29/31 4F-4 1 4F-l 50-7 1 50-3 4F-5 2 4F-19, 20 SD-8 1 50-5 4F-6 2 4F-22, 23 50-9 23 7,8 50-77/99 4F-7 2 4F-24,25 50-10 11 50-4, 10/19 4F-8 2 4F-26, 27 50-11 27 5D-44/70 4F-9 5 4F-28/32 SD-12 3 50-7/9 4F-1O 3 4F-33./35 5D-13 2 50-75 4F-11 3 4F-36/38 50 14 S 50-100/104 4F-12 4 4F-39/41, 44 50115 18 50,105/116; 5844/ 4F-13 2 4F-45, 46 49 40-1 5 2 40-9/13 58-1 6 58-23/28 4G-2 2 40-1, 2 58-2 5 58-32/36 40-3 1 40-3 58-3 8 58-37/43, 88 404 2 2 404,5 58-4 2 58-2, 3 40-5 1 40-6 58-5 5 58-4/7; 48-49 40.6 2 2 4G-7,8 5E-6 1 58-8 411-1 6 2 411-1/4,7,9 58-7 5 58-9, 84/87 4H-2 3 2 4H-5, 6,21 58-8 8 58-10/17 4H-3 4 2 411-10,11,19,20 58-9 5 58-18/22 411-4 4 2 411-14/17 SE-lo 23 SE-50/54; 68-1/18 4H-5 3 2 4H42, 13,18 58-11 22 58-55/68; 68-46/53 58-1 ? 1 58-12 6 58-69/74 58-2 1 58-1 58-13 4 2 58-75/78 58-3 1 2 58-2 58-14 2 58-79, 80 58-4 1 2 58-3 SE-lS 3 58-81/83 58-5 2 58-4, 5 51¼ 2 58-17/18 58-6 2 58-6,7 SF-2 8 58-1/8 511-7 5 58-8/12 5F-3 4 58-9/12 58-8 6 2 58-13/18 5F-4 4 58-13/16 58-9 2 58-19, 20 5F-5 2 58-19, 20 50-1 5 1 50-14/18 58-6 3 58-21/23 5C-2 3 50-9, 10; 50-6 58-7 1 58-24 50-3 10 5048/54; 60-23/25 SF-8 2 58-25, 26 SC-4 6 50-4/8, 35 58-9 2 58-27, 28 SF-iO 3 58-29/31 * Mounds 4F-8, 11, and 12 upon exca- 58-11 3 58-32/34 vation were found to be natural nises, 58-12 4 2 58-35/38 mml struetures. 5513 3 58-39/41 Ancient maya ¡muses ami their identification: a» evaluation... 127

Group No. Plaza Map Designation t No. Map Desig. of Plan of Structures tsTUUp of PlazaPlan of StructuresDesignation Strs. in Group Desig. Strs. fu Group

50-1 8 2 50-4/9, 51,52 60-7 2 60-26, 27 50-2 7 2 50-10/12, 49, 50, 53 60-8 2 60-28,29 54 6D-9 3 6D-30/32 50-3 3 50-1, 47,48 60-10 5 60-33/37 50-4 2 50-2, 3 60-li 12 60-38/49 50-5 1 50-13 60-12 3 60-67/69 50-6 3 50-44/46 60-13 9 60-70/77; 70-18 50-7 2 50-14, 15 60-14 3 60-78/80 50-8 2 50-16, 17 60-15 60-81 50-9 4 50-18/21 6D-t6 1 60-82 50-lo 50-22 60-17 3 60-83/85 50-11 3 50-23/25 60-18 6 60-86/91 50-12 5 50-26/30 60-19 3 60-92/94 50-13 4 50-31/34 60-20 7 2 60-95/98; 7D-l/3 50-14 3 50-35/37 6E-1 2 68-25, 26 SG-ls 3 50-38/40 68-2 7 4 68-143/146, 133/135 50-16 50-41 68-3 10 68-147/ 156 50-17 50-42 6E-4 3 4 68-19/21 50-18 50-43 68-5 2 68-22, 23 511-1. 2 2 511-1,2 6E-6 6E-24 68-1 3 2 68-9/11 68-7 2 68-27, 28 68-2 24 2 68-16, 18/40 68-8 9 68-29, 37 68-3 4 2 68-1/4 68-9 3 68-38/40 68-4 2 ¡ 68-5, 6 68-10 68-41 68-5 2 68-7, 8 6E-l1 4 68-42/45 68-6 68-12 68-12 3 68-54/56 68-7 3 68-13/15 68-13 5 68-57/60; 6F-1 68-8 1 68-17 68-14 3 68-61/63 68-9 3 68-41/43 68-15 lo 2 6E-64/73 68-10 68-44 68-16 2 68-74,75 60-1 4 3 60-44/47 68-17 2 68-76, 77 60-2 3 2 68-57/59 68-18 3 68-78/80 60-3 2 2 68-19 4 2 68-81/84 60-4 3 2 60-41/43 68-20 2 68-85, 86 60-5 4 60-1/4 68-21 4 2 68-87/90 60-6 3 60-5/7 68-22 3 68-91/93 60-7 4 2 60-8/11 68-23 4 68-94/97 60-8 2 60-12,13 68-24 5 68-98/101; 7E-l 60-9 7 2 60-16/22 68-25 4 2 68- 102/105 60-10 6 60-26 /3 1 6E-26 4 68-106/109 60-11 4 3 60-32/35 68-27 8 68-110/117 60-12 5 60-36/38; 60-13,14 68-28 6 68-118/123 60-13 60-39 68-29 3 68-124/126 60-1.4 60-40 68-30 6 68-127/132 60-15 3 60-48/50 68-31 3 68-136/138 60-16 3 60-51/53 68-32 4 2 68-139/142 60-17 60-54 68-33 8 68-157/159; 6F-52/ 60-18 2 60-55,56 56 60-19 3 2 60-57/59 6E-34 4 68-160, 161; 7E-40, 60-1 17 6D-50/66 41 60-2 12 60-1/12 68-1 5 68-47/51 60-3 60-15 6F-2 3 68-2/4 60-4 2 6-016,17 6F-3 3 2 68-5/7 60-5 7 60-18/24 6F-4 3 68-8, 9, 69 60-6 60-25 68-5 5 2 68-10/13,68 128 Marsitah! Joseph Becker

Group No. Plaza Map Designation Group No Plaza Map Designation Desig. Plan of Structures Desig. of Plan of Structures Strs. in Group Strs. in Group

68-6 2 68-14, 15 70-8 2 70-24, 29 68-7 6 6F-16/19, 66, 67 70-9 4 2 70-25/28 68-8 4 6F-20/22, 65 70-10 3 70-30/32 68-9 6 68-23/25, 64; 60-60 7 0-11 2 70-33,34 61 70-12 2 70-37, 38 68-10 2 68-26, 27 70-13 6 70-39/44 68-11 1 68-28 70-14 1 70.45 68-12 3 68-29/31 70-15 1 70-46 6F-13 2 68-32, 33 70-16 2 70-47,48 6F-14 3 68-34/36 70-17 4 2 70-49/52 6 8-15 9 68-37/45 70-18 3 70-53/55 6F-16 1 68-46 70-19 3 70-57/59 68-17 3 6F-57/59 70-20 2 70-60, 61 6F-18 2 6F-60, 61 70-1 3 7D-4, 5; 6D-99 68-19 6F-62 70-2 70-6 68-20 1 68-63 70-3 5 70-7/11 6F-21 1 68-70 70-4 3 70-12/14 60-1 2 60-1,2 70-5 2 70-15,16 60-2 5 60-3/7 70-6 70-17 60-3 2 60-8, 62 70-7 8 70-19/26 60-4 3 60-9/11 70-8 3 70-27; 78-3,4 60-5 4 60-12/15 70-9 4 70-28; 78-5/7 60-6 5 60-16/20 70-10 12 70-29/40 60-7 6 60-21/26 70-11 4 7D-41/44 60-8 3 ¡ 6G-27/29 70-12 2 7D-45, 46 60-9 4 2 60-30/33 70-13 4 2 70-47/50 60-lo 3 2 60-34/36 70-14 3 70-51/53 60-11 4 60-37/40 70-15 4 70-54/57 60-12 2 60-41,42 70-16 7 70.58/64 60-13 1 60-43 70-17 3 70-65/67 60-14 2 60-44, 59 70-18 2 7D-68, 69 60-15 5 2 6045/48, 65 70-19 2 70-70, 71 60-16 2 60-49, 50 70-20 4 70-72/75 60-17 3 6G-51/53 70-21 3 70-76/78 60-18 1 60-54 70-22 2 70.79, 80 60-19 3 60-55/57 70-23 4 70-81/84 60-20 60-58 70-24 2 2 70-85, 86 60-21 2 60-63, 64 70-25 3 2 70-87/89 711-1 3 78-1/3 70-26 3 2 70-90/92 78-2 1 711-4 70-27 4 2 7D-93; 78-42/44 711-3 2 711-5, 6 70-28 2 70-94,95 711-4 2 711-7, 8 78-1 78-2 78-5 2 7B-9; 70-56 78-2 2 78-3, 4 78-6 3 711-10,12 78-3 4 78-8/11 711-7 5 711-13/17 7E-4 3 2 78-12/14 78-8 3 2 78-18/20 78-5 3 78-15/17 78-9 4 78-21/24 78-6 3 78-18/20 711-10 4 2 711-25/28 7E-7 3 2 78-21/23 70-1 2 70-3, 4 78-8 3 7E-24/26 70-2 4 3 70-5/8 78-9 3 78-27/28 70-3 2 70-1,2 78-10 2 2 78-29/31 70-4 3 70-9/11 78-11 3 7E-32, 33 70-5 9 70-12/20 78-12 2 78-34, 35 70-6 70-2 1 78-13 4 2 18-36/39 70-7 2 70-22, 23 78-14 6 78.45/50 Ancient maya houses ant! titeir identification: a» evatuation... 129

Group No.of Plaza Mapof StructuresDesignation Group No. Desig. Strs Plan ~ ~ Desig. Plaza Map Designation 5~’fl Plan of ittStructuresGroup

78-15 2 7E-S1, 52 7F-21 2 7566,67 7E-16 3 7E-53/S5 7F-22 4 7F-68/71 7F-1 8 2 7F-29/36 7F-23 4 7F-72/75 7F-2 3 7F-1/3 7F-24 3 2 7F-76/78 7F-3 3 7F-4/6 7F-25 3 7F-79/81 7F-4 1 7F-7 7526 2 2 7F-82, 83 7F-5 2 2 78-8, 9 78-27 5 78-84/88 78-6 4 2 7F-10/13 70-1 3 7G-1/3 78-7 4 78-14/17 70-2 1 70-4 7F-8 1 78-18 7G-3 4 70-5/8 759 4 2 78-19/22 70-4 5 70-9/13 7F-1O 2 2 78-23, 24 70-5 1 70-14 78-11 4 2 78-25/28 70-6 2 70-15,16 7F-12 2 78-37, 38 70-7 5 70-17/21 78-13 3 2 78-39/41 70-8 2 70-22, 23 78-14 3 78-42/44 70-9 2 70-24,25 7F-1S 5 2 78-45/49 70-10 4 70-26/29 78-16 3 78-50/52 70-11 3 7G-30/32 78-17 1 78-53 70-12 4 2 70-33/36 78-18 5 78-54/58 70-13 4 70-37/40 78-19 7F-59/64 70-14 5 70-41/45 78-20 1 78-65 70-15 3 2 7046/48