LOWLAND MAYA FORTIFICATIONS DAVID WEBSTER Assistant Professorof Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University THE PURPOSE of this paper is to review the ence of prehistoric warfare in several respects. evidence for, and implications of, Lowland Maya First, at least some vestiges of large-scale defen- military architecture, particularly that predating sive systems, especially those consisting of ma- the collapse of Classic Maya society at about 950 sonry or earth, will be preserved almost indefi- A.D. Apart from the pioneering work of Armillas nitely and are archaeologically quite visible. (1951) and Palerm (1954) there has been no Defensive configurations are, moreover, usually systematic analysis of Mesoamerican military sufficiently distinctive so that functional inter- architecture in general, let alone that of the Maya pretations are straightforward. This is especially Lowlands. This neglect is particularly unfortunate true in the Maya Lowlands where there are few because archaeologists are increasingly empha- natural features with defensive pptential (e.g. sizing warfare as a basic process in the evolution rugged topography). Careful analysis of de- of complex societies-those which we label fensive systems provides information concerning "civilizations" or "states." This review of Maya the scale, intensity, tactics, and social organiza- fortifications constitutes a partial test of the hy- tion of warfare-information which it is difficult pothesis that warfare was an important factor in to derive from other lines of evidence. Finally, the evolution and structuring of Lowland Maya the patterning of fortified sites on the landscape civilization (Webster, in press). obviously has implications for widespread po- Considering the potential significance of war- litical and economic structuring. fare as both a process and symptom of socio- The following Maya sites, broken down by political evolution in the Maya Lowlands its periods of construction, are either known to be identification in archaeological contexts is essen- fortified or possess constructional features which tial. Information indicating the presence of war- strongly suggest defensive barriers (map 1). fare in prehistoric contexts may be derived from a variety of sources, such as the analysis of pre- PRE-CLASSICMAYA FORTIFICATIONS historic weapon-systems, representational art, and During the Pre-Classic period of Maya prehis- human osteological remains. Since, however, tory, prior to about 250 A.D., the institutional warfare is a systemic process I feel that data foundations of Classic Maya society were laid, derived from settlement pattern studies have the and it is in this period that we must seek the greatest potential in determining its presence and roots of warfare as a generative process. Un- implications. Inferences may be drawn from two fortunately our knowledge of Pre-Classic settle- basic dimensions of settlement pattern studies: ment configurations is extremely limited; either (1) community location and patterning on the these early settlements were so ephemeral that landscape; (2) functional analysis of configura- they have left few traces behind them or, per- tions of individual sites. Proper inferences may haps more commonly, have been obscured or only be drawn from the first category of informa- obliterated by subsequent construction. tion when settlement data concerning site pattern- ing are both abundant and representative. At LOS NARANJOS present data of this sort are lacking for most areas Extensive earthworks which may represent the of the Maya Lowlands because of difficulties of earliest fortifications in Mesoamerica were located doing intensive settlement surveys in a densely during the French excavations at Los Naranjos, forested environment. The second approach, the in the Lake Yajoa district of northern Honduras analysis of defensive configurations at individual (Baudez and Becquelin, 1973). An earthwork Maya sites, is followed here. system composed of ditch and embankments, ap- The identification and analysis of fortifications proximately 1,300 m long, screens the eastern provides excellent positive evidence for the exist- approaches to the principal, and earliest, archi- PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 120, No. 5, OCTOBER 1976 361 362 DAVID WEBSTER [PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC. water-laid deposits were found in its bottom, and the bedrock is too porous to hold water (ibid., p. 3 53). They assign defensive functions to the earthworks largely, one feels, because no obvious 0 5o0i. alternatives present themselves. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the ditch and embank- ment formed a considerable barrier quite consist- ent with defensive considerations. If the Los Naranjos earthworks are indeed fortifications their configuration indicates that / a: they were erected not only to protect the major organizational center from an attack from the east, but also a considerable sustaining area. A 9 second system of earthworks about 3,200 m in length was later erected still further to the east, protecting a sizable portion of the lake-shore plain. Sherd collections from the original ditch have strong Olmec affinities (ibid., p. 412) and relate to the Jaral Phase (800-400 B.C.), strongly sug- 10 c3 gesting construction during the middle Pre- Classic. The second embankment system was built sometime during the very long Eden Phase (400 B.C.-550 A.D.) and so may be of either Pre- MAP 1. Fortified sites in the Maya Lowlands. Numbered Classic or Classic date. sites represent known or probable fortifications dated to the Pre-Classic or Classic Periods. Lettered BECAN sites are known to be late (Post-Classic-after ca. 1000 A.D.). Only one defensive system pre-dating the 1 Dzonotake 9 Tikal Classic Maya collapse has been extensively ex- 2 Cuca 10 Los Naranjos amined-that at the site of Becan in southeastern 3 Ake A Tulum Campeche, Mexico (Webster, 1972, 1974). 4 Chacchob B Xelha 5 Muna C Mayapan Becan is a small center completely surrounded by 6 Edzna D Ichpaatun a dry-ditch and parapet. The main component 7 Becan E Aguacatal of the fortifications is a kidney-shaped ditch 1.9 8 La Victoria and Acatucha km in circumference with an average width of 16 m and depth of 5.3 m. It encloses an area tectural group at the site. At its northern end of 0.19 km2. An inner parapet consisting of fill the ditch terminates near an extensive swamp, removed from the ditch was originally about 5 m while the southern end approaches the lake shore high, and any enemy force attacking Becan would itself (this pattern is reminiscent of the northern thus have faced a wide ditch backed by a vertical ditch at Tikal, which articulates at either end obstacle about 11 m in height. Access to the site with large logwood swamps-see below). The was provided by seven causeways which are ditch and embankment are variable in size simply natural bridges of limestone left in posi- throughout their length and are much eroded and tion when the various ditch segments were ex- silted up; judging from the published profiles cavated. Becan was also partially screened from (ibid., fig. 30) the ditch was about 10 m wide and attackers by extensive swamps on the northeast 7 m in depth, as measured from the top of the and southwest. adjacent embankment. An enormous amount of labor was expended Unfortunately only very limited attention was on the Becan fortifications. Approximately 117,- focused on the earthworks during the excavations 000 m3 of fill were removed from the ditch and at Los Naranjos, and their function remains in disposed of on the embankment or elsewhere, a doubt. The excavators originally felt that the project requiring an estimated 352,000 man-days ditch was dug for drainage purposes, but no of labor. VOL. 120, NO. 5, 1976] LOWLAND MAYA FORTIFICATIONS 363 Ruppert and Denison (1943), who originally evidence does suggest that a number of classic discovered Becan, felt that the ditch was meant to sites were fortified. be a water-filled barrier. My excavations re- vealed that not only were there no water-deposited BECAN AND LOS NARANJOS sediments in the ditch, but that its configuration Both of the sites previously discussed continued and geological situation clearly rule out this inter- to be occupied throughout the Classic period. pretation. Nor does Pollock's borrow-pit inter- The Becan fortifications continued in use at least pretation fit (Pollock, 1965: p. 395). Becan is throughout the Early Classic, and the larger earth- obviously a fortified center. work at Los Naranjos may be a Classic con- Over 33,000 identifiable sherds were recovered struction. from contexts associated with the defensive sys- tem and provide the basis for a chronological TIKAL placement of 100-250 A.D., or late Pre-Classic, Puleston and Callender (1967) reported the for the fortifications as a whole. This date is existence of an extensive earthwork about 4.5 km somewhat earlier than that proposed in my pre- north of the Great Plaza at Tikal. The earth- vious publications (250-450 A.D.) and is based work consists of a ditch, cut down into the lime- upon a slight realignment of the ceramic sequence stone bedrock, measuring about 4 m in width and as a result of further stratigraphic testing by Joe depth. This ditch is backed by a rubble parapet, Ball, the project ceramist (personal communica- runs in a basic east-west direction across hilly tions). I would agree with this late Pre-Classic and swampy terrain for a total distance of about placement, although the fortifications certainly 9.5 km, and terminates at either end near exten- continued in use well into the Classic period. In sive logwood swamps which are themselves for- fact there is evidence from both construction and midable natural barriers. Several causeways span sherd distribution that Becan was threatened or the ditch, and at least one of them is wholly attacked during the Early Classic. artificial. Puleston and Callender originally speculated CLASSICPERIOD FORTIFICATIONS that the ditch was part of a canal system, as The Classic period (ca.