Paths  of  Interac.on:  GIS  Spa.al  Analysis  in  Preclassic  Mesoamerica  Omar  Alcover  Firpi,  PhD  Student-­‐Anthropology  Department  

Brown  University-­‐  GEOL  1320    Introduc)on:  Mesoamerica   is  a  cultural  and  geographic  area  known  for   its  wide  diversity  of  civiliza.ons  that  spanned  

from  Northern  Mexico  down  South  to  the  borders  of  modern  El  Salvador  and  Honduras.  In  the  middle  of  this  territory,  the  ancient  Maya  civiliza.on  flourished  and  developed.  The  emergence  of  socio-­‐poli.cal  complexity   is   linked  with  the  establishment   of   plaza-­‐pyramid   complexes   in   southern   Mesoamerica   from   as   early   as   the   Middle   Preclassic   Period  (1000BC-­‐700BC).  Recent  research  suggests   that  plaza-­‐pyramid  complexes   in  early  Maya  centers,  understood  as  public  ritual   spaces,   came   into  being   through  par.cipa.on   in   larger   interregional   interac.ons  with   contemporary   centers   in  Mesoamerica   (Inomata   et   al.   2013).   This   study   assess   the   role   played   by   Preclassic   Usumacinta   River   Valley   sites  regarding   interregional   interac.ons   with   contemporary   centers,   specifically   that   of   the   site   of   La   Técnica,   with   the  western  most  E  Group  of  the  Maya  area,  with  its  contemporary  centers.    

Research  Objec)ves:  The  study   incorporates  GIS  Spa.al  Analysis  to  assess  Least  Cost  Paths  (LCP)  between  Middle  Forma.ve  Chiapas  and  Golf  Olmec  sites   to   that  of   the  Maya  site  of  Seibal,  where  clear   interregional   interac.ons  are  evidenced  as  early  as  1000BC.  Addi.onally  Viewsheds  were  also  calculated  to  assess  the  area  of  visibility  of  the  La  Técnica  E  group  as  well  as  visibility  of  the  Least  Cost  Paths  between  the  Olmec  sites  and  Seibal.  Considering  the  evidence  of  an  E-­‐Group  assemblage  at  La  Técnica,  the  study  aims  to  verify  if  LCPS  between  MFC  sites  and  Seibal  pass  through  the  Usumacinta  River  Valley  sites  that  would  account  for  the  adop.on  of  this  architectural  assemblage  at  the  site.  Furthermore  the  study  seeks  to  evaluate  the  role  of  La  Técnica  among  contemporary  Usumacinta  Valley  sites.      

Methodology:  The  founda.ons  for  all  the  GIS  spa.al  analysis  presented  in  this  study  are  based  on  an  SRTM  Digital  Eleva.on  Model  (DEM)  with  90m  resolu.on.  The  SRTM  DEM  was  projected  to  the  UTM  Zone15N  coordinate  system.  Furthermore,  the  shapefiles  of  the  sites  were  acquired  and  projected   to   the  same  coordinate  system  as   the  DEM.  Once  all   the  data  was  cleaned  and  organized,   LCPs  were  calculated,  independently,   star.ng   from   La   Venta,   San   Isidro   and   Chiapa   de   Corzo   towards   Seibal   (see  map   below).   Addi.onal   LCPs   were   created  star.ng  from  La  Técnica  to  Seibal  and  La  Venta  and  other  contemporary  Preclassic  sites  within  the  Usumacinta  River  valley  (see  A,  B  and  C).  It   is   important   to  note   that   the  LCPs  only   take   into  account  difficulty  of  human  travel   in  varying  slopes   through  change   in  eleva.on   (see  Doyle  et  al.  2012).  Rivers,  causeways,  and  other  natural  and  manmade  paths  were  not  considered  in  this  study.  Viewsheds  were  calculated  for  selected  Preclassic  Usumacinta  River  Valley  sites,  also  based  on  the  SRTM  DEM.  

Discussion  of  Results:  If  we  observe  maps  A,  B  and  C  we  can  appreciate  that  the  LCPs  from  the  MFC  and  Golf  Olmec  sites  completely  avoid  La  Técnica  and  its  contemporary  Preclassic  Usumacinta  Valley  sites.    Addi.onally,  the  viewsheds  from  the  Preclassic  Usumacinta  sites  do  not  coincide  with  the  LCPs  outside  of  the  valley.  This  would  ini.ally  suggest  that  the  Preclassic   sites   in   the   Usumacinta   River   Valley   were   not   near   the   most   probable   exchange   route   between   larger  Preclassic  centers,  thus  may  not  have  a  significant  role  in  these  cultural  exchanges.  In  fact,  it  is  important  to  consider  that  the   LCP   from  La   Técnica   to   La  Venta   (yellow)   and   Seibal   (dark  blue)   deviates   from   the   larger  path  between  MFC  and  Seibal.   This   does   not   imply,   though,   that   sites   in   the   Usumacinta   River   were   unaware   of   cultural   and   architectural  developments  outside  of  the  valley  (inferred  by  the  Preclassic  E  group  at  la  Técnica).    Another  interes.ng  result,  as  observed  in  maps  B  and    C,  is  that  the  northwest  LCP  from  La  Técnica  to  Rancho  Bufalo  (the  western  most  Usumacinta  site  in  this  study)  passes  through  or  near  contemporary  centers,  excluding  Macabilero  and  Na  Witz.  These  Preclassic  Usumacinta  sites  have  not  yet  been  systema.cally  studied,  yet  due  to  the  evidence  of  the  most  probable  foot  paths  between  them  it  would  be  interes.ng  to  consider  similari.es  and  longevity  in  occupa.on  between  them.  If  we  look  above  at  map  B,  we  can  appreciate  that    none  of  the  viewsheds  between  these  centers  are  totalizing,  limited   to   various   kilometers   from   the   site   center,   thus   no   site   had   complete   visibility   of   the   valley   during   this   .me  period.    

Ini)al  Conclusions  and  Future  Projects    The  Usumacinta  River  has  been  populated  by  the  Maya  as  early  as  the  Middle  Preclassic  Period   (1000BC-­‐400BC)   and   its   occupa.on   spanned   un.l   the   Classic   period   (AD250-­‐AD900),   marking   a   long   tradi.on   of   shids   in   civic   planning   and   rituals   (Golden   et   al.  2006).  Middle  Preclassic  seflements  along  the  Usumacinta  are  characterized  by  diverse  civic   planning   that   represents   selected   features   of   larger   architectural   assemblages  popular  at  the  .me,  possibly  poin.ng  to  specific  ritual  ac.vi.es  taking  place  at  each  site.  Serving  as  complementary  ritual  centers,  sites  along  the  Usumacinta  present  a  different  view  of   society   in   the  past,  diverging   from  models   that  emphasize   single  monumental  sites  as  the  driving  force  in  ritual  and  poli.cal  complexity.      The  rela.ve  distance  from  the  most  probable  paths  of  exchange  between  MFC  sites  and  Seibal   support   the   theory  of  Usumacinta   sites’   rela.ve   isola.on  and  divergent  path   in  Socio-­‐Poli.cal  complexity.  Furthermore,  LCP  within  the  Usumacinta  Valley  pass  through  many   Preclassic   centers,   sugges.ng   a   link   between   these   centers   that   is   yet   to   be  determined.  I  would  argue  that  that  limited  visibility  of  each  site  within  the  valley  may  suggest  that  no  site  had  overarching  control  over  the  valley,  a  theory  that  Golden  and  Scherer   (2013)   have   suggested.   Doyle   (2012)   has   suggested   that   E-­‐Groups   at   Central  Petén   sites   are   located   on   prominent   hill-­‐tops   with   extensive   viewsheds.   The   limited  viewshed  of  the  E-­‐Group  at  La  Técnica  contrast  this.  Although  data  is  very  much  limited  I  would  argue  that  the  E-­‐Group  at   la  Técnica,  due  to  difference  in  height   loca.on  at  the  site,  may  have  had  a  different  func.on  for  people  at  the  Usumacinta  Valley.         GIS   spa.al   analysis   have   allowed   to   further   refine   research   ques.ons   and   points   of  interest  that  would  have  otherwise  would  have  been  inaccessible  due  to  monetary  and  .me  constraints.  Further  LCP  and  Viewshed  analysis  of  the  Usumacinta  River  Valley  will  take   into   considera.on   the  probable   vegeta.on  at   the  .me  and   the  difficulty  of   river  crossing.    

Doyle,  James  A.,  Thomas  G.  Garrison,  and  Stephen  D.  Houston.  "Watchful  realms:  integra.ng  GIS  analysis  and    poli.cal  history  in  the  southern  Maya  lowlands."  An#quity  86.333  (2012):  792-­‐807.  

Doyle,  James  A.  "Regroup  On  “E-­‐Groups”:  Monumentality  and  Early  Centers  in  the  Middle  Preclassic  Maya    Lowlands."  La#n  American  An#quity  23,  no.  4  (2012):  355-­‐379.  

Golden,  Charles,  Scherer,  Andrew  and,  Rosaura  Vasquez.  “Informe  de  la  Cuarta  Temporada  de  Campo.”  Proyecto    Regional  Arqueológico  Sierra  del  Lancandón,  2006  Ins.tuto  de  Antropologia  e  Historia,    Guatemala.    

Golden,  Charles,  and  Andrew  K.  Scherer.  "Territory,  Trust,  Growth,  and  Collapse  in  Classic  Period  Maya    Kingdoms."  Current    Anthropology  54.4  (2013):  397-­‐435.  

Inomata,  Takeshi,  et  al.  "Early  ceremonial  construc.ons  at  Ceibal,  Guatemala,  and  the  origins  of  lowland  Maya    civiliza.on."  Science  340.6131  (2013):  467-­‐471.  

A  

B  

C