Nicolas Hellmuth Yaxha [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

A REPORT FOR IDAEH ON RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHED AT THE MAYA RUINS OF YAXHA, PETEN, GUATEMALA

FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

A REPORT FOR IDAEH ON RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHED AT THE MAYA RUINS OF YAXHA, PETEN, GUATEMALA

Dr. Nicholas M. Hellmuth Research Associate, Dept. of Anthropology, Washington University Curatorial Affiliate, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University and Visiting Professor, Institute for Latin American Studies, Brevard Community College 1519 Clearlake Road Cocoa, FL 32922 USA

1993

FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Location. Introduction and History Yaxha is a 1st to 10th century A.D. Classic Maya site of about 500 structures situated on a long ridge overlooking eight-kilometer long Lake Yaxha, in the Department of El Pet§n, northern Guatemala. This lake is approximately 290 miles (straightline distance) northeast of Guatemala City and 45 miles east of Floras, the capital of the department. Yaxha was first brought to the attention of archaeologists by Teobert Maler in 1904, although Colonel Juan Galindo may have visited "Lake Yashaw" in 1 8 3 1 . Morley discovered several stelae at Yaxha in 1914 and 1915. During the 1950's William Bullard visited Yaxha several times during his settlement pattern surveys and Topoxte Island excavations (Bullard 1960). Merle Greene (Robertson) visited Yaxha prior to 1970 to do rubbings of the better preserved stelae (Greene et ai. 1972:pl. 160, 1 6 1 , 162, 163, 164). Ian Graham visited Yaxha during the 1960's and made the first complete record of the upper portion of the unique full figure Teotihuacanoid TIaloc on Yaxha Stela 1 1 . Both Graham and Robertson returned to Yaxha while the F.L.A.A.R. project had its camp facilities available and both scholars assisted in recording the stelae. Graham drew Stela *31 which had been discovered to be carved by Miguel Orrego; Robertson made a rubbing of Stela 11 whose base had just been excavated under the direction of Hellmuth. Teobert Maler was never one to mince on words. His report in 1904, the first scientific description of the ruins of Yaxha, sets the tone for an abandonment that continued for half a century after his visit. Since practically complete ignorance prevails in Europe and in the United States, and even in Mexico and Guatemala, regarding Lake Yaxha and its environment—for it is astonishing how few people of education travel in these really extremely interesting countries—/ will [open] this report with some explanatory remarks. Indeed, Yaxha did not enter the mainstream of archaeological research until IDAEH expanded the camp at Yaxha under the administration of recent IDAEH Directors. Their foresight has left Yaxha with an impressive infrastructure. We dedicate this report to all Guatemalan students, scholars, and government personnel who have contributed to the maintenance of the site of Yaxha as well as to the concerned Guatemalan citizens of the Asociacidn Tikal who paid for guards to protect Yaxha during the off-seasons 1970-74 when it was too rainy for us to continue research. Since most of the people now working at Yaxha were not there in the 1970's, and as a considerable body of spurious folklore has developed about the studies during those early years, perhaps it may be useful to make available the factual and actual record of the development of Yaxha, from a site unknown and abandoned, to its current role as one of the larger Maya ruins in Guatemala, a recognized part of its patrimonia nacional. The Site of Yaxha - 1-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Yaxha's site center consists of approximately 500 structures covering several square kilometers along a ridge facing Lake Yaxha, between Tikal and the Peten border with Belize. The ruins include remains of several immense temple-pyramids. At least ten major acropolis building complexes have been found so far. These include one large group of palace buildings arranged around six courtyards, similar in size and arrangement to the buildings on the Central Acropolis at Tikal. Yaxha includes at least two ballcourts, the only Twin Pyramid Complex yet found outside of Tikal, and at least one Astronomical Commemoration Complex—actually it is possible that Yaxha may be the only Maya site that has two such solstice groups. Of the forty stone stelae at Yaxha, about twenty were carved. One, number 5, was considered as potentially pre-Classic in date. It is most likely at least Baktun 8 in style. Stela 11 is the largest portrait of TIaloc known in the entire Maya lowlands.^ After we excavated and discovered the portion of the stela which showed TIaloc's feet this monument became the first and still only complete full figure portrait of TIaloc on any Early Classic Maya stela. Yet up until 1970 the site was abandoned. There were no guards, no interest in saving the stelae or protecting the mounds. Today, in 1992, our perspective is different since there are dozens of guards. But if we return to 1970 and realize that the advent of the F.L.A.A.R. Project staff drove looters away who where working the day we arrived, you can easily calculate that without this 5-year project that Yaxha would have been gutted just as was later found to have taken place at Rio Azul and El Zotz. In the 1970's bands of chicleros marched through the ruins at will. Xateros roamed the area.^ Milperos were invading the site as well, attempting to set up homesteads among the ruins, indeed portions of the ruins were still in secondgrowth from recent milpas when Yie arrived in the 1970s. We took it upon ourselves to lobby for protection, and the day we were finished, five seasons later, FYDEP had at least dumped^ a sign onto the ground, Parque Nacional Yaxha1. A complete r e p o r t has been p r e p a r e d on Yaxha S t e l a 11 a s a s e p a r a t e volume. T h i s i s the o n l y s t e l a a t the s i t e w e l l enough p r e s e r v e d to f a c i l i t a t e a d e t a i l e d i c o n o g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s . 2. C h i c l e r o s c o l l e c t the sap of the c h i c o zapote t r e e f o r c h i c l e , chewing gum. the

X a t e r o s c o l l e c t the l e a v e s of

x a t e palm f o r u s e i n f u n e r a l arrangements i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The x a t e palm fronds s t a y green f o r

months a f t e r b e i n g p i c k e d and a r e used a s a backdrop f o r c o l o r f u l f l o r a l d i s p l a y s . Xate i s a major export from Guatemala and does not r e s u l t i n death or even damage to the p l a n t . 3. The complete a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system which now p r o t e c t s Yaxha has e v o l v e d from our lobbying d u r i n g the 1970's, but the c u r r e n t guard system i s e n t i r e l y a r e s u l t of i n i t i a t i v e of IDAEH d i r e c t o r s a f t e r 1974. Espec i a l l y d u r i n g 1971 through 1973 we had lobbied f o r the i n c l u s i o n of Yaxha i n t o the master p l a n f o r the development of t h e Parque Nacional T i k a l , as a r e s u l t of the v i s i t of c o n s u l t a n t s from the " N a t i o n a l Parks S e r v i c e " of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h i s p r e s e r v a t i o n i n i t i a t i v e of F.L.A.A.R. was acknowledged by a diploma of m e r i t awarded by INGUAT. By 1974 our e f f o r t s were s u c c e s s f u l

i n p r o t e c t i n g the s i t e , at l e a s t on paper. The

f i r s t o f f i c i a l park s i g n , p a i n t e d and d e l i v e r e d by FYDEP, was simply l a i d by them on the ground a t the remains of the " v i l l a g e " between Lake Yaxha and Lake Sacnab. Ue found t h i s s i g n abandoned on the ground as we l e f t the s i t e a f t e r c l o s i n g down our r e s e a r c h program. Today Yaxha i s f o r m a l l y and c o m p l e t e l y guarded and the

s i g n s a r e n e a t l y d i s p l a y e d on a p p r o p r i a t e p o s t s .

Yaxha Report for IDAEH Sacnab. Thus, in 1974, we turned over to IDAEH, a complete camp including a storeroom with the sherds,'* complete access roads to ail parts of the site, and a site that was registered in the classification as a park. Subsequently research continued under the separate project of Don Rice and Prudence Rice, who analyzed the sherds we had left locked in a bodega in the main Yaxha camp building^ plus those sherds they themselves collected. The settlement pattern project of Anabel Ford between Yaxha and Tikal several years later was an additional academic advancement in knowledge that was able to grow out of what we got started at a site abandoned for decades. With the help of private and corporate donations, including from the Asociacion Tikal, it was possible to protect Yaxha until IDAEH could place government guards at the site. We had IDAEH archaeologists Carlos Rudy Larios and Miguel Orrego at Yaxha the initial seasons and resident IDAEH personnel in following seasons. The IDAEH supervisor/inspectors were responsible in 1973 and 1974 to issue reports. We ourselves issued annual reports until the Guatemala highland earthquake demolished parts of the Project's headquarters. What survived and could be rescued is herein reported, in response to a request from IDAEH.^ Since Yaxha was essentially a mapping project, the map is, in itself, the basic report on the whole five seasons. The photographs of the stelae represent the basic report on that aspect of the site research. Most of the monuments were too eroded to make doing line drawings an easy task. Ian Graham drew the better preserved stelae; we prepared a preliminary line drawing of Stela 1 1 . In addition to the original inking at 1:500 scale, in 1992 we also found a single surviving copy of the map, at reduced scale, with the structure numbers, since one of the IDAEH archaeologists working at Yaxha, Lie. B. Hermes, stated that no such map was available to them. We therefore include this map with structure numbers in this report. Whv Select Yaxha?

4. E a r l i e r finds had already been delivered to IDAEH in Guatemala City, acknowledged in an e a r l i e r report. 5. The half dozen reconstruted pots abandoned by looters at Yaxha prior to 197D were delivered by the Yaxha Project to the IDAEH storage in Guatemala City. This deposition of Yaxha a r t i f a c t s to IDAEH i s cited in an early published Yaxha report. At least one of these Yaxha bowls was on public exhibit in the Palacio Nacional during the years that the Museo Nacional de Antropologia y Etnologia was closed for roof repairs. Due to lack of IDAEH storage space additional sherds were stored at Yaxha, in a special bodega constructed in the main camp building. This bodega was s t i l l f i l l e d with Yaxha sherds in the 198D's when I v i s i t e d Yaxha with a group of tourists, indeed we have a photograph of the bodega. But by 1992, this bodega had been disassembled by IDAEH personnel-we were informed i n order to obtain the a t t r a c t i v e wood paneling for other use. Since IDAEH disassembled the sherd bodega i t i s obvious that a l l the Yaxha pottery was moved by IDAEH personnel within the last few years. 6. At least the loss was not as serious as that of the Piedras Negras Project, which lost their entire lab. Fortunately the photographs and original map of Yaxha are s t i l l extant. The photographs survived the earthquake because they were in metal boxes; the map was in storage at the Department of History of Art, Yale University, where I had had an appointment under Dr. George Kubler.

- 3-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Since 1965, I had been interested in Teotihuacan influence on the Southern Lowland Maya. While excavating at Tikal in 1967 I happened to be digging on the west side of the East Plaza at the same time that the tablero-talud Structure 5D-43 was discovered just across the same plaza. By studying the nature and degree of Teotihuacan influence on Maya art and architecture, it would be possible to determine how closely the Maya were in contact with Teotihuacan (or its intermediaries) and how Teotihuacan may have influenced Maya culture in other aspects, such as city layout. I felt that if other large Maya sites near Tikal were carefully studied it might be possible to learn more about Teotihuacan's impact on the Maya way of life. In the fall of 1969, Dr George Kubler, Yale University, asked me if I would be intereted in undertaking research on the subject of Teotihuacan influence on the art of Tikal. This work would be a part of his study for the Tikal Project on the meaning of the art of Tikal. I felt that ! would like to have more new archaeological information on Teotihuacan influence on the Peten Maya before I began writing, and so I prepared a separate research proposal which was favorably received by the National Science Foundation and granted $9,000 (Ph.D. dissertation enrichment grant through Brown University). Yaxha, a large Maya site of over 500 structures, was chosen because it seemed the most promising of all sites within a 100-mile radius of Tikal to have the information sought. Three pecularities of the ruins suggested that limited excavations would yield the data necessary to learn more about the nature and degree of 3rd to 7th century Teotihuacan impact on Yaxha. First, the full figure, armed TIaloc on Tzakol period Yaxha Stela 11 and Teotihuacan-like strap bags carried by personages depicted on Yaxha Stelae 6, 8, 10, and 12 pointed to local interest in displaying ritual objects from non-Maya sources. Secondly, the pottery vessels already reported from Lake Yaxha by Bullard and Enrique Salazar, the incensario from the lake at Chinkultic, and the Teotihuacanstyle incensarios uncovered by divers from Lake Amatitlan offered the hope that whole vessels and possibly Teotihuacan incensarios could be found in shallow portions of the several mile long Lake Yaxha. Unfortunately, when we formulated our research proposal we had no idea that the mud on the bottom of Lake Yaxha was so deep that there was no hope of finding whole vessels. And, once divers actually entered the lake they noted that the lake had changed its shore line so often in the last thousand years that we had no way of locating where was the shore in the 5th century. Borhegyi had hypothesized that the Teotihuacanos were particularly attracted to lakes for religious reasons. Thus we wondered whether possibly that the Teotihuacanos might have been attracted to Yaxha's lake side situation as a focal point of Teotihuacan activity in the Peten. Third, several structures at Yaxha are in the centers of courtyards or plazas. Most Peten Maya courtyards and plazas are open (empty of structures in the middle). But many Central Mexican architectural complexes had structures In their center. - 4 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH Two of the three tablero-talud style "non-Maya" structures at Tikal (Strs. 6E-144 and 5E-53) were in the rare position of plaza centers. The Yaxha project proposed to undertake underwater exploration and excavate one potential Mexican-style building complexes and to seek other artlfactual evidence In order to learn more about the nature and extent of Mexican influence at Yaxha. However once we had been at Yaxha several weeks we learned that our original plan of action should be revised to take into account the fact that the original Carnegie Institution of Washington map was virtually useless. After the second season we decided to expend our limited resources to being sure that we had done one thing thoroughly, namely mapping a major Maya city from one end to the other, no small undertaking for a 26 year old student. Several hard seasons later the map was finished, 1 0 0 % in two-dimensions, over half In threedimensions, the first Peten site to be mapped in three dimensions. As is typical of any archaeology research program, once we actually got in the field and had better local information, we found that some of the things we hoped to find were not present but that other things we had not expected turned out to replace the sought features with something equally educational. The Seasons of Research Although most of the first season. May to late September 1970, had to be devoted to securing the necessary IDAEH and other government permits, to building a provisional field camp, clearing sight lines for mapping, and clearing the thick jungle vegetation from buildings and monuments selected to be investigated, Yaxha Project personnel were able to map half of the main ceremonial center and initiate test excavation of several structures and stone monuments. The second season of research was from January until mid-May, 1 9 7 1 . There was an additional season in 1972 and 1973. By 1974 the basic site map was finished. In February of that year the earthquake struck, destroying portions of the project's office In Guatemala City, which was on the top floor of an office building. We salvaged much of the material, such as the maps, but field notes and many drawings are no longer extant. I present in this present report what is available. The Situation that we found at Yaxha in 1970 Extensive preparation was made for our first visit to Yaxha, both initiating the proper background studies as well as obtaining adequate funding and the necessary IDAEH permits. Our supplies included xeroxs of all readily available previous reports. William Bullard, who had also worked in the Lake Yaxha area in the 1950's, had been my thesis advisor at Harvard, so I had access to his first-hand knowledge of Yaxha as well. By coincidence I subsequently found one of his former workers who provided additional information about Yaxha. Naturally we had the Carnegie Institution of Washington map with us when we arrived at Yaxha in 1970. Yet within a few days of our arrival in May 1970, we found nine previously unnoticed stone monuments, plus extensive concentrations of mounds not shown on the 1932 map. After additional exploration it soon became apparent that the site was over twice the size as pictured on the Carnegie - 5-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH map, not only in terms of spread over the landscape but more in concentration of previously undetected structures within the site core. The initial nine months of mapping turned up 323 structures (counting those already located by the Carnegie plus ones we found). In the same area at Tikal there were only 231 structures, and that is the count for the most densely settled area of that site, a site mapped by professional surveyors. From Yaxha's Temple 216 on the east there is an unwavering concentration of acropoleis, plazas, complexes, and buildings for a distance of about one kilometer west to Str. 116 of Plaza G. This densely occupied area contains only one undeveloped zone, in an area where the terrain was too rough, broken, and steep for construction. Such extensive tightly grouped and contiguous construction is not typical of most Peten sites. Tikal, Uaxactun, and other typical Peten sites were built mainly on high ground, ridges, or hills with different parts of the same site separated from one another by varying amounts of seasonal swamp or steep terrain unsuited for building. Such widely spaced plazas and acropoleis tend to be connected by elevated paved causeways, called sacbe in Mayan. A second anomoly of Yaxha Is the high density of structures within any single given locus, plaza, or acropolis limit. For example, over 18 visible platforms, structures, and vaulted buildings are crowded onto 2,167 square meters of the West Group, and I am sure that excavation would reveal other building platforms hidden below humus and collapsed debris of the larger structures. There are at least 35 structures of a quite diverse size, shape, and evident function on the elevated 11,025 sq meters of the Northeast Acropolis. In each corner of this acropolis Is a grouping type I have dubbed "acropolis-open-corner-low-mound-groups." Similar clusters of low mounds may be seen on some corners of the East and the Northwest Acropolises. I could find only one major Tikal acropolis (Structures 6B-26 to 37) which had similar low mounds. It Is informative to return to what little information that was available about Yaxha prior to our arrival in 1970. The archaeological site of Yaxha was discovered by Teobert Maler in 1904. It Is always fascinating to read of what life was like exploring the Peten a century ago. The name Yaxhd, Green Water (Yas, green, and hd, water) Is here applied In a threefold manner: 1. As the name of the lake. 2. As the name of the ruined city on the northern shore. 3. As the name of the collection of huts at the east end of the lake. ....In the midst of these trying conditions, with my men from San Jos6 grown Impatient though otherwise perfectly tractable, but never liking to be long absent from their village, and the Tenoslque loafers, always discontented, hating all work and thinking only of guzzling, it was imperative that the exploration of the north shore with Its hidden ruined city should be set on foot without delay. Foreseeing that we should frequently have to row up and down the lake, I hired a cayuco of the alcalde, so that In this respect we should be quite independent. On one of the following days, therefore, we rowed to that spot on the north shore above which we thought we had observed one of the - 6-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH larger groups of cuyos. We fastened the cayuco and entered the forest. Having reached the wooded plateaus, we suddenly found ourselves In the midst of numerous mounds of ruins, which, as we soon discovered, stretched in a long line from east to west, while the extension of the city site from north to south was at no point considerable. During the week consumed in the examination of these mounds we returned every afternoon to our hut in Yaxhd, where a modest meal awaited us. When our laborious search was ended, this ruined city—more than 3 km. in length—had been thoroughly explored, even to Its obscurest corners. We found ten sculptured stelae; half of the number, however, being wholly destroyed, while the others still admitted of being photographed. We will begin the description of the city with the main temple at the east end, and conclude with the group of structures at the west end, where we found Stelae 8, 9, and 10 and the large circular altar (plan. Fig. 12). The main archaeological description of Yaxha, after the first notice by Maler, was by Sylvanus Morley: The ruins of Yaxha are located at approximately latitude 17 degrees 5' N. and longitude 89 degrees 22' W.^ on the summit of the low plateau or range of hills rising from the north shore of the western and larger of two lakes. Lake Yaxha. This body of water has its long axis lying east and west and together with the smaller and eastern lake, Sacnab, has a combined length of about 8 km. The two lakes are separated from each other by a narrow Isthmus through which runs a natural canal so that small cavucos may sometimes pass from one to the other. Lake Sacnab has Its long axis lying northeast and southwest, making an obtruse angle with Lake Yaxha (Morley plates 211a and 212). The first historical notice of Lake Yaxha Is from the pen of VIIlagutlerre Soto-Mayor, who describes the journey of Fathers Fuensallda and Orblta from Merida to Lake Pet6n Itzd by way of Tipu and Lake Yaxha, In 1618: 'Passado el Rio, camlnaron como ocho, u dlez leguas, y dieron en vna Gran Laguna, que ellos llamavan Yaxhad.... tener de largo dos leguas.' Maler seems to have been the first to visit the archaeological site on the summit of the plateau rising from the northern shore of Lake Yaxha. In December 1904 he spent a week there, during which time

7. This position i s only approximately correct, single neither the latitude nor the longitude of this s i t e has been taken. The values given above have been scaled from the Claudio U r r i t i a map of Guatemala (1923).

- 7-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH he secured the notes and photographs published In his report entitled The Ruined Citv of Yaxh6 on the Northern Shore of Lake Yaxh^. He also stopped for a few days at this site in May 1905 after his return from Naranjo and Benque Viejo. The writer has visited Yaxha on two different occasions: for half a day on June 1, 1914, when he saw Stela 7 and probably discovered Stela 12, as well as several plain stelae (perhaps AI, A2, A3 and A5), and also visited the neighboring ruins of Topoxte at the southwest corner of Lake Yaxha (black dot itinerary In plate 179); and again for half a day at the end of May the following year (the First C.A. Expedition, red line Itinerary in plate 179), when the notes on Stelae 6, 8, 9, and 10 were made^ and Stela 11 was discovered. Blom, of the Eighth C.A. Expedition (blue dash and dot itinerary in plate 179) was at Yaxha In 1924 and again In 1928 (the John Geddlngs Gray Memorial Expedition of the Tulane University),^ but neither he nor the writer on any of these occasions added much new material to Maler's original contribution. The personnel of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania-New York Times-Philadelphia Evening Bulletin Aerial Expedition to Central America landed on Lake Yaxha on December 9, 1930 In a Sikorsky amphibian plane, and proceeded to the ruins of San Clemente as already noted in the preceding section. Three days later (December 12) the party left Lake Yaxha by the same plane for Belize, without, however, visiting the archaeological site on the north side of the lake. W. L. Lincoln, of the Fifteenth C.A. Expedition (green dash Itinerary in plate 179), visited the site for a fortnight from March 19 to April 3, 1932, when the survey for the map shown In plate 212 and the sketch map in plate 211 a were made. Stela 13 and Stelae A4, AS, A7 and AS were discovered and Stelae 7,11 and 12 more accuratedly located.'^^ Finally, the writer flew over this site on the morning of February 27, 1937 (the Twentieth C.A. Expedition). The name Yaxha Is a contracted form of the Maya word yaaxha. which Is translated literally as "green water"-yaax, "green," and ha, "water"-and, as already noted, has been applied to the lake for more than three centuries. Maler, however, seems to have been the first to give this name to the ruins on the high ground above the north shore of Lake Yaxha.

8. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year book 1915, p. 345. 9. Blom 1929, p. 17. 10. idem 1928, p. 95

- 8-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

The site may be reached from the settlement of Benque VIejo, near the western boundary of British Honduras, in one jornada of 8 and a half hours along the principal trail to Floras. The details of this journey have been described In section 2 of this chapter.... The best stopping place Is the native hamlet of Yaxha, located at the southern edge of the narrow neck of land separating the two lakes. Here It is possible to secure accomodations of a sort, guides, and dugout cayucos for the trip across the lake. From the village the ruins ar best reached by cayuco to the northern shore and thence by foot; there Is also a mule trail from the village to points north which traverses the ruins. The time required by either route is approximately the same, about one hour (plate 21 la). DESCRIPTION

OF THE SITE

The two lakes were apparently formed by a fault in the stratified limestone which underlies the entire region. The northern shores rise abruptly along the escarpment, then slope gradually away to the north along the dip of the fault. The strike, above the western lake, is occupied by the ruins of the ancient of Yaxha, the main body of which extends In a line roughly parallel to the lake shore for about a kilometer. There are scattered remains of minor significance for at least two kilometers west of the main body of ruins. The top of the slope has been artlflcally leveled and terraced in a series of courts and plazas, arranged in gradually descending order from east to west. In the entire site there Is not a single standing building, and very few fragments of wall construction in situ. The persistent and destructive jungle has reduced this once flourishing city to piles of debris. The inferior grade of limestone prevalent in this region evidently played a large part In the disintegration of buildings constructed of it.

The terrain west of Plaza B Is leveled off to form two lower terraces which fade out Into the natural hillside on the north. The southwest corner of the first of these is occupied by Structure XI, an unimpressive mound of little apparent significance. Southwest of Plaza G, on the far or west side of the arroyo. is a small terraced platform bearing several mounds. There are many other constructions of various natures extending along the brow of the hill for a considerable distance to the northwest, all seemingly of little importance, but the architectural center of the city may be said to lie between Structure I on the east and Structure LXXIX on the west. The terrain, between the ruins and the lake shore, contains no visible remains, although it is quite possible that small ruins exist among the tumbled stones and dense undergrowth. The location of such remains would necessitate the bushing of the entire hillside and the making of a detailed Investigation. - 9 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

MaPDina Strategy It is preferable to map outlying areas as well as the city core since the sustaining area is an Important part of the overall settlement pattern. I agree with this strategy but feel that it is also a reasonable goal to map city cores wholeheartedly rather than doing a wishy washy job on the core in order to get time to do some of the sustaining area as well. In other words, I decided I would rather have 1 0 0 % of the site center rather than 8 0 % of the center and 2 0 % of the sustaining area. There are plenty of other archaeologists who are interested in the sustaining area and indeed Don Rice and Prudence Rice initiated test strips around both Lake Yaxha and Lake Sacnab as part of a completely separate project during and after the F.L.A.A.R. Project. Years later another project was initiated by Anabel Ford that extended mapping test strips beyond the site center. In all cases they were able to rely on the core map produced by F.L.A.A.R. Contour lines would be the only feature which any future mapper would need to add. During bushing and subsequent mapping operations, I concentrated on finding low platforms wherever they occurred throughout the main area of ruins. So many low mounds were found in plazas and even in acropolis courtyards, that either Yaxha has a unique settlement layout, a late occupation imposing low mounds on a more traditional open site, or such low mounds have been missed at mapping operations at other Peten sites. I favor a little of each of these explanations, especially the latter, for even the excellent map of Tikal does not show all the low mounds found later during clearing by park personnel or subsequent projects such as PRONAT. I am fully aware of the additional problem of "Invisible mounds" and I realize these need to be included in statistics, but such mounds require excavations to find them, since you cannot count a mound if it is invisible, and, their addition to the site statistics is invalid if the site core itself has not been thoroughly mapped. I felt I would rather do one job completely rather than attempt to pretend to do something of everything. Supernatural vision is not possessed by any archaeologist and therefore the map of Yaxha does not show any buried or hidden structures. At Yaxha, in addition to the traditional Peten housemound groups which are found all over the outskirts of the main center, there were a variety of groups of low mounds, .2 to 1.5 m high, within the central areas as well. A potentially definable pattern of these mounds could be noted in the otherwise open corner spaces of major acropoleis. Intensive bushing by a large work crew revealed "acropolis open corner low mound clusters" in the East Acropolis, the Northeast Acropolis, and the Northwest Acropolis. The Northeast Acropolis has 5 low platform mounds in the west half of its central interior plaza, as well as open corner low mound clusters in each of its four corners. Each of these three acropolises was further distinguished by an amazing diversity of structural types. Usually, 1 to 3 massive terraced pyramids shared the acropolis edges with low, vaulted and unvaulted range-type structures together with a variety of other building sizes, shapes, and probably functions. Problems in MaopinQ Tikal, mapped largely by professional surveyors. Is one of the most accurately mapped Maya sites to date. Yet Shook estimates that 2 5 % of the mounds were - 10 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH overlooked (personal communication, 1970's). An example of this comes from Tikal's East Plaza. Christopher Jones located four additional mounds after the plaza was bushed in 1965. The lesson is simple, unless an area is cleared and cleaned, and especially weeded, neither the most experienced surveyor nor the best intentioned archaeologist can map what he cannot see. Mapping by Miggel Orrego Guatemalan archaeologist Miguel Orrego, from IDAEH's Projecto Tikal, spent QVi weeks helping us map Yaxha. During this time he was able to plot the 51 structures of Plazas D, E, the Main Acropolis, Lincoln Causeway, an avenue, and adjacent areas. While mapping he found on the surface several piles of carved stelae fragments which seem to be the result of ancient Maya destruction. None of the Yaxha stelae are well enough preserved to warrant being stolen. There is no record of any Yaxha stela being stolen since Maler's visit since we found all the stelae he photographed still at Yaxha. General Considerations in Mappina Yaxha In the time which could be spared from my duties of keeping the overall Project functioning I spent several months mapping 66 structures alongside the streets and avenues, making a 1:250 scale contour map of the complicated low mound situation in Plaza B, and remapping some 40 structures by careful measurement which in the '70 season had been mapped mostly by trained eyeball. Neither of us two mappers (Crrego or the author) had ever been to surveying school, indeed neither of us had any formal training in mapping whatsoever. Thus the map of Yaxha is more an archaeological labor of love than an engineering drawing by professional surveyors. For example, few contour intervals are shown, because of a shortage of time the priority was in getting the structures down in their correct relative position to each other. And, I did not have training in measuring contour intervals. Cf course today all this would be done by computer and mapping software, but none of that was available in the dark ages of the 1970's. Two distinctly different mapping strategies were employed to meet two different requirements: quick coverage of large areas and detailed, hence slower, coverage of areas selected for special treatment. Orrego used a plane table and alidade in order to map as much square meterage as possible in the limited time available to him away from his duties with the IDAEH Projecto Tikal. He measured all distances, including those between stations, by stadia interval. He cleared only enough of the enveloping jungle cover as was necessary for stadia shots. Except when a student was available to hold the stadia rod, he usually employed only a single Guatemalan workman, who held the rod when not frantically chopping sight lines. As will be appreciated when seeing the new map and comparing it with the map of Yaxha by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Orrego did an excellent job mapping about three-fifths of the area shown during the portions of two seasons that he kindly made his experienced services available to be with us at Yaxha. 11. s t e l a 6 was taken from Yaxha sometime after we had finished, closed down our camp, and turned everything over to IDAEH. Presumably Stela 6 was taken by IDAEH to Tikal or Floras for safekeeping.

- 11 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

I worked differently to get more detailed coverage of the low mound groups aligned along the streets and avenues. I used a transit rather than an alidade and moved from station to station not with stadia Intervals but with short movements directly measured with a steel tape from specially set and tagged stakes. These station stakes, a few set Into concrete, were (during our seasons) semi-permanent reference points for grid location and elevation which can be and have been used for rechecklng. A portable drafting table was set up right next to the transit and all sightings and building outlines were completely plotted directly In the field so that Immediate reslghtlngs could be made when uncertainties appeared. Often large trees were In the way and needed elevation shots could not be made from the transit position, so a dumpy level was employed to take elevation, for It could be moved around quickly while the transit was left In place over a nail. It Is normal for such mapping of large areas to take all the measurements Into a notebook. The notebook Is taken back to camp, and often back to the home university thousands of kilometers away. There the map Is actually drawn. Of course what happens Is that when the mounds are no longer In front of you It Is all to easy to get confused. And even the best surveyor either forgets some key measurement, or writes down a wrong number. These factors are the cause of problems with the typical 19th century maps of Maya sites and all the 20th century maps by the Carnegie. Probably one of the first accurate maps of a Maya site was that of Tikal and that by Ian Graham of Selbal. A second reason for the successful mapping of Yaxha and the high degree of coverage and accuracy was extensive bushing and clearing away of all brush and fallen trees. There Is no need to cut down trees, actually It Is easier to leave the trees standing (and the birds and animals are happier as well). Standing trees do not normally bother surveying other than the few trees which are on the main sighting lines. But fallen trees, knocked down by storms, lightening, or old-age and rot, cover entire mounds. Most projects just Ignored fallen trees and mapped around them. We found that the map was considerably more accurate If the fallen trees were removed completely. This leaves the site looking like a national park, pretty for visitors, yet with all the original living trees still standing to provide the jungle atmosphere that Is Important to provide oxygen as well as a home for flora and fauna. Same with brush. It Is the low brush—not the tall trees—which obscure low mounds. If the goal of mapping Is to get all the pyramids, you can see these over the height of the brush. So In most projects the brush Is left as Is, cut down only on the sighting lines so the mapper and crew can move through the forest. At Tikal, the professionally trained surveyors for the Tikal Project map had missed at least four low structures right In the middle of the site (In the East Plaza) because not enough brush had been removed In the 1950's. We thus had statistics to aid In our planning a strategy for clearing. Edwin Shook, director of the Tikal Project during their mapping, admits that a percentage of low mounds were certainly missed by the traditional methods employed at Tikal. Dennis Puleston showed how many mounds were missed by Carnegie mappers at Uaxactun ( * ). The methods employed at Yaxha demonstrated that an even higher percentage of low mounds - 12 -

1 9 3 2 , c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 1 0 % 6 " s t r u c t u r e s " were p l o t t e d .

55

20

m

1970, c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 70% 1*4 v i s i b l e a n d 1 h y p o t h e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e were p l o t t e d ( d e t a i l s o f c e n t r a l mounds u n c o v e r e d by excavation).

Fig.

2

Y a x h a , t h e West

Group.

1 9 7 1 , c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 85% of the brush; a l l l a r g e t r e e s l e f t standing. I f a l l the brush and w e e d s w e r e r e m o v e d a n d t h e g r o u n d was r a k e d I s u s p e c t t h a t both a d d i t i o n a l p l a t f o r m s , l e v e l s , and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e t a i l s c o u l d be d i s c e r n e d w i t h o u t e x c a v a t i o n .

-K —

Ak \,

YAXHA i

.

« E a ' .-:

k A

K f

"--.l^TCLJiA-Tj

'k=>

S T A K N A

Fig. 3

cnT-mple L'U J L. I

L J

' ' y ' ' ' i ' - T = r 7 r r :

0

"^Ql^^^j"^

Ax:zz TIKAL

The maps o f Yaxha and o f T i k a l reduced t o approximately t h e same s c a l e t o show t h e h i g h e r d e n s i t y o f s t r u c t u r e s a t Yaxha. The same number o f s q u a r e k i l o m e t e r s i s shown o f e a c h site.

— S C A L E : On t h e map o f T i k a l t h e g r i d l i n e s a r e 500 m e t e r s apart. North on both maps i s at the top.

Fig.

l,a

1 9 3 2 , Map o f Yaxha a f t e r m i n i m a l b u s h i n g , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 107 s t r u c t u r e s p l o t t e d .

.77' I

^5 N

.11

.ii: g r i d

/.:.-NTOi-

.

cv

/

WIVfAST

A',

-ry.

-=A-

\nzv

rig.

1, b

\:a-Ml

_

line

1970, 1 9 7 1 , Map o f Y a x h a a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e but s t i l l incomplete bushing. a p p r o x i m a t e l y 37 3 s t r u c t u r e s p l o t t e d and 177 more s e e i d u r i n g e x p l o r a t i o n b u t not y e t mapped

Yaxha Report for IDAEH were missed, even by Puleston's methods. But even we missed the "invisible mounds" the structures that were built directly on ground level, with no mound to stand up and be counted. Yaxha workers and students were specially trained as mapping assistants. They could go into the area to be mapped next in advance, find mounds, clear completely around them, then clear sight lines to the nearest survey station stake or concrete bench mark. When the mapping team of Hellmuth and assistant arrived I did not have to waste time waiting for clearing. Ideally the team consisted in a surveyor, stadia rod holder, and at least two "heavies," healthly local workers for cutting and pounding in stakes to mark the corners of structures and for felling brush which at the last minute always seemed to leap into the line of sight, and for last minute clearing of fallen trees or areas that I did not accept yet as fully cleaned. After several months of learning the local situation on the ground I selected specific portions of the site where it seemed that slow and expensive clearing of vegetation would reveal low mounds or minute detail on larger mounds (such as position of stairways, number of steps, position of insets and outsets, presence or absence of collapsed vaults, masonry superstructures, different platform levels, etc.) which would thus repay the extra investment. Some particularly important zones such as Plaza B and certain parts of the avenues and vias were not only cleared of brush and fallen trees but were also weeded by hand and then raked or swept. After such clearing it was possible to detect mounds as low as 20 cm high. Tests were run to see whether in fact the extra time and expense of complete bushing was worth it. One example of such testing was in the West Group which had been mapped by alidade during the first season with the class of clearing that was typical in any normal Maya project at a jungled site. Just with this partial clearing Miguel Orrego had been able to find five new platforms and one small structure which were not apparent prior to the clearing the brush, and which were thus not shown on Lincoln's 1932 map. Thus Orrego had been able to find an impressive percent of additional structures. The second season all fallen trees were chopped up and removed. Then the interior of the courtyard and facing structures were bushed, weeded by hand, and raked or swept by students. After just 1 Vi days of this additional clearing it took me about 20 minutes to make out the outlines of two additional low mounds that had been hidden by weeds, high grass and low shrubs. I also noticed that one single long low mound was in fact two distinct shorter mounds, and that one mound plotted the previous season did not exist. Also, Orrego spotted a possible front platform to the north structure. The overall goals of the mapping operation were to make a basic record of the main site center for the use of others in comparative studies of site planning (settlement pattern). We also wished to see if there was any suggestion of Teotihuacan influence on the site layout. When I blithely stated in my proposal to N.S.F. that I would map the site I had no idea that the ruins were 3 0 0 % larger than the portion shown in William Lincoln's 1932 map for the Carnegie. Nor did I realize the trials and expenses involved in mapping a major Maya ceremonial center. Fortunately my parents, grandmother, my great-uncle (Southern Comfort Cor- 13 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH poration, the liquor company) and several friends provided the necessary funds to survive, though as with any other scientific research we always needed more than we received. Although we have not found specifically Mexican features other than in the West Group (possible talud in the middle, actual remains of tablero and talud on the edge) mapping did reveal a totally unexpected component of potential Teotihuacan origin, namely a network of streets and avenues in an area of density of structures atypical of the Peten Maya, and overall a surprising regularity in site layout. It should be emphasized, though, that it would take excavation to document that these features result from outside influence. Indeed, in most respects, such as the stela-altar complex, acropoleis, vaulted buildings, tall terraced pyramid-temples, etc. Yaxha is certainly a traditional Classic Maya site of Peten style. Mapping in Three-Dimensional Persoective I have always suspected that most people who look at a typical archaeological map have no idea from the rectangles of Ink on the printed sheet what the site actually looked like. But the archaeologist in the field sees these ruins in front of him for months, and thereafter in his mind's eye for many years. Thus for our own awareness we do not need anything more than symbols on the map. But if our goal as scholars is to translate the mounds on the ground into a published drawing that will aid students and colleages who have never set foot at the site to understand the settlement pattern better then it might help to do the mapping in three-dimensions. Since my training at Harvard was in architecture I was especially interested in the three-dimensional vision of the site. Thus virtually all energy and funds in the ' 7 2 season onward were devoted towards producing a 3-D view of the site. For this reason we did virtually no excavation in later seasons. Isometric drawing was easier for me to handle personally than perspective since isometric drawing requires 5 minutes training and minimal intelligence. People who do perspective drawings reassure me that I could also learn to produce such drawings but I felt it was better to leave this to professional draftsmen. We were fortunate to have a capable architect, Frank Ducote, take care of such drawings for us. Once I settled into a vision of producing all Yaxha in 3-dimensional view, my goal was to produce sufficient measurements so that without excavation a draftsperson could prepare a three-dimensional isometric reconstruction of each avenue and street zone, then a view of Plaza B, and eventually of the entire site. From such measured data it would be possible to create a perspective reconstruction drawing of the entire site. Ultimately, it would be useful to have a three-dimensional plaster or wooden scale model such as that made by Dr. MacKenney of Tikal, on exhibit in Guatemala's Museo Nacional de Arqueologia e Ethnologia. Only such a threedimensional presentation would reveal Yaxha's true monumental size and proportions, a site considerably larger than Copan, Naranjo, Nakum, and possibly even larger than Palenque's main area, yet a site little known, certainly not in the literature. I suspect that Yaxha is potentially the third largest site in Guatemala, with only Tikal and El MIrador as appreciably larger. At the time I was mapping Yaxha I had not yet been to El Zotz but later when the road made access possible I saw that this site has impressive pyramid-temples but I do not know the palace - 14 -

FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Yaxha Report for IDAEH acropoleis there. I have not been to Rio Azul but suspect that Yaxha is of comparable size and potentially larger in some respects, as I have never seen any pictures of extensive vaulted palace areas at Rio Azul. Lincoln's 1932 Mao of Yaxha William Lincoln, an architect originally from St. Louis, mapped Yaxha during a few weeks in 1932 for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Thinking that he was long since dead, as were all the other early explorers of Yaxha, we named a sacbe after him. It turned out that William Lincoln was very much alive in 1970, for he was only in his late 2 0 ' s when he mapped Yaxha. By a coincidence, Lincoln was a classmate and friend of my father, also an architect. During lunch together in 1970, Lincoln was surprised to hear that Yaxha was being mapped by his friend's son. When we learned of this we invited Lincoln to came back to Yaxha in 1 9 7 1 , after 39 years. He also kindly turned over his copious field notes and diary from 1932. This valuable record, never before published, was misplaced during the disaster of the severe earthquake which killed over 25,000 people throughout Guatemala and destroyed portions of the headquarters of the Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research. Although we had insurance, insurance cannot redraw drawings or rewrite field notes. Besides, insurance companies do not place any value on such notes. Overall View of the Site Among the approximately 500 ruined structures at Yaxha there are scores of impressive monumental temples and palaces, including at least nine pyramids larger than the pyramid supporting Tikal Temple II. At least half of these nine Yaxha pyramids lack masonry temple buildings, but Temple 216 is of the Tikal "Great Temple" size and proportion, with a two-room masonry temple still largely preserved up to the base of the roof comb. There are over ten major acropolis groups including a large acropolis of palace buildings arranged around six courtyards much like the size and arrangement of the Central Acropolis at Tikal. The ancient Maya had erected two ballcourts at Yaxha and raised about 4 0 stone stelae. Several of these monuments were discovered on the first days of the Yaxha Project explorations in May 1970 by Richard Waller and the author.

- 15 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

New Finds Not shown on Lincoln's 1932 Carnegie Institution of Washington map of Yaxha is a 300-meter long causeway (Blom Sacbe) running north from Plaza G to a building complex with Early Classic Stelae 8, 9, and 10. This northern causeway, noted previously only by Bullard, forms the northern extension of an axial causeway system which ruins a total of over 1 km, through the heart of the site down to the lake. In line with Blom Sacbe, but starting on the opposite, south side of Plaza G and E, there begins a 12 m wide feature which can really best be described as a street or avenue. This remarkable discovery will be described in the section on "vias" at Yaxha. Extensive initial exploration and mapping by Nicholas Hellmuth and Miguel Orrego revealed that Lincoln's fine mapping attempt of 1932 not only missed the north stelae group and left out 1 0 % or more of the structures in the area he did cover, but also showed mounds grossly out of position and proportion. Because one of the post-arrival aims of the Project was to determine the density of structures and the extent to which the site was laid out in a regular fashion, a decision was made to make as accurate a map of as much of Yaxha as time permitted. Richard Waller, Carlos Rudy Larios (May), William Alwin (June-August), and Orrego and Hellmuth (September) laid out with a transit and tape measure four master survey lines running east, west, north, and south from the top of a large building-less pyramid in the approximate center of the site. From carefully taped and tagged stakes and occasional concrete-and-steel rod bench marks on each of the kilometer-long brechas it was possible to map from any stake knowing that all measurements and sights started from a known and controlled position relative to a single central point. Mapping from these control points, Hellmuth and Orrego discovered that Yaxha had a density of formally arranged structures unparalleled for known Peten sits. For almost a kilometer east-west, and about 400 m, north-south there are continuous groupings of plazas, acropoleis, and other formal architectural complexes. Within the central area there is only one tiny strip of steep, broken terrain which was not filled in or transferred into a platform for some major architectural group. Outside this central area, structures are more scattered about with lots of open space in the more typical Peten pattern. One may speculate that Teotihuacanoid influence had some hand in the urban concentration and layout of Yaxha but considerable excavation would be necessary to uncover proof of this assertion. Discovery of Twin Pvramid Complex Carlos Rudy Larios discovered that Lincoln's Carnegie map omitted two structures of Plaza A and that in fact this group was a Twin Pyramid Complex, the only such - 19 -

7-

T"

••PYRAMID

I I

1

0 ^ A

o

'•'

. .• • .••

[ ;

I I

' •'• •: M , TTV-T TOyi: •..

' : • ' ••:v;v:?.l" v ^ 7 V T O ^ : ^ :

' ''• A'j'k 'L}- '-c^Ai00i L j t — ^ TO ^v,

\' Kk JJ^M • A^-—>,TO

km

Yaxha Report for IDAEH complex known outside of Tikal. This Yaxha complex is complete with east and west side four-stairwayed, flat-topped, identical pyramids with no masonry superstructure, a low mound on the south, and a stela enclosure on the north. The single Yaxha complex differs from earlier and contemporaneous ones at Tikal in that there is no (remaining) row of monuments in front of the east twin pyramid. Instead there is a single carved stela, number 13, and a badly eroded altar in front of the west pyramid. There was not enough left of the later to be able to determine whether it had been carved or not. The stela has been dated by Ian Graham as 9.18.0.0.0 in the Maya Long Count dating system. None of the known Tikal Twin Pyramid Complexes have any monuments in front of the west pyramid. The Yaxha stela enclosure is clearly copied from the prototypes at Tikal—a good sized roof-less space entered through a formerly vaulted doorway (long ago collapsed). This enclosure at Yaxha has only an altar now visible, but it is possible that a stela lies buried beneath collapsed debris from the largely crumbled enclosure wall. I suspect, though, that Stela 13 was originally inside the enclosure, and was moved by later Maya to its present position in front of the west pyramid. I feel this way because the single carved face of Stela 13 depicts the scattering or divining posture associated with this class of stela. Both this theme and glyph T535, Decorated Ahau, are found on several of the stone stelae in Tikal enclosures. From evidence elsewhere at Yaxha we know that stelae were frequently moved and re-set in Late Classic and/or Post Classic (?) times. Comparison between Carnegie Map and FLAAR Mao of Plaza A Plaza A is shown clearly on Lincoln's map and he found Stela 13 with its altar but he evidently never got any further east, due to thickness of the vegetation combined with lack of time. Monumental ruins definitely drop off to the east rather dramatically and he may have felt he had reached the limit. Rudy Larios persevered and explored Yaxha until he found the actual limits, namely the other twin pyramid. By the time he reached Plaza A Lincoln was probably mapping by eye, since his Str. VIII is not the correct size or shape. The long low mound is on the south side, not the north side. Also, the long south mound has two levels, which I was able to detect and is added to the FLAAR map. I do not know any Twin Pyramid Complex at Tikal that has such an addition; it was probably a secondary construction at Yaxha though the structure is symmetrical only with the addition. It would require excavation to tell the difference. William Coe of the Pennsylvania Tikal Project was not convinced that Plaza A was a Twin Pyramid Complex (1970's personal communication). His main objection was the lack of a row of stelae and the lack of a monument in the Stela Enclosure. But none of this changes the actual configuration of Plaza A, which is a full scale Twin Pyramid Complex with more than enough diagnostic traits. Besides, more than a dozen Maya sites have plaza complexes that commemorate solstice observations so why should there not be several Maya sites that have Twin Pyramid Complexes, especially a site as close to Tikal as Yaxha. Unfortunately this Yaxha example was not known in time to be included in Christopher Jones' thorough study of the Twin Pyramids at Tikal. Dennis Puleston visited Yaxha in 1972 and, - 20 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH after studying the remains of Plaza A, accepted it as an example of a Twin Pyramid Complex, taking into consideration the similarities and differences between the Yaxha variant ad the Tikal prototypes. It is worth pointing out that limited excavation in 1971 revealed specialized Late Classic style vault stones collapsed into the door space of the stela enclosure. This documents that this structure followed the expected Tikal pattern. The placement of the twin pyramids at Yaxha is precisely the pattern predicted by the Late Classic examples at Tikal. These pyramids are square, are flat on top (never had any masonry superstructure), and have the remains of stairways on ail four sides. The latter feature alone is enough to make these structures comparable to those at Tikal. The stelae row should be in front of the east pyramid, with none in front of the west pyramid. But Stela 13 was probably moved to the west pyramid in Post Classic times, indeed I suspect that Stela 13 was originally inside the stela enclosure. And the plain stelae that were supposed to be in front of the east pyramid were probably moved to adjacent Plaza B and elsewhere at the site in later times. This could be tested by excavating to find the pits where a row of stelae might have been removed from Plaza A. In conclusion. Plaza A is currently the only full scale complete orthodox Twin Pyramid Complex known outside Tikal. From time to time writers "find" other plaza groupings as far away as Dzibalchaltun and claim they are Twin Pyramid Complexes but that is entirely a personal theory not substantiated by the actual size, shape, and placement of the structures. The concept of erecting structures to mark the katuns may well have been widespread and it is likely that at other sites a different arrangement of structure served a purpose similar to that of Tikal and Yaxha, but until some other site is discovered elsewhere in Peten or Campeche, Yaxha's Twin Pyramid Complex remains unique, one of the discoveries of the Yaxha Project mapping program. We were also able to find the main front stairway which led up into the complex from the west and the matching stairway at the east. We also located a probable chultun north of the west twin pyramid. If I remember correctly it showed evidence of grave robbing. Morley's observations of Plaza A are limited: Immediately adjacent to the East Acropolis, and north of it, lies another platform. Plaza A, on a somewhat lower level. In the approximate center of the western edge of this platform is Structure VII, a terraced pyramid facing east with the remains of a stairay on the eastern slope. At the base (east) of this stairway are Stela 13 and the associated altar. Structure VIII, a low mound of nondescript appearance, occupies the north edge of the plaza. This structure evidently faced the north, as In addition to being set back slightly from the edge of the platform, there is an Intermediate level jutting from the north retaining wall of the platform.

• 21 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH The Giant Stone on the edge of Plaza A Totally unrelated to any use that we know of or expect for a Twin Pyramid Complex are three giant stones on the south edge of Plaza A. T w o of these stones are up on the plaza floor; the third stone was abandoned by the Maya in an attempt to raise it over the edge of the plaza. I have not calculated the weight of this latter stone but suspect it is comparable to, and maybe even larger than, the zoomorphs at Quirigua. It is potentially the largest single block of stone that the Maya attempted to move. I estimate the largest of the Yaxha stones to be 80 cubic yards in size. T w o short trenches excavated by Mario Arreaga and Alejandro Montejo showed that this largest boulder rested at a slanted position on top of a wall and floor. This position means that the stone had been moved to their present position by the ancient Maya. This is not natural bedrock since it is tilted at an angle against the masonry edge of the plaza. The stone probably came from less than 50 meters to the east, but to move a stone that large even one inch must have required virtually the entire manpower of Yaxha. I know what it is like not to be able to move a large stone: we once tried to re-erect Stela 6 and were not able to budge it.*^ Pseudo Twin Pvramid Complex in Plaza F I mention this area out of order, since it is easier to describe the site from east to west by Plaza letters. A, B, etc. Thus Plaza F will come later. But since it has an arrangement that almost looks like a partial Twin Pyramid Complex I mention this feature here. The complete description is under Plaza F, in due term. PIgza B

16. About 1972 we lowered Stela 6 down onto i t s carved face to keep i t from being noticed by potential looters, since we were never sure how well the s i t e would be guarded. Lowering the monument down was not that d i f f i c u l t since we were aided by gravity. Two or three years later when i t was clear that the s i t e would be guarded, we thought i t would be nice to re-erect the stelae so that v i s i t o r s could see i t . But even with a winch from our truck we were not able to raise i t or even move i t , so we l e f t i t down, protected under palm fronds. Quite a considerable "folklore" develops about every archaeological project claiming that the archaeologists systematically loot the s i t e s . Most people evidently do not understand how archaeologists are willing to work so hard and be rewarded only by s c i e n t i f i c results. Local people presume our interest i s treasure. Ten years after finishing at Yaxha I was told by people who had just v i s i t e d Yaxha that the IDAEH guardians at Yaxha were informing v i s i t o r s that "when Hellmuth left Yaxha he was pulling a stelae on a chain behind h i s jeep." Of course the people guarding Yaxha in the 1980's would not have any way to know that I never had a jeep, but a pickup truck, since none of the people there i n 1980 had actually been at Yaxha while we were doing our research. I always wanted to ask the many people who actually believed t h i s tale how they imagined that i t was possible to drag a s t e l a (which weighs many tons more than even a pickup truck) along behind you along an unpaved road. I do not know any vehicle short of a bulldozer which could manage t h i s . I suspect people got the impression we stole Stela 6 because they were aware we t r i e d to raise i t erect dOring the last season. So my only reward for attempting to prepare the s t e l a was the accusation that I was hauling stelae to Floras. At least we had been able to protect a l l the stelae and a l t a r s of Yaxha during the entire time since our a r r i v a l until we turned the s i t e over to IDAEH. This five years of successful protection ended i n 1974. When I returned to Yaxha several years later Stela 6 was no longer at Yaxha. I t was either removed by IDAEH to storage in Floras or T i k a l , or was stolen.

- 22 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Since the TIaloc stela was in Plaza B we spent considerable efforts mapping this area. First let us turn to what Morley published. I would imagine most of this is from Lincoln's field notes taken during his mapping, since Morley himself probably spent most of his waking hours pouring over the weathered inscriptions at Yaxha. At the base of the western slope of the East Acropolis, and about opposite its center, on the east side of Plaza B, lies an altar across which has fallen a carved monument (Stela 11} which was discovered by Morley In 1915, and relocated by Blom In 1928, who thought It a new monument. Extending westward from this point Is Plaza B, roughly square In outline and terraced down to the ground line on the north, west and south sides. On the west side of this plaza Is Structure X, now nothing more than a rectangular heap of debris. At the base of the east slope of this mound are Stelae A6, A7 and AS, and the altar associated with Stela A 7. Practically the entire north side of Plaza B Is devoted to structure IX, which might possibly be considered as two buildings. The crest of the mound Is notched In two places, dividing the profile Into three hummocks of nearly the same size. The west notch is somewhat shallower than the one at the east end, and probably indicates a collapsed passageway, while the deeper east notch Is probably Indicative of the existence of an Interbuilding space. On the other end of Plaza B from the TIaloc stela is Str. 9 0 , a 3 m high 10 m wide, 29 m long north-south, two-terraced platform. On top of the 2nd platform is a single range, non-vaulted building which turned out to have 6 round pillars forming 7 doorways. The remains of the pillars were just over 1 m in diameter, faced with small stones averaging 4 x 12 x 7 cm in size. Pillared buildings are common at Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, Tula, Toltec Chichen itza, and Post Classic Topoxte Island, but have generally been considered rare in the Maya lowlands, though Early Puuc structures frequently have pillars. Tom Lee reports a few Maya buildings with pillars in Chiapas (1970: personal communication). Only one other pillared building is known for Central Peten, Str. 50-31/42, at Tikal. It was consequently of obvious importance to obtain ceramic dating for Yaxha Str. 90. It is presumed that most building will have more than enough ceramics in the fill or in caches along the central axis. We were disappointed that an axial tunnel failed to turn up a single cache, no burial, and not even enough sherds to help date this enigmatic structure. We did find an earlier building phase but did not wish to do any more excavation so do not know if it also had pillars. As in most other structures at Yaxha where we did surface collections there were numerous Tepeu 3 Modeled-carved sherds on the room floor, but I suspect that here, as elsewhere at the site, these post-date the erection of the building. The pillars were of interest to me as an architect because of their rarity in Maya architecture, thus I devoted special attention to determining their precise size and especially worked hard on figuring out their height. Catharine Cousland, assisted for part of the season by Irene Russo, excavated three of the six round pillars of Str. 9 0 . - 23 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

I had worked out a clever scheme for determining from the amount and position of the collapsed masonry and fill what the original size would have been. This method was to take the base stump which was still In situ (a few centimeters high) and place chicken wire mesh around this same circumference, and then to place all the nearby collapsed debris inside this fence. In other words, we "rebuilt" the pillar from the collapse. Since there was never a corbel vault and not even an upper wall this meant that all the fallen stone was from the pillars. Our experiment resulted in the conclusion that neither the pillars nor the rear wall probably ever rose higher than 1.07 m. A complete absence of specialized vault stones made it clear that the building had not been vaulted. We presume that the upper part of the walls were of wood, topped by a wooden roof. The pillars, of rubble core faced by small stretchers averaging 4 x 12 by 4 cm deep were about 1.4 m in diameter. The two doorways which were cleared each measured approximately 1.9 m wide. Buildings of masonry up to only a certain height and then wood above are typical of most times and places in the Maya area. Str. 90 itself was about 30 m long and 1 6 m wide and rose over 3 m high in two terraces to a final building floor 3.6 m above Plaza B. There is a wide pyramid platform on top extending eastward over 3 m out from the front of the pillars. In this and certain features of the stairway outside, Yaxha Str. 90 is vaguely reminiscent of the general ground plan of Chichen Itza Str. 5C2 (Ruppert 1952:fig. 83). With only one specimen in Peten it is hard to ascertain whether this resemblance is coincidental or not. The rear outside was only partially cleared but on the portion exposed to date there was a strange diagonal drop to the terrace moldings which I have not seen on any terrace before. Four Mounds on North Side of Plaza B The north side of Plaza B was occupied by four mounds of medium size, each roughly 1 1 m long, 7 m wide, and a respectable 6 m high. Portions of the base of the easternmost, Str. 3 4 , was partially excavated during the 1970 season and recorded by Arlene Miller during the second season. An axial tunnel failed to find any offerings but we did not excavate below floor level. Excavation showed that there was no stairway on the "front" (south), back, or east sides. Although none of the other three structures were excavated it appears that none of them have stairways on their fronts or backs. The two central structures, 92 and 9 3 , show evidence of a single vaulted room running east-west with doorways not on the "front" or "back" but on the narrow east and west sides. Thus, it is likely that there must have been some form of stairway running up the east and west in the narrow space between each structure, I would like to find comparative data on another similar situation of a lack of "front" stairway on other Maya structures at some other Peten site. It seems that unusual structures were concentrated around Plaza B, the area with the "foreign" stela, 1 1 . Other Aspects of Plaza B Plaza B, 80 m wide north-south, 90 m long east-west, has a 30 cm high, 2 x 2 m sized mound on the east-west axis, and at least three other low mounds, else- 24-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH where on the plaza surface. There are several 20 to 80 cm high changes in elevation in Plaza B, and a strange 1 m high elevated area about 40 x 40 m extending westward from the base of the East Acropolis stairway. The Irregular outline and faintly uneven surface hinted that parts of this space could have supported a dense complex of small largely wooden buildings, but of course, considerable excavation would be needed to test this hypothesis. I suspect that Plaza B may have been an area of long term occupation by "outsiders," first those responsible for the intrusion of the TIaloc portrait, the building with columns, and later for Tepeu 3 squatters during the period of collapse. Because of the presence of the TIaloc stela in Plaza B we continued to give this area more overall attention. The entire plaza surface, 80 m wide north-south and 90 m long east-west was meticulously weeded by students and then carefully raked clear of all fallen vegetation, even leaves, so that the contours of the plaza surface could be discerned. We were thus able to detect the changes in surface that went irregularly across the middle. In 1971 emphasis was placed on trying to figure out the several ups and downs, the low platforms and mounds in the 16 x 30 m space between the back of Str. 90 and the west edge of Plaza B. Without excavation it was not always possible to determine which of the many changes in elevation and protrusions were natural slopes and which were the weathered and up-rooted remains of terrace facings or other architectural features. Jacqueline Day, Glynn Hoener, and Clemence Overall excavated a small,portion of this space behind Str. 90. It was hoped that whoever built or used this edifice, which is not in true Classic Maya architectural style, might have dumped datable refuse over the back, but if the occupants did, it did not land in the limited portion probed. Additions to the C.I.W. Mao of Plaza B Plaza B was initially pictured as a square area with three structures on the north and one on the west. It turned out there were four structures on the north plus the obvious one on the west. The only way Lincoln could have missed the fourth structure is if he was mapping by the "call out" method, sending your mapping assistant out through the jungle and asking him to call out how many buildings he has found, and their approximate size. The forest at Yaxha could easily hide a structure the size of the one he missed. We also located a minimum of three low structures plus a square platform right in the middle of the plaza. You can tell how much early mappers were missing when you realize that they did not even see three complete stelae and an associated altar in the middle of Plaza B. I suspect these plain monuments were moved from nearby Plaza A Twin Pyramid Complex during Terminal Classic times. Most classical Maya monuments at central Peten sites tended to be set in front of structures, not out in the middle of a plaza. We found two stelae and an altar at the base of the stairs leading to Stela 1 1 . The jungle must really have been thick to miss something just 2 meters away. Another discovery was the Sacbe leading from Plaza C up to Plaza B. Actually, the early mapping missed not only the street system but also all the causeways as well. - 25 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

East Acropolis Teobert Maler took useful notes a century ago: Upon the levelled top of a natural elevation rises the east, main temple. Its pyramidal substructure consisting of three high steps or terraces with the masonry in a partially ruined condition. On the west side of the pyramid a flight of stairs leads to the platform on top, where are the crumbled walls of the temple, consisting, as it seems, of a single, small compartment with an entrance on the west. That this temple Interior had a vaulted ceiling Is proved by still distinguishable fragments of vaulting. The mortar covering of the exterior still shows traces of red. Below, on the approach to the pyramidal structure, just in front of the stairway, I found a much weather-worn and cracked circular altar, with traces of sculpture In strong relief still visible on Its upper surface. To the north side of the first terrace Is joined a structure which may have been a small outer temple, and there are also vestiges of other minor edifices. Southwest of the pyramid are the ruins of an oblong palace, which once consisted of three chambers In a row, each probably with a corresponding compartment in the rear. One of these compartments (with a triangular, vaulted celling) Is still partially preserved. (Maler 1908:62). Morley seems to have recognized how to distinguish between "doorway collapse gaps" and the gaps created by the actual space between two adjacent palaces, yet does not correct Lincoln, who seems to have had trouble interpreting the collapse pattern created by wide center doorways. At the eastern end of the site [plate 212]'^^ lies the dominant architectural feature of the city, the East Acropolis, an artificial platform constructed on the highest ground of the entire site. This platform, which Is roughly 100 meters above high water level of the lake, supports a quadruple-terraced pyramid. Structure I, facing west. This pyramid has the remains of a stairway on the west slope and Is crowned by a sanctuary consisting of a single chamber, likewise facing west. From this commanding position an Impressive view of the city, stretching westward in a long series of gradually descending courts and plazas, must have been obtained In ancient times, when the Intervening terrain was kept cleared of jungle growth.

17. The map of Yaxha shown in plate 212 i s drawn from a plane-table survey executed in April 1932 (the F i f teenth C.A. Expedition) by W. L. Lincoln.

- 26 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH At the foot of the stairway on the west slope of Structure I Is a circular altar (Altar 1), so cracked and weathered as to render Indistinguishable the traces of high relief sculpture mentioned by Maler Flanking this pyramid are two other constructions—Structure II on the north and a low mound on the south, both connected with the central edifice by low heaps of debris and both In an advanced state of ruin. West of the low mound on the south Is a small freestanding heap of stones, designated Structure VI. The west edge of the East Acropolis Is occupied by Structure IV, completely ruined, which has been Identified by Morley as a "six-chambered building of the domiciliary type " and by Maler as an "oblong palace. " The East Acropolis is terminated on the north by Structure III, a rectangular mound with a notched crest. Indicative either of a central passageway long since collapsed, or an original arrangement of two distinct buildings. From each end of this construction a small wing projects a short distance south toward the center of the East Acropolis. Structure V occupies the corresponding position on the south side of the East Acropolis and Is similar In size and conformation to Structure III except that it lacks the wing-like additions of the latter. Structures III and V are set back slightly from the edge of the platform, and Structure IV has an even more pronounced offset. (Morley 1938,111:456-457). Plaza C Teobert Maler was mainly interested in finding and photographing stelae but nonetheless he provides a valuable record of the first scientific observations of the overall ruins of Yaxha. Previous this was available only in German, or in English. Starting from the east, main temple, and going west for nearly a kilometer, one passes Insignificant heaps of debris here and there, but eventually arrives at a square enclosed by structures on all four sides. I call this square The Souare of the Six Stelae. The north side of the square Is bounded by an oblong mound of ruins, and all that can be said of it is that the facade of the original structure must have faced the south, on which side a few steps led to the platform of the substructure. We found no stelae on the south side of this north structure. Opposite the north structure is a similar mound of debris of what may be called the south structure, whose facade must naturally have faced north. Before this north side, just In front of the few steps of the substructure, is a still upright stela with a circular altar before it. I have called this Stela 6. The west side of the square is closed by a large mound of ruins, doubtless of the west structure, with a facade facing east. The sub18. Maler 1908a, p. 62.

- 27 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH structure of this ruin forms a preliminary, eastern terrace to which Is joined the oblong, main terrace, which Is surmounted by a structure with a little flight of stairs In the middle of the east side. No stela was found In front of this structure. The east side of the square Is closed by the east structure, a large temple-palace with a complicated ground-plan; Its facade and stairway faced the west, as a matter of course. A now ruined stairway leads high up to the top platform, upon which, both on the right hand and on the left, there must have once have stood a little outer temple /templete/, while Its further hack, occupying the whole length of the platform, stood the main temple, probably consisting of three compartments In a row. There are still some remnants of masonry at the southeast corner. Half way up to the top platform, there was a lower structure forming a right and a left wing and a passage around to the rear of the middle structure. On the right wing, and also on the left wing of this terrace, there Is a heap of debris, evidently of the flanking structures which stood there. On the open space along the west side of this group of structures are five stelae, 1 and 5 standing a little back, while 2, 3, and 4 are set forward, and a large circular altar stands In front of 3. The backs and the narrow side-faces of all these five stelae are plain. (Maler 1908:62-63). A test excavation into the main structure (157) of Plaza C sought to ascertain if an earlier structure comparable to E-VII-sub might be present. But after a short distance we found no remains and the excavations were stopped since mapping needed all our personnel and budget. Both pre-Classic and Tzakol sherds were found in the fill, as was expected. Lincoln did well mapping Plaza C. With the Carnegie interest in carved stelae he most likely started work here first. He even located the structure sticking off to the west off the edge of the plaza. He also noted the addition to the front of Str. 157. We were able to add details such as an edging to the plaza at least on the southwest corner. This is more likely a wall rather than a set of low mounds. Otherwise we did not find any defensive walls at Yaxha such as Houston was able to detect at Dos Pilas. I know of no wall or moat around Yaxha but such a construction might easily have gone unnoticed if it were outside the area mapped. I suspect that the structures on the west, south, and east side of Plaza C were all once vaulted. All are totally collapsed today. After 12 months working at Tikal (1966-1967) I had plenty of experience in learning what collapsed vaulted masonry looks like without any need to excavate anything at all. The main east structure had walls as suggested on the site map. I did not use the symbol for vaulted remains since that would have obscured the probable floor plan. It would take excavation to learn much about the tiny flanking buildings attached to the middle structure on the east. - 28 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

We noted that the middle stela In the row of five had two altars, one of which was missed by earlier visitors. So let us review what the Carnegie Institution expeditions did note: A short distance due south of Plaza B and southwest of the East Acropolis lies Maler's 'Square of the Six Stelae," renamed Plaza C. This plaza Is cut from the hillside on the north and east sides and is terraced down in a single drop to the natural slope of the hill on the south and west sides. This plaza Is surrounded by Structures XII, XIII, XIV and XV, all of which face the center of the rectilinear court thus enclosed. The principal building facing Plaza C is Structure XIII, on the east side of the court, in front (west) of which on the court level are five sculptured monuments—Stelae 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Immediately west of Stela 3 Is an associated altar, so weathered that all trace of whatever carving It may have presented in former times is now illegible. Structure XIII may he classed as a compound construction in that it consists of several Interrelated parts. The basic element is a platform, roughly T-shaped and terraced midway between the base and summit to form an intermediate level. In the middle of the west side is a barely discernible stairway which gives access from the court level to the Intermediate and upper platform levels of the building. On the upper level, at the hack. Is the principal architectural element, a threechambered building facing the court and having Its long axis north and south. At the northwest and southwest corners of this building are two much smaller remains, probably of semi-detached singlechambered buildings. On the Intermediate level, at the north and south extremities of the mound, are the remains of two freestanding and probably singlechambered buildings. There are indistinct traces of a passage, behind the higher middle section, which evidently connects the flanking terraces/^ ^ Structure AlV, now little more than a heap of dihris, occupies the south side of Plaza C. In front (north) of this mound are Stela 6 and the associated altar. On the west side of the plaza is Structure XV, a rectangular mound having a low platform distributed about the edge of the platform in such manner as to enclose a central court. Structure L, occupying the middle of the east side. Is a small pyramid, to which is appended a low, platform-like addition on the south. On the north edge of the

19. Structure X I I I i s undoubtedly one of the triple-unit architectural assemblages found on the eastern sides of courts and plazas in many Old Empire c i t i e s . This type of construction was f i r s t identified by Blom at Uaxactun in 1924 (Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year book 1924, pp. 218, 219) but has since been found at a dozen other s i t e s . . . .

- 29 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH Northeast Acropolis are fourid Structures Ll and Lll, practically Identical In size and shape and occupying the approximate middle of that (north) side of the platform. (Morley 1938,111:459-460). The "Hlir that turned out to be a Mava Pvramid What shows up on Lincoln's map as a large hill, or actually just as an elevation northwest of Plaza A, turned out to be a huge pyramid, possibly one of the three largest at the site. I was able to detect several Insets on the corners, though was unable to ascertain how many terraces were present. No masonry temple was ever Initiated on top. If this Is a burial mound It would be an outstanding place to seek the last fully Classical Maya pottery. No one would Imagine that Terminal Classic Inhabitants of any central Peten site would be Involved In erecting pyramids of this size. Irrespective of the considerable achievements In architecture by Terminal Classic Inhabitants at Selbal and the capability of erecting stelae demonstrated there and at JImbal (outside Tikal) there Is no evidence that such monumental achievements should be expected at Terminal Classic Yaxha. Actually, no matter whether the last of Tepeu 2 pottery or the first of Tepeu 3 pottery, a grave-lot from such a structure would be Invaluable to fine-tune the ceramic sequence. One reason I suspect that this structure Is 9th century (whether Tepeu 2 or Tepeu 3 could only be decided by excavation, though I suspect It would be the last of the Tepeu 2 times; we had no plans to excavate any structure this large) is because It Is out In the middle of nowhere, far from the center of the site, far from the Early Classic plazas. The pyramid Is virtually alone, not part of a larger building complex (or at least we would not find anything substantial nearby). In other words It Is In an area of last minute expansion at Yaxha, as though there was not time for any other structures to be added around It to create a plaza grouping. This area of Yaxha thus offers an opportunity to see how real estate expansion took place at a Maya site. East Acropoll? Lincoln did a good job of mapping the East Acropolis. He had no way of knowing that the depressions he showed In the middle of Structures III and V were actually the collapsed center doorways. Central doorways are wide enough, that when the structures collapse the vault masonry falls down Into the void of the former doorway. The rest of the vault masonry plies up on either side, since there Is a wall on both sides of any doorway. Thus you can actually count the doorways In most collapsed Maya structures, from seeing how the debris has plied up, or fallen Into a doorway space. We had more time and after we manicured away obstructive weeds and brush from the acropolis we could see the structures more easily. This enabled us to place the secondary mounds In the correct position relative to the main mounds. We also located three structures In the northeast corner, four mounds In the southeast corner, plus one addition to the southwest corner of the main pyramid, Str. 216. The main temple has masonry on top but the symbol for this was Inadvertently omitted. First, to Maler's description: - 30-

7

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Upon the levelled top of a natural elevation rises the east, main temple, its pyramidal substructure cons/sting of three high steps or terraces with the masonry In a partially ruined condition. On the west side of the pyramid a flight of stairs leads to the platform on top, where are the crumbled walls of the temple, consisting, as it seems, of a single, small compartment with an entrance on the west. That this temple interior had a vaulted celling Is proved by still distinguishable fragments of vaulting. The mortar covering of the exterior still shows traces of red. Below, on the approach to the pyramidal structure, just In front of the stairway, I found a much weather-worn and cracked circular altar, with traces of sculpture in strong relief still vis/hie on Its upper surface. To the north side of the first terrace is Joined a structure which may have been a small outer temple, and there are also vestiges of other minor edifices. Southwest of the pyramid are the ruins of an oblong palace, which once consisted of three chambers in a row, each probably with a corresponding compartment in the rear. One of these compartments (with a triangular, vaulted ceiling) is still partially preserved. {1908:62). On the front of the acropolis we were able to work out the precise number of bottom steps since we cleared this area to find the butt of Stela 1 1 . Our map shows the stairwall that forms a wall against which Stela 11 faced. It would be interesting if there were a tomb in this stair block, as was the case at Altun Ha. But our goal was not to dig tombs at Yaxha, so we left such a discovery in the East Acropolis to future generations of archaeologists. Our main goal was to protect such finds from the reach of grave robbers. A small portion of Temple 216 collapsed as a result of the earthquake, according to reports from the guards shortly thereafter. It has long been stated that the palaces of Xunantunich collapsed as a result of an earthquake. This is as much a question for a geologist as an archaeologist, since earthquakes are not usually a problem in a karst area. The East Acropolis is certainly an important sector of the city. Temple 216 is the most imposing structure at the site. Its general size and shape is comparable to the great temples at Tikal and Nakum. I suspect it is also Late Classic. The view from the top of the temple is one of the great views in Maya archaeology, today, and probably a thousand years ago as well. The view from the west structure is equally impressive, since the surface of Plaza B is a considerable distance below. To an observor in Plaza B the East Acropolis must have loomed truly as a sacred witz mountain rearing up to the gods. Not only are the buildings tall but they sit on the highest natural elevation at the site. To anyone paddling across Lake Yaxha, or looking from anywhere to the southwest. - 31 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH this acropolis must have looked impressive, which, was, after all, the intent of the original architects. It is fair to presume that a royal burial is inside Str. 216 as well as under the smaller pyramid immediately adjacent. There was so much fallen vegetation and brush on the small temple that I never spent much time on top of 207. There is no symbol for masonry on the map but that is not always a sure indication of a flat building-less top, as sometimes I simply forgot to add the Letraset symbol. Other times I simply never had the time to climb to the top. I do not believe that I ever climbed up Str. LXXI, for example. I had more than enough to keep me busy mapping the ground plans without climbing all over the fragile structures. Main AcroDoiis This acropolis at Yaxha combines the features of both the South Acropolis at Tikal with the Central Acropolis. Tikal's South Acropolis features a temple in the middle surrounded on all four sides by palaces. The north extension of the Yaxha acropolis (Courtyards 5 and 6) has this general arrangement (the details, of course, differ). Yaxha Courtyards 1 through 4 are a reduced version of Tikal's Central Acropolis. Courtvard 1 Several of the more important buildings in the acropolis are associated with this space. Str. 387 is a major structure. Immediately alongside on the north Is an area that was hit by looters prior to our arrival. Strs. 384, 3 8 5 , and 386 supported no masonry structures, a typical feature throughout Yaxha's acropoleis. This suggests a mixture of thatch-roofed woodenpole structures right next to masonry structures. Courtvard 2 This space also seems "left over," since the main building in this area, Str. 387, shows its back to Courtyard 2. And on the south there are no major structures at all, as 382 is a low mound of no major importance. Courtvard 3 Since Str. 376 faces away from Courtyard 3 , as does Str. 388 on the other side, this is what suggests that this courtyard is left over from the division of a once larger space. As presently constituted Courtyard 3 has only Str. 380 as a major building facing onto It, since 368 seems oriented to Courtyard 6 (even though it probably had at least a doorway onto the south).

20. Yaxha had been hit only by a few looters, who do not seem to have been many in number, since the holes are a l l rather small. The looting at Nakum was more systematic since there was no one guarding that s i t e and i t was so remote i t got no tourism. Fear of being surprised by v i s i t o r s i s a main reason for looters to avoid a s i t e .

- 32-

420 142

l46

TO

t 117

' TO. r

•

^

139

148^

NORTH ACROPi A 5 1 -

h:

1

^42

30' 31

\

126 |gl25 D

307

309,^^H2nP

391

MAIN j-ACfiOPOLIS^

Yaxha Report for IDAEH Courtvard 4 Lincoln saw the dip in the middle of our Str. 372 and interpreted that as two separate structures. Nowadays we recognize that such a dip is just the collapse of the vault masonry into a wide central doorway. Another interpretation of his map is that he drew what we numbered as 372 and 373. He would have missed 374 and 371 since they were too low to be noticed in the 1930's. Carnegie era mappers only charted remains of monumental buildings not mere platforms. The shape of Courtyards 3 and 4 were woefully misinterpreted on the CIW map, not wide enough. Courtyards 3 and 4 were once possibly open, with Str. 376 being added as needed. There seems to be a way to walk through Str. 3 7 5 . Courtyards 5 and 6 An altar is in front of Str. 3 6 3 . A monument of this class up in an acropolis is not very common; monuments are usually reserved for open plazas. No trace of a stela was seen but with all the monument moving in the 9th-10th centuries nothing is surprising. An indentation from the street into the acropolis side suggests a probable stairway at that point. Otherwise entry tends to be along grand staircases leading up to the long axis of a palace, not the ends. Peter Harrison learned from work in Tikal's Central Acropolis that over time the Maya closed off the courtyards in the acropolis. The same thing seems to have taken place at Yaxha. We did not have the results from extensive excavation to be able to see every corner and every space between all the buildings but I could still detect many such restrictions even without excavation. You can see one potential "guardhouse" between Strs. 365 and 368 (there was no more space to stick in a number on the map sheet). The Maya seem to have begun to get rather crowded in this northern extension. Str. 362 looks secondary, an attempt to cram another palace into Courtyard 5. Virtually every square meter of available space was taken over by buildings. Str. 363 is interesting in its own right, with the two enigmatic extensions into Courtyard 6. I have no idea what type of construction this represents although they were high enough to be shown on the map as being sizeable. PIgzg F The Carnegie map shows area F as a regular plaza size and shape but in actuality the proportions are totally different. The space is all in one narrow direction north and south. There was no attempt by the Maya to create an actual plaza. For example, neither the northern nor southern sides have structures that are evenly situated (both are a bit too far to the west).

-33-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH Lincoln suggests that his LXXI faces east. The preservation is poor but it is possible that the structure had stairways on all four sides, or, these could be center outsets mis-read as stairways. It is worth pointing out that both Strs. 118 and 125 seem to have stairways on two sides, facing in both directions, sort of a commentary on the fluid situation of this part of the site, with no formal front or back to anything. Morley observed: Plaza E is bounded on the west by what may be termed the rear of Structure LXIX. This construction consists of a iong mound, very narrow in proportion to its length, and with a small protuberance at the midpoint of its east face. The major axis is north and south. As there is a weii-defined shelf running the entire length of the mound on the west side, about midway between the base and the summit, it may be concluded that the original construction consisted of a building resting on and set back some distance from the western edge of a platform and faced west. The projecting wing at the medial point on the east side indicates the probable former existence of a sanctuary here. In front (west) of the western base of Structure LXiX on the east side of Plaza F on the plaza level are located Stelae 8, 9, and 10, discovered and noted by Maler. Approximately ICQ meters due west of Structure LXiX lies Structure LXXI, a large rectangular mound with traces of a stairway on the east slope. Between this mound and Structure LXIX lies Plaza F, which is closed on the south by the platform supporting Structure XLIV. The plaza proper contains three smaller oblong mounds. Structures LXX, LXXil and LXXiii. (Morley 1938,111:461). Certain features of the layout of Plaza F need closer scrutiny. Is Plaza F another example of a "Uaxactun Group E" complex? Str. 117 fulfills all the conditions for "E-VII," namely a four-stairwayed structure at the west of the complex. The long east platform is what would be expected on the east side, as seen best in Plaza C, And a second question, is it also possible that the single platform supporting Structures 119-120-121-122-123-124 is secondary, and that the original Yaxha version of a "Group E" complex consisted of Str. 117 facing the triple temples 129, 130, and 131. After all, the stelae here are carved. The placement, or absence, of any particular monument is not at stake here due to the considerable moving of stelae by Terminal Classic and possibly Post Classic peoples at Yaxha. We did not notice this possibility in the 1970's so it is not incorporated in original project season reports nor in my 1976 and 1978 summaries, in guides to Yaxha, but in reviewing the map in preparation towards a final report the pattern stood out quite clearly. But I do not know of any other Maya site that has two solstice observatory groups, and Yaxha already has a definite representative, namely Group C. The - 34-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH specific placement of the stelae {1 through 5) in front of the east platform of that area are what certify Group C as Yaxha's example of a solstice commemoration complex. Yet there are the beginnings (or the remnants) of a stelae row In front of this east structure In Plaza F. And Str. LXXI possibly had stairways on all four of its sides. Working Independently Flaiko also recognized the potential of Group F:^^ Ruppert (1940), asumt'd que el grupo "C" de Yaxh^ reum'a caracterfstlcas de observatorlo, y posteriormente Hellmuth (1978) le definid como asociado al solsticio. Tomando en consideracidn los rasgos diagndsticos que ya se ban menclonado, resulta evidente que el complejo conmemorativo de Yaxhd mds bien podrfa estar configurado en el grupo "F", integrando los componentes de pirdmide radial truncada, plataforma longitudinal al este, ademds de monumentos en el eje esteoeste, sacbd de acceso y un juego de pelota en las inmediaciones (figs. 16 y 16). Cabe Indicar que el patrdn estrucrural de los grupos E, F de Yaxhd presents un notable paralelo con las plazas de Mundo Perdido y Siete Templos de Tikal. (Fiaiko 1987:148). I agree with Fialko's assessment of Group F but would maintain Plaza C within the classification, as Plaza C was so accepted by Ruppert. Plaza C is close-enough to the Uaxactun arrangement, and is actually more like Uaxactun than most of the other examples that Ruppert lists. Plaza C has sacbes entering and leaving its area; it lacks only a nearby ballcourt to fit Fialko's expanded list of characteristics. The ballcourt (and sacbe) features were not in Ruppert's original list of traits. As devil's advocate, another reason I would not stress the similarity too much for Group F is that the east side lacks the rigidly grouped set of three temples. The basal platform Is of an acceptable size and shape, the central temple is present, but not what is expected for the proper flanking structures. There is too much empty space, for example. Str. 123 looks rather independent, and seems to face east, not west. Str. 119 is rather lonely at the far end of the platform. Yet either Yaxha assemblage, Str. 117 facing 119-124, or Str. 117 facing Strs. 129-130-131, is perfectly within the allowable limits already set by complexes elsewhere in the Maya area. Many of the ones on Ruppert's list are no where near as orderly as the Yaxha Plaza F arrangement. There Is also the precedence of the Lost World Pyramid arrangement at Tikal, People always asked why Tikal was the only site In the central Peten with no "Group E" type of arrangement. Christopher Jones and others suggested that the Lost World Pyramid was most likely the equivalent to Uaxactun's E-VII and that the row of three temples were buried by Late Classic construction (personal communications 1965 and subsequently). Guatemalan excavations proved this conclusively (Fiaiko 1987; Laporte 1989, especially pp. 320ff). His observations are worth quoting:

21. I t appears that a third Hayanist independently recognized the role of Yaxha Group E/F as a potential s o l s t i c e comneffloration group, namely A. Aveni and Hartung (1985:table 3 ) . 1985 i s several years before Fialko's conments were available. Since Aveni's paper i s an unpublished manuscript i t would not have been readily accessible to Fiaiko or to Laporte, and i s not in their bibliography. I did not find a copy of this Aveni paper until packing my library in Graz in 1992. A l l c i t e the F.L.A.A.R. map.

- 35 -

Yaxha Report for IDAEH

Fiaiko (1987, 1988) llevd a cabo una revlsidn de su propuesta original de 1985 sobre la condicidn de Mundo Perdido como el complejo conmemorativo de Tikal.... Actualmente es posible especificar otros elementos integrativos que pueden resultar utiles para el diagndstico e Identificacldn de los Complejos de Conmemoracldn Astrondmlca, ademds de los conslderados por Ruppert (1940): a) La estructura piramidal que define la posicidn Oeste del complejo suele ser truncada y de planta radial, aunque pueden haber variantes a ello a medida que se conozcan otros casos. El ascenso a los tres templos sustenados sobre una plataforma longitudinal comun suele estar circunscrito a la escalinata del tempio central, asi como cada cual puede tener Indiferentemente su propia escalinata. b) Un aspecto de la importancia del patrdn simdtrico de estos complejos, asi como el uso de ejes normativos es la ubicacidn de estelas generalmente asociadas al eje Este-Oeste, es deck entre la pirdmide y el tempio central; aslmismo la existencia de plataformas bajas de planta radial d altares. c) El acceso a los complejos usualmente se verified desde el sector noreste mediante un Sacbd. d) Es frecuente encontrar juegos de pelota junto a este tipo de complejos, como en los casos de Nakum, Ixkun y Tikal, entre otros. {Fiaiko 1987:148; Laporte 1989:322). Str. 123 had an interesting ground plan, not presented on the map. Although the map carries the symbol of a masonry superstructure there is. In fact, no vault. The walls are too thin. The map does not distinguish between walls that supported vaults and thinner walls, as here. It should be possible to map the actual rooms of this palace but the vegetation was too thick in the 1970's. It seems that the astronomical commemoration group at Santa Rosa Xtampak (South Plaza) has not been spotted, In part because the site had not been mapped in 1940, the publication date of his original report. The Xtampak map is by Bralnerd, Roys and Ruppert (Pollock 1970:fig. 56), The first person that I know of who recognized the Xtampak example is William Folan, reported by Hellmuth ( * ). The Santa Rosa stelae are in the expected position In front of a row of three temples on the east. The structure on the west, though, does not appear to be square or to have stairways on all four sides. Such a variation from the Peten pattern is hardly surprising considering that Santa Rosa Xtampak is all the way north to the Chenes-Puuc border area. The major structures in the Xtampak complex are actually on the north, though without excavation there is no way of knowing whether these giant pyramids are a later revision. What counts is the set of three structures on the east with stelae In front of them. It is worth pointing out that the sole ballcourt at the site is just outside the complex, thus satisfying Fialko's qualification "d." Santa Rosa Xtampak is not well enough mapped to know -3fe-

Yaxha Report for IDAEH whether there is a sacbe leading to the complex, as predicted by Fialko's qualification " c . " Pseudo Twin Pvramid Complex in Plaza F Lincoln's Strs. LXXI! and LXXIII are actually part of a mini-group that has a few of the characteristics of a Twin Pyramid Complex: there are two approximately square structures facing each other; the east structure has a row of three stelae in front of it, just as in a Twin Pyramid group (though there are more stelae in the latter, the layout is the same). But here the similarity ends, since there is no stela enclosure, and the south palace is here on the north. There is likewise no evidence that Strs. 126 and 127 have stairways on all four sides. Looting had occurred in these structures. Plaza G Plaza G is bordered by the West Acropolis on the north, by Str. 117 on the east, Str. 116 on the left. There is no actual structure marking the south end. The site sort of ends in this direction with a diagonal drop off. The area south of here was never even entered, not cleared, not mapped—our teams and budget were more than kept busy with the rest of this immense site. Yaxha is one of the five largest Maya cities in all Guatemala, exceeded definitely only by Tikal and El Mirador. I would need to see the maps of El Zotz and Nakbe to check on their relative size. I have never been to Rio Azul but I doubt if that site has as many acropoleis and extensive monumental structures as does Yaxha. Many sites dribble off endlessly across the landscape, such as Caracol, Belize, but the index of measurement for Yaxha is monumental concentration. Nakum is a tiny site but has one of the highest indexes of construction concentration in the Maya area, equal to any major Maya site ten times its size if measured by house mound spread. Selbal covers a considerable extent but lacks the monumentality of central Peten sites. I doubt it has the square-meterage of construction. Thus Yaxha has the potential of being the third largest site in Peten; at least, the fifth largest. Structure 116 is aligned askew to the rest of the site. The layout of the pyramid is interesting. There seem to be two main terraces, then a flat space. The stair must be inset at this stage (I am writing this entirely from memory since field notes and other records were destroyed in the Guatemala earthquake 17 years ago—in other words, from memory twenty years old! We salvaged the map since a copy was sent to the USA). The next terrace may be considered a high building platform or the third terrace to the pyramid, since one would expect a pyramid to have an odd number of terraces (namely three, not two). The lack of a map symbol for masonry suggests there was a building platform (shown) but no remains of walls or even wall stubs. Off to one side of the plaza is a long narrow diagonal depression. Another comparable depression runs from ballcourt Str. 396.

- 37 -

NOETH A C E O P O L I S

• y\

LIX

LXII

|:=