onset of the early classic period in the...

ONSET OF THE EARLY CLASSIC PERIOD IN THESOUTHERN MAYA LOWLANDS: NEW EVIDENCEFROM PUNTA DE CHIMINO, GUATEMALA

Bruce R. BachandDepartment of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602-5522

Abstract

Desecration of Punta de Chimino’s ceremonial precinct around a.d. 430 was associated with the appearance of green Pachuca obsidian,pyrite mirror fragments, dart points, a Tikal-style vessel cache, and a peculiar grave with Mexican semblances. A structurallyhoused Protoclassic stela was removed in an apparent fire ritual and monumental masks adorning the E-Group range building were effacedin a termination rite involving large quantities of refuse. Disuse of the E-Group range building and unfinished refurbishment of theobservatory pyramid suggest the site was promptly deserted. The forsaking of this time-honored ceremonial place coincided with reducedsettlement in the Petexbatun region and abandonment of the nearby Pasión centers of Ceibal, Itzan, and Chaak Ak’al. Punta de Chimino’sfindings shed further light on these abandonments, suggesting that they were triggered by amplified central lowland involvement in PasiónRiver affairs by the end of the fourth century a.d.

One of the more shadowy moments in Lowland Maya history is thebeginning of the Early Classic period. Important scholarly volumesdevoted to this topic have appeared in each of the last three decades(Braswell 2003a; Grube 1995a; Willey and Mathews 1985). Fromthese, it has become increasingly clear that the Early Classicperiod began in domino fashion, with one center, Tikal, creating asocial vortex through which other Lowland communities passedin staggered succession. The material traits typically ascribed tothe Early Classic period—Initial Series stelae, vaulted architecture,roof combs, talud-tablero architecture, cylindrical tripods, greenobsidian—are widely distributed across the region but seem toappear first and in greatest quantity at Tikal.

Thus, ample reasons exist to trace the origin of many EarlyClassic period lifeways to Tikal. For four decades Mayanists haveused a.d. 250 to mark the inception of the Early Classic period(Willey et al. 1967). This date was arbitrarily established to accom-modate Tikal Stela 29, the oldest known Cycle 8 stela, whichpossesses a Long Count date of a.d. 292. But recent epigraphicand archaeological findings imply that a later sequence ofTikal-centered events beginning in a.d. 378 had a more widespread,if not profound, impact on Lowland Maya society than the era ofTikal’s third century rulers. A pivotal event was the arrival of theforeigner Siyaj K’ak from the west on the precise death date ofTikal’s reigning lord Chak Tok Ich’aak on January 16, a.d. 378(Stuart 2000). This latter event ushered in a new cultural order dis-tinguished by the political expansion of a militant junta of nativeand foreign-born Teotihuacan-inspired leaders who established apower base at Tikal (Martin 2003; Martin and Grube 2000).Elements such as fully phoneticized glyphic monuments, dynasti-cism, and specialized prestige good industries were clearly moreprevalent in the central lowlands than elsewhere during the first

three centuries a.d. These features spread rapidly to the north,south, east, and west in the late fourth century following thearrival of Siyaj K’ak. It stands to reason that these elements didnot become a cultural reality for most lowlanders until the end ofthat century.

Given this observation, events before a.d. 378 at Tikal andbefore a.d. 400 in other lowland zones are herein treated as“Protoclassic” in nature. The Protoclassic was a time whenMexican influence was isolated, sporadic, and probably of littlesocial consequence in most sectors of the Maya lowlands. Duringthis time many small and moderately sized Maya communities pro-duced ascendant leaders in an effort to distance themselves fromPreclassic megacenters. What emerged was an environment of pol-itical atomization and social upheaval—an atmosphere contrastingwith earlier centuries of Preclassic period political cohesion(Bachand 2006; Reese-Taylor and Walker 2002). Thus, in addres-sing the onset of the Early Classic period, I refer specifically toTikal’s dynastic expansion, implemented with greatest zeal andregional impact between a.d. 378 and 450, a timespan that corre-sponds to Tzakol 2 at Uaxactun and Manik 2 and 3a at Tikal(Table 1).

THE EARLY CLASSIC ON THE PASIÓN RIVER

The southern Maya lowlands can be divided into five geographicregions from west to east: the Lacandón Forest, the Salinas-PasiónRiver region, the Dolores-Poptún Plateau, the Toledo District ofsouthern Belize, and the Lake Izabal basin (Figure 1). Althoughsettlement surveys and preliminary tests have been undertaken ineach region, only a dozen or so sites have received large-scale strati-graphic excavation. All of these, save Lubantun, are located in theSalinas-Pasión River zone. Our clearest understanding of Early

21

E-mail correspondence to: [email protected]

Ancient Mesoamerica, 21 (2010), 21–44Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2010doi:10.1017/S0956536110000106

Classic period happenings in the southern Maya lowlands conse-quently derives from this region.

Primary data on the Pasión Early Classic period originate from ahandful of projects conducted since the 1960s (Demarest 2006;Demarest and Barrientos 2002; Johnston 2006; Ponciano et al.2005; Willey 1973, 1990). Pasión sites continue to be found withEarly Classic period remains, but the overall historical picture haschanged little, as finds are often isolated and fragmentary. Thelargest Early Classic period site on the Pasión River was unques-tionably Altar de Sacrificios (Willey 1973). This center establishedclose political and economic ties with Salinas de los Nueve Cerroson the upper Chixoy-Salinas River (Dillon 1979) and with thecentral Petén. Interestingly, the preeminent Protoclassic centers ofCeibal (anglicized Seibal) and Chaak Ak’al exhibit no evidenceof public construction, carved monuments, or sizeable settlementduring the Early Classic period (Johnston 2006; Willey 1990); thesame is true of the modest Preclassic center of Itzan (Johnston2006). But a variety of Early Classic period remains have been

documented around Lake Petexbatun, a subregion of the Pasión,at the sites of Aguateca, Dos Pilas, Arroyo de Piedra,Tamarindito, and Punta de Chimino and in surrounding caves andgrottos (Brady et al. 1990, 1991; Demarest 2006; Eberl 2000;Escobedo 1997a; Foias 1996; Ishihara et al. 2005; Triadan andKopka 2005; Valdés 1997). Upriver, the diminutive site of TresIslas has several Early Classic stelae but only small traces ofearlier settlement (Tomasic and Fahsen 2004). Northward, theminor site of Polol was ceramically aligned with the MiddlePasión in the Protoclassic period, at which time its inhabitants prob-ably erected a most unusual stela (August 1982; Pahl 1982; Patton1987). Unlike other sites discussed here, Polol appears to have con-structed small palatial buildings during the Early Classic period.These eleven localities and a few cave sites provide the corpus ofevidence from which the following inferences are drawn.

Tres Islas is an enigma among the above sites and bears specialmention. It has three small mounds that rise to 1.5 m, and these arelocated 200 m from a cluster of exquisitely carved monuments

Table 1. Selected ceramic sequences in the central and southern Maya lowlands. Gray band designates the time period of interest. Hatching representsinferred settlement abandonments. Cultural periodization follows Bachand (2006). Long count corresponds to the Goodman-Martínez-Thompsoncorrelation. Uaxactun sequence is after Smith and Gifford (1965). Tikal sequence combines findings of Culbert (2003) with Early Classic ceramic subdivisionsof Laporte (2003:290). Punta de Chimino sequence is a refinement of Foias (1996): Ceibal sequence is derived from Sabloff (1975), and the Altar de Sacrificiossequence is taken from Adams (1971).

Bachand22

(Tomasic and Fahsen 2004). Its three stelae were erected around a.d.470 but contain puzzling references to events transpiring in a.d.400, 402, 415, and 416. Protagonists on two stelae are clad inMexican military costume and grasp arrow bundles in their hands.An Early Classic cache associated with Stela 2 consisted of alip-to-lip vessel offering containing, among other things, nineblack obsidian cores (Tomasic and Fahsen 2004:820). EarlyClassic caches with nine obsidian objects have been found atTikal, Uaxactun, Copan, and Piedras Negras. Tres Islas may havehad a small Protoclassic occupation, as suggested by nearbytraces of Chicanel pottery. Its size was of no consequence, but itslocation permitted the monitoring of traffic down the Pasión’seastern tributaries, the Machaquilá and San Juan Rivers. Becauseof its size, Tres Islas could not have overtaken Ceibal, ChaakAk’al, or even Punta de Chimino. Current evidence implies thatTres Islas was established on the Pasión River by a formidable, non-local polity with Mexican affiliations concurrent with the MiddlePasión abandonments mentioned above.

PUNTA DE CHIMINO

Punta de Chimino is situated on a peninsula extending into LakePetexbatun (Figure 3). The lake is 8 km south of the Pasión Riverbut is linked to this river by a narrow meandering tributary(Figure 2). The region’s richest soils are found along the marginsof Lake Petexbatun, an Upper Oligocene graben where thick

organic sediments, the so-called Sarstun Series soils, have accruedin a perennially wet or swampy environmental regime. The areais pluvious, receiving approximately 2500 mm of rainfallannually. Heavy rains on the western upland horst known as thePetexbatun Escarpment trickle down into sinkholes and cavernsand reemerge in springs at the base of the precipice (Dunninget al. 1998). Lake Petexbatun drops to its dry season low in Apriland rises steadily during the rainy season, submerging the lowest5 to 7 m of the Punta de Chimino peninsula by October. The lakeis the biological nucleus of the Río Petexbatun floodplain; it pro-vides habitats for many species of fish, reptiles, waterfowl, andmollusks.

The site’s ruined monuments are concentrated on the peninsula’swide bulbous end (Figure 3). They are sharply separated from thepeninsula’s narrow neck and mainland by a colossal wall flankedby a deep outer ditch. The mounds are divided between two ceremo-nial plazas, the elevated Acropolis terrace and the West Group. Onits mapped surface, Punta de Chimino resembles a ceremonialcenter with little or no space for residential settlement. Twoadditional barriers are found on the narrow neck west of theprincipal embankment, but no significant mounds or evidence ofPreclassic occupation have been found in this location (Demarestet al. 1995). The small island north of the principal embankmentwas likely created with dirt excavated from the adjacent ditchwhen the ditch and embankment were formed at an unknownmoment in time (Bachand 2006:218–235).

Figure 1. Selected sites in the Central and Southern Lowlands around a.d. 400. Squares are sites with Cycle 8 era monuments. Rings aresites with Cycle 8 calendrical statements.

Onset of the Early Classic Period in the Southern Maya Lowlands 23

Prior Investigations

Excavations began at Punta de Chimino in 1989 when a team ofarchaeologists from Guatemala’s Instituto de Antropología e Historiatested the Acropolis plaza and drafted a preliminary map of the site(Velásquez 1994). Later that season, the site was extensively mappedand reconnoitered by an archaeological team from VanderbiltUniversity (Inomata et al. 1989). The presence of substantialPreclassic period occupation was already evident in early tests (Foiasin Inomata et al. 1989; Velásquez 1994). The scaled map and prelimi-nary ceramic assessments established a baseline for subsequentVanderbilt University excavations in 1990, 1991, 1995, and 1996under the direction of Arthur Demarest (2006). Though extensivethroughout the site, Vanderbilt’s excavations were mainly shallow orsurficial in nature, being designed to address the Terminal Classic col-lapse. Important traces of Preclassic, Protoclassic, and Early Classicoccupation were nevertheless encountered in Mounds 7 and 70(Demarest et al. 1996; Escobedo 1996, 1997b; Morgan 1996).

The Present Research

In 2004 and 2005, I conducted a series of deep stratigraphic testsand horizontal exposures in Mounds 6, 7, and 59, the large embank-ment, and the small island (Figure 3). This work formed the basis ofmy doctoral dissertation (Bachand 2006), which was a componentof a regional study of Aguateca (Inomata et al. 2007). The Puntade Chimino project focused on accurate dating and expanded docu-mentation of the site’s pre-Classic cultural remains. Its theoreticalgoal was to explore how changes in public monumental spacesignaled changes in community identity and attachment to a placeover time.

Fieldwork centered uponMounds 6 and 7 in the Acropolis plaza.The form, size, and arrangement of these mounds resembled that ofa public ritual complex known as an E-Group (Aimers and Rice2006; Chase and Chase 1995; Fialko 1988; Hansen 1998; Laporte1996; Lowe 1977; Stanton and Freidel 2003). Excavations inMound 6, the long eastern mound, provided details of a

Figure 2. The Pasión Region showing sites mentioned in the text.

Bachand24

1,200-year occupational sequence dating back to the start of the lateMiddle Preclassic period. Episodes of monument construction,refurbishment, desecration, and abandonment were observablethroughout the mound’s depositional sequence. Eleven AMS andfour luminescence readings were acquired from a temporallystaggered series of burials, caches, and special deposits in the twoE-Group mounds (Table 2). Radiometric error terms were reducedwith the aid of Bayesian statistical models, a process that hasenabled further refinement of the site’s history (Bachand 2008).The most accurately dated portion of the radiometric sequence cor-responded to the Preclassic-Early Classic period transition, or whatis alternatively called the Protoclassic period (Table 1).

The Protoclassic ceramic stages outlined by Brady et al. (1998)correspond closely with marked changes in site formation, construc-tion methods, and the meaning of public space at Punta de Chimino.Hence, the Protoclassic ceramics are but one aspect of observablechanges in site history. Beyond Punta de Chimino, ample evidencedemonstrates that many social behaviors, attitudes, and practiceswere altered at this time, even at sites where Protoclassicpottery was scarce or absent (Bachand 2003, 2006). For thesereasons, I believe the term Protoclassic has significant, if notprimary, relevance as a culture-historical period in which manyMesoamerican socieites, the Lowland Maya especially, weredramatically reshaped (Wauchope 1951; Willey 1977).

I begin, then, by describing the Protoclassic developments thatled up to a decisive Early Classic period abandonment of Puntade Chimino. I then compare these findings to discoveries in otherlocalities.

Early Protoclassic Period (ca. 75 b.c.–a.d. 150/175)

Early Protoclassic period activity at Punta de Chimino is mainly rep-resented by a resurfacing and reterracing of the large Late Preclassicbuilding within Mound 6. This Protoclassic period construction,designated Structure 6A-Sub 4, commenced with the intermentof an adolescent (Burial 104) in the upper fill of the previousconstruction (Figures 4, 5, and 6). The deceased was laidsupine with head to the south. Arms and legs were crossed at thewrists and ankles. The person’s frontal bones, right femur, andleft foot bones were missing. No funerary items were found inthe grave.

Across the plaza, we discovered a Flor Cream ring base andnumerous Y-shaped gancho rims in the fill of Structure 7-Sub 4,indicating that Mound 7 was originally constructed in the EarlyProtoclassic period (Figure 7). Early ring bases are rare but gener-ally assignable to Protoclassic 1 (Kosakowsky and Pring 1998:64;similar Flor Cream examples are illustrated in Adams 1971:Chart3–4b and Forsyth 1989:Figure 15z). Sub 4 was badly eroded, butthe sherds in question were encountered in a deep, undisturbedportion of the building’s hearting. Thus, the two-mound E-Grouparrangement does not appear to have been in place before theEarly Protoclassic period.

The majority of ceramic elements isolated in these levels areChicanel-like in form and surface finish. Yet a number of newtypes and modes debuted at this time (Bachand 2007). Newlyintroduced types included Iberia Orange, Sacluc Black-on-orange,Metapa Trichrome, Caribal Red-on-orange, and San Martín

Figure 3. Map of Punta de Chimino showing 2004–2005 excavation locations (after Inomata et al. 1989).


Variegated Brown. The last two types most likely appeared inminor quantities at the end of Faisán 2. The final typementioned, San Martín Variegated Brown, is of particular culture-historical importance. This very distinctive type with dull,tan-to-buff finish and chunky calcite temper is found mostabundantly and almost exclusively at Ceibal, where Sabloff(1975:102–105) assigned it to the Early Classic Junco phase(Figure 8).

By the close of this period we detect the first significant sign ofsite abandonment. Both E-Group buildings exhibit major

deterioration, erosion, and slumping on their plaza-facing sides(Figures 4, 5, and 7). Bayesian analysis of two closely spaced radio-carbon assays suggest the hiatus lasted less than fifty years andbegan closer to a.d. 200 than to a.d. 150 (Bachand 2008:15–17,24). The two assays, AA-66268 and AA-66267, date well-preservedlong bone samples from Burials 102 and 104. The timing of thisevent corresponds with a postulated regional abandonment of thePetexbatun region (Foias 1996)—an event contemporaneous withsevere deforestation along the lake margin (Dunning et al. 1991,1998).

Table 2. Radiometric age determinations for Punta de Chimino, Guatemala. Calibrated dates derived from OxCal version 4.0.5 using the IntCal04 calibrationcurve (Reimer et al. 2004). Botanical identifications made by Dr. Lee A. Newsom, Pennsylvania State University

RadiocarbonYears BP/

LabNumber Material Sampled

Weight(g) δ13C Lot Context

LuminescenceDate

Cal Date1 sigma

Cal Date2 sigma

AA-60973 very fine carbonizedwood (Fabaceaefamily)

3.5 −26.7‰ PC51A-1-10-2 Beneath Str.6A-Sub. 6surface

2211± 51 400–160 B.C. 394–124 BC

AA-60976 carbonized frags. ofmature wood(Guttifereae family)

40 −8.0‰ PC51A-4-13-1 Between Strs.6A-Sub. 6/5

12323± 65 12,750–12,050B.C.

12,735–12,065BC

AA-66263 left human femur 5 −10.5‰ PC51C-2-5-1 B. 103, Str.7-Sub. 3(intrusive)

1634± 53 A.D. 250–550 AD 258–545

AA-66264 left human femur 3 −8.9‰ PC51C-1-6-3 B. 111,Structure7-Sub. 3

1568± 45 A.D. 400–600 AD 406–594

AA-66265 left human femur 2 −8.4‰ PC51A-11-5-2 B. 106, EarlyClassicdeposit

1613± 45 A.D. 330–560 AD 339–553

AA-66266 right human tibia 5 −9.6‰ PC51A-11-3-2 B. 105,Structure6A-Sub. 1

1273± 50 A.D. 650–870 AD 660–870

AA-66267 right human tibia 4 −9.8‰ PC51A-14-10-1 B. 104,Structure6A-Sub. 5

1756± 41 A.D. 130–390 AD 139–389

AA-66268 human tibia 2 −10.0‰ PC51A-3/8-5-1

B. 102,Structure6A-Sub. 4

1871± 43 A.D. 50–250 AD 53–241

AA-67901 carbonized maturewood (Burseraceaefamily)

4 −26.3‰ PC51A-15-7-2 On floorabutting Stela1

1582± 37 A.D. 400–570 AD 406–562

AA-67902 thin sliver of maturehardwood(Sapotaceae family)

5 −26.9‰ PC51A-9-10-1 Structure6A-Sub. 7mound fill

2468± 38 770–410 B.C. 763–414 BC

AA-67903 splintered carbonizedwood (Bombacaceaefamily?)

9 −17.5‰ PC51A-9-11-1 Structure6A-Sub. 8mound fill

4708± 43 3,540–3,370B.C.

3,634–3,371BC

UW-1152 Unnamed OrangePolychrome vase

PC51C-2-5-1 B. 103, Str.7-Sub. 3(intrusive)

180 B.C.± 520 (TL)

UW-1154 Dos Arroyos OrangePolychrome dish

PC51A-3-4-2 Early Classicdeposit

44 B.C.± 410 (OSL)

UW-1323 Achiotes Unslippedor JocoteOrange-brown jar

PC51A-9-11-1 Str. 6A-Sub.8 mound fill

A.D. 60± 322 (OSL)

UW-1324 Black-Brown Incisedbowl

PC51C-1-6-3 B. 111,Structure7-Sub. 3

2,660 B.C.± 1,230(TL)

Bachand26

Late Protoclassic (ca. a.d. 200/250–375)

Sometime during the Late Protoclassic Faisán 3 phase, Puntade Chimino’s ceremonial precinct was revitalized by either agroup of local people with long distance ties or by a group of non-local Lowland Maya. A marked change occurred in constructiontechniques. Faisán 3 additions were structurally inferior to thedensely packed cell wall fills and well-paved surfaces of earlierFaisán buildings. Extensions to Structures 6A-Sub 4 and 7-Sub 4were composed of a loose rubble fill capped with a layerof small unshaped cobbles and course gravel (Figures 4, 5,and 7). The stucco coatings on these monuments vanishedcompletely during the more decisive abandonment that wouldsoon follow.

Faisán 2 and 3 constructions were minimally altered symboli-cally. The function of Structures 6A and 7 as E-Group counterpartswas clearly recognized and improved upon. The elongated E-Groupplatform was widened and possibly lengthened with the addition ofdistal-end stairways (Figures 9 and 10). The platform’s north-southorientation was adjusted, perhaps to correct a solstitial alignment,and its western façade was embellished with large heads or

“masks” of probable Protoclassic humanoid form. A triangulararrangement of three spherical stones was placed in the fill on theplatform’s east-west centerline. Finally, and perhaps most signifi-cantly, Faisán 3 builders did not cover the sunken court crestingthis range platform. They reused it and probably incorporated itsprior purposes into the remodeled structure. Thus, the symbolicqualities and social functions of the earlier Protoclassic buildingwere well recognized and enhanced by Faisán 3 occupants.

Across the plaza, a hole was dug into the west side of the slump-ing Structure 7-Sub 4 to insert a Protoclassic vessel cache (Demarestet al. 1996; Escobedo 1996, 1997b). Then something unprecedentedhappened: the pyramid became funerary or, more accurately, thepyramid’s basal platform became funerary. The monument wasquite likely appropriated by a single corporate group, perhaps a pro-minent lineage. In Burial 111 an adult individual of undeterminedsex was interred in a carefully prepared centerline cist with a bowlplaced upright near the feet (Figures 7 and 11). The person’s legswere crossed in lotus fashion, an increasingly fashionable sign ofauthority in the Maya lowlands by Protoclassic times. Instead ofbeing seated, the person was reclined with his/her head facing

Figure 4. North wall of main trench in Mound 6.

Figure 5. South wall of main trench in Mound 6.


north. Iron pyrite disk inlays in the person’s upper incisors, a traitassociated with elaborate burials on this time horizon, confirmedhis or her socially elevated status. The waxy brown bowl andpyrite inlays, common southwest highland items, imply that thisperson and/or his or her interrers may have had ties to the south.

At this time few people resided in the Petexbatun region, or ifthey did, they certainly did little to mark their place on the land-scape. Unlike previous occupations at Punta de Chimino whennew ceramic types accrued in sizeable quantities before they wereincorporated into monumental construction, few Faisán 3 typeswere found in the earliest Faisán 3 construction fills. The newbuilders may not have lived on the peninsula long enough to

accumulate modest quantities of refuse. The activities of Faisán 3builders were restricted to the Acropolis E-Group and Structure70 in the West Group plaza—the former symbols of local power.The labor investment involved in these alterations, although con-siderable, was nothing on par with Faisán 1 Acropolis construction.

Elements appearing for the first time were green Pachuca obsi-dian (one prismatic blade found in fill encapsulating Burial 111),iron pyrite (Burial 111 dental inlays), and minor quantities ofAguila Orange pottery. As mentioned, San Martín VariegatedBrown (Playa Dull Ware) and Caribal Red (early Petén Gloss) prob-ably attained their maximum popularity in Faisán 3. These typeswere joined by minor quantities of the first true Petén Gloss

Figure 6. Plan drawing of Burial 104, an early Protoclassic (Faisán 2) grave intrusive into Structure 6A-Sub 5.

Figure 7. North wall of main trench in Mound 7.

Bachand28

types—Actuncan Orange Polychrome, Aguila Orange, BalanzaBlack, and Pucte Brown. Cream underslips were common,especially on orange slipped vessels. Basal flanges, basal ridges,and ring bases occurred with minor yet increased frequency (ringbases reached their greatest frequency in the Jordan complex).Z-angle flanges appeared for the first time. The first miniaturevessel, a Balanza Black bowl with dimple base, dated to thisfacet. Noteworthy was the sudden appearance of a wide-range ofritual censer pots: ladle censers, modeled face censers, spiked/horned censers, and a square incense burner base. Pronouncedchanges also occurred in the unslipped ceramic inventory with

grittier, coarser, thicker-walled ceramic vessels and dish formsnow competing with jar forms. I estimate that no more than 40%of the Faisán 3 ceramic industry was comprised of Chicanelpottery (Bachand 2006:299–301).

Sometime in the latter half of Faisán 3 a stela was erected in frontof the long E-Group building. The monument was housed or“framed” in a two-chamber masonry enclosure (Structure 6B) thatrose one meter off the plaza floor (Figures 4, 9, 10, and 12). Theenclosure’s rear came within 50 cm of the Structure 6A-Sub 3mask wall. This action obscured one’s view of the masks fromthe plaza and created a private ritual corridor between the two

Figure 8. San Martín Variegated Brown potsherds from Punta de Chimino: (a) from the Early Classic mask wall termination deposit; (b)and (c) from Str. 6A-Sub 2 fill (Protoclassic 2); (d) from Str. 7 fill (Late Classic); (e) from Str. 6B fill (Protoclassic 2); (f) from Str. 7-Sub 3fill (Protoclassic 2); (g) from Str. 7-Sub 1 fill (early Late Classic); (h) from Str. 7-Sub 1 fill (early Late Classic); (i) from the Stela 1 basal pit(Protoclassic 2). Not illustrated is a San Martín sherd from a sealed Protoclassic 1 fill context within Str. 6A-Sub 4. Drawings by AlfredoRomán.

Figure 9. Photograph of Mound 6 stela enclosure and mask wall.


buildings. The latest ceramics found in Structure 6B’s fill and wallcollapse were Faisán 3 in date (89 of 164 sherds). The same was truefor the stela pit (23 of 47 sherds), except for a cluster of Saxche/Palmar Orange polychrome sherds that were laterally intrusivefrom an adjacent Late Classic burial.

Masonry stela enclosures are common enough in the Maya low-lands. They occur in public plazas or palace groups, are usuallymultichambered, and are often described as shrines, sanctuaries,or temples (Fash 2001; Pendergast 1988; Ricketson and Ricketson1937:164–165, Figure 107; A. L. Smith 1950:15, 24–25, Figures.19b and 78b). Early Classic period stelae at Calakmul, Balakbal,and Tikal were reset into Late Classic period enclosures (Jonesand Orrego 1987; Laporte 1993:308, Figure 1; Pincemin et al.1998:319, Figure 12). The earliest stela enclosures probablyderive from the Tikal area (Martin 2000), but these have not beenprecisely dated. Punta de Chimino’s Stela 1 was undoubtedly con-tained within Structure 6B during the latter half of that building’sexistence (ca. a.d. 300–430). With no evidence of a dismantledroof, archaeological evidence suggests that Structure 6B had noroof, and was in this regard similar to Late Classic twin-pyramidstelae installations at Tikal (Jones 1969). Several modificationswere rendered to the enclosure during its use-life. A pair of interiorwalls was added, creating two chambers; A masonry talud wall wasadded to the rear wall, and a small bench-like niche was cut out onthe building’s rear ledge, directly across from mask 1 on Structure6A-Sub 3. Three radiocarbon dates anchor Structure 6B toFaisán 3, making it the earliest stela enclosure on record in theMaya lowlands. The stela itself fits archaeologically within Cycle8 (8.10.0.0.0–9.0.0.0.0 or a.d. 238–435), making it the earlieststela of record in the Pasión region (Mathews 1985:25, Figure 4;Mathews and Willey 1991:54). The monument’s closest regionalequivalent is Polol Altar 1, a misnamed stela with a badly eroded

Initial Series date that portrays two elaborately adorned protagonistsfacing a central glyph column (Pahl 1982:Figures 1a,b and 2a,b;Patton 1987:Figures 63–65).

Completion of the stela enclosure initiated spatial practices thatwere unorthodox for Petexbatunites. If the enclosure supported aperishable superstructure, only a few individuals would haveobserved the stela at one time. Even if the stela was uncovered,the dual chambers and single entrance channeled movementaround the monolith. In addition, the narrow passage behind theenclosure required a person to enter the corridor to obtain a fullfrontal view of the symbolic art gracing Structure 6A-Sub 3. Thesmall cutout or niche on Structure 6B’s rear ledge fronted mask 1and probably served as a seat for divining while facing the image(Figures 10 and 12). These newly designed spaces were conduciveto more exclusive ritual activities in the plaza—activities probablycarried out by ritual specialists. The demographic picture suggeststhat these specialists had a small following.

The presence of a stela implies that an ascendant leader laidclaim to the peninsula and perhaps the surrounding countryside.Modest quantities of San Martín Variegated Brown potteryconnote continued ties to Ceibal, the probable place of origin forthis ceramic type. Classic period inscriptions from CeibalStructure A-14 indicate that the city’s dynastic origins hearkenback to one K’an Mo’ Balam or “Yellow Macaw Jaguar” whoappears to have ruled around a.d. 415, just prior to that city’shypothesized abandonment (Graham 1990:15–16; Grube 1995b:2; Mathews and Willey 1991:49–50, 54; Stuart 1998:398and note 13). E-Group modifications at Punta de Chiminoappear to predate the establishment of Ceibal’s royal line, butStela 1’s chronometric placement remains loose enough toaccommodate a temporal link with Ceibal’s dynastic founding ca.a.d. 415.

Figure 10. Plan drawing of artifacts associated with the mask wall corridor and Stela 1 enclosure beneath Mound 6.

Bachand30

In summary, people with an appreciation and knowledge of theprevious monumental edifices at Punta de Chimino carried outthe Faisán 3 renovations. The disjunction in construction methodsand materials is perplexing and seems to suggest a lapse in culturalknowledge, perhaps indicating that Faisán 3 residents were LowlandMaya from another locale. This interpretation is reinforced by therealignment of Structure 6A and the transformation of Structure 7into a funerary monument, a practice not engaged in by previousPunta de Chimino residents. Although the structural work onthese E-Group buildings was inferior to that of earlier periods, theiconographic elements were probably detailed and skillfullyrendered. It is highly conceivable that new social elements arrivedto fill an occupational and political void created by the previousEarly Protoclassic period desertion. These elements were elitistand ecclesiastic. Ironically, there is little to suggest even a modestpopulation on or near the peninsula at this time. An ascendantleader had a shrine built to himself and/or his liege in the plazadirectly in front of the center’s most sacred edifice. Judging fromthe size, shape, stone quality, and solid installation of this monu-ment, and the special treatment afforded it in its removal, it wasprobably as highly skilled in execution as its enclosure. Suchskills and concepts were mastered first in the Tikal-Uaxactunregion. The association of Aguila Orange pottery, a Cycle 8 stela,

and a stela enclosure suggest a more direct relationship with thisregion by the end of Faisán 3. Curious, however, is the absenceof Aguila Orange pottery and Cycle 8 stela at Ceibal. Punta deChimino and Ceibal were surely in contact during this time, assuggested by their sharing of San Martín Variegated Brownpottery and other Faisán 3 ceramic traits.

Early Classic Events (ca. AD 375–430)

The succeeding Jordan phase at Punta de Chimino ended shortlyafter it began. A series of well-preserved and dated archaeologicalcontexts sketch a partial, yet telling image of this opaque momentin Pasión River history. Bayesian simulation of four radiometricassays ordered the following events, since their contexts were strati-graphically contemporaneous and impossible to arrange sequen-tially (Bachand 2008:12). The following description utilizes thisordering starting with the first or earliest event.

Burial 103. The most perplexing find of the 2004 field seasonwas Burial 103, a cylindrical stone-lined cavity that was carvedinto the late Protoclassic basal platform of Structure 7 (Figures 7and 13). The cist was 50 cm in diameter, 60 cm deep, and ringedwith well-shaped stones from top to bottom. It was sealed by acluster of thick slab-like capstones that rested upon the Sub 3 plat-form surface. Initially thought to be a chultun, this grave containedthe disintegrated skeletal remains of an adult individual of undeter-mined sex. Judging by the cavity’s cramped dimensions and theposition of the cranium in relation to other skeletal components,the person was seated upright with knees bent to the chest andhead facing west/southwest. A calibrated radiocarbon range ofa.d. 250–550 (2 sigma, 95% probability) was acquired from theoccupant’s left femur (1634± 53 BP, AA-66263). Bayesiansimulations accounting for the stratigraphic primacy of Burial 111placed the death of Burial 103’s occupant in the early fifthcentury around a.d. 430 (Bachand 2008:18–19).

The deceased was interred with three Tzakol vessels and anunmodified marine bivalve shell of the Atlantic speciesDinocardium robustum (Kitty Emery, personal communication2007). One vessel was a Balanza Black vase with a rounded, slightlyconcave base. Another was a squat, cylindrical vase with a series ofred vertical bands and a red rim band on an orange background thatoverlaid a cream underslip. This vessel’s shape, with flat base, ver-tical walls, and direct rim, was somewhat infrequent in the lowlands,although nine examples were discovered in Tikal’s ProblematicalDeposit 50 (Culbert 1993:Figure 130), a secondarily depositedgrave with “strong” Mexican qualities dating between a.d. 386and 426 (Coggins 1975:177–181). The third vessel was a cylindricaltripod with an exquisite plano-relief design detailed with light fugi-tive incisions. In the design, the stylized head of a saurian creature orserpent is repeated four times below a band of repeating quatrefoilelements (Figure 14a). This serpent is nearly indistinguishablefrom one carved on a late Protoclassic period roller stamp fromAltar de Sacrificios (Willey 1972:Figure 89a, b). The tripod vasehas a highly polished, unslipped surface (although a reddish-brownslip may have been applied between the rim and quatrefoil band). Ithas thin walls and an ashy-gray paste with volcanic inclusions,suggesting highland manufacture or lowland assembly with high-land materials. The solid square feet are unusual, as they arelocated inward away from the vessel’s edge. Similarly shaped sup-ports appeared on late Protoclassic Maya vessels in the BelizeValley (e.g., Gifford 1976:Figure 65e, f), but other evidence

Figure 11. Burial 111, a late Protoclassic (Faisán 3) grave in Mound 7: (a) upperincisors with pyrite disk inlays; (b) waxy brown bowl with a preslip,circumferentially incised line below the rim.


suggests that they originated in the Maya highlands prior to theMexican entrada at Tikal in a.d. 378 (Braswell 2003b:87, 102,and 104-note 12; Foias 1987; Laporte and Fialko 1987:140;Laporte et al. 1992:30; Varela and Braswell 2003:259–260).

The repetitive serpent motif is a common theme on Maya-stylevessels found at Teotihuacan (Taube 2003:305–308, 312–313).Dark brown to black plano-relief versions with serpent designsare nimbly executed yet scarce and may have been the work of asmall group of artisans or a master potter who resided in theChiapas-Guatemala highlands around a.d. 400 (Agrinier andBryant 2005:409–410; Quirarte 1973). At Teotihuacan, direct-rimcylinder tripods with well-executed plano-relief designs arerestricted to elaborate graves (Sempowski 1994:254).

In preliminary reports and publications we described Burial 103as Teotihuacan-like (Bachand and Anavisca 2004; Bachand et al.2006). A strontium isotope test was subsequently conducted at theUniversity of North Carolina, indicating that the deceased spenthis/her adolescence in the central Maya lowlands and migrated toPunta de Chimino later in life (Wright and Bachand 2009).Further assessment of Punta de Chimino’s Early Classic period con-texts, including this unusual burial, support the interpretation thatthe alien features observed are Mexican elements introduced byanother Lowland Maya group.

Stone-lined circular grave pits are certainly rare in the lowlandsduring the Early Classic period, and known examples are found atsites with an abundance of “Mexicanized” material effects. Suchgraves are located in prominent public spaces, and they oftencontain foreign-made items that signal a more direct link tocentral Mexico (Fash 1998; Fash and Fash 2000; Smyth andRogart 2004). Burial 103’s grave style and body posture arewholly uncharacteristic for the early LowlandMaya. The deceased’sbody position, marine shell, and tripod cylinder fall within the par-ameters of the Teotihuacan tradition, but the stone-lined cist

Figure 12. Profile drawing of the Structure 6B stela enclosure in Mound 6.

Figure 13. Burial 103, an Early Classic circular stone paved crypt inMound 7.

Bachand32

does not. Teotihuacanos were seated in irregularly shaped ovalearthen pits or fosas during Tlamilmilolpa times between a.d. 200and 400 (Cabrera Castro 1999:506–507; Sempowski 1994:132–133, 140–141, 209). As for body posture, there is anotherkey difference: Teotihuacanos faced east, not west.

The closest counterparts in time, form, content, or context toBurial 103 are found at Tikal and Copan. Tikal’s Burial PNT-168dates to the Manik 3A subphase, between a.d. 378 and 480(Laporte et al. 1992:41–43). It too contained an adult individualseated in an east-west position and accompanied by pots and amarine bivalve shell—an item almost exclusively associated withadult males at Teotihuacan (Sempowski 1994:155–156). Thegrave was a carved chultun-shaped bedrock pit capped by fourthick capstones and covered by a small square ceremonial platformin the center of an Early Classic palace courtyard. Like Punta deChimino’s grave, the vessels were placed upright to the southeastof the occupant. The second example, Problematical Deposit 50,is rumored to be of the same cylindrical shape and size asCopan’s Motmot crypt (Fash and Fash 2000:443; Fash et al.2004:68–72). Illustrations and descriptions of this deposit awaitpublication in Tikal Report 23F, Investigations of Area of Stela29. Coggins (1975:177) described PD 50 as a redeposited tombplaced in a “dump” west of the North Acropolis and cited it as apossible Mexican-style cremation. The deposit contained portionsof seven skeletons and numerous funerary items, including twoTeotihuacan-style incensarios and two imported tripod cylinderbowls displaying Mexican imagery—one exhibited two intertwinedrattlesnakes with avian head plumes; the other displayed the famousTeotihuacan emissary scene (Coggins 1975:179–181; Culbert 1993:Figure 128; Greene and Moholy-Nagy 1966). As mentioned, PD 50contained numerous examples of the squat, cup-like vessel shapefound in Burial 103. It also contained several of the AguilaOrange cache vessels that are diagnostic of this time period (seebelow). Tikal’s PD 50 is roughly contemporaneous with Burial103 and its contents were probably extracted from a grave withinthe Mundo Perdido complex or North Acropolis. Neither of the

Tikal interments were stone paved, but both were chultun-shapedand contemporaneous with Burial 103.

A final peculiar feature of Burial 103 was that it was not coveredby construction until a.d. 600 or so. Its capstones remained on theSub. 3 surface for 150 to 200 years. Four small excavation lots onStructure 7’s apex appeared to correspond to a discontinued EarlyClassic period resurfacing of Sub 3 (Figure 7). Thus, Burial 103seems to have been dedicatory for an Early Classic constructionthat was never finished.

Stela 1 fire ritual. The uncarved lower portion of a stela (desig-nated Stela 1) remained securely planted on Structure 6B’s centralaxis at a distance of 0.75 m from the back wall (Figures 9, 10, 12,and 15). The butt was buried beneath the wall collapse of the sur-rounding Protoclassic enclosure on its top, right, left, and backsides. Its front, however, was partly surrounded by Late Classicperiod fill from a massive Tepeu 2 construction that eventuallyengulfed Structure 6A’s mask wall and all of Structure 6B(Figure 15). When found, the butt was listing forward, despitebeing firmly reinforced in 2.8 m3 of solid stone rubble. An emptylip-to-lip vessel offering comprised of two small Aguila Orangevessels was discovered on a large flat capstone positioned justbeneath floor level in front of the monument (Figures 10, 15,and 16). Similarly shaped Aguila Orange vessels were a commonfeature of Protoclassic/Early Classic period caches and problemati-cal deposits at Tikal (Culbert 1993; Laporte and Fialko 1987),Uaxactun (Smith 1955), and Tayasal (Chase and Chase 1987)—two central lowland sites. The frequent occurrence of this cacheform at Tikal suggests that it was an Early Classic Tikal trademark.

A number of important artifacts were found in situ on the flooraround Stela 1’s broken base (Figures 10 and 17). These were achert dart point, a triangular iron pyrite plaque piece, a six-sidedpyrite plaque piece, a green Pachuca obsidian biface, and a grayobsidian biface stem. An unbroken obsidian arrow point was alsofound embedded in the rear wall of Structure 6B approximately

Figure 14. Burial 103 vessels: (a) unnamed carved-incised cylindrical tripod, (b) unnamed orange polychrome “cup,” and (c) Balanza Blackvase. Drawings a and b by Hiro Iwamoto, c by Alfredo Román.


1–2 cm above the floor (Figure 18). There is little doubt that theseobjects were collectively involved in Stela 1’s demise.

The projectile points have no local antecedents, and similarpoints were not discovered at Altar de Sacrificios or Ceibal.Lightweight points like these are ideal candidates for Teotihuacanatlatl weaponry represented in Early Classic period iconography.The stemmed Pachuca biface is similar to Stemmed Biface Atypes at Teotihuacan (Spence 1996:Figure 2b; see also Tolstoy1971:Figures 2, 3) and nearly identical to a stemmed MexicanOtumba point found at Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 1999:Figure 2e;2003:Figure 66s). According to Moholy-Nagy (1999:310), thinbifaces made of obsidian from Mexican sources were importedinto the Maya lowlands as finished products, but prismatic bladeswere not. Occurring exclusively in public ritual contexts, green obsi-dian evoked primary symbolic meanings among the Early ClassicMaya (Moholy-Nagy 1999:310; Spence 1996:33). In the presentcase, the broken Pachuca biface was located in the southeast quad-rant of the four-part enclosure on the same axis as mask armature 1and its complementary niche or ritual “seat” (Figure 10).

At least two—possibly three—objects near Stela 1 were exposedto intense, direct heat prior to deposition. Heat fracture lines on thegreen Pachuca point terminate where the tip has broken off (JohnE. Clark, personal communication 2005). The chert dart point hasa heat spall on its stem. A physical connection between fire andEarly Classic period projectile points is not too surprising, consid-ering the “burning dart” held by Yax K’uk’ Mo’ on Copan’sAltar Q (Taube 2004:Figure 13.1). One pyrite plaque piece has acratered surface that may have resulted from direct, rapid heating(Figure 17f). Curiously, aside from the slight trace of randomly

Figure 16. Aguila Orange cache vessels discovered at base of Stela1. Drawing by Alfredo Román.

Figure 15. Profile drawing of Stela 1 excavation.

Bachand34

scattered charcoal flecks on the floor, there was little evidence ofburning around Stela 1 or in the overlying wall collapse.

The presence of pyrite is particularly noteworthy in this context.Being 53.4% sulfur (S), the brassy-yellow mineral emits sparkswhen struck. Pyrite is pyromagnetic—its magnetism is dependentupon its temperature. Pyrite is diamagnetic at low temperatures; itbecomes antiferromagnetic and emits sulfur dioxide (SO2) fumeswhen heated up to 315°C (its strongest magnetic level), and it tran-sitions to paramagnetism beyond this temperature (Pearce et al.2006). Pyrite will oxidize and burn at higher temperatures andbegin to liquify at around 740°C (Fleet 2006). These physical prop-erties were likely recognized by the Maya.

Nuttall (1901) noted long ago that Mesoamerican pyrite mosaicswere emblematic of the sun and fire making. The thin slate backingattached to the triangular pyrite piece behind Stela 1 confirms thatthe piece was originally tessellated in a mosaic. Coggins (1985)linked numerous iconographic and archaeological elements to theToltec (or Teotihuacan) New Fire Ceremony that marked thecompletion of the 52-year Mexican calendrical cycle. Amongthem were burning reed bundles, fire drills/cords, censers, pyritemirrors (represented by the Kan cross), the number seven, Tlalocimagery, Mexican “year signs,” and warfare. Curiously, the verbfor “censing” in Classic Mayan texts is partly comprised of a bowl-like element or spiked cylinder with a k’in infix symbolizing Yax or“yellow” and Sun, whose central hole is not unlike that found on theKan cross pyrite insignia described by Coggins (see Stuart 1998:Figure 11). Research by Karl Taube (1983; 1992; 2000) has demon-strated that pyrite mirrors played a central role in Early Classicperiod divination and warfare at Teotihaucan. Pyrite disintegratesin most archaeological contexts, but it may have been an integral

part of Lowland Maya fire rituals. Such fire rituals, which cameto be associated with “living” buildings, social renewal, and death(Stuart 1998), may have been enacted with iron pyrite mirrors atthe onset of the Early Classic period.

No Early Classic period Jordan-phase sherds were found on thefloor surrounding Stela 1. Present, however, were several partlyrestorable Miseria Appliquéd-modeled censers (Figures 10 and19). The censer fragments were discovered beneath wall collapseon the southwest side of Stela 1. One censer was identical to thehollow-cylinder, modeled-face censer types assigned to theProtoclassic-Early Classic period Ayn complex at Altar deSacrificios (Adams 1971:53–55, Figures 29i, 95c, d, e, g, 96a–f,97a, b, 98a–e, 99a–c). This censer, the first of its kind reported inthe Petexbatun region (see Foias 1996:467), was unslipped andhad a hard gritty orange paste with sand aplastics and a thick unox-idized core.

An AMS date of 1582± 37 BP (cal a.d. 406–562, 2 sigma 95%confidence) was acquired from a thin sliver of carbonized woodextracted from a dark soil patch encircling the southern edge ofStela 1. The dated material was a splinter of resinous wood identifiedby Lee Newsom (personal communication 2005) as likely belongingto the Burseraceae family, which includes resinous, aromatic hard-woods such as P. copal (copal, incienso). Although its exactspecies is unknown, this charred wood probably was interred in thishighly symbolic context because of its resinous aromatic qualities.

The specimen that yielded the above AMS result was positionedstratigraphically between two specimens with AMS determinationsthat corresponded to the construction and demise of Structure 6B.When run together in a series of Bayesian simulations, the determi-nations placed Stela 1’s destruction around a.d. 430 (Bachand 2008:

Figure 17. Artifacts found on floor near Stela 1: (a) green obsidian stemmed biface; (b) chert projectile point; (c) gray obsidian projectilepoint; (d) black obsidian point stem; (e) triangular pyrite plaque piece; (f) six-sided pyrite plaque piece with cratered surface.


19–23). Curiously, the baktun ending date of 9.0.0.0.0 (a.d. 435) isonly five years later than this chronological projection. NikolaiGrube (2000) and David Stuart (1998:403–404) have noted theclustering of Classic Maya fire rituals around important calendarending dates as opposed to specific astronomical events.According to Grube (2000:101), “More than half of the FireSequences are found in Initial Series [texts] recording the end of aTun or K’atun.” These so-called Initial Series Fire Sequencesdescribe patron-deity rituals involving sacred fire and the burningof incense (Grube 2000:105). Ritual burning associated with stelaremoval or defilement is well attested in the Maya region, and theearliest cases are documented at Tikal (Coe 1962:495; Jones andOrrego 1987; Pendergast 1988).

The position of the unbroken obsidian arrow point found behindStela 1 is unlikely to have resulted from a velocity impact (Figures10 and 18). It is difficult to imagine how or why this biface would

Figure 18. Gray obsidian projectile point embedded in rear wall ofStructure 6B stela enclosure just above the floor.

Figure 19. Miseria Appliquéd censer fragments discovered beneath structural collapse near Stela 1 base. Illustrations by Alfredo Román.

Bachand36

become affixed to the interior wall in this manner unless it was doneintentionally. In sum, multiple aspects of the Stela 1 terminationsuggest premeditated or prescribed ritual destruction. Although wedo not see the haphazard deposition one might expect fromsudden attack, violent conflict cannot be ruled out as a precursorto ritual termination.

Mask wall corridor refuse deposit. A dark organic deposit con-taining an abundance of Early Classic potsherds filled the narrowcorridor between Structure 6B and the mask wall (Figures 4 and10). Some sherds pertained to partly restorable vessels, but mostwere unrelated fragments. A gamut of vessel types from unslippeddomestic jars to simple monochrome pots to elaborately paintedpolychrome dishes was represented. Modest quantities of faunalbone and lithic manufacturing debris were randomly mingledthroughout the deposit. Prismatic obsidian blades were few innumber. Tiny specks of carbon were prevalent, but no sizeablepieces of burned wood were found. The deposit was fairlyuniform in artifact density and thickness and rose to the top ofStructure 6B’s rear ledge. In short, the deposit bore all the character-istics of redeposited Early Classic period midden.

Fragments of modeled-painted plaster were found at the bottomof the deposit in front of the two mask armatures. During excavationwe noticed that a swath of stones was missing across the bottomright half of mask armature 1 (Figures 10 and 12). Potsherds fromthe Early Classic deposit were pressed into this void. The lowerhalf of mask armature 2 was also noticeably disfigured, withstones either missing or moved out of position (Figure 10). Asidefrom these locations, the stone facade exhibited little modificationor disruption.

The location of this plaster at the base of the disfigured armaturesindicated that the masks were defaced prior to inundating the corri-dor with refuse. A series of partly reconstructible vessels encoun-tered in front of armature 1 may have been smashed against themask, as some of the best plaster fragments were found amongthe sherds. It is unclear whether the mask wall’s upper half wasalso mutilated at this time. It could have disintegrated after centuriesof neglect. Once desecrated and filled-in, the mask wall corridorceased to function as before. The same was true for Structure 6B,the stela enclosure, now toppled and missing its symbolic center-piece. The concentration of artifact-rich midden debris in thisritual space discouraged future activity in the area for more than acentury. Unclear, of course, is whether this action resulted in com-plete or partial abandonment of Punta de Chimino. The destructiondoes, however, seem to mark a decline in the community’s politicalfortunes and regional standing and, more importantly, a break withits Preclassic social heritage.

The disarticulated skeletal remains of a toddler (Burial 106),were found in the top of the refuse deposit against rear ofStructure 6B (Figure 10). The interment may have been secondarysince it was difficult to determine whether the bones were in theirprecise anatomical positions. The bones nevertheless exhibitedexceptional preservation (no carnivore marks) and were tightly clus-tered. The individual either died prior to or concurrent with therefuse deposition episode. An AMS date on the individual’s leftfemur yielded an uncalibrated radiocarbon age of 1613± 45 BP(AA-66265). This date falls between a.d. 339 and 553 at the 2sigma range or 95.4% confidence interval, and provides a terminusante quem for the destruction of Stela 1, Structure 6B, and theStructure 6A-Sub 3 mask wall. The deceased’s identity remains amystery, but one can hardly resist the thought that he or she was

somehow tied to the local leadership or was perhaps the politicalheir.

The dense artifact deposit contains the largest quantity of Jordanpottery yet uncovered at Punta de Chimino (Table 3). No fullyrestorable vessels are present. Most sherds are heavily eroded andfew Aguila Orange sherds have slip remnants. Slipped servingvessels are common but hardly dominant. A good number ofunslipped Quintal-Triunfo jars is present. We noted no spatial pat-terning aside from a concentration of three partial basal flangebowls (Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome, Aguila Orange, andBalanza Black) at the base of mask armature 1. This ceramic

Table 3. Ceramic types found in the Early Classic mask wall refusedeposit

Ceramic Complex Ceramic Type Frequency %

Nacimiento(intrusive)

Encanto Striated 1 0.2%

Subtotal 1 0.2%Dos Arroyos OrangePolychrome

86 13.5%

Jordan San ClementeGouged-incised

1 0.2%

Triunfo Striated:Impressed Var.

2 0.3%

Subtotal 89 13.9%Actuncan OrangePolychrome

3 0.5%

Aguila Orange 60 9.4%Balanza Black 16 2.5%

Faisan 3 Pucte Brown 7 1.1%Quintal Unslipped 44 6.9%Triunfo Striated 161 25.2%Subtotal 291 45.5%Caribal Red 16 2.5%

Faisan 2 San Martin VariegatedBrown

4 0.6%

Subtotal 20 3.1%Achiotes Unslipped 3 0.5%Flor Cream 5 0.8%

Faisan 1 Sierra Red 1 0.2%Zapote Striated 1 0.2%Subtotal 10 1.6%Boxcay Brown 1 0.2%

Excarvado Pital Cream 2 0.3%Subtotal 3 0.5%Unclassified/Eroded 197 30.8%Unnamed Ashy paste 1 0.2%Unnamed Fine Orange Ware 3 0.5%Unnamed Incensario form 1 0.2%

Other Unnamed Orangefire-clouded

2 0.3%

Unnamed Orange slipped 1 0.2%Unnamed Orange-brown 1 0.2%Unnamed Red and cream 8 1.3%Unnamed Red with graypaste

1 0.2%

Unnamed Unslipped: Blackpaste Var.

10 1.6%

Subtotal 225 35.2%Total 639 100.0%


picture, in conjunction with the murky organic soil, lithic waste, andrandom faunal remains, lead me to interpret this layer as secondarilydeposited domestic refuse. Hence, I believe garbage was transportedfrom a nearby Early Classic domicile and dumped in the corridor.As mentioned, the large quantity of Faisán 3 types is noteworthy.Many now exhibit the Tzakol 2 modes described above(Figure 20). Also of interest, but of no great numerical value, isthe assortment of unclassified types—a sign of ceramic experimen-tation and innovation at this time. I believe this deposit presents areasonably accurate snapshot of the early Jordan assemblage.Preclassic sherds are negligible; the dozen or so examples are prob-ably acquisitions from earlier refuse or are the remains of heirlooms.This ceramic profile supports Foias’s (1996:366–367) observation

that waxy and Tzakol gloss pottery did not coexist in thePetexbatun region during most of the Early Classic period.

SUMMARY

Burial 103 and other contemporaneous finds at Punta de Chiminorepresent the culmination of numerous long-distance ties forged atthe end of the Protoclassic era. The pseudo-Mexican nature of thisinterment and central lowland birthplace of its occupant suggestthe arrival of Maya people with ties to the west. Multiple lines ofevidence—a Cycle 8 era stela, the Structure 6B stela enclosure,the Burial 103 strontium isotope evidence, Aguila Orange pottery,and a lip-to-lip Aguila Orange cache—suggest that the Mexican

Figure 20. Potsherds extracted from the Early Classic refuse deposit at the base of mask armature 1: (a) Caramba Red-on-orange; (b)and (c) Caribal Red; (d–i, k–l) Quintal Unslipped; (j) Triunfo Striated; (m–n) unnamed miniatures; (o) eroded ring base; (p–s) AguilaOrange; (t–w) Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome; (x) Balanza Black; (y–z) unnamed fine orange. Illustrations by Alfredo Román.

Bachand38

elements observed at Punta de Chimino (green obsidian, seatedcircular grave, and dart-like projectile points) derive from theTikal region. Three sources of data—stratigraphy, ceramic seriation,and Bayesian corrected radiometric dates—place Punta deChimino’s Early Classic period abandonment in the early part ofthe fifth century a.d. near the completion of the eighth baktun ina.d. 435. Findings suggest that the acropolis destruction was per-formed by Tikaleños or a Tikal-affiliated group.

The current study encourages reassessment of Ceibal’s EarlyClassic occupation and abandonment. Present radiometric and stra-tigraphic findings indicate that most Junco-phase ceramic typesdescribed by Sabloff (1975) are already present at Punta deChimino in the third facet of the Faisán Chicanel phase. This isnot surprising, as Sabloff (1975:232) acknowledged that certainJunco types—namely, Quintal Unslipped, Triunfo Striated, andSan Martín Variegated Brown—showed strong Late Cantutse(Chicanel) continuities. Sabloff (1975:234) also observed that therest of Junco did not fall into “strong and cohesive types,” withthe exception of Triunfo Striated and San Martín VariegatedBrown. These observations alone suggest that most of Junco fallsinto a third Cantutse facet comparable to Faisán 3 at Punta deChimino. Junco seems to have been too brief and inconsequentialto allow accumulation of sufficient quantities of decorated Tzakolpottery. This might explain the complete absence of AguilaOrange pottery at Ceibal. Importantly, no unmixed, primary Juncodeposits were found in the entire Ceibal settlement zone, and thetotal number of Junco sherds, the majority of which are of probableterminal Cantutse date, did not exceed two thousand (Sabloff1975:233). Adjustments to this portion of the Ceibal sequencemay be called for since Ceibal and Punta de Chimino wereprobably abandoned simultaneously or in close succession. ThePunta de Chimino data offer the first chronometric gauge of thisdecisive moment in Middle Pasión history, which now appearsto have transpired about 100 years earlier than Sabloff (1975:15)projected.

Closer scrutiny of the Altar de Sacrificios evidence provideshints of a similar occupation lull between a.d. 400 and 450(Adams 1964:374–375; 1971:127, 129; Sabloff 1975:233; Willey1973:64). Early Ayn is closely aligned with Jordan and Junco insample size and ceramic mode content. Willey (1973:64) notedthat “the general lack of large ceremonial construction at Altar inthe earlier Ayn phase is out of developmental synchronizationwith the building that was going on in the northeast Peten at thistime.” Importantly, no calendrical monuments appeared at Altarde Sacrificios before a.d. 455 (9.1.0.0.0) when monumental con-struction finally resumed in earnest, shifting to the A Group. Itseems that Altar de Sacrificios was also adversely affected byearly fifth-century Pasión River events but was revived in lateAyn times around a.d. 455 when Initial Series stelae andTeotihuacanoid vessels suddenly appeared there in substantialquantities.

CONCLUSION

The late Gordon Willey (1990:262) posed three unresolved ques-tions in Early Classic Pasión archaeology. (1) What is the precisedating of Tzakol pottery at Ceibal, in the Pasión drainage, and else-where in the Maya lowlands? (2) What are the relationships betweenTzakol pottery and Initial Series stelae? (3) What is the possibility ordegree of a Chicanel-Tzakol overlap? Data from Punta de Chimino

provide plausible answers to each of these questions. As for the first,Punta de Chimino’s findings indicate that Tzakol 2 pottery arrivedlate at that site (ca. a.d. 400) and in limited quantities prior to siteabandonment. A similar course of events probably transpired atCeibal, Itzán, and Chaak Ak’al, given the nearly identical ceramicprofiles and settlement histories of these sites. Tzakol 2 potteryappeared at least a half century earlier in the Tikal region, as con-firmed by work in the Mundo Perdido zone (Laporte and Fialko1987). Regarding the second question, Punta de Chimino’s findingssuggest that Aguila Orange pottery and Initial Series stelae arrivedin the south in rapid succession (pottery then monuments) arounda.d. 400 at the end of Protoclassic 2 or what used to be calledTzakol 1. The newly introduced monuments and dull to glossyAguila Orange pots were incorporated into material assemblagescontaining markedly reduced quantities of Chicanel pottery andever increasing proportions of Protoclassic domestic and ceremonialwares. During Punta de Chimino’s short-lived Tzakol 2 occupation,local Chicanel production seems to have ceased altogether, butcurated waxy-ware vessels probably remained in circulation.Punta de Chimino’s findings corroborate data from lowland sitesbeyond the pale of the Tikal heartland where radiometricallydated ceramic contexts consistently indicate that theChicanel-Tzakol overlap is mainly confined to the end of Tzakol1 or Protoclassic 2 (a.d. 300–400) in the lowland cultural conti-nuum (Brady et al. 1998). Punta de Chimino’s findings challengethe notion that Chicanel pottery continued to be extensively madeor used during Tzakol 2–3 times in the southern Maya lowlands(Laporte 1995a, 1995b; Lincoln 1985).

In the Petexbatun subregion, there was a pause in public con-struction and probably rural settlement between a.d. 430 and 500.Small residential communities were established once again atAguateca, Tamarindito, and Arroyo de Piedra at the end of theEarly Classic period (Escobedo 1997a:308–309, 316; Foias 1996:357–367; Triadan and Kopka 2005). On the Pasión River, a smallsettlement existed far upriver at Tres Islas, but the large MiddlePasión polities of Ceibal and Chaak Ak’al remained deserted.Meanwhile, at the Chixoy-Pasión confluence, Altar de Sacrificiosexperienced remarkable growth stimulated by more direct ties tothe central lowlands.

Present evidence converges on a primary cause for the pro-nounced demographic shift observed in the Middle Pasión regionat the onset of the Early Classic period—heightened, if not over-bearing, central Petén involvement in Pasión River affairs, mostlikely from Tikal. Political domination of the region and surveil-lance of river activities may have served to establish untrammeledcommunication and trade between Tikal and its new ally Copanaround a.d. 430. Although located some distance from the PasiónRiver, Punta de Chimino’s leadership must have acted out of stepwith emerging political forces in the region. The leadership struc-tures of Punta de Chimino (and probably Ceibal and ChaakAk’al) were stamped out to make way for a new cultural orderfrom the north.

These inferences admittedly raise a stream of questions regard-ing the role of Punta de Chimino and the Petexbatun region in thefourth and early fifth centuries a.d. Why were central Peténelements present before the site’s destruction? What would thePetexbatun region offer to a powerful polity like Tikal? What wasthe role that Ceibal (or other Pasión centers) played in the eventsthat transpired at Punta de Chimino? These and other questionsawait further elucidation.


RESUMEN

La profanación del centro ceremonial de Punta de Chimino, alrededor delaño 430 d.C., se ha asociado a la presencia de obsidiana verde de Pachuca,fragmentos de espejos de pirita, puntas de proyectil, un escondite decerámica en estilo tikaleño y un entierro peculiar que presenta semejanzascon el centro de México. Se removió una estela protoclásica que había sidocolocada en una base de mampostería como parte de un acto ritual preme-ditado que involucró el uso selectivo de fuego. Además, se destruyeronalgunos mascarones monumentales que habían adornado la fachada de laplataforma larga del Grupo E en un rito de terminación que empleó canti-dades grandes de basura doméstica. El descuido subsiguiente de la plata-forma larga del Grupo E y la restauración incompleta de su pirámidecomplementaria sugieren que el sitio fue abandonado bruscamente. Elabandono de este lugar de suma importancia ceremonial coincidió conuna reducción de los asentamientos en toda la región de Petexbatun y

con el abandono de los centros circunvecinos de Ceibal, Itzan y ChaakAk’al, que se ubican a lo largo del río Pasión. Los descubrimientosrecientes en Punta de Chimino proporcionan más detalles concernientesa la naturaleza de dichos abandonos, y sugieren que fueron provocadospor la creciente implicación de gentes de las tierras bajas centrales enlos asuntos locales del río Pasión hacia el final del siglo cuarto.Aunque las verdaderas identidades de los protagonistas de dichosacontecimientos continúan siendo desconocidas, es probable que algunosde ellos, o tal vez los principales, tuvieran una afiliación fuerte o directacon Tikal. Por lo menos, los nuevos hallazgos de Punta de Chiminobrindan apoyo a la idea de que la transición del período preclásico alclásico temprano en las tierras bajas mayas estuvo marcada por cambiossociales dramáticos y también por un marcado incremento de lainestabilidad.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gratitude is expressed to Lic. Ervin Salvador López and the Instituto deAntropología e Historia de Guatemala for permission to excavate at Puntade Chimino and export laboratory samples to the United States. Fieldresearch was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation(BCS-0404027), Brigham Young University’s New World ArchaeologicalFoundation, and the University of Arizona. The project benefited immenselyfrom the magnanimity of Mynor Pinto and the owners of Chiminos IslandLodge, who provided food, lodging, storage, and assistance at the site. Iam grateful to Takeshi Inomata, Daniela Triadan, and Erick Ponciano, direc-tors of the Aguateca Archaeological Project, for their support, advice, andcamaraderie over the years. Guatemalan field archaeologists Otto Román,Paco Castañeda Tobar, and José Maria Anavisca proved able recordersand interpreters of the remains encountered at Punta de Chimino. Beyond

the field, Lori Wright, Kitty Emery, Kazuo Aoyama, Greg Hodgins, JamesFeathers, Lee Newsom, and John Clark contributed their specialized knowl-edge of pertinent archaeological findings. The impact of my dissertationadvisors, Takeshi Inomata, Suzanne Fish, and Jeffrey Dean, on the presentwork is inestimable. Gratitude is expressed to Arthur Demarest, GeorgeCowgill, and Karl Taube for offering their insights on specific aspects ofthis work. The opinions of these and other colleagues are complexlywoven into this paper, and the present version undoubtedly departs fromtheir exact assessments. Though absolved from errors in fact or interpret-ation, these people helped shape the picture rendered here, and for that Iam truly appreciative. Finally, I am grateful to Alfred Román and HiroIwamoto for providing the illustrations in this paper and to Lynneth Lowefor improving the Spanish resumen.

REFERENCES

Adams, Richard E. W.1964 The Ceramic Sequence at Altar de Sacrificios and Its Implications.

In Actas y memorias del XXXV Congreso Internacional deAmericanistas, Vol. 1, pp. 371–378. Mexico.

1971 The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 63, No. 1. HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

Agrinier, Pierre, and Douglas Donne Bryant2005 Middle Classic Ceramics. In Ceramic Sequence of the Upper

Grijalva Region, Chiapas, Mexico, Part 2, edited by las DonneBryant John E. Clark, and David Cheetham, pp. 401–413. Papers ofthe New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 67. Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT.

Aimers, James J., and Prudence M. Rice2006 Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of Maya “E-Group”

Architectural Assemblages. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:79–96.August, Nanc Lee1982 Ceramics of Polol, Guatemala. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University,San Francisco.

Bachand, Bruce R.2008 Bayesian Refinement of a Stratified Sequence of Radiometric

Dates from Punta de Chimino, Guatemala. Radiocarbon 50:1–33.2007 The Pre-Classic Ceramic Sequence of Punta de Chimino, Petén,

Guatemala. Mayab 19:5–26.2006 Preclassic Excavations at Punta de Chimino, Petén, Guatemala:

Investigating Social Emplacement on an Early Maya Landscape.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofArizona, Tucson.

2003 Ampliando nuestro comprensión sobre el periodo protoclásico enlas tierras bajas mayas. In XVI Simposio de InvestigacionesArqueológicas en Guatemala, 2002, Vol. 2, edited by Juan Pedro

Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, Héctor L. Escobedo, and Héctor E. Mejía,pp. 599–611. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto deAntropología e Historia, and the Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.

Bachand, Bruce R., and José Maria Anavisca2004 Excavaciones en Punta de Chimino. In Informe del ProyectoArqueológico Aguateca Segunda Fase: La Temporada de Campo de2004, edited by Erick M. Ponciano, Daniela Triadan, and TakeshiInomata, pp. 6.1–6.22. Preliminary report submitted to the Institutode Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Bachand, Bruce R., Otto Román, José Francisco Castañeda, and José MariaAnavisca2006 Punta de Chimino: El crecimiento de un centro ceremonialdel preclásico en el Lago Petexbatún. In XVIII Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2005, Vol. 2, editedby Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía,pp. 827–837. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto deAntropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, and the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, Guatemala City

Brady, James E., Joseph W. Ball, Ronald L. Bishop, Duncan C. Pring,Norman Hammond, and Rupert A. Housley1998 The Lowland Maya “Protoclassic:” A Reconsideration of ItsNature and Significance. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:17–38.

Brady, James E., Luis Fernando Luin, Carol Foncea, Lori Wright, andSandra Villagrán de Brady1990 Investigaciones en la Cueva de Sangre y otras cuevas en la regiónde Petexbatún. In Proyecto Arqueológico Regional Petexbatún:Informe Preliminar #2, Segunda Temporada, edited by Arthur A.Demarest and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 438–565. Preliminary reportpresented to the Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Brady, James E., Irma Rodas, Lori Wright, Kitty Emery, Nora Maria Lopez,Laura Stiver, and Robert Chatham1991 Proyecto Arqueológico Regional Cuevas Petexbatún. In Proyecto

Bachand40

Arqueológico Regional Petexbatún: Informe Preliminar #3, TerceraTemporada, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Takeshi Inomata, JoelPalka, and Héctor Escobedo, pp. 652–746. Preliminary report presentedto the Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Braswell, Geoffrey E. (editor)2003a The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early ClassicInteraction. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Braswell, Geoffrey E.2003b Dating Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyu andCentral Mexico. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting EarlyClassic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 81–104.University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cabrera Castro, Ruben1999 Las prácticas funerarias de los antiguos Teotihuacanos. InPrácticas funerarias en la Ciudad de los Dioses: Los enterramientoshumanos de la antigua Teotihuacan, edited by Linda Manzanilla andCarlos Serrano, pp. 503–539. Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico, Mexico.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase1987 Putting Together the Pieces: Maya Pottery of Northern Belize andCentral Peten, Guatemala. InMaya Ceramics. Papers of the 1985 MayaCeramic Conference, edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer,pp. 47–72. BAR International Series 345(i). British ArchaeologicalReports, Oxford.

1995 External Impetus, Internal Synthesis, and Standardization: EGroup Assemblages and the Crystallization of Classic Maya Societyin the Southern Lowlands. In The Emergence of Lowland MayaCivilization: The Transition from the Preclassic to the Early Classic,edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 87–101. Acta Mesoamericana,Vol. 8. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Möckmühl.

Coe, William R.1962 A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal, Guatemala:1956–1961. American Antiquity 27:479–507.

Coggins, Clemency1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: A Historical andIconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of ArtHistory, Harvard University, Cambridge.

1985 New Fire at Chichen Itza. In Memorias del Primer ColoquioInternacional de Mayistas, pp. 427–484. Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, Mexico City.

Culbert, T. Patrick1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches andProblematical Deposits. Tikal Reports, No. 25, Part A. TheUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

2003 The Ceramics of Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, & Affairsof State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 47–81. School of AmericanResearch Advanced Seminar Series, Richard M. Leventhal, generaleditor. School of American Research Press and James Currey, SantaFe and Oxford.

Demarest, Arthur A.2006 The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: AMultidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse. Vanderbilt Institute ofMesoamerican Archaeology Series, Vol. 1. Vanderbilt UniversityPress, Nashville.

Demarest, Arthur A., and Tomás Barrientos2002 Redescubriendo el suroeste de Petén: Exploraciones y proyectosde desarrollo en una región “perdida” del Mundo Maya. In XVSimposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, Vol. 1,edited by Juan P. Laporte, Héctor L. Escobedo, and Bárbara Arroyo,pp. 349–364. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto deAntropología e Historia, and the Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.

Demarest, Arthur A., Jeanette Castellanos, and Héctor L. Escobedo1996 Observaciones adicionales sobre escondítes y entierros delprotoclásico, Tepeu 1 y Tepeu 3 y posibilidades para la investigaciónde la cerámica. In Proyecto Arqueológico Punta de Chimino 1996:Informe Preliminar, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Héctor L.Escobedo, and Matt O’Mansky, pp. 184–193. Preliminary report sub-mitted to the Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Demarest, Arthur A., Erin Sears, and Coral Rasmussen1995 Investigaciones de los sistemas defensivos en Punta de Chimino:Suboperaciones PC13A y PC19A. In Proyecto ArqueológicoRegional Petexbatun: Informe Preliminar #6, edited by Arthur A.Demarest, Juan Antonio Valdés, and Héctor L. Escobedo,

pp. 41.1–41.9. Preliminary report submitted to the Instituto deAntropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Dillon, Brian Derv1979 The Archaeological Ceramics of Salinas de Nueve Cerros, Alta

Verapaz, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Dunning, Nicholas P., David Rue, and Timothy Beach1991 Ecologia y patrón de asentamiento en la Región de Petexbatún:

Resultados preliminares de la Temporada 1991. In ProyectoArqueológico Regional Petexbatun: Informe Preliminar #3, TerceraTemporada, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Takeshi Inomata, JoelPalka, and Héctor Escobedo, pp. 829–845. Preliminary report presentedto the Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Dunning, Nicholas P., David J. Rue, Timothy Beach, Alan Covich, andAlfred Traverse1998 Human-Environment Interactions in a Tropical Watershed: The

Paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala. Journalof Field Archaeology 25:139–151.

Eberl, Markus2000 Descubrimiento de nuevas estelas en Aguateca (Petexbatun). In XIII

Simposio de Arqueología Guatemalteca. 1999, Vol. 1, edited by JuanPedro Laporte, Héctor L. Escobedo, Ana Claudia de Suasnavar, andBárbara Arroyo, pp. 531–543. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Institutode Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, Guatemala, Guatemala.

Escobedo, Héctor L.1996 Operaciónes PC32, 26, y 25: Rescate arqueológico en la

Estructuras 2, 76, y 7 de Punta de Chimino. In ProyectoArqueológico Punta de Chimino 1996: Informe Preliminar, edited byArthur A. Demarest, Héctor L. Escobedo, and Matt O’Mansky,pp. 9–27. Preliminary report submitted to the Instituto deAntropología e Historia, Guatemala City

1997a Arroyo de Piedra: Sociopolitical Dynamics of a SecondaryCenter in the Petexbatun Region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:307–320.

1997b Operaciones de rescate e interpretaciones de la arquitecturamayor de Punta de Chimino, Sayaxché, Petén. In X Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1996, Vol. 1, edited byJuan P. Laporte and Héctor L. Escobedo, pp. 389–402. Ministerio deCultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, and theAsociación Tikal, Guatemala City.

Fash, William L.1998 Dynastic Architectural Programs: Intention and Design in Classic

Maya Buildings at Copan and Other Sites. In Function and Meaning inClassic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston,pp. 223–270. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

2001 Scribes, Warriors and Kings: The City of Copan and the AncientMaya, 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Fash, William L., and Barbara W. Fash2000 Teotihuacan and the Maya. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage:

From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, LindsayJones, and Scott Sessions, pp. 433–463. University of ColoradoPress, Boulder.

Fash, William L., Barbara W. Fash, and Karla L. Davis-Salazar2004 Setting the Stage: Origins of the Hieroglyphic Stairway Plaza on

the Great Period Ending. In Understanding Early Classic Copan,edited by Ellen E. Bell, Marcello A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer,pp. 65–84. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology andArchaeology, Philadelphia.

Fialko, Vilma1988 Mundo Perdido, Tikal: Un ejemplo de complejos de

conmemoración astronómica. Mayab 4:13–21.Fleet, Michael E.2006 Phase Equilibria at High Temperatures. Reviews in Mineralogy

and Geochemistry 61:365–419.Foias, Antonia1987 The Influence of Teotihuacan in the Maya Culture during the

Middle Classic: A Reconsideration of the Ceramic Evidence fromKaminaljuyu, Uaxactun, and Copan. B.A. honors thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

1996 Changing Ceramic Production and Exchange Systems and theClassic Maya Collapse in the Petexbatún Region. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

Forsyth, Donald W.1989 The Ceramics of El Mirador, Petén, Guatemala. El Mirador


Series, Part 4. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation,No. 63. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Gifford, James C.1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in

the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology, No. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Graham, John A.1990 Monumental Sculpture and Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. In

Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala, edited byGordon R. Willey, pp. v–79. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 17, No. 1. Harvard University,Cambridge.

Greene, Virginia, and Hattula Moholy-Nagy1966 A Teotihuacan-Style Vessel from Tikal. American Antiquity 31:

432–434.Grube, Nikolai (editor)1995a The Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization: The Transition

from the Preclassic to the Early Classic. Acta Mesoamericana,8. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Möckmühl.

1995b Transformations of Maya Society at the End of the Preclassic:Processes of Change between the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods.In The Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization: The Transitionfrom the Preclassic to the Early Classic, edited by Nikolai Grube,pp. 1–7. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 8. Verlag Anton Saurwein,Möckmühl.

2000 Fire Rituals in the Context of Classic Maya Initial Series. In TheSacred and the Profane: Architecture and Identity in the MayaLowlands, edited by Pierre Robert Colas, Kai Delvendahl, MarcusKuhnert, and Annette Schubart, pp. 93–109. Acta Mesoamericana,No. 10. Verlag Anton Saurwein and Markt Schwaben, Regensburg.

Hansen, Richard D.1998 Continuity and Disjunction: Preclassic Antecedents of Classic

Maya Architecture. In Function and Meaning in Classic MayaArchitecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 49–122. DumbartonOaks: Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC.

Inomata, Takeshi, Kevin Johnston, and Stephen D. Houston1989 Registro y rescate en Punta de Chimino. In El Proyecto Arqueológico

Regional Petexbatún: Informe Preliminar #1, edited by Arthur A.Demarest and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 130–153. Preliminary report sub-mitted to the Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Erick Ponciano, and Kazuo Aoyama(editors)2007 La politica de lugares y comunidades en la sociedad maya de

Petexbatún: Investigaciones del Proyecto Arqueológico AguatecaSegunda Fase. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Dirección Generaldel Patrimonio Cultural y Natural, and the Instituto de Antropología eHistoria, Guatemala.

Ishihara, Reiko, Jenny Guerra, Juan Manuel Palomo, and Matthew Young2005 Excavaciones en la grita principal y la grieta rincón. In Informe del

Proyecto Arqueológico Aguateca Segunda Fase: La Temporada deCampo de 2005, edited by Erick M. Ponciano, Daniela Triadan, andTakeshi Inomata, pp. 7.1–7.120. Preliminary report submitted to theInstituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Johnston, Kevin J.2006 Preclassic Maya Occupation of the Itzan Escarpment, Lower Río

de la Pasión, Petén, Guatemala City. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:177–201.Jones, Christopher1969 The Twin-Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Architectural

Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Jones, Christopher, and Miguel Orrego C.1987 Corosal Stela 1 and Tikal Miscellaneous Stone 167: Two New

Monuments from the Tikal Vicinity, Guatemala. Mexicon 9:129–133.Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A New Evaluation. Ancient

Mesoamerica 9:55–66.Laporte, Juan Pedro1993 Architecture and Social Change in Late Classic Maya Society: The

Evidence from Mundo Perdido, Tikal. In Lowland Maya Civilization inthe Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S.Henderson, pp. 299–320. Dumbarton Oaks: Research Library andCollection, Washington, DC.

1995a ¿Despoblamiento o problema analítico?: El clásico temprano enel sureste de Petén. In VIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas

en Guatemala, 1994, Vol. 2, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte and HéctorL. Escobedo, pp. 729–761. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Institutode Antropología e Historia, and the Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.

1995b Una actualización a la secuencia cerámica del area de Dolores,Petén. Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, No. 3, edited by JuanPedro Laporte, pp. 35–64. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Institutode Antropología e Historia and the Universidad de San Carlos deGuatemala, Escuela de Historia.

1996 Organización territorial y política prehispanica en el sureste dePetén. Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, No. 4, edited by JuanPedro Laporte. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto deAntropología e Historia, KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau,Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Escuela de Historia.

2003 Thirty Years Later: Some Results of Recent Investigations inTikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, & Affairs of State, edited byJeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 281–318. School of American ResearchAdvanced Seminar Series, Richard M. Leventhal, general editor.School of American Research Press and James Currey, Santa Fe andOxford.

Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Vilma Fialko1987 La cerámica del clásico temprano desde Mundo Perdido, Tikal:Una reevaluación. In Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 CeramicConference, edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer,pp. 123–181. BAR International Series 345. 2 vols. BritishArchaeological Reports, Oxford.

Laporte, Juan Pedro, Bernard Hermes, Lilian de Zea, and María JosefaIglesias1992 Nuevos entierros y escondítes de Tikal, subfases Manik 3a y 3b.Cerámica de Cultura Maya et al. 16:30–68.

Lincoln, Charles E.1985 Ceramics and Ceramic Chronology. In A Consideration of theEarly Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Gordon R.Willey and Peter Mathews, pp. 55–94. Institute for MesoamericanStudies, Publication No. 10. State University of New York, Albany.

Lowe, Gareth W.1977 The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early LowlandMaya. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E. W.Adams, pp. 197–248. School of American Research AdvancedSeminar Series. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Martin, Simon2000 At the Periphery: The Movement, Modification and Re-use ofEarly Monuments in the Environs of Tikal. In The Sacred and theProfane: Architecture and Identity in the Maya Lowlands, edited byPierre Robert Colas, Kai Delvendahl, Marcus Kuhnert, and AnnetteSchubart, pp. 51–61. Acta Mesoamericana, No. 10. Verlag AntonSaurwein and Markt Schwaben, Regensburg.

2003 In Line of the Founder: A View of Dynastic Politics at Tikal. InTikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, & Affairs of State, edited by Jeremy A.Sabloff, pp. 3–45. School of American Research Advanced SeminarSeries, Richard M. Leventhal, general editor. School of AmericanResearch Press and James Currey, Santa Fe and Oxford.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Thames and Hudson,London.

Mathews, Peter1985 Maya Early Classic Monuments and Inscriptions. In AConsideration of the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands,edited by Gordon R. Willey and Peter Mathews, pp. 5–54. Institutefor Mesoamerican Studies, Publication 10. State University ofNew York, Albany.

Mathews, Peter, and Gordon R. Willey1991 Prehistoric Polities of the Pasion Region: Hieroglyphic Texts andTheir Archaeological Settings. In Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. PatrickCulbert, pp. 30–71. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge andNew York.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula1999 Mexican Obsidian at Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity10:300–311.

2003 The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and UnworkedMaterial. Tikal Report, No. 27, Part B. The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Morgan, Kim1996 Suboperación PC24: Excavaciones en la Estructura 70. In

Bachand42

Proyecto Arqueológico Punta de Chimino 1996: Informe Preliminar,edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Héctor Escobedo, and MattO’Mansky, pp. 39–55. Preliminary report submitted to the Institutode Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Nuttall, Zelia1901 The Fundamental Principles of Old and New WorldCivilizations. Papers of the Peabody Museum, II. Harvard University,Cambridge.

Pahl, Gary W.1982 A Possible Cycle 7 Monument from Polol, El Petén, Guatemala. InPre-Columbian Art History: Selected Readings, edited by AlanaCordy-Collins, pp. 23–31. Peek Publications, Palo Alto.

Patton, James L.1987 The Architecture and Sculpture of Polol, El Petén, Guatemala.Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,San Francisco State University, San Francisco.

Pearce, Carolyn I., Richard A. D. Pattrick, and David J. Vaughan2006 Electrical and Magnetic Properties of Sulfides. Reviews inMineralogy and Geochemistry 61:127–180.

Pendergast, David M.1988 Lamanai Stela 9: The Archaeological Context. Research Reportson Ancient Maya Writing, No. 20. Center for Maya Research,Washington, DC.

Pincemin, Sophia, Joyce Marcus, Lynda Florey Folan, William J. Folan,Domínguez Carrasco, María del Rosario, and Abel Morales López1998 Extending the Calakmul Dynasty Back in Time: A New Stela froma Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 9:310–327.

Ponciano, Erick M., Takeshi Inomata, and Daniela Triadan2005 Informe del Proyecto Arqueológico Aguateca Segunda Fase: LaTemporada de Campo de 2005. Preliminary report submitted to theInstituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Quirarte, Jacinto1973 Izapan and Mayan Traits in Teotihuacan III Pottery. In Studiesin Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by John A. Graham, pp. 11–29.Contributions of the University of California ArchaeologicalResearch Facility, No. 18, Berkeley.

Reese-Taylor, Kathryn, and Debra S. Walker2002 Passage of the Late Preclassic into the Early Classic. In AncientMaya Political Economies, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and DavidA. Freidel, pp. 87–122. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Reimer, Paula J. et al.2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal KYRBP. Radiocarbon 46:1029–1058.

Ricketson, Oliver G. Jr., and Edith Bayles Ricketson1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala: Group E 1926–1931. Carnegie Institutionof Washington Publication 477, Washington, DC.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.1975 Ceramics. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten,Guatemala, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. i–261. Memoirs ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 13,No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Sempowski, Martha L.1994 Mortuary Practices at Teotihuacan. In Mortuary Practices andSkeletal Remains at Teotihuacan, edited by Martha L. Sempowskiand Michael W. Spence, pp. 1–314. Urbanization at Teotihuacan,Mexico, Vol. 3, René Millon, general editor. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Smith, A. Ledyard1950 Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931–1937. CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publication 588, Washington, DC.

Smith, Robert E.1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle AmericanResearch Institute, Publication 20. 2 vols. Tulane University, NewOrleans.

Smith, Robert E., and James C. Gifford1965 Pottery of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Vol. 2, edited byRobert Wauchope, pp. 498–534. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Smyth, Michael P., and Daniel Rogart2004 A Teotihuacan Presence at Chac II, Yucatan, Mexico. AncientMesoamerica 15:17–47.

Spence, Michael W.1996 Commodity or Gift: Teotihuacan Obsidian in the Maya Region.Latin American Antiquity 7:21–39.

Stanton, Travis W., and David A. Freidel2003 Ideological Lock-In and the Dynamics of Formative Religions in

Mesoamerica. Mayab 16:5–14.Stuart, David1998 “The Fire Enters His House:” Architecture and Ritual in Classic

Maya Texts. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture,edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 373–425. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC.

2000 “The Arrival of Strangers:” Teotihuacan and Tollan inClassic Maya History. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage:Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones,and Scott Sessions, pp. 465–513. University of Colorado Press,Boulder.

Taube, Karl A.1983 The Teotihuacan Spider Woman. Journal of Latin American Lore

9:107–189.1992 The Iconography of Mirrors at Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology, and

the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 169–204.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

2000 The Turquoise Hearth: Fire, Self Sacrifice, and the CentralMexican Cult of War. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: FromTeotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones,and Scott Sessions, pp. 269–340. University of Colorado Press,Boulder.

2003 Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan. In The Maya andTeotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited byGeoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 273–314. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2004 Structure 10L-16 and Its Early Classic Antecedents: Fire and theEvocation and Resurrection of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’. InUnderstanding Early Classic Copan, edited by Ellen E. Bell,Marcello A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 265–296. Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology,Philadelphia.

Tolstoy, Paul1971 Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico. In Archaeology of

Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm andIgnacio Bernal, pp. 270–296. Handbook of Middle American Indians,Vol. 10, Robert Wauchope, general editor. University of Texas Press,Austin.

Tomasic, John, and Federico Fahsen2004 Exploraciones y excavaciones preliminares en Tres Islas, Petén. In

XVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2003,Vol. 2, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, Héctor L.Escobedo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 819–832. Ministerio de Culturay Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, and the AsociaciónTikal, Guatemala City.

Triadan, Daniela, and Katrin Kopka2005 Excavaciones en el Grupo M6-3 de Aguateca. In Informe del

Proyecto Arqueológico Aguateca Segunda Fase: La Temporada deCampo de 2005, edited by Erick M. Ponciano, Daniela Triadan, andTakeshi Inomata, pp. 6.1–6.15. Preliminary report submitted to theInstituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City

Valdés, Juan Antonio1997 Tamarindito: Archaeology and Regional Politics in the Petexbatun

Region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:321–335.Varela Torrecilla, Carmen, and Geoffrey E. Braswell2003 Teotihuacan and Oxkintok: New Perspectives from Yucatán. In

The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction,edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 249–271. The Linda ScheleSeries in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies. University of TexasPress, Austin.

Velásquez Juan Luis1994 Excavaciónes en Punta de Chimino y la cerámica recuperada. In

VII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1993,edited by Juan P. Laporte and Héctor L. Escobedo, pp. 415–428.Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología eHistoria, and the Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.

Wauchope, Robert1951 A Tentative Sequence of Pre-Classic Ceramics in Mesoamerica.

Middle American Research Records, Vol. 1, pp. 211–250. MiddleAmerican Research Institute, Publication 15. Tulane University, NewOrleans.

Willey, Gordon R.1972 The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody


Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 64, No. 1. HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

1973 The Altar de Sacrificios Excavations: General Summary andConclusions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnology, Vol. 64, No. 3. Harvard University, Cambridge.

1977 The Rise of Maya Civilization: A Summary View. In The Originsof Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 383–423.School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1990 General Summary and Conclusions. In Excavations at Seibal,Department of Peten, Guatemala, edited by Gordon R. Willey,

pp. 175–272. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnology, Vol. 17, No. 4. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E. W. Adams1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala CityConference. American Antiquity 32:289–315.

Willey, Gordon R., and Peter Mathews (editors)1985 A Consideration of the Early Classic Period in the MayaLowlands. State University of New York, Albany.

Wright, Lori E., and Bruce R. Bachand2009 Strontium Isotope Identification of an Early Classic Migrant toPunta de Chimino, Guatemala. Maya Archaeology 1:28–35.

Bachand44

onset of the early classic period in the...

Documents