EC Archit at Copan

EARLY CLASSIC ARCHITECTURE BENEATHTHE COPAN ACROPOLIS

A research update

Robert J. Sharer,a Loa P. Traxler,b David W. Sedat,a Ellen E. Bell,c Marcello A. Canuto,c

and Christopher PowelldaAmerican Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USAbPre-Columbian Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC 20007, USAcDepartment of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USAdInstitute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Abstract

Excavations beneath the Copan Acropolis provide the most complete record known for the origins and development of an EarlyClassic Maya royal complex (ca.a.d. 420–650). Beginning at the time of the historically identified dynastic founder, the earliestlevels include the first royal compound, centered on a smalltalud-tableroplatform, a vaulted tomb that may be that of the founder,and an adjacent tomb that may be that of the founder’s wife and dynastic matriarch. The timing and development of architectureprovide evidence of the founding and growth of Copan as the capital of a Classic-period polity during the reigns of the first sevenkings (a.d. 426–544). By the reigns of Rulers 8–11 (a.d. 544–628), the Early Classic Acropolis covered about the same area as itsfinal version in the Late Classic. Documentation of specific Acropolis buildings provides evidence of the external connections thatreinforced the authority of Copan’s Early Classic kings. Building sequences reflect the perpetuation of political power by usingimportant locations as symbolic links to the sacred past. The Early Classic Acropolis also provides new evidence for thebeginnings of palace architecture that have important implications for the origins of Maya state-level organizations. Overall, thefindings from the Early Classic Copan Acropolis promise to significantly advance our understanding of the origins anddevelopment of Maya state systems.

The Early Classic architectural history of the Copan Acropolis,the famous royal center in the heart of this well-known ClassicMaya site in western Honduras, has been investigated by the EarlyCopan Acropolis Program (ECAP) of the University of Pennsyl-vania Museum since 1989. ECAP is part of a long-term multi-institutional effort composed of archaeologists from Honduras, theUnited States, and several other nations.

We have previously published preliminary summaries of theAcropolis architectural development based on our initial seasonsof research, including a paper published in this journal (Shareret al. 1992). Since these reports were published, our excavationshave reached both the base of the Acropolis architectural se-quence and a self-imposed limit on the lateral extent of our exca-vations. All new excavation ceased at the end of the 1996 fieldseason, although several primary deposits (caches and tombs) con-tinue to be investigated. The documentation and conservation ofarchitecture exposed by excavation also continues.

The results of our investigations to the present provide somemajor additions to the architectural history of the Copan Acropo-lis.Accordingly, we offer an updated review of the results of ECAP’sresearch and an interpretative summary of the development of theAcropolis during the Early Classic era, circaa.d. 420–650. Thisis not intended to be a traditional archaeological summary. Fromthe inception of ECAP, the Copan Acropolis has been the focus ofconjunctive research—combining and testing the results gained

by archaeology with those gained from bioanthropology, epigra-phy, iconography, and other disciplines (Fash and Sharer 1991).In this case, the summary offered will emphasize the conjunctionof archaeological and historical information. It will follow the ma-jor episodes in the expansion of the Early Classic Acropolis re-vealed by archaeology, highlighting examples of selected buildings,tombs, and similar important features, and correlate these to thehistorical dynastic sequence (Table 1). More detailed informationabout the archaeology and architecture of the Early Classic Acrop-olis can be found in a series of recent papers and publications (Agur-cia F. 1996, 1997; Fash et al. 1992; Sedat 1996; Sedat and Sharer1996; Sharer 1996; Sharer et al. 1999; Traxler 1996; Williamson1996).

RESEARCH METHODS

As previously described (Sharer et al. 1992:145–149, Figure 3),ECAP has relied almost exclusively on tunneling to document theremains of architecture beneath the Copan Acropolis. The prevail-ing methods used at most Maya sites rely on surface excavationsto expose architectural sequences, the majority of which date tothe Late Classic era (ca.a.d. 650–850). Because of the limitationsof trenches and test pits, however, especially in dealing with thelong-term accumulations of architecture often associated withClassic-era polity centers, we usually know far less about the deeply

Ancient Mesoamerica, 10 (1999), 3–23Copyright © 1999 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

3

buried earliest building stages. Limited tunneling combined withtrenching at such long-term building complexes as the North Acrop-olis at Tikal (Coe 1990) has yielded important examples of Mayaroyal architectural sequences. At Copan, however, the unique op-portunity to excavate an extensive network of tunnels beneath theAcropolis has provided data regarding the origins and develop-ment of Early Classic royal architecture on a scale unmatched atany other Maya site.

The opportunity to use tunnels to reveal the Copan Acropolisbuilding sequence is provided by the “corte” the famous cross sec-tion exposed by erosion from the Copan River along the easternedge of this complex (Sharer et al. 1992:Figure 2). Thecorteex-posure reveals a stratified sequence of the buildings used by Co-pan’s rulers for some 400 years. In 1989, we started tunnelingwestward from thecorte to follow and expose buried architectureat each level of the Acropolis for definition of the full sequence ofbuilding episodes. By the end of excavation in 1996, ECAP hadopened some 3 km of tunnels. The ECAP tunnels join with thoseexcavated by Ricardo Agurcia F. beneath Structure 10L-16 (Agur-cia F. 1996, 1997) and William Fash beneath Structure 10L-26 (W.Fash 1999; Fash et al. 1992; Williamson 1996). Together, theseexcavations form the most extensive system of tunnels ever exca-vated at a Maya site, covering the eastern two-thirds of the CopanAcropolis.

Unlike trenching, tunneling allows more complete documenta-tion of architecture without destroying overlying construction. Ourtunnels are excavated through the compacted fill (very stable wet-laid earth and rock) placed by the Maya to bury their buildings.Within these tunnels, test pits are excavated through floors to makestratigraphic linkages, but only rarely is it necessary to tunnelthrough platform facades or building walls (done only after thor-ough documentation for later reconstruction).

The Copan Acropolis is the result of four centuries of super-imposed construction. This accumulation is a reflection of pastMaya traditions, practices, and beliefs, and our study attempts todiscover as much as possible about this ancient behavior. For ex-

ample, the dedication and termination of buildings were markedby important rituals, some of which left recoverable residues thatcan be analyzed and interpreted. It is apparent that, for the Maya,the placing of new structures atop those that had been terminatedreflected the cycle of life—the birth, life, death, burial, and rebirthof buildings. It is also clear that certain buildings were associatedwith important kings or auspicious events. These associations gavesuch structures sacred qualities, so that their locations were com-memorated long thereafter by a series of later buildings con-structed over the same location. Architectural superimposition alsohas the practical benefit of reducing the effort needed to build higherand more massive constructions. Thus, both practical and ideolog-ical purposes were served by sequences of buildings that occupiedthe same location and often continued to be dedicated to the samepurpose.

In the Copan Acropolis, substructures were usually buried in-tact; the Maya usually demolished only the upper parts (super-structures) of buildings before they were buried by a successor.Thus, enough remains of most obsolete buildings to document ac-tual and projected architectural plans using computer mapping tech-nology (Traxler 1996). In the end, architectural superimpositionallows us to record a stratified sequence of architectural plans andother details, such as construction methods and building decora-tions. Associated evidence from primary deposits including caches,burials, and tombs are recorded and conserved along with archi-tectural remains. (Middens and remains of activity areas are onlyrarely found beneath the Acropolis.) These archaeological data arecombined with other sources of information, such as several newlydiscovered associated hieroglyphic texts, to form the basis of theconjunctive approach that underlies our research.

THE EARLIEST LEVELS BENEATH THE ACROPOLIS:CIRCA A.D. 250–420

The deepest levels in the water-saturated soils beneath the Acrop-olis have been probed by both ECAP excavations and several test

Table 1. Copan dynastic sequence and acropolis architecture

Time Spana.d.Ruler

(Order of Succession and Name) Major Associated Architecture

763-822 16 (Yax Pasah) Structure 10L-18 (presumed tomb & shrine), Structure 10L-21A, Structure 10L-16,Structure 10L-11

749-763 15 (Smoke Shell) Structure 10L-26-1st738-749 14 (Smoke Monkey) Structure 10L-22A695-738 13 (Eighteen Rabbit) Structure 10L-21 (presumed shrine), Structure 10L-22, Structure 10L-26-2nd,

Ball Court III, Ball Court IIB628-695 12 (Smoke Imix) Esmeralda (presumed shrine), “Scribes’s Tomb” (presumed tomb), Chorcha578-628 11 (Butz Chan)553-578 10 (Moon Jaguar) Ante rededication (a.d. 573), Rosalila (a.d. 571), Ball Court IIACa. 544–553 8 & 9 (names unknown)Ca. 504–544 7 (Waterlily Jaguar) Sub-Jaguar Tomb (presumed tomb), Ante (a.d. 542), ZopiloteCa. 490–504 5 & 6 (names unknown)Ca. 480–490 4 (Cu Ix) Papagayo rededication, Mascaron?, Chilan?Ca. 472–480 3 (name unknown)437–ca. 472 2 (K’inich Ahpop) Papagayo (Stela 63), Motmot (Motmot Marker), Ball Court I, Margarita Tomb

(presumed tomb of Ruler 2’s mother), Margarita, Yehnal (Xucpi Stone?)426–437 1 (K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’) Hunal Tomb (presumed tomb), Yax, Hunal

Note:Sources for dynastic sequence Fash (1991) and variousCopán Notes(Linda Schele, editor).

4 Sharer et al.

pits dug along thecorte before our work began (Becker 1983;Murillo 1989). Although the picture is limited, these probes havefound an approximately 2-m-thick deposit of fill and outwash con-taining domestic debris. The base of this deposit is at 583.45 m,below which are apparent natural, water-laid strata indicative ofancient back swamps along the Copan River. This lowest culturaldeposit appears to have accumulated by both natural forces andhuman domestic activity during the span of circaa.d. 250–400(corresponding to the Bijac ceramic complex at Copan), beforeany large-scale royal architecture was constructed at this locus.Within this basal deposit, there are indications of several localizedoccupation surfaces and features. Murillo (1989) found low cob-ble platforms in the lowest levels at the southern end of thecorte.To the north, an ECAP stratigraphic probe found the eastern edgeof a cobble substructure associated with domestic debris withinthe basal stratum at an elevation of 584.75 m.

There is evidence of Bijac-period cobble construction else-where at Copan (Cheek 1983; Webster et al. 1986). There are alsoretrospective historical references to rulers in power during thisera at Copan (Schele 1987; Stuart 1986), including the earliestknown retrospective date of 8.6.0.0.0, ora.d. 159 (Stuart 1989a).The earliest known Copan artifact with a Maya date, an incisedpeccary skull at 8.17.0.0.0, ora.d. 376, depicts two royal figures(see Fash 1991:52). The absence of evidence for any substantialarchitecture beneath the Acropolis dating to this time indicates thatthe royal center for Copan’s earliest rulers must have been locatedelsewhere, perhaps under the modern town of Copan Ruinas, ashas been previously suggested (Fash and Sharer 1991), or else-where beneath the Main Group.

THE INITIAL ROYAL COMPLEX AND THE DYNASTICFOUNDER: CIRCA A.D. 420–440

Other than being relatively modest in scale, we know little aboutthe Bijac-era constructions beneath the Acropolis. There is evi-dence, however, that these mundane remains were dramaticallytransformed near the beginning of the Acbi phase (ca.a.d. 400).The lowest ECAP tunnels have located the buildings of the initialroyal complex sponsored and used by the first Early Classic kingsof Copan’s historically recorded ruling dynasty. The location cho-sen for this new royal center was in the swampy bottomlands alongthe Copan River, adjacent to an apparent nonelite settlement alongthe riverbank (Sharer 1996). This choice of location is especiallyinteresting because Stuart (1999) has found a Late Classic text fromStructure 10L-26 that refers to Copan as a “place of reeds.” Thus,in at least this case, the archaeological evidence offers some jus-tification for what otherwise can be seen as a reference to a wide-spread Mesoamerican myth associated with the founding of cities.

The initial royal complex was composed of three architecturalgroups begun shortly aftera.d. 400. Hieroglyphic texts and dec-orative motifs discovered with some of the earliest structures inthese groups provide associations with the dynastic founder, YaxK’uk’ Mo’ and his son, K’inichAhpop (Ruler 2). These three groupsare designated the Mini-Acropolis of the South (MAS), the North-east Court Group, and the Structure 10L-26-Sub Group (Fig-ure 1). Collectively, the buildings in these groups were the majorfocus for the political, ritual, and residential activities conductedby Copan’s Early Classic kings (Sharer 1996). Soon after they werefounded, all three groups were linked by plaza surfaces, and bya.d. 540 they were integrated into a single elevated architectural

mass that formed an early version of the Acropolis still visible to-day (Sharer et al. 1999).

The group known as MAS is the core from which the Acropolisgrew (Sedat 1996; Sedat and Sharer 1996). It began shortly aftera.d. 400 as a cluster of buildings situated about 100 m west of theformer channel of the Copan River on a slightly raised area or“island” within the swampy floodplain. The construction of thefirst buildings in the MAS complex appears to have coincided withthe retrospectively recorded dynastic founding by Yax K’uk’ Mo’in a.d. 426 (Schele 1986; Stuart and Schele 1986). This new ar-chitectural complex was presumably founded to both physicallyand symbolically separate the center of Yax K’uk’ Mo’s powerfrom that of his predecessors.

The first stage of this new royal center was built on a low plat-form covering an area of approximately 703 70 m. Named theYune Platform, it was apparently bounded by a low parapet wall.Cobble-lined drains served the eastern and western sides of Yune.The western drain may have channeled water onto the platform,presumably for ritual purposes, while the eastern drain channeledwater from the platform toward the river (Sedat 1996). A branchof this eastern drain may have also channeled water to the North-east Court Group. Miller (1988) has noted the prominent under-water symbolism in the Acropolis West Court, which wasconstructed and used nearly four centuries after the western courtof the Yune Platform (see also B. Fash 1999).

Yune supported at least four buildings, each elevated on a lowsubstructure, two of which were built of tamped or puddled earthfill faced with adobe plaster that recall the architecture of Kami-naljuyu and other Maya highland sites (Sedat and Sharer 1996).The northern earth substructure was an especially important rituallocus that was continued by a superimposed series of three adobestructures for at least 150 years. The final substructure in the se-ries (Maravilla), plastered with adobe and painted red, supportedan adobe-walled summit building that faced west. Both this build-ing and its monumental, terraced substructure must have been pro-tected by a massive roof supported by four huge posts formed fromthe trunks of pine trees. (The heartwood of one post was still pre-served when found.) Maravilla was so important that it was main-tained for a considerable time, even as the expansion of theAcropolis eventually buried all but its summit building (Sedat 1996;Sharer et al. 1999).

The initial eastern building on the Yune Platform, nicknamedHunal, stands out because of its uniqueness. It is a low substruc-ture faced with well-fitted masonry blocks constructed in the EarlyClassictalud-tablerostyle associated with central Mexico (Fig-ure 2). Although buildings exhibiting this style are well knownfrom other Maya sites of this time period, such as Tikal (masonry)and Kaminaljuyu (adobe), Hunal’stalud-tablerofacade is, so far,unique for this time period at Copan (Sharer 1997). Hunal’s fa-cade was painted red and had a north-facing staircase. We havespeculated that Hunal may have been the actual “house of Yax K’uk’Mo’ ” commemorated in later inscriptions at Copan, and quite pos-sibly built at the time of his inauguration (a.d. 426). Unfortu-nately, its summit building was almost totally demolished by laterconstruction, but at least one interior wall stub with a curtain holdersurvives. This, together with its low substructure and lack of ex-terior decoration, suggests a possible residential function for Hu-nal. The surrounding demolition debris includes fragments ofpainted wall plaster, indicating that its interior walls were origi-nally decorated with brilliantly painted murals (Sedat 1996; Sedatand Sharer 1996).

Architecture beneath the Copan Acropolis 5

Figure 1. Computer-generated map of the earliest stages of construction beneath the Copan Acropolis, comprising 3 groups,spanning the era of circa A.D. 400–460. (Much of the architecture shown here dates to the end of this span; earlier structures, suchas Hunal and Yehnal beneath Margarita, are not shown.)

6 Sharer et al.

The demolition of the Hunal superstructure was associated withthe construction of a vaulted tomb under its floor. The tomb mea-sures 2.5 m long, 1.5 m wide, and 1.7 m high (Figure 3). Firstentered in 1996 and cleared of debris in 1997, the tomb contains asingle stone burial slab supported by four stone pedestals. Thecinnabar-painted bones of a single individual on its surface arethose of a robust adult male aged between 50 and 70 years at death,based on in situ assessments made by Jane Buikstra in 1997. Theremains are accompanied by jaguar canines (by the right leg), sting-ray spines and bone awls (by the left leg), a large tubular jade barpectoral and a cylindrical bead with a carved mat motif (both inthe chest area), a jade ear spool and perforated disk (by the leftshoulder), and cut-shell “spangles” (by the head). The floor belowthe slab holds an array of Early Classic funerary-offering vessels(Figure 4), along with several bones and artifacts (including an-other jade ear spool and perforated disk) apparently displaced bytransformational processes (Sharer 1997).

We currently favor the hypothesis that the Hunal Tomb is theburial place of Yax K’uk’ Mo’, supported by several lines ofevidence (Sedat and Sharer 1996; Sharer 1997). First, the tomb’sstratigraphic position and the vessels within it indicate a date atmid-fifth centurya.d., consistent with an expected death date forthe founder. Second, the mat design on the carved-jade bead is aMaya symbol for rulership. Third, there are interesting parallelswith later depictions of the founder, including the large jade barpectoral in the Hunal Tomb that is very similar to the single barpectoral worn by Yax K’uk’ Mo’ in his carved portrait on AltarQ. It should also be noted that the interred individual suffered asevere fracture of the right forearm, an injury that crippled himfor the remainder of his life. The depiction of Yax K’uk’ Mo’ onAltar Q portrays the founder with a small shield that protects hisright forearm, possibly recalling this injury. Fourth, and probably

most importantly, Hunal and its tomb established the symboliccenter for the Acropolis that was maintained by a succession ofat least seven temples built over this locus during the remainderof Copan’s dynastic history. A carved Early Classic text foundwithin the second building above Hunal (the Xucpi Stone, dis-cussed later) make explicit references to Yax K’uk’ Mo’. Thefinal temple in this sequence, Structure 10L-16, was decoratedby carved portraits of the founder and glyphic references to YaxK’uk’ Mo’ (Agurcia F. 1997).

We infer from several lines of evidence that, from its begin-nings, the MAS complex was the place where the dynastic founderand his successors conducted their ritual and administrative af-fairs (Sharer et al. 1999). In our reconstruction, Copan’s rulers livedand worked within this complex in their public roles as heads ofstate, although each probably maintained residences for their ever-expanding royal lineage in an adjacent palace complex (see North-east Court Group, below). The power and status of Copan’s kingscan be gauged by the unceasing construction in the MAS complexthat rapidly transformed it into a monumental acropolis. This con-struction activity consumed a vast amount of Copan’s resources,especially in the first century or so of its growth (Carrelli 1996).The high status of Copan’s kings and their far-flung connectionscan be seen in the array of fine offerings placed in their tombs.More visible and public were the manifestations of the prestigeand external ties of the Copan dynasty seen in the architectureand iconography of the MAS complex from its beginnings. Itsbuildings were stamped with the hallmark styles of other greatMesoamerican cities, including Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, and evenTeotihuacan (Sharer 1997). It should be borne in mind that theterritorial extent of the Copan polity as reconstructed by Marcus(1992) was at its maximum in the Early Classic period followingthe dynastic founding.

Figure 2. Photograph of the excavated, consolidated northern facade of the Hunal Substructure showing its single tablero modeledin red-painted plaster. (The low basal talud is obscured by shadow beneath the tablero.) The approximate position of the staircasedemolished in ancient times is indicated by the person at upper right.


Nearby, the second component of the new royal center, theNortheast Court Group (see Figure 1), was constructed overthe remains of earlier domestic activity along the west bank of theCopan River (Sharer 1996; Traxler 1996). The remains of this ear-lier occupation were capped by a new, extensive surface (the Chin-

chilla floor at an elevation of 585.35 m) that represents an initialplatform along the river. Its construction can be dated by associ-atedAcbi pottery and three calibrated radiocarbon dates from burnedwood in the fill beneath the floor (1-sigma ranges ata.d. 340–450, 410–550, and 410–600). Along the river, the Chinchilla Plat-

Figure 3. Photograph of the interior of the Hunal Tomb after clearing of debris, showing the remains of a single adult maleindividual on the surface of the burial slab. The slightly displaced cranium is on the south end of the slab at right center (the rightpelvis, most of the arm bones, and several other bones have also been displaced by fallen debris). The jade bar pectoral is visiblenorthwest (below) the mandible. A cluster of stingray spines and bone “awls” is located adjacent to the left tibia.

Figure 4. Pre-excavation photograph of the Early Classic vessels on the floor of the Hunal Tomb beneath the burial slab. Thenorthwest stone support for the burial slab is visible at far left.

8 Sharer et al.

form must have risen a meter or more in height, but as it extendedwestward it appears to have merged with higher ground and theYune Platform.

Chinchilla was soon covered by a more extensive platform(named Papo) that raised the occupational surface along the Co-pan River by a little more than a meter. The Papo Platform sup-ports the remains of adobe and plaster constructions that wereassociated with the initial royal complex. The available data alsoindicate that these structures were residential in function. Tracesof adobe platforms were found southeast of the Yune Platform dur-ing the consolidation of thecorte (but no ECAP investigation ofthis area could be undertaken). The largest and best documentedof these adjacent constructions, however, are northeast of the YunePlatform. Here were constructed a series of large earthen substruc-tures arranged around courtyards (see Figure 1), comprising theearliest stage of the Northeast Court Group (NE Courts 5A–C). Insize, these substructures ranged up to 123 16 m in area and ap-proximately 3 m high.

These earthen substructures supported substantial adobe-walledbuildings, several of which exhibit traces of thin interior-floor plas-ter. From their large size and location, we infer that these build-ings may represent Copan’s first-known royal palace complex,probably housing members of the royal lineage (Traxler 1996).We have only limited exposures of these substructures, and onlythe wall stubs of their summit buildings have survived. We know,however, that they were modified and expanded during their pe-riods of use. For example, the height of the substructure on theeastern side of Court 5B, known as Cominos (see Figure 1), was

increased by the addition of a second terrace (Figure 5). Severalother substructures in this group were expanded in extent by lat-eral additions. Overall, these constructions establish a pattern thatwas followed by their successors in their location adjacent to theMAS complex in their large size and in their arrangements of el-evated buildings around central courts. As we shall see, their im-mediate successors (NE Courts 4A–C) were built of masonry andpossess better-documented attributes pointing to royal palacefunctions.

The third cluster is the 10L-26-Subgroup, situated directly northof MAS (see Figure 1), where excavations have been directed byWilliam L. Fash (1991, 1999). Reflecting their location adjacentto the open plaza to the north, this sequence of temples and ball-courts probably served the more public rituals dedicated to the royalsuccession and the Copan polity. Now mostly buried beneath Struc-ture 10L-26, this group was established during the reign of YaxK’uk’ Mo’ with a new masonry building (named Yax), and soonthereafter with the first of several ballcourts to occupy this loca-tion (Williamson 1996). Yax structure was succeeded by a largermasonry substructure named Motmot, in front of which a carved,circular monument (the Motmot Marker) was discovered in 1992(Fash 1999). The Motmot Marker’s text commemorates the 9.0.0.0.0calendrical-period-ending ceremonies (a.d. 435), and portrays boththe founder and his son, but probably dates to some seven yearslater (ca.a.d. 442), during the reign of Ruler 2.

The sequence of temples and early monuments discovered be-neath Structure 10L-26 provides crucial evidence for the early his-tory of the kings of Copan and their new royal center. The reader

Figure 5. Photograph of the sectioned southern facade of the Cominos Substructure on the east side of Northeast Court 5B (seeFigure 1), showing both the original lower terrace (lower center) and a later expansion represented by the upper terrace (uppercenter).


is referred to the summaries of the architectural growth of this groupfor further details (Fash 1991, 1999; Fash et al. 1992; Williamson1996).

ACROPOLIS EXPANSION UNDER RULER 2:CIRCA A.D. 440–470

The death and burial of Yax K’uk’ Mo’ completed an especiallyintense period of activity at Copan for which we now have unprec-edented archaeological and historical evidence (Sharer et al. 1999).This evidence indicates that the origins of the Acropolis as a newcenter for Copan’s ruling dynasty were linked to the commemo-ration of three profound events that took place within a span oflittle more than a decade. The first dates toa.d. 426 and corre-sponds to the arrival and apparent inauguration of Yax K’uk’ Mo’(retrospectively recorded on Altar Q; see Schele 1989). The sec-ond event was the already mentioned period-ending event of9.0.0.0.0 ina.d. 435 recorded by the Motmot Marker. The thirdwas the death of Yax K’uk’ Mo’, followed by the succession of hisson as ruler of Copan. The date of the latter event is uncertain, butthere is good evidence that it took place late ina.d. 437.

This evidence comes from a text on the Xucpi Stone, a carvedmonolith found reset in the wall of an elaborate Early Classic royaltomb in the MAS complex (discussed later). It is probable, how-ever, that the Xucpi Stone was originally created for the tomb ofYax K’uk’ Mo’ and first set in the funerary structure built over histomb (the Yehnal Structure, also discussed later). Following Schele(personal communication 1995), the Xucpi text can be para-phrased as beginning with a reference to the veneration of “Itzam-Yeh Bolon” (perhaps the name of the funerary temple), “his deathplace, Copan lord K’inich Ahpop (Ruler 2) dedicated on Ahaw 2tuns” (9.0.2.0.0 13 Ahaw 3 Keh, or November 30,a.d. 437). Afterseemingly listing several important locations, the text closes withthe name and title of the apparent occupant of the death place be-ing dedicated, “K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’,” followed by an enig-matic reference to another person or title, “Smoking Frog.”

With this inscription, Ruler 2 initiated the historical commem-oration of his father, Yax K’uk’ Mo’. The Xucpi Stone was fol-lowed by two other texts discovered beneath Structure 10L-26 (thealready-mentioned Motmot Marker and the later Stela 63; see Fash1991:81–84). Together, these three recently discovered texts andthe buildings they were associated with began the process that es-tablished Yax K’uk’ Mo’ as Copan’s dynastic founder. During areign estimated at circaa.d. 437–472, K’inich Ahpop, the ener-getic son and successor of Yax K’uk’ Mo’, used both texts andarchitecture to promote his father. We will, of course, never knowthe motives of Ruler 2, but it seems obvious that by promoting hisfather’s prestige he also reinforced his own power. After him, aline of 14 subsequent Copan kings continued to bolster their au-thority by claiming to be successors of Yax K’uk’ Mo’. The mostexplicit evidence of the success of Ruler 2’s promotion efforts isAltar Q, dedicated by the sixteenth Copan king, Yax Pasah, to com-memorate the continuity of royal rule almost 400 years later. Thelocation of Altar Q and the great temple of Yax Pasah, Structure10L-16, are especially significant. Both are placed in the sacredcenter of the Acropolis, directly above the building we have namedHunal that was the focus of the initial royal complex constructedby Yax K’uk’ Mo’ (Agurcia F. 1996; Sharer et al. 1999).

Ruler 2’s reign began, of course, with the burial of his father. Aspreviously mentioned, it is likely that the tomb placed beneath theHunal Substructure is the burial place of Yax K’uk’ Mo’. Hunal

and its tomb were buried beneath a new substructure, nicknamedYehnal, that undoubtedly served as the first funerary shrine dedi-cated to Yax K’uk’ Mo’. Thereafter, for about 30 years, Ruler 2embarked on an unprecedented building program that we con-clude was designed to expand his father’s plans for Copan’s newroyal center. For this, we now recognize Ruler 2 as Copan’s firstgreat builder (Sharer et al. 1999).

The known attributes of Yehnal identify it as a funerary shrine.In contrast to Hunal’s northern orientation, Yehnal’s western stair-way oriented it to the direction associated with death and the un-derworld in Maya cosmology. In so doing, Yehnal established thewestward orientation followed by all succeeding buildings at thislocation for the rest of the Classic era (Sharer et al. 1999). As al-ready mentioned, it seems likely that the Xucpi Stone, commis-sioned by Ruler 2 for the dedication of the “death place” of YaxK’uk’ Mo’, was originally associated with Yehnal. Although theoriginal provenience of the Xucpi Stone remains unknown, exca-vation revealed that Yehnal’s substructure was decorated by stucco-relief masks of the Maya sun god still in place on either side of itsstairway and painted in red, blue-green, and yellow (Figure 6). Incontrast to Hunal’s central-Mexican style, Yehnal’s facade was ren-dered in the apron-molding style used at Tikal and other central-Peten cities at this time. Yehnal’s facade decorations are wellpreserved because it was in use for only a short period, perhaps nomore than five years, and care was taken when they were buried.It is presumed that, when Yehnal was terminated, the Xucpi Stonewas transferred to the building that replaced it—where it was even-tually found during our excavations (see later).

The substructure of Yehnal contained a vaulted tomb chamberthat was constructed adjacent (southeast) of the Hunal tomb. Un-like its predecessor, however, this second tomb was equipped witha stairway that provided access to the burial chamber from insidethe building above. The tomb remained unoccupied for an intervalafter its construction. In fact, when Yehnal was terminated and bur-ied beneath a new, larger substructure (Margarita), the tomb wasstill unoccupied, and its stairway was expanded so that the cham-ber below could remain accessible from the new building on Mar-garita’s summit. Because this tomb was discovered from the summitof the Margarita Substructure, it was given its informal name, theMargarita Tomb (Sedat 1996; Sharer et al. 1999).

Margarita was far larger than Yehnal. Its eastern (back) side wasembellished by beautifully formed apron moldings, painted creamand framed in red, again adhering to the Early Classic style ofTikal and the Peten. The western facade of Margarita was adornedby stucco-modeled panels on both sides of its outset stairway. Eachof these panels displayed an elaborate full-figure emblem of thefounder’s name, surrounded by the symbols of the universe andapparently sacred locations: “7 Kan” on the north panel and“9 Imix” on the south (Figure 7). It seems clear that this explicitreference to Yax K’uk’ Mo’ and his association with the cosmoscommemorated the underlying location of the founder’s house andhis tomb (Sharer et al. 1999).

The reign of Ruler 2 was marked by continuous constructionthat expanded the initial royal complex outward and upward untilit became a true Acropolis. Like its predecessor, the Margarita Sub-structure seems to have been used for only a brief period. Whileits summit building remained in use, the substructure’s stairwayand its brilliantly decorated panels were covered by a massive newwestern platform. This new platform was dedicated by the inter-ment of a young male, probably a sacrifice, placed to the west ofMargarita on the east-west axial line of Margarita and its predeces-

10 Sharer et al.

sors. The remains of this interment identify him as an elite warrior,displaying explicit associations with central Mexico—includingshell goggles, atlatl darts, a scallop-shell wristlet, and jade-and-hematite mosaic ear flares (Sharer 1997), presumably placed toserve as a guardian of the sacred burial place of Yax K’uk’ Mo’.

Later in the reign of Ruler 2, as the early Acropolis complexcontinued to expand, the old building on Margarita’s summit wasdemolished and buried beneath an even larger substructure nick-named Chilan (Sedat 1996; Sedat and Sharer 1996). The evidencesuggests that this new stage of construction was motivated by thedeath and interment of the individual found in the Margarita Tomb.As part of this expansion, the staircase to the tomb chamber wasconnected to a new passageway within Chilan that led to the north,where a new entrance must have been located (this presumed en-try was demolished by later construction). The passageway wasalso connected to a new vaulted chamber built above the tomb andstairway. The carved Xucpi Stone was set at the base of the southwall of the new upper chamber, where it remained until it wasuncovered during excavation in 1993 (Sedat 1996). This upperchamber was constructed to hold an array of elaborate mortuaryofferings, including a lidded cylindrical-tripod vessel with a paintedscene of atalud-tablerostructure. This scene may be a depictionof the Hunal Structure, the initial building at this locus. Depictedinside the doorway of this building is a goggle-eyed personage.

When first revealed, we had speculated that the skeletal re-mains in the Margarita Tomb might be those of Ruler 2. The as-sessment by Buikstra (1996) of the bones, resting on a broken stoneslab with a stunning array of jade, shell, pottery, and other offer-ings, reveals that the buried individual was an adult female who

had borne children and who was between 50 and 70 years old atdeath (Figure 8). It now seems clear that Copan’s most elaborateand venerated tomb was constructed and modified through time sothat it remained available for the burial of Copan’s most importantwoman (Sedat and Sharer 1996; Sharer et al. 1999). Although notext is known that identifies this woman, all the circumstantial ev-idence indicates that she must have been the wife of Yax K’uk’Mo’ who was honored as the mother of the second king and, there-after, as the dynastic matriarch. There is evidence that, for a num-ber of years after her death, this woman continued to be veneratedinside her tomb. Assuming she was Ruler 2’s mother, it is likelythat these activities were because of his efforts. Sometime afterher death and interment, the vaulted entrance passageway was ex-tended farther north, to allow continued access to her tomb as thebuildings above were expanded. Evidence of postmortem entry,presumably for the conduct of rituals, includes the painting of herskull with cinnabar and depositing great quantities of cinnabar overher bones. We also know that some of the vessels in the upperchamber were rearranged after a severe subsidence caused a par-tial collapse inside the tomb (Figure 9).

We tentatively date the construction of an extensive new plazafloor north of MAS to the reign of Ruler 2. This covered Court 5Call the way to the Motmot Structure, interrupted only by a low,red-painted adobe structure (Tartan) that seems to have markedthe boundary between the earlyAcropolis to the south and the Struc-ture 26-Subgroup to the north (Sharer 1996). Overall, however,during this period of rapid expansion in the Early Classic Acrop-olis, construction in the two adjacent royal complexes took placeat a far slower pace. In the Structure 26-Subgroup, near the end of

Figure 6. Photograph of the excavated, consolidated sun-god mask rendered in painted stucco on the western facade of the YehnalSubstructure. The remains of the side wall of the outset staircase are visible at the far left.


the reign of Ruler 2, Motmot Structure and its carved monumentwere buried under Papagayo, a new and much larger masonry struc-ture (Figure 10). Papagayo was an unusual, especially importantbuilding (Fash 1991, 1999). Inside was placed the magnificent Stela63, with an estimated date of 9.1.10.0.0 ora.d. 465 (William Fash,personal communication 1993), which commemorated the 9.0.0.0.0period-ending ceremonies that K’inich Ahpop had earlier cel-ebrated with his father, Yax K’uk’ Mo’. This was probably the fi-nal monument dedicated by Ruler 2.

THE SUCCESSORS OF RULER 2: CIRCA A.D. 470–500

Although the paucity of historical references to Rulers 3–6 meanswe know little about Ruler 2’s immediate successors, archaeologyreveals that construction in the MAS Group continued at a rapidpace during the time span corresponding to their reigns. It is likelythat the death of Ruler 2 and the inauguration of Ruler 3 openedthe next phase of Early Classic Acropolis expansion. The first eventof this period may well have been the final sealing of the multi-chambered Margarita Tomb holding the royal woman who we be-lieve was Ruler 2’s mother. Although we cannot date these eventswith precision, we estimate that between circaa.d. 470 and 480the Margarita Tomb was sealed by a wall constructed at the south-ern end of the passageway, and the passageway north of this wallwas filled with rubble (Sedat 1996; Sedat and Sharer 1996).

During the reigns of Rulers 3–6 (ca.a.d. 470–500), a series ofexpansions saw the Early Classic Acropolis grow into a monumen-tal two-tiered platform that rose some 10 m above the Copan River.

Figure 7. Photograph of the excavated, consolidated full-figure emblemof Yax K’uk’ Mo’ made in painted stucco on the western facade of theMargarita Substructure. The edge of the anciently demolished side wall ofthe outset staircase is visible at the far left.

Figure 8. Photograph of the interment in thelower burial chamber of the Margarita Tomb,taken from above, showing the southern half ofthe broken burial slab cleared of fallen debrisrevealing the bones and adornments of jade andshell covering the torso. The remainder of theinterment is on the north slab fragment locatedbeyond the lower edge of the photograph.

12 Sharer et al.

The structures on the previous Acropolis were buried under thenew summit, which was approximately 5 m higher than its pre-decessor (Sharer et al. 1999). Centered on its summit was a newstructure, nicknamed Celeste, built over Chilan. Access to theAcropolis summit underwent many modifications, but primary ac-cess was maintained from a western staircase with flanking panelsdecorated by painted stucco reliefs. Secondary stairways on theeastern side, also modified in several stages, gave access to andfrom the Copan River.

In the Structure 26-Subgroup, the Papagayo Structure, built nearthe end of Ruler 2’s reign, enjoyed an unusually long use life. Tothe east and directly behind Papagayo is a larger structure (Mas-caron), the highest temple substructure so far at this locus (seeFigure 10). Mascaron was built sometime during the use life ofPapagayo. During the use of Papagayo, Ruler 4, known as Cu Ix,recorded a rededication of this building on an interior, carved step(see Fash 1991). Although partially defaced during the terminationof Papagayo, this is the only known text from this time at Copan.

The successors of Ruler 2 also oversaw a major expansion ofthe Northeast Court Group (Sharer 1996; Traxler 1996). The orig-inal earthen substructures were encased in a new masonry plat-form. The old adobe buildings remained on the summit of the newplatform for a time before they were demolished and replaced bya series of low masonry substructures that supported new masonrybuildings. Our tunnels provide far more complete information aboutthis initial masonry palace complex than the preceding adobe com-plex (NE Courts 5A–C), including the floor plans of its individualbuildings (see Figure 10). These buildings were grouped aroundthree east-west-aligned central courtyards (NE Courts 4A–C),which appear to follow the general plan of the initial complex ofadobe architecture they replaced.

The remains of these masonry buildings exhibit many of thecharacteristics usually associated with Maya elite residences (Trax-ler 1996). Constructed on relatively low substructures, most hadmultiple rooms and doorways with adjacent curtain holders (Fig-ure 11). In this case, their proximity and connection to the highersummit of the Acropolis to the south, and their elaborate decora-tions, allow us to conclude these buildings were royal palaces. Ex-cavation has revealed the remains of modeled, painted exteriorstucco work (Figure 12) and one example of a painted hiero-glyphic text on an interior wall. The royal palace attribution is fur-ther suggested by the large size of the buildings. The largest ofthese buildings is on the west side of Court 4B and measures 16by 20 m in size, with five rooms. The other three buildings aroundthis court are nearly as large and contain either one elongated room(south side) or three rooms (east and north sides). In comparison,the largest of the documented Late Classic elite palaces in the Sepul-turas Group, Structure 9N-8-82, measures 7 by 15 m and has threerooms (Webster and Freter 1990:Figure 1). Both the NortheastCourt Group and the Sepulturas Group contained multiple build-ings arranged around connecting courts, and through time wereexpanded by additions and new buildings. The destruction of theeastern portion of the Northeast Court Group (Court 4A) by laterriver erosion means we will never know the total size of thiscomplex.

Note that the buildings in the Northeast Court Group were notfurnished with integral masonry benches, like those found in mostLate Classic residential-type structures at Copan. It is proposedthat the Early Classic Copan palaces were served by benches con-structed of masonry slabs supported by stone pedestals, similar tothe funerary slabs found in the Early Classic tombs of the Acrop-olis (Traxler 1996).

Figure 9. Pre-excavation photograph of several offering vessels in the upper chamber of the Margarita Tomb, reset beneath a brokenfloor slab after subsidence of the west wall of the tomb.


Figure 10. Computer-generated map of the construction beneath the Copan Acropolis, spanning the era of circa A.D. 460–500.

14 Sharer et al.

RULER 7 AND HIS SUCCESSORS:CIRCA A.D. 500–550

The seventh ruler of Copan, usually known as Waterlily Jaguar,took the throne in circaa.d. 504. Excavations indicate that duringhis reign the Acropolis was dramatically renovated in two stages(Sharer et al. 1999). The first of these stages was probably under-taken early in the reign of Ruler 7 and saw the north-south extentof the Acropolis nearly doubled. This was accomplished by theconstruction of a monumental northern extension to the Acropolis(designated Purple Platform) that completely buried the buildingsof Northeast Courts 4A–C. This necessitated the constructionof a new courtyard complex immediately north of this expansion(NE Courts 3A and B) so that the relative location of the royalpalace complex remained the same—along the northern flank ofthe Acropolis, although displaced some 40 m farther north (Fig-ure 13).

The second major renovation must have occurred late in thereign of Ruler 7. Unlike the earlier expansion, this renovationchanged the basic three-group pattern followed from its beginningmore than a century earlier (Sharer et al. 1999). The addition of aneven larger northern platform expanded the Acropolis all the wayto the Structure 26-Subgroup, completely burying all previousconstruction—including the most recent version of the royal pal-ace, NE Courts 3A and B (Figure 14). This time, it appears thatthere was no room to construct a new court complex on the northside of the Acropolis, so the royal palace complex was moved else-where. There is every indication that the royal palace was reestab-lished at this time on the southern flank of the Acropolis, part of acomplex that continued to evolve during the Late Classic to be-come what is known today as the Cemetery Group (Andrews 1999).

Figure 11. Photograph of the partially cleared southwest room of the LoroStructure, the masonry building on the east side of Northeast Court 4B(see Figure 10). The view is toward the north, with the jambs of the threeexterior doorways leading to Court 4B on the left, and the curtain walland doorway to the northern room in the background.

Figure 12. Photograph of the cleared re-mains of the painted and modeled ex-terior stucco decoration on the westernwall of the Pericho Structure, the ma-sonry building on the north side ofNortheast Court 4B (see Figure 10).The base of the building wall and thesubstructure can be seen below the dec-oration.



16 Sharer et al.

The Acropolis plan established late in Ruler 7’s reign set a newtemplate followed for the final 250 years of Copan’s history. Thenorthern portion of the newly expanded Acropolis supported a newarchitectural complex composed of a series of elaborately deco-rated masonry and vaulted buildings around a central courtyard,Court 2B. Its companion, Court 2A to the east, was destroyed byriver erosion, but can be inferred from surviving architecture.Court 2B was the direct ancestor of what is today called the EastCourt, and was flanked by several structures that were the imme-

diate predecessors the Late Classic buildings flanking this court(see Figure 14). On the north side of Court 2B was an elaboratelydecorated building (Indigo). Its successor (Chachalaca) was fol-lowed by a sequence of royal buildings that culminated with Struc-ture 10L-22, dedicated by the thirteenth ruler (Stuart 1989b). Tothe east, excavations have documented the predecessors of twoLate Classic buildings also destroyed by river erosion, Structures10L-20 and 10L-21. One of these, the elaborately decorated an-cestor of 10L-20 known as the Ante Structure, was built on the



east side of Court 2B (Sharer et al. 1992:153–154, Figures 7–11).Associated with a series of dedication caches, the Ante stairwayfurnishes the critical historical evidence for this construction epi-sode, a carved inscription (Morales et al. 1990) that begins with along-count date equivalent toa.d. 542, followed by the name ofthe building’s original sponsor, Waterlily Jaguar (Ruler 7).

History indicates that Ruler 7 died ina.d. 544. His immediatesuccessors, Rulers 8 and 9, together reigned for less than a decade.Some of the later buildings around Court 2B belong to this period,including the Sub-Jaguar Tomb (Figures 15 and 16) located di-rectly across the court from Ante (Sharer et al. 1992). While it isconsidered likely that this tomb may be that of Ruler 7, its asso-ciation with either Ruler 8 or 9 cannot be entirely ruled out (Trax-ler 1994, 1997).

THE ACROPOLIS OF RULER 10: CIRCA A.D. 550–580

Excavations have traced continued constructions in the Acropolisduring the reign of the tenth ruler, known as Moon Jaguar, whocame to the throne ina.d. 553. The Ante Stairway text indicatesthat it was rededicated by Moon Jaguar ina.d. 573 (Morales et al.1990). To the south, a group of three buildings dominated the Acrop-olis summit—its centerpiece being a new, brilliantly decoratedbuilding known as Rosalila (Agurcia F. 1997; Agurcia F. and Valdes1994:70–83). A badly eroded inscription on the Rosalila Stairwayprovides a link to Ruler 10 with its reconstructed date correspond-ing toa.d. 571. Situated directly over Margarita and its tomb, Ro-salila crowned the very center of the Acropolis. The location ofthis spectacular building was clearly selected to symbolize the con-tinuity of the original sacred core of the Acropolis established bythe founder and his successors. Its elaborate stuccoed, painted fa-cade proclaims the symbols of rulership and its association with

the cosmos (Agurcia F. 1996; B. Fash 1999), continuing the themesseen on its predecessors buried below.

THE ACROPOLIS OF RULER 11: CIRCA A.D. 580–630

The reign of the eleventh ruler (a.d. 578–628), known as ButzChan, marks the transition between the Early and Late Classic erasat Copan. At this time, the Acropolis continued to be crowned byRosalila—such an important building that it was maintained farlonger than most of Copan’s buildings. Elsewhere, there was a hostof architectural changes. Court 2B was filled and capped by a newplaza surface that buried all the platforms and staircases of its flank-ing buildings. Following, however, the pattern of similar renova-tions in Early Classic Copan, the buildings around the old buriedcourt continued to be used for a time before they were rituallyterminated, partially demolished, and buried by new constructionthat created the initial stage of the East Court seen today (Shareret al. 1992).

It is likely that the reign of Ruler 11 also saw the establishmentof the present West Court, the location of Stela P that portraysButz Chan. By this time, further renovations in the Sub-26 Group,now united with the remainder of the Acropolis, saw the final ter-mination of the ancient Papagayo Temple (Williamson 1996). Thesuccessor to the Mascaron Structure, named Chorcha, was inplace by this interval. The large royal tomb found in 1988 withinChorcha (nicknamed the Scribe’s Tomb) may be the burial placeof Ruler 11, although the most recent evidence indicates that Ruler12 as the more likely candidate (Fash 1997).

RULERS 12–16 AND THE FINAL VERSION OF THEACROPOLIS: CIRCA A.D. 628–822

The culmination of this tradition of termination and renewal ofroyal architecture can be seen today in the Late Classic buildings

Figure 15. Photograph of the interment in theSub-Jaguar Tomb taken from the south, show-ing the northern half of the burial slab clearedof fallen debris revealing the bones and adorn-ments of shell and jade covering the torso, withthe partially disintegrated skull bones at the top(cf. Figure 8).

18 Sharer et al.

on the Copan Acropolis (Sharer et al. 1992:Figure 1). Althoughthis final construction stage is not the subject of ECAP research,to complete the picture of the architectural development of theCopan Acropolis we can briefly summarize the research of ourcolleagues (Agurcia F. 1999; Fash 1991, 1999; Miller 1991; Wil-liamson 1996).

The Late Classic Acropolis was constructed in several epi-sodes. It seems likely that the instigator of this final stage was thelong-lived Ruler 12, known as Smoke Imix (a.d. 628–695). As-suming that Ruler 12 was buried in the Chorcha Tomb, the con-struction of a new temple, Esmeralda, that buried both the tomband Chorcha took place at the beginning of the reign of Ruler 13,usually known as 18 Rabbit (a.d. 695–738). Esmeralda was suc-ceeded by Structure 10L-26-2nd, also probably built in the reignof Ruler 13, and finally Structure 10L-26-1st, from the reign ofthe fifteenth ruler, Smoke Shell (Fash 1991; Williamson 1996).

A series of new buildings was erected around the Late ClassicEast Court (Sharer et al. 1992:154). On its north side, a sequenceof buildings dating to the reigns of Rulers 11 and 12 culminated inthe famous Structure 10L-22, built early in the reign of the thir-teenth ruler (Stuart 1989b). Before its destruction by the CopanRiver, the East Court’s highest building, Structure 10L-21, an-chored the northeast corner of the Acropolis; it was probably builtas a memorial temple to 18 Rabbit after his recorded capture andsacrifice (Miller 1991). To the west of Structure 10L-22, the re-cently excavated and consolidated Structure 10L-22A has beenidentified as the Popol Na, or ruling council house (Fash 1991:131–134) and dated to the reign of Ruler 14, Smoke Monkey. The otherbuildings along the east side of the court, Structures 10L-20, -20A,and -19, have been swept away by the Copan River.

Wedged between Structures 10L-21 and -22 is a small building,Structure 10L-21A, with an inscribed date from the reign of theRuler 16, Yax Pasah, postdating both its neighbors (Miller 1991).In the center of the Acropolis, the long-lived Rosalila Temple wassucceeded by a larger building (Purpula), which was almost to-tally demolished in the construction of the last temple at this locus(Agurcia F. 1999). This final temple placed above the originalsacred center of the Acropolis, known as Structure 10L-16, wasbuilt during the reign of the sixteenth ruler. The great Structure10L-11, on the north side of the West Court, was also built duringRuler 16’s reign (Fash 1991)—capping a long, but incompletelyknown, sequence of at least six superimposed constructions. Thefunerary shrine for Ruler 16, Structure 10L-18, marks the last knownbuilding on the Acropolis (Becker and Cheek 1983).

CONCLUSION

The recently completed tunnel excavations of ECAP offer strongsupport for the Early Classic dynastic history originally recon-structed from retrospective Late Classic texts. The excavations showthat Copan’s Classic-period royal center was founded as a new ar-chitectural complex at just about the time that historical texts recordthe founding of Copan’s ruling dynasty by Yax K’uk’ Mo’. There-after, the newly founded center was rapidly expanded into a trueAcropolis through intense, continuous construction activity. By theend of the Early Classic, the Acropolis covered about the samearea as the final version seen today; thereafter, most of its LateClassic growth was upward, rather than outward. Overall, it seemsclear that during the 200 years of its Early Classic history, the paceand volume of Acropolis construction was far greater than duringthe 200 years of its Late Classic development.

In addition to documenting the sequence of architectural re-mains, the recent Acropolis excavations have recovered seven newEarly Classic texts directly associated with architecture. These newsources of historical information include two carved, free-standingmonuments (the Motmot Marker and Stela 63); a carved, reset stoneor bench (the Xucpi Stone); three carved steps (Papagayo, Ante,and Rosalila Structures); and the painted-stucco full-figure nameglyphs of Yax K’uk’ Mo’ on the Margarita facade. These texts pro-vide crucial new information, and have moved the kings and eventsassociated with Copan’s Early Classic beginnings from the realmof myth to that of history.

The combination of archaeological evidence and the newly dis-covered Early Classic texts shed considerable light on the found-ing of the Classic Copan polity and the reigns of Yax K’uk’ Mo’and his immediate successors (Sharer 1997). First and foremost,these lines of evidence are sufficient to contradict the notion thatYax K’uk’ Mo’ was a mythical founder or putative king (Websterand Freter 1990). Instead, the new Early Classic archaeologicaland historical data support the conclusion that he was an actualruler who established a new royal center that, although initiallyconstructed on a modest scale, was located in a strategically im-portant valley center position adjacent to river communicationroutes and proclaimed important external ties through its architec-ture. The evidence also indicates that although Yax K’uk’ Mo’reigned for only about a decade (ca.a.d. 426–437), this was an es-pecially auspicious time at Copan—and in the Maya world ingeneral—marked by the profound 9.0.0.0.0 period-ending date.Thiswas the era of the founding of long-remembered dynasties at manyMaya sites; at Copan, the events of Yax K’uk’ Mo’s reign were re-called and honored by his successors for nearly 400 years thereafter.

Figure 16. Pre-excavation photograph of the Early Classic vessels on thefloor of the Sub-Jaguar Tomb on the west side of the burial slab. One ofthe stone supports for the burial slab is visible at the right (cf. Figure 4).


The founding of the Classic Copan polity is an issue of long-standing interest—involving the evaluation of evidence for auto-chthonous development within the Copan Valley and evidence forinfluences, or even intrusions, from outside the valley (Fash 1988;Fash and Sharer 1991). Even at this stage of our investigation, withmuch of the analysis of critical evidence still incomplete, we sus-pect the distinctions between these alternatives may not be clearcut; in fact, both local and nonlocal factors are likely to have beeninvolved in the origins of the Classic Copan polity.

Critical new evidence bearing on this issue come from chemi-cal analyses of bone samples from the individuals in the Hunaland Margarita Tombs, as part of a study being conducted by JaneBuikstra and her colleagues. Preliminary results indicate that theoccupant of the Hunal Tomb was not from the Copan Valley, whilethe Margarita Lady was of local origin. This offers support for thehypothesis that Yax K’uk’Mo’was an outsider who arrived at Copanin a.d. 426. Of course, analyses such as these must be accompa-nied by further evidence as to the identity of the individuals inthese early Acropolis tombs, as well as careful evaluations of thearchitectural, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence of externalconnections to such regions as the central Peten, the Valley of Gua-temala, and even the Valley of Mexico during the critical EarlyClassic founding period.

Apart from the retrospective reference to his arrival at Copan ina.d. 426, there are indications that Yax K’uk’ Mo’ had externalconnections, specifically with the site of Tikal, Guatemala. An in-dividual with a similar name, K’u Mo’, was mentioned in texts atTikal several decades before Copan’s founding. The apparent Smok-ing Frog glyph on the Xucpi Stone implies a relationship with anindividual with this name who figured prominently in the historyof Tikal during the late fourth centurya.d. (Stuart 1997). The mainsign from the Tikal emblem glyph appears on the Copan MotmotMarker. In addition, the “impinged bone” toponym appears on boththe Tikal and Copan emblem glyphs (Schele and Freidel 1990).Finally, with recent epigraphic research indicating that Quiriguawas founded as a satellite of Copan (Schele and Looper 1996:56–63), the suggestion made almost 20 years ago that Quirigua wasestablished by elite colonists from Tikal (Jones and Sharer 1980;Sharer 1988) takes on new meaning.

Archaeologists have located the two earliest tombs beneath theCopan Acropolis. The first of these, the Hunal Tomb, has beententatively identified as the burial place of Yax K’uk’ Mo’ him-self. Soon after this tomb was sealed, another was built in the over-lying building (i.e., Yehnal), although it would remain unoccupiedfor a span of time. After construction of a second building (i.e.,Margarita) over the Hunal Tomb, further modifications marked theinterment of an especially important royal woman in this adjacentMargarita Tomb. The position of her tomb indicates that this royalwoman was closely associated with Yax K’uk’ Mo’. She remains,however, unidentified and unmentioned in the historical texts. Re-gardless, the elaborateness of her tomb and the continued venera-tion that took place within the tomb after her death imply that shewas an important person in the initial era of the Copan dynasty.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that this woman was the wifeof Yax K’uk’ Mo’, honored by her son, Ruler 2, as the matriarchof Copan’s new royal family. This conclusion, in turn, raises thepossibility that a royal, hypergamous marriage brought the Copandynastic founder, Yax K’uk’ Mo’, to the throne. That is, if, as nowseems likely, Yax K’uk’ Mo’ was an outsider—because of eitherhavingoriginselsewhere(e.g.,being fromTikal)orbecauseofa lowerstatus within the Copan elite hierarchy—it could have been his

marriage to a woman from the established Copan royal family thatassured his place on the throne. Such a scenario seems to provide thebest explanation for the extraordinary circumstances surroundingthe burial of the important royal woman in the Margarita Tomb.

The combined epigraphic and archaeological evidence allowsus to conclude that the son born of this marriage, Ruler 2, initiatedthe dynastic succession by having both of his parents buried inadjacent tombs located at the center of the Acropolis. Thereafter,during his reign, Ruler 2 dedicated the first of a sequence of build-ings over his father’s tomb to honor him as the royal founder, whilevenerating his mother through postmortem rituals in her tomb. In-terestingly, although he commemorated his father with texts andportraits created during his reign, none of Ruler 2’s known mon-uments or buildings make any reference to his mother.

The positions and reputations of Yax K’uk’ Mo’ as founder, hisson as his successor, and the later kings who perpetuated the newdynasty were reinforced by their connections with the great pow-ers of the Early Classic Maya world. The most explicit ties seemto be with Kaminaljuyu and Tikal, both of which had fairly intensecontacts with Teotihuacan during the same period of time. The Teo-tihuacan connections seen at Copan during the dynastic foundingera are certainly less striking than those at either Kaminaljuyu orTikal (Adams 1995; Coggins 1975, 1976). This indicates that theinitial Teotihuacan ties at Copan (ca.a.d. 420–500) were proba-bly indirect, possibly the result of connections through such inter-mediaries as Kaminaljuyu and Tikal. Regardless of how they cameto Copan, however, these external ties were undoubtedly symbolicexpressions used by the early kings of Copan to associate them-selves, and their newly founded capital, with the power, prestige,and successful destinies of one of the greatest cities in Mesoamerica.

The founding events established the Acropolis as the central-ized royal complex of the Copan polity for the remainder of theEarly Classic era. It was the setting for most of the activities per-formed by Copan’s rulers as the supreme political and religiousauthorities of the kingdom. In larger Maya capitals, such as Tikal,royal activities seem to have been spatially divided among severalseparate complexes. In contrast, the Copan Acropolis developedas a single architectural complex devoted to royal political, ritual,and at least part-time residential activities. From its beginningswith Hunal as the proposed “House of Yax K’uk’ Mo’,” certainAcropolis buildings seem to have been the official residences forCopan’s kings. Initially, the rapid pace of building replacementindicates that longer-lived rulers may have been associated withseveral such official residences during their reigns. In later times,when individual buildings often remained in use for longer peri-ods, some of these apparent royal residences may have been main-tained after rulers’ deaths, perhaps as shrines dedicated to theapotheosized king. Examples might be the structures known as Ante(Ruler 7), Rosalila (Ruler 10), and, in the Late Classic, Structure10L-22 (Ruler 13). The growing numbers of the royal lineage wereapparently housed in an adjacent palace complex located on thenorthern flank of the Acropolis. This palace complex underwentseveral rebuilding stages during the Early Classic era before beingreestablished south of the Acropolis in the Late Classic.

The Acropolis was also the setting for regal ritual, includingthat focused on Copan’s royal tombs and funerary temples. Fourundisturbed royal interments within elaborate chambered tombshave been found by the recently completed Acropolis tunnelingexcavations. Apart from the Hunal Tomb identified with the dy-nastic founder and the Margarita Tomb identified with the dynas-tic matriarch, these also include the Sub-Jaguar Tomb identified

20 Sharer et al.

with Ruler 7 (or possibly Ruler 8 or 9), and the Scribes Tomb be-neath Structure 10L-26 identified with Ruler 11 or 12. Each ofthese royal tombs is capped by a building that probably functionedas a funerary temple. In the case of the Margarita Tomb, we haveevidence of multiple entries into the tomb for the conduct of mor-tuary rituals. More than a century ago, the “Galindo Tomb,” situ-ated immediately south of the Ante Structure, was cleared by JuanGalindo (Fash 1991:48). Unfortunately, no records of this worksurvive that could help verify the tomb’s possible royal status—indicated by its position and vaulted chamber architecture. ECAPexcavated one severely disturbed Acropolis tomb (Burial 92-2) lo-cated directly south of the Galindo Tomb; its possible royal statusis still being evaluated. Structure 10L-21 is at the northern end ofthe north-south axis formed by the Galindo Tomb and Burial 92-2;this building has been tentatively identified as the funerary templeof Ruler 13 (Miller 1991). Farthest south on this same axis is theempty tomb under another apparent funerary temple, Structure 10L-18, which may have been the former burial place of the Ruler 16(Fash 1991:177–178).

In sum, the excavations beneath the Copan Acropolis providethe most complete documentation of the origins and development

of an Early Classic royal complex found anywhere in the Mayaarea. The timing and patterning of these remains are direct evi-dence of the founding and growth of Copan as the capital of aClassic-period polity. Specific buildings and associated featuresprovide evidence of the external connections that reinforced theauthority of Copan’s Early Classic kings. In addition, specific se-quences of architecture demonstrate how the rulers of Copan fur-ther reinforced their political power by using the locations ofimportant ritual buildings as symbolic links to the sacred past. Thedata from the Early Classic Acropolis also provide new evidencefor the beginnings of palace architecture at Copan that have im-portant implications for the origins of state-level organization withinMaya polities. The findings from the Early Classic Copan Acrop-olis, along with studies still in progress (e.g., the analysis of theconstruction requirements and use of this space), have yet to beintegrated with other sources of evidence about the Early ClassicCopan polity. When this is done, we expect further advances inour understanding of the origins and development of Maya state-level organization that will have far broader implications, both forancient Mesoamerica and beyond.

RESUMEN

Excavaciones debajo de la Acrópolis de Copán han producido el más com-pleto registro en existencia del origen y desarrollo de un complejo realMaya del Clásico Temprano (ca. 420–650 a.C.). Comenzando durante laépoca del fundador dinástico quien se ha identificado históricamente, losniveles estratigráficos más tempranos incluyen el primer complejo real,centrados alrededor de una plataforma pequeña de estilo talud-tablero, unatumba abovedada que podría contener los restos del mismo fundador, yuna otra más grande tumba cercana que posiblemente contiene los restosdel la esposa del fundador, o sea la matriarca de la dinastía. La sucesión ydesarrollo de la arquitectura proporcionan evidencia de la fundación y cre-cimiento de Copán como la capital del un estado Maya del periodo Clásicodurante los reinados de los primeros siete reyes (426–544 a.C.). Ya du-rante los reinados del los gobernantes 8 a 11(544–628 a.C.), la Acrópolis

del Clásico Temprano Ilegó a abarcar la misma área que la versión finaldel Acrópolis en el Clásico Tardío cubriría. La documentación de estruc-turas específicas del Acrópolis ofrece evidencia de conexiones externasque reforzaron y apoyaron la autoridad del los reyes Copanecos del ClásicoTemprano. Además, el uso de ciertos lugares como vínculos simbólicos aun pasado sagrado, reflejado en la secuencia arquitectónica del los edifi-cios, refleja la perpetuación del poder político. La Acrópolis del ClásicoTemprano también presenta nueva evidencia del origen de la arquitecturapalaciega que tiene implicaciones importantes para el comienzo de la or-ganización a nivel de estado del los Mayas. En todo, los hallazgos de laAcrópolis del Clásico Temprano prometen adelantar en manera contun-dente nuestro entendimiento del los orígenes y desarrollo de los sistemasestatales de los Maya.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful for the assistance and support of the Instituto de Hon-dureño de Antropología e Historia, especially Dra. Olga Joya S., and bothLicda. Carmen Julia Fajardo (Jefe, Departamento de Investigación Ar-queológica) and Professor Oscar Cruz M. (Jefe, Región Nor-Occidentaldel Instituto de Hondureño de Antropología e Historia). The funding thathas made the ECAP research possible has been provided by the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Museum (Boyer and Shoemaker Chair Funds), theUniversity of Pennsylvania Research Foundation, the National ScienceFoundation, the National Geographic Society, the Foundation for the Ad-vancement of Mesoamerican Research, the Selz Foundation, the MayaWorkshop Foundation, the Kislak Foundation, the Segy Foundation, andnumerous private donors.

We want to express our special gratitude to the many people who haveworked with us at Copan during the past nine years; our research wouldnot have been possible without their efforts. Although it is impossible toname all of those individuals here, our colleagues who have directed thecollateral programs of the Copan Acropolis Archaeological Project, Wil-liam L. Fash (overall director), Ricardo Agurcia F., Barbara W. Fash, E.

Wyllys Andrews V, and Rudy Larios, have been instrumental to all phasesof our investigations. The late Linda Schele provided many insightfulobservations from her work with the early Acropolis texts and iconogra-phy. Christine Carrelli has recorded all phases of Acropolis construction,and is studying both the methods and the labor requirements representedby this construction. In addition to recording, many of the sequences ofearly Acropolis construction have been worked out by Fernando Lopez.The conservation of the artifacts from the tombs, burials, and other ECAPexcavation contexts have been expertly accomplished by Lynn Grant andHarriet Beaubien. Also deserving mention for their many contributions toECAP’s research are the other members of our field staff, Alfonso Mo-rales, Julia Miller, Charles Golden, and Edward Barnhart. Before its sub-mission, this paper greatly benefited from suggestions made by JoyceMarcus. The reviewers selected by this journal—Marshall Becker, Wil-liam Haviland, Rosemary Joyce, and Peter Harrison—all made extremelyuseful suggestions, many of which were incorporated into the publishedversion. However, any errors that may remain are the responsibility ofthe authors.

REFERENCES

Adams, Richard E.W.1995 Early Classic Maya Civilization: A View from Río Azul. In

The Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization, edited by Nicolai Grube,pp. 35–48.Acta Mesoamericana 8. VerlagAnton Saurwein, Möckmühl.


Agurcia F., Ricardo1996 Rosalila, el corazón de la Acrópolis: El Templo del Rey-Sol.

Yaxkin14:5–18.1997 Rosalila, an Early Classic Maya Cosmogram from Copan. In

Symbols32–37.1999 The Evolution of Structure 10L-16, Heart of the Acropolis. In

Copan: The Rise and Fall of a Classic Maya Kingdom, edited by E.W.Andrews V and W.L. Fash. School of American Research, Santa Fe,in preparation.

Agurcia F., Ricardo, and Juan Antonio Valdes1994 Secretos de dos cuidades mayas: Copán y Tikal.La Nación, San

José, Costa Rica.Andrews, E. Wyllys V

1999 The Organization of a Noble Residential Compound at the Cen-ter of Copan: Group 10L-2. InCopan: The Rise and Fall of a ClassicMaya Kingdom, edited by E.W. Andrews V and W.L. Fash. School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe, in preparation.

Becker, Marshall M.1983 Excavaciones en el corte de la Acropolis. InIntroducción a la

arqueología de Copán, vol. 2, edited by C. Baudez, pp. 349–379. Sec-retaría de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo, y InstitutoHondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa.

Becker, Marshall M., and Charles D. Cheek1983 La Estructura 10L-18. InIntroducción a la arqueología de Copán,

vol. 2, edited by C. Baudez, pp. 381–500. Secretaría de Estado en elDespacho de Cultura y Turismo, y Instituto Hondureño deAntropologíae Historia, Tegucigalpa.

Buikstra, Jane E.1996 Preliminary Report of Selected Copan Skeletal Remains. In-

forme de la Temporada de 1996 de la Programa de Investigaciones dela Acrópolis Temprana: Appendix. Manuscript on file, Instituto Hon-dureño de Antropología e Historia Archives of the Copan Archaeo-logical Project, Copan, Honduras.

Carrelli, Christine W.1996 Preliminary Analysis of Construction Systems Utilized at the Co-

pan Early Classic Acropolis. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Cheek, Charles D.1983 Las excavaciones en la Plaza Principal, resumen conclusiones. In

Introducción a la arqueología de Copán, vol. 2, edited by C. Baudez,pp. 319–348. Secretaría de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Tur-ismo, y Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa.

Coe, William R.1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acrop-

olis of Tikal.6 vols. Tikal Report No. 14. University of PennsylvaniaMuseum, Philadelphia.

Coggins, Clemency C.1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and Icono-

graphic Reconstruction.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

1976 Teotihuacan at Tikal in the Early Classic Period.Proceedings(Actas) of the Forty-Second International Congress of Americanists8:251–269.

Fash, Barbara W.1999 Iconographic Evidence for Water Management and Social Orga-

nization at Copan. InCopan: The Rise and Fall of a Classic MayaKingdom, edited by E.W. Andrews V and W.L. Fash. School of Amer-ican Research, Santa Fe, in preparation.

Fash, William L.1988 A New Look at Maya Statecraft from Copan, Honduras.Antiq-

uity 62:157–159.1991 Scribes, Warriors and Kings: The City of Copan and the Ancient

Maya.Thames and Hudson, London.1997 Official Histories and Archaeological Data in the Interpretation

of the Teotihuacan-Copan Relationship. Paper presented at the sym-posium “A Tale of Two Cities: Copan and Teotihuacan,” Harvard Uni-versity, Cambridge, MA.

1999 Classic Copan and the Theater State. InCopan: The Rise andFall of a Classic Maya Kingdom, edited by E.W. Andrews V and W.L.Fash. School of American Research, Santa Fe, in preparation.

Fash, William L., and Robert J. Sharer1991 Sociopolitical Developments and Methodological Issues at Co-

pan, Honuras: A Conjunctive Perspective.Latin American Antiquity2:166–187.

Fash, William L, Richard V. Williamson, Carlos Rudy Larios, and JoelPalka

1992 The Hieroglyphic Stairway and Its Ancestors: Investigations ofCopan Structure 10L-26.Ancient Mesoamerica3:105–115.

Jones, Christopher, and Robert J. Sharer1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Site-Core of Quirigua.Ex-

pedition23(1):1–19.Marcus, Joyce

1992 Political Fluctuations in Mesoamerica.National Geographic Re-search & Exploration8:392–411.

Miller, Julia C.1991 Investigations of Temple 21, Copan, Honduras. Paper presented

at the 47th International Congress of Americanists, New Orleans.Miller, Mary

1988 The Meaning and Function of the Main Acropolis, Copan. InThe Southeast Maya Zone, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone and GordonR. Willey, pp. 149–194. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-lection, Washington, DC.

Morales, Alfonso, Julia Miller, and Linda Schele1990 The Dedication Stair of “Ante” Temple.Copán Note No. 76. In-

stituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia and the Copán MosaicsProject, Austin, TX.

Murillo, Saúl1989 Investigaciones del corte arqueológico, Ruinas de Copán. Manu-

script on file, Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia Ar-chives of the Copan Archaeological Project, Copan, Honduras.

Schele, Linda1986 The Founders of Lineages at Copán and Other Maya Sites.Copán

Note No. 8. Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegu-cigalpa, and the Copán Acropolis Project, Austin, TX.

1987 Stela I and the Founding of the City of Copan.Copán NoteNo. 30. Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa,and the Copán Acropolis Project, Austin, TX.

1989 A Brief Commentary on the Top of Altar Q.Copán Note No. 66.Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa, and theCopán Acropolis Project, Austin, TX.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel1990 A Forest of Kings.William Morrow, New York.

Schele, Linda, and Mathew Looper1996 The Proceedings of the Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop: Copan

and Quirigua.Transcribed and edited by Phil Wanyerka. Universityof Texas, Austin.

Sedat, David W.1996 Etapas tempranas en la evolución de laAcrópolis de Copán.Yaxkin

14:19–27.Sedat, David W., and Robert J. Sharer

1996 Evolución de la Acrópolis de Copán durante el clásico tem-prano. Paper presented at the VI Encuentro de los Investigadores dela Cultura Maya. Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Mexico.

Sharer, Robert J.1988 Quirigua as a Classic Maya Center. InThe Southeast Maya Zone,

edited by Elizabeth H. Boone and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 31–65. Dumb-arton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington,DC.

1996 Los patrones del desarrollo arquitectónico en la Acrópolis deCopán del clásico temprano.Yaxkin14:28–34.

1997 K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ and the Genesis of the Copan Acropolis.Paper presented at the symposium “A Tale of Two Cities: Copan andTeotihuacan,” Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Sharer, Robert J., David W. Sedat, Loa P. Traxler, and Julia C. Miller1999 Early Classic Royal Power in Copan: The Origins and Develop-

ment of the Acropolis, ca.a.d. 250–650. InCopan: The Rise andFall of a Classic Maya Kingdom, edited by E.W. Andrews V and W.L.Fash. School of American Research, Santa Fe, in preparation.

Sharer, Robert J., Julia C. Miller, and Loa P. Traxler1992 Evolution of Classic Period Architecture in the Eastern Acrop-

olis, Copan, Honduras.Ancient Mesoamerica.3:145–159.Stuart, David

1986 The Chronology of Stela 4 at Copan.Copán Note No. 12. Insti-tuto Hondureño deAntropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa, and the CopánMosaics Project, Austin, TX.

1989a The “First Ruler” on Stela 24.Copán Note No. 7. Instituto Hon-dureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa, and the Copán Mo-saics Project, Austin, TX.

22 Sharer et al.

1989b Comments on the Temple 22 Inscription.Copán Note No. 63.Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia and the Copán Mo-saics Project, Austin, TX.

1997 Smoking Frog, K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, and the Epigraphic Ev-idence for Ties Between Teotihuacan and the Classic Maya. Paperpresented at the symposium “A Tale of Two Cities: Copan and Teoti-huacan.” Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

1999 The Texts of Temple 26: The Presentation of History at a MayaDynastic Shrine. InCopan: The Rise and Fall of a Classic Maya King-dom, edited by E.W. Andrews V and W.L. Fash. School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe, in preparation.

Stuart, David, and Linda Schele1986 Yax-K’uk-Mo’, the Founder of the Lineage of Copán.Copán Note

No. 6. Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa,and the Copán Mosaics Project, Austin, TX.

Traxler, Loa P.1994 A New Discovery at Copan.Expedition35(3):57–62.1996 Los grupos de patios tempranos de la Acrópolis de Copán.Yaxkin

14:35–54.

1997 Connections Buried beneath the Dancing Jaguars at Copan, Hon-duras. Paper presented at the symposium “ATale of Two Cities: Copanand Teotihuacan,” Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Webster, David., William. L. Fash, and Elliot Abrams1986 Excavaciones en el Patio A. InExcavaciones en el área urbana

de Copán, edited by W. Sanders, pp. 155–317. Secretaría de Culturay Turismo y Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia,Tegucigalpa.

Webster, David, and AnnCorrine Freter1990 Settlement History and the Classic Collapse at Copán:ARedefined

Chronological Perspective.Latin American Antiquity1:66–85.Williamson, Richard

1996 On the Origins of Complex Society at Copan: Excavations be-neath Structure 10L-26 at Copan, Honduras. Paper presented at the61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, NewOrleans.


Documents

EC Archit at Copan