Anthropological Notebooks-Reseñas

1

ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS XI

Ljubljana 2005

2

Anthropological Notebooks, XI, 2005

ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS2005, YEAR XISPECIAL ISSUEGUEST EDITOR: IVAN [PRAJC

COPYRIGHT © DRU[TVO ANTROPOLOGOV SLOVENIJE/SLOVENE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETYGortanova 11, 1000 Ljubljana, Sloveniawww.drustvo-antropologov.si/

All rights reserved. With the exception of fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, no partof this publication may be reproduced, copied or utilized in any form without written permission from thecopyright holder.

Editor-in-ChiefBorut TelbanReview EditorLiza Debevec

Editorial BoardBogomir Novak, Ivan [prajc

Marija [tefancic, Tatjana Tomazo-Ravnik, Bojan @alec

International Editorial BoardAnna Hohenwart-GerlachsteinInstitut für VolkerkundeWien, Austria

Pavao RudanInstitute for Anthropological ResearchZagreb, Croatia

Aygen ErdentugBilkent UniversityTurkey

Ton OttoUniversity of AarhusAarhus, Denmark

Jadran MimicaUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Proofreaders: Alan McConell Duff, Sun~an Patrick Stone Design: Tomyco d.o.o. Print: Tiskarna Artelj

Front-page: Stela 9 of Oxpemul, Campeche, Mexico (photo by Ivan [prajc)Anthropological Notebooks is a peer-reviewed journal published once a year by the Slovene AnthropologicalSociety. It publishes scholarly articles, review articles, research reports, congress and seminar reports, bookreviews and information concerning research and study in the fields of social and cultural anthropology,linguistic anthropology, archaeology, and related disciplines. The language of the journal is English withabstracts and possible shorter texts in Slovene. Contributors are kindly requested to follow the instructionsgiven in the Instructions for Authors. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those ofthe editors of Anthropological Notebooks.For subscription (1900 SIT or 8 • per year, postage included) and submission of articles, please contact editor-in-chief ([email protected]) or write to the above address of the Slovene Anthropological Society.Individual back numbers are also available (2400 SIT or 10 • each, postage included). The journal isdistributed free of charge to the members of the Slovene Anthropological Society.Anthropological Notebooks is indexed by the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS),Anthropology Plus database (Anthropological Literature and Anthropological Index Online), CambridgeScientific Abstracts/Sociological Abstracts, International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanitiesand Social Sciences (IBZ), and Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory.The publication was financed by the Slovenian Research Agency.The volume is printed entirely on recycled paper.

Charles SusanneFree University BrusselsBrussels, Belgium

Howard MorphyAustralian National UniversityCanberra, Australia

Eric SunderlandFaculty of Health StudiesBangor, Great Britain

ISSN 1408 – 032X

3

Ivan [prajcIntroduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Antonio Benavides C.Campeche Archaeology at the Turn of the Century ..................................................................................... 13

Rodrigo Liendo StuardoAn Archaeological Study of Settlement Distribution in the Palenque Area, Chiapas, Mexico ................... 31

Norman HammondThe Dawn and the Dusk: Beginning and Ending a Long-Term Research Programat the Preclassic Maya Site of Cuello, Belize ................................................................................................ 44

Geoffrey E. Braswell, Christian M. Prager and Cassandra R. BillThe Kingdom of the Avocado: Recent Investigations at Pusilhá,a Classic Maya City of Southern Belize ........................................................................................................ 60

Nikolai GrubeToponyms, Emblem Glyphs, and the Political Geography of Southern Campeche .................................. 89

Hasso HohmannCulture of Memory and Maya Architecture: Architectural Documentationand Interpretation of Structure 1 of Chunchimai 3 ..................................................................................... 103

BOOK REVIEWS

Ivan [prajcVernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning (eds.), Heterarchy, PoliticalEconomy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula ........ 114

F. C. Atasta Flores EsquivelArthur Demarest. Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization ...................................... 118

F. C. Atasta Flores EsquivelE. Wyllys Andrews and William L. Fash (eds.). 2005. Copán: The Historyof an Ancient Maya Kingdom ........................................................................................................................ 120

Maja [u{tar{i~Thomas Heyd and John Clegg (eds.). 2005. Aesthetics and Rock Art ........................................................ 122

Boris KavurJanusz Krzysztof Koz³owski. 2004. Wielka historia œwiata. Tom 1: Œviat przed “rewolucj¹ ”neoliticzn¹ . Göran Burenhult. (ed.). 2004. People of the Past: The Illustrated Historyof Humankind: The Epic Story of Human Origins and Development. Chris Scarre. (ed.). 2005.The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies .......................................... 124

Anthropological Notebooks XI, 2005

CONTENTS

4


5

I. [prajc: Introduction

INTRODUCTIONIVAN [PRAJCScientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia

The present volume of Anthropological Notebooks is dedicated to one of themost intriguing civilisations of the ancient world. A relatively uniform culture, created bythe peoples nowadays known collectively as the Maya, began to emerge in the secondmillennium B.C. and flourished up to the Spanish Conquest on the territory correspondingto what are now the southeastern part of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador andHonduras. The Maya culture evolved within a larger cultural area commonly labelledMesoamerica, which corresponds to the central and southern parts of modern Mexico andthe northern part of Central America. The Mesoamerican cultural area was defined byPaul Kirchhoff (1943), on the basis of a number of cultural traits that were shared by thepeoples living in this area at the time of the Spanish Conquest, but which started emergingalready in the 2nd millennium B.C., when the first complex, state-organised societies ap-peared. In spite of a great linguistic diversity and considerable regional and time-depen-dent cultural variations within Mesoamerica, the general cultural unity – a result of bothcommon origins and intensive cultural interaction – of the groups composing this culturalcomplex can be observed in their economy, which was based on intensive agriculture(mainly on the cultivation of maize as a staple crop), in the similarities in monumentalarchitecture, characterised most prominently by the temples built in the shape of steppedpyramids, as well as in their social organisation, arts, religion and calendrical system(Kirchhoff 1943; Matos 2000).

The history of prehispanic Mesoamerica is usually divided into three main peri-ods or evolutionary stages: the Preclassic (c. 2000 B.C. – A.D. 200), the Classic (c. 200– 900) and the Postclassic (c. 900 – 1521). The earliest stratified and urban societiesappeared in the Preclassic period along the southern part of the Mexican Gulf Coast andin central Mexico, as well as in the Maya area, which corresponds to the southeasternpart of Mesoamerica. The greatest splendour, particularly notable in fine arts, architec-tural achievements and writing systems, appeared during the Classic period, while thePostclassic was characterised by intensified migrations, the diffusion of newly developedcultural manifestations, pronounced militarisation and, particularly in the Maya area, byincreased political fragmentation (cf. Adams 1991; Adams and MacLeod 2000; Carrasco2001; Manzanilla and Luján 2000-2001).

The land of the Maya (Fig. 1) covers the area of some 400,000 km2 and consistsof two substantially different geographical regions: the lowlands in the north correspond tothe karstic and relatively flat Yucatán peninsula, while the highlands in the south comprisemostly volcanic mountain ranges stretching across Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras andthe Mexican federal state of Chiapas. These two general zones differ notably in climate,geological peculiarities, soil, vegetation and the availability of natural resources, but thereis also considerable environmental diversity within each of the two regions (Hammond1994; 2000; Sharer 2000; Sharer and Traxler 2005; Demarest 2004).

6


The history of the research dealing with the Maya begins in the early colonialperiod, with some studies on written sources and the discoveries of important archaeologi-cal sites. However, the Maya captured particularly strong public interest and imaginationonly after the first reports by the early 19th century explorers, who revealed the existenceof monumental vestiges of a vanished civilisation to a wider audience. The most importantlandmark was the publication of the books written by the American lawyer and diplomatJohn Lloyd Stephens (1841; 1843), in which the story of his explorations was accompa-nied by the drawings of the English architect and artist Frederick Catherwood. Stephens’accounts are descriptive and free of unwarranted speculations, but his style is attractivelynarrative, even for a present-day reader, whereas Catherwood’s drawings are both veryaccurate for those times and embellished with details that add a strong romantic appeal tohis renderings of buildings and monuments. It is for these reasons that Stephens’ booksmark the beginning of Maya archaeology as a serious endeavour on one hand, and repre-sent the most important origin of the public fascination surrounding the Maya right up tothe present day on the other (Bernal 1980; Sabloff 1990).

The exotic and apparently hostile environment, the fact that many ruins of whatwere evidently glorious cities with magnificent temples, palaces and sculpted monuments

Figure 1. Map of the Maya area (after Martin and Grube 2000: 10).

7

with reliefs and enigmatic hieroglyphic inscriptions, were found lying deep in the jungle,overgrown with giant tropical trees and embraced by lianas, was undoubtedly one of themost powerful reasons for this popular appeal, which has not passed away. However, thishas not been the only reason. The Maya were, in several aspects, unique among thenative American peoples. Although they lived, in terms of technology, in a Stone Age –considering that the few known metals had little significance in their economy and every-day life – and even though they never used the wheel, the plough and traction animals,they reached a relatively high level of economic, social, artistic and intellectual develop-ment, comparable to that of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and China, i.e. of the culturesbased on extensive use of bronze and – in later periods – iron. The splendour of the Mayais attested not only in their impressive monumental architecture and the diversity andelegance of smaller objects of art; they also developed a true phonetic writing system,which was the most elaborate one in pre-Columbian America. While their predecessors,the Olmec, invented a positional notation of numbers, even before similar achievementsoccurred in the Old World, the Maya developed it further and used it most extensively intheir sophisticated calendar system and astronomical computations, in which they heldprimacy in the pre-Columbian New World (Sabloff 1990; Hammond 1994; 2000; Demarest2004; Sharer 2000; Sharer and Traxler 2005).

What is particularly interesting is that all of these developments occurred in iso-lation: there is no compelling evidence that trans-oceanic contacts, if they ever existed,influenced the course of cultural evolution in the New World in a notable way. Thereforethe Maya, together with other native American peoples, became highly relevant for thetheoretical studies aimed at unveiling the causes and processes that resulted in the culturalsimilarities and differences between the peoples that, although vastly separated in timeand/or space, attained comparable levels of cultural development.

Another reason for the widespread interest in the Maya is the general opinionthat permeated the study of their civilisation for many decades, even during much of the20th century: the Maya were viewed as fundamentally different from any other compa-rable civilisation of the ancient world; they were conceived as a peaceful people of peas-ants and artisans, governed by a noble elite, whose only concerns were religious matters,observation of the sky and exaltation of the spirit. What were the causes for this romanticbut enduring image, both scientific and popular, of the Maya?

The late 19th century studies that focused on written sources – such as the PopolVuh, a sacred book of the Quiché Maya Indians living in the Guatemala highlands, theRelación de las cosas de Yucatán, a report written in the 16th century by bishop Diegode Landa and containing a wealth of data on the Maya of northern Yucatán, and a fewcodices or painted manuscripts that managed to survive – resulted in the first importantbreakthroughs concerning the Maya numeration, calendar and astronomy. Archaeologicalexcavations that started at a few large Maya centres in the late 19th century broughtsignificant new information, but the attempts at deciphering their hieroglyphic writing, inspite of a rapidly growing corpus of monumental inscriptions recovered and documentedat a number of Maya sites, did not manage to get much beyond the calendrical and astro-nomical glyphs for decades to come. The profusion of texts that were evidently calendrical


8


and astronomical in nature, the failure to grasp the meaning of other glyphs, and the appar-ent scarcity of other kinds of evidence suggesting bellicosity of the Maya and revealingtheir true nature, were the reasons for a notion that was, however aberrant, common andpersistent. It was repeatedly expressed by scholars as famous and meritorious as SylvanusG. Morley (1946), who believed the Maya texts, unlike those of ancient Egypt, Assyria andBabylonia, contain neither histories of real conquests and military victories nor glorifica-tions or even names of individual persons. This opinion was shared much later by anothergreat figure in Maya archaeology, J. Eric S. Thompson (1954: 168).

It was not until the 1960s that this idealised picture began to change, mainly as aresult of rapid advances in the decipherment of the Maya hieroglyphic writing. From thedarkness of the past real persons from the Maya history suddenly emerged: formerlyanonymous figures, sculpted on stelae, altars and building façades, once believed to bedeities, introduced themselves by their names and deeds; arrogant and lavishly clad lordsappeared, glorifying their births, enthronisations, victories in battles and sacrifices of theircaptives. Something that was unimaginable for decades was now perfectly clear: theMaya were in no essential way different from other comparable cultures (Sabloff 1990;Coe 1992; Stuart 1992; Fash 1994; Martin and Grube 2000).

The Maya thus lost their romantic allure, but the fascination has not vanished.We know they were simply humans, with their virtues and defects, qualities and vices, butscholarly research continues to be as exciting as it used to be. Archaeological sites, evenlarge centres with monumental architecture, sculptures and hieroglyphic inscriptions, con-tinue to be discovered deep in the jungle, and vast territories that have not been surveyedsuggest that many others remain hidden in remote areas, awaiting the modern explorers.The ongoing archaeological work remains full of surprises, particularly because every sitehas, in spite of the relatively high degree of Maya cultural uniformity, some singular fea-tures, peculiarities that have not been found elsewhere.

Furthermore, even if our knowledge has drastically increased during the recentdecades due to a multitude of researchers from a number of scientific fields, who havecontributed to what we now know – or believe to know – about the Maya, they are stillenigmatic in many aspects. There are several big questions that persistently defy a com-pelling solution. What were the prime movers and processes that brought about the so-called collapse at the end of the Classic period, reflected in the abandonment of the major-ity of the large urban centres in the central and southern lowlands? Climatic changes,epidemic diseases, peasant revolts, anthropogenic degradation of agricultural landscape,warfare and other causes have been suggested, but no ample consensus has been reachedamong the researchers. The origin of the Preclassic social complexity and splendour, aswell as the demise at the end of this period in certain areas, represent a similarly intriguingproblem. What was the role of Teotihuacan in the rise and florescence of the ClassicMaya? We know they had some sort of connections with this large city in central Mexico,which dominated considerable portions of Mesoamerica for centuries, but what exactlywas the nature and impact of these relations? (cf. Gunn et al. 2002; Brenner et al. 2002;Hansen et al. 2002; Webster 2002; Braswell 2003; Marcus 2003).

9

And then, how did the Maya organise agricultural production, craft specialisationand other economic activities? This question is intimately related to the more general one,concerning their social and political organisation. It seems that numerous different ver-sions of feudal organisation, such as are known from the ancient Near East, Asia andmedieval Europe, constitute appropriate analogues, but due to the diversity of the knownsystems this comparison is too general to clarify the specifics of the Maya social organisation.Some scholars argue their states were powerful and centralised, having a clearly definedclass structure and controlling all important aspects of life of the subordinate communities,while others prefer to view their political entities as ‘segmentary’, ‘galactic’, ‘theatre’ or‘regal-ritual’ states, governed by the charismatic rulers whose power was unstable andrelatively weak, based on their kinship ties, ritual performances and access to luxury itemsthat served as signs of authority and prestige. Recent studies suggest that there is nosingle answer, and that different explanations may account for situations in different peri-ods and places (Fox et al. 1996; Trejo 1998; Grube 2000; Marcus 2003; Scarborough et al.2003; Demarest 2004).

These and many other questions are currently being discussed by Maya schol-ars, and some of them are tackled in the articles collected in this volume. While there is nosingle topic unifying these articles, most of them present synthetic views on certain sitesand areas of research, focusing on particular problems.

Antonio Benavides summarises the archaeological research and restoration worksthat have been accomplished in recent decades in the central part of the territory onceoccupied by the Maya and nowadays pertaining to the Mexican federal state of Campeche.This region comprises large segments of the central and northern lowlands, where thevestiges of the Classic period Maya florescence are particularly rich and diverse, althougharchaeological remains from other periods, including colonial, are no less important andinteresting. However, it may be noted that in spite of the density of the ancient settlementdistribution revealed in the zones surveyed so far, it is precisely in Campeche where someof the most extensive blanks on the archaeological map of the Maya area still persist.

Palenque, located in the Mexican state of Chiapas, is one of the most important,famous and touristically attractive Maya sites. However, in his contribution Rodrigo LiendoStuardo does not focus on the urban core of Palenque, with its monumental buildings andsculpted monuments, but rather on the surrounding settlement distribution and its implica-tions for the understanding of the regional social and political organisation. Analysing therural architectural and site variability and considering the chronological data, he discussesthe settlement dynamic trends, discriminates several sub-regions within the Palenque areathat suggest the existence of smaller socio-political groups within the polity, and concludesthat the Palenque political entity must have been held together not only by vertically function-ing control mechanisms exerted by a centralised power, but also by local cooperationnetworks that integrated the rural population into socially discrete units.

Norman Hammond presents a summary of the archaeological research con-ducted during the last decades at the site of Cuello in northern Belize. A special impor-tance of Cuello resides in the fact that it is the oldest Maya village site known so far; dueto the investigations carried out between 1975 and 2002, it is also the most extensively


10


excavated early Middle Preclassic settlement. The author outlines the chronology of thesite and the characteristics of the domestic and public architecture, including a sweat bath,which is the earliest one known thus far in Mesoamerica. He also presents evidence ofburials as well as animal and plant remains recovered at the site, and summarises theresults of the analyses that shed light on the diet of the ancient inhabitants of Cuello.

Geoffrey E. Braswell, Christian M. Prager and Cassandra R. Bill synthesise therecent investigations at Pusilhá, another interesting Maya site located in southern Belize.Their discussion is focused on the problems of state formation and the site’s externalrelations. Analysing different types of archaeological and epigraphic evidence, they arguethat Pusilhá, flourishing from the Late Classic to the Early Postclassic period, had somerelations with Copán to the south and, to a greater extent, with the Petén area to the west,but was never – unlike many other known Maya settlements – under the direct control ofits more powerful neighbours. It seems that the site was deliberately founded in a rela-tively peripheral and underpopulated region, where the governing elites managed to keepthemselves distant from the political struggles among the large centres, such as Tikal,Calakmul, Copán and Quiriguá. However, on the other hand certain rulers apparentlyclaimed an affiliation with Teotihuacan, and the authors also mention other data suggest-ing connections of some sort with this powerful and legendary city in the central Mexicanhighlands.

Nikolai Grube presents interesting newly recovered epigraphic data that reflectsome formerly unknown aspects of the Classic Maya political geography in the southernpart of the Mexican state of Campeche, i.e. in the area that was until recently quite poorlyknown from the archaeological point of view. The occurrences of the so-called emblemglyphs, which are currently understood as royal titles carried by rulers of particular poli-ties, indicate that the Kaan dynasty, whose seat was at least during a certain period at thehuge centre of Calakmul, was a dominating force in the area for several centuries, whilethe identity and regional significance of another polity, whose emblem glyph represents abat, remains obscure. The inscriptions found in the region also contain incomplete andunusual variants of emblems, which the author calls ‘toponymic titles’ and suggests theydesignate lower hierarchical positions of the political entities they refer to.

Hasso Hohmann’s article differs from the rest in that it does not present a gen-eral and synthetic view on a site, region or research problem. Instead, it is an original andmeticulous report on the architectural characteristics of an interesting Maya building atthe site of Chunchimai, located in the northwestern part of the Yucatán peninsula. Theauthor provides detailed drawings of the building and the remaining parts of decoration,characteristic of the Puuc architectural style prevailing in the region during the Late Clas-sic period, and pays special attention to certain elements that were evidently taken froman older building and reused; considering analogies from elsewhere, he suggests theyreflect a deliberately expressed relationship of the builders with their ancestors.

Also included in the present volume are a few book reviews, most of them deal-ing with the Maya.

At the end I wish to express my sincere thanks to all contributors, to Liza Debevec(Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts) for her

11

editorial assistance, and to the editorial board of Anthropological Notebooks, who en-couraged me to edit a volume dedicated to the Maya archaeology.

REFERENCESAdams, Richard E. W. 1991. Prehistoric Mesoamerica (revised ed.). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Adams, Richard E. W., and Murdo J. MacLeod (eds.). 2000. The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of

the Americas, vol. II: Mesoamerica, 2 parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bernal, Ignacio. 1980. A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America

(transl. from Spanish by R. Malet). London: Thames and Hudson.Braswell, Geoffrey E. (ed.). 2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Austin:

University of Texas Press.Brenner, Mark, Michael F. Rosenmeier, David A. Hodell, and Jason H. Curtis. 2002. Paleolimnology of the

Maya Lowlands: Long-Term Perspectives on Interactions among Climate, Environment, and Humans.Ancient Mesoamerica 13 (1): 141-157.

Carrasco, David (ed.). 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations ofMexico and Central America, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coe, Michael D. 1992. Breaking the Maya Code. London: Thames and Hudson.Demarest, Arthur. 2004. Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Fash, William L. 1994. Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:

181-208.Fox, John W., Garrett W. Cook, Arlen F. Chase, and Diane Z. Chase. 1996. CA Forum on Theory in Anthropology;

The Maya State: Centralized or Segmentary? Current Anthropology 37 (5): 795-830.Grube, Nikolai. 2000. The City-States of the Maya. In: Mogens Herman Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study

of Thirty City-State Cultures, Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 21, Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academyof Sciences and Letters, pp. 547-565.

Gunn, Joel D., Ray T. Matheny, and William J. Folan. 2002. Climate-Change Studies in the Maya Area: ADiachronic Analysis. Ancient Mesoamerica 13 (1): 79-84.

Hammond, Norman. 1994. Ancient Maya Civilization (5th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

––––––––. 2000. The Maya Lowlands: Pioneer Farmers to Merchant Princes. In: Adams, Richard E. W., andMurdo J. MacLeod (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. II:Mesoamerica, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197-249.

Hansen, Richard D., Steven Bozarth, John Jacob, David Wahl, and Thomas Schreiner. 2002. Climatic andEnvironmental Variability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A Preliminary Perspective from NorthernPeten. Ancient Mesoamerica 13 (2): 273-295.

Kirchhoff, Paul. 1943. Mesoamérica: sus límites geográficos, composición étnica y caracteres culturales.Acta Americana 1 (1): 92-107.

Manzanilla, Linda, and Leonardo López Luján (eds.). 2000-2001. Historia antigua de México, 4 vols. (2nded.). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México– Miguel Ángel Porrúa.

Marcus, Joyce. 2003. Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11 (2): 71-148.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynastiesof the Ancient Maya. London: Thames and Hudson.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. 2000. Mesoamérica. In: Linda Manzanilla and Leonardo López Luján (eds.),Historia antigua de México, vol. I: El México antiguo, sus áreas culturales, los orígenes y el horizontePreclásico (2nd ed.), México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México – Miguel Ángel Porrúa, pp. 95-119.

Morley, Sylvanus G. 1946. The Ancient Maya. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1990. The New Archaeology and the Ancient Maya. New York: W. H. Freeman.Scarborough, Vernon L., Fred Valdez Jr., Nicholas Dunning (eds.). 2003. Heterarchy, Political Economy, and


12


the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula. Tucson: The Universityof Arizona Press.

Sharer, Robert J. 2000. The Maya Highlands and the Adjacent Pacific Coast. In: Adams, Richard E. W., andMurdo J. MacLeod (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. II:Mesoamerica, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 449-499.

Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler. 2005. The Ancient Maya (6th ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Stephens, John Lloyd. 1941. Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán, 2 vols. New York:

Harper (reprinted by Dover, 1962).––––––––. 1943. Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, 2 vols. New York: Harper (reprinted by Dover, 1963).Stuart, George E. 1992. Quest for Decipherment: a Historical and Biographical Survey of Maya Hieroglyphic

Investigation. In: Elin C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer (eds.), New Theories on the Ancient Maya,University Museum Monograph 77, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 1-63.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1954. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Trejo, Silvia (ed.). 1998. Modelos de entidades políticas mayas. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e

Historia.Webster, David. 2002. The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse. London:

Thames and Hudson.

13

A. Benavides C.: Campeche archaeology at the turn of the century

CAMPECHE ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE TURNOF THE CENTURYAntonio Benavides C.Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Campeche, Camp., Mexico

ABSTRACTThe Mexican federal state of Campeche, located in the western part of the Yucatan

peninsula, possesses a rich archaeological heritage, as a testimony of the Maya civilizationthat flourished in the area for several millennia before the arrival of Spanish conquerors atthe beginning of the 16th century, as well as of the early colonial times. The paper summa-rizes the archaeological research and restoration works carried out in Campeche duringthe last few decades.

Key words: Maya archaeology, Campeche, research history.

As it happens in other parts of the country, Mexico’s southeastern region has asolid cultural background whose roots nourish the daily life of many citizens. The specificcase of the Campeche State, on the western section of the Yucatan peninsula, is a clearexample of how the past is still alive in several ways: new archaeological findings; rescueand salvage projects; integration of pre-Hispanic sites to tourist circuits; major culturalheritage conservation works; epigraphic, archaeological and historical research achieve-ments, etc. (Benavides 1998).

Campeche’s northern section preserves more Maya-speaking people with pre-Columbian traditions than the southern section. In the middle of the XXth century thesouthern low demography helped to promote the foundation of many communities inte-grated by migrants from almost every region of the country. However, the pre-Columbianvestiges are found everywhere within Campeche’s 58,000 km².

Today’s Campeche population is less than one million, with Campeche and Carmencities as the undeniable economic centers that support half of the state’s demography. Asa consequence, Campeche’s road system only has basic lines whose branches began togrow until recent years.

On the other hand, archaeologists’ work has revealed only tiny fragments ofsome ancient cities and there is still much to register, to study and to divulge. Still withouta formal archaeological site corpus, some relevant pieces of an enormous puzzle havebegun to appear, and little by little are being recognized. Here we have to remember two

ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS 11: 13–30.ISSN 1408-032X© Slovene Anthropological Society 2005

14


relevant achievements of recent times: Campeche city historical downtown and theCalakmul Biosphere Reserve1 , where the ancient settlement of Calakmul is also located;both are now included in the world heritage list.

A hot and humid environment has been a sine qua non circumstance for the riseand development of the Maya culture in Campeche through several centuries. The work-ing habitats have been different: dense and suffocating mangroves or a thousand shadesof green and brown in the inland jungles. There are still some dangerous animals there butlittle remains of the fine woods that once thrived on large territories. Sometimes work hasto be done in thick pastures that devoured the jungle and where you find thousands of ticksquads. Nevertheless, putting aside discomfort and difficult days, the voyages toCampeche’s past have been fruitful. Most of the archaeological projects have had enoughresources to register and dig domestic units or to consolidate and restore monumentalbuildings, and also to study and publish their findings.

Materials and information obtained have not only helped to better know thefeatures and sequences of the studied sites, but have also been useful in proposing widerand better explained interregional scenarios.

In a similar way, movable and non movable cultural heritage has been rescued,particularly relevant for its specific contexts. This means that during the last decade, thenumber of Maya artifacts and sites known in Campeche has increased particularly as aresult of formal research, rather than of looting raids. Information derived from objectswhose provenance, associations, chronology, chemical composition etc. are known con-tributes to explaining and understanding past societies that created them. Such activity hasalso generated new research and conservation questions, topics whose discussion andsolution require, more frequently than before, the participation of interdisciplinary teams.

During the past years many researchers from different academic fields havedevoted time and resources to better know the ancient history of many settlements ofCampeche. Information has been obtained from many sources: surveys, rescue labors,fortuitous findings, maintenance and restoration efforts, excavations and analyses of di-verse materials. In the following lines an attempt will be made at summarizing what weconsider to be the most relevant issues. A list of several wide coverage projects will befollowed by the information related with research projects developed at specific sites.

1 Its surface is 723,185 hectares, which is 47 % of the area of the municipality of the same name.

15

2 PROCEDE stands for Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales, a national program certifying

peasants’ land ownership.3 Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (Mexico).

4 Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

5 Mantenimiento a Zonas Arqueológicas no Abiertas al Público (a project giving maintenance to archaeological

sites not open to the public).6 Scientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Slovenia).

7 Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico).

8 Centre National du Recherche Scientifique (France).

16


The overall meaning of the previous projects is the continuity of site registrationand gradual increase of knowledge, despite the lack of a complete site catalogue or apreliminary database containing the information produced by different research projects.Considerable progress has been made in the north, west and southeast regions, but thereare also large territories practically unknown, such as the Laguna de Términos surround-ings, the region west of Calakmul and the central portion of the state. A conservativeguess is that we have registered around 800 pre-Columbian settlements, a number thatobviously will increase in the near future.

Let us now continue with a summary of research and conservation projects atspecific sites.

AcanmulThis site is located 25 kilometers northeast of Campeche city and around 20

kilometers away from the coast. The ancient settlement occupies a 2 km² surface andlived its splendor years between the 7th and 9th centuries A.D. Héber Ojeda M., withINAH Campeche, is in charge of the research project and has dedicated efforts to theexcavation and restoration of four buildings. The principal structure is the Palace, withtwo levels of vaulted rooms and a complex Puuc architecture construction sequence.Excavations of a nearby building revealed a sweatbath, a rather uncommon structure atPuuc sites. Ojeda has not found hieroglyphics texts so far, which may be due to stoneextraction in the 18th and 19th centuries, when two nearby haciendas of Yaxcab andNachehá were built.

Altamira de ZináparoThis research project is relatively recent and is directed by Vicente Suárez A.

His principal goal is to register pre-Hispanic and colonial settlements in a region still poorlyknown. Among the principal sites to be studied are the so called “Mountain Missions”,which were towns and churches founded by the Spaniards during the 16th and 17th cen-turies in order to control the native population (Sacalum, Ichbalche, Chunhaz and Tzuctok).One of the sites currently under study is Conhuás Viejo (the old town of Conhuás).

BalamkúBalamkú has been studied by two teams of researchers; a Mexican one headed

by Ramón Carrasco and a French group directed by Dominique Michelet and PierreBecquelin. The first team has centered efforts in the Central Group, and the other haspaid attention to the South Group and surrounding domestic units. Some achievements area general topographic map of the whole settlement, a ceramic sequence beginning in theFormative and ending in the Postclassic, and good examples of architectural developmentincluding the Petén and Río Bec variations (Arnauld et al. 1998; 1999).

In the Central Group there is a substructure that preserved most of its originalfrieze from the first centuries A.D. Modeled in stucco and supported by stone tenons, itrepresents parts of the ancient Maya belief system. According to the most accepted ex-

17

planation among specialists, the motifs illustrate a comparison of dynastic and solar cycles.The access to the throne is represented by a king sprouting from the jaws of a terrestrialmonster (the Sun ascending from the Earth´s mouth). The king´s death is then the sunset,when he enters or falls into the mouth from where he came. The fantastic masks andjaguars speak of the force and richness of the Earth; the amphibian beings symbolize thetransition between both worlds. This very interesting stucco allegory is today protectedwith an excellent covering that not only preserves the Maya vestiges but also restores theoriginal form of the building.

BecánThis ancient Maya city is located practically in the middle of the Yucatan penin-

sula, a strategic place that must have facilitated its connections with the east and westcoasts, as well as with the north and south regions of the Maya world. Becán is particu-larly important for being surrounded by a ditch that gathered rain water and facilitated itsuse. The encircled space covering around 24 hectares is only accessible through sevenentrances with short causeways saving the ditch. During war times such infrastructurecould be complemented with palisades. The monumental buildings are displayed aroundplazas and patios, but there are also evidences of domestic units nearby and outside theditch.

Recent archaeological work at this capital city of the Rio Bec architectural styleregion has been directed by Luz Evelia Campaña (2005), from INAH. She has continuedexploration and restoration operations in Structures IX and X, and also excavations ofseveral adjoining patios. In the southern section of one of those spaces there is a stuccorepresentation of a human being coming out from the Underworld and flanked by heads ofmythical creatures.

At Structure IX, the highest pyramid of Becán, the earliest vestiges have beendated to the end of the Formative, and since those times the Maya placed big stuccomasks representing their gods at both sides of the principal stairway. The architectonicrenovations of the Early Classic hid them, by placing a rich construction offering with 15vessels that show two funerary traditions then in use: one from Calakmul, the other fromTikal, the powerful polities dominating in those times. The Late Classic additions of roomson several levels at both sides of the stairway covered the previous architecture. Such asolution, in spite of differences, evokes the western side of a high structure at anotherregional capital: the façade of the Five Stories Building at Edzná is also dated to the Lateand Terminal Classic period.

Furthermore, restoration works at Becán Structure I have demonstrated a seriesof architectonic transformations that began around A.D. 300 and ended seven centurieslater. Structure I has vaulted rooms on two levels and is guarded by massive towers ateach end.

After the disappearance of the centralized Classic government, during the 10thand 11th centuries, Becán continued inhabited by a society with lesser political strength.This is suggested by the reoccupation and modification of several rooms of Structure I

18


and the archaeological vestiges found there. That was also the epoch when the towershafts (originally open) were filled in; several graffiti were engraved on the plaster ofsome rooms and some buildings were dismantled to create new ones with different archi-tectonic conceptions, like the one just southeast of Structure I.

CalakmulThis ancient metropolis was one of the most powerful economic and political

entities of the central Maya region. Kaan, or The Serpent’s Kingdom, eclipsed its greatenemy Tikal during the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. William Folan, from the CampecheAutonomous University, directed several field seasons at Calakmul between 1982 and1994. Later, INAH´s Ramón Carrasco began a new research program. During the pastdecade both researchers and their associates have published diverse texts derived fromtheir respective investigations (Folan 1999; Folan et al. 1999; 2001; Boucher and Palomo1998; Carrasco 1996; 1997; 2000; Carrasco et al. 1999; Carrasco and Colón 2005; Braswellet al. 2004; Domínguez et al. 2003).

The area surveyed covers 30 km². Most of the settlement is enclosed by anextensive bajo (seasonally flooded swamp), as well as by aguadas (water ponds) andcanals that formed a useful hydraulic system. A population estimate of 50,000 souls hasbeen proposed for the summit epoch. Most of the 117 stelae known so far correspond tothat period of splendor, recording dates from A.D. 435 to 909.

The climax of Calakmul corresponds to the reign of Yuknoom The Great (A.D.636-686), who developed an ambitious program of palace constructions and renovations,clever economic and political negotiations with a number of the Petén cities, such as DosPilas, Naranjo, Cancuén and Piedras Negras. One part of the wealth accumulated by theCalakmul kings is reflected in dozens of polychrome vessels and in many jade masksfound in funerary contexts. Calakmul governors also headed relevant war campaignsagainst Tikal. Many hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Petén region include Calakmul´s em-blem glyph, thence revealing its diplomatic relations, alliances, family ties, hierarchy, andother contacts not yet understood.

Recent explorations in Calakmul´s core have shed light on the Preclassic periodat the site, but they have also helped to get a better view of the elite domestic units builtnear the heart of the city. Tunnel excavations in Structure II have revealed a long con-struction sequence, one of the most spectacular findings being a big stucco frieze symbol-izing the Underworld entrance. In the central part of the scene (over the lintel) a dynamichigh rank personage descends to the entrance and is flanked by enormous fantastic two-headed birds. The ends of the frieze have big square ornaments containing the symbols of“mirror” or sacredness; other mythic creatures with fleshless jaws hang from the squareelements.

Behind the above mentioned entrance, the structure has an almost true arch, avery unusual feature in Maya architecture but also present at one elite tomb of the site andat Structure XII of La Muñeca, another Petén site 33 kilometers northeast of Calakmul.This information reported by Hasso Hohmann (2005) leads us to assume that the principle

19

of the true arch was known by the ancient Maya. Probably they did not use it frequentlydue to the stability qualities of the corbelled vault: a true arch will fall down if it loses onlyone element; a Maya vault collapse tends to be partial.

The tunnel explorations into Structure II gave evidences of a patio measuring 70meters on their sides, today covered by hundreds of tons of stone filling that support laterconstructions. Other tunnels in that patio disclosed a building whose stairway is flanked bytwo big stucco zoomorphic masks. They are more than 4 meters high and 3 meters wide.Some details are marked with red pigment, others with blue painting, and the snouts haveIk symbols representing “wind” or “vital breath”.

At Structure XX, forming part of the eastern side of the Great Acropolis, exca-vations showed a complex construction development. Ceramics included very interestingbichrome and polychrome types previously poorly represented in the ceramic collection ofthe site. A good example are many fragments of the so called “codex style” vessels.

The explorations at the North Acropolis, located north of Structure VII, pro-duced several Early Classic painted murals. A low platform built as a narrow walkwaypreserves several sections of an aquatic scene that combines herons and cormorants withwater lilies and Kaban (Earth) glyphs. The lower section displays turtles, fishes and waterserpents alternating with more water lilies and the Chik Naab glyph, an element associ-ated with Calakmul´s kings.

Another mural painting at Structure I of the Great Acropolis depicts two womenand two men in a ritual ceremony. The central part is occupied by an elite lady placing orreceiving a big pot placed on the head of a squatting woman. The men of high rank are atboth sides of the scene, seated and drinking or eating from their respective vessels.

Cerro de los MuertosThis site is located on the Candelaria river, 50 kilometers away from the town of

Candelaria. Conservation and research field seasons are directed by Vicente Suárez A.,from INAH Campeche, revealing an originally Petén architecture site that thrived underthe influence of nearby (7 km) Itzamkanac (El Tigre), the principal economic and politicalregional capital (Suárez and Rocha 2001).

Cerro de los Muertos settlement occupies the highest part of a natural hill andhas three building complexes, one of them with a ball game court. Explorations at theancient site show a ceramic sequence that begins during the Late Formative but had itsclimax during the Late and Terminal Classic periods. A Postclassic occupation is alsorepresented at the site but with less ceramic materials. Archaeological works at this sec-ond rank Maya settlement have slowed down looting activities and have awakened anawareness of the importance of pre-Columbian cultural legacy among the locals.

ChampotónIn 2001 the Campeche Autonomous University began a regional research pro-

gram at this port located 60 km south of the city of Campeche. The project is coordinatedby William Folan; among the first fruits of their labor is the evidence of monumental Petén

20


architecture. Later buildings are Puuc-style constructions, and the Postclassic periodmaterials are complemented by the 16th century historical sources (Folan et al. 2004;Forsyth and Jordan 2003; Forsyth 2004).

Colonial times witnessed the demolition of pre-Hispanic buildings and the re-useof stones, which are still visible in several districts of modern Champoton; such are, forexample, gross Puuc column tambours, and the monuments with hieroglyphic texts em-bedded in the exterior part of the oldest church of the city.

Several kilometers north of Champotón, another settlement explored by the projectis Moquel, where a preliminary ceramic study has showed a dense Preclassic occupation.

DzibilnocacThis place name was created with Maya words in the 19th century to describe a

“stone turtle inscribed with glyphs” that was found among the ruins. The ancient settle-ment is 20 kilometers northeast of Dzibalchén, in the Campeche northeastern region.Dzibilnocac is a big settlement, partially mapped and where only one building has beenpartially excavated: a Chenes style three-tower construction with mosaic veneer stonemasks decorating the towers and several rooms distributed along an east-west axis. INAH´sRamón Carrasco has directed explorations and conservation works.

After its pre-Columbian history this Maya city was covered by the jungle aroundthe 15th century and then lived again in 1822, when it was baptized as Iturbide9 . JohnStephens and Frederick Catherwood were there in 1842. At the end of that century TeobertMaler also visited the ruins. In 1964 there was an official change of name for the commu-nity: Vicente Guerrero10 , but tradition has been stronger than political impositions andmost people continue calling it Iturbide.

EdznáThis site had a long pre-Hispanic occupation beginning around 600 B.C. and

ending by the middle of the 15th century. Edzná inhabitants developed different architec-tonic styles through 20 centuries, today called Petén, Chenes, Puuc, Chontal and Postclassic.

During the last field seasons archaeological activities have focused basically onthe eastern side of the Five Stories Building, an action revealing that the pyramid was builtlong before the Great Acropolis. Explorations have also documented curious convex slopes,dated to the Late Classic (A.D. 600-1000) and apparently combining the Puuc and Chontalarchitectural styles as a result of modifications of the Peten architecture (Benavides 1997;2001; 2005; Suárez 2001).

Edzná Preclassic evidences have also been complemented with explorations atseveral buildings of the Old Sorcerer complex, located 800 meters northeast of the GreatAcropolis. More than 30 stelae have been found at the site but some are eroded and

9 Honoring Agustín de Iturbide y Aramburu (1783-1824), self-declared Agustín I, emperor of Mexico.

10 A participant in the Independence movement and Mexico´s second president (1783-1831).

21

others have no legible dates. Some monuments were carved during the Early Classic(A.D. 250-600) and others have dates between A.D. 633 and 810.

Other excavated and restored buildings include Nohochná or “the Big House”,west of the principal plaza and 135 meters long. Each side has a wide (100 meters)stairway. On top there are only four long rooms with multiple entrances that could havebeen used to keep and display the ruler’s richness. Similar long constructions, adjacent tolarge plazas and also with many rooms, have been reported at Dzibilchaltún (Building 44),Comalcalco (The Palace), Altun Ha (Building A6) Aguateca (M7-26) and Piedras Negras(Central Acropolis) (Arnauld 2001).

Structure 512 has also been partially explored and constitutes almost a copy ofsome very common buildings found at Chichén Itzá (e.g. the Sculpted Panels Temple). Ithas a slope on the lower wall, an entrance formed by columns and similar moldings. Weare not speaking of influences, but of a contemporaneous construction style that was usedin several peninsula settlements and is only now being documented in western Yucatan.The ceramic and architectural materials give us a Terminal Classic dating (A.D. 900-1000).

During September 2002 hurricane Isidore strongly affected several buildings atEdzná. A collapsed section on the northern side of the Five Stories Building unveiled partsof a big stucco mask. Repair works there and at other points of the Maya city weredirected by Antonio Benavides C., from INAH Campeche, during the next months.

El ChechénThis site is located 15 kilometers as the parrot flies southeast of Candelaria, on

the southern margin of the Candelaria river, and around 50 kilometers west of El Tigre; inthe neighborhood there are other Maya settlements, such as Isla Montuy and Salto Grande.

Field seasons at El Chechen began in 2003, headed by Ciprián F. Ardeleán (2005),from the Zacatecas Autonomous University. The archaeological zone covers 160 hect-ares and is formed by two complexes one kilometer apart along a northwest-southeastaxis. The researcher’s team has registered 110 structures, no one higher than 10 meters.Surface collections are scarce and eroded but include ceramic materials from the Forma-tive to the Terminal Classic periods.

El RuinalPlaced in another poorly known southern Campeche region, this site began its

ancient history during the Late Formative, with Petén structures, and had a modest devel-opment during the Early Classic and a Late Classic apogee. Early ceramic materialsrelate El Ruinal with similar northern Guatemala polychrome types, and the Late Classicsherds have close connections with the Tabasco coast.

An interesting lithic surface collection from El Ruinal seems to indicate the settle-ment had good quality chert extraction zones. Some artifacts include early forms, but alsomany well made axes, knives, blades, burins, arrow heads, etc. The project is directed byINAH Campeche archaeologist Elena Canché M.

22


El TigreDominating a strategic point of the Candelaria river fluvial traffic, the ancient

Itzamkanac thrived during many centuries since the Late Formative. The original settle-ment has been dated to the Middle Formative, when the first monumental Petén structureswere built, with a triadic pattern and big stucco masks at both sides of main stairways.Since those times mythic representations as the Sacred Mountain, the Vision Serpent andthe Jester God were included in stucco allegories. During the Late Classic, El Tigre par-ticipated in the development of the Río Bec architecture, and witnessed building renova-tions in the Postclassic times. Archaeological research at the site is directed by UNAM´sErnesto Vargas Pacheco (2001; 2005; Vargas and Delgado 2003).

The work has so far been focused on Structure 1, where different stucco maskshave been restored, and has contributed to understanding changes and chronology of thesite. Structures 2 and 4 and the ball court have also been intervened.

El Tigre´s highest construction is known as Structure 4, rising to 28 meters andwith a base of 50 meters per side. It was built on top of a 10 meters high and 200 metersby side platform. Just like the contexts explored in Structure 1, this building has a longsequence with a clear Preclassic origin and abundance of Late and Terminal Classicceramic materials.

Isla PiedrasOn the northern Campeche coast there is a tiny island covering 4½ hectares that

was studied in 2004 by Armando Inurreta, of the Yucatan Autonomous University. IslaPiedras is located 15 kilometers north of Jaina. Activities during the field season includeda detailed surface survey and the collection of materials. The last one produced fragmentsof flint artifacts, limestone and basalt grinding stones and also pieces of shell objects.Ceramic materials indicated a first occupation during the Preclassic horizon (4.4%), astrong activity along the Early Classic (40%) and less movement during the Late Classic(23%). The remaining percentage corresponds to foreign and unidentified shards (Inurretaand Pat 2005).

JainaThis little artificial island covering 42 hectares is located 40 kilometers north of

Campeche city and has several monumental buildings under exploration. Six structures ofthe Zayosal complex have been partially excavated and restored, including a ball court.Vestiges of a Maya settlement are found all around the island and there is no definiteevidence of a colonial occupation, but there are also ruins of a modest 19th-century haci-enda.

Since the end of that century Jaina was heavily looted and the stone available onthe surface was extracted. The material was transported to the city of Campeche andused for construction purposes, as well as for lime production. Later, along the first part ofthe 20th century, looting focused on figurines and vessels to satisfy the antiquities black

23

market in the United States and Europe. This explains the presence of many Jaina arti-facts in private collections and in different museums of the world.

A sad collateral result of this situation is that Jaina was conceived as a necropolisor a cemetery place, and that provenance has been assigned to many of these ceramicfigurines. Now it has been proven that the ancient Maya did not have cemeteries; theyburied dead people under their houses, domestic units or royal palaces. By the sametoken, the famous modeled and molded ceramic human representations were manufac-tured not only on the island but also at many sites distributed along a 700 kilometers longClassic-Postclassic trade circuit between central Veracruz and the northern Campechecoast. Recent field seasons at Jaina have been directed by Antonio Benavides C., fromINAH Campeche (Benavides 2002; Benavides and Grube 2002; García Campillo 1998;Zaragoza and Martínez 2002; Barba 2003; Sauri et al. 2005)

OxpemulThis important site, whose modern name literally means “three mounds”, was

discovered in 1934 by Karl Ruppert and John Denison, Carnegie Institution of Washingtonresearchers, who also reported many other Maya settlements of southern Campeche andQuintana Roo. After the discovery Oxpemul continued to be covered by the jungle for 70years more, and was only ocasionally visited by some hunters and looters. Rediscoveredin 2004, the site had been fortunate for being located in the area that has few or norelevant fine woods or chicle gum trees, and thus has not shared the destiny of intense andmerciless looting with many others settlements of the region. Oxpemul preserves most ofits monuments with hieroglyphic inscriptions, which contain references to several localrulers and others from Tikal, the dates between A.D. 731 and 830, and also its own em-blem glyph.

Several specialists participated in the search and rediscovery of Oxpemul, espe-cially Ivan Šprajc (Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and Raymundo GonzálezHeredia (Campeche Autonomous University); they joined efforts with other Mayanistslike William Folan, Nikolai Grube, Candace Pruett and Hubert Robichaux (Šprajc et al.2005; Robichaux and Pruett 2005).

Río BecThis is the name of an ancient region of southern Campeche, cited in 1904 by the

Austrian Teobert Maler but diffused by the Frenchman Maurice de Perigny since 1906.The term today designates an architectonic style and a large archaeological site. Sincetheir discovery the Río Bec buildings called attention because of their entrances resem-bling monster mouths, and their high towers with impracticable stairways and crowned byfalse temples. Very different from the Petén architecture, the Río Bec structures are alsocharacterized by finely cut and almost perfectly assembled veneer stones.

Due to remoteness and inaccessibility most of the year (bad and frequently floodedtrails), the region remained for a long time almost without archaeological research. Thissituation has been changed in the last years, thanks to the French archaeological team

24


formed by Dominique Michelet, Pierre Becquelin, Charlotte Arnauld, Eric Taladoire andPhilippe Nondédéo, among others (Michelet and Becquelin 2001; Michelet et al. 2004;2005; Nondédéo 2004; Arnauld and Lacadena 2004). We now have fresh information onmore architectural groups with lateral towers, several stelae and more hieroglyphic texts.The earliest stela is dated to A.D. 475 and a bench in a structure of Group B records thedate A.D. 805. Ceramic materials indicate human presence during the Late Formativeand the ceasing of activities at the end of the Late Classic period (ca. A.D. 850).

The main feature of the Río Bec settlement is dispersion. Many groups of monu-mental buildings suggest that the zone was occupied by several elite families competingamong them. Stelae and representations of personages are scarce.

A survey practiced around the known Río Bec groups and covering 100 km²registered 71 similar architectonic groups, each one with fewer than ten structures andseparated by distances varying from 100 to 1000 meters (an average of 384 meters).They include domestic units of different quality, terraces and leveled sections that attest tothe use of environment, not only for residential but also for agricultural purposes.

One of the interesting finds is Kajtun, a Petén-style settlement with concentratedmonumental architecture, a main plaza, several patios and 7 stelae. The site is located 3kilometers northeast of Rio Bec´s Group B; it has 63 structures, ceramic materials asearly as the Late Formative, legible dates (A.D. 731 and 795), and its own emblem glyph(Bolonil).

All this information seems to indicate the coexistence of Maya societies withdifferent political organizations; a Petén-oriented one with a traditional, vertical structure,and a Río Bec society, with less power concentration.

Santa Rosa XtampakThe September 2002 damages caused by the Isidore hurricane to several build-

ings of the site were solved with a maintenance program supervised by INAH´s RenéeZapata P. (2005). Interventions included the Palace, the Red House, the Serpent MouthHouse, one building of the Cuartel complex and some others of the Southeast Quadrangle.

Consolidation works required partial excavation, especially at the Palace, a threelevel building with more than 40 vaulted rooms. The eastern principal stairway was re-stored evidencing a previous stair. Several other sections, including the third level zoomor-phic mask, were also intervened. A total of 23 stairways (including two interior ones) havebeen registered at the Palace.

The northern side of the Serpent Mouth House was also restored, revealing anarchitectonic representation of a mythic white bone centipede. The previously knownsouthern façade of the building also depicts a fantastic animal, very similar to the onerepresented on top of the Palace.

Eight stelae and three capstones from Santa Rosa Xtampak give us dates rang-ing from A.D. 646 to 948, but ceramic evidences begin around 200 B.C. A better map ofthe site including more complexes and platforms has been recently prepared by AbelMorales and William Folan, of the Campeche Autonomous University.

25

TabasqueñoThis Maya city treasures an excellent example of a complete zoomorphic Chenes

façade. The two-level construction was severely damaged by hurricanes; however, dur-ing a restoration program headed by INAH´s Ramón Carrasco, the structure was exca-vated and then returned almost to its original appearance. Stucco masks were also discov-ered at both ends of the lower section of the stairway.

Explorations were extended to one of the mounds associated to the tower of asquare ground plan, almost 5 meters high and located a short distance southwest of themain building. Belonging to the Chenes region in northeastern Campeche, Tabasqueño issituated 34 kilometers south of Hopelchén, along the road going to Dzibalchén.

UaymilThis small island lies 30 kilometers north of Jaina. Rafael Cobos Palma and

Alejandro Inurreta, from the Yucatan Autonomous University, prepared the first topo-graphic map of the place. According to the newly available data, Uaymil only occupies aneighth part (7½ hectares) of Jaina´s surface, but it also has monumental constructions, atleast 15 structures. Some of them had entrances formed by several columns, and finelydressed stones seem to indicate that Uaymil also had Puuc architecture. It has also beenconfirmed that the island once had monuments with hieroglyphic inscriptions. Preliminaryceramic analysis revealed plenty of activity from A.D. 800 to 1000 (Benavides 2003a;Inurreta 2004; Ancona and Jiménez 2005)

Colonial ArchaeologyAt the beginning of this contribution it was said that Campeche city downtown is

now inscribed in the world heritage list. Many persons and factors are behind that achieve-ment, but here I want to recognize some of the people whose little and big efforts havehelped to promote different salvage and research programs for buildings and contextsbelonging to the period from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Among others, I have tomention Ricardo Encalada, Eyden Navarro, Héber Ojeda, Vicente Suárez and Vera Tiesler(Suárez and Ojeda 1996).

Some good examples of colonial spaces recently explored are the San Franciscoward little plaza, the temple of the same patron, the renovation of the old penitentiary, thePolvorín (gunpowder storehouse) complex, several trenches open in different sections ofthe city, the exploration of some ancient urban quarries, the restoration of House No. 6and the excavation of the primitive parish and its associated cemetery. The colonial bridgeof Hampolol, on the royal road (camino real) going north to Mérida, has also been re-stored. Also in progress is the recording and graphic documentation of several colonialchurches in the interior of the state (e.g. at Bolonchén, Bolonchencahuich, Cahuich, Chicbul,Pich, Pomuch, Sahcabchén, Tepakán and Tixmucuy). Different teams of specialists haveparticipated: archaeologists, architects, historians, physical anthropologists and restorers,among others. It´s clear that Campeche´s colonial heritage is plentiful and rich, but thatwould deserve many more pages.

26


SOME FINAL COMMENTSStrictly related with the aforementioned topics is the pre-Columbian architectural

heritage conservation issue. Research activities accomplished in the buildings have prac-tically always been accompanied by the corresponding consolidation and restoration la-bors. As a result, today Campeche has more pre-Hispanic spaces cleaned, explored andopen to the public than before. The list includes: Balamkú, Becán, Calakmul, Chicanná,Chunhuhub, Dzibilnocac, Edzná, El Tigre, Hormiguero, Kankí, Santa Rosa Xtampak,Tabasqueño, Tohcok, Xcalumkín and Xpuhil.

Archaeological projects have generated employment for many field workers,especially peasants, but also for many masons, drivers and professionals of different lev-els. In consequence, many communities have complemented their economy and now havea better understanding of the relevance of Maya pre-Columbian heritage. Hence the pres-ervation of many ancient structures has been reinforced. Here we refer to the sites notopen to the public. Some examples are Acanmul, Balché, Cacabxnuc, Chelemí, Ichmac,Jaina, Sisilá, Xcavil de Yaxché, Xchan, Xuelén and Yaxché-Xlabpak in the Puuc or north-ern region. The settlements in southern Campeche, like Cerro de los Muertos, El Ruinal,Nadzcaan, Okolhuitz, Puerto Rico, Ramonal and Río Bec, still have a difficult access, butmany of their buildings have been consolidated or restored, and these works also pro-duced valuable information (cf. Benavides 1999; 2000; 2000a; 2001a; 2003; 2004; 2004a;Staines 1993; 1998; Suárez and Rocha 2001).

More visitors to the archaeological sites have granted benefits to many touristcontractors and promoters, particularly those related with transportation, food, and lodg-ing. All those businessmen could well contribute financial resources or collaborate in dif-ferent ways to proceed with the maintenance and research of archaeological cities. Agross part of the federal and state investment in cultural heritage yields good profits tothose giving service to visitors.

AcknowledgementsHere I want to thank many of my INAH colleagues in Campeche and Yucatán,

for sharing their data and their hospitality. A special mention goes for Sara Novelo Osornoand her constant support.

REFERENCESAncona Aragón, Iliana, and Socorro del Pilar Jiménez Alvarez. 2005. Las cerámicas gris y negra fina como

marcadores de interacción en el litoral campechano. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 13 (1):209-227. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Ardelean, Ciprian F. 2005. Proyecto Arqueológico El Chechén, Candelaria, Campeche: resultados de laprimera temporada. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 13 (1): 121-155. Campeche: UniversidadAutónoma de Campeche.

Arnauld, M. Charlotte. 2001. La casa grande: evolución de la arquitectura del poder del Clásico al Postclásico.In: A. Ciudad Ruiz, M. J. Iglesias Ponce de León, M. C. Martínez Martínez (eds.), Reconstruyendo laciudad maya: el urbanismo en las sociedades antiguas, Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas,pp. 363-401.

Arnauld, M. Charlotte, M. F. Fauvet-Berthelot, D. Michelet, and P. Becquelin. 1998. Balamkú: historia del

27

Grupo Sur (Campeche, México). In: XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1997,vol. 1: 135-150. Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

Arnauld, C., D. Michelet, G. Pereira, F. de Pierrebourg, and P. Nondedeo. 1999. Balamkú: tercera temporadade campo (1998). In: XII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1998, vol. II: 695-710. Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

Arnauld, Marie-Charlotte, and Alfonso Lacadena, 2004. Asentar su autoridad: banquetas en el Grupo B deRío Bec (Campeche, México). Journal de la Societé des Américanistes 90 (1): 203-222.

Barba Meinecke, Helena. 2003. Una visita al proyecto arqueológico Jaina en Campeche. In: Investigadoresde Mesoamérica 3: 52-72.

Benavides C., Antonio. 1997. Edzná, una ciudad prehispánica de Campeche. México: Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia – Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

________. 1998. Arqueología de la península de Yucatán en los noventas. Cuicuilco 5 (14): 105-121.________. 1999. Restauración arquitectónica en Xuelén. Gaceta Universitaria no. 45-46: 41-43. Campeche:

Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.________. 1999a. Algunos ejemplos poco conocidos del patrimonio precolombino de Campeche. In: Los

Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 7(1): 78-84. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.________. 2000. Restauración de emergencia en Ichmac, Campeche. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura

Maya 8 (1): 196-211. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.________. 2000a. Ichmac, un sitio Puuc de Campeche. Mexicon 22 (6): 134-139.________. 2001. La temporada 2000 del Proyecto Edzná. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya

9(1): 28-38. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.________. 2001a. Xchan, Campeche, un sitio Puuc con columnas decoradas. Mexicon 23 (6): 146-148.________. 2002. Labores de campo en Jaina, Campeche, durante 2001. Mexicon 24 (4): 69-71.________. 2003. Algunas esculturas y la arquitectura de Xchán, Campeche. In: Los Investigadores de la

Cultura Maya 11 (1): 142-152. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.________. 2003a. Isla Uaymil: un puerto precolombino. In: Investigadores de Mesoamérica 3: 98-106.________. 2004. El asentamiento prehispánico de Okolhuitz, Campeche. In: A. Benavides, L. Manzanilla and

L. Mirambell (eds.), Homenaje a Jaime Litvak, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia(Colección Científica 458) – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, pp. 317-330.

________. 2004a. Sisilá: intentos por recuperar un patrimonio en peligro. In: Los Investigadores de laCultura Maya 12 (1): 148-162. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

________. 2005. Edzná y la arqueología de Campeche. In: IV Coloquio Pedro Bosch Gimpera, II: 795-811.México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Benavides C., Antonio, and Nikolai Grube. 2002. Dos monolitos tempranos de Jaina, Campeche, México.Mexicon 24 (5): 95-97.

Boucher, Sylviane, and Yoly Palomo C. 1998. Iconos de poder de la tumba de un gobernante de Calakmul delsiglo sexto. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 6 (I): 151-164. Campeche: Universidad Autónomade Campeche.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., Joel D. Gunn, M. R. Domínguez C., W. Folan, L. Fletcher, A. Morales L., and M. D.Glascock. 2004. Defining the Terminal Classic at Calakmul, Campeche. In: A. A. Demarest, P.M. Rice and D. S. Rice (eds.), The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, Boulder: University Press ofColorado, pp. 162-194.

Campaña V., Luz Evelia. 2005. Contribuciones a la historia de Becán. Arqueología Mexicana no. 75: 48-53.Carrasco V., Ramón. 1996. Calakmul, Campeche. Arqueología Mexicana 18: 46-51.________. 1997. Consideraciones sobre el postclásico en la provincia de los Cehaches. In: Calakmul: volver

al sur, Campeche: Gobierno del Estado Libre y Soberano de Campeche, pp. 13-22.________. 2000. El cuchcabal de la Cabeza de Serpiente. Arqueología Mexicana no. 42: 12-19.Carrasco V., Ramón, S. Boucher, P. Alvarez González., V. Tiesler Blos, V. García Vierna, R. García Moreno,

and J. Vázquez Negrete. 1999. New evidence on Jaguar Paw, a ruler from Calakmul. Latin AmericanAntiquity 10 (1): 47-58.

Carrasco V., Ramón, and Marinés Colón González. 2005. El reino de Kaan y la antigua ciudad maya deCalakmul. Arqueología Mexicana no. 75: 40-47.

De la Fuente, Beatriz (ed.). 2001. La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México: Área Maya, vols. I and II.

28


México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Domínguez C., María del Rosario, M. Espinosa P., W. Folan H., and V. Rodríguez L. 2003. La producción

cerámica en el área maya: propuestas de producción y especialización en el estado regional de Calakmul.In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 11 (1): 104-115. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma deCampeche.

Folan, William J. 1999. Estructura 2A, Calakmul, Campeche. Octubre 1988 – mayo 1989: el túnel. Información16: 23-27. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Folan, W. J., Linda M. Florey Folan, and Juan P. Cauich Mex. 1999. Estructura 2B: Calakmul, Campeche: suexcavación y consolidación durante la temporada 1988 – 1989 y el análisis preliminar de las actividadesrelacionadas con esta estructura. Información 16: 119-129. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma deCampeche.

Folan, W. J., L. A. Fletcher, J. May Hau, and L. Florey F. 2001. Las ruinas de Calakmul, Campeche, México:un lugar central y su paisaje cultural. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Folan, William J., Abel Morales L., José A. Hernández T., Raymundo González H., Linda Florey F., DavidBolles, Joel D. Gunn, and María del Rosario Domínguez Carrasco. 2004. Recientes excavaciones en elantiguo barrio de Pozo del Monte-Las Mercedes en la ciudad y puerto de Champotón (Chakan Putun),Campeche: un lugar central del PreClásico Medio a Posclásico en la costa oeste de la península deYucatán y su corredor ecoarqueológico e histórico. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12 (1): 38-53. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Forsyth, Donald W. 2004. Reflexiones sobre la ocupación postclásica en Champotón a través de la cerámica.In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12 (1): 32-37. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Forsyth, Donald W., and Aarón Jordan. 2003. La secuencia cerámica de Champotón, Campeche: un ensayopreliminar. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 11 (1): 56-63. Campeche: Universidad Autónomade Campeche.

García Campillo, José Miguel. 1998. Datos epigráficos para la historia de Jaina durante el periodo Clásico.In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 6 (1): 45-62. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Hohmann, Hasso. 2005. A Maya keystone vault at La Muñeca. Mexicon 27 (4): 73-77.Inurreta Díaz, Armando F. 2004. Uaymil: Un puerto de transbordo en la costa norte de Campeche. Campeche:

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – Gobierno del Estado de Campeche – UniversidadAutónoma de Campeche.

Inurreta, Armando, and Edgar D. Pat Cruz. 2005. Isla Piedras: asentamiento del Clásico Temprano en lacosta norte de Campeche. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 13 (1): 255-266. Campeche:Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Luna E., Pilar, and Rosamaría Roffiel (eds.). 2001. Memorias del Congreso Científico de ArqueologíaSubacuática ICOMOS. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Michelet, Dominique. 2002. Del proyecto Xculoc al proyecto Xcalumkín: interrogantes acerca de laorganización política en la zona Puuc. Estudios de Cultura Maya 22: 75-86.

Michelet, D., P. Becquelin, and M-C. Arnauld. 2000. Mayas del Puuc. Arqueología de la región de Xculoc,Campeche. México: Gobierno del Estado de Campeche – Centro de Estudios Mesoamericanos yCentroamericanos.

Michelet, Dominique, and Pierre Becquelin. 2001. De Río Bec a Dzibilchaltún: interrogaciones acerca de laciudad maya clásica desde la perspectiva del Yucatán central y septentrional. In: A. Ciudad Ruiz, M. J.Iglesias Ponce de León, M. C. Martínez Martínez (eds.), Reconstruyendo la ciudad maya: El urbanismoen las sociedades antiguas, Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, pp. 211-251.

Michelet, D., Nicolás Latsanopoulos, and Julie Patrois. 2004 ¿El ocaso de un estilo? Nota preliminar sobrela fachada norte del edificio con torres del Grupo A de Río Bec. Journal de la Societé des Américanistes90 (1): 223-240.

Michelet, Dominique, P. Nondédéo, and M-C. Arnauld. 2005. Río Bec: ¿una excepción? Arqueología Mexicanano. 75: 58-63.

Navarijo Ornelas, María deLourdes. 2001. Las aves en el mundo maya prehispánico. In: B. de la Fuente(ed.), La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México: Area Maya, vol. III: 221-253. México: UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México.

Nondédéo, Philippe. 1999. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche: resultados preliminares

29

de las temporadas 1997-1998. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 7 (1): 85-111. Campeche:Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

________. 2003. L’evolution des sites mayas du Sud de l’Etat du Campeche, Mexique. BAR InternacionalSeries 1171. Oxford: Archaeopress.

________. 2004 ¿Existe el sitio de Río Bec? Nuevos datos sobre el patrón de asentamiento de esta zonaarqueológica. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12 (1): 54-67. Campeche: Universidad Autónomade Campeche.

Nondédéo, Philippe, and Alfonso Lacadena. 2004. Kajtún: un nuevo sitio maya con monumentos esculpidosen la región Río Bec. Journal de la Societé des Américanistes 90 (1): 183-201.

Robichaux, Hubert R., and Candace Pruett. 2005. Las inscripciones de Oxpemul. In: Los Investigadores dela Cultura Maya 13 (1): 29-43. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Sauri Brown, Brenda, Socorro Jiménez Alvarez, and Antonio Benavides C. 2005. La naranja fina X de Jaina,Campeche, como parte de un sistema cerámico. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 13(1): 229-243. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Staines Cicero, Leticia. 1993. Murales mayas en Ichmac, Chelemí y Xuelén, Campeche. Mexicon 15 (6): 111-115.

________. 1998. Paraíso de aves: estudio preliminar de las pinturas de Xuelén, Campeche. In: Memorias delSegundo Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, II: 388-407. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico.

________ 2001. Las pinturas del Edificio de los Cinco Pisos en Edzná, Campeche. In: La Pintura MuralPrehispánica en México, Boletín 14: 42-46. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Suárez A., Vicente (ed.). 2001. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Edzná, Campeche. Campeche: UniversidadAutónoma de Campeche.

Suárez Aguilar, Vicente, and Héber Ojeda Mas. 1996. Arqueología histórica en la ciudad de Campeche.Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Suárez A., Vicente, and Fernando Rocha Segura. 2001. Proyecto arqueológico Cerro de los Muertos: temporada1999-2000. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 9 (1): 66-79. Campeche: Universidad Autónomade Campeche.

Šprajc, Ivan. 2002-2004. Maya sites and monuments in SE Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology29 (3-4): 385-407.

________. 2003. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche: temporada de 2002. In: LosInvestigadores de la Cultura Maya 11 (1): 86-102. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Šprajc, Ivan, Florentino García Cruz, and Héber Ojeda Mas. 1997. Reconocimiento arqueológico en elsureste de Campeche. Arqueología 18: 29-49.

Šprajc, Ivan, and Vicente Suárez A. 1998. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de Campeche,México: temporada 1998. Mexicon 20 (5): 104-109.

Šprajc, Ivan, William J. Folan, and Raymundo González Heredia. 2005. Las ruinas de Oxpemul, Campeche:su redescubrimiento después de 70 años de olvido. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 13 (1): 19-27. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Trejo Rivera, Flor (ed.). 2003. La flota de la Nueva España: Vicisitudes y naufragios. México: ConsejoNacional para la Cultura y las Artes – Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Vargas P., Ernesto. 2001. Itzamkanac y Acalan: Tiempos de crisis anticipando el futuro. México: UniversidadNacional Autónoma de México.

________. 2005. Tiempo de caos, tiempo de ofrendas en el Río Candelaria-Campeche. In: Los Investigadoresde la Cultura Maya 13 (1): 157-171. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Vargas P., Ernesto, and Angélica Delgado Salgado. 2003. El Clásico Terminal en El Tigre, Campeche. In: LosInvestigadores de la Cultura Maya 11 (2): 406-423. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Williams-Beck, Lorraine. 1998. El dominio de los batabob: el área Puuc occidental campechana. Campeche:Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

________. 1999. Tiempo en trozos: cerámica de la región de los Chenes, Campeche, México. Campeche:Gobierno del Estado de Campeche – Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Williams-Beck, Lorraine A., and Edmundo López de la Rosa. 1999. Historia de tres ciudades: Ah Kin Pech,

30


Acanmul y San Francisco de Campeche. Estudios de Cultura Maya 20: 93-116.Zapata Peraza Renée L. 2005. Santa Rosa Xtampak: capital en la región Chenes. Arqueología Mexicana 75:

54-57.Zaragoza B., Elizabeth, and Alma Martínez Dávila. 2002. Jaina, más allá de la inhumación y exhumación.

In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 10 (1): 102-108. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma deCampeche.

POVZETEKArheologija v Campecheju na prelomu stoletja

Bogata arheolo{ka dedi{~ina v mehi{ki zvezni dràvi Campeche, ki leì nazahodnem delu polotoka Yucatána, pri~a o civilizaciji Majev, ki je na tem obmo~juìvela ve~ tiso~letij pred prihodom {panskih zavojevalcev na za~etku 16. stoletja,pa tudi o zgodnjem kolonialnem obdobju. ^lanek povzema arheolo{ke raziskave inrestavratorska dela, opravljena v Campecheju v zadnjih nekaj desetletjih.

Klju~ne besede: arheologija Majev, kolonialna zgodovina, Campeche, zgodovinaraziskav.

31

R. Liendo Stuardo: An archaeological study of settlement distribution in the Palenque area, Chiapas, Mexico

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OFSETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION IN THEPALENQUE AREA, CHIAPAS, MEXICORodrigo Liendo StuardoInstituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,México, D.F., Mexico

ABSTRACTCurrent research in Maya studies shows that the coexistence of a high degree of

political and economic stratification, with a marked functional homogeneity, characterizesprehispanic Maya society. According to this evidence, questions regarding both the natureof the different segments that shaped Maya society and its integrative mechanisms arefundamental to arguments that characterize it as either segmentary or unitary. Using datafrom recent regional settlement pattern studies conducted in the Palenque region, thispaper discusses the general settlement distribution in order to infer aspects of structureand development and the mechanisms that might have held together different social unitsthroughout Palenque´s developmental sequence.

Key words: Maya archaeology, settlement pattern, Palenque, social organization.

Political Integration in the Northwestern Maya LowlandsCompared to other areas in the Maya lowlands, in the Northwestern Maya low-

lands detailed understanding of political or economic issues from a strictly archaeologicalpoint of view is quite modest. Mainly, the focus on the study of political integration in thearea has primarily been limited to the discussion of epigraphic evidence with reference tothe presence and distribution of emblem glyphs (Culbert 1991; Marcus 1976, 1993;Mathews 1991), the identification of minor lords (Schele 1991; Schele and Freidel 1990),and recorded evidence of events that might indicate subordination between polities: royalvisits, presence of paramount leaders at accession ceremonies, exchanges of aristocraticwomen, etc. (Grube and Martin 1998; Martin and Grube 2000). Using textual information,then, it has been argued that Palenque emerged as the capital of an influential political unitin the northwestern portion of the Maya lowlands by the end of the Early Classic (follow-ing the founding of the Palenque dynasty by K’uk’ B’alam I in A.D. 431). Regardless ofthe accuracy of these reconstructions, the inscriptions, by the nature of the messages theyconvey (focused mainly on chosen events in the lives of selected few), are not generallywell suited to convey information regarding society at large. This problem is especially


32


acute when dealing with the way households and entire communities were economicallyand politically integrated into larger political units.

Secondly, archaeological research at Palenque has by and large centered on thedescription and analysis of architectural and sculptural remains at the main site, with arather sketchy interest in other aspects of archaeological evidence (García Moll 1991;Garza 1992; González 1998; Robertson 1983; 1985a; 1985b; Ruz 1973; Schele 1991). Thesingle most important exception to this trend is Rands’s (1967; 1987) successive surveyefforts that covered an extensive area of approximately 7000 km2 during the 1960s and1970s. This study established the first ceramic sequence for the region (Rands and Rands1957) and gathered important regional data necessary for the reconstruction of Palenque’ssettlement pattern, although his methodology was aimed mainly at dealing with the prob-lem of defining the nature of local resource exploitation, manufacture and the consump-tion of ceramics. According to Rands, Palenque’s “[basic] role in the regional exchangesystem was that of a consumer” (Rands and Bishop 1980: 42).

Following this pioneering work, several regional survey projects with differentaims and theoretical orientations have been conducted in the area (Grave Tirado 1996;Liendo 2000; Ochoa 1978). Nevertheless, most surveys have focused on the location ofsites with large civic-ceremonial architecture, leaving aside the investigation of the smallercommunities located between them. Recent research focused on Palenque’s hinterlandprovides a more fine-grained description of settlement features in the immediate vicinityof the site (a surveyed area of 37km2), allowing a more intensive analysis of trends ofpopulation control and subsistence strategies (Liendo 2003).

Since 1999, the Proyecto Integración Política en el Señorío de Palenque(PIPSP) has tried to expand the survey area in order to encompass a significant portion ofthe region that might have been under Palenque’s political or economic influence based onepigraphic evidence of political subordination of lesser sites with regard to Palenque(Marcus 1976; 1993; Mathews 1991; Mathews and Schele 1974; Riese 1978; Schele1991; Schele and Freidel 1990; Schele and Mathews 1998). At the same time, strati-graphic and extensive excavations have been pursued in a sample of secondary sites inthe region (El Lacandón (López Bravo 2001), Nututún (López Bravo 1996); Santa Isabel,La Providencia, Lindavista and Chinikiha (Liendo 2003) in an attempt to establish thedynamics of political integration in the region.

A series of inscriptions might have delineated the limits of the political territorycentered at Palenque (Xupá to the south, Tortuguero to the west and Chinikiha to theeast). This region contains also a number of minor sites of relative importance that lackreported inscriptions, but exhibit important architecture and locational relevance to thegeneral settlement system (La Cascada, Santa Isabel, El Lacandón, La Providencia,Sulusum, Lindavista, Reforma, Belisario Dominguez, El Bari, El Aguacate, La Concepción,San Joaquín, and San Juan). It also contains hundreds of small clusters of low platformsthat might have constituted the residences for the bulk of the prehispanic population in theregion (Fig. 1).

33

The regional contextWe still lack basic information regarding the relationship between Palenque and

a series of smaller centers located in the greater Palenque region, although advances havebeen made during the last three years in relation to the general structure and distribution ofsettlements in an area proposed to be under the direct Palenque´s “political” control (Ber-lin 1958; Culbert 1991; Marcus 1976; 1993; Mathews 1991). Our project has recorded atotal of 413 sites within an area of 450 km2. Our survey encompasses three environmen-tally diverse morphogenetic systems. From north to south these are the Pleistocene fluvialterraces, the Intermediate Plains, and the Tertiary formations of the Sierra de Chiapas(West et al. 1969; Rands 1974; Culbert 1973). (Fig.1)

Some of the variability detected during these surveys among site types might bedue to variation in subsistence adaptations, but other aspects of settlement variation (popu-lation densities, location of civic ceremonial centers, settlement layout) lead us to suspectthat many of these processes might be the result of historical and social circumstancestied to the development of social inequalities and hierarchical organizations associatedwith the rise of political complexity in the Palenque region. Some of these historical pro-cesses, although currently still under study, indicate that with the foundation of the Palenquedynasty in A.D. 431 important changes occurred in the region as a whole.

Rural architectural variabilityWithin the goals of our research two dimensions of functional variation in ancient

architecture were taken into consideration: (1) nonresidential structures indicating func-tional complexity, and (2) the distribution, characteristics and number of dwelling struc-

Figure 1. General view of settlements and location of major sitesin the Palenque area.

34


tures.Following Ashmore’s (1981) suggestion of 20 m2 as the minimum for dwelling

platforms in the Maya Lowlands for the Classic Period, platform size in our study area(excluding those smaller than 8 m2) ranges from 8 to 748 m2, averaging 36.4 m2 (a 10%trimmed mean for a sample of 164). This evidence suggests that, on average, platforms inthe Palenque area tended to be larger than those reported by Ashmore and more akin withthe evidence for other areas in Mesoamerica (Evans 1988: 26-28; Smith 1992: 307). Twotentative explanations may account for this. First, ethnohistorical accounts describing Cholspeaking communities in the Chiapas-Tabasco Lowlands give figures of 19 to 25 individu-als per structure (Villagutierre, in Hellmuth 1977), and Rice (1987) suggests a figure of 10individuals per mound in his study of the Petén District. Bigger co-residential groups in thearea under consideration could account for the differences in platform size when com-pared to other areas in the Maya lowlands and certainly would be an important reason toupscale total population figures for the study region. Platform size and form can also beindicative of differences in wealth and status.

The interpretation of small low platforms as the remains of domestic structures isbased on several criteria. First is the “principle of abundance” (Ashmore 1981: 40-41).These are by far the most abundant structure type in the region (a total of 1,306 platformswith a probable residential function were detected during our survey). Second, the formalattributes of such platforms are similar to modern households in the region. Third, thesmall degree of architectural variation among single platforms composing a patio group isa good indicator of the predominantly domestic function of the majority of platforms. Iffunctional differences were present, then architectural variation would be expected. Fourth,in those cases where test pit excavations were pursued, the characteristics of the artifactsrecovered in association with the platforms are the strongest evidence for a domesticfunction.

A second type of remains is called “range structures”, differing from the morecommon dwelling platforms by their elongated design, by the height of the basal platformsthat support them, by the use of well-cut stones in their construction and by the existenceon many occasions of a front staircase. Within the study area, 164 range structures werefound in association with other platforms and pyramids enclosing a patio area, never inisolation. The probable function of this specific type of building is the subject of debate incurrent archaeological research in the Maya area. Their closeness to other civic-ceremo-nial facilities has led to their characterization as special elite residences with civic func-tions (de Montmollin 1989: 51).

Pyramids correspond to the third type of architectural variation detected; theywere easy to distinguish from domestic structures based on several formal attributes: asquare ground plan, a basal area usually larger than 120 m2, a height more than 5 m, betterquality construction material, and an architectural layout tending to form rather standard-ized plaza contexts. Fifty pyramids were found always in association with other architec-tural components (ball courts, plazas and platforms) denoting a rather civic-ceremonialfunction.

35

The restricted floor space (less than 8 m2) of several platforms found makes itvery unlikely that these structures were dwellings, hence the decision to group them into afourth type. Their tendency to be located at the corners of patio groups also suggests thatthese structures may not have been residences, but served other functions such as store-houses, kitchens or altars. However, accurate identification will need to wait for furtherexcavation.

Rural site variabilityWithin the study area several sites (Palenque, Nututún, Santa Isabel, Xupá, El

Lacandón, Sulusum, La Providencia, Chancalá, San Juan, Reforma de Ocampo, Lindavista,Belisario Dominguez, and Chinikihá) (Fig. 1) stand out as larger and more internally com-plex than any of the surrounding undifferentiated habitation sites in the regional system.All these sites present clear evidence that elite residences are closely associated withfeatures of ceremonial-civic functions. They represent nodes of political and economicactivities in the regional system “serving political and ceremonial needs of a group largerthan the household.” (de Montmollin 1988: 43). They were labeled as “civic-ceremonialcenters”, and differ quantitatively and qualitatively from “civic-ceremonial sites”, whichmay have only one civic-ceremonial structure.

Sites were classified following formal criteria in the following manner:Single platform. The habitational function of all single platform sites is not abso-

lutely certain. In those cases where surface collection was possible or where test pitswere excavated, single platforms yielded materials that can be associated with habitationalfunctions (N=130) They could be interpreted as temporary residences associated withagricultural activities. However, more evidence is needed to test this hypothesis.

Informal group. These constitute the next most abundant site type in the region(N=135). Their major formal characteristic is the absence of a central patio. Structuresare located randomly in relation to each other. The number of structures in these groupsranges from two to four. The small number of structures per site and the lack of a centralpatio could be considered evidence for a late foundation for this type of site (Tourtellot1983: 97-121).

Patio-oriented group. 149 patio-oriented groups were found within the studyarea. These have three or four platforms oriented toward a central patio. Patio groups arethe most common and best understood unit of settlement analysis in Maya studies (Ashmore1981; Tourtellot 1983). According to de Montmollin (1988: 43) they represent “the mate-rial correlate of a household level unit of sociopolitical organization.”

Multipatio group. Fourteen multipatio groups were found. They correspond tothe next higher level of settlement complexity above the patio group within the surveyedarea. A multipatio group is a cluster of several patio groups separated by less than 100mfrom each other and by more than 100m of vacant terrain from other patio groups. Thenumber of patios composing a multipatio group varies from two to five, and the number ofstructures from seven to sixteen.

It is uncertain whether all sites classified under the same label are functionally

36


equivalent, especially when considering chronologically distant periods. By the same to-ken, we cannot always be certain that sites classified under different labels representsignificantly different kinds of settlements. This problem stems principally from the factthat we have only limited control over variability in the distribution of ceramic and lithicartifacts on the ground surface and a small number of excavated contexts. Yet, the clas-sification system allowed a more reliable classification of certain aspects of the generalsettlement pattern. It distinguishes, for example, between large, nucleated sites, on theone hand, and small dispersed ones, on the other. To some degree it also accounts for thedifferential distribution of an important array of architectural remains ranging from simpledomestic residences to buildings with a more evident civic-ceremonial function. Followingthese criteria, 31 groups with a probable civic-ceremonial function can be suggested.These are clusters characterized by the presence of high construction volumes and by theexistence of architectural types (pyramids, ball courts, civic-plazas and range structures)that could represent the nodes of important social activities for whole communities.

Although the size of the ancient city of Palenque is similar to other middle sizelowland Maya urban centers, what is really striking are the differences in terms of thesheer number and density of structures present within the site core compared to its imme-diate surroundings.

The preliminary results from this study also demonstrate the existence duringLate Classic times (A.D. 550-850) of several sub-regions outside Palenque’s immediatehinterland (40 km2). These sub-regions can be defined by their different occupation histo-ries, multiple subsets of population densities, architectural variation, causeways connect-ing micro-regions with the larger region, and the existence of a clearly defined set offrontier zones. These micro-zones might be indicative of the existence of potential socio-political groups larger than single communities, but smaller than a polity (districts or prov-inces).

Five micro-regions could be defined in these terms: the Palenque regional core,El Lacandón-Nututún subregion, the Chancalá Valley, the Llanuras Intermedias sub-re-gion and, the Sierras sub-region (Fig. 2).

The first one, the Palenque regional core (the area delimited by the sites ofNututún to the east, Santa Isabel to the west and the low hills paralleling the Sierra to thenorth), has approximately 37 km2. This lightly settled sub-region (25 persons/km2) is char-acterized by its simplicity in terms of the number of architectural and settlement types.With few exceptions, sites correspond to single patio groups composed of low platforms,with twenty-eight corresponding to single mound sites. The distribution of rural housegroups within Palenque’s immediate hinterland cannot be fully explained as a direct resultof ecological factors impinging upon farmers’ decisions on where to settle. Hence, a morepolitical framework is needed to elucidate in a more satisfactory way those processesleading to political centralization in the region.

A series of sites located on the southern bank of the river Chacamax conformthe El Lacandón-Nututún subregion (delimited to the west by the site of Nututún, El Lacandónto the east and the river Chacamax to the north). El Lacandón is a small community (16

37

ha) with a civic-ceremonial area of 3 ha. This central area includes several buildings withclear residential, administrative and ceremonial functions. In 1999, 74 structures weresurveyed. El Lacandón is an important site for the understanding of early settlement dy-namics. Important Late Formative-Early Classic ceramic assemblages were found duringexcavations in 2000 (López Bravo, personal communication 2003), a characteristic sharedwith Nututún and Paso Nuevo (Rands 2002). Within this region (25 km2) 480 structuresdistributed in 45 discrete groups were detected. This area also shows a higher structuredensity per km2 than the one observed in the Palenque regional core (19 structures perkm2 compared to 9.6). The settlement clusters seem also to be more evenly distributedacross the region when compared to the settlements around Palenque.

The Chancalá Valley is formed by two narrow valleys behind the first line of hillsof the Sierra de Chiapas: 124 sites were located in 80 km2 during the survey season of2002. Of these, four sites correspond to civic ceremonial sites showing a more complexarchitectural layout and higher indexes of construction volume than the rest (Xupá, Chancalá,San Juan Chancalaíto and Reforma de Ocampo). Interestingly, the Chancalá Valley seemsto have been the setting for two differentiated settlement systems that correspond to thenatural division of the terrain into two separate river basins: the Ashipa river basin and theChancalá river basin. Our survey detected a broad 15-km zone with no evidence of settle-ments, maybe indicating the existence of a political frontier. This “frontier” correspondsneatly with the distribution of two settlement clusters: one centered on the civic-ceremo-nial site of Xupá and the other gravitating around three major sites (two of them, Chancalá

Figure 2. Comparison of settlement distribution and size within settlement limits.

38


and San Juan Chancalaíto, are connected by a prehispanic causeway). The discovering ofa stone slab fragment containing the name of a local ruler and a toponym at the site ofChancalá might strengthen this hypothesis.

The cluster centered around Xupá is composed of 20 small architectural groupswithout major differences among them. Xupá itself is a site of 10.5 ha, with a concentra-tion of important buildings in a good state of preservation. Fourteen buildings delimit anample plaza. Both inscriptions and the abundant ceramic assemblage found at the siteseem to indicate a late date for the settlement of the site. Xupá shares with a number ofother sites in the region a very late occupation date (Murciélagos, Balunté periods, A.D.750-850). Its location close to a passage through the Sierra indicates its association to theNututún-Lacandón sub-region settlement system.

To the east, the second site cluster shows a different settlement dynamic whencompared to the former. The three principal centers of the Chancalá river basin (Chancalá,8 ha, 21 structures; San Juan Chancalaíto, 13 ha, 40 structures; and Reforma de Ocampo,19 ha, 57 structures) probably functioned as nodal points for the 85 undifferentiated plat-form groups that occupied the valley. These three civic-ceremonial centers present com-plex architectonic layouts coupled with the presence of ball courts (San Juan Chancalaítoand Chancalá), plazas, and more elaborate building facilities.

The Llanuras Intermedias sub-region has been the subject of successive surveysthrough several years: according to Rands (1973; 1977) and Ochoa (1978), the archaeo-logical evidence seems to indicate a settlement development with an architectural patternthat departs from the one that characterizes the former two sub-regions. The sites thatmake up this area (La Siria, Belisario Domínguez, El Barí, Cinco de Mayo, El Aguacate,Francisco Madero, Lindavista and San Joaquín) form a rather homogeneous group interms of their chronology; all of them present ceramic assemblages belonging to LateClassic Otolúm, Murciélagos and Balunté phases (A.D. 550-850) with close ties toPalencano ceramic types. They also share a common building technique (earthen mounds)and a dispersed settlement pattern with the presence of monumental architecture. Theyconform to a very regular pattern with sites located 4 km away from each other andconnecting the Sierras region to the Balancán area to the north. The sites in the LlanurasIntermedias sub-region form discrete population clusters congregated around settings wheremonumental architecture is present.

The sites located in the Llanuras Intermedias seem to indicate a settlement dy-namics based on the distribution of a rather dispersed population around nuclei of monu-mental architecture localized discretely and regularly across the landscape. The architec-tural core present at these sites shows a clear modular layout: ballcourts, pyramids andplatform groups forming quadrangles. The settlement regularity and the rather short andlate ceramic sequence might indicate a strategy aimed at the development of an importantroute connecting Palenque to the Lower Usumacinta region.

The Sierras sub-region (from El Lacandón to Chinikihá in the east and the south-ern bank of the Chacamax river to the north) is characterized by the presence of a con-tinuous line of settlements from Palenque to Chinikiha (located 37 km to the east). Al-

39

though evidence of early occupations dating to Late Formative period have been detectedat Paso Nuevo, El Lacandón and Chinikihá, this area, nevertheless, witnessed a popula-tion burst during the Late Classic period with the founding of numerous settlements con-necting these three sites which denote longer occupation histories. During Murciélagos-Balunté times (A.D. 750-820) a continuous string of settlements connected Palenque andChinikihá along the Sierra. These settlements are associated with a sacbe running east-west beginning in the vicinity of Chinikihá and ending close to the site of El Lacandón. Ingeneral, the population figures for the Sierras sub-region seem higher than those proposedfor the Llanuras Intermedias region. The population distribution in the Sierras is continu-ous and corresponds mainly to small platform groups with probable habitational functions.There is a salient absence of civic-ceremonial compounds in the area (with the exceptionof Chinikihá), with a tendency for several platform groups to cluster around groups withhigher construction volumes, though lacking architectural components denoting clear civic-ceremonial functions.

Assessing settlement dynamic trendsAlthough the ceramic analysis is still in process, most of the sites localized within

settlement survey limits can be tentatively assigned to the Late Classic Balunte period.Exceptions are Paso Nuevo and Chinikihá, where Robert Rands has extensively reportedthe finding of Sierra Rojo ceramics, diagnostic of Late Formative (450 B.C.-A.D. 250)and Early Classic (A.D. 250-550) assemblages and El Lacandón where an importantearly settlement has been explored (López Bravo, personal communication 2003). Smallquantities of Sierra Rojo assemblages have also been found at Chancalá, San JuanChancalaíto and Chancalá. Without a doubt, the presence of clear Formative (450 B.C.-A.D. 250) and Early Classic deposits in a sample of sites along the first escarpments ofthe Sierra de Chiapas attests to the importance of pursuing new regional investigationsfocused on these poorly known early periods.

In those cases where no associated surface sherds could be found or test pitsexcavated, a clear chronological assessment remains controversial at best, nevertheless,three moments are evident in the regional archaeological record and worthy of furtheranalysis. The first moment (Picota-Motiepá ceramic periods: A.D. 100-550) is character-ized by the development of political centralization with the founding of the ruling dynastyat Palenque and an increase of population figures within city limits.

At the same time, the development of a regional settlement hierarchy can beinferred. Although the relationship between smaller sites, such as Nututun or El Lacandon,with Palenque during early times remains unclear, the presence of similar ceramic typesand their proximity to the main site might indicate the areal extension of the interactionsphere centered at Palenque.

The second transformation of Palenque’s urban landscape (Otolum-Murciélagos:A.D. 550-750) corresponds to the moment of greatest political expansion of the site in theregion. Population figures increase exponentially and the city reaches its maximum ex-tent. The majority of securely dated buildings in the main zone date to this moment. Inten-

40


sive agricultural fields also date to the same period. This development surely had as itsmain goal to sustain the increasing site core population. New sites were founded in theregion: Xupá and Santa Isabel. Another, El Lacandón, was abandoned.

The third transformation (Balunté: A.D. 750-850) is characterized by the settlingof the territory previously vacant between minor nucleated centers in the region.

Concluding remarksThe chronology, settlement structure, and architectural patterns allowing the di-

vision of the rural region into settlement sub-regions cast doubt on the possibility of ap-proaching rural settlement dynamics as a single regional phenomenon. Rural populationswithin the Palenque area might not have constituted a homogeneous unitary socio-politicalunit responding in similar ways to strictly top-down mechanisms impinging upon them. Inthis regard, the impact of the three moments in regional settlement changes describedabove on individual rural communities or sub-regions remains an important area of futureresearch. On the other hand, the evidence presented thus far seems to indicate a highlevel of redundancy among the components of Palenque’s urban and rural landscapes.The residential compounds in the city show significant formal, and probably functional,similarities among them. The most evident differences have to do with scale and possibledifferences of status. The size, density, and architectural complexity present at Palenqueexceed in several orders of magnitude all other archaeological remains in the region. Thisalone bespeaks the disproportionate importance that Palenque might have held in practi-cally every single aspect of daily life for the rural population in the region, regardless ofsocial status or settlement type residence. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to deny theexistence of strong local networks of social obligations that integrated rural populationsinto socially discrete units. An understanding of the possible ways available to the myriadof small and middle size communities for integration within the greater Palenque politymust be contextualized and viewed from several scales of analysis (the household, thecommunity and the sub-region). Most likely our main mistake is to cast the problem interms of “either-or” scenarios, trying to understand the problem of ancient Maya politicalintegration as either segmentary or unitary. By definition, the problem of integration is amatter of degree. It is not measured by the mere size of nucleated centers, nor by popu-lation density, but by the level of specialization of the system components.

AcknowledgementsThis research has been sponsored in different parts of its development by grants

provided by the National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the HeinzFoundation and CONACyT.

REFERENCESAshmore, Wendy. 1981. Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In:

Wendy Ashmore (ed.), Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress, pp. 37-69.

41

Berlin, Heinrich. 1958. El glifo emblema en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de la Societé de Américanistes47: 111-19.

Culbert, Patrick. 1973. The Classic Maya Collapse. Austin: University of New Mexico Press.––––––––– (ed.). 1991. Classic Maya Political History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.De Montmollin, Olivier. 1988. Settlement Scale and Theory in Maya Archaeology. In: N. J. Saunders and O.

de Montmollin (eds.), Recent Studies in Precolumbian Archaeology, BAR International Series 421, pp.63-101.

–––––––––. 1989. The Archeology of Political Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Evans, Susan T. 1988. Excavations at Cihuatecpan. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology, vol.

36. Nashville: Vanderbilt University, Department of Anthropology.Hellmuth, N. 1977. Cholti-Lacandon Chiapas and Peten Itza Agriculture, Settlement Pattern, and Population.

In: Maya Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Sir Eric Thompson. London: Academic Press, pp. 421-448.Garza, Mercedes de la. 1992. Palenque. Tuxtla Gutiérrez: Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas.García Moll, Roberto (ed.). 1991. Palenque: 1926-45. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.González Cruz, Arnoldo. 1998. Informe de actividades del Proyecto Especial Palenque 92-94. Manuscript on

file, Centro INAH Chiapas, Tuxtla Gutiérrez.Grave Tirado, Luis Alfonso. 1996. Patrón de asentamiento en la región de Palenque, Chiapas. B.A. Thesis,

Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin. 1998. Política clásica maya dentro de una tradición mesoamericana: Un

modelo geográfico de organización política hegemónica. In: Silvia Trejo (ed.), Modelos de entidadespolíticas mayas, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, pp. 131-146.

Liendo, Rodrigo. 2000. Palenque y su área de sustentación: Patrón de asentamiento y organización políticaen un centro maya del Clásico. Mexicon 23 (2): 36-42.

–––––––––. 2003. The Organization of Agricultural Production at a Classic Maya Center: Settlement Patternsin the Palenque Region, Chiapas, Mexico. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia –Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh (Latin American Archaeology Publications).

López Bravo, Roberto. 1996. Análisis de la cerámica de Palenque 92-94 (manuscript, Palenque ArchaeologicalProject).

–––––––––. 2001. Informe Final de Actividades: Proyecto El Lacandón (manuscript). México: InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Archivo Técnico.

Marcus, Joyce. 1976. Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton OaksResearch Library and Collection.

–––––––––. 1993. Ancient Maya Political Organization. In: Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson (eds.),Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eight Century, Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Libraryand Collection, pp. 111-184.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Deciphering the Dynastiesof the Ancient Maya. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Mathews, Peter. 1991. Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In: T. P. Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-29.

Mathews, Peter, and Linda Schele. 1974. Lords of Palenque – the Glyphic Evidence. In: M. G. Robertson (ed.),Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Part 1: 63-75. Pebble Beach: Robert Louis Stevenson School.

Ochoa, Lorenzo (ed.). 1978. Estudios preliminares sobre los mayas de las tierras bajas noroccidentales.México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Rands, R. L. 1967. Ceramic Technology and Trade in the Palenque Region, Mexico. In: C. L. Riley and W. W.Taylor (eds.), American Historical Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Leslie Spier, Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University Press, pp. 137-151.

–––––––––. 1973. The Classic Maya Collapse in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Chronology. In: T. P. Culbert(ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 43-62.

–––––––––. 1974. The Ceramic Sequence at Palenque, Chiapas. In: N. Hammond (ed.), MesoamericanArchaeology: New Approaches, London: Duckworth – Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp.51-75.

–––––––––. 1977. The Rise of Classic Maya Civilization in the Northwestern Zone: Isolation and Integration.In: R. E. W. Adams (ed.), The Origins of Maya Civilization, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico

42


Press, pp. 159-180.–––––––––. 1987. Ceramic Patterns and Traditions in the Palenque Area. In: P. M. Rice and R. Sharer (eds.),

Maya Ceramics: Papers of the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference I: 203-238. BAR International Series 345.Oxford.

–––––––––. 2002. Palenque and Selected Survey Sites in Chiapas and Tabasco: The Preclassic. www.famsi.org/reports/97032/index.html.

Rands, R. L., and B. C. Rands. 1957. The Ceramic Position of Palenque, Chiapas. American Antiquity 23:140-150.

Rands, Robert L., and Ronald K. Bishop. 1980. Resource Procurement Zones and Patterns of CeramicExchange in the Palenque Region, Mexico. In: Robert Fry (ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange.Society for American Archaeology Papers I: 19-46. Washington D.C.

Rice, Prudence. 1987. Lowland Maya Pottery Production in the Late Classic Period. In: Prudence Rice andRobert J. Sharer (eds.), Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Ceramic Conference II: 76-85. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Riese, Berthold. 1978. La inscripción del Monumento 6 de Tortuguero. Estudios de Cultura Maya 11: 187-198.

Robertson, Merle Greene. 1983. The Sculpture of Palenque, Vol. 1: The Temple of the Inscriptions. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

–––––––––. 1985a. The Sculpture of Palenque, Vol. 2: The Early Buildings of the Palace and the WallPaintings. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

–––––––––. 1985b. The Sculpture of Palenque, Vol. 3: The Late Buildings of the Palace. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto. 1973. El Templo de las Inscripciones. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología eHistoria.

Schele, Linda. 1991. An Epigraphic History of the Western Maya Region. In: T. Patrick Culbert (ed.), ClassicMaya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp.72-101.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York:William Morrow.

Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews. 1998. The Code of Kings. New York: Scribners.Smith, Michael. 1992. Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico, Vol. I.

University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No.4. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Tourtellot, Gair. 1983. An Assessment of Classic Maya Household Composition. In: E. Z. Vogt and R. M.

Leventhal (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 35-54.

West, R. C., et al. 1969. The Tabasco Lowlands of Southern Mexico. Coastal Studies Series 27. Baton Rouge:Lousiana State University.

POVZETEKArheolo{ka {tudija distribucije naselbin na obmo~ju Palenqueja, Chiapas, Mehika

Preu~evanje kulture Majev kaè, da je bila za pred{pansko majevsko dru`bozna~ilna visoka raven politi~ne in ekonomske razslojenosti, obenem pa tudi nagla{enafunkcionalna homogenost. Zato so vpra{anja, ki zadevajo tako naravo razli~nihsegmentov, ki so sestavljali majevsko dru`bo, kot tudi njene integrativne mehanizme,temeljnega pomena v argumentih, ki jo opredeljujejo kot segmentarno ali unitarno.S pomo~jo podatkov, zbranih med nedavno opravljenimi {tudijami regionalneganaselbinskega vzorca na obmo~ju Palenqueja, avtor obravnava splo{no distribucijonaselbin, na osnovi ~esar sku{a sklepati o vidikih strukture in razvoja mehanizmov,ki so zdruèvali razli~ne dru`bene enote v razli~nih etapah razvoja Palenqueja.

43

Klju~ne besede: arheologija Majev, naselbinski vzorci, Palenque, dru`benaorganizacija.

44


45

THE DAWN AND THE DUSK: BEGINNINGAND ENDING A LONG-TERM RESEARCHPROGRAM AT THE PRECLASSIC MAYA SITEOF CUELLO, BELIZENorman HammondDepartment of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

ABSTRACTThe early Maya village site of Cuello, Belize, was investigated between 1975 and

2002. When investigations began, the Maya Preclassic was not well known, was poorlydocumented by radiocarbon dates, and did not extend back beyond 900 B.C. Initial datesfrom Cuello suggested a very early occupation, subsequently disproved and revised tobegin ca. 1200 B.C. The site remains the oldest known lowland Maya village site, how-ever, and also the most extensively-excavated early Middle Preclassic settlement. Build-ings, including numerous houses, emergent public architecture, the earliest knownMesoamerican sweatbath (Maya pib na); almost 200 burials, with evidence of socialranking and long-distance exchange; and evidence of diet and environmental exploitationall help to document the initial phases of a tropical forest farming culture which developedinto one of the major Pre-Columbian civilizations.

Key words: Maya archaeology, Preclassic chronology, diet, burial practices, sweatbath.

In March 2002, the excavations at Cuello, an early Maya village site in northernBelize that had been investigated since 1975, came to an end. Over eleven field seasons,totalling more than 80 weeks, the complex and finely-layered stratigraphy of a low, grassyknoll had been dissected, documenting the evolution of ancient Maya society from 1200B.C. through to the thirteenth century A.D., a period of two and a half millennia.

Cuello was discovered in 1973 by analyzing aerial photography as part of aBritish Museum survey of the whole of northern Belize, an archaeologically little-exploredarea of some 2500 Km2 in which only a few sites were previously known and fewerexcavated (Fig. 1); of these, only Bullard’s (1962) work at San Estevan approximatedmodern standards of investigation. The group of mounds behind the Cuello Brothers’ rumdistillery 5 km west of Orange Walk Town had never been reported, although they wereplainly visible from the air. Ground reconnaissance in 1974 found that one of the mounds(designated Structure 39 on the 1975 map) had been sliced in half by a bulldozer by the


N. Hammond: The dawn and the dusk: beginning and ending a long-term research program at the Preclassic Maya site of Cuello, Belize

46


Public Works Department of Belize to obtain road-building material, and abundant potterylittered the ground in front of the remains. This included Late Preclassic Chicanel Spherematerial (400 B.C. - A.D. 250) but also unfamiliar types, either imports from elsewhere orperhaps of much earlier date, since they did not resemble Mamom or Xe Sphere (900-400

B.C.) pottery known from other sites in Belize and Guatemala (Hammond 1991: Chapters1, 2).

In the early 1970s, the Preclassic period in the Maya Lowlands of Yucatan, Belizeand northern Guatemala was little known: at most sites Preclassic levels lay buried be-neath massive Classic period construction. The British Museum’s Corozal Project wasnot only the first systematic regional survey to be carried out in the Maya area, it was alsoexplicitly oriented towards the discovery and investigation of Preclassic settlement, in aneffort to understand the genesis of Classic Maya civilization. Now, in the early 21st cen-tury, when massive Preclassic centers such as El Mirador, Nakbe, and Wakna have beenwell studied, and when the substantial Preclassic presence at major Classic sites like Tikaland Calakmul has long been acknowledged, it is difficult to remember that only thirty-fiveyears ago even the Late Preclassic was thought of as a period of peasant villages thatwere suddenly replaced by large Classic centers around the third century A.D.

The site of Cuello was clearly worth further investigation, so in the1975 Corozal

Figure 1. Map of northern Belize, showing the locations of Cuello and otherimportant Preclassic sites.

47

Figure 2. The Main Trench as excavated in 1976-1980, from the south. The NorthSquare in the distance was completed in 1987-93, and the 2000-2002 excavations

were in the area to the east of it.

Project field season Michael Walton mapped the mounds, covering almost 1 km2, andDuncan Pring excavated two test pits. One pit was in the remains of the bulldozed mound,Platform 39, and the other was in the nearest undisturbed platform some 80 metres away,Platform 34. This platform had a small pyramid on its western end, and the pit was placedso that it clipped the base of the pyramid’s eastern stairway, to determine its chronologicalrelationship to the platform. The excavation (in the southwest quadrant of the larger Cen-tral Square excavated in 1976-1980: see Figs. 2, 3) penetrated four meters of fine andwell-defined stratigraphy, with thin plaster floors sealing layers of occupation trash, andencountered several burials accompanied by pottery vessels, some in previously unknownstyles.

Charcoal samples were submitted to the Cambridge University Radiocarbon DatingLaboratory: the first date out of the system, for a sample from halfway down the se-quence, gave an uncalibrated age of 1020±160 b.c. - the first pre-1000 b.c. date from theMaya Area. In calendar years this was 1420-943 Cal. B.C. Several other dates werecomparably old, and dates from UCLA’s radiocarbon laboratory (run to give interlaboratorycomparability) indicated that the base of the sequence was dated to around 2000 b.c., or

48


2500 Cal. B.C. in calendar years (Hammond et al. 1976). The 1976 season yielded an-other set of early dates, from both laboratories, giving sixteen dates in reasonable strati-graphic order suggesting that village occupation in the Maya Lowlands had begun in thesecond half of the third millennium B.C. At this time there were only seven other radiocar-bon dates for the entire Preclassic across the entire Maya Lowlands (2 from Tikal, 2 fromAltar de Sacrificios, 1 from Seibal, 1 from Komchen and one from a pollen core in thePetén), and the cultural correlates of some of these were compatible with the later part ofthe Cuello sequence. Three even earlier dates were thought likely to be the result ofredeposited charcoal from either pre-village occupation or from natural fires, mixed intolater layers (Hammond 1977a, b; Hammond et al. 1976; 1977; 1979).

The National Geographic Society funded three successive seasons in 1978-80,during which substantial remains of the earliest village occupation at Cuello were uncov-ered in the 30 by 10 meter Main Trench excavation (Figs. 2, 3), together with even largeramounts of material from the overlying later Middle Preclassic and Late Preclassic de-posits (Hammond 1991). A ceramic sequence beginning with the Swasey Complex, fol-lowed by the Bladen Xe (with links to the Xe Sphere of the Pasión Basin, at Seibal andAltar de Sacrificios), the Lopez Mamom, and the Cocos Chicanel spanned this longPreclassic period, with a succeeding Nuevo Tzakol in the Early Classic of A.D. 300-600and Santana Tepeu in the Late Classic (A.D. 600-900) (Fig. 4). Cuello was only a smallsettlement after the end of the Preclassic, when other centers in the region such as Nohmuland Lamanai became substantial cities. The Swasey phase was initially assigned to 2000-1000 b.c. (radiocarbon years), 2500-1300 B.C. (calendar years), prior to its division intoSwasey and Bladen: a resemblance to the later Middle Preclassic tradition of the Maya

Figure 3. Plan of the Main Trench and subsequent excavations.

49

Lowlands rather than the apparently coeval Early Formative of the Gulf Coast, PacificCoast, and Central Highlands of Mexico was noted from the beginning, and an indigenousLowland Maya ceramic tradition of unknown initial stimulus was proposed.

Early pottery similar to that at Cuello had also been found at other sites surveyedduring the British Museum’s Corozal Project, at Nohmul, San Estevan, Santa Rita, andnotably at Colha some 35 km to the southeast, where the extensive Classic and LatePreclassic chert-tool workshops overlay a Middle Preclassic village (Shafer and Hester1983). In the1980s Colha yielded radiocarbon dates for a Middle Preclassic Bladen Xeoccupation: these were much later than those from Cuello, beginning around 900 B.C.,and other sites were producing similar results. It was decided to date additional charcoalsamples from the 1979-80 Cuello seasons, now using a third radiocarbon laboratory at LaJolla (Linick 1984).

These new dates were late, in some cases even later than the established lateMiddle/Late Preclassic chronology generally accepted, but also out of stratigraphic order:nevertheless, we had now challenged our own early chronology (as well as our colleagues

Figure 4. The chronology of Cuello, after revision (1991).

50


doing so), and sought some way of resolving the problem (Andrews and Hammond 1990).We decided to resume excavations at Cuello in 1987, both to obtain more charcoal samples(which could also be used for palaeobotanical identifications and environmental recon-struction: see Hammond and Miksicek 1981, Miksicek 1991), and to obtain human bonesamples from burials which could be used for AMS radiocarbon dating: in that way, thepeople of Cuello themselves rather than the debris of their daily lives could be dated.Fresh burial samples were required because all the burials excavated in earlier seasonshad been subjected to onsite conservation and consolidation using organic preservatives:the AMS method would date the organic (collagen) portion of the bones, and this derang-ing factor needed to be excluded.

The AMS program, carried out at Oxford University, resulted in a chronologythat placed the beginning of the Cuello village around 1200 B.C., where it remains today(Fig. 4; see Hammond 1991: Table 3.1; Housley et al. 1991; Law et al. 1991). No expla-nation as to why the first seasons in 1975-1976 yielded early dates has been forthcoming,although the most plausible explanation is suggested by recent work in north Belizeanwetlands at Cobweb Swamp (Colha), Pulltrouser Swamp and Cob Swamp, all within 35km of Cuello: pollen and charcoal have documented small patches of human disturbanceof the landscape in the later third millennium B.C. Kevin Pope, who directed the two latterprojects, and I believe that just such a small area of pre-village occupation existed atCuello, precisely where the 1975 and 1976 excavations were placed; when the trencheswere expanded laterally, work moved away from where this early charcoal survived, insitu or mixed upwards by human activity.

No excavations were carried out at Cuello between 1993 and 2000, and no fur-ther radiocarbon dates were obtained: attention was instead concentrated on stable-iso-tope studies of ancient Maya diet, based on analysis of the Carbon-12, Carbon-13, andNitrogen-15 content of human bone collagen from a sample of Preclassic burials (of the196 human individuals whose remains have been recovered at Cuello, 166 date to theMiddle and Late Preclassic periods between 1200 B.C. and A.D. 400). The archaeologi-cal faunal remains, in order of frequency, include white-tailed deer, freshwater turtle anddog, plus smaller numbers of armadillo, brocket deer, peccary, and rodent (Wing and Scudder1991). All of these are C3 plant eaters, except dog and armadillo. Archaeological plantremains include maize (a C4 plant with estimated carbon and nitrogen isotope values -10,+3) and a variety of C3 forest species (Miksicek 1991). Marine foods are barely repre-sented in the archaeological deposits (Carr and Fradkin 1996).

Preclassic Maya diet at Cuello was studied by means of carbon and nitrogenisotope measurements on human and food-animal bones from the site, as well as on mod-ern animals from the region (Van Der Merwe et al. 2000; Tykot et al. 1996). The average?13C value for Preclassic human bone collagen was -13.0 ± 1.1o/oo (n = 26) and for toothenamel apatite it was -9.0 ± 2.7o/oo (n = 36); the average ?15N in bone collagen was 8.9± 0.66o/oo (n = 21). The archaeological and isotopic evidence together indicate that thepeople at Cuello made substantial use of maize, but were not dependent on it like laterMaya populations (Fig. 5). C4 carbon made up c. 35 per cent of their tooth enamel apatite

51

and 55 percent of their collagen. This apparent discrepancy is the result of their eatingdog and armadillo, both with substantial C4 components in their diets. The dogs were thesize of large terriers, were slaughtered at the end of their first-year growth spurt, andwere apparently fed household scraps and allowed to scavenge rather than being fed ahigh-maize diet to fatten them for the pot, although lack of wear on the teeth indicatedsome restriction on behavior (Clutton-Brock and Hammond 1994). Although deer consti-tuted a plurality of food animals both in meat weight and number of individuals, they werenot fed maize, nor were they allowed to raid the cornfields: even loose-herding seems tohave been absent, and the high rate of venison consumption seems to have been a func-tion of abundance and directed hunting activity.

Comparison of Middle and Late Preclassic burials at Cuello shows no significantchange over time in their isotope ratios. Adult males and females, however, do differ byabout 1o/oo in ?13C values. Males had a C4 dietary component about 10 per cent higherthan females, perhaps acquired in the form of maize beer (chicha) during social solidarityrituals. Juveniles fall somewhere in between, but the specimen numbers are too small forfirm conclusions. Male and female ?15N ratios were similar, those of juveniles lower,suggesting that animal protein formed a larger part of the adult diet.

The 2000 field season at Cuello was intended to be the last, but as in so manyprevious years, discoveries of exceptional importance came to light and could not be com-pletely excavated in the time available. The objective had been to uncover the easternportions of a succession of house-platforms which stood on the north side of Cuello’sMiddle Preclassic courtyard: their western ends had been excavated over a long period,from 1976 through 1993. The Late Preclassic deposits that had to be removed first, how-ever, proved to be exceptionally complex, and by April 2000 we had reached only thelatest of the house-platform floors, a building destroyed by fire around 400 B.C. This lay in

Figure 5. Stable-isotope analyses of the diet of human inhabitants of Cuello andof the animals which they exploited for food.

52


Figure 6. The Middle Preclassic pib na (sweatbath) at Cuello, seen from thenortheast in 2000.

the “West Square” (Fig. 3). A second area excavated in 2000, the East Square, had beenmuch more exciting, but even more frustrating: in ascertaining whether buildings had stoodon the eastern side of the courtyard - an area uninvestigated in any previous season, butvital to understanding the dynamics of the Middle Preclassic community - we had not onlyhit our target exactly, but found that the earliest building on the east had been a sweatbath.It had a round sweating chamber linked to a firebox which was stoked from outside (Figs.6, 7). The firebox was cut into the bedrock, which was burnt all shades of red, blue andgray by the heat that had raged in it: this was transmitted along a sunken channel throughan opening into the sweating chamber itself. Such buildings, pib na to the Maya andtemescal to the Aztecs, were used for practical, therapeutic, and ritual purposes in historictimes, and elaborate Classic Maya royal sweatbaths at Piedras Negras show that theycould be high-status structures as well.

The Cuello pib na, although only eight feet in diameter and probably less thanseven feet high, stood at the very beginning of this tradition, dating conservatively to around900 B.C., and by at least four centuries the earliest sweatbath in the Maya Area (Hammondet al. 2000; Hammond and Bauer 2001). There was only one snag: only about four-fifthsof the building lay within our excavation area, and the still-buried portion included theeastern side which would have faced on to the courtyard, together with the probableentrance, which on the basis of later pib na and depictions of them would have been a low,narrow doorway to keep the heat in. It was imperative that we recover all survivingremains of this important structure, but since the rest was buried under three meters (tenfeet) of later construction, we would have to start from the surface again, and work ourway down to the earliest levels. There was no time left in the 2000 season to do this, wereluctantly decided.

Thus in 2002 the delayed last field season was carried out with two prime objec-

53

Figure 7. Reconstruction of the Cuello pib na. Note that the drainage channel istoo narrow, and that subsequent excavations in 2002 showed that the doorway

could not have been on the west side as shown here.

54


tives: to uncover the rest of the sweathouse by removing the small area between the EastSquare, the West Square and the Main Trench, and to complete the excavation of theWest Square houses (Fig. 3). We were not expecting surprises, although from previousexperience we should have known better. Our first surprise was finding that the northernbuildings were much smaller than we had supposed: our 1976-93 north-south trench limitalong the 40 meter-east line of the Platform 34 grid had apparently bisected the platforms,since the latest of them, Structure 315, seemed to have an axial doorway and front step(the Maya emphasized bilateral symmetry in their architecture). We had used this as-sumption of symmetry to predict a house platform roughly 10 meters long, and on thatbasis we had also placed the East Square excavation in 2000. While the trench had hit itstarget precisely, Structure 315 proved to be less than eight meters long, its entry an off-center step added to the southeast corner. The penultimate phase of the platform, Struc-ture 315d, was nevertheless massively built, using head-sized limestone boulders to builddurable walls covered with tough plaster, much of it still surviving after 2500 years (Fig.8). It was the first building at Cuello to have a rectangular rather than apsidal ground plan,showing a transition from something looking like the apsidal houses still built in Yucatan(Structure 315a-c) to a higher squared-off substructure type which would in the LatePreclassic form the foundation for Cuello’s first temple-pyramid on the western side ofthe courtyard. Structure 315 shows us the emergence of public, ritual architecture out ofa household tradition.

As we removed the earliest phases of Structure 315 and then the six phases ofStructure 320 below it, followed by Structure 325 lower still in the sequence, we wereuncovering more and more modest constructions, each consisting of a low bordering wallof fist-sized cobbles retaining a fill of soil and stones, and supporting a plaster floor punc-tured by the post-holes of a timber superstructure. In every case, the margins of the floorhad been removed by subsequent remodeling, so we were never able to recover a com-plete floor plan to compare with the one excavated in 1980 on the south side of the court-yard: Structure 326 there remains almost the only fully-intact Middle Preclassic house-platform at Cuello, and one of few uncovered to date in the entire Maya Area (Hammond1991: Figs. 3.4, 5.6).

The courtyard itself was surfaced in plaster, with extra areas accreting as theopen space was enlarged to the north and east in the later Middle Preclassic: the addedfloor areas were in plaster of slightly different color, although the join was carefully shaveddown and overlapped to give a smooth finish. Preceding the final extension that accompa-nied construction of Structure 334 on the east side of the courtyard, we found an unusualburial: the first thing we saw was a foot, protruding above the rim of the unsealed grave,and as we dug down, we found that the body had been crammed into a pit far too small forit (Fig. 9). The skeleton was of a robust woman in her twenties who had borne at least onechild, estimated to have been around 1.7 meters (5 feet 6 inches) tall; the grave was only1.16 meters (3 feet 10 inches) long. She had been buried face down, her legs twisted up:several other such “sprawled” burials found at Cuello in previous years are all, like thisone, associated with substantial construction activity, and may have been sacrificial offer-ings.

55

Figure 10. Bowl with modeled and incised decoration depicting an armadillo: lateBladen or early Lopez Mamom ceramic complex, 650-600 B.C.

Figure 9. Cuello Burial 186, a woman 1.7 meters tall crammed into a grave only1.16 meters long; the burial may have been a foundation sacrifice.

Figure 8. Cuello Structure 315d from the southeast, dating to 450-400 B.C.

56


Although the northern house-platforms were smaller than anticipated, the result-ing open area between them and the eastern buildings proved of immense interest: adeclivity ran across it from south to north (perhaps a reason for not extending the housesthis far east), which had been infilled by successive layers of dumping. While the last ofthese were freshly-quarried marl and topsoil, dug and dumped in a hurry to level up thesite for large-scale rebuilding around 400 B.C., they rested on top of layers of sheetmidden. Horizontally-bedded sherds, bones and mollusc shells were the debris from cen-turies of Middle Preclassic occupation of the adjoining houses, and substantially enlargedour sample of Swasey (1200-900 B.C.), Bladen (900-650 B.C.), and Lopez Mamom (650-400 B.C.) period ceramics. One deep, rich layer in particular excited us: it was a soft,greasy, dark soil containing exceptionally large, fresh sherds spanning the Bladen-Lopeztransition somewhere in the seventh century B.C. Among the reconstructable vessels wasa bowl in the form of an armadillo, different shades of slip and techniques of modeled,incised, and punctated decoration being used to depict its nine-banded armor-plating, itsscaly skin, and its head and tail poking out from under the armor (Fig. 10).

Also in this layer was a fragment of human skull with a straight edge, showing itto be from a frontal bone that had been cut across the forehead and then perforated forsuspension or wearing as a mask (Figs. 11, 12): it went down at least to the eye-sockets,and the later Maya tradition of sawing off the fronts of ancestors’ skulls for veneration -with faces remodeled over the bone in clay - suggests to us that the facial bones mayoriginally have remained attached, in an early example of a practice still current in thesixteenth century A.D.

Unfortunately, results in the southern part of the 11 by 5 meter trench were lessexciting: when we reached the level just above the sweatbath, we found that a plaster-surfaced construction, which in 2000 we had interpreted as a later house platform, was infact the edge of a substantial courtyard surface. When we removed it, we found a set ofthree “firepits” or hearths - cut down into the western portion of the sweatbath (Fig. 13).In the end, all that survived of this area of the pib na was one strip of wall-base and theend of the interior heating channel; even this fragmentary evidence yielded something,however: it became clear that there was no room for an entrance doorway on the westernside, contrary to our reconstruction in 2000. We now believe that the doorway was slightlyfurther round to the north or south, probably the south in order to avoid occasional coldnorte winds blowing into the sweating chamber.

Thus the twenty-seven years of investigation at Cuello ended: still giving excitinganswers, still posing complex questions. Some may be answered by other scholars diggingat other Preclassic sites: others will no doubt remain to perplex us. Meanwhile, Cuelloremains as the earliest and most intensively-investigated example of a Lowland MayaPreclassic village, demonstrating the emergence of a ranked society between 900 and 600B.C., and the move towards social complexity, accompanied by public architecture andthe symbolism of rulership, between 600 and 400 B.C. After that date, while Cuello re-mained a modest community for many more centuries, the focus of political and economicdevelopment moved to sites such as Nakbe and El Mirador, Calakmul and Tikal, as Mayacivilization emerged across the heartland of northern Guatemala and southern Yucatan.

57

Figure 12. Position of the mask fragment on the skull.

Figure 11. Fragment of human frontal bone cut and perforated for use as a mask

58


REFERENCESAndrews, E.Wyllys, V., and Norman Hammond. 1990. Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize.

American Antiquity 55: 570-584.Bullard, William R., Jr. 1962. Stratigraphic Excavations at San Estevan, Northern British Honduras. Toronto:

Royal Ontario Museum (Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 9).Carr, H. Sorayya, and Arlene Fradkin. 1996. “Fish and Fishing at Cuello, Belize: Evidence from the 1990-

1993 Excavations”. Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Conference of the Society of Ethnobiology, SantaBarbara, CA.

Clutton-Brock, Juliet, and Norman Hammond. 1994. Hot Dogs: Comestible Canids in Preclassic MayaCulture at Cuello, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 819-826.

Hammond, Norman. 1977a. The Early Formative in the Maya Lowlands. In: N. Hammond (ed.), SocialProcess in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, London – New York: AcademicPress, pp. 77-101.

––––––––. 1977b. The earliest Maya. Scientific American 236 (3): 116-133.–––––––– (ed.). 1991. Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge

University Press.Hammond, Norman, Jeremy R. Bauer, and Sophie Hay. 2000. Preclassic Maya architectural ritual at Cuello,

Belize. Antiquity 74: 265-266.Hammond, Norman, and Jeremy R. Bauer. 2001. East Side Story: A Middle Preclassic Maya Sweathouse at

Cuello, Belize. Context 15 (1): 21-26Hammond, Norman, and Charles H. Miksicek. 1981. Ecology and Economy of a Formative Maya site at

Cuello, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 259-269.Hammond, Norman, Duncan Pring, Rainer Berger, V. Roy Switsur, and Alan P. Ward. 1976. Radiocarbon

Chronology for Early Maya Occupation at Cuello, Belize. Nature 260: 579-581.Hammond, Norman, Sara Donaghey, Rainer Berger, Suzanne De Atley, V. Roy Switsur, and Alan P. Ward.

1977. Maya Formative phase radiocarbon dates from Belize. Nature 267: 608-610.Hammond, Norman, Sara Donaghey, Duncan Pring, Richard Wilk, Frank P. Saul, Elizabeth S.Wing, Arlene

Miller, and Lawrence H. Feldman. 1979. The Earliest Lowland Maya? Definition of the Swasey Phase.

Figure 13. Later firepits cut into and destroying the western endof the pib na (sweatbath).

59

American Antiquity 44: 92 -110.Housley, Rupert, Ian Law, and N. Hammond. 1991. AMS Radiocarbon Dating of Preclassic Maya Burials at

Cuello, Belize. American Antiquity 56: 514-519.Law, Ian, Rupert Housley, Norman Hammond, and Robert E. M. Hedges. 1991. Cuello: Resolving the

Chronology Through Direct Dating of Conserved and Low-Collagen Bone by AMS. Radiocarbon 33:303-315.

Linick, Timothy W. 1984. La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements X. Radiocarbon 26: 75-110.Miksicek, Charles H. 1991. The Ecology and Economy of Cuello: The Natural and Cultural Landscape of

Preclassic Cuello. In: N. Hammond (ed.), Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, Cambridge –New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70-84.

Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester. 1983. Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize. AmericanAntiquity 48: 519-543.

Tykot, Robert H., Nikolaas van der Merwe, and Norman Hammond. 1996. Stable Isotope Analysis of BoneCollagen, Bone Apatite, and Tooth Enamel in the Reconstruction of Human Diet: A Case Study fromCuello, Belize. In: M. V. Orna (ed), Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and BiochemicalAnalysis, Washington DC: American Chemical Society (ACS Symposium Series 625), pp. 355-365.

Van der Merwe, Nikolaas, Robert H. Tykot, Norman Hammond, and Kim Oakberg. 2000. Diet and AnimalHusbandry of the Preclassic Maya at Cuello, Belize: Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Evidence. In:Stanley H. Ambrose and M. Anne Katzenberg (eds.), Biogeochemical Approaches to Paleodietary Analysis,New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum (Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science Volume 5), pp.23-38.

Wing, Elizabeth S., and Sylvia J. Scudder. 1991. The Ecology and Economy of Cuello: The Exploitation ofAnimals. In: N. Hammond (ed.), Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, Cambridge – New York:Cambridge University Press, pp. 84-97.

POVZETEKZora in mrak: od za~etka do konca dolgotrajnega raziskovalnega programa napredklasi~nem majevskem najdi{~u Cuello, Belize

Raziskave na zgodnjem majevskem va{kem najdi{~u Cuello so potekalemed letoma 1975 in 2002. Ko so se za~ele, je bilo majevsko predklasicno obdobjemalo znano, slabo dokumentirano z radiokarbonskimi datacijami in je segalo le do~asa okoli 900 pr. n.{t. Prve datacije iz Cuella so kazale na zelo zgodnjo poselitev, aso bile kasneje ovrène in popravljene na ~as okoli 1200 pr.n.{t. Kljub temu jenajdi{~e {e vedno najstarej{a znana vas v majevskih niàvjih, pa tudi najbolj obse`noizkopano naselje iz zgodnje etape srednje predklasi~ne dobe. Mnoge hi{e in drugestavbe, nastajajo~a javna arhitektura, najzgodnej{a znana mezoameri{ka parna kopel(majevski pib na), skoraj 200 pokopov, ki izpri~ujejo dru`beno razslojevanje intrgovino z oddaljenimi kraji, in podatki o prehrani in izkori{~anju okolja prispevajok razumevanju za~etnih faz poljedelske kulture, ki je ìvela v tropskem gozdu in serazvila v eno najve~jih predkolumbovskih civilizacij.

Klju~ne besede: arheologija Majev, predklasi~na kronologija, prehrana, pokopnenavade, parna kopel.

60


61

THE KINGDOM OF THE AVOCADO: RECENTINVESTIGATIONS AT PUSILHÁ, A CLASSICMAYA CITY OF SOUTHERN BELIZEGEOFFREY E. BRASWELL,University of California, San Diego, CA, USACHRISTIAN M. PRAGER,Universität Bonn, Bonn, GermanyCASSANDRA R. BILL,Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

ABSTRACTSince 2001, the Pusilhá Archaeological Project has examined the ancient settle-

ment patterns, carved monuments, ceramics, and architecture of an important Maya citylocated in southern Belize, Central America. Our goals have been to test models of sec-ondary state formation and external relations – proposed most often from a perspectivebased in the central Maya lowlands – from a peripheral area or frontier zone. Investiga-tions have included extensive mapping, test pitting, and both horizontal and vertical exca-vations. During the 2005 season, the tomb of an important ruler or K’uhul Un Ajaw wasdiscovered and excavated. Results of our epigraphic and archaeological analyses suggestthat, contrary to our prior expectations, Pusilhá was never under the political or economicsway of its more powerful neighbors. This suggests that a “third way” to secondary stateformation, one that did not depend on the influence of established and authoritative states,may have been important in some regions of the Maya area.

Key Words: Ancient Maya, State Formation, hieroglyphic texts, archaeology of Belize.

For much of the 20th century, Classic Maya society was depicted as simply orga-nized, consisting of dispersed populations of slash-and-burn agriculturalists. These ruralfarmers were thought to have supported priests or priest-kings living in otherwise unin-habited “vacant ceremonial centers.” Since the late 1950s, however, scholars haveamassed abundant evidence demonstrating that the ancient Maya closely resembled otherarchaic civilizations; they were not as unique as many Mayanists seemed to wish. Now itis widely accepted that both rural and urban populations were governed by a complexhierarchy of powerful rulers and subordinate nobles, and that Maya agriculture was amosaic of both labor intensive and extensive techniques (e.g., Culbert 1991; Culbert and

G. E. Braswell: The Kingdom of the Avocado: Recent Investigations at Pusilhá, a Classic Maya City of Southern Belize


62


Rice 1990; Fedick 1997; Houston and Stuart 2000; Marcus 1983; Turner and Harrison1983). Although there still is some debate concerning the nature of major centers, mostscholars view the largest sites as true cities, containing a variety of part-time and full-timespecialists (e.g., Chase et al. 1990; Inomata and Houston 2000, 2001; cf. Sanders andWebster 1988; Webster 2000). Current discussion focuses on: (1) the degree of politicaland economic complexity of the ancient Maya; (2) the extent to which Maya polities werehierarchically and horizontally structured; (3) the organizing principles of society; (4) thelevel of integration versus segmentation; (5) the size and number of Maya states; and (6)the origin and course of Maya political development (e.g., Blanton and Feinman 1984;Brumfiel 1994; Chase 1992; Chase and Chase 1987; Culbert 1991; Fash and Stuart 1991;Isaacs 1996; Marcus 1983; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1998; Rice 1987; Ringle and Bey 2001).

Two perennial questions of Maya archaeology are: “To what extent were Mayapolities horizontally and vertically integrated?” and “How were Maya economies struc-tured, and what role did the elite play in their organization?” Decentralists assert thatMaya political structures were poorly integrated, and fragilely held together by lineageties, redistribution, ideological authority, or ritual performance (e.g., Ball and Taschek 1991;Demarest 1992; Fox 1987; Ringle and Bey 1992). In contrast, centralists propose that atleast some Maya polities, such as Tikal, Calakmul, and Caracol, were highly integratedstates where social structure was provided more by class-ties and institutionalized power

Figure 1. Pusilhá, Belize, showing locations of excavations and survey conducted in 2004-2005.

63

than by kinship or performance (e.g., Chase 1992). Despite their many differences, bothcentralist and decentralist perspectives are similar in one key respect. They all are staticdepictions that de-emphasize the ongoing processes of political coalescence and disinte-gration.

There are two current models that adopt a more fluid and dynamic approach toMaya polities. Because of their diachronic nature, these models are able to combine as-pects of both centralist and decentralist positions. They argue that the relative levels ofhierarchy and heterarchy, and of integration and fragmentation, changed over time. Thefirst is Joyce Marcus’ (1992, 1993, 1994, 1998) dynamic model of state formation, derivedfrom Ralph Roys’ (1957) ethnohistoric work concerning the organization of the Mayaprovinces of Yucatán at the moment of conquest. Marcus argues that archaic states wereinherently unstable and cycled in a predictable manner. State formation and fragmenta-tion, in her model, occured as provinces were absorbed and eventually broke away from apolitical core. During the process of territorial expansion, the political hierarchies of prov-inces became incorporated with that of the core, leading to a relatively high degree of

Figure 2. Stela K with retrospective reference to “Foliated Ajaw” (a); Stela P,which begins with an Initial Series Date corresponding to A.D. 573 (b)

(drawings by Christian Prager).

64


centralization. As provinces broke away, the state fragmented. Newly independent poli-ties might have maintained many of the trappings of the archaic state to which they oncebelonged – including notions of divine kingship – but could have been relatively decentral-ized in their structure. A new archaic state began to form again as one of these provincesannexed its neighbor. Throughout her argument, Marcus stresses three points. First, thestate-like characteristics of small, independent polities are due to emulation of the politicalcores to which they once were linked. Second, regional provinces – rather than larger-scale archaic states – are the stable units of both political and economic organization. Andthird, throughout most of the cycle, innovation and change are more visible in peripheralprovinces than in the core. These all are good reasons to conduct archaeological investi-gations at secondary centers located in shifting political frontiers.

A second model, based entirely on hieroglyphic evidence, supposes that the Clas-sic-period Maya were organized into two “superstates” centered at Tikal and Calakmul(Martin and Grube 1995, 2000). The word “superstate,” however, is misleading becauseTikal and Calakmul are viewed more as the foci of fluctuating hegemonies than as thecores of two large, unitary states. In this model, the provinces of Marcus’ dynamic modelwere manipulated – rather than annexed and incorporated – by the two most-powerfulpolities. Manipulation took the form of marriage alliance and female hypogamy, the instal-lation of local kings by more-powerful foreign rulers, frequent ambassadorial visits andgift giving, and especially by sponsoring war events between provinces aligned with dif-ferent “superstates.” Thus, Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube (1995, 2000) interpret thepolitical history of the Classic Maya in terms of the struggles waged between rival smallpolities aligned with each of the “superstates.” Their model supposes that political central-ization would not be clearly manifested outside of the two great powers, and indeed someof the smaller “provinces” could be more than nominally independent of their strongerneighbors. Nevertheless, connections with the superstates should be amply demonstratedin the hieroglyphic texts of secondary allies.

The Pusilhá Archaeological Project, which we have directed for four field andlaboratory seasons since 2001, focuses on one such province or small polity located on theeastern periphery of the Maya area, in a frontier zone between much larger polities to thenorth and south (Fig. 1). Our interest in Pusilhá grew out of research Braswell and Billconducted at Copán, a well-studied Maya city located in western Honduras. Since therediscovery of Pusilhá in 1927, a connection of some sort between Pusilhá and the Copánand Quiriguá regions has been posited by several investigators (Bishop and Beaudry 1994;Hammond 1986; Morley 1938; Reents n.d.; Wanyerka 1999). Evidence for this connec-tion consists of a shared artistic tradition of carved-in-the-round zoomorphic altars, closesimilarities between the Pusilhá and Quiriguá emblem glyphs (emblem glyphs are titles forrulers, whose main-signs name polities, places, or perhaps dynasties), and apparent refer-ences at Pusilhá to Ruler 11 of Copán and an enigmatic figure nicknamed “Foliated Ajaw,”once thought to have been a predynastic ruler of the Honduran city (Fig. 2a). Moreover,published illustrations of polychrome pottery recovered from Pusilhá suggested an artisticor economic link with Copán, and chemical analyses of sherds from the British Museum

65

found in a box labeled “From Pusilhá” demonstrate that they were made from Copánclays (Bishop and Beaudry 1994; Bishop et al. 1986).1

Marcus (1992, 1994) suggests that, like Quiriguá, Pusilhá may have begun itspolitical history as a small regional province, may later have been annexed by the expand-ing Copán state (at about A.D. 430), and finally, may have reasserted its independenceduring the period of Copán’s political fragmentation (beginning about A.D. 738). Alterna-tively, following Martin and Grube’s (1995, 2000) “superstate” model, we also consideredthe possibility that Pusilhá and Copán were linked not just with each other, but both weresecondary allies of Tikal. We hoped to evaluate both of these hypotheses from an eco-nomic perspective, as well as through the careful analysis of the large hieroglyphic corpusof Pusilhá. That is, our plan was to understand the dynastic and political history of the siteas revealed through the study of hieroglyphic texts, and to interpret changes in the mate-rial culture of the city in light of pivotal events revealed by its history.

As often is the case in archaeological research, we have now largely abandonedboth our preconceptions and our political models. We now argue that Pusilhá was neverclosely allied in any political or economic sense with Copán or Tikal. Although both Marcus’dynamic model and Martin and Grube’s superstate model may be applicable to the popu-lous core of the Maya area, we now believe that there was an independent and non-allied“third way” to state formation in peripheral and underpopulated regions of the Maya low-lands. In specific, we argue that in the case of Pusilhá, migration, secondary state devel-opment, and the maintenance of political neutrality may have been the results of instabilityand warfare in the southwestern Petén.

PUSILHÁThe Maya city of Pusilhá, capital of a regional polity called Un or avocado, is

located in the village of San Benito Poité, Toledo District, less than 2 km east of the borderwith Guatemala (Fig. 1). Rediscovered and explored by archaeologists from the BritishMuseum Expedition to British Honduras in 1927, it was one of the first sites in Belize to besystematically investigated (Gruning 1930; 1931; Joyce 1929; Joyce et al. 1927; 1928;Thompson 1928). At that time, the best-preserved stelae from the site were cut up andtransported to London. Sylvanus G. Morley (1938) included a lengthy discussion of theircalendrical glyphs in The Inscriptions of Peten, but despite their early fame, the Pusilhástelae brought to England have been in storage at the British Museum for decades. Inaddition to the monuments, the pottery of Pusilhá was viewed by early investigators asextraordinary. Thomas Joyce’s (1929) description of ceramics excavated from PotteryCave, a large natural chultun at the base of an important residential group at Pusilhá, was

1 Hammond (1975) notes that the British Museum collection from southern Belize has become disorganized

since its recovery in the late 1920s. Leventhal (personal communication, 2000) observes that none of thesherds labeled as “from Pusilhá” that were subject to neutron activation analysis are those illustrated byThomas Joyce. Thus, their site provenience is not at all clear. It is distinctly possible that the analyzedsherds may have been part of a comparative collection from Copán that was sent to Joyce.

66


one of the very first ceramic analyses published for the Maya Lowlands and providedimportant comparative data for the major ceramic sequence later developed at Uaxactún.Finally, a unique ancient Maya bridge spanning the Machaca River also drew the attentionof archaeologists to Pusilhá.

Despite its large size, considerable number of carved monuments, a unique workof engineering, and importance to ceramicists working in the early 20th century, very littlesystematic research has been conducted at Pusilhá during the past 70 years (cf. Hammond1975; Leventhal 1990; 1992; Walters and Weller n.d.). The principal reason is that until2001, Pusilhá was one of the most isolated major centers in Belize; the nearest dirt roadwas an 11-mile walk from the small Q’eqchi’ village where the site is located. A dirt trackwas cut in March 2001, and the village now has sporadic bus service to the district capitalof Punta Gorda, 41 miles and two-and-a-half dusty hours away. In ancient times, Pusilháwas not as isolated as it is today. The city may have served as an important node on anorth-south trade route, articulating trade between the Maya lowlands and the southeast-ern Mesoamerican periphery. The upper Río Mopán region is located just 20 km north ofthe upper Pusilhá River, therefore sites in the eastern Petén and western Belize may havebeen connected to Quiriguá, Copán, and non-Maya Honduras via Pusilhá in southernBelize. Strong ceramic evidence for exchange between these regions – in particularbetween northern and western Belize and the southeastern periphery – has been knownfor some time (Beaudry-Corbett et al. 1993; Hirth 1988; Joyce 1988; Sheptak 1987; Ur-ban 1993). One of our initial hypotheses was that Copán became interested in the Pusilháregion because of its intermediate and potentially controlling position along this north-south trade route. But Pusilhá is also located at the juncture of two west-to-east flowingrivers. The Pusilhá river, for which the site is named, has its headwaters to the west in theMaya Mountains of Petén. From there it is but a short journey to the Río Machaquilá andRío Cancuén, which drain westward into watersheds of the Pasión, the Petexbatún, andthe Usumacinta. Pusilhá, therefore, is located near the eastern end of a riverine routeconnecting the Caribbean Sea to the Gulf of Mexico. Our excavation data suggest, in fact,that this second east-west trade route was much more important to the residents of Pusilháthan north-south connections. We considered the possibility that Copán or Tikal soughtaccess to the east-west route by controlling Pusilhá. But our evidence now suggests thatthroughout its history, Pusilhá maintained its strongest cultural links with the small riverinepolities to the west, and had much less interaction with Copán, Tikal, Caracol, and othersites to the north and south.

CERAMIC ANALYSISOne of the principal lines of argument against close economic ties with Copán is

drawn from the analysis of ceramics excavated during the past three field seasons. Bill(Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al. 2005; Braswell et al. 2004) has studied these materialsand has tentatively defined a four-phase sequence of occupation dating to the beginning ofthe Late Classic (A.D. 600-700), the later Late Classic (A.D. 700-780), the TerminalClassic (A.D. 780-850), and the Postclassic (A.D. 950-1100). Although we have seen

67

materials from caves in the area of Pusilhá that demonstrate that the region was visitedduring the Early Classic period, Bill has identified only two possible Early Classic sherds inour excavated collections, both recovered from the same mixed fill context. Nevertheless,Stela P begins with a Maya Initial Series date of A.D. 573 and contains a historical retro-spective date of A.D. 570, implying that the kingdom was founded shortly before thebeginning of the Late Classic period (Fig. 2b). There is no evidence, however, for any sortof permanent occupation during the early 5th century, the period that Marcus suggests forthe incorporation of Pusilhá into the Copán state.

The Late Classic assemblage of Pusilhá reveals close ceramic ties with the Petén,particularly the southern and southwestern lowlands, but only slight evidence of interac-tion with western Honduras, where Copán is located. These evanescent ties are mani-fested principally in polychrome pottery that shares a few motifs with contemporary paintedceramics from Copán, and strangely, from eastern El Salvador. Although the data are notrobust, our excavations in and around Pottery Cave suggest that these weak ties with thesoutheastern periphery were most evident during the early facet of the Late Classic pe-riod, that is during the first decades of the history of the city. There is no evidence ofinteraction with the Valley of Belize (located to the north) during either the early or late

Figure 3. Known rulers of Pusilhá. Ruler X1, who shares the same name as RulerB, cannot yet be tied to absolute dates. The single reference to Individual X2 onStela F, although well dated, does not explicitly link him to the Pusilhá emblem

glyph. The text on the Hieroglyphic Stair contains a calendar round date and anemblem glyph, but the nominal referent is highly eroded (prepared by Christian

Prager).

68


facet of the Late Classic period. Instead, utilitarian forms, modes, and decorative ele-ments are most closely related to pottery found at southern Petén cities, including Cancuénand sites in the Pasión and Petexbatún regions (Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al. 2005).Hieroglyphic inscriptions also support ties with these small, western kingdoms. To specu-late, it may be that the Late Classic population of Pusilhá originally came from the south-western Petén (Braswell et al. 2006). In short, Late Classic Pusilhá was what Mayanistscall a Tepeu-sphere site sharing much with the Petén, some design elements with non-Tepeu sites such as Copán in the southeastern periphery, and very little with the BelizeValley.

We have recovered a surprising amount of Terminal Classic pottery – materialsthat date to the era of the famous “Maya Collapse” – from surface and floor contexts atPusilhá. An important new arrival of this time period, roughly the end of the 8th and early9th centuries, was Belize Red from the Belize Valley (Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al.2005). This demonstrates that exchange relations with new regions were forged duringthis period of crisis. Fine Orange ware also was imported or locally manufactured, and

Figure 4. Stela U showing reference to k’ak’ u ti’ chan (II) or Individual X1 (a);Stela C, a Late Classic monument of unknown date (b) (drawings by Christian

Prager).

69

carved drinking vessels of the “Brandy Snifter” form suggest ties with the northwesternlowlands, at the opposite corner of the Maya world. Finally, the crude and unstandardizedPostclassic ceramic assemblage, which we date to about A.D. 950-1100 or long after theMaya Collapse, represents a sharp technological break from Classic traditions, new highlydecentralized modes of production and exchange, and perhaps even the arrival of newsettlers to a region that had been abandoned for a century or more (Bill and Braswell2005; Bill et al. 2005).

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSISPrager’s (2002, 2003) analysis of the Pusilhá hieroglyphic corpus – some 23

stelae, a hieroglyphic staircase, and 18 miscellaneous sculptural fragments – supportsBill’s ceramic conclusions. He has identified 40 named individuals, including eight rulerslinked to the Pusilhá emblem glyph and two additional probable Terminal Classic rulers(Fig. 3). Preliminary analyses suggested that Ruler B of Pusilhá, whose name is read ask’ak’ u ti’ chan, was the same individual as Ruler 11 of Copán (Reents n.d.). This wasan important datum supporting Marcus’ conclusion that Pusilhá was once a province ofthe Copán state. But we now know that the two kings were only partially contemporary

Figure 5. The Stela Plaza, Ballcourt 1, and connecting sacbe.

70


individuals who had distinct sets of parents. Moreover, Ruler B of Pusilhá is specificallydescribed as the eldest “sprout” of Pusilhá Ruler A rather than the son of any Copánpersonage (Prager 2002; 2003; Braswell et al. 2004). It just so happens that these tworulers shared the same name. Nonetheless, this is the only known case of two contempo-rary Maya kings sharing a name, so it is conceivable that the somewhat younger PusilháRuler B was named after his older and more powerful counterpart at Copán. During the2005 field season, we recovered three fragments of Stela U and moved them to a safelocation. Close examinations of Stela U suggest that a second ruler of Pusilhá who livedsomewhere near the end of the 8th century also shared this name, k’ak’ u ti’ chan (Fig.4a).

A second Maya lord is mentioned in the hieroglyphic texts of both Copán andPusilhá. This individual, nicknamed Foliated Ajaw, was thought to have been a pre-dynas-tic ruler of Copán who lived in the year A.D. 159 (Fig. 2a). Curiously, Pusilhá textsdescribe him overseeing some event on precisely the same date as is inscribed on CopánStela I. Since we began our research, other references to Foliated Ajaw have been foundon many retrospective texts at Tikal, Calakmul, and Quiriguá. It now seems likely thatrather than being a predynastic ruler of Copán, Foliated Ajaw was a legendary or divinefigure linked somehow to the origin of kingship, perhaps in the vicinity of the giant Preclassiccity of El Mirador (Grube 2004; Guenter 2003).

In sum, neither of the two possible political connections with Copán once consid-ered now seems likely. Although some personal names and a toponym suggest interactionwith the Pasión and Petexbatún zones to the west, there is no clear mention in the corpusof Copán, Quiriguá, Tikal, Calakmul, or any other well-known site in the Maya lowlands.Moreover, there are no known references to Pusilhá in the hieroglyphic texts of these orany other site. It appears, therefore, that Pusilhá was not intimately involved with thepolitical machinations of these important polities. Engaging again in conjecture, it may bethat Pusilhá was founded at the beginning of the Late Classic period by factions who –like the modern Q’eqchi’ – sought southern Belize as a haven against the political troublesin the Petén (Braswell et al. 2006).

Two rulers of Pusilhá, Ruler A and Ruler G, employed the important title och’k’inkalo’mte’, roughly glossed as “western lord” (we have no translation of the verbal rootkalo’m). At Tikal, Copán, and elsewhere, this title is clearly associated with the foundingof new male lines of royal descent, that is, they are special titles reserved for dynasticfounders (Braswell 2003). The use of the och’k’in kalo’mte’ title by Ruler A (appar-ently the first ajaw or ruler of Pusilhá) and by Ruler G (who inherited through his mother,rather than through his foreign-born father) is consistent with this meaning. At Tikal, thetitle och’k’in kalo’mte’ is also viewed as indicating a “high king” of extraordinary powerand has been associated with Teotihuacan, the great non-Maya city of highland Mexico(e.g., Stuart 2000). Pusilhá’s Ruler A and Ruler G – both dynastic founders of somewhatshaky family origins – seem to appeal to the mysterious and esoteric power of Teotihuacanin legitimizing their claims to the throne. This is particularly interesting because by thetime Ruler G was born, Teotihuacan had long since ceased to be an important and popu-lace city.

71

Figure 6. Lower Groups I and II showing excavated structures.

Figure 7. Plan of the Op. 5 structure showing associated burials.

72


Figure 8. Burial 6/1, Op. 6 structure elaborate crypt (a); items found in Burial 6/1: shell ornaments (i); limestone baton and slate “paddle” (ii); pyrite mirror

tesserae (iii); hematite sequins (iv) (b).

73

Figure 9. The Gateway Hill Acropolis showing locations of excavated structures.

74


In addition to two uses of this possibly Teotihuacan-inspired title by rulers ofPusilhá, Stela C (Fig. 4b), of which only the front is legible, displays a ruler holding aserpent bar with depictions of the Central Mexican storm/Venus/war god. We raise theissue of claims of a Teotihuacan affiliation because it is of relevance to the identity of theindividual in a royal tomb excavated during the 2005 field season.

SURVEYAn important aspect of research at Pusilhá is the mapping of residential and

special-function architecture throughout the site. Our survey methodology consists oftwo facets: (1) systematic mapping along cleared transects; and (2) opportunistic mappingof large milpas burned by the inhabitants of San Benito Poité village. The entire site ofPusilhá, perhaps some 6 km2 in area, is subject to shifting slash-and-burn agriculture.Thus, the second method is a far more efficient means of mapping large portions of theancient city. With the exception of survey operations conducted in and around the Gate-way Hill Acropolis, we have concentrated on the triangle of land between the Poité andPusilhá (locally called the Machaca) rivers. This does not imply that large, dense settle-ments do not exist outside of this region. In fact, the area north of the Poité river hasimpressive architectural groups that we hope to survey in later years.

To date, approximately 500 structures have been mapped in an area of more than2 km2. Settlement is most dense on ridge tops that run approximately east-west. Settle-ment is also dense within 150 m of each river. Low regions between ridges – wet areasthat today are reserved for farming – have the lowest density of settlement.

Most habitation groups are formed rather casually around plazas and do not fol-low strict rules of site planning. The most elaborate architectural groups, however, arebuilt on a NNW-SSE axis. Such groups include the Moho Plaza, the Lunar Group, theStela Plaza, Lower Group I, and the Gateway Hill Acropolis (Braswell et al. 2004). Acommon plan is shared by the first three of these architectural complexes. This planincludes three low, parallel, and closely spaced range structures along the eastern side ofthe plaza, a more open western side, and paired pyramidal structures defining the northand south ends of the group (in the case of the Moho Plaza, the northmost structure is aballcourt rather than a square platform). Both controlled excavations and looters trenchesreveal that many north and south pyramids contain burials. This suggests an importantdeviation from the “Eastern Ancestor Shrine” or “E-group” pattern so well known fromwestern Belize, the northeastern Petén, and Tikal. In other words, the alignment and thespecific patterning of structures that is replicated in these groups seems to be a distin-guishing trait of the Southern Belize Region (as defined by Leventhal 1990; 1992), if not aunique characteristic of Pusilhá itself.

There is at least one instance of an even larger pattern of architectural planning.The Stela Plaza, located at the highest point of the ridge between the two rivers, is con-nected by a sloping sacbe to a second group containing Ballcourt 1 (Fig. 5). WendyAshmore (1991; Ashmore and Sabloff 2002; see also [prajc 2005) has described certaincosmological principles that, in some cases, were incorporated into site planning. Specifi-

75

cally, structures located to the north are often associated with the heavens and ancestorworship. In contrast, buildings located to the south are associated with the night, death,and the underworld. Structures to the east and west (such as Eastern Ancestor Shrinesand E-groups) are often associated with the passage of the sun. Applying these conceptsto the complex formed by the Stela Plaza, sacbe, and Ballcourt 1, it is possible to interpretthe layout of these groups.

The Stela Plaza is found at the northwest end of the sacbe and is thereforeconceptually linked to the heavens. Its location at the highest point on the hill supports andreinforces this identification. Ceramics recovered from the group included large numbersof incense burners but very few cooking or serving vessels. In fact, no jute shells (froma river snail that was commonly consumed at Pusilhá, and one of the most prevalent formsof household waste at the city) were recovered from test pits, suggesting that eating wasnot a frequent activity conducted at the Stela Plaza. The focus of the group is the largerow of altars and stelae that depict the divine rulers of Pusilhá and contain texts describingtheir exploits. Thus, the principal activity conducted in the Stela Plaza probably wasancestor worship. In contrast, Ballcourt 1 is located at the southeast end of the sacbe atthe lowest point on the ridge. Low ground, the south, and the ballgame are all associatedwith the underworld and death. Finally, along the sacbe and between these two groups isanother cluster of structures whose more casual arrangement suggests they probablyformed an elite residential area. Their intermediate position between the heavens and the

Figure 10. Plan of the Op. 3 structure showing associated burials.

76


underworld implies that they represent both our world and the cosmic center of the Mayauniverse.

EXCAVATIONSIn addition to a series of test pits (assigned to Operation 1), we have excavated

eight substantial structures at Pusilhá (called the Op. 2-9 structures). The first of these,also known as the “Bulldozed Mound” (Fig. 1), was a critically damaged Late to TerminalClassic range structure that was occupied into the Postclassic period. Today, all thatremains is a consolidated Late Classic substructure. Excavations of that platform havebeen discussed elsewhere (Braswell et al. 2004) and are not repeated here. Instead, wedescribe extensive horizontal and vertical excavations conducted in 2004 and 2005 in fouradditional platforms: the Op. 5 and Op. 6 structures (located in Lower Group I; Fig. 1) andthe Op. 3 and Op. 8 structures (located at the southern end of the Gateway Hill Acropo-lis).

Excavations in Lower Group I: The Operation 5 and 6Structures

In 2004, excavations were conducted in three structures in what we call LowerGroup I (Fig. 6), 100 m east of the southern end of the acropolis. Two platforms, the Op.5 and Op. 6 structures, were substantially excavated, but the Op. 7 structure – encoun-tered in a heavily looted state – was subjected only to test-pitting. It is interesting, how-ever, that the only two possible Early Classic sherds that we discovered come from thistest pit. It also is important to note that little evidence of Terminal Classic activity wasdiscovered anywhere in the group, indicating that Lower Group I was built, occupied, andabandoned during the Late Classic Period.

Excavation of the Op. 5 structure. The Op. 5 structure is a low, poorly pre-served, and simply-built range structure along the western edge of Lower Group I (Fig.7). Excavations revealed that the platform was added on to the edge of the plaza platform.Two burials were encountered. Burial 5/1 consists of the partial remains of a child under10- and probably closer to five-years old. The burial was cut into the front (western) edgeof the Op. 5 structure platform, which was repaired using fill rather than facing stones. Asimple shell necklace was the only grave good associated with the child. The burial isfascinating, however, because the child’s deciduous incisors were inlayed with jade. Suchinlays are extremely rare in milk teeth. Burial 5/2 consists of very partial remains founderoding out of the mound surface. No grave goods were associated with this secondindividual.

Excavation of the Op. 6 structure. The most complex burial – Burial 6/1 –encountered in the group was found in the Op. 6 structure, a low pyramidal mound at thesouthern end of the group (Fig. 8a). The interment is a secondary burial. Human remainswere fragmentary and jumbled, and the grave goods appeared to have been scooped outof their primary contexts and redeposited in broken and fragmentary condition. These

77

goods consist of four vessels (one of which probably dates to the re-interment), a pyritemirror with a fragmentary slate back, hematite inlays, jade beads, a Spondylus shell, andbeautiful propeller-shaped ear ornaments. Also found were a white limestone baton andan enigmatic paddle-shaped slate object (Fig. 8b). In the Belize Valley, these are referredto as slate “wrenches” and are presumed to be symbols of office. It is interesting to notethat an unprovenienced carved-bone artifact that depicts the Pusilhá emblem glyph also isof this shape. Burial 6/2, found in a small crypt in the structural fill south of Burial 6/1,

Figure 11. Three jade pendants from a saq hunal headdress that was discoveredwithin the Burial 8/4 tomb. The top two pendants were found, along with manyother jade items, in a basin in the northwest corner of the tomb. The bottom,

fragmentary pendant is double sided (both sides are shown here), and was foundboth in the basin and in opposite corner of the tomb.

78


contained the fragmentary flexed remains of a second individual. No grave goods wereassociated with Burial 6/2.

Excavations in the Acropolis: The Operation 3 and 8Structures

The Gateway Hill Acropolis (Fig. 9) is one of the most imposing architecturalcomplexes in the Maya world. The hill itself is a natural feature that was substantiallymodified to form a massive acropolis consisting of eight distinct terraces that rise to aheight of 79 m. The main entrance to the acropolis is found south of the ancient bridge,where two parallel stair/terrace systems rise 30 m to the first terrace. Each of the ter-

Figure 12. Chipped stone eccentrics found associated with the Burial 8/4 tomb:an anthropoid chert eccentric found above and north of the tomb (a); two small

obsidian eccentrics recovered within the tomb and just north of the interredindividual (b); a small chert eccentric found with the two small obsidian eccen-

trics (c); and a large obsidian eccentric found in the center of the tomb (d).

79

races support a number of structures, and three pyramidal-like platforms are found at thetop. A ramp or sacbe leads down from the first terrace to Ballcourt 2, one of four knownat the site. An ancient toponym found in the Pusilhá inscriptions is read as “step moun-tain” (Prager 2002; 2003). This almost certainly refers to the acropolis itself.

In 2004, we excavated two platforms near the southern end of the acropolis.One of these, the Op. 4 structure, was badly looted just days before we arrived. For thisreason, it is not discussed in detail here. One intriguing find associated with the Op. 4structure was the cranium, neck, and partially articulated arm of an individual left on thefinal plaza floor. The head of Burial 4/1 was found below a capstone, and a smashed redware vessel was placed nearby. The partially articulated remains suggest that the lowertorso and limbs may have been dragged off by scavenging animals. It seems highly likelythat the individual was left on the plaza during the Terminal Classic period.

In 2005, we excavated two of the largest pyramidal platforms at Pusilhá: the Op.8 and Op. 9 structures. The second of these proved to be largely a natural bedrock feature

Figure 13. Modeled ceramic face, Op. 8/14/4.

80


covered with facing stones. It yielded very few artifacts. In contrast, the Op. 8 structureis an artificial platform that contained at least one important tomb of a divine ruler.

Excavation of the Op. 3 structure. The Op. 3 structure was built in one con-struction phase, and consists of a 2-m high platform with a central stair block flanked bytwo stair-side outsets (Fig. 10). Three burials – probably relating to a single interment –were found at the summit of the structure. A low wall, built directly on structural fill withinthe platform itself, passed in front of all three burials, as did a temporary earthen floor. Wesurmise that this temporary floor was used by people who attended the burial rites of allthree principal individuals.

Like nearly all burials at Pusilhá, the central figure (Burial 3/1) was placed withhis head in the north. Although not found in any well-defined crypt, his head was coveredby a broken capstone. Accompanying grave goods include a plate found over his pelvis,the fragmentary remains of another vessel, and two companion heads (i.e., the skulls ofadditional individuals). One of these companion heads (along with additional bones fromthe proximal torso) was placed at the pelvis, and the other was found near the head of theprimary figure. The second companion head was very fragmentary, but five teeth con-tained hematite inlays or had been drilled for such inlays.

Burials 3/1A and 3/1B were placed north and south of the central figure. In thecase of the northernmost burial, no crypt or chamber had been prepared for the individual.Instead, a single, large capstone was placed at waist and leg level. The position of thebody was flexed with the individual lying on the left side, facing east. The grave goodsassociated with Burial 3/1A include two vessels in proximity to the lower extremities andmid-section of this individual. Like other paired funerary vessels at Pusilhá, one was aplate and the other a drinking vessel, in this case a vase.

The southernmost burial, Burial 3/1B, was found south of the central figure in asimple crypt. The burial was extended, and the head of the individual was covered by abroken plate. A large cylinder vase with traces of polychrome paint also was recovered.Other grave goods encountered in Burial 3/1B include a thin fragment of a greenstoneornament, a small triangular fragment of greenstone that is polished on one side, and asingle, complete forest-green bead. Additionally, 530 jute shells were recovered from thislot, as well as a bivalve fragment. All the ceramics recovered from Burials 3/1, 3/1A, and3/1B date to the Late Classic period, specifically Tepeu II times.

A fourth burial, Burial 3/2, was found at the foot of the stairs of the Op. 3 struc-ture. The principal body was interred within a crypt created by limestone uprights sur-mounted by capstones. The crypt itself was intrusive into the level of the plaza floor. Thatis, the burial postdates the construction of the Op. 3 Structure. A well-preserved adultindividual was found in an extended, supine position. The upper canines and lateral inci-sors were all drilled for inlays, and central jade inlays were found in the upper right canineand upper left lateral incisor. Near the head, we recovered two almost complete vessels.One is a “brandy-snifter”-shaped cup carved outside with what appears to be pseudo-writing. The other is a fine red-ware plate or dish with small molded ball-shaped footsupports and a filleted basal flange. Both of these forms date to the Terminal Classic. A

81

large, complete Belize Red plate was placed at the feet of the primary individual, alsoproviding evidence that Burial 3/2 dates to the Terminal Classic period. In close proximityto this plate were the partial remains of a second individual. The second individual againrepresents a companion and consists of several skull fragments, teeth, a few long bones,and hand bones. These partial remains were crammed in a flexed position at the feet ofthe primary individual. It is possible that the primary individual in Burial 3/2 is a TerminalClassic descendent of the Late Classic principal figure interred in Burial 3/1.

We have exported three teeth from each of the primary individuals and compan-ions in the Op. 3 burials, as well as the burials excavated in or in front of the Op. 4, Op. 5,and Op. 6 structures. We plan to conduct isotopic analyses to determine the place oforigin of all 12 individuals, and also hope that DNA studies will provide evidence of biologi-cal relationship. In particular, we are interested in determining if the companions wererevered ancestors of the principal individuals or if they were unrelated foreign captives.

Excavation of the Op. 8 structure. Our most intensive excavations were con-ducted in the Op. 8 structure, the largest free-standing platform known at Pusilhá. The fillof the Op. 8 structure is extremely unstable and precluded excavation below a depth ofabout three meters. Therefore, although no evidence of a substructure was found, wecannot completely rule out the possibility that one lies deeply buried within the platform.Four later, relatively minor modifications to the Op. 8 structure were noted. First, a largestair-side outset, resembling a buttress wall, was built against the southwestern body ofthe platform. Second, a smaller outset was added to the north side of the stair block,probably to stabilize it. Third, the northern end was expanded to join a low terrace abuttingthe Op. 9 structure. Finally, a low terrace or wall was built along the southeastern face ofthe platform, joining it to the Op. 3 structure and forming a room or small structure on theplaza level. Artifacts recovered from this final addition suggest that it dates to the Termi-nal Classic period.

The partial remains of two individuals were found shoved up against the southside of the Op. 8 structure and on the surface of the plaza. It is possible that one fragmen-tary set of remains, called Burial 8/2, represents the same individual identified as Burial 4/1. In this case, only the bottom half of the torso and legs were recovered. In sum, at theend of the occupation of the acropolis during the Terminal Classic period, at least two andpossibly three individuals were left dead on the surface of the plaza.

A double interment, called Burial 8/3, was found in front of the stairs on theprincipal axis of the Op. 8 structure. This crypt burial contained an extended figure withtwo capstones over his head, a fragmentary red-ware vessel, and part of carved vessel inthe “brandy-snifter” form. A second individual was found in a flexed position at the headof the extended figure. The ceramics tentatively suggest a Terminal Classic date.

The most important burial thus far excavated at Pusilhá was found at the top ofthe Op. 8 structure. Here, a large tomb, called Burial 8/4, was discovered among and justbelow the seven looter’s pits that have destroyed most of the upper surface of the plat-form. The base of the tomb is approximately 2.5 m below this greatly disturbed surface. Asingle individual, consisting of very fragmentary remains, was found in what probably was

82


originally an extended position. A small antechamber originally provided access to thetomb from the southeast, but broken capstones and large-fill stones found in the tombitself imply later re-entry from the top of the platform. Hundreds of obsidian fragmentswere found within the re-filled tomb as well as on its floor. These may have been depos-ited above the capstones before the tomb was re-entered, and later were re-incorporatedinto fill.

Grave goods include approximately a dozen vessels, all of which were foundcrushed by the stones used to fill the tomb. Most were found lined up on the east andnorth sides of the tomb. Many are polychrome or carved vessels. One basin, west of thehead and at the northwest corner of the tomb, contained 24 complete jadeite beads, acrushed bead, two carved jade ornaments (Fig. 11, upper), a tubular bead, two appliquesresembling large round eyes, and many mosaic pieces made of jade. In total, 81 fragmen-tary and whole jade artifacts were found in the basin. The beads belong to a necklace, andthe two carved figures and at least some of the mosaic pieces seem to be part of the saqhunal headdress of a Maya ruler. Additional grave goods include two small obsidian ec-centrics and a chert eccentric placed near the head, a large obsidian eccentric encoun-tered near the center of the tomb (Fig. 12b-d), a very large Spondylus shell serving ascapstone for the east-facing cranium, a fragment of pyrite, and a third carved jadeitefigure (Fig. 11, lower), along with many more greenstone beads and a pearl bead, werefound on the east side of the tomb. This double-sided pendant probably was the third andcentral element of the saq hunal headdress. A very small fragment of this last pendantwas also found in the basin with the other two, suggesting that the third example wasmoved when the tomb was re-entered. A second Spondylus shell was found over themouth and chin, and additional small greenstone and painted ceramic beads formed anecklace worn by the deceased. Finally, a large anthropomorphic eccentric made of chertwas found above and north of the tomb (Fig. 12a). Although ceramic analysis has not yetbegun, immediately identifiable forms date to Tepeu II or III times, that is, the 8th or early9th centuries A.D.

Burial 8/4: identification and claims of Teotihuacan affiliation. The place-ment of the tomb, its later re-entry and backfilling, and especially the rich grave goods areall consistent with an interment of a member of the royal family. The saq hunal head-dress implies that the individual within the tomb was, in fact, an ajaw or divine king. Theidentified ceramics and three carved jade pendants all are of a style dating to the 8th orearly 9th centuries. In fact, the method used to drill the pendants is consistent with evenlater times (Karl Taube, personal communication 2005). In short, the implication is thatthe important individual in Burial 8/4 was one of the last ajawob of Pusilhá, perhaps RulerG or one of the three Terminal Classic rulers about whom we know very little.

Although no hieroglyphic texts were found in the tomb, there are several intrigu-ing hints that the ajaw in Burial 8/4 may be Ruler G. It is important to remember that he isthe only late ruler of Pusilhá known to employ the och’k’in kalo’mte’ title, which maysuggest some sort of political, or more likely religious, link to Teotihuacan. The three jadependants from the tomb are carved in a peculiar style. One (Fig. 11, upper right) has

83

snarled lips reminiscent of Tikal Stela 4 – an Early Classic monument famous for itsTeotihuacan imagery – and of much earlier Olmec iconography. The four figures carvedon the three pendants are all shown from a frontal position, perhaps borrowed fromTeotihuacan stylistic conventions. One of the figures on the double-sided pendant has aface rendered in a particularly strong Teotihuacan style and also wears a Teotihuacanheaddress (Fig. 11, lower left). Nevertheless, it is probable that all were produced byMaya artisans. Despite the use of foreign conventions and limited Teotihuacan icono-graphic content, the overall effect of the three pieces is Maya in character.

The large anthromorphic chert eccentric (Fig. 12a) is quite odd for the Mayaarea, but smaller ones are common at Teotihuacan, where they are thought to be symbolic(rather than actual) human sacrifices. A final clue that the inhabitant of Burial 8/4 claimedsome sort of connection with Teotihuacan can be seen in a modeled clay fragment foundelsewhere in the Op. 8 excavations (Fig. 13). This figure clearly wears the goggles of thecentral Mexican storm, Venus, and war god. It does not seem coincidental that the onlyrepresentation of this sort from Pusilhá comes from the same structure as the Burial 8/4tomb. In sum, although the evidence is not definitive, we suggest that the individual in theBurial 8/4 tomb was Ruler G, who died in the 8th century A.D. Other royal tombs havebeen found at sites such as Altun Ha, but if our identification is correct, this is the first timethat the tomb and mortal remains of an ancient Maya ruler whose exploits are described inhieroglyphic texts have been discovered in Belize.

CONCLUSIONSFour field seasons of archaeological and epigraphic investigations at Pusilhá have

begun to answer our research questions, although the answers are not what we originallyexpected. Some ceramic data suggest an early Late Classic connection with Copán andother sites in the southeastern Mesoamerican periphery, but much stronger ties with thesouthern and southwestern Petén are evinced by both ceramic and epigraphic analysis.Our best guess is that most of the early settlers of Pusilhá came from the west rather thanfrom the southeast. Moreover, Pusilhá continued to maintain economic ties with the southernand southwestern Petén throughout most of its history, apparently eschewing trade withthe Valley of Belize until the Terminal Classic.

“Pull” factors that may have encouraged the dynastic founder k’awil chan k’inichto come to Pusilhá include available and under-inhabited land of high fertility, as well asthe desire to control an important trade route between the Caribbean Sea and Usumacíntawatershed. The importance of the foothills of the Maya Mountains as a place wherecaves drew religious pilgrims also may have been a factor. We further speculate that“push” factors for migration may have included political instability and warfare in thesouthwestern Petén. Such violence is well-described in numerous hieroglyphic texts dat-ing to this period. Although we have only negative evidence, it seems as though the rulersof Pusilhá deliberately kept themselves distant from the political struggles between bothTikal and Calakmul and Copán and Quiriguá. Many analogous “push” and “pull” factorsexist today, and have contributed greatly to the influx of Q’eqchi’ Maya in Toledo District.

84


Neither the dynamic model nor the superstate model are consistent with ourdata. Instead, there may have been a “third way” to state formation, one that we suspectwas common in peripheral and frontier regions such as southern Belize. In these marginaland interstitial places, small regional states may have emerged after about A.D. 500 notbecause they were annexed by expansionist polities or compelled to enter a centuries-longconflict, but because of more peaceful reasons. Factors in the development of these sec-ondary states might have included exchange and elite emulation, or, in a few cases, thecolonization of previously underpopulated regions by groups fleeing from well-establishedpolities.

As such secondary polities grew between larger states, it is likely that manywere annexed by aggressively expansionist kingdoms such as Copán or were coerced intoan alliance with Tikal or Calakmul. A few, however, may have seemed too distant, toounderpopulated, or too impoverished to be worth the effort. That the many and lengthyhieroglyphic texts of Pusilhá do not even once mention the powerful kingdoms of Tikal,Calakmul, or Copán (and that these sites, in turn, do not mention Pusilhá) suggests thatPusilhá maintained its independence in a rather peripheral corner of the Maya world through-out its long history.

Like the ruling elite of other Maya cities, the divine leaders of Pusilhá occasion-ally faced crises of succession that led to the establishment of new dynastic lines. As atTikal and Copán, the founders of these new dynastic lines – Pusilhá Ruler A and Ruler G– claimed an affiliation with distant and powerful Teotihuacan. In the case of Pusilhá thataffiliation seems particularly incredible because both rulers lived at a time after the 4th-and 5th-century heyday of the central Mexican city. With the discovery of the tomb of animportant ajaw, perhaps that of Ruler G himself, we now have a rich variety of ceramicand lithic artifacts that in future years may provide further data relevant to the question ofexternal relations and the growth of Pusilhá: the largest Classic-period community ofsouthern Belize.

Acknowledgments. Archaeological research at Pusilhá has been generouslysupported by grants from the National Science Foundation Archaeology Program (SBE-0215068), the National Science Foundation International Research Fellowship Program(INT-0202581), the National Geographic Foundation (Grant #7847-05), the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research (Grant #6848), the School of American Re-search, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (Grant#00029), and the Faculty Senate of the University of California, San Diego. We areparticularly indebted to Dr. Jaime Awe for his early support of our project and mentorshipthrough the NSF-IRF Program, and to Dr. John Morris for institutional and personal en-couragement. Dr. Jennifer B. Braswell, Lorington Weller, Susan Maguire, Sonja Schwake,Bonnie Dziadaszek, Beniamino Volta, and Brittany Frazier have also contributed greatlyto our field and laboratory efforts. A special acknowledgment is due to Sherry A. Gibbs,field director during the 2005 season. Finally, we thank the inhabitants of San Benito Poitéfor welcoming us to their community and collaborating on our project.

85

REFERENCESAndrews, E. Wyllys, V. 1976. The Archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador. Publication 42. New Orleans:

Middle American Research Institute.Ashmore, Wendy A. 1991. Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the Ancient Maya.

Latin American Antiquity 2(3): 199-226.Ashmore, Wendy A., and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 2002. Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American

Antiquity 13(2):201-215.Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek. 1991. Late Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization and

Central-Place Analysis: New Insights from the Upper Belize Valley. Ancient Mesoamerica 2 (2): 149-166.Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn, Pauline Caputi, John S. Henderson, Rosemary A. Joyce, Eugenia J. Robinson, and

Anthony Wonderley. 1993. Lower Ulua Region. In: John S. Henderson and Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett(eds.), Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and Analysis. Monograph 35. LosAngeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, pp. 64-135.

Bill, Cassandra R., and Geoffrey E. Braswell. 2005. Life at the Crossroads: New Data from Pusilhá, Belize.In: Jaime Awe, John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, and Christophe Helmke (eds.), Archaeological Investigationsin the Eastern Maya Lowlands: Papers of the 2004 Belize Archaeology Symposium. Research Reports inBelizean Archaeology, Volume 2. Belmopan: National Institute of Culture and History. In press.

Bill, Cassandra R., Geoffrey E. Braswell, and Christian M. Prager. 2005. Interacción económica y política enla periferia maya: evidencia nueva de Pusilhá, Belice. In: Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, HéctorL. Escobedo, and Héctor Mejía (eds.), XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala,2004. Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. In press.

Bishop, Ronald L., and Marilyn P. Beaudry. 1994. Appendix B: Chemical Compositional Analysis ofSoutheastern Maya Ceramics. In: Gordon R. Willey, Richard M. Leventhal, Arthur A. Demarest, andWilliam L. Fash, Jr. (eds.), Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copán Residential Zone.Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 80, Cambridge, MA: PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 407-443.

Bishop, Ronald L., Marilyn P. Beaudry, Richard M. Levanthal, and Robert J. Sharer. 1986. CompositionalAnalysis of Copador and Related Pottery in the Southeast Maya Area. In: Patricia A. Urban and EdwardM. Schortman (eds.), The Southeast Maya Periphery: Problems and Prospects, Austin: University ofTexas Press, pp. 143-167.

Blanton, Richard W., and Gary M. Feinman. 1984. The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist86: 673-682.

Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2003. Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. In: Geoffrey E. Braswell(ed.), The Maya and Teotihuacan, Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 1-43.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., Christian M. Prager, Cassandra R. Bill, Sonja A. Schwake, and Jennifer B. Braswell.2004. The Rise of Secondary States in the Southeastern Periphery of the Maya World: A Report of RecentArchaeological and Epigraphic Research at Pusilhá, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 15 (1): 1-15.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., Sherry A. Gibbs, Christian M. Prager, and Cassandra R. Bill. 2006. Interacción,migración y la emergencia de una ciudad maya: evidencia nueva de Pusilhá, Belice. In: Los investigadoresde la cultura maya 14. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche. In press.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1994. Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World: AnIntroduction. In: Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox (eds.), Factional Competition and PoliticalDevelopment in the New World, Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 3-13.

Chase, Arlen F. 1992. Elites and the Changing Organization of Classic Maya Society. In: Diane Z. Chase andArlen F. Chase (eds.), Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, pp. 30-49.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase. 1987. Investigations at the Classic Maya City of Caracol, Belize, 1985-1987. Monograph 3. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.

Chase, Diane Z., Arlen F. Chase, and William Haviland. 1990. The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering the“Mesoamerican Urban Tradition.” American Anthropologist 92: 499-506.

Culbert, T. Patrick (ed.). 1991. Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series).

86


Culbert, T. Patrick, and Don S. Rice (eds.). 1990. Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Demarest, Arthur A. 1992. Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities.In: Arthur A. Demarest and G. W. Conrad (eds.), Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations. Santa Fe:School of American Research, pp. 135-157.

Fash, William L., Jr., and David S. Stuart. 1991. Dynastic History and Cultural Evolution at Copán. In: T.Patrick Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series), pp.147-179.

Fedick, Scott L. (ed.). 1997. The Managed Mosaic. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Fox, John W. 1987. Maya Postclassic State Formation: Segmentary Lineage Migration in Advancing Frontiers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grube, Nikolai. 2004. El origen de la dinastía Kaan. In: Enrique Nalda (ed.), Los cautivos de Dzibanché.

Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, pp. 117-131.Gruning, E. L. 1930. Report on the British Museum Expedition to British Honduras, 1930. Journal of the

Royal Anthropological Institute 60: 477-483.–––––. 1931. Excavations for the British Museum. Man 31:26.Guenter, Stanley. 2003. El Mirador and Teotihuacan: The Cultural Foundations of Classic Maya Civilization.

Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Symposium of the Pre-Columbian Society of Washington, D.C.Hammond, Norman. 1975. Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Monographs of the Peabody Museum, No. 2.

Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.–––––. 1986. Ancient Maya Civilization. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Hirth, Kenneth. 1988. Beyond the Maya Frontier: Cultural Interaction and Syncretism along the Central

Honduran Corridor. In: Elizabeth H. Boone and Gordon R. Willey (eds.), The Southeast Classic MayaZone, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 297-334.

Houston, Stephen D., and David S. Stuart. 2000. Peopling the Classic Maya Court. In: Takeshi Inomata andStephen D. Houston (eds.), Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 1, Boulder: Westview Press, pp.54-83.

Inomata, Takeshi, and Stephen D. Houston (eds.). 2000. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 1.Boulder: Westview Press.

–––––. 2001. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 2. Boulder: Westview Press.Isaacs, Barry. 1996. Approaches to Classic Maya Economies. Research in Economic Anthropology 17: 297-

334.Joyce, Rosemary A. 1988. The Ulua Valley and the Coastal Maya Lowlands: The View from Cerro Palenque.

In: Elizabeth H. Boone and Gordon R. Willey (eds.), The Southeast Classic Maya Zone, Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 269-295.

Joyce, Thomas A. 1929. Report on the British Museum Expedition to British Honduras, 1929. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute 59: 439-457.

Joyce, Thomas A., J. Cooper Clark, and J. Eric S. Thompson. 1927. Report on the British Museum Expeditionto British Honduras, 1927. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 57: 295-323.

Joyce, Thomas A., Thomas Gann, E. L. Gruning, and R. C. E. Long. 1928. Report on the British MuseumExpedition to British Honduras, 1928. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 58: 323-350.

Leventhal, Richard M. 1990. Southern Belize: An Ancient Maya Region. In: Flora S. Clancy and Peter D.Harrison (eds.), Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, pp. 124-141.

–––––. 1992. The Development of a Regional Tradition in Southern Belize. In: Elin C. Danien and Robert J.Sharer (eds.), New Theories on the Ancient Maya, University Museum Symposium, Volume 3, Philadelphia:The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, pp. 145-153.

Marcus, Joyce. 1983. Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads. American Antiquity 48: 454-488.–––––. 1992. Dynamic Cycles of Mesoamerican States: Political Fluctuations in Mesoamerica. National

Geographic Research and Exploration 8: 392-411.–––––. 1993. Ancient Maya Political Organization. In: Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson (eds.),

Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 111-

87

183.–––––. 1994. The Collapse of Maya States: A Dynamic Process. Paper Presented at the 93

rd Annual Meeting

of the American Anthropological Association, Atlanta.–––––. 1998. The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model. In: Gary M.

Feinman and Joyce Marcus (eds.), Archaic States, Santa Fe: School of American Research, pp.59-94.Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 1995. Maya Superstates. Archaeology 48 (6): 41-46.–––––. 2000. The Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson.Morley, Sylvanus G. 1938. The Inscriptions of Peten, Volume IV. Publication No. 347. Washington, D.C.:

Carnegie Institute of Washington.Prager, Christian M. 2002. Die Inschriften von Pusilha: Epigraphische Analyse und Rekonstruktion der

Geschichte einer klassischen Maya-Stätte. M.A. thesis, Philosophischen Fakultät, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

–––––. 2003. A Study of the Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Pusilha, Toledo District, Belize.Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, Washington, D.C. In press.

Reents, Dorie. n.d. The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Pusilha: Preliminary Comments. Ms. on file, Departmentof Archaeology, Belmopan.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987. Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late Classic Period. In Elizabeth M.Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle (eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 76-85.

Ringle, William M., and George J. Bey III. 1992. The Center and Segmentary State Dynamics. Paperpresented at Cleveland State University, Cleveland.

–––––. 2001. Post-Classic and Terminal Classic Courts of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In: TakeshiInomata and Stephen D. Houston (eds.), Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 2, Boulder: WestviewPress, pp. 266-307.

Roys, Ralph L. 1957. The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Publication 613. Washington, D.C.:Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Sanders, William T., and David Webster. 1988. The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition. American Anthropologist90: 521-546.

Sheptak, Russell N. 1987. Interaction between Belize and the Ulua Valley. In: Eugenia J. Robinson (ed.),Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador.International Series 327. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

[prajc, Ivan. 2005. More on Mesoamerican Cosmology and City Plans. Latin American Antiquity 16 (2):209-216.

Stuart, David. 2000. ‘The Arrival of Strangers’: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. In: DavídCarrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions (eds.), Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacanto the Aztecs. Niwot: University Press of Colorado, pp. 465-513.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1928. Some New Dates from Pusilha. Man 28: 95-97.Turner, B. L., II, and Peter D. Harrison (eds.). 1983. Pulltrowser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture,

and Settlement in Northern Belize. Austin: University of Texas Press.Urban, Patricia A. 1993. Naco Valley. In: John S. Henderson and Marilyn P. Beaudry-Corbett (eds.), Pottery

of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and Analysis. Monograph 35, Los Angeles: Institute ofArchaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 30-63.

Walters, Gary Rex, and Lorington O. Weller. n.d. Pusilha Project: 1992 Field Report. Ms. on file, Departmentof Archaeology, Belmopan.

Wanyerka, Phil. 1999. A Brief Description of the Carved Monuments at Xnaheb, Toledo District, Belize.Mexicon 21: 18-20.

Webster, David. 2000. Spatial Dimensions of Maya Courtly Life: Problems and Issues. In: Takeshi Inomataand Stephen D. Houston (eds.), Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 1, Boulder: Westview Press,pp. 130-167.

88


POVZETEKKraljestvo avokada: nedavne raziskave v Pusilháju, klasi~nem majevskem mestu vju`nem Belizeu

Od leta 2001 je Arheolo{ki projekt Pusilhá preu~il nekdanje naselbinskevzorce, reliefno obdelane spomenike, keramiko in arhitekturo pomembnegamajevskega mesta v ju`nem delu dràve Belize v Srednji Ameriki. Na{ namen je bil,da preverimo modele sekundarnega oblikovanja dràve in zunanjih povezav –naj~e{~e formulirane z vidikov, ki temeljijo na osrednjih majevskih niàvjih – naperifernem ali mejnem obmo~ju. Raziskave so vklju~evale obse`no kartiranje,sondiranje ter tako horizontalna kot vertikalna izkopavanja. V sezoni 2005 je bilnajden in izkopan grob pomembnega vladarja K’uhul Un Ajaw. Na osnovi na{ihepigrafskih in arheolo{kih analiz sklepamo, v nasprotju z na{imi prej{njimipri~akovanji, da Pusilhá ni nikoli bil pod politi~no ali ekonomsko prevlado svojihmogo~nej{ih sosedov. To pomeni, da je v nekaterih predelih obmo~ja Majev utegnilabiti pomembna “tretja pot” k sekundarnemu oblikovanju dràve, namre~ tak{na, kini bila odvisna od vpliva ustaljenih in autoritativnih dràv.

Klju~ne besede: stari Maji, nastanek dràve, hieroglifska besedila, arheologija Belizea.

89

TOPONYMS, EMBLEM GLYPHS, AND THEPOLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHERNCAMPECHENikolai GrubeUniversität Bonn, Bonn, Germany

ABSTRACTThis article presents new epigraphic data from southern Campeche, Mexico, at

which it focuses on the occurrences of toponyms and emblem glyphs and their meaningfor the understanding of the Classic Maya political geography. Observing that severalemblem glyphs found in the inscriptions at some recently (re)located archaeological sitesare incomplete versions, lacking certain elements characteristic of full emblems, the au-thor labels them ‘toponymic titles’ and suggests they denote lower positions of the corre-sponding polities in regional political hierarchy. One of the only two full emblem glyphsknown so far in southern Campeche corresponds to the Kaan dynasty, during a certainperiod associated with Calakmul, while the identity of the other one, representing a bat, isquestionable, although in the late period it may have been adopted by Oxpemul, a centrethat seems to have benefited from the demise of Calakmul.

Key words: Maya epigraphy, Classic period, political geography, emblem glyphs.

Our knowledge of the political divisions within the Ancient Maya World predomi-nantly relies on epigraphic data. In particular, the distribution of emblem glyphs has beenemployed as a means to reconstruct the political geography of the Maya lowlands. Thesehieroglyphs, which were discovered by Heinrich Berlin (1958), share a common structure,but contain elements that are particular and unique to each of the larger sites. Initially,emblem glyphs were understood either as a reference to dynasties, ruling families orstates. However, in our current understanding, emblem glyphs are royal titles carried bykings of particular kingdoms or polities. So far, approximately 50 emblem glyphs are knownfrom the Maya lowlands. This large number has been considered to prove that the Mayalowlands were divided into a patchwork of small and competing petty states (Mathews1985; 1991). For a long time, scholars saw these ‘peer polities’ as equally small and fluc-tuating political entities that could grow or disappear very quickly, depending on the cha-risma of their rulers. More recent research carried out by Simon Martin and the author ofthis article shows that not all of these states were equal, and that some of the statesmanaged to establish dynamic hegemonic networks (Martin and Grube 1995; 2000; Grube

N. Grube: Toponyms, Emblem Glyphs, and the Political Geography of Southern Campeche


90


and Martin 1998). During the Classic Period, the political relations within the central partof the Maya lowlands were dominated by the antagonism of two strong powers, Tikal onone side, and the rulers of the Kaan dynasty on the other. The rulers of the Kaan dynastyare identified by an emblem glyph with a serpent head (kaan) as its principal element. Formany years, the large city of Calakmul in southern Campeche has been considered to bethe location of the Kaan dynasty, and the Kaan emblem glyph was understood as theemblem of Calakmul. However, recent research shows that the Kaan emblem glyph wasnot associated with Calakmul during the Early Classic period. Simon Martin has shownthat the Kaan emblem first appeared at the site during the reign of Yuknoom Ch’een theGreat (A.D. 636-686), one of the most powerful and influential kings that has ever reignedin the Maya lowlands (Martin and Grube 2000: 108-109). He also pointed out that theKaan emblem glyph disappeared from Calakmul at A.D. 736, when the Kaan king YuknoomTook’ K’awiil was depicted as a captive on Tikal Altar 9.

This insight into the dynamic nature of the Maya emblem glyphs and the fact thatCalakmul was not permanently the powerful political entity represented by the lords of theKaan emblem forces us to reconsider the previous models of southern Campeche politicalgeography. In the past, Calakmul was seen as the single dominant power of this regionand all other sites in its vicinity were considered as its satellites. This interpretation reached

Figure 1. The model of the Calakmul “regional state”as proposed by Marcus (1976: 27).

91

its clearest form of expression in the regional state model developed by Marcus (1976:27), where Calakmul is seen as a regional capital surrounded by six nearly equidistantdependencies (Fig. 1). For a long time, the only information that was available as regardsthe size, architecture and inscriptions of these ‘dependencies’ was Ruppert and Denison’sreport of their exploration of southern Campeche in the 1930s (Ruppert and Denison1943). Fortunately, the recent archaeological survey of southern Campeche by Ivan [prajcand his colleagues ([prajc et al. 1997a; 1997b, [prajc and Suárez Aguilar 1998; [prajc2004; [prajc et al. 2005) has offered significant new information on the sites in the vicinityof Calakmul that now allows a reassessment of the relationship between Calakmul and itshinterland.

The following article explores the political geography of southern Campeche,focusing on the emblem glyphs and toponymic titles of four large sites with a substantialcorpus of inscriptions, which were explored as a part of the regional survey project insouthern Campeche under the guidance of [prajc. Marcus (1976: 25-27) considers two ofthese sites, Uxul and Oxpemul, to be dependencies of Calakmul, while the other two sites,Champerico and Los Alacranes, have been only recently discovered, however it is obvi-ous that they were in the orbit of the Kaan polity at some point in time.

Los AlacranesLos Alacranes is a major archaeological site located on two hills on both sides of

the modern village of the same name. During the archaeological survey of southernCampeche in 1996 two stelae were discovered at the site ([prajc et al. 1997a: 6-7; 1997b:36-38; [prajc 2004: 388-390). Stela 1 was erected in front of a pyramid approximately 8 mhigh on the eastern extreme of the East Complex, while Stela 2 was placed at the base ofa slightly larger mound located at the eastern extreme of the West Complex. Both stelaeare only carved on their front sides. Of the two monuments, Stela 1 is better preservedbecause it is executed in relief, while most of the carving on Stela 2 is in extremely lowrelief and has disappeared. On Stela 1, several fields of hieroglyphs frame the badly dam-aged image of a standing figure holding a double headed ceremonial bar. In the monument’slower register several smaller figures depicting bound captives can be seen.

Only one of the glyph panels on the monument is preserved to such an extent thatits hieroglyphic inscription can be read (Fig. 2). The text begins with a reference to thebirth of a lord named SAK WITZ-il B’AAH, sak witzil b’aah, or ‘white mountain top’,on 8th November, A.D. 504. The name of the lord is followed by an emblem glyph b’u-k’a-AJAW-wa, b’uuk’ ajaw, ‘lord of B’uuk’ (Fig. 3a). This hieroglyph has been identi-fied as the local emblem of Los Alacranes (Grube 2004a). However, a word of caution isnecessary: the hieroglyph in question lacks the K’UHUL prefix, which is crucial for thefull forms of emblem glyphs as first defined by Berlin. The B’uuk glyph is much moresimilar to the ‘problematic emblem glyphs’ described by Houston (1986) and some of theplace glyphs identified by Stuart and Houston (1994). Most likely, B’uuk’ was a toponymand became a royal title through the addition of the AJAW sign. The lack of the K’UHUL‘divine’ prefix in the so called ‘problematic emblem glyphs’ is certainly not merely an

92


Figure 2. The principal text cartouche on Los Alacranes Stela 2.

Figure 3. The b’u-k’a toponymic title of Los Alacranes on Stela 1 (a) and Stela 2(b) of Los Alacranes, on polychrome vase Kerr 5241 (c), polychrome vase Kerr

7524 (d), and in the name of the captive from Xultun Stela 21 (e).

a b c d e

93

accident. The lack probably reflects a lesser rank in the still not clearly understood hierar-chy of Maya political units and their governing institutions. This significant issue will bereaddressed at the end of this article. At the present moment, I will use the term ‘toponymictitle’ for all of these pseudo emblem glyphs without the K’UHUL attribute in order todistinguish them from full emblems.

The B’uuk’ toponymic title also appears in another glyph panel on Stela 1, al-though erosion made it much harder to identify the signs. It can also be detected in aseverely eroded phrase on Los Alacranes Stela 2 (Fig. 3b). Apart from these local men-tions, the B’uuk’ toponymic title is also found on two Late Classic polychrome ceramics ofunknown origin (Kerr 5241 and 7524; Figs. 3c and 3d), suggesting that these were madeat, or at least commissioned by, the royal court of Los Alacranes. Finally, a ‘lord of B’uuk’’also appears as one of the two captives on the bottom of Xultun Stela 21 (Fig. 3e). Unfor-tunately, the stela is undated and therefore does not aid us in determining the terminusante quem for the battle in which the captives were taken. However, Los Alacranes musthave been under the sway of the Kaan dynasty during the 6th century. The hieroglyphicinscription on Stela 1 ends with a sentence that describes the accession to power of thelocal king under the auspices (u kab’jiiy) of Sky Witness of the Kaan dynasty (Martin

Figure 4. Champerico Stela 1.

94


and Grube 2000: 104).

ChampericoThe archaeological site of Champerico is located in the southeastern part of the

Calakmul Biosphere, approximately 33 km southeast of Calakmul. Three stelae and afragment of a hieroglyphic panel or lintel have been recorded. Two of the monumentsshow traces of hieroglyphic texts, which also include place glyphs. Stela 1 records a k’altuun, or ‘stone binding’ ceremony at 9.9.0.0.0 (7th May, A.D. 613), as well as the acces-sion of a local lord on 9.8.0.6.3 (21st December, A.D. 593) (Fig. 4). Although the name ofthe local lord has disappeared, a toponymic title that follows his name has been preserved.This toponym shows the split head of a bird and another bird or animal sitting on top (Fig.5a). A dot, probably marking the number one, is written in front. The same compound alsoappears on Champerico Stela 3 in association with the 9.9.10.0.0 half-K’atun ending date(18th March, A.D. 623), following the name of a lord who could well be the same as theone who had erected Stela 1 only ten years earlier (Fig. 5b).

Like the B’uuk’ toponymic title from Los Alacranes, the Champerico glyph can-not be called a true emblem glyph. The two preserved examples of the Champerico glyphare short of both the K’UHUL prefix as well as the AJAW superfix, distinguishing themeven more from full emblems.

UxulUxul was discovered during the final week of the third Carnegie expedition to

southern Campeche in April 1934 (Ruppert and Denison 1943: 74-77). Ruppert and Denisonnoticed the existence of fifteen stelae and six altars at the site (Ruppert and Denison 1943:146-150). With the exception of Altar 2, a monument with a long inscription, which hasbecome famous for its unusual incorporation of three Long Count dates and which hasbeen brought to the city of Campeche, where it is now on display in Reducto de SanMiguel, all monuments are still at the site, although the majority of the stelae are in very asorry state of preservation.

Several monuments carry a toponymic title, which consists of a very rare signcombination that includes the three signs NAAH-k’a-NAAH and an AJAW sign as asuperfix (Fig. 6). Although the title is phonetically transparent, it is semantically opaque.The toponymic title first appears on Uxul Altar 2, where it can be found in at least twodifferent places in this long inscription of 159 glyph blocks (Fig. 6a). The Naah-K’a-Naah-Ajaw title also appears in an accession statement of the local king on Stela 6, erectedto commemorate the 9.11.0.0.0 period ending in A.D. 652 (Fig. 6b). The same ruler erectedStela 10 in 9.12.5.0.0 (A.D. 677) and used this glyph as his principal title (Fig. 6c). Finally,the toponym is also found as the last glyph on the right side of Uxul Stela 14, a monumentwhich carries the date 9.13.0.0.0 (A.D. 692) and which was very likely erected by an-other lord of Uxul (Fig. 6d).

Oxpemul

95

Oxpemul was discovered by Ruppert and Denison during the third Carnegie ex-pedition to southern Campeche in February 1934, but has not been revisited until 2004([prajc et al. 2005). The site is located approximately 22 km northeast of Calakmul (withinthe Calakmul Biosphere) and consists of two principal groups on two hills. 19 stelae andseveral altars have been recorded by Ruppert and Denison (1943: 136-142). With theexception of Stela 15, all monuments are still at the site, and all of the monuments thatwere reported as still standing by Ruppert and Denison were still encountered erect whenthe site was rediscovered in 2004. Numerous monuments at Oxpemul are well preservedand their texts are still readable (Robichaux and Pruett 2005; [prajc and Grube 2005).

Although the dated monuments at Oxpemul were erected only after 9.15.0.0.0(A.D. 731), Oxpemul Stela 1, which stands in front of Structure III, is stylistically an earlyClassic monument, depicting a ruler holding a ceremonial bar. Unfortunately, Stela 1 hasno text or date preserved on it. Except for this stela, all other monuments at Oxpemulwere erected in the Late and Terminal Classic periods between A.D. 731 and 849. Sev-eral texts at Oxpemul contain a toponymic title in a position that leaves no doubt that it wasused as a reference to Oxpemul itself (Fig. 7). The toponymic title consists of two signs:a bent ‘Kawak’ sign, which in other contexts seems to refer to thrones or altars, as well asone or two small signs that sit in its upper left, or upper left and lower right corners (Folanet al. 2005: Fig. 6). Unfortunately, the faint detail of this infixed sign has disappeared in allcases, thus we do not know the ancient name of Oxpemul, except that the place wasreferred to as some kind of throne or place of altars, which seems quite appropriate giventhe extraordinary large number of carved altars found in association with the stelae. Thethrone/altar toponym is usually combined with an AJAW superfix. At Oxpemul the toponymictitle is found five times: on Stela 12, C4 (9.15.0.0.0), Stela 17, C8 (9.15.0.0.0), Stela 18, D6(9.16.5.0.0), Stela 4, D3 (9.17.0.0.0), and finally on Stela 7, C1 (10.0.0.0.0). In all cases,the toponymic title follows the name of the local ruler.

While the use of a local toponymic title is not unusual, the combination with other

Figure 5. The toponymic titles of Champerico on Stela 1 (a) and Stela 3 (b) ofChamperico.

a b

96


Figure 6. The toponymic title of Uxul on Altar 2, E3 (a), Stela 6, A5 (b), Stela 10,Fragments 1 and 2, Ep3 (c), and Stela 14, D6 (d) of Uxul.

Figure 7. The throne/altar toponymic title of Oxpemul on Stela 12, C4 (a). Stela17, C8 (b), Stela 18, D6 (c), Stela 4, D3 (d), and Stela 7, C1 (e) of Oxpemul.

Figure 8. The Uxte’Tuun, „Three Stones“, toponym at Oxpemul on Stela 12, C5 (a)and Stela 7, C3 (b).

a b

a b c d e

a b c d

97

toponymic titles and emblems in the inscriptions of Oxpemul is of great interest. On two,possibly three stelae there are references to the toponym Uxte’ Tuun (Stela 12, C5(9.15.0.0.0), Stela 7, C3 (10.0.0.0.0): Fig. 8), which Stuart and Houston (1994: 28-29)have linked to Calakmul. The Uxte’ Tuun toponym is currently understood as one of thenames of the archaeological site of Calakmul, or at least one of the areas within the site orunder its control (Martin 2005: 5). This interpretation is very plausible given the numerouslocal references to Uxte’ Tuun at Calakmul, especially on monuments associated withStructure I. The new evidence from Oxpemul is difficult to explain, especially sinceCalakmul and Oxpemul make references to Uxte’ Tuun at precisely the same date, the9.15.0.0.0 period ending in A.D. 731. The most likely interpretation seems to be that thecontemporary lord of Oxpemul, whose name in some way refers to the Sun God, mayhave been related to one of the noble families of Calakmul through kinship ties.

Two inscriptions from Oxpemul mention a full emblem glyph with a bat head asits main sign. On Altar 15, which shows a Pawajtuun figure on its surface (Fig. 9a), anemblem glyph with a bat head as its main sign occurs as one of only two glyphs written ina cartouche on its side (Fig. 9b). The glyph that follows is the title kalo’mte’, the mostexclusive of all royal titles, which is reserved only for a few truly powerful and influentialkings. Unfortunately, no name is found in connection with the bat emblem on Altar 15, andthe associated Stela 16 is so eroded that neither dates nor any other historical informationcan be obtained from it. Fortunately, the context of the other bat emblem at Oxpemul ismore transparent and better preserved. On Stela 2, D2, the bat emblem forms a part ofthe title phrase of lord Chak Tajal Way … Chan K’inich, who reigned at Oxpemul duringthe 9.17.0.0.0 period ending recorded on the right side of the monument (Fig. 10b). Hislong nominal phrase extends over the entire lower part of the back of Stela 2 (Fig. 10a)and continues on the left side with a severely eroded title and the bat emblem. The follow-ing hieroglyphs provide the u-B’AAH-hi u-1-TAHN-na u b’aah u juntahn ‘he is thecherished one of’ metaphor, which expresses a child-of-mother relationship and alwaysprecedes the name of the mother (Stuart 1997). In this case, the name of the motherfollows in the long female nominal sequence. This example of the bat emblem leaves nodoubt that the king of Oxpemul used it at this time as his personal title. In a paper pre-sented at the 2005 Texas Meetings, I have taken this as evidence that the bat emblem wasthe name of the political entity of which Oxpemul was the capital (Grube 2005).

Simon Martin has recently pointed out that the bat emblem also appears on threemonuments from Calakmul – on Stela 114, dated to the 9.0.0.0.0 period ending (A.D.435), on Stela 62 from 9.11.0.0.0 (A.D. 651), and finally on Stela 59 that was erected in9.15.10.0.0 (A.D. 741). To this one might add another example from the left side of Stela52, dating to 9.15.0.0.01 . Martin points out that the bat emblem is used at Calakmul beforeand after the appearance of the Kaan emblem (Martin 2005). He sees the bat emblem asa governing authority of Early Classic Calakmul, probably even an overlord that presided

1 This occurrence was pointed out to me by Carlos Pallán in November, 2005.

98


Figure 9. Oxpemul Altar 15: the surface, showing a seated Pawajtuun (a); thehieroglyphic cartouche on the side (b).

Figure 10. The bat emblem glyph on Oxpemul Stela 2: the text on the back side ofthe monument (a); the continuation of the text on the right side (b).

a b

a b

99

over a local governor (Martin 2005: 11). In this scenario, the arrival of the Kaan lordsinterrupted the regime of the lords associated with the bat emblem. After the fall of theKaan dynasty in the early 8th century, the bat emblem reappears as the title of at least oneof the Calakmul kings.

Although the bat emblem appears at least four times at Calakmul, the preciselocation of the political entity referred to by the bat emblem still remains opaque. The batemblem seems to have enjoyed a wide distribution and is found not only at Oxpemul andCalakmul. A clear example of the bat emblem also appears in the final passage of NaachtunStela 23 (Fig. 11). The context of this mention leaves no doubt that in this case the batemblem is not employed in a local reference. The preceding text includes a date ([Tzolk’in]11 Sek), followed by a verb and some kind of relationship statement (probably y-itaaj).The next glyph seems to be a name composed of a prefix and a head sign and precedesthe bat emblem glyph.

There are a few other examples of bat glyphs in toponymic contexts in inscrip-tions from southern Campeche. In none of these cases is the association with the batemblem straightforward. A bat glyph appears as a toponymic title on the right side of UxulStela 2. Unfortunately, the context is opaque, since the preceding glyphs are all broken offexcept for the kalo’mte’ title, which stands immediately before the bat glyph. Here, asmall affix precedes the bat glyph, which lacks the K’UHUL and AJAW elements of thereal bat emblem. This could imply that this bat glyph in fact refers to a different place orentity. However, the association with the kalo’mte’ title is most certainly of high signifi-cance, since this paramount title is used only by few powerful cities.

Another bat glyph appears in a similarly opaque context on the right side of

Figure 11. The bat emblem glyph on Naachtun Stela 23.

100


Balakbal Stela 5. In this case, the bat glyph appears in a name or title phrase of a lord whowas involved in the burial of another lord. The bat glyph appears with one or two prefixedsigns as well as a – now eroded – superfix. The position following the name suggests thatthe bat glyph is used as a toponymic title of the local lord. Balakbal Stela 5 also explicitlymentions another place name in the final part of the right side inscription. The toponym isaccompanied by the common CHAN-CH’EN-na ‘sky place/cave’ expression, whichoften follows toponyms. Unfortunately, the toponym itself is gone.

In summary, the bat emblem glyphs in their full form are found at Calakmul,Oxpemul and Naachtun. At Naachtun the reference is to a foreign lord, while the Calakmuland Oxpemul references are associated with the local ruling dynasties. At Oxpemul, thebat emblem is associated with the kalo’mte’ title, suggesting that the lords of the bat politywere of the highest political rank within the Maya lowlands.

DiscussionDue to the small number of full emblem glyphs, as defined by Heinrich Berlin,

southern Campeche differs from the remaining regions in the Maya lowlands. Except forthe Kaan and bat emblems there are – at least until now - no other emblem glyphs knownfrom this vast and poorly explored area, which constitutes the northern border of theClassic lowland Maya political and dynastic network. The lack of full emblem glyphs canmost certainly not be explained by a different political rhetoric. The discovery of Altar delos Reyes Altar 3 with its long list of emblem glyphs (Grube 2004b: Fig. 5) shows that theruling houses in this region formed a part of the political network of the lowlands andparticipated in the same political rhetoric. The lack of full emblem glyphs at important sitessuch as Oxpemul and Uxul can only be explained as an expression of hierarchy betweenthe powerful regional centres and places with only limited and localised power. In thisscenario, Uxul, Champerico and Los Alacranes were sites that were always under theinfluence of more dominant powers, probably either the bat emblem or the lords of Kaan.These three sites erected their monuments when the Kaan dynasty witnessed the zenithof its influence. On the other hand, Oxpemul started erecting monuments, with the excep-tion of Stela 1, during the Late Classic period. The program of monument erection atOxpemul began in A.D. 731, after Calakmul witnessed its first defeat by Tikal in A.D.695, and only five years before A.D. 736, when the Calakmul ruler was depicted as acaptive at Tikal and the Kaan emblem was used for the last time in association with a kingwho had his seat in Calakmul (Martin 2005). This suggests that Oxpemul benefited fromthe collapse of the Kaan dynasty. The inscription on Oxpemul Stela 3, which mentionssome sort of activity at Oxpemul in the presence of three lords of Tikal ([prajc and Grube2005), hints towards new political alliances with the only remaining superpower of theTerminal Classic period. At some point, Oxpemul may even have become the seat of thebat polity, which may have been a powerful ruling house in southern Campeche before thearrival of the lords of Kaan (Martin 2005).

Toponymic titles may point to a lesser level in the hierarchy of sites in the Mayalowlands. It is likely that these sites with what Houston called ‘problematic emblem glyphs’

101

originated as dependencies or even colonies of more potent centres, which used full em-blems. A much deeper research on the distribution of toponymic titles in contrast withemblem glyphs needs to be conducted. A parallel case to southern Campeche may be thesites in the vicinity of Tikal, which also lack full emblems, such as Xultun and Río Azul,probably even Caracol, where a similar hierarchy may have existed as in southernCampeche.

It is also important to notice that the toponymic titles found at Uxul, Champericoand Los Alacranes have no outreach at all. They are not cited anywhere else, which is asign of their small geopolitical importance. It seems that all major ‘international’ activitieswere in the hands of the local powers, such as the Kaan dynasty and the lords of the batemblem, wherever it was situated.

REFERENCESBerlin, Heinrich. 1958. El glifo “emblema” en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de la Société des Américanistes

47 : 111-119.Folan, William, Ivan [prajc, Raymundo González, Hubert Robichaux, Rosario Dominguez, Abel Morales,

Candace Pruett, and Joel D. Gunn. 2005. Las ruinas de Oxpemul, Campeche, México: una corte realfortificada en la frontera norte entre el estado regional de Calakmul y el Río Bec. In: Los Investigadoresde la Cultura Maya 13 (II): 476-486. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Grube, Nikolai. 2004a. Ciudades perdidas mayas. Arqueología Mexicana 12 (67): 32-37.––––––––. 2004b. El origen de la dinastía Kaan. In: Enrique Nalda (ed.), Los Cautivos de Dzibanché,

México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, pp. 114-131.––––––––. 2005. Pots and Stones from Southern Campeche. Paper presented at the 21

st Texas Symposium,

The University of Texas at Austin.Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin. 1998. Política clásica maya dentro de una tradición mesoamericana: un

modelo epigráfico de organización política ‘hegemónica’. In: Silvia Trejo (ed.), Modelos de entidadespolíticas mayas, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, pp. 131-146.

Houston, Stephen D. 1986. Problematic Emblem Glyphs: Examples from Altar de Sacrificios, El Chorro, RíoAzul, and Xultun. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 3.

Marcus, Joyce. 1976. Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.Martin, Simon. 2005. Of Snakes and Bats: Shifting Identities at Calakmul. The PARI Journal 6 (2): 5-15.Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 1995. Maya Superstates. Archaeology 48 (6): 41-46.––––––––. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya.

London – New York: Thames and Hudson.Matthews, Peter. 1985. Early Classic Monuments and Inscriptions. In: Gordon R. Willey and Peter Mathews

(eds.), A Consideration of the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, Institute of MesoamericanStudies Publication 10, Albany: State University of New York at Albany, pp. 5-55.

––––––––. 1991. Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In: T. Patrick Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya Political History,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-29.

Robichaux, Hubert R., and Candace Pruett. 2004. Las inscripciones de Oxpemul. In: Los Investigadores dela Cultura Maya 13 (1): 29-43. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Ruppert, Karl, and John H. Denison, Jr. 1943. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quintana Roo,and Petén. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 543. Washington.

[prajc, Ivan. 2004. Maya Sites and Monuments in SE Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 29 (3-4): 385-407.

[prajc, Ivan, William J. Folan, and Raymundo González Heredia. 2005. Las ruinas de Oxpemul, Campeche:su rediscubrimiento despues de 70 años en el olvido (1934-2004). In: Los Investigadores de la CulturaMaya 13 (1): 19-27. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

[prajc, Ivan, Florentino García Cruz, and Héber Ojeda Mas. 1997a. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el

102


sureste de Campeche, México: informe preliminar. Mexicon 19: 5-12.––––––––. 1997b. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche. Arqueología: Revista de la

Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología del INAH, segunda época, No. 18: 29-49.[prajc, Ivan and Nikolai Grube. 2005. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Southern Campeche, Mexico,

2004: Report on the Monuments of Oxpemul (ms.). Report submitted to National Geographic Society.[prajc, Ivan, and Vicente Suárez Aguilar. 1998. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de

Campeche, Mexico: temporada 1998. Mexicon 20: 104-109.Stuart, David. 1997. Kinship Terms in Maya Inscriptions. In: Marta J. Macri and Anabel Ford (eds.), The

Language of Maya Hieroglyphs, San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, pp. 1-11.Stuart, David, and Stephen D. Houston. 1994. Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and

Archaeology No. 33. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.

PovzetekToponimi, emblemski glifi in politi~na geografija ju`nega Campecheja

^lanek predstavlja nekatere nove epigrafske podatke z ju`nega dela mehi{kezvezne dràve Campeche, s poudarkom na pojavljanju toponimov in emblemskihglifov ter njihovem pomenu za razumevanje politi~ne geografije klasi~nodobnihMajev. Med emblemskimi glifi, ki so bili najdeni v napisih na nekaterih nedavno(ponovno) odkritih arheolo{kih najdi{~ih, najde ve~ nepopolnih razli~ic, ki nimajonekaterih elementov, zna~ilnih za popolne variante; imenuje jih “toponimski naslovi”in domneva, da razodevajo ni`je poloàje zadevnih politi~nih enot v regionalnipoliti~ni hierarhiji. Eden od edinih dveh popolnih emblemskih glifov, doslej znanihv ju`nem Campecheju, ustreza dinastiji Kaan, ki je v dolo~enem obdobju imelasede` v Calakmulu, medtem ko je identita drugega, ki predstavlja netopirja, vpra{ljiva,~eprav si ga je v kasnej{em ~asu morda prisvojil Oxpemul, center, ki se je nemaraokoristil s propadom Calakmula.

Klju~ne besede: majevska epigrafika, klasi~na doba, politi~na geografija,emblemski glifi.

103

CULTURE OF MEMORY AND MAYAARCHITECTURE: ARCHITECTURALDOCUMENTATION AND INTERPRETATIONOF STRUCTURE 1 OF CHUNCHIMAI 3Hasso HohmannInternationales Städteforum, Graz, Austria

ABSTRACTThe building of Chunchimai 3 is a good example of a culture of memory within

the Maya culture. It shows building decorations with typical elements of the Classic Mayaperiod in the Puuc region. In addition, there are rectangular scroll elements at the backand the ‘sun stone’ within the building. The stone carries a relief that consists of twopresumably different production phases. Both the sun stone and the scroll elements seemto originate from earlier buildings and apparently served as a reminiscence of them andthe people connected to them. In this case, as in other ones, the positioning of decorativearchitectural elements clearly shows they were reused.

Key words: Maya architecture, Late Classic, Puuc region.

The architecture left behind by the Maya is the most impressive remnant of theirculture. Structure 1 of Chunchimai, Group 3, documented in this article is a small building,not the most impressive one and not well known, however it has interesting details andfaçades.

The site of Chunchimai is situated approximately 1.5 km south of Chunhuaymil, avery small modern village in the Mexican state of Campeche, about 25 km north ofHopelchén and close to the border between the states of Campeche and Yucatán. The theregion surrounding this village is covered with Maya ruins. Several of them were docu-mented by the Austrian architect and photographer Teobert Maler at the end of the 19th

century. The region is dominated by the Puuc style Maya architecture dating back toapproximately A.D. 800-

In 2001 the author was guided to a relatively well-preserved building within Group3 of Chunchimai. This is one of the buildings that was described but not documented byTeobert Maler. The geographical position was recorded by the author using GPS: its lati-tude is 20°05.988’ north, its longitude 89°39.491’ west (Hohmann 2001: 136). On 20th


H. Hohmann: Culture of Memory and Maya Architecture: Architectural Documentation and Interpretation of Structure 1 of Chunchimai 3

104


February 2004, the author revisited the building together with Stephan Merk and AdeleDrexler. The orientation of the building as seen in the ground plan was recorded by Merkusing a compass. This measurement is therefore not very accurate and defines an uncor-rected magnetic north. The remains of at least two different buildings can be found inGroup 3 of the ruins of Chunchimai; the documented building will be called Structure 1.Teobert Maler visited the structure in 1889. Maler called the small site “Chunchimai, 3.Ruinengrund” (3rd group of ruins); he described the site, but did not take photographs ormeasurements of the structure. Only the “Sonnenstein”, the Sun Stone, a recycled reliefstone from a former structure found inside Structure 1 was measured and roughly sketchedby Maler. In 1989, almost exactly 100 years later, Hanns Prem, George F. Andrews andUrsula Dyckerhoff revisited the site (Maler 1997: 201, 276).

The building originally consisted of at least two rooms. Only one of them – witha partially collapsed vault - survived. The mound of rubble to the south contains the re-mains of the second room. It is interesting that the structure has two completely differentfaçades at the front and at the back, and the northern façade differs yet again from theother two; the decoration of Maya façades is usually more consistent.

Eastern FaçadeThe eastern façade with the entrance is divided into two horizontal sections by a

moulding positioned between the wall and the vault zone and consisting of three members.It is formed by a line of small vertical colonnettes between two horizontal rows of corbels.Only two of the colonnettes are still in place, however the negative forms of a number of

Figure 1. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, eastern façade with the entrance.

105

other colonnettes are still visible on the core material of the wall. The lower cornice of themoulding has a sloping surface. The upper moulding, close to the roof level, currentlyconsists of the remains of a cornice with a sloping surface just like the lower member ofthe medial moulding. The stone elements of the cornice are large. Like the medial mould-ing, the complete upper moulding quite certainly also consisted of three members includinga long row of colonnettes (Figs. 1 and 2).

It is almost certain that there was a fourth member above the upper moulding, asin numerous other structures within this area and this building period. The roof level on topof the vault is almost half a meter higher than the added third member of the upper moul-ding would reach on the façade. Therefore there must have been a fourth member be-tween the moulding and the roof level, as one can see in both sections.

Above the entrance and between the two mouldings there are two larger col-

umns with a typical elaborated element standing in the remains of a small flat niche. Dueto symmetrical reasons four such columns must have existed originally. There were noindications that more niches like this existed within the façades of the structure. However,there is a possibility that one existed above the destroyed entrance to the destroyed roomon the south of the building.

Figure 2. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, front view of the eastern façade.Broken lines represent the reconstructed portions, dotted lines hypothetically

added ones.

H. Hohmann: Culture of Memory and Maya Architecture: Architectural Documentation and Interpretation of Structure 1 of Chunchimai 3

106


Figure 3. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1,front view of the northern façade.

Figure 4. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, front view of the western façade,with remains of decoration.

107

K. M. Woschitz: Ekstase und Zeit: die Duplizitat des Dionysischen und Apollinischen alsLeitbegriffe

Northern FaçadeThe remains of the north side of the structure show a similar medial moulding to

that on the main façade. Thus colonnettes seem to have existed only in the central sectionof this façade (Fig. 3).

Western FaçadeThe medial moulding on the back, i.e. western façade, consists mainly of a row

of relief stones and a lower cornice with long sloping stone corbels below; the relief stonesare approximately as high as the two upper members of the medial moulding on the oppo-site sides. The row of relief stones does not reach the corners of the western side andthere is at least another stone like this positioned higher up on the same wall. The reliefstones represent a part of a meander. The relief stones must be those Maler (1997: 201)mentioned in his report as decorative stones with “Vereckungsgezier” (Maiandrataineia)rectangular scrolls. He suggested they were recycled architectural elements originatingfrom an older building, which had already been destroyed (Fig. 4).

Most of these reused relief stones were more or less broken at the edges beforethey were used for this building. The design of the scrolls varies, the orientation differs,and the positioning within the back façade looks accidental. Therefore they cannot havebeen new. They were recycled architectural elements placed in the new façade of thisstructure.

The scroll motifs are very common in Puuc architecture and are nearly alwaysassociated with a step motif and several of these combinations placed together form ameander, as for example at the ruins of Sacbe, Structure 1, South Façade (Kelly 1993:102, 103). This façade even shows such meanders in two different sizes. Therefore, therelief stones of Chunchimai originally belonged to a meander. Within this façade they lookincomplete. This aspect is another piece of evidence suggesting that the relief stoneswere reused, as Maler has already stated.

There was some kind of a tradition of reusing relief stones from earlier ruins, asis the case, for example, at the Chenes site of Santa Rosa Xtampak, less than 25 km awayfrom Chunchimai. They are positioned in two different flat niches on the first floor in thetwo largest rooms within the large palace on this site. A number of relief stones were puttogether incorrectly (Maler 1997: Tafeln 172, 173) and there is no doubt that this wasintentional. The planners of this palace possibly wanted to show that these relief stonesbelonged to another building and should only remind the inhabitants of their past, of anearlier building or of a person related with the earlier building.

The rectangular scroll motifs are usually composed from a number of differentstones – like a mosaic. In a very rare example of the Puuc ruins of Sabacche in the stateof Yucatán, the medial moulding of Structure 5, Room 2, East Façade (Pollock 1980: 75,76, Figs. 142, 144 b) shows these motifs carved into single stones as a whole, however inthis example the motifs are of a very small size. The reliefs at Chunchimai are larger thanthe small ones at Sabacche, but smaller than most of the large motifs. Nevertheless, the

108


Figure 5. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, ground plan.

Figure 6. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, east-west cross section showing the‘Sun Stone’.

109

K. M. Woschitz: Ekstase und Zeit: die Duplizitat des Dionysischen und Apollinischen alsLeitbegriffe

scroll reliefs at Chunchimai seem to be unique in Maya architecture, as no other scrolls ofthis size carved as a whole into single stones were known before.

Southern WallThe southern ‘façade’ shows a large projecting section above a row of corbels.

At 9 cm these corbels are less corbelling than the cornices on the outside, which measure15 cm and the position of this line is higher than the lower member of the medial mouldingson the façades. The corbels on the southern exterior wall correspond to the vault spring onthe interior side. Therefore the wall must have been a dividing inner wall between tworooms. A second room follows to the south, however it has collapsed completely. Theslight slope of the wall above the corbels might be caused by the poor condition of thestructure.

Base mouldingsThere are no indications for a base moulding at Structure 1. A few meters east of

Structure 1 lay the remains of another building (Structure 2), which has a base mouldingthat consists of three members on its eastern façade. The medial member of the basemoulding on Structure 2 is a row of small colonnettes. Therefore, such a base mouldingmight have also existed around Structure 1, however it is currently covered by debris.

Building EdgesAll flat undecorated walls of the façades below the medial moulding do not reach

the edges of the building. All existing walls end more or less in a straight vertical lineleaving an open space for a special corner construction. It could be an indication for anelaborated edge, such as the one at the Castillo of Chacbolay, with three-quarter-elabo-rated columns (Pollock 1980: 349), one on the level of the wall and three on the level of thevault, or at the Palace of Four Rooms at Huntichmul, with three in-line half-columns onthe wall level (Pollock 1980: 344); both of which are typical Puuc buildings. There couldhave been two profiled half- or three-quarter-columns at each corner and in the centre ofthe western and eastern walls (Fig. 5).

The rubble around the Chunchimai building contains cylindrical column elements,which could originate from the edges. The edges could also have been undecorated simplecorners built from very high flat vertical stone elements, such as were used for the en-trance as doorjambs. In any case, larger stone elements must have been used for theedges of this structure. The joint material is usually softer than the stone material andtherefore edges with less joint material make the edges stronger. This phenomenon caneven be recognised at numerous historic structures in the Old World architecture.

The ConstructionThe ceiling of the room looks like a ‘corbelled vault’ with two gables to the north

and the south. Corbelled vaults are also called ‘false vaults’. They are formed by horizon-tal layers of stones corbelling from the two long walls of a room step by step. The top of

110


Figure 7. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, north-south section showing theinterior wall with the ‘Sun Stone’ and the profiles of the outside decoration. The

drawing also shows the entrance with the large stone elements viewed from inside.

Figure 8. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, the ‘Sun Stone’.

111

such vaults is formed by a row of capstones that bridge from one side to the other. As inso many other Puuc buildings, Chunchimai 3 also has a row of corbels on top of the walls,which go around the room and mark the spring of the vault. A row of capstones rests on aframe of corbels marking the upper end of the vault. The ‘V’-shape vault is typical for theClassic Maya period (Figs. 6 and 7).

The fragile vault of Chunchimai holds the four walls of the structure together.This shows it is not truly a corbelled vault. The core of the vault behind the vault stonesand the upper façade consists of a huge monolith made of rubble and hydraulic lime. Thisis called a cast vault (Hohmann 1979: 36). The façade and vault stones function as veneerstones with almost no static function whatsoever.

Tests performed on the core material at Xkipché, Yucatán, and other sites re-vealed there is usually no evidence for hydraulic material composing such vaults (Hohmann1999: 110). Since the lime of the Yucatán Peninsula is very soluble, all the lime used for thevault and wall cores may have already been dissolved at least once by rainwater duringthe course of twelve centuries, and later sintered within the material. This must be thereason for the lack of hydraulic components, while the sinter reinforces the structure’sstability.

The InteriorThe most interesting stone inside the structure is the so-called ‘sun stone’. Its

position in the south gable is not at its centre and is rather accidental. The stone is 68 cmlong and 24 cm high. The relief is quite flat and seems to have been produced in twodifferent phases. Within a softly delineated circle there are three small depressions thatare reminiscent of the face of the sun. On the other hand, relatively clear lines define the

Figure 9. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, the ‘Sun Stone’; drawing by theauthor.

Figure 10. Chunchimai, Group 3, Structure 1, the ‘Sun Stone’; drawing by TeobertMaler (1997: Fig. 11-3).

112


three small fields with rounded corners, vertically aligned in the centre of the stone andrunning across the face of the sun, which is flanked by larger fields looking like wings. Ontop of the left wing is a smaller additional field. These ten, clearly delineated fields musthave been produced in the second phase (Figs. 8 and 9). Maler’s drawing is a combinationof both reliefs, the face in the centre and the seven fields on the sides that form the wings(Fig. 10). The style of both reliefs on the sun stone is different from the rectangular scrollson the western façade, suggesting that the sun stone is from a different period.

The problem of ventilation was solved by several small rectangular openings inthe walls. Not all have been measured.

Building Period and Value of the StructureThe decorative elements above the entrance and the medial moulding are very

similar to the decoration found elsewhere in the Late Classic Puuc architecture, indicatingthat Structure 1 of Group 3 at Chunchimai belongs to the same period. The characteristicsof the wall and vault construction are in accordance with this conclusion. The structure isthus a very typical Puuc Maya building, and one of those that are connected with the pastby reusing decoration elements of older buildings, which no longer existed when this struc-ture was erected. The scroll stones and the sun stone are secondarily reused, and refer todifferent Maya periods. This interesting structure, suggesting that history played an im-portant role in the Maya culture, is in great danger of collapsing if no consolidation worksare carried out as soon as possible.

REFERENCESHohmann, Hasso. 1979. Gewölbekonstruktionen in der Maya-Architektur. Mexicon 1 (3): 33-36.–––––––––. 1999. Statik eines Maya-Steingebäudes: Xkipché, Bauwerk A4, Raum 1A. In: M. Hainzmann

(ed.), Votis XX. Solvtis: Jubiläumsschrift der Archäologischen Gesellschaft Steiermark, AGST-Nachrichtenblatt 1-2: 93-113, Graz: Academic Publishers.

–––––––––. 2001. Documentation of a Maya building in Chunchimai. Mexicon 23 (6): 136-138.Kelly, Joyce. 1993. An Archaeological Guide to Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. Norman – London: University of

Oklahoma Press.Maler, Teobert. 1997. Península Yucatán, ed. by H. J. Prem. Monumenta Americana, Vol. 5, Berlin: Ibero

Amerikanisches Institut Pressischer Kulturbesitz – Gebr. Mann Verlag.Pollock, Harry E. D. 1980. The Puuc: An Architectural Survey of the Hill Country of Yucatan and Northern

Campeche, Mexico. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 19. Cambridge: Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

PovzetekKultura spomina in arhitektura Majev: arhitektonska dokumentacija in interpreacijaStrukture 1 na najdi{~u Chunchimai 3

Stavba na najdi{~u Chunchimai 3 je dober primer kulture spomina v okvirumajevske kulture. Ima arhitektonsko okrasje s tipi~nimi elementi klasi~ne majevskedobe na obmo~ju Puuc. Razen tega najdemo na zadnji steni meandraste ornamente,

113

znotraj stavbe pa ‘son~ni kamen’. Ta ima relief, ki je bil domnevno izdelan v dvehfazah. Kaè, da tako ‘son~ni kamen’ kot meandrasti elementi izvirajo iz zgodnej{ihstavb; najbr` so sluìli v spomin nanje in na z njimi povezane ljudi. Poloàj tehdekorativnih arhitektonskih elementov jasno kaè, tako kot v drugih podobnihprimerih, da so bili v novej{i stavbi uporabljeni sekundarno.

Klju~ne besede: arhitektura Majev, pozna klasi~na doba, obmo~je Puuc.

114


BOOK REVIEWS

Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning (eds.). 2003.Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The ThreeRivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula.Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. xx + 172 pp.Hb.: 55.00 $.ISBN 0-8165-2273-1.

Ivan [prajcScientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia

The contents of this volume derive from the 1999 meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, and are based on several years of archaeological research car-ried out in northwestern Belize and the adjacent northeastern Guatemalan Petén, i.e. inthe so-called Three Rivers Region. As stated by Scarborough, Valdez and Dunning in theirIntroduction, the papers collected in this book deal with the issues of political economy,which “is broadened to ask how an entire society employs power relationships betweengroups to organize the use of resources” (p. xiii). In spite of their differences, the authorsshare the concept of heterarchy developed by Carole Crumley in her research of the earlyhistory of France; according to Crumley, heterarchy is “broadly defined as the relation ofelements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential forbeing ranked in a number of different ways, depending on conditions” (Chapter 11, p.137).

Scarborough and Valdez (Chapter 1) define four ecological zones of the ThreeRivers Region and describe their characteristics. While the traditional approach to theunderstanding of the Maya economy emphasises political control exerted by major cen-tres, it underestimates the importance of environmental heterogeneity and the resultingeconomic specialisation of particular communities and their interdependency. Even if theydo not deny the importance of ‘vertical’ hierarchy, their argument focuses on the rel-evance of ‘horizontal’ stratification in economy and exchange, which was not necessarilycontrolled by a centralised government. They view larger centres as generalised commu-nities and small sites as resource-specialised communities; among the latter they distin-guish three types of landscape-specific settlements: bajo communities, located on elevated‘islands’ within wetlands or on their edges; aguada communities, found near natural waterponds; and terrace communities, placed on elevated lands. The authors’ general argumentis hardly debatable. However, based on the presented data, one can hardly figure out whatexactly may have the landscape-derived economic specialisations of the three communitytypes been, and how they can be reconciled with the entire range of landscape and re-source variability.

115

Dunning, Jones, Beach and Luzzadder-Beach (Chapter 2) present the results oftheir paleoecological analyses based on stratigraphy and pollen samples, which lead themto conclude that at least some of the bajos in the Maya Lowlands were at some stageperennial wetlands and shallow lakes, however during the Late Preclassic period theywere transformed to seasonal wetlands, as known today. They have a firm basis for theirargument that while this transformation may have been accelerated by climatic change, itwas primarily anthropogenic in origin, induced by the sedimentation of the bajos resultingfrom upland deforestation and the consequent soil erosion on the adjacent slopes. Thecharacteristic location of numerous Maya centres on the edges of bajos may be accountedfor by both the proximity of water and the agricultural potentials of the surrounding land.On one hand the environmental degradation during the late stages of the Preclassic periodmay have triggered the abandonment of certain major centres, like those in the El Miradorbasin in northern Guatemala, while on the other hand it stimulated the development ofwater catchment facilities noted in a number of Classic period sites.

Sullivan and Sagebiel (Chapter 3) present a study of ceramic data from the ThreeRivers Region. Through a number of cases they illustrate how the occurrence of specificpottery types and their time-dependent variability reflect diverse aspects of life and theirchanges through time. For example, the Early Classic period is characterised by a notablepresence of elite ceramics, particularly in burial contexts, attesting to strong interregionalconnections gravitating to Petén, while in the Late Classic period a higher percentage oflocally made utilitarian wares with regard to luxury vessels is documented, as well as anoverall increase in ceramic styles that are limited to individual regions. The ceramic datasuggest a population decline during the earlier part of the Late Classic period, while in itslater part the population reached its peak, which is also reflected in an increase in monu-mental construction and in the number of rural communities established around large cen-tres.

Tourtellot, Estrada Belli, Rose and Hammond (Chapter 4) explore the landscapeof La Milpa. They find little evidence of any economic specialisation in the suburbs of LaMilpa; the centre of the site was the most convincingly specialised part of the settlement,because it was a product of skilled artisans and esoteric concepts, and considering it hasmany other features not evenly shared within the community. In the monumental site corerepetitions of functionally distinct building classes are found, suggesting a heterarchy inthe form of multiple ranking systems, but the authors observe that some replications maybe coincidental, and that some of the same-type features may not have been in use simul-taneously. They are fair to admit even that “these perceived patterns might be fortuitousproducts of insufficient data or long staring at maps” (p. 48). They also argue that thecosmogram formed by four outlying groups around the centre of La Milpa must have beensuperimposed by a central dictate and thus cannot express the heterarchical principle offour outliers competing with the centre, but they potentially embody heterarchical rela-tions vis-à-vis one another.

Houk (Chapter 5) synthesises the common features and the differences in siteplanning principles found at the major sites within the area. He observes particularly strong

Book reviews

116


similarities between La Milpa and Dos Hombres, and between the smaller centres ofHonradez and Chan Chich, as well as between the two pairs, and suggests that the lattertwo sites were Late Classic imitations or colonies of the former two. This paper showsthat a careful regional analysis of architectural planning and urban patterning can not onlyshed light on important cosmological templates underlying city layouts, but also contributeto the understanding of different aspects of territorial organisation, the connections be-tween sites and areas, political history and other processes involved in regional develop-ment.

King and Shaw (Chapter 6) present the characteristics of the Maax Na site,describe its architectural layout, explore its economic foundations and emphasise the pres-ence of caves. Their ideas as regards the meaning of the site plan and the probablefunction of Maax Na as a ritual pilgrimage centre are interesting and stimulating. How-ever, even though the factual evidence they present is rich and diverse, it does not seem torender sufficient support to their disproportionately lengthy and generalising theoreticaldiscussion on the importance of the heterarchical view for the understanding of the Mayasocial organisation.

Guderjan, Baker and Lichtenstein (Chapter 7) summarise the data on the BlueCreek site and its environmental characteristics. They interpret the constituent parts orgroups of the site, which they label residential components, as resource-specific commu-nities, but they do not relate them to bajos, terraces and aguadas, as Scarborough andValdez do in Chapter 1. In fact, they observe, on one hand, that there are many other kindsof resources except from those so far identified by Scarborough and Valdez, and, on theother hand, that “significant diversity exists among communities that literally share thesame resource base” (p. 90).

Kunen and Hughbanks (Chapter 8) discuss the so-called bajo communities. Lo-cated around seasonal wetlands, these settlements differ in size and complexity, rangingfrom small rural farmsteads to minor centres. The authors describe terraces, berms andother features proving the agricultural use of the sloping margins of bajos, and suggest thatthe bajo communities are characterised by diverse resource availability and specialised inboth agricultural production and extraction of bajo resources, such as chert, clay andwater.

Hageman and Lohse (Chapter 9) discuss the Late Classic period resource man-agement in northwestern Belize, in which they attempt to discern corporate groups –mostly identical to lineages – in the archaeological record. They suggest that peripheralgroups around the site of Dos Hombres were virtually independent from the central au-thority, though internally ranked; as political entities within the Dos Hombres community,these corporate groups controlled their local environments and agricultural resource bases.Using comparative data, the authors also assume that corporate groups would have ap-peared in circumstances of restricted access to important resources.

Lewis (Chapter 10) examines the relationships among the natural distribution ofchert, the systems of agricultural biface specialisation, and the degree of centralised con-trol over the production and distribution of biface tools in the Three Rivers Region, and

117

argues there was a high degree of specialisation, with both heterarchical and hierarchi-cally controlled lithic production and distribution. For example, the site of Cabeza Verde inBelize represents a case of ‘community specialisation’, with a relatively low per capitasurplus production, a number of part-time specialists and a household-based production;the observed pattern is most likely related to the relatively ubiquitous distribution of naturalchert deposits of comparable quality. On the other hand, at El Pedernal, a site near RioAzul in Guatemala, the resource circumscription resulted in a higher degree of specialisationprobably embedded in a hierarchical system of organisation and reflected in the centralisedworkshop location, formalised production space (architecture) and the high levels of pro-duction surplus.

Crumley (Chapter 11) summarises the theoretical background of the concept ofheterarchy, which she introduced into to the study of complex societies in the context ofEuropean Iron Age. She argues that forms of order in such societies are not only hierar-chical in nature, but rather also contain interactive elements that need not be permanentlyranked relative to one another. She then presents different aspects of social organisationthat can be defined as heterarchical both for the La T~ne (Late Iron Age) Celtic societiesin east central France and for the ancient Maya, taking into account the environmentalheterogeneity and the consequent production diversification in both cases.

The impressions one has upon reading this book are variable. On one hand, con-siderable portions of the text in several chapters within this volume are dedicated to theauthors’ attempts to select and underline certain aspects of the Maya social order that fitthe definition of heterarchy, and to distinguish them from those that do not. These effortsdo not appear to be particularly productive per se: rather than providing novel explana-tions based on the data at hand, they often draw heavily upon the formerly existing inter-pretations of other authors who, therefore, must have been well aware of the relationswithin the Maya society that can be defined as heterarchical, even if they have not em-ployed the term. Consequently, the introduction of the heterarchy concept, while it mayhave resulted in a greater emphasis on certain aspects of Maya social organisation thathave so far not been given sufficient attention, seems to be much more a terminologicalinnovation than an original methodological approach that would contribute to a substan-tially better understanding of the ancient Maya political economy.

On the other hand, and the above critical remarks notwithstanding, the bookpresents very important new data and original specific results of the recent research in theThree Rivers Region, with due emphases on several characteristics of Maya subsistenceand socio-political structure that have until now been neglected. I wonder whether theintroduction of the heterarchy concept was the only way to achieve these results; if it was,it is certainly to be applauded.

118


Arthur Demarest. 2004.Anciet Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xvi + 373 pp.Pb.: 18.99 £. ISBN: 0521533902.Hb.: 45.00 £. ISBN: 052152240.

Fernando C. Atasta Flores EsquivelEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D.F., Mexico

This book is the third of a series whose main purpose is to introduce students toancient societies treated in each publication. In the present volume we find a remarkablework of synthesis and an overview of diverse interesting topics about the ancient Mayacivilization, beside more specific problems concerning the study of this culture. As theauthor explains, the specific interests are the problem of the Maya adaptation to theirnatural environment and subsistence, the socio-political and ideological implications re-lated with the huge investment of Classic Maya societies in art, and the largely discussedproblem of the “Classic Maya Collapse”.

The highlights of this book are the explicit theoretical and historical perspectivesdiscussed in close relation with the themes presented. Among these, the notion of a di-verse and continuously changing Maya tradition, instead of a fossilized ancient culturewho suddenly “disappeared” or entered into “decadence”, is a central concept of thework. In relation with the main themes contained in the book, we have to mention thebrilliant treatment concerning the ecological adaptation and subsistence of the ancientMaya, presented as a successful two-thousand year exploitation of the numerous ecologi-cal niches and micro-environments of the rain forest, due to the combination of disper-sion and variability of ancient Maya societies in their settlement patterns and agriculturaltechniques. The theoretical perspective related to the second problem conceives the Clas-sic Maya as a diverse and complex mosaic of “theatre states” with under-developedmarket economies and decentralized subsistence systems, whose elites relied heavily onideology and religious ceremonial as the main sources of their socio-political power, hav-ing little or no interference in subsistence economies and management of production anddistribution of goods (except those goods that are sumptuary in nature). And finally, thecollapse at the end of the Classic period is presented as a complex process marked byregional dynamics of transition and transformation, which finally led to the end of the“K’uhul Ahau system”, due to its failure to respond effectively to social and environmen-tal stresses, resulting in the ascension of more developed market-exchange societies dur-ing the Postclassic period. The chapters are summarized below.

In Chapter 1 the author offers a brief account of traditional interests of Westernexplorers in the ancient Maya, making a reflection about the fact that after all, the “past isa ‘text’ into which those in the present ‘read’ their own meanings and reflect their ownconcerns”.

Chapter 2 treats the geography of the Maya area and its relation with

119

Mesoamerica, discusses some of the chronological frameworks employed in the area,summarizes different theoretical perspectives applied to the “Maya problem”, and con-cludes with the author’s personal theoretical position, who considers himself to be aneclectic between some processual approaches and a more self-reflective post-processualperspective.

Chapter 3 summarizes the history of Maya studies, since the first Spanish chroni-clers till the modern archaeological investigations, signalling the moments and actors whorepresented substantial innovations in the direction of research and theoretical perspec-tives.

Chapter 4 is mainly historical and ranges from the earliest occupations in Americato the rise of the first complex societies in the Maya area. It discusses the “Olmec prob-lem”, gives a picture of the socio-political development during the Preclassic period withineach region of the Maya area, and concludes with the unresolved question about the“sudden civilization” in the Lowlands, rejecting elite management theories and externalinfluences as causal factors.

Chapter 5 discusses the “essence” of Classic Maya civilization, stating that ashared political ideology was an important unifying factor throughout the Maya area. Itdescribes the Classic Maya city and some of the research problems for this period, likethose of the transition from the Late Preclassic, the ascendance of the Maya dynastiesand their relations with the Mexican highlands, and the process of regionalism in the LateClassic period.

The ecological adaptations of the ancient Maya are treated in Chapter 6, begin-ning with the characterization of the Maya household in terms of function and morphol-ogy. It continues by discussing the dispersion of Classic Maya urban landscapes, the popu-lations they could hold and their diverse rainforest environments, and describes the differ-ent agricultural strategies employed in ancient times. An interesting discussion about thehydraulic systems leads the author to recognize at least some exceptional examples of apossible state management of agriculture and hydraulic systems.

Chapter 7 discusses the Maya economy, pointing to the self-sufficiency of majorcenters in subsistence, the rather poorly developed exchange systems, and the minimalcontrol of the state in this matter, except for the well structured long distance trade forsome basic commodities and sumptuary goods required by the elites. The routes of ex-change and how the society was organized for production are also considered, withoutlosing from sight the regional variations and some aspects that are still poorly understood.

In Chapter 8, the author deals with the second main theme of the book, exposingthe ideological and religious factors that shaped many objects of traditional attention inMaya archaeology: architecture, cosmology, and astronomical and calendrical knowledge,all in close connection with the social and political structure of the theatre states and withthe reproduction of the power of the elites.

Chapter 9 talks about the Classic Maya politics and their history, within the frame-work of the “galactic polities” and “theatre states” model, providing a brief insight into thedynamics present in each region.

120


E. Wyllys Andrews and William L. Fash (eds.). 2005.Copán: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom.Santa Fe: School of American Research & Oxford: James Currey. xvi + 492 pp.Pb.: 19.95 £.ISBN: 0 85255 981-X.

Fernando C. Atasta Flores EsquivelEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D.F., Mexico

The present volume contains a series of works originally presented during theCopán seminar of October 1994 at the School of American Research in Santa Fe, NewMexico. For publication, all the chapters were revised and actualized by their respectiveauthors and they represent some of the results of three decades of fieldwork at Copán bydifferent projects, and their efforts in reconstructing diverse aspects of the history of theCopán Valley, perhaps the most vast and complete case study in Maya archaeology. Thisis a basic monograph for the study of that ancient Maya site, providing a remarkablehistorical perspective and a very useful tool for comparative purposes, even though it isfocused almost exclusively on the ancient elites at Copán.

In Chapter 1, the authors introduce the themes of the seminar, and comment onthe different archaeological investigations in the Copán Valley and their research pur-poses, ending with a brief historical ‘synopsis’ of the site. David Webster, in Chapter 2,discusses the economical, social, and political aspects related with the management andsubsistence practices within the Copán Valley during the Classic period. Two modelsderived from field research (the ‘settlement’ and ‘soil’ models) are tested in order tooutline the demographic growth of the valley, and another pair (the ‘lineage’ and ‘Hawai-ian’ models) to define the political structure of the Copán kingdom and provide someinsights into the relation between the elites and the agrarian management strategies throughthe dynastic sequence of the site, and also to the socio-political stresses that led to theabandonment of the valley.

In Chapter 3, William Fash exposes the “Social History of the Copán Valley”,from the first evidences of occupation within it until the disintegration of the dynastic

In Chapter 10, the author discusses the Classic Maya collapse, the third maintheme. It delineates the process within each region of the Maya area, exposing the pos-sible causes and consequences of this general process of regionalism.

Chapter 11 gives a brief overview of the changing Maya traditions through thePostclassic, Conquest, colonial and modern times, primarily to signify that the Classiccollapse was mainly a profound transformation, not a disappearance. Finally, in Chapter12 the author offers a short reflection about the ancient Maya and their meaning for ourmodern societies. Certainly, this is basic reading for all of those interested in Maya cul-ture.

121

system. The notion of distinct elite competitive groups and the galactic polity model is thecentral perspective in this chapter. It delineates the setting of the dynastic system, ex-poses in some detail the sequence inside structure 10L-26, and also mentions some otherelite architectural groups throughout the valley, discussing the interesting idea of replica-tion of the royal compound by non-royal elites, like the one found in group 9N-8.

In Chapter 4, Barbara Fash describes the social organization of the Copán polity,which she sees as being basically composed by communities of lineage groups organizedinto larger units who were ascribed to particular water sources (mainly ‘still’ water sources)and to their religious and economic management. She sustains this idea on ethnographicanalogies with other Maya and non-Maya groups, and with the interesting iconographicanalysis of architectural features of elite buildings and monuments. The distinctive elitegroups throughout the valley could have been the residence of the heads of such ‘WaterHole’ communities, which perhaps were represented on the ‘council house’ at the acropo-lis, an institution that the author considers could be older than is traditionally believed.

In Chapter 5, Sharer et al. discuss the architectonic sequence of the Acropoliscomplex, the heart of the Copán’s polity, through the establishment of time spans with theemphasis on the Early Classic period. They describe the pre-dynastic occupation of thearea, and how the arriving of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, the founder of the dynasty, inaugu-rated a period of intense construction activity beginning with the setting up of three initialarchitectonic complexes. They continue with the successive rulers, highlighting the greatbuilding projects of Ruler 8, and finish with brief comments on the Late Classic modifica-tions by rulers 12-16, far less voluminous than the Early Classic construction.

In Chapter 6, Agurcia and B. Fash treat, in more detail, the evolution of one ofthe Acropolis buildings: Structure 10L-16. They begin by describing the earliest sub-struc-tures, and in great detail follow on with the formal and iconographic characteristics of twoimpressive subsequent phases: the Rosalila and 10L-16 1st buildings. They conclude withsome thoughts about the symbolism of this building and the continuous commemoration ofthe founder of the dynasty, and the “Sun Kings of Copán”, as expressed in Altar Q.

In Chapter 7, Andrews and Bill give an account of the architectural sequence ofGroup 10L-2, situated at the south side of the Copán Acropolis, and of possible functionsof this group as a whole and the individual structures in the two excavated courtyards.They believe that this group was the residence of the Copán ruler’s family in Late Classictimes, when they moved from the Acropolis displacing earlier inhabitants. Nevertheless,they recognize that there is no compelling evidence for this until the period of Ruler 16,who erected the monuments present at the group and ordered substantial construction.Finally, it is interesting to note how they view archaeologically some changing functionswithin some areas prior to the abandonment of the site, and how the process of thisabandonment occurred in Group 10L-2.

In Chapter 8, Storey shows the results of an analysis of a small sample of elitemale skeletal remains from the Acropolis and Groups 10L-2 and 9N-8. Confronting thecapacities and limits of bone analysis, she gives an overview of interesting facts concern-ing the burial costumes among this group and lifestyles of their individuals (nutrition, physi-cal activities, etc.). She concludes that, despite their social position, during their childhood

122


the elite individuals suffered some health stresses deriving from low nutrition and/or chronicdisease.

Chapters 9 and 10 deal with the epigraphic information of some Copán inscrip-tions. In the first, Schele and Looper discuss the implications of the “impinged-bone”glyph as an indicator of particular places with tremendous political and religious impor-tance, expressions of the divine and social order. Stuart, on the other hand, discusses somenotions of time and history among the Maya through the inscriptions of Structure 10L-26.After analyzing the contents of the Hieroglyphic Stairway and the inscriptions of the up-per temple, he concludes that Structure 10L-26 represents in some sense a revitalizationof the royal institution by commemorating all the dynastic line, and the life the rulerssubsequent to the founder of the dynasty, with special reference to Ruler 12.

Finally, in Chapter 11 Andrews and Fash present an interesting overview anddiscussion of all the different themes and problems treated by the authors within the book,introducing some information not contained in its pages, and showing some of their con-cluding agreements and disagreements.

Thomas Heyd and John Clegg (eds.). 2005.Aesthetics and Rock Art.Hampshire and Burlington: Ashgate. xxviii+ 316pp.Hb.: 55.00 £.ISBN: 0 7546 3924.

Maja [u{tar{i~Institutum Studiorium Humanitatis, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Paintings and engravings on rock surfaces occur in caves, under rock sheltersand in the open air all around the world. They were produced in numerous cultures and inmany time periods, with the majority belonging to prehistoric societies. In the history of thedisciplines of anthropology, archaeology and art history, rock art research was often treatedas a marginal field of human cultural expression, and only in the last few decades did theinterest for it increase, followed by a considerable progress in its research. For the mostpart, however, paintings and engravings were studied from a strictly formal point of viewor in connection with anthropological testimonies of their producers and consumers. De-spite the visual attractiveness of most rock art, scholars seldom considered it from theaesthetic point of view. Thomas Heyd, one of the editors of this volume, sees the reasonsfor the neglect of the aesthetic dimension in rock art, on the one hand, in an uncertaintythat archaeologists and anthropologists experience when dealing with notions of art andaesthetic, and on the other, in the ignorance of rock art on the part of art historians andphilosophers of aesthetics. Another reason for avoiding the subject is in the notion of “art”in the term “rock art” in itself that became questioned. Under consideration of westernmodernist conceptions of art, objections emerged whether one may ascribe art status toproducts of other societies.

123

Aesthetics and Rock Art, edited by Thomas Heyd, professor of philosophy atthe University of Victoria in Canada, and John Clegg, archaeologist and Honorary Associ-ate of the School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry at the University of Sydney,presents a new approach that stimulates the discussion on rock art from the aestheticpoint of view. The book offers a broad range of studies given by authors that originatefrom and are active in diverse theoretical fields. Rock art and aesthetics is being consid-ered by anthropologists, archaeologists, philosophers, art historians and a perceptual psy-chologist. These authors demonstrate the benefit of transcending the limitations posed bywestern conceptions of art in which aesthetics is entangled. The consequence of precon-ceptions connected with prehistoric representations was an avoidance of significant as-pects of visual manifestations. But such limitations only distracted researchers’ attentionfrom recognizing patterns and universalities that can be traced in particular rock art andare crucial for the understanding of any culturally and temporally remote phenomena.

The publication is divided into three parts: Theory: The Role of Aesthetics inRock Art Research, Aesthetic Appreciation of Rock Art: Constitutive Factors, andCase Studies: Opportunities and Tension in Cross-Cultural Appreciation. The firstpart combines articles that discuss the problem of legitimacy of appreciating rock art froman aesthetic perspective. Philosopher Peter Lamarque discusses the problem of whetheraesthetics can and should play a role in the study of rock art. He sees in aesthetics apossibility of finding qualities that can transcend its own historical roots in the westerncategorisation of art, and can apply not just across time but also across cultures. ThomasHeyd deals with prejudices in connection with aesthetics and rock art and concludes thatthe signs on rock can be a rich source of aesthetic experience. Anthropologist HowardMorphy questions the definitions of aesthetics and art and sees the solution in a disen-tanglement of aesthetics and art. Since art is so much involved in culturally laden concep-tions of the 19th century western world, aesthetic categories can be applied to manifesta-tions from beyond our own cultural context. Art historian Reinaldo Morales discusses thearguments that reject the use of concepts of aesthetics and art in prehistoric visual repre-sentations and those that support it. Using the example of San/Bushmen rock art in SouthAfrica, William R. Domeris, archaeologist, shows the unproductiveness of doubts on con-sidering rock art as art. He proposes that we consider rock art manifestations from threepoints of view – in terms of the aesthetics of form, of function and of history – andconcludes that we can incorporate an aesthetics perspective when we broaden the notionof it.

The second part incorporates articles that consider the aesthetic value found inrock art. The texts presented here are by art historians Michael Eastham and MasaruOgawa, perceptual psychologist J.B. Derêgowski, anthropologist Ute Eickelkamp, archae-ologist John Clegg and Rowan Wilken, who consider the problem from the field of com-munication studies. The subjects discussed vary from prehistoric cave art in southwesternFrance to parietal representations on rocks in Australia.

The last part includes articles that test and apply an aesthetic perspective toparticular examples of rock art from different areas around the world. Archaeologist JohnColes illuminates Scandinavian rock art, art historian Pippa Skotnes deals with South Af-

124


Janusz Krzysztof Koz³owski. 2004.Wielka historia œwiata. Tom 1. Œviat przed “rewolucj¹ ” neoliticzn¹ .Kraków: FOGRA. 768 pp. Hb.: 95 Plz. ISBN 8385719814;

Göran Burenhult. (ed.). 2004.People of the Past. The Illustrated History of Humankind. The EpicStory of Human Origins and Development.San Francisco: Fog City Press. 464 pp. Hb.: 25 £. ISBN 1 877019 30 5;

Chris Scarre. (ed.). 2005.The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of HumanSocieties.London: Thames and Hudson. 784 pp. Pb.: 21 £. ISBN 13 9780500285312.

Boris KavurUniversity of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia

After the initial explosion of popular science books on prehistoric archaeology,and especially on human evolution and European prehistory, the late nineties were frus-trating. It looked as if the quantity of research and the quantity of new finds and discover-ies made any new synthesis on the subject impossible. At the very moment an overviewwould be written it would also be out of date. However, with the new millennium camenew perspectives – instead of a single author, groups of authors, specialists for differentperiods and regions collaborated in the production of a book. At the same time the shiftmoved from the Eurocentric perspective to a global one. This evolution was already fore-seen in Graham Clark’s visionary World Prehistory. When first published in 1961, 57percent dealt with western Eurasia, in the second edition from 1969 the proportion dropped

rican - San parietal paintings in connection with the experience of modern art, AndreaStone investigates engravings on rocks found in the caves in Yucatan, George Nash pre-sents textual petroglyphic images on the rocks in Indonesia, and finally, archaeologist SvenOuzman deals once more with the San rock art.

This collection of 16 essays illustrates how an approach deriving from the aes-thetics adds to the understanding of rock art and shows how a focus on rock art cancontribute to new perspectives in aesthetics and the origins of visual expression in prehis-tory. New approaches promoted in this volume will hopefully encourage other researchersand theorists to consider and investigate aesthetic manifestations of peoples from otherplaces and periods. As Jean Clottes writes in his foreword to this book, “aesthetics help usbetter understand that particular rock art and the long-gone people who made it.”

125

Book reviews

to 52 percent and finally in the third edition in 1977 it claimed a mere 33 percent.However, the global perspective also created a new problem – the definition of

prehistory. This was clear in the European overviews, where even the Protohistoric liter-ate societies of Bronze Age Aegean and Iron Age Italian peninsula were included in theprehistory, but it became problematic in a global perspective, where different authors dealtwith different regions. Not only did they differ between local models of social and culturalevolution, they even differed in their intellectual background and research perspectives.Therefore, in order to present this literary and scientific output we have to observe andcompare at least several different books on a similar subject. To be able to evaluate theimportance of the books and their potential for scholars with an interest in prehistory, wehave to be aware of the circumstances in which all the knowledge presented in them wasaccumulated. The recent focus on primarily English speaking authors and scientific tradi-tions, which actually created the Eurocentric crisis of prehistoric research, only rarelyincluded authors educated and working outside of Europe and the USA, but most of all, itwas ignorant of scholarly traditions from the countries of the former Eastern block. But itis not only the organisation and style of narration; ultimately we also have to be aware ofthe visual attractiveness of the books intended for the general public.

The first volume, entitled The World before the Neolithic ‘Revolution’ waswritten by Janusz Koz³owski. It is the first volume of the Wielka historia œwiata, anambitious Polish scientific project started in 2004. Drawing on its experience from thesuccessfully completed project Wielka historia Polski, the FOGRA publishing companyproceeded with its collaboration with the Polish Academy of Sciences in establishing ascientific project comparable only to the projects conducted by UNESCO in the past. Itsillustrations show that the book was never fully intended for the general public, since itmostly employs the archaeological illustrations of artefacts, a method informative only tospecialists with specialised knowledge on the topic. The strong point of the book are thephotographs of the sites mentioned in the text, which were taken by the author himself.They indirectly prove that the author is currently the greatest specialist on the topic withan unprecedented firsthand experience. The strongest point of the volume is the fact thatit was written by a single person and all subjects are discussed in a similar way. Asregards the international promotion of this important book, the only problem lays in the factthat it was published in Polish, a language that, despite the long history of excellent Polishinternational archaeological research, is still rather unknown to European readers.

The second volume entitled People of the Past was edited by Göran Burenhult.It is the first volume in a series that intends to present the history of humankind in apopular version intended for the general public. It presents the work of over 60 authorsfrom around the world who have all contributed their knowledge as well as the magnifi-cent illustrations to the volume. The illustrations, but most of all, the photographs of thesites and finds, immediately attract the reader’s attention. For decades many of the keyarchaeological sites and finds were represented in literature only by modest initial photo-graphs, but the big circle of collaborators provided a large set of new ones, published forthe very first time. From this perspective the book sets new standards for the future visual

126


outfit of popular works on archaeology.The third volume entitled The Human Past, edited by Chris Scarre, presents the

noblest conservative tradition of English speaking popular archaeology presentations. Ed-ited by the currently most productive editor of books presenting archaeological heritage tothe public, it was written by a smaller group of English speaking specialists and althoughintended for a more informed reader, it has the potential – partly due to the fact that it waspublished by a major publishing company – to become the most widely circulated manualon this subject. The biggest drawback of the project is the fact that the majority of theillustrations were reproduced in greyscale, which makes the book, intended for the gen-eral public, visually rather unattractive. The second problem is that it employs severalillustrations and photographsm which are a standard depiction in archaeological literature,commonly reproduced by the same publishing company. A project of this dimension, con-structed already in advance in such a manner that it can be updated and republished in thefuture, should invest into producing a new and innovative set of visual materials to supportits contents.

The three discussed books present three different approaches to the presenta-tion of the subject. Œviat przed ‘rewolucj¹ ’ neoliticzn¹ was written by a single authorand published in a series intended only for the Polish national readership, People of thePast was written by a great number of authors from around the world and published in aseries intended for the global readership, and finally The Human Past was written by anumber of authors from the English speaking countries, intended to be a single volume forthe readership around the world. All three of them were organised on similar principles -the basic structure follows a temporal succession and a spatial division of the presentedcultures and evolutionary events. We can describe the three books as the most up-to-datepresentations of human cultural evolution in prehistory. Since the aspects of human physi-cal evolution are presented, they are clearly archaeological and historical books, but this isperformed in a rather reduced manner and with the use of the anatomical explanationsonly to illustrate their influence on the social skills of the hominids and their role as thefounders of the cultural evolution. However, it is the endpoints of the books that createsignificant differences in the applied concepts.

In Koz³owski’s book the chronological marker for the end of the presented sub-ject is clear – we could say that it is a cultural boundary, but actually this boundary was thestrongest reminiscence of the Eurocentric conception of the socio-cultural evolution. It isbased on two assumptions – that ‘neolitization’ was a historical necessity and that it markedthe beginning of big civilisations, structurally different from the civilisations of hunters andgatherers. It was not the needs and pressures of the societies that changed their modes ofproduction, but the outcomes of this production that played a crucial role. Once more thisbrings us back to the Eurocentric view – there were, and are, hunters and gatherers in theworld whose economics remained unchanged until recently, and the earliest big civilisationsof the Near East were not even remotely agricultural. Since we are unable to detect anyintention to deconstruct the concepts of ‘neolitization’, we have to conclude that despite ofthe title, the author retained his position strongly embedded in the combination of the

127

chronological and cultural traditions of European prehistoric research. The book basicallydeals with the Palaeolithic – the hunter-gatherers in the Ice Age, and the Mesolithic as acultural appendix to the former.

On the other hand the approach used in Burenhult’s book presents a differentpoint of view. In this case, the marker for the end of the presented part of prehistory ispurely technological: the book ends with the introduction of metallurgy. We can assumethe foundation for this decision in one of the final chapters of the book: it explains in aliterary mode why some societies never became farmers. On close reading it does notexplain a lot; rather, it offers an apology to those who would expect this socio-culturalevent to be presented as the crucial innovation in our human past. This approach includesseveral big civilisations that were urbanised and literate, but never adopted metallurgy ona wider scale, into prehistory.

The Human Past presents the third approach to the subject. Actually we couldjudge this last approach as a little bit problematic: there is a big difference in the chronol-ogy of the included civilisations and it is organised on a territorial principle. When dealingwith Europe it includes all civilisations prior to the Early Middle Ages but in Americas,Africa and Asia the presentations end with the period of intensifying contacts with Euro-peans. Even if the editor wanted to end his story with an early image of globalisation, theresults were different; an educated and socially critical reader becomes aware that theglobal spread of European influence at the end of the Middle Ages provoked the vanishingof many presented cultural traditions.

All three books are not only about human evolution and prehistory, they are pre-sentations of the path from the colourful biological and cultural diversity of our ancestorstowards the unusual unity of humanity. They provide us with a part of the answer to theeternal question of where we come from and satisfy our voyeuristic desires to take a peekinto the lives of different peoples around the world and during different periods.

Documents

Anthropological Notebooks-Reseñas