Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal--Nonelite Groups Without Shrines: Tikal Report 20B 9781934536742

Table of contents :
Cover
Tikal Report No. 20B EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL: NON-ELITE GROUPS WITHOUT SHRINES: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Title
Copyright
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
I INTRODUCTION
II ARCHITECTURE
1. Introduction
2. Functional Possibilities
Square, One-level Platforms
Rectangular, One-level Platforms
Rectangular, Two-level Platforms
Square, Two-level Platforms
Rectangular, Three-level Platforms
Multiple Platform Structures
Small Range-type Structures
Problematical Structures
Sweathouse
Conclusions
3. Discussion
Introduction
Plan
Walls
Interior Platforms
Floors
Stairs
Incorporation of Bedrock into Construction
Chultuns
4. Conclusions
III SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS
1. Introduction
Location
Relation of Burials to Construction
Age and Sex
Relation of Burials to Structure Axes
Variability
Location
Orientation of Grave
Grave Construction
Position
Orientation of Head
Associated Materials
Body Alteration
Inclusion of Utilitarian Items
Relative Simplicity
2. Conclusions
IV SPECIAL DEPOSITS: PROBLEMATICAL DEPOSITS
1. Introduction
Cached Offerings
Secondary Burials
Other Offerings
Other Problematical Deposits
2. Conclusions
V SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS
1. Introduction
A Note on Terminology
2. Description
Introduction
Group 2B-1
Group 3D-3
Group 3D-9
Group 2F-1
Group 2G-1
Group 2G-2
Structure 2G-61 Locus
Group 3F-1
Group 3F-2
Group 3F-3
Group 3G-1
Chultun 2F-5 Locus
Chultuns 3F-4 and 5 Locus
Group 5B-2
Group 5C-3
Structure 5C-56 Locus
Group 5B-3
Chultun 5C-6 Locus
Group 4E-1
Group 4E-2
Group 5D-1
Group 4F-3
Group 5F-1
Group 5F-2
Group 4F-5
Group 4F-7
Chultun 4G-2 Locus
Group 6C-1
Group 6C-2
Group 6C-5
Structure 6C-60 Locus
Group 7C-1
Group 7C-2
Structure 7C-62
Group 6B-3
Group 6E-1
Structure 6F-62 Locus
Group 7F-2
Group 7G-1
Conclusions
3. Discussion
Introduction
Basic Domestic Artifacts
Artifact Variation
Occupational Specialization
Social Stratification
4. Conclusions
VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Introduction
2. Chronology
3. Functional Assessment
Introduction
Group 2B-1
Group 3D-3
Group 3D-9
Group 2F-1
Group 2G-1
Group 2G-2
Structure 2G-61 Locus
Group 3F-1
Group 3F-2
Group 3F-3
Group 3G-1
Chultun 2F-5 Locus
Group 5B-2
Group 5C-3
Structure 5C-56 Locus
Chultun 5C-6 Locus
Group 4E-1
Group 4E-2
Group 5D-1
Group 4F-3
Group 5F-1
Group 5F-2
Group 6C-1
Group 6C-2
Group 6C-5
Structure 6C-60 Locus
Group 7C-1
Group 7C-2
Structure 7C-62
Group 6E-1
Structure 6F-62 Locus
Group 7F-2
Group 7G-1
Tested Small-Structure Groups
Summary
4. Discussion
Abandonment of Houses
Population
Small-Structure Groupings
The Single Plaza-Residential Unit
The Multiplaza-Residential Unit
Other Features of Settlement
Social Implications
Introduction
Nuclear Families
Extended Families
Unilocal Residence
Lineages
Social Diversity
Economic Specialization
Concluding Remarks
References

Citation preview

Tikal Report No. 20B

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL: NON-ELITE GROUPS WITHOUT SHRINES: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Frontispiece. Excavations underway in small-structure Group 6E-1, June 1963

University Museum Monographs 140

Tikal Report No. 20B

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL: NON-ELITE GROUPS WITHOUT SHRINES: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS William A. Haviland

Series Editors William A. Haviland Christopher Jones

Published by UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM Of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia 2014

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Haviland, William A. Excavations in residential areas of Tikal. Non-elite groups without shrines : analysis and conclusions / William A. Haviland. pages cm. -- (University Museum monographs ; 140) (Tikal report ; no. 20B) Companion volume to: Excavations in residential areas of Tikal. Non-elite groups without shrines : the excavations (Tikal report 20A). Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-934536-73-5 (hardcover : acid-free paper) -- ISBN 1-934536-73-3 (hardcover : acid-free paper) 1. Tikal Site (Guatemala) 2. Excavations (Archaeology)--Guatemala. 3. Mayas--Guatemala--Antiquities. I. Title. II. Title: Non-elite groups without shrines. F1435.1.T5H382 2014 972.81’01--dc23 2014029015

© 2014 by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia, PA All rights reserved. Published 2014 Published for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II ARCHITECTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Functional Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Square, One-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rectangular, One-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Rectangular, Two-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Square, Two-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Rectangular, Three-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Small Range-type Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Problematical Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Sweathouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Interior Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Incorporation of Bedrock into Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chultuns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 III SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Relation of Burials to Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Age and Sex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Relation of Burials to Structure Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

vi

CONTENTS

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orientation of Grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grave Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orientation of Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associated Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Body Alteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inclusion of Utilitarian Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Simplicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV SPECIAL DEPOSITS: PROBLEMATICAL DEPOSITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cached Offerings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Problematical Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Note on Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2B-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3D-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3D-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2G-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 2G-61 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultun 2F-5 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultuns 3F-4 and 5 Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5B-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5C-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 5C-56 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5B-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultun 5C-6 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4E-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4E-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5D-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4F-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51 56 57 58 58 58 60 60 61 62 63 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 76 76 77 78 79

CONTENTS

Group 4F-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4F-7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultun 4G-2 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 6C-60 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7C-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7C-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 7C-62. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6B-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6E-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 6F-62 Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Domestic Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Specialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Stratification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Functional Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2B-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3D-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3D-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 2G-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 2G-61 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3F-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 3G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultun 2F-5 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5B-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5C-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 5C-56 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chultun 5C-6 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4E-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4E-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

79 79 79 79 81 81 82 82 82 83 83 83 89 89 89 90 90 90 91 113 113 115 123 125 125 125 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 133 134 134 135 135 136 137 137 137 137 137 137 138

viii

CONTENTS

Group 5D-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 4F-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5F-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 5F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6C-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 6C-60 Locus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7C-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7C-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 7C-62. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 6E-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 6F-62 Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7F-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group 7G-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tested Small-Structure Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abandonment of Houses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small-Structure Groupings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Single Plaza-Residential Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Multiplaza-Residential Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Features of Settlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear Families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extended Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unilocal Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139 140 140 141 141 141 141 142 142 142 142 143 144 144 144 144 145 145 145 146 146 146 147 148 149 149 149 149 151 153 157 158 159 161

Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 2.11 Table 2.12 Table 2.13 Table 2.14 Table 2.15 Table 2.16 Table 2.17 Table 2.18 Table 2.19 Table 2.20 Table 2.21 Table 2.22 Table 2.23 Table 2.24 Table 2.25 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7

Known Structures of Small-Structure Groups, Parts 1-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square, One-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probable Square, One-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square, One-level Platforms in Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, One-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probable Rectangular, One-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, One-level Platforms in Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, Two-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probable Rectangular, Two-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, Two-level Platforms in Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square, Two-level Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, Three-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probable Rectangular, Three-level Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rectangular, Three-level Platforms in Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple Platform Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small, Range-type Structures, Parts 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problematical Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure 7E-Sub.1 Compared to Modern Sweathouses and Sweathouses at Piedras Negras and Tikal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forms of Masonry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Masonry Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Style, Parts 1-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presence and Absence of Building Platforms Through Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forms of Building Platforms Through Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Styles Through Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Preliminary Classification of Chultuns Reported in Tikal Report 19 and 20A, Parts 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Burials, by Group, Parts 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Preclassic Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Early Classic (Manik-related) Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Intermediate Classic (Ik-related) Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Late Classic (Imix-related) Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grave Attributes and Terms of Reference, Parts 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 8 9 9 11 12 13 16 17 18 20 20 21 21 22 23 28 29 31 32 33 38 38 39 42 45 47 48 49 50 51 52

x

TABLES

Table 3.8 Body Positions, Parts 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.9 Arrangement of Material Associated with Burials, Parts 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.10 Arrangement of Burials in Relation to Abandonment of Existing Structures and Construction of New Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4.1 Problematical Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4.2 Probable Significance of Problematical Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.1 Artifacts from Group 2G-1 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.2 Artifacts from Group 2G-2 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.3 Artifacts from the Structure 2G-61 Locus Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.4 Artifacts from the Structure 5C-56 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.5 Artifacts from Group 4F-3 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.6 Artifacts from Group 5F-1 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.7 Artifacts from Group 6C-1 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.8 Artifacts from Structure 7C-62 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.9 Artifacts from Group 6E-1 Illustrated in Tikal Report 27B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.10 Percentages of Major Typological Classes of Pottery Vessels from Occupation Debris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.11 Percentages of Utilitarian, Ornamental, Ceremonial, and Problematical Artifacts from Occupation Contexts, Parts 1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.12 Probable Functions of Small-Structure Groups as Suggested by Associated Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.13 Classifiable Objects of Pottery by Group or Locus, Parts 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.14 Classifiable Artifacts of Chipped Stone by Group or Locus, Parts 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.15 Classifiable Objects of Pecked and Ground Stone by Group or Locus, Parts 1-4. . . . Table 5.16 Objects of Shell by Group or Locus, Parts 1-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.17 Objects of Bone by Group or Locus, Parts 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.18 Artifacts from Preclassic Midden-like Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.19 Possible Evidence for Obsidian Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.20 Specialized Occupations at Tikal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.21 Numbers of Common Artifact Types by Group or Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.22 Numbers of Classifiable Artifact Types Other Than Basic or Common by Group or Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.23 Percentage of Prismatic Blades of Obsidian by Group or Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.24 Percentage of Thin Bifaces of Obsidian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.25 Percentage of Irregularly Retouched and Used Flakes of Obsidian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.26 Comparison of Artifacts by Group or Locus Suggestive of Differences in Social Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.27 Rank Ordering of Small-Structure Groups on the Basis of Associated Artifacts. . . . . . Table 5.28 Comparison of Artifacts between Two Late Preclassic Structures Suggestive of Differences in Social Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.1 Excavated and Tested Small-Structure Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.2 Structures Built by AD 670 or Later That Were Subsequently Before AD 869. . . . . . . Table 6.3 Small-Structure Groups or Loci Surely or Almost Surely Occupied When Late Imix Ceramics Were in Vogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.4 Visible Small-Structure Ruins to be added to the Central Nine-square-kilometer Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 56 59 64 65 70 71 72 75 77 78 80 83 84 86 87 90 92 96 100 104 107 111 114 116 117 118 118 119 119 120 123 124 126 127 129 129

TABLES

Table 6.5 Numbers of Structures to be added to the Outer Squares of the Sixteen-square kilometer Site Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.6 Small-Structure Groups or Loci Surely or Almost Surely Occupied in Intermediate Classic Times (ca. AD 550-700). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.7 Numbers of Houses in Best Known Small-Structure Groups, When First Built and When Abandoned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.8 Hypothetical History of Group 2G-1 as Occupied by a Patrilocal Extended Family. . . Table 6.9 Outstanding Structures for Each Single Plaza-Residential Unit on the Basis of Architecture, Sequence, Number of Burials, and Quantity of Sherds from Fine Vessels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.10 Extended Family Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.11 Multiplaza-Residential Units: Probable Localized Lineages, Parts 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

130 131 147 151

152 153 154

Illustrations

Figure 1 A Variety of Small-Structure Masonry Figure 2 Jar Necks Figure 3 Basic Household Implements of Stone Figure 4 Common Household Objects Figure 5 Three Sherds with Entoptic Designs Figure 6 Obsidian Counterparts of Basic and Common Household Implements More Often (Excepting Prismatic Blades) Made of Chert Figure 7 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Bejucal and North Zone Quadrangles Figure 8 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Encanto Quadrangle Figure 9 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Temple IV Quadrangle Figure 10 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Great Plaza Quadrangle Figure 11 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Camp Quadrangle Figure 12 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Perdido Quadrangle Figure 13 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Corriental Quadrangle Figure 14 Chronology of Small-Structure Groups: Inscriptions Quadrangle and Peripheral Squares Figure 15 A View of Structure 6E-162 Under Excavation Figure 16 A Hypothetical Genealogy of the Occupants of Group 2G-1

I

Introduction

Tikal Report 20 presents the results of excavations carried out in and near small residential structures at Tikal that were begun in 1961 and continued in subsequent seasons. Spotted throughout the area covered by the 16 km2 map (TR. 11), they include ceramic test pits and chultuns, as well as structures themselves. Excluded are small and intermediate structure excavations reported in TR. 19 and 21. Owing to the volume of material included, the decision was made to divide the report into two parts, with TR. 20A devoted to presentation of the excavation data. Largely descriptive, analysis was kept to the minimum. Part B, by contrast, is primarily analytical in nature. In it, the data of Part A are reviewed and interpreted to see what they have to tell us about settlement, demography, and society at Tikal. Thus, it is the counterpart of sections IV–VIII of TR. 19.

The present analysis was carried out in 1972, with some revisions in 2008. For background, the reader should consult the introduction to TR. 20A. A preliminary review of how the work reported here relates to other settlement research at Tikal is presented in Haviland 2003b. For assistance in completion of this report, I received invaluable aid from Christopher Jones and Hattula Moholy-Nagy. Beyond that, I am grateful for the benefit derived from numerous exchanges over the years with my Tikal colleagues who are credited in TR. 20A. I could not have done without this, much less the patience and support of my wife, Anita Lopez de Leo de Laguna. Barbara Hayden was responsible for editing and word processing, and the final preparation of illustrations for this volume. Deer Isle, Maine March 2009

II

Architecture

1. Introduction In TR. 20A descriptions are given of 164 structures, located in 31 different groups. These are all listed here in Table 2.1, with reference to relevant illustrations in TR. 20A. Detailed information on these structures has been assembled in Tables 2.2 through 2.18 (see below), according to the form categories defined in TR. 19 (pp. 102– 109). Some additions have been necessary here, for not all of the structures discussed duplicate form subcategories seen in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2. The same applies to masonry forms and methods of installation, wall style, and stair construction. Additions to the basic definitions given in TR. 19 (pp. 110–111) are presented here in Tables 2.19 through 2.21 (see below), and on pp. 30-41. The purpose of assembling these data is to see what they suggest in the way of functional possibilities for the various structures, and to see what other cultural implications may be gleaned from them. The analysis is a continuation of that in TR. 19, although it is organized somewhat differently. Accordingly, the reader should consult that report along with this one.

2. Functional Possibilities Square, One-level Platforms Postponing discussion of square, one-level platforms in multiple platform structures (Table 2.4) until the end of this section, the thirteen structures listed in Table 2.2 belong in this category (“Form A”). The eight structures listed in Table 2.3 probably do as well, as may some listed in Table 2.17 (see below). This compares with two definite and one probable structure in this category from Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19, Tables 85 and 86). None of the structures here are exactly like the two known from Gp. 4F-2. In addition, the ones here show considerable variation, with at least six subcategories

based on plan details alone. A consideration of wall style introduces even more variation. All these square structures are assumed to have consisted in part of buildings of perishable materials. The best evidence for this comes from Str. 4F-49 and 6C-61. Probes of two corners of 49 found evidence of postholes, revealing a positive posthole configuration. Four other structures (2G-Sub.1, 4F-48, 6E-162, and 163) are so closely like 4F-49 in size and position relative to a larger structure that they are assumed to have been nearly identical to 49 in all ways. Hence they too almost surely consisted in part of buildings of perishable materials. Structures 3F-14 and 5F-45-2nd are also similar in size and are located near larger structures, though in their precise positions they differ slightly from those structures just noted. Still, they seem enough alike that it is reasonable to assume that they, too, consisted in part of buildings of perishable materials. Failure to actually find postholes is explained by the existence of sufficient depth of fill so that posts did not need to be planted in bedrock. Based on those structures with evident postholes, main posts were set to a depth of 0.70 m below the surface of the building platform. This contrasts with the figure of 0.75 to 1.00 m for modern postholes (Wauchope 1938:32). If, then, there is at least 0.70 m of earth and/or fill above bedrock, there will be no visible posthole in bedrock. If, in addition, plaster floors are poorly preserved where posts would have been set (as is usually the case), then there will be no evidence at all for the one-time presence of posts. Such is the situation with all of the structures here. For Str. 6C-61 there is one apparent posthole in bedrock just inside the E wall. No others were found, but it may only be because the posts were not set very deeply. At any rate, the known posthole is close enough to the wall to have supported a wall post. Furthermore, 6C-61 seems to have replaced an earlier structure that consisted in part of a building of perishable materials (see TR. 20A). So it seems that Str. 6C-61 consisted in part of such a building also.

ARCHITECTURE

3

4

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

5

6

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

7

8

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

9

10

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

As noted in Table 2.2, Str. 6E-26-3rd, though slightly larger, is very much like 6C-61. Hence, if 61 were built in part of perishable materials, 26-3rd probably was also. Poor preservation of plaster floors, and great depth of fill, account for failure to find postholes associated with 6E-26-3rd. Lack of investigation of the corners, or poor floor preservation coupled with sufficient depth of fill, accounts for lack of positive posthole configurations for the other square, one-level platforms, with the exception of Str. 6C-45-8th in its three manifestations. All along the front of this structure the floor is well preserved, and there are no postholes. There is reason to suspect, though, that posts were set just outside at least some of the platform walls (see TR. 20A). Structure 5F-43 is a probable square, one-level platform with low masonry dwarf walls, somewhat like Str. 4F-42 in Gp. 4F-2 (TR. 19:Table 85). These may well indicate the one-time presence of a building of perishable materials (TR. 20A). Given, then, that all of these square, one-level platforms probably supported buildings, were they houses? Clearly, some were not. All those structures in Category A2 may be ruled out, for they are too small for habitability. Their mean floor area is only 9.36 m2 (the range is 4.69 m2 to 12.06 m2). They are also positioned in such a way relative to larger structures as to suggest some adjunct function (see TR. 20A:Fig. 21, 53, 100, 102, 109, 149). Structure 5F-Sub.3 probably can be included in this same category. Although they are not houses, they are suitable to have served as residential adjuncts. The structures in subcategories A4, A5, A6, and A7 may have been houses. In the first place, they are large enough, with a mean floor area of 52.08 m2. The range is 21.00 m2 to 103 m2, far outside that of the structures in Category A2. In the second place, their positions and sizes relative to other structures does not suggest that they were adjuncts (see TR. 20A:Fig. 109, 116, 146, and note that Str. 6C-61 stood alone). Finally, four out of five of these structures are Early Classic, worth noting in view of Wauchope’s (1938:26) suggestion that square houses are older among the Maya than rectangular ones. I shall return to this point later on. Further evidence pertains to Str. 6C-61 and, by inference, to 6E-26-3rd, also in Category A5. In plan, Str. 6C-61 very much resembles Maya houses, both pre- and post-Columbian, known from the Tzeltal village of Amatenango, villages in the Guatemalan highlands, and Las Ruinas, near Cilvituk (Thompson 1970:17). These houses all feature a covered, inset corner porch with the doorway opening into the building from the back of the porch. Similar houses seem to be illustrated in murals at Chichen Itza on walls of the Temple of the Warriors and the Tem-

ple of the Jaguars and Shields (Thompson 1970:17, 18, and pl. 3a). All of this heightens the probability that structures with platforms of Form A5 served as houses. Since only two such structures are surely known from Tikal, however, it may be that they represent a foreign style of domestic architecture. Structure 6E-Sub.1-2nd (Category A3) is a problem. Structure 6E-Sub.1-1st may be considered problematical also, for its dimensions are assumed to have been similar. The floor area of Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd was 13.58 m2, closer to the upper end of the range for square structures that were not houses than to the lower end of the range for square houses. It could have been lived in, but it would have been cramped. Moreover, it is smaller than the apparently non-residential Str. 4F-42 (TR. 19:Table 85), which has a floor area of 17.02 m2. On the basis of architecture alone, a residential function for Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd and 1st is dubious, even though it cannot be categorically ruled out. Yet, the two other obvious possibilities are not convincing; Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd seems too elaborate, with its 0.67 m height and step (TR. 20A:Fig. 142), for a residential outbuilding; nor does its position, apparently in the center of Plat. 6E-1, suggests this. The fact that it faces S, rather than W, does not suggest that it was a shrine (TR. 21). The probable square, one-level platforms (Table 2.3) that have not been specifically mentioned above are hard to deal with, since the data are incomplete. Available measurements for Str. 2F-31-1st, 5F-43, 5F-46-2nd, and 5F-Sub.1-1st suggest structures large enough to have been houses. All are Early Classic or Preclassic.

Rectangular, One-level Platforms Five of the structures in this category (Tables 2.5 and 2.6) show evidence of positive posthole configurations: 3F-25-2nd, 3F-29-1st, and 2nd, 6C-45-2nd, and 7C-32nd. Four of these surely and one probably are in Subcategory B1, so it seems likely that all fifteen platforms definitely, and the six probably in this category, were true building platforms. Those for which there is no evidence for a positive configuration either were not searched for evidence of this, or else the evidence would not survive given depth of fill and poor preservation of floors. Structure 4F-47-2nd establishes platforms of Category B14 as building platforms; it is the sole representative for this subcategory. Structure 2B-7-2nd probably belongs in Subcategory B2, which includes known building platforms (TR. 19:120). Similarly, Str. 2G-15-1st and 6C-57 belong in a subcategory (B3) that includes an apparent building platform (TR. 19:120). Structure 5B-7-2nd (Subcategory B4) had a low masonry dwarf wall along its back. This suggests that it, too,

ARCHITECTURE

11

12

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

13

14

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

was a true building platform. Structure 5D-7-1st (Subcategory B18) had a transverse interior dwarf wall, similar to one in 4F-21-1st. For reasons already given, it is thought that the latter was a true building platform. Hence, it is quite likely that Str. 5D-7-1st was as well. Structures 6C-45-3rd, 6th, and 7th (Subcategories B12, B15, B16) present problems. No postholes were seen where the floors of these platforms were intact. Nonetheless, other evidence suggests that they did have buildings above them (see TR. 20A). In sum, it seems likely that all the rectangular, one-level platforms of Tables 2.5 and 2.6 were true building platforms. This is clearest for those Subcategories B1, B2, B3, and B14; a bit less so for those of subcategories B4 and B18; less so for Subcategories B12, B15, and B16. A conclusion in TR. 19 (p. 120) was that there was no reason why structures of Form B could not have been houses. Indeed, after consideration of all lines of evidence, the most likely houses in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 were built on one-level, rectangular platforms (TR. 19:184). That conclusion is appropriate here, and for the same reasons. First, they were sufficiently large, although not necessarily roomy. For example, the floor area for all structures of Subcategory B1 (including those of TR. 19) averages 34.42 m2, with a range from 13.20 m2 to 58.38 m2. Second, a number of these (Str. 3D-9-2nd, 3F-24-3rd, 3F-25-2nd, 4E-51-2nd, 4E-53-2nd-A, 4F-47-2nd, 5B-6-2nd, 5B-72nd, 6C-45-2nd, 7C-3-2nd, and 4F-21-2nd) evolved into more probable houses (Form C). An additional point relates to the suggestion already noted that square houses may be more ancient among the Maya than other forms. It is, therefore, of interest to note that the earliest definite and probable rectangular, one-level platforms do not appear until Early Classic times, with their frequency increasing thereafter (compare the figures for Forms A and B in Table 2.23; see below). We shall return to this point again later. As noted above, some of these structures were larger than others. Indeed, a few would have been somewhat cramped as living quarters, although of adequate size for sleeping. A possibility, though, is that some or all rectangular, one-level platforms were really analogous to the upper levels of rectangular, two-level platforms. In other words, a portion of plaza surface in front of such one-level platforms may have been incorporated as the front portion of a house, which then had a raised rear portion. There exists evidence both for and against such a proposition. To take first the positive evidence: Str. 4F-47-1st, a rectangular, two-level platform, had postholes inside its four corners. This structure began as a rectangular, one-level platform (Str. 4F-47-2nd). It is clear, from the condition of walls and fill, that the two rear corner postholes served the structure in both its forms. Otherwise,

to dig such holes into bedrock through the existing fill of Str. 4F-47-2nd would have caused much disturbance of that fill. The two front corner postholes, however, were in front of the front platform wall for 47-2nd. If they, like the rear holes, were dug for this structure, then a part of Plat. 4F-10 clearly was beneath the roof of the front portion of Str. 4F-47-2nd. The alternative is to assume that the two front postholes were dug for 47-1st, and that it was not necessary to sink the front corner posts for 47-2nd so deeply. This, though, presents a paradox: bedrock beneath 47-2nd is relatively level. If it was necessary to sink the rear posts into bedrock for sufficient support, why was it not necessary to do the same for the front posts, particularly since it was necessary to so sink the front posts for 47-1st? The case of Str. 4F-47, then, constitutes strong evidence that at least some rectangular, one-level platforms served as the rear portion of somewhat larger structures. Rather strong negative evidence comes from Str. 4F-3-2nd-B and 4F-5-B (TR. 19:120), and also Str. 3F-252nd (this report). These three rectangular, one-level structures all have positive posthole configurations showing a close congruence between the walls of building and platform. In other words, the front of the building itself was not out in front of the platform. Perhaps the conflicting evidence may be resolved in the following manner. Structure 4F-47-2nd is small in width (2.24 m), but Str. 4F-3-2nd-B, 4F-5-B, and 3F-252nd are wider (3.40 m, 3.00 m, and 4.20 m respectively). It may be that very narrow rectangular, one-level platforms were analogous to the upper levels of rectangular, two-level platforms, while wider rectangular, one-level platforms were not. To shed light upon this, a sample of all platforms of Subcategory B1 (n=17) may be compared in width with a sample of all platforms of Subcategory C1, C2, and C3 (n=16). Included is Str. 4F-4-B from Gp. 4F-1 (TR. 19). The samples are restricted to these few subcategories, as they are the least complex representatives of the two forms. The sample of structures in Subcategory B1 may be broken into two groups. One consists of ten structures, including 3F-25-2nd, which were eventually converted to two-level platforms by the addition of an upper level. Like 25-2nd, the building walls are likely to have conformed closely to the platform walls. Average width for these platforms is 3.60 m, with a range from 2.56 to 4.90 m. The seven remaining structures, which are more probably to have been like Str. 4F-47-2nd, constitute the second group. Average width for these platforms is 2.83 m, with a range of 2.04 to 3.72 m. The means are therefore quite different, although the ranges do overlap. The 2.83 m figure for the narrower platforms is closer to the 2.24 m figure for Str. 2F-47-2nd, and is quite close to the mean of 2.87 m for the upper platform width of rectangular, two-level platforms.

ARCHITECTURE

From all of this it is proposed that most rectangular, one-level platforms with widths of 2.83 m or less, and virtually all with widths under 2.56 m, are parts of structures comparable to rectangular, two-level platform structures, and were larger than platform size alone would suggest. Included here are Str. 3F-27, 3F-29-2nd, 4E-53-2nd-A and B, 6C-45-5th, 4F-47-2nd, 2G-Sub.2-1st, 2B-7-2nd and 1st, and 5C-56-2nd. Because rectangular, two-level platforms are good candidates for houses, these must be considered as such also. Before leaving rectangular, one-level platforms, the subject of interior platforms requires discussion. As will be seen in Tables 2.5 and 2.6, a number of these structures include interior platforms. A passage in Landa (cited below) suggests that the Maya at the time of contact had their beds in the rear of their houses. Although there is no proof, the possibility exists that interior platforms, or at least some of them, were used as beds. If so, and if the structures under consideration here were houses, then interior platforms ought to be found in the rear of the structures. This is the case for four out of six structures in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2. Of the structures reported here, it is true for 2B-7-2nd and 1st, 4F-47-2nd and 6C-45-3rd. It does not seem to hold for Str. 6C-45-7th, 6th, or 4th-C, B, and A. So this is rather inconclusive. Perhaps interior platforms were used for purposes besides sleeping. At least those structures with interior platforms in the rear are consistent with Landa’s description. For discussion of rectangular, one-level platforms in multiple platform structures (Tables 2.7), see later in this section.

Rectangular, Two-level Platforms Rectangular, two-level platforms (“Form C”) are listed in Tables 2.8 and 2.9. (Those in multiple platform structures are in Table 2.10.) As with the forms already discussed, there is considerable apparent variation. The relative abundance of platforms of this form contrasts with their rarity in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19:Tables 91 and 92). Two structures in Subcategory C2 clearly have positive posthole configurations: 3F-25-1st (TR. 20A:Fig. 42) and 4F-47-1st (TR. 20A:Fig. 102). Two others almost surely did: Str. 6C-45-1st and 7C-3-1st (TR. 20A). The other structures in this subcategory either were not investigated for the presence of postholes, or else their floors were badly preserved and fills were of sufficient depth so that posts would not have been set into bedrock. One structure (3F-24-2nd) did show a negative configuration, but this is thought to relate to an earlier Str. 3F-24-4th (TR. 20A). Given architectural continuity and the existence of a building of perishable materials for 3F-24-4th, it is also probable that such a building was part of 24-2nd.

15

In short, it seems virtually sure that all platforms of Subcategory C2 supported buildings of perishable materials. A masonry dwarf-wall along the rear, and perhaps the ends, of Str. 5D-6-1st suggest that this structure (probably of Subcategory C5) had a building on top of the platform. If so, it is likely that 5D-6-2nd and 3rd did as well (probably Subcategory C7). Structure 4F-21-1st also has a dwarf wall, but not along its back or ends. Rather, it runs transversely along the front of the upper platform level, with doorways through it. This suggests that there was a solid building wall at least around the rear and ends of the upper platform level. One could conceive of the dwarf wall as the front of the building, making 21-1st, in effect, a simple range-type structure. This is improbable for three reasons. First, the functional width of the upper platform level behind the wall is only about 2.00 m. Relating this back to the discussion of rectangular, one-level platforms, it was suggested that virtually all of those with widths of 2.56 m or less served as the rear portions of somewhat larger structures. This implies that the portion of 21-1st behind the dwarf-wall served similarly. Second, aside from the dwarf wall, 21-1st is quite similar to Str. 4F-47-1st in the same group, in which the upper platform level clearly served as the rear surface within the building. Finally, Landa furnished an account of Post-Conquest Maya as follows: “And they build a wall in the middle dividing the house into the half they call the back of the house where they have their beds” (Tozzer 1941:85). Presumably, Landa had in mind houses similar to those at Mayapan, which do not particularly resemble Tikal structures such as 4F-21-1st. Still, the dwarf wall does present one similarity, in that it would have provided a back room with a width comparable to back rooms in Mayapan houses (cf. Smith 1962:Fig. 8). Taking all of these points together, it is more than likely that there was a building on the platform of Str. 4F-21-1st. Two other structures merit specific mention here. They are 3F-26-2nd and 1st (probably Subcategory C7), and 5B-7-1st-A and B (Subcategories C2 and unknown). Structure 3F-26 is associated with a negative posthole configuration. As was the case with 3F-24, the postholes probably relate to the earliest structure at this locus (264th). Again, architectural continuity suggests that 26-2nd consisted in part of a building of perishable materials. Structure 5B-7-1st-B represents a modification of the earlier rectangular, one-level platform, 5B-7-2nd. That structure is thought to have been a building platform, so probably its successors were as well. From the discussion thus far, there seems no reason to doubt that platforms of Subcategories C1, C2, C4, C5, and C7 were true building platforms. Given this, it seems warranted to extend the conclusion to platforms of Subcategories C3, C6, and C8, as well as Str. 5B-7-1st-A.

16

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

17

18

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

In TR. 19 (p. 120), the single structure in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 represented by a rectangular, two-level platform was cited as one of the most likely houses, on account of its adequate size and close resemblance to building platforms of modern Maya houses. The same conclusion applies here. Given a larger sample, however, it is possible to be even more emphatic about this. Returning to the case of Str. 4F-21-1st discussed above, and also Landa’s description of Post-Contact Maya houses cited in that discussion, there is reason to suspect that most houses built on two-level platforms were divided into front and rear portions. This is based on the contention that masonry dwarf walls were parts of walls that were simply elaborate versions of walls normally built wholly of perishable materials (or even curtains). The best support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that small, range-type buildings built wholly of masonry (e.g., Str. 3F-12-1st and 4E-50) are but elaborate versions of such buildings with dwarf walls that were topped off with perishable material (e.g., Str. 4E-16 and especially Str. 4E-31; TR. 19:5). Hence, the dividing wall of Str. 4F-21-1st built partially of masonry may in many structures have been built wholly of small poles, or perhaps was formed by curtains of some sort. If houses were normally divided into front and rear rooms, it may be that the front room was fairly open. This is suggested by another passage in Landa: “And this [front] room has not doors but is open the whole length of the house; and the slope of the roof comes down very low in front on account of their love of sun and rain” (Tozzer 1941:85). There are four or perhaps five possible exceptions to the proposition that all rectangular, two-level platforms supported buildings divided into front and rear rooms. One of these is Str. 3F-12-2nd, a probable platform of Category C2. It seems to have evolved into the small, range-type 3F-12-1st-C. Clear evidence of architectural continuity here (see TR. 20A) suggests that 3F-12-2nd, like its successor, had a building on its upper platform only. In other words, it was a kind of pole-and-thatch range-type structure. Lest this seem a contradiction of

the argument with respect to 4F-21-1st, such a building would have had a wholly adequate width of almost 4 m. This compares with a mean of 4.02 m for the total width of those platforms surely referable to Subcategory C2 (Table 2.8; see below). It is close to the mean width of the platform on which the building sits for Str. 3F-121st-C, 4E-16-2nd, 4E-31-D, 4E-50-B, and 5D-8-C (4.16 m). Thus, Str. 3F-12-2nd perhaps ought to be considered along with small, range-type structures, rather than those of Form C. The same possibility exists for Str. 5D-6-3rd, 2nd, and 1st. This is suggested first by their resemblance to the platform of Str. 5D-8, which is part of the same Gp. 5D-1. This is consistent with the apparent presence of a masonry dwarf-wall at least on Str. 5D-6-1st, which is reminiscent of the dwarf-walls of Str. 5D-8. Finally, it is consistent with the widths of the upper platform level (3.68 m for Str. 5D-6-1st and 3rd, 5.30 m for Str. 5D-6-2nd). The fifth possible exception is much less likely than the other two. This is Str. 4E-14, in the same group with 4E-16. It gives the impression of being more elaborate than ordinary two-level rectangular platforms, so it might be a diminutive version of Str. 4E-16. Its upper platform width (2.65 m), though, is smaller than usual for small, range-type structures, and is even below the mean of 2.90 m for definite structures of Categories C1, C2, and C3. Landa’s statement that beds were in the rear of houses once again raises the question of interior platforms. Four structures under consideration here have such platforms: 2G-14-1st-A and B, 2G-56-A, and 2G-57-1st. In all cases, the interior platforms are in the rear of the structure. Thus, the possibility exists that these were beds, and their placement is consistent with Landa’s description. Overall, then, the probability is high that most, if not all, of these structures with rectangular, two-level platforms were houses. Indeed, there are only four structures that can be specifically cited as possible exceptions, and even those could have been houses.

ARCHITECTURE

19

Square, Two-level Platforms

Multiple Platform Structures

As was the case in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2, this form of platform is uncommon (Table 2.11). None have positive posthole configurations, but this does not rule out the possibility of buildings of perishable materials. Floors were poorly preserved, and there was sufficient fill to support posts without setting them in bedrock. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, buildings are assumed for these structures. Structure 6E-26-2nd, in its various manifestations, is a good candidate, architecturally, for a house. As noted earlier, its immediate predecessor 26-3rd resembles known houses. Given that 2nd-D was an elaboration of 3rd, the same functional possibilities must be allowed here. By extension, if Str. 6E-26-2nd-D through A were houses, Str. 6E-26-1st may have been as well. Structure 2G-61 is more of a problem. It is less like rectangular, two-level platforms, though it does show a certain resemblance to House Mound I at Uaxactun (Wauchope 1938:Fig. 4b). Given its large size, it is quite likely that its building did not cover the entire platform. All that can really be said here is that it could have been a house, but there is nothing to favor this possibility over another.

The paucity of multiple platform structures here (Table 2.15) is noteworthy, given their abundance in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19:Table 95). None of the present structures precisely duplicates any of those in Gp. 4F-1 or 4F-2, although Str. 2G-59-1st and 2nd show a general resemblance to Str. 4F-15-1st-B, so far as the relationship between the main platform and large subsidiary platform (2G-59:U. 1 and 4F-15:U. 20) is concerned (compare TR. 20A:Fig. 21, 22, with TR. 19:Fig. 31). Structure 4F-15 is thought to be a house with attached platform that was used as a workshop (TR. 19:182). Thus the same potential for Str. 2G-59-1st, 2nd, and by extension 3rd, seems warranted. It is consistent with the fact that the main platform of Str. 2G-59-1st particularly is of a form most probably to have been a house platform, but the possibility is also good for that of Str. 2G-59-2nd. Finally, the resemblance of 59-1st and 2nd to a modern Maya house platform illustrated by Wauchope (1940:Fig. 19C) may also be noted. All of this strongly supports 59-1st, 2nd, and 3rd as probable houses. Absence of positive posthole configurations is explained by poor floor preservation and deep fills. The strong probability that the three versions of 2G59 were houses of course enhances the possibility that the other multiple platform structures were as well. The main platforms of all are good candidates by themselves for house platforms. The small size of the subsidiary platforms suggests outbuildings attached to houses, such as have been suggested in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 and at Mayapan (TR. 19:122). Absence of postholes, again, may be attributed to poorly preserved floors and deep fills.

Rectangular, Three-level Platforms These structures appear to be only slightly more numerous than those of Form D (Tables 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14). They were next to nonexistent in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19:Table 94). None show positive posthole configurations, but Str. 3D-10-1st, 3F-24-1st, 3G-1-2nd, and 6C-46-1st all represent elaborations of rectangular, two-level platforms that seem more likely to have been houses. It seems legitimate to extend this conclusion to the remaining four structures on the basis of similarity. In fact, a low dwarf wall along the rear of Str. 2G-58-1st at least suggests that this platform was topped by a building of some sort. Based on the previous discussion, the interior platforms of Str. 3G-1-1st and 2nd must have been built in the rear of these structures. In sum, there is no reason architecturally why these structures could not have been houses. First, it is suggested by the fact that several evolved from rectangular, two-level structures. Further, if rectangular, two-level platforms were house platforms, it is unlikely that these somewhat higher and more elaborate, but still similar, platforms were anything less (TR. 19:120). Still, there is no reason why they could not have been some other kinds of structures that might be slightly more elaborate than houses.

Small Range-type Structures A conclusion in TR. 19 (p. 179) was that the small range-type structure in Gp. 4F-1, though suitable for habitation, probably was not built for that purpose. Nonetheless, it probably did function within an overall domestic setting, and at the end did house some of the last residents of the group. The situation seems especially relevant to Str. 3F-12-1st-A and 4E-50-A, which closely resemble in plan Str. 4E-31-D, C, and B from Gp. 4F-1. A larger sample of range-type structures (Table 2.16), however, with other added data, permits further discussion of functional possibilities. The first point to be made is that substantial variation exists in these small range-type structures. Some are fairly simple, with no stairways, building walls apparently composed of perishable materials set into masonry dwarf walls, and no interior platforms (4E-16-2nd). Structure 5D-8-C is only slightly more elaborate, for it has stairs. Structure 4E-16-1st-B and A and 5D-8-B and A have

22

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

23

24

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

25

26

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

stairs and interior platforms. Most elaborate are 3F-121st-C, B, and A and 4E-50-B and A, with their all-masonry, vaulted buildings. Just as there is an architectural continuum of rangetype structures, so there appears to be the same between the simplest range-type structures and less elaborate buildings set on rectangular, two-level platforms. The case is clearest for 3F-12-2nd, which may have been a small, range-type structure built wholly of perishable materials. The possibility also exists for Str. 4E-14 and 5D-6. Structure 4E-14 could be a simpler version of 4E-16, and 5D-6 could be a simpler version of 5D-8. (These points have been discussed above.) Since structures with rectangular, two-level platforms are likely houses, then the possibility exists for small, range-type structures as well. Along with accepting a potential residential function for range-type structures, others must be admitted. The proposition that Str. 4E-31 was not built as a residence but rather as some kind of special-function structure, probably associated with a lineage to which the residents of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 belonged (TR. 19:185), is relevant here. The same possibility must be allowed for the closely similar Str. 3F-12-1st and 4E-50. The only significant difference between 3F-12-1st-A and 4E-50-A, on the one hand, and 4E-31-D, C, and B, on the other, is that the former two were built wholly, rather than partially, of masonry. In 3F-12-1st-B and C, the interior platforms were not so high, a probably insignificant difference. In 4E-50-B, however, there was but a single room with three doorways, which brings to mind the non-residential range-type structures of the twin pyramid groups (TR. 18). None of the most likely residential range-type structures (4E-162nd, 1st-A and B; 5D-8-C, B, and A) show this trait. Perhaps then, 4E-50-B should be considered a possible, but particularly dubious, house candidate.

Problematical Structures In Table 2.17, structures are listed, with brief comments, which cannot be placed in any of the form categories on account of insufficient data. Four of these appear to have been buildings of perishable materials, without building platforms: Str. 2B-Sub.1, 6C-62, 6C-63, and 7C-62. Two others, without apparent platforms, have masonry dwarf walls: Str. 2F-Sub.1-2nd and 5F-47. There is also a posthole in association with the latter. All were either square or rectangular, and appear to have been in the same size range as the other structures discussed here. They seem for the most part to be at the simplest end of an architectural continuum of structures, most of which could have been houses. Thus the same possibility must be allowed here. On the other hand, the simplicity of most of them might suggest use as outbuildings in residential

27

groups. Structure 2F-Sub.1-2nd must be exempted, for it seems exceptionally elaborate in comparison to other small Preclassic structures. This might argue, however, for some other special function. Structure 6C-62, 63, and 7C62, on the other hand, seem to have stood alone, suggesting that they were not outbuildings. Six other structures may have lacked platforms: 2G-59-6th, 2G-62, 3F-24-4th, 3F-26-4th, 6C-60, and 6C-Sub.1. It may be, though, that they originally had building platforms that were later demolished, as one for Str. 5C-57 surely was (see TR. 20A). Otherwise, the remaining twenty-five structures (excepting 3F-13) in Table 2.17 were probably much like those that have been discussed above.

Sweathouse There is one other structure to be discussed here, and that is Str. 7E-Sub.1. Found deep in a ceramic test pit (TR. 20A), relevant data are necessarily incomplete, but are sufficient to indicate that this may have been a sweathouse. The significant attributes are presented in Table 2.18. The first of these is a small channel that runs out the doorway. It resembles a drainage channel, which Satterthwaite (1952:11) notes is a common feature of Maya sweathouses. He further points out that, while not found in all cases, presence of such a drain is a valid criterion for identification of sweathouses. The second attribute is peripheral slope; the floor of the apparent sweatroom slopes downward from the center to the walls of the room. Satterthwaite (1952:12) notes that peripheral slope “..ought not to be considered as indicating sweathouse function, though, with a small low single doorway it might be considered to confirm it.” The third attribute is smallness of room. Of course, with limited excavation this is not certainly known, but it does seem indicated by walls that have been exposed. The known width of 2.30 m compares with means of 1.38 m and 2.80 m for width of sweatrooms in modern and ancient Piedras Negras sweathouses respectively (Satterthwaite 1952:15). The respective ranges are 1.75 to 2.10 m and 2.20 to 3.25 m. So, Str. 7E-Sub.1 seems consistent here, although as Satterthwaite (1952:15) notes, this is not sufficient by itself to prove sweathouse function. The fourth attribute is narrowness of doorway. The measurement for Str. 7E-Sub.1 is 0.76 m, the same as that for Str. 5E-22, the only surely known sweathouse at Tikal (TR. 16:Table 42). This compares with a modern mean for sweathouses of 0.57 m with a range from 0.45 to 0.95 m; the comparable figures for Piedras Negras sweathouses are 0.74 m, with a range from 0.70 to 0.77 m (Satterthwaite 1952:15). The doorway is therefore of appropriate width; its height, though, is unknown.

28

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

29

30

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

The fifth and final attribute is the apparent enclosing building, which Satterthwaite (1952:22) says is an appropriate secondary indication. In this case, U. 3 of Str. 7E-Sub.1 (TR. 20A:Fig. 155) looks very much like Wall A of Str. J-17 at Piedras Negras (Satterthwaite 1952:59). It probably is the wall for an interior platform (“bench”). The lack of room space in front of the sweatroom is also like Piedras Negras Str. J-17. Not on Satterthwaite’s list of sweathouse traits, but potentially significant, is the thinness of the E wall of Str. 7E-Sub.1 (0.28 m versus 0.60 m for other walls). Speaking of Piedras Negras Str. J-17, Satterthwaite (1952:52) says: The record shows that while the front and rear walls of the sweatroom of Str. J-17 corresponded to the minimum thickness of 72 cm., one side wall was exposed and measured and was only 55 cm. in thickness. Having failed to observe this at more than one point, and suspecting an error, the broken-line reconstruction of Fig. 26 assumes a constant thickness throughout. We have positive indication that side walls might be thinner, but distrust the evidence. [emphasis added] Taking all of these features together, the picture is fairly convincing. Failure to excavate where the fireplace would have been is lamentable (Satterthwaite 1952:14), for this would have clinched the identification. This is unfortunate, for Str. 7E-Sub.1 really does not look very much like Tikal Str. 5E-22 (TR. 16:Fig. 62). Since Str. 5E-22 was built close to the center of Tikal, one might question the presence of a sweathouse in Sq. 7E. There are two possible explanations for this. First, Satterthwaite (1952:8) points out that modern Maya sweathouses occur in residential areas. He suggests that, although at both Chichen Itza and Piedras Negras sweathouses have been found only in association with major buildings (as was Str. 5E-22 at Tikal), proper investigation would disclose their presence in peripheral areas (Satterthwaite 1952:24). Second, it may be that, when Str. 7E-Sub.1 was in use, there were major buildings in the vicinity, which later were razed. Other remains at Tikal suggest that this is not just a hypothetical suggestion (Laporte 2003b:295).

Conclusions To summarize the evidence so far, the probability is high that structures with rectangular, two-level platforms were houses, though there may be a few exceptions. After all, the modern Maya build a number of outbuildings that closely resemble houses (TR. 19:10). The probability is just as high that structures with rectangular, one-level

platforms, square, one-level platforms with inset corners, and multiple platforms were houses. It is almost as high that structures with rectangular, three-level platforms, and those without platforms, were also houses. Structures that surely were not houses include 7E-Sub.1, a probable sweathouse, and Str. 2G-Sub.1, 3F14, 4F-48, 4F-49, 5F-45-2nd, 6E-162, 6E-163, and Str. 5F-Sub.3. They could be domestic adjuncts, however. Other square, one-level or two-level platforms could have been house platforms, although Str. 2F-Sub.1-2nd, 2G61, 6C-45-5th, and 6E-Sub.1-2nd and 1st are particularly problematical. Theoretically, there is no reason why small, rangetype structures might not have been houses. Evidence from Gp. 4F-1 even shows that they could be lived in, but it also shows that at least some such structures were built for other purposes.

3. Discussion Introduction From the preceding section, it is clear that known, small-structure architecture shows considerable variation. In this, it is much like modern domestic architecture (Wauchope 1940:231). Indeed, variation is even greater than indicated in Tables 2.2 through 2.17, if Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 are considered (TR. 19:102–113), as they will be here. There are at least seven forms of structures with platforms of some sort with sixty-one known subcategories based on variations of plan detail. Consideration of wall style (Tables 2.19, 2.20, and 2.21) introduces even more variation. Then there are structures without any platform at all. Presumably, even more variation would be apparent, were anything known of the buildings of perishable materials. It should also be apparent that much of this variation is unrelated to function. Anticipating final conclusions, it seems that most of these structures, with few exceptions, were probably houses. It is the purpose of this section to discuss further this variation.

Plan Variation in structure plans has been demonstrated in the preceding section, and that which may be related to functional differences has been noted. Considerable variation remains, at least some of which may be accounted for due to changes through time. Tables 2.22 and 2.23 have been prepared to illustrate this. As Table 2.22 shows, there seems to be a steady decrease in structures with no platforms from a high prior to

ARCHITECTURE

AD 250. This is not unexpected, for one might assume that the Maya very early built houses directly on the ground before they began to build them on platforms. Similarly, lack of known structures without platforms after AD 700 is consistent with an emphasis on extensive, major constructions at that time. Multiple platform construction evidently was not prominent until about AD 550. The apparent drop-off after AD 700 could be real, or could result from the fact that this is not a true random sample. Table 2.23 shows trends that are fully expectable in light of the above. There is a steady increase in variation of building platforms over time, with more elaborate forms appearing later in time. So it is that two-level rectangular platforms appear after one-level rectangular platforms, but before three-level rectangular platforms. This, though, might be expected since many three-level platforms evolved from two-level predecessors, many of which evolved in turn from one-level platforms. It is also consistent with a steady increase in frequencies of twoand three-level rectangular platforms at the expense of one-level platforms. Here, though, it must be noted that the apparent frequency of one-level rectangular platforms between AD 250 and 550 may be too high. This is because of the point previously made—some platforms of Form B are analogous to the upper levels of Form C plat-

31

forms. On the other hand, the percentages for the periods between AD 550 and 869 should be biased in the same direction. It was noted above that square houses might be older among the Maya than other forms. Table 2.23 offers tentative confirmation for this. All known building platforms built before AD 250 are square. Nevertheless, as early as sometime between 200 and 50 BC some buildings, at least, were rectangular (e.g., Str. 2G-62). Perhaps some platforms that were later destroyed (e.g., Str. 6C-57) were also rectangular. The relative frequency of square platforms was undoubtedly high, however, and there may have been even earlier square houses dating prior to 200 BC, which were not built on platforms. It is important to note that square structures do not seem just to decrease in frequency through time. As already noted, some platforms of Form A may have been house platforms. None of these platforms occur after AD 700. Rather, the examples of Form A that were built after this date almost surely were used for purposes other than housing. Hence, along with decreasing frequencies, there quite probably was a functional shift. Although time differences account for some of the variation seen in small-structure architecture, it clearly does not explain all of the non-functional variation. Even

32

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

33

34

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

35

36

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

ARCHITECTURE

37

38

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

prior to AD 250, variation is seen, although the amount does increase through time. Another reason may be that the architecture itself imposes certain limitations. For example, when the time came to remodel a house, for whatever reason, if the old house platform consisted of a single level, the addition of a second level or an adjunct platform was a logical possibility. Similarly, the addition of a third level was a logical way to alter an older two-level platform. The construction from scratch, however, of a three-level platform strikes one as a more ostentatious piece of architecture on the part of someone able to afford it. In other words, some variation may reflect differences in wealth and rank on the part of the Maya of Tikal. Although it is impossible to arrange each structure dealt with in this report in a linear sequence from simple

to complex, this kind of continuum is suggested by the various platform forms ranging from single-level through multiple-level platforms, all the way to fairly elaborate small range-type structures. This sort of situation is fairly common in stratified societies, where the kind of house a person lives in usually is an indicator of social class (Barber 1957:144; Rapoport 1969:11, 58). Here, it would seem highly likely that the occupants of Gp. 5D-1 had higher social standing than those of Gp. 3D-1. Or, whoever lived in Gp. 6E-1 after AD 700 was higher in the social scale than those residing in Gp. 4F-3. Given stratification as probably responsible for some of the architectural variation seen in small structures, it is worth looking again at variation through time. The presence of some structural variation predating AD 250 might suggest some status ranking at that time. Increasing vari-

ARCHITECTURE

ation through time ought to reflect developing stratification in Maya society. Another factor in plan variation might be differing family traditions. For example, Gp. 4F-2 contains structures (4F-14, 15, 16, and 43) not quite like any of those seen in the present study. A number of them (15-3rd, 2nd, 16-1st-A through C, 17, 43-2nd, 1st-B, and 1st-A) were entered through their ends, a feature seen in few structures discussed here. Another possible example of a unique family tradition consists of the square, two-level platforms that postdate AD 700 in Gp. 6E-1. The prevalence of multiple-platform structures in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 might represent a third example. Corner insets, known only for Str. 6C-61 and 6E-26 (4th through 2ndA) might also be explained this way. So, too, might central outsets, known only for structures of Gp. 5F-2. It appears, then, that at least gross plan variability reflects, in addition to some function differences, changes through time, architectural limitations and potentials, social class standing of the occupants and differing family traditions. To a degree, individual tastes and whims may also have played a role.

Walls In TR. 19 (pp. 100, 111), the point was made that certain possibilities and limitations are inherent in the materials used for construction of walls. The comments made there, with respect to wall styles, hold in the present situ-

39

ations as well, although some wall styles are represented here (see Table 2.21 and Fig. 1) that were not seen in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19:Table 100). As shown in Table 2.24, there were clearly changes in wall style through time. Walls built with well-cut blocks carefully fitted together appeared between AD 250 and 550 (although there is one example perhaps a century older). They became fairly common after AD 550, but most common after AD 700. More or less amorphous masonry was most common prior to AD 550, decreasing markedly to the period between AD 550 and 700, and was all but absent later. So-called “breadloaf” masonry was less common in walls predating AD 250 than in walls dating between AD 250 and 550. Amorphous masonry became less common after AD 250 than it was before. As wellcut and carefully fitted masonry became more common “breadloaf” masonry lost ground. Jones (TR. 18) notes that “breadloaf” masonry was no longer used in twin pyramid groups after AD 702, and the same may be true for small structures. The only apparent exception is the masonry of Str. 4E-14, but this really looks more like sloppily cut rectangular block masonry than “breadloaf” masonry. Spalls were often used to chink the interstices in walls built with “breadloaf” masonry, probably more often after AD 550 than earlier. The technique of piling up small stone rubble and plastering it seems to have disappeared after AD 550. It may have been more common prior to AD 250. Finally, small stone masonry seems to have had occasional usage right along, but was never overly popular.

40

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

A few other observations may be made concerning wall variation through time. Rounded corners and/ or walls seem to have been built only between AD 250 and 550. They are found only on platforms of one level. Dwarf walls usually are found on platforms that postdate AD 700 (Forms A through G), although some are known from platforms dating as far back as 300 and perhaps 500 BC. It is evident that diachronic change does not explain all wall variation. Such variation is known as early as Preclassic times, although the amount of variation increases through time. While architectural limitations and potentials play a role in variation, this appears to be minimal. It is also clear that wall variation does not correlate with platform form. This leaves three other possible explanations: variation reflects social stratification, family tradition, and individual whim. It is difficult to separate these out, but it appears that, at any particular time, a person living in a structure with platform walls built of well-cut blocks carefully fitted is likely to have had higher social standing than someone living in a house on a platform built of amorphous, unfitted masonry. As to differences in family traditions, the common use of dwarf walls in Gp. 4F-2 may be noted, as may the restriction after AD 700 of Wall Style 4 to Gp. 3F-1, or the high frequency of Wall Style 3a in construction after AD 700 in Gp. 2G-1. The latter, though, might just as well be regarded as a reflection of stratification: if the residents of this group were of lower-class standing, they may not have been as able as some to afford better construction.

Interior Platforms Interior platforms are known, to date, from a total of thirty-eight small structures, including small palaces. They are associated with all forms of building platform, and first appear in structures built between AD 250 and 550. It is hard to say much about their relative diachronic frequency, because the tops of all building platforms are not known in detail. It appears, though, that this may have increased through time. The examples that predate AD 550 are all from Gp. 5F-2 and 6C-1, both associated with late Manik ceramics. Those from the period between AD 550 and 700 are in Gp. 4F-1, 4F-2, and 6C-1, and those from the period between AD 700 and 869 are in Gp. 2G-1, 2G-2, 3F-3, 3G-1, 4E-1, 4F-1, 4F-2, 4F-3, and 5D-1. This suggests that at first only a few family groups had such features in their houses, but as time passed, they appeared in more and more houses. Other than this, the only other correlation between interior platforms and something else appears to be that, sooner or later, they were a part of all small range-type structures. Otherwise, they appear as an independent vari-

able. This suggests that to a large degree having a house with an interior platform was a matter of personal choice.

Floors Two kinds of floors were defined in TR. 19 (p. 113), based on the presence or absence of floor foundation material. To this, a third must now be added (III in Table 2.17), which consists not of plaster, but of tamped earth. This is confirmed in only two structures, one dating between AD 250 and 550 and one predating AD 250. Such floors may have been characteristic of those structures without building platforms, and probably were not used after AD 700. One of the known instances of such a floor is associated with what otherwise appears to have been a fairly elaborate Preclassic structure (2F-Sub.12nd). After AD 250, however, such floors appear to have been limited to only the poorest structures. Hence, such surfaces after Preclassic times may indicate lower-class residential status. Plaster floors with special foundation material beneath them (Composition II) appear by Late Preclassic times. Curiously, the earliest instance occurs in a structure (2G-61) much less elaborate than the one with the tamped floor (Composition III). Examples of Composition II from the period AD 250 to 550 are limited to Gp. 4F-2 and 5F-2. This, with the data on Floor Composition III, suggests that stratification and differing family traditions are involved. On the other hand, while such floors, so far as now known, are not found in the simplest Early Classic structures, they are also not found in the most elaborate. Stratification may have been more of a factor in the case of floors postdating AD 550, for there is more of a tendency for Composition II floors to be associated with the more elaborate structures. Small range-type structures almost always have such pavements (the exceptions are 3F-12-1st-C, 4E-16-2nd, and 1st-B). Beyond this, such floors seem to have been common in the sizeable structures of Gp. 5D-1. They are also known, however, from the more diminutive Str. 2B-7-2nd, 4F-5-B, 4F-15-1st-C, 4F-16-2nd, 1st-C, and 5B-6-2nd. So again, variance in floor construction was not wholly a matter of social standing.

Stairs Four methods of stair construction were defined in TR. 19 (Table 102). Only two of these appear in the structures investigated for this report, but another method (Method E) appears, not known from Gp. 4F-1 and 2. In Method E, more or less amorphous stones were used to construct stairs with essentially vertical risers and horizontal treads.

ARCHITECTURE

The differences noted above suggest that some variation in stair construction reflects differing architectural traditions between some families. To these may be added a few more things. The technique of constructing stairs with both wide and narrow treads on a single structure is known only for Gp. 5D-1. In Gp. 6E-1, Str. 6E-26-2nd was built with stairs to one side of the front-rear axis, at a time when axial placement was all but standard. In this, it resembles the much earlier Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd from the same group. Finally, the placement of the stairs on Str. 2G-59-2nd is thus far unique to Gp. 2G-1. Thus differing family traditions seem to explain much variation in stair construction. There are other aspects, though, that enter in. One is a time factor. In the first place, stairs with small structures, though they appear in early Late Preclassic times, did not become common until AD 700. This is when small structure architectural variation was at its peak. Not surprisingly, stairs composed of well-cut, carefully fitted masonry were not built until walls were generally being built in this way. Such stair construction (Methods A, B, or C) was the only kind employed after AD 700, and was almost universal in stairs built between AD 550 and 700. Finally, placement of stairways seems to have been variable prior to AD 700. The first axial stairs appeared between AD 250 and 550, and became more common thereafter. Stairs also seem to reflect social stratification, not so much in the way they were constructed as in their presence and absence. Their association with generally more elaborate structures suggests this. This is most clearly shown for the period between AD 700 and 869, when stairs were almost invariably associated with small, range-type structures (4E-16-2nd is the one exception). Square, one-level platforms built after AD 700 never were provided with stairs; rectangular, one-level platforms sometimes were, but rectangular and square, two-level platforms more often were.

Incorporation of Bedrock into Construction A final architectural variable to consider is the incorporation of bedrock into construction. Such use was noted in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19:114–115). It may also be seen in Gp. 2B-1, 2G-1, 3F-2, 3F-3, 4E-2, 4F-3, 5F-1, 6C1, Str. 6C-61, and possibly Str. 6C-62 and 63. Unlike the other variables discussed above, however, the incorporation (or not) of bedrock seems to have been purely a matter of opportunism. If bedrock was especially high where construction was planned, it could easily be blended into it. If, in addition, the terrain sloped markedly, it was probably easier to incorporate bedrock in construction rather than go to the trouble of leveling it first.

41

Particularly clear cases of incorporation of bedrock into construction pertain to Str. 2G-58-3rd, 4E-50-B, and 6C-47. All were built on the uphill sides of their respective groups. For the most dramatic, 6C-47, there had already been extensive filling to the W; it would have taken tremendous effort to raise the plaza still higher, or to remove the bedrock to the E. So instead, the Maya quarried vertical faces that were incorporated in the stairs of Str. 6C-47. In Gp. 4E-2 there was a similar situation, where bedrock was incorporated into the bottom step of Str. 4E-50-B. In Gp. 2G-1, less filling to raise the plaza was necessary, but the Maya still avoided this by using bedrock to form the lowest level of Str. 2G-58-3rd. Smaller-scale versions of the same practice may be seen in five other groups. In Gp. 2B-1, bedrock in front of Str. 2B-7-2nd had to be lowered slightly; a vertical face was left as part of the structure wall. In Gp. 3F-2, bedrock was leveled where high to serve as part of the surface for Plat. 3F-2-2nd, with a vertical cut forming the front step of Str. 6E-26-3rd. In Gp. 3F-3, bedrock was vertically cut, apparently to form the rear wall of Str. 3F-12-2nd. In Gp. 4F-3, rather than fill extensively, Plat. 4F-6 was formed partly by quarrying bedrock, leaving vertical faces as part of the walls for Plat. 4F-10 and Str. 4F-21-2nd. And, in Gp. 5F-1, high exposures of bedrock were incorporated into the early occupation surfaces of Plat. 5F-1. Here, though, no vertically quarried faces used as walls have been found. Structure 6C-61 may be a slightly different situation. Its NW corner seems to have been associated with steplike quarrying (TR. 20A:129). The quarrying may have been to provide a place to set in wall masonry where bedrock was high. Or, it may be that the builders made use of an extant quarry that originated for some other purpose. Structures 6C-62 and 63 are most problematical. Bedrock is quite level here, and the basin-like features in bedrock within these structures combine to suggest that the bedrock served as the structure floors. Otherwise, there would have been problems keeping dirt and debris out of the basins.

Chultuns Use of bedrock in construction leads naturally to the topic of chultuns. Full analysis of chultuns is deferred to TR. 32. Discussion is confined here to the observation that chultuns, like small structures, show a great deal of variation, as demonstrated in Table 2.25. Most common are two-chambered, “shoe-shaped” forms, followed by three-chambered ones. These latter may be linear—that is, access is to an antechamber at one end, with two other chambers in a line (straight or curved) leading from it—or “dumbbell-shaped,” with chambers on opposite sides of

42

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

a central antechamber. In third place are one-chambered examples, most commonly in the form of bottle-shaped pits. Less common are diverse sorts of chultuns having four or more chambers. In nearly all cases, antechambers are bottle-shaped, whereas inner chambers are, to varying degrees, dome shaped. Unusual are Ch. 2B-15, 5F-5-2nd, and 6E-71st (TR. 20A), which have one or more square chambers. The only other such chamber known at Tikal is in Ch. 5D-6, from Gp. 5D-2 (TR. 14:672). The significance of square-shaped chambers remains to be determined. Puleston (1971) concluded that chultuns at Tikal were likely used for food storage. I have accepted this, although we must not rule out the possibility that some of the uncommon types had other purposes. This is a possibility deserving further exploration in TR. 32.

4. Conclusions The material discussed in this section does not conclusively prove anything, aside from the fact that the Maya built small structures that show a surprising amount of variation. It does, though, offer support for two plausible hypotheses that may now be summed up. 1. Almost all of the structures discussed here were houses. The basis for this hypothesis is that most were large enough to have been habitable; many show features known in conquest period and later houses; some are closely similar to apparent houses in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 at Tikal; those which do not closely resemble known ancient or more recent houses are closely linked architecturally to probable houses. There are only nine structures that surely were not houses. Either they are too small to have served this function, or else they almost surely served some other purpose. These are listed in the conclusions to the first part of this section. Some of the other structures, though, are more problematical in so far as function is concerned. 2. Although styles and practices changed through time, there was always variation in domestic architecture.

Aside from that which reflects the possibilities and limitations inherent in the materials and techniques used, this variation reflects the social class status of house occupants, the development of distinctive architectural styles on the part of some families, as well as individual preferences. Social class differences are indicated by relative elaboration of structure plan, wall style, floor construction, and presence or absence of stairs. Surely if structures of the

ARCHITECTURE

period AD 700–869 are considered, those who lived in small, range-type structures were of higher status in society than those who lived in pole-and-thatch structures on one-level platforms. Surely, too, the occupants of Gp. 6E-1, with its high group platform, were of higher standing than the occupants of Gp. 4F-3, in spite of the overall plan similarity of the two groups. It is, however, impossible to assign each individual structure or group to a clear position in a scale of structures from simple to elaborate. This, though, would be expected if other factors also played a part in architectural variation, and also if stratification was fairly complex at Tikal. At least the germs of stratification were present prior to AD 250. If, for example, Str. 2G-61, 2G-Sub.2-2nd, and 6E-Sub.1-2nd all were houses, then surely the inhabitants of Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd stood higher in the social scale than those of Str. 2G-61. The inhabitants of Str. 2F-Sub.1-2nd may have stood on a par with those of Str. 6E-Sub.1-2nd, or they may have ranked higher still.

43

The development of distinctive architectural traditions on the part of some families is suggested by a number of features. In Gp. 4F-2, for example, the distinctive plans of Str. 4F-14, 15, 16, and 43, as well as frequent use of multiple platforms and dwarf walls, set this group apart from others. Group 6E-1 is distinctive in the use of corner insets, stair placement, and platform plan. Group 5F-2 is unusual in the use of central outsets. Perhaps less significant, but still worth noting, are the distinctive wall styles seen in Gp. 2G-1 and 3F-1, and the corner inset of Str. 6C-61. Individual variance is the more elusive of the factors for variation suggested here. It is at least expected in domestic architecture, and it would help explain why clearcut correlations between the elements of architecture discussed here are hard to find. This all recalls Wauchope’s (1940:238) statement about variation in Maya house construction: “I have not been able to correlate the distributions with any particular social class, economic status, known event of history, or ancient province boundary.”

III

Special Deposits: Burials

1. Introduction Having described each of the burials individually in TR. 20A, they are analyzed here to see what they may indicate about the nature of the groups in which they were found. Although the point of departure is the analysis of the burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19), this analysis does not strictly adhere to the format of TR. 19. The reason is that burials from twenty-one different groups are dealt with here, as opposed to those from just two contiguous groups. The working hypothesis is that the present burials are what may be called “residential burials.” By residential burial is meant any inhumation in or near a group of residential structures. This presumes that the subjects of these burials once lived within the nearby structure group. Residential burials are conceived to be of two sorts: household burials, and those of some special significance. Household burials consist of the routine interment of a recently deceased member of the residential group. Burials of special significance include individuals interred in household shrines (see TR. 21), or perhaps burials of individuals sacrificed to “dedicate” some special-purpose structure, which was not a habitation, within a residential group. Most of the burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 fall into the “household” category. Burials 26–30 and 33–37 can be placed in the “special significance” category. On the basis of the excavations in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F2, household burials are expected to meet the following criteria: (1) they were usually placed beneath, or near, a structure; (2) they were associated with abandonment of an existing structure, which may have been followed by construction of a new one at the same spot; (3) they include individuals of any age and sex; (4) they were not usually placed on the front-rear axis of a structure; (5) they display variation not only in placement, but also in grave construction, orientation, position, and quantity of associated materials; (6) where present, they normally include

utilitarian, or at least previously used associated materials, rather than specially made, and/or unused items; (7) they are quite simple, when they are compared with the chamber burials from the center of Tikal. Residential burials of special significance, on the other hand, are expected to show some, but not great, deviation from these criteria. Obviously, there are problems with a mechanical application of these criteria to burials. Should there be a continuum between the simplest household burials, on the one hand, and lavish chamber burials, on the other, establishing a line of demarcation would present difficulties. This, however, is not a problem in the present study, which deals with remains that are a far cry from, say, the Great Plaza—North Acropolis interments. A more serious issue is that these criteria presuppose a sample of several burials from any given group. As will be seen from Table 3.1, fourteen groups are represented by a single inhumation each, two by two each, three by three each, and only two by more than three. Nonetheless, these burials will be discussed in terms of the seven criteria enumerated above. To facilitate this discussion, Tables 3.2 through 3.6 have been prepared. These present data on most of the attributes of the burials described in TR. 20A. They may be compared with Tables 105 through 111 of TR. 19, which present the attributes of the burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2. The same terms of reference are used for grave construction, body position, and associated materials, although some additions have been necessary here. These are given in Tables 3.7 and 3.9 of the present report. In order to control any time variables, the burials are broken down into groups that may, for convenience, be called Preclassic, Early Classic (Manik-related), Intermediate Classic (Ik-related), and Late Classic (Imix-related) burials. The latter three duplicate the groups established for the burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2. Precise chronological control is not available for two burials, which are listed in Table 3.6 (see below). As will be seen from Tables 3.2 and 3.5, the best sample consists of the Late Classic burials, with

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

45

21 groups here in which burials were found, as well as in Gp. 4F-1 and 2, most burials were found in structure fills: 15 or 16 out of 25 Late Classic; 7 out of 10 Intermediate Classic; 5 out of 6 Early Classic; and 2 out of 3 Preclassic interments. By group, the breakdown is Gp. 2G-1, 10 out of 11; Gp. 2G-2, 1 out of 1; Str. 2G-61, 2 out of 2; Gp. 3F-1, 3 out of 3; Gp. 3F2, 3 out of 3; Str. 4C-34, perhaps 1 out of 1; Gp. 5D-1, 2 out of 3; Gp. 4F-3, 0 out of 1; Gp. 4F-6, 0 out of 1; Gp. 4G-3, 1 out of 1; Gp. 5F1, 0 out of 1; Gp. 6C-1, 2 out of 2; Gp. 6C-2, 1 out of 1; Str. 6C-61, 0 out of 1; Gp. 6E-1, 4 out of 9; Gp. 6E-14, 0 out of 1; Gp. 7E-6, 0 out of 1; Str. 6F-62, 0 out of 1; Gp. 7F-2, 1 out of 1; Gp. 1D-2, 0 out of 1; Gp. 1D-7, 1 out of 1. This variation from one group to another probably is not significant; for example, in Gp. 2G-1, almost all excavation was concentrated on structures, with scant attention to surrounding areas. In Gp. 6E1, on the other hand, there was less concentration on structures, with more attention given to the supporting platform. In Gp. 4F-6, 5F-1, 7E-6, 1D-2, and Str. 6F-62 there was almost no excavation of structures. In any case, those burials not in structure fills are not far removed from structures. Hence, all burials are judged to meet the first criterion.

those from the Preclassic constituting the least satisfactory sample. This should be kept in mind as the following sections are read.

Location The location of all of these burials in or near small structures brings to mind Landa’s famous statement: “They buried them inside or in the rear of houses…” (Tozzer 1941:130), a practice also noted among more recent Maya groups (Thompson 1971:214–215). In the

Relationship of Burials to Construction The second criterion raises the issues of initial, as opposed to terminal, burial as discussed in TR. 19:150–151. In Gp. 4F-1, two structures that apparently were not houses contained initial burials. All the others in that group, as well as Gp. 4F-2, are thought to have been terminal. It was suggested that terminal burials might indicate abandonment of an existing house and its subsequent remodeling, a variant of the oft-noted Postclassic and later Maya practice of abandonment of a house following the death of an occupant (Thompson 1971:214–215).

46

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

In Table 3.10, those of the present burials that can be reasonably associated with the construction and/or abandonment of structures are listed. Omitted are Bu. 45, 119, 189, 205, 208, 212, and 219, all of which are from groups where excavation consisted only of test pits. Any or all of these could mark abandonment of a structure or structures in their respective groups, but we cannot now determine this. Burials 138, 151, 152, and 153 from Gp. 6E-1 are also omitted, on the grounds that they are associated with structures (6E-Sub.1-1st and Sub.3) that had long histories, about which little is known. Since both structures were in use over long periods of time, it would not be surprising if both underwent several modifications. There simply are too few data to tell. At any rate, these burials might well be associated with such modifications and hence terminal with respect to preceding architectural developments. This is true with respect to Bu. 118, which

postdates an earlier floor of the platform for Gp. 6E-14. When it was interred, the group platform was modified, and experience indicates that such revisions are usually associated with structural alterations. The same is also true for Bu. 218 from Plat. 6F-1, as there is a strong likelihood that it postdates construction of Plat. 6F-1 (see TR. 20A). Looking at Table 3.10, all but Bu. 169 can easily be interpreted as terminal. Indeed, Bu. 53, 60, and 143 almost surely postdate the final construction at their loci. Burials 49, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 66, 67, 69, 128, 129, and 146 clearly were intruded into earlier construction, to be followed in most cases by new construction. Burials 64, 130, 131, and 145 are probably intrusive and Bu. 54, 57, 68, 70, and 161 at least postdate some early structures in their respective groups, and so might be considered terminal. Such situations would obtain in the case of burials near, if not behind, houses, as described by Landa (Tozzer 1941:130), if a new structure happened to overlap the burial. Burial 136 might be also placed in this category, although it was farther from the structure abandoned in connection with the burial. Burials 62, 63, 65, and 171 might at first glance appear to be initial burials, for they all preceded the visible construction that overlies them. Of these, Bu. 62 and 63 were in chultuns that were filled when structures were built above them. It is most likely that the chultuns, when in use, were associated with nearby structures (2G-62 and 2G-15) earlier than the ones built directly above them. Hence, there is no reason to assume that burials in chultuns are necessarily directly connected with the structures built above them; since they were to be filled for new construction following someone’s death, they were convenient places for burials. The case of Bu. 65 is different; this was placed in a bedrock grave when construction of Str. 3F-24-3rd, represented by the earliest surviving architecture at this locus, was begun. But a posthole pattern in

47

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

tion at their loci, with certainty Bu. 53 and 60, and probably others. It appears likely, therefore, that all but one of the burials satisfy Criterion 2.

Age and Sex

bedrock unrelated to 24-3rd testifies to the existence of a preceding structure. Similarly, at least two architectural developments of Str. 5D-7 seem to have preceded the interment of Bu. 171 beneath 5D-7-4th (see TR. 20A). Burials 59, 61, and 158 were not placed in immediate association with any specific structure. Burial 59 was behind 2G-59, in a situation suggestive of interment subsequent to construction here. Burial 61 is thought to have been intruded into Plat. 4F-6. The nearest potential house is Str. 4F21, and the best estimate is that the burial postdates 21-1st. Burial 158 was put in place subsequent to the buildup of considerable trash believed to have originated from a Str. 5F-Sub.1-2nd. It must, then, postdate initial construction at that locus. Given this, it is at least possible that it was associated with an unknown renovation of that structure. This leaves Bu. 169 as the only evident initial burial. It clearly predates all construction at its locus, and its grave shows a clear resemblance to those elsewhere at Tikal beneath Early Classic shrines (TR. 21; see also Bu. 35, in TR. 19). In sum, there is only one interment that shows clear indication of being an initial one. By contrast, there are several that clearly were intruded into the final construc-

Of all the groups dealt with in this report, the best burial samples come from Gp. 2G-1 and 6E-1. Those from the latter group include three known males, three known females, and four children. Hence, these interments seem to satisfy Criterion 3. By contrast, the burials of Gp. 2G-1 include eight known males, no known females (although there are two adults for whom sex could not be diagnosed), and one subadult. At first glance, this would suggest that these interments fail Criterion 3. Such a conclusion, though, does not seem warranted given that the excavations were focused almost exclusively on structures, whereas less attention was given structures in Gp. 6E-1, as opposed to the supporting platform for the group. What this suggests is that structures were preferred spots for burials, and men were more often buried in such places than women. Some indirect support for this idea comes from the invariable placement of chamber burials beneath structures (temples) at Tikal. Interment in these most lavish of Tikal inhumations in Classic times was restricted almost entirely to men (Haviland 1997:2–4). Presumably, one would expect further excavations in these areas surrounding the structures of Gp. 2G-1 to encounter the remains of women and children. Other small-structure groups that produced more than two burials include 3F-1, 3F-2, and 5D-1, with three burials each. In the latter group, these include one or two males and a female. In view of the sample size, these can be taken to meet Criterion 3. The burials of Gp. 3F-1 include two males and an adult of unknown sex; those of Gp. 3F-2 contain a male and two adults for whom sex could not be determined. Because of the concentration of excavations on the structures in these two groups (as in Gp. 2G-1), these burials at least cannot be said to fail Criterion 3. From fifteen other loci come one or, at most, two burials. In such instances, the presence of adult males alone does not necessarily mean failure with respect to Criterion 3. The presence of either adult females or children in such inadequate samples does, though, seem significant. Hence, the burials of Gp. 2G-2, 4F-3, 6C-1, 6C-

48

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

49

50

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

51

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

in an initial burial beneath a non-residential structure (cf. Bu. 30 and 35; TR. 19). Burial 70, though, does contain the sorts of material expected in such an interment, but other evidence rules out the associated structure as a ceremonial building. What is suggested, therefore, is that the occupants of these groups, perhaps the members of a particular lineage, tended more often to bury their dead on structure axes than did others at Tikal. The other two axial burials are numbers 145 and 169. The extreme simplicity of the former, its apparently intrusive nature, and the youthfulness of the remains, argue against any special significance for this inhumation. Burial 169, in many respects, resembles Early Classic burials elsewhere at Tikal beneath household shrines.

Variability A comparison of burial data reveals one outstanding fact: there was wide variation in interment practices at Tikal. This point in itself seems significant when compared with burial practices at the later site of Mayapan: “there was no definite rule about burying the dead, both method and location varying greatly” (Ruppert and Smith 1955:271). Tables 3.2 through 3.5 were prepared to illustrate this point. Because so many attributes are involved in this variation, it seems easiest to discuss them one by one. 2, 1D-2, and the locus of Str. 6C-60 (Bu. 143) may be said to satisfy Criterion 3. In sum, in no instance do the ages and sexes of the individuals recovered from burials in these small-structure groups rule out the possibility of household burial. Conversely, household burial seems positively indicated for eight groups.

Relation of Burials to Structure Axes In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, there seems to have been no regular attempt to place burials in structure fills on the frontrear axis, or in the corners for that matter. The exceptions are Str. 4E-31 and 4F-8, which probably were not houses (TR. 19:178, 181), and which contained burials deliberately oriented to the front-rear axes. Of the present burials, only four seem to have been placed on a structure axis. Two of these are Late Classic burials from two neighboring groups (Bu. 66 and 70 from Gp. 3F-1 and 3F-2), which may have been parts of a discreet cluster of residences (see section VI). These constitute one-third of the known burials from these two groups. The axial burials in Str. 4E-31 and 4F-8 of Gp. 4F-1 had an initial relationship to those structures, whereas Bu. 66 and 70, as already noted, are probably terminal burials. Moreover, Bu. 66 contained fewer in the way of pottery vessels than one would expect

LOCATION There is a bit more that may be added to the preceding discussion; suffice it to say that variation exists for all periods. Some of this correlates with the sex of the deceased; men seem more often to have been interred in structure fills than women. Similarly, age seems to have been a consideration, most surely for Late Classic times. Of the burials of those who did not reach adulthood during this span of time, only 20% were from structure fills, as opposed to 70% of all adults. It was suggested in TR. 19 (p. 141) that some structures were favored over others in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 as sites for burial. The same is true here, the best example being Str. 2G-59 in Gp. 2G-1, with ten graves in its fill and another nearby. The other structures of Gp. 2G-1 were not completely excavated, and may contain some burials. But it is doubtful that they contain as many, or at least one or two would have been encountered. Most of the other small-structure groups of this study were not excavated to the extent of Gp. 2G-1. There are a number of hints, however, that suggest further instances of this pattern. In Gp. 2G-2, the minimally excavated Str. 2G-14 produced one burial, while the extensively excavated Str. 2G-15 produced none. In Gp. 3F-1, Str. 3F-24 contained more burials than did the more extensively ex-

52

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

53

54

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

55

56

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

cavated 3F-25. In Gp. 3F-2, Str. 3F-26 may perhaps have been a favored spot. In Gp. 6E-1, the nine burials found in and around Str. 6E-Sub.1 and the structure that succeeded it, 6E-26, suggest that each was, in its time, a favored spot for disposal of the dead. A final observation with respect to burial location is that the practices noted here seem, for the most part, to have undergone little change from Preclassic through Late Classic times. One exception may be the age considerations noted above. Possibly, too, preferential treatment for men, visà-vis burial location, may not have occurred in Preclassic times. ORIENTATION OF GRAVE In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, the only two Late Classic (Imix-related) burials that deviated from a N-S arrangement contained a child and an adult female. Males were invariably given a N-S arrangement, and overall Late Classic interments seemed more standardized in orientation than the Ik-related (Intermediate Classic) burials. The Late Classic burials of concern here obviously contrast with those of Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Although a N-S orientation seems to have been preferred, other arrangements were possible, even for adult males. As can be seen from Table 3.5, there is no correlation between orientation and grave construction, body position, or presence and quantity of associated materials. Nor does the long axis of a burial correspond to that of the associated structure. Eight burials aligned in a N-S direction are associated with structures aligned E-W. In Str. 2G-59, two apparently contemporary burials, 49 and 56, show both N-S and E-W orientations. The Intermediate Classic burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 showed much variation in grave orientation, and the same is true here. Again, as apparent in Table 3.4, there is no correlation between orientation and other attributes. Nor is the long axis of the burial always parallel to that of the associated structure. As with the Late Classic burials, a preference for a N-S orientation existed, in spite of an apparent tolerance for variation. The same sort of situation seems indicated for the Early Classic burials (Table 3.3). In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, by contrast, all the Early Classic interments had a N-S orientation. Perhaps, though, this results from their apparent ceremonial

significance (TR. 19:153). None of the burials here seems to have had such significance, with the exception of Bu. 169. From what has been said thus far, there is no reason to suspect any significant changes through time in practices that pertain to the orientation of graves, at least in Classic times. Perhaps this also applies to Preclassic times; the sample is not sufficient to say (Table 3.2). Given this, it is interesting to compare the Classic burials from those groups that produced three or more. In Gp. 2G-1, nine burials had a N-S, and 2 had an E-W orientation. In Gp.

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

6E-1, there were five N-S burials, one E-W, and one seated. Group 3F-1 contained one oriented N-S, and two E-W; these figures are reversed for the neighboring Gp. 3F-2. Finally, there were two N-S burials, and one E-W, in Gp. 5D-1. So it appears that, while there seems always to have been a preference for N-S interment, other arrangements were possible. Personal preferences seem to have played a part in this. On the basis of the differences between the present Late Classic burials and those in Gp. 4F-1 and 2, family or other kin-group traditions may also have played a part. At any rate, the variability here contrasts with the burials beneath major and minor ceremonial structures at Tikal, where a N-S orientation seems to have been mandatory. GRAVE CONSTRUCTION Table 3.7 lists the grave attributes of the present burials. Note the avoidance of such terms as “crypt” and “cist,” often found in discussions of Maya burials. They are avoided here because they convey the false impres-

57

sion of discreet categories, allowing for observation of the variation that actually is present in grave construction. In fact, the two terms are no more than arbitrary divisions along a continuous range of variation from relatively simple to relatively formal repositories for the dead. Only two graves (for Bu. 138 and 169) were larger than necessary for the bodies, but this may be of no special significance in the case of 138. Certainly, the burial is not outstanding in any other way (see Table 3.3). Burials in chultuns are not considered as extra-capacity graves, for they appear to have been no more than convenient places in which to place the dead, given a decision to discontinue their use anyway. As is apparent from Table 3.5, grave construction in the Late Classic burials does not appear to be related to any other attribute. Although the males in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 were regularly provided with some sort of roofed graves, such was evidently not the case outside those two groups. The same kind of variation may be seen for the Intermediate Classic burials, although females may have been less likely to be placed in a formal grave than males (Table 3.4). The overall situation is very much the same in the Ik-related burials from Gp. 4F-1 and 2. The same variation, too, seems evident in the Early Classic burials here (Table 3.3). So, once again, no important changes through Classic times seem to have taken place in a burial attribute. And again, this may also be true for the Preclassic period (Table 3.2). One factor that may have influenced grave construction in all periods is wealth. Presumably, anyone could provide a formal, walled roofed grave if they cared to take the trouble. Burials 65 and 205 (Table 3.4) may be such examples. Burial 55 contains the body of an adolescent, which may be one reason for the absence of mortuary pottery in that particular grave. Obviously, formal, walled roofed graves would be easiest to construct on an open surface, where they would be covered by construction of a new structure. In an extant structure, building such a grave would require more work than the digging of a simple grave. Perhaps many formal roofed graves represent pits dug into existing construction, as opposed to walled graves constructed on an open surface that were then roofed and covered by fill. Nevertheless, Bu. 55, 66, and 70 probably represent formal graves that were dug down into existing construction. While wealth may have been one consideration in grave construction, differing family traditions may have been another. The standard placement of males in roofed graves in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 after AD 700 might be explained in this way. Such a tradition did not exist in Gp. 2G-1, where both

58

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

simple and formal graves are to be found in Str. 2G-59. The several sequent modifications of this structure imply continuity of occupation. If it were a house, one would expect occupation by individuals of a single-family line. The same may be said for Gp. 3F-1 and 2, for in both cases males were buried in informal or formal roofed graves. In Gp. 6E-1, alternatively, the situation is even more standardized than in Gp. 4F-1 and 2. In this location, throughout Classic times, males seem to have been regularly provided with some sort of formal grave. The possibility that people of importance were buried in formal graves is contradicted by Bu. 65 and 205, neither of which contained pottery. Presumably, a person of importance would have been provided with at least some objects. What is left is the conclusion that the grave provided for an individual, within the limits of informal, formal-roofed, formal-walled, or formal walled and roofed graves, was a matter of choice that might be influenced by the amount of effort required for construction. But it would seem that the extra effort was often expended where the deceased was a person of some wealth and importance, but not so often for those less affluent. Finally, family or lineage traditions may also have played a role. POSITION As Tables 3.5 and 3.8 demonstrate, there is a high degree of variability of body position in Late Classic burials. Once again, there seems to be no correlation with other attributes. For the Intermediate and Early Classic burials (Tables 3.3 and 3.4), the same is probably true. All in all, no significant change through time is indicated, except that two-stage burial may have been more common in Preclassic times (Table 3.2), and urn burial (Bu. 128) seems restricted to the Preclassic period. For the Early Intermediate and Late Classic burials, the findings here parallel those for Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Family traditions do not seem to be an issue. For example, anything from full flexion to full extension can be noted in the burials from Gp. 2G-1 and 6E-1. Similarly, there seems to be no standardization in Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Although grave construction might theoretically impose some limitation of position, some bodies were flexed when there was no need of it. For example, Bu. 56 was put in place on an open surface, following which fill for Str. 2G-59-1st was dumped W of the flexed legs. Consequently, position seems to have been a matter of choice, not just in Gp. 4F-1 and 2, but elsewhere as well. ORIENTATION OF THE HEAD In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, all males in Late Classic burials had their heads to the N, with the exception of one burial (30) of special significance. Variation was restricted to

females and juveniles. In the present Late Classic burials, males show the same kind of variation noted for the females and juveniles of Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Again, the occupants of these groups seem to have had their own particular preferences. Beyond them, a preference for having the head to the N is evident, but there is no correlation of head orientation with location, grave construction, body position, or presence and quantity of associated materials (Table 3.5). Also noteworthy, while Bu. 45 shares with Bu. 30 in Gp. 4F-1 a southward orientation of the head, the different locations suggest that Bu. 45 did not have the special significance that Bu. 30 evidently did. Thus, it appears that individual choice was, once again, the deciding factor in head orientation so far as Late Classic burials outside Gp. 4F-1 and 2 are concerned. The same applies to the direction in which the corpse faced, for this generally was determined by orientation of the head, combined with position. Those that were prone faced downwards, those that were supine faced upwards; those on their side faced N, S, or W, depending on the orientation of the head. None faced E, however. Those that lay on the left side faced N, S, E, or W. The Intermediate Classic burials do not show as much variation as those of the Late Classic, but this may be a factor of a much smaller sample. With this in mind, an inspection of Table 3.4 suggests that the situation was not fundamentally different from the Late Classic burials. This conclusion extends to those of Early Classic (Table 3.3), and perhaps the Preclassic (Table 3.2). Here, then, is another burial attribute that shows great variation at any one time, with no significant time differences. At Mayapan: “There does not seem to have been any fixed rule as to which way the bodies headed or faced, although more headed east than any other direction” (Smith 1962:252). At Tikal, more small-structure burials headed N than any other direction, with the majority facing W. ASSOCIATED MATERIALS In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, much variation was noted in this category, although it probably was desirable to include various objects with the deceased, if he or she was of any importance at all (TR. 19:148–150). The Imix-related burials seemed more highly standardized than the others, however; males were buried with a bowl with a small hole in its base inverted beneath the head, and two other vessels, a vase (cylinder) and a plate or second bowl. Females were sometimes given this kind of burial, but juveniles were not. In the case of the Late Classic burials dealt with here, things were not so simple. Of fifteen known or probable males, five were not accompanied by any associated materials, and only seven were accompanied by three vessels. Of these last, none duplicate in detail the pattern for Gp. 4F-1 and 2. What this suggests is that a distinctive buri-

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

59

60

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

al tradition, not generally practiced elsewhere at Tikal, was established by those who occupied the structures of Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Apparently, this tradition developed following the appearance of Imix pottery out of a situation of considerable variation, one that continued elsewhere (see below). This variation is most apparent in the burial samples from Gp. 2G-1 and 6E-1. In the former, not even the apparently contemporary Bu. 49, 50, 52, and 56 were standardized. Looking at the variation in associated materials in relation to other attributes (Table 3.5), it does appear that the age of the deceased was an important consideration. The juveniles in these Late Classic burials were not accompanied by other objects. Beyond this, there is a slight tendency for adult burials without objects to be in informal graves (four out of seven). This tends to support the contention that wealth was a consideration, albeit not the only one. In the same vein, the only burial to contain more than three pottery vessels had another object indicative of wealth and importance, a jade bead, placed in the mouth. Burials 56 and 60 suggest that surviving kin did their best to provide the deceased with the desired number of pottery vessels. In these, the presence of incomplete vessels may be interpreted as efforts to provide the deceased with fine vessels even when they were not available and affordable. In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, the Intermediate Classic burials show considerable variation with respect to associated materials; about half the adult males and females were buried with no associated materials, and not infrequently, objects other than pottery vessels were placed in graves. Given this variation, given the variation of the present Late Classic burials, and then looking at Table 3.4, there is no reason to suspect that the Intermediate Classic burials differed in any significant way from the Late Classic ones. True, the specific forms of bowls, vases, and plates differ from those of the Late Classic, but this relates to changes in ceramics and not burial customs. The basic categories of vessels are the same—vase, bowl, and plate—in spite of differences of form. As with the Early Classic burials of Gp. 4F-1 and 2, there seems no standard practice in the Early Classic interments so far as associated materials are concerned (Table 3.3). Once again, it is tempting to conclude that the same was true during the Preclassic period (Table 3.2), though with less assurance. The occasional placement of objects in the mouth of the deceased deserves special comment at this point. Landa remarked that, in the 16th century, it was the custom among the Maya to fill the mouth of the deceased with maize, “and with it they placed some of the stones they use for money” (Tozzer 1941:130). Coe (1959:133) notes that objects placed in the mouth of the deceased appear infrequently in the Maya area, and this is the case at Tikal.

In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, only one individual was buried with an object in the mouth. Burial 45, the only one known from Gp. 4F-6, had a tiny piece of Spondylus shell in the mouth. One out of three burials each in Gp. 3F-2 (Bu. 70) and 5D-2 (Bu. 171) had jade beads in the mouth (Landa’s “money”). Finally, the two burials (136, 146) known from Gp. 6C-1 had animal bones in the mouth. This may not have been maize, but food it may have been. In any case, what emerges is another instance of a highly variable custom, although a distinctive family tradition involving the placement of morsels of meat in the mouth of the deceased may have developed in Early Classic times among the occupants of Gp. 6C-1. BODY ALTERATION The subject of body alteration is relevant here because of the possibility of correlation with some of the burial attributes under discussion. Although deliberate cranial modification seems to have been well-nigh universal in Gp. 4F-1 and 2, thirteen skeletons from the preset burials clearly did not have artificially shaped skulls. These range through all periods, from Preclassic through Late Classic, as do seven skeletons that clearly do show cranial modification. There is no apparent correlation with any other burial attribute. Moreover, looking at the two best series of burials, those from Gp. 2G-1 included two individuals who clearly did, and three who clearly did not, have artificially shaped heads; those from Gp. 6E-1 included one individual who clearly did, and four individuals who clearly did not, have deliberately modified heads. The teeth of seven individuals, all probably males, were cut. Five of these individuals were placed in Late Classic burials, and one each in an Intermediate and Early Classic burial. They were found in informal or formal-roofed graves, and in Gp. 4F-1 they were found in formal- walled, roofed graves. Some burials contained no vessel, a partial vessel, or three vessels. Some were fully flexed, some fully extended, in E-W or N-S graves. In other words, whatever the reasons for tooth-cutting, they had no apparent bearing on ultimate disposition of the deceased. The same is true for head modification. To summarize this necessarily lengthy section, considerable variation has been demonstrated for all the burials under consideration here. It is clear that this variation does not just have to do with different practices from one group to another (although some do exist), for the two best series of burials, from Gp. 2G-1 and 6E-1, show the same sort of variation.

Inclusion of Utilitarian Items In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, some bits of evidence suggested that objects included in graves were in everyday use prior

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: BURIALS

to such placement, and were not specially made for interment. There are further clues from the present burials. Of these, Bu. 56, 60, 62, 158, and 169 included one or more incomplete pottery vessels, suggesting breakage prior to interment. This does not seem consistent with the acquisition of special pottery specifically for inclusion in burials, but rather inclusion of household items. Some support for this comes from one of the vessels in Bu. 169, the two sherds of which show differential weathering. This suggests that the pot broke a substantial period of time before the pieces were eventually placed in the burial. There are two other instances that might be interpreted in the same way, but they are more equivocal. A small tripod dish from Bu. 152 had a chip out of it. This could have been lost prior to interment, but since this is a secondary burial, it could have been lost when the original interment was exhumed prior to reburial. In Bu. 189, a tripod plate had the feet removed. Possibly, a foot broke in the course of prior usage, and the remaining ones were then removed so that use of the plate could continue. It is at least equally possible that removal of all three feet was specifically connected with its placement in a grave, which need not imply prior use. Further evidence of prior use of objects placed in burials comes from Bu. 171, in the form of a very battered jade bead, which had originally a very high polish. Somewhat related, two burials (136, 146) included animal bones in the mouth of the deceased. These may be interpreted as utilitarian, in that food is a substance of everyday household use. Finally, the bone ring included with Bu. 143 might be regarded as an object of personal adornment worn by the deceased during life. Beyond this is the subjective impression that, in none of the burials, were the pottery vessels or other objects at all impressive, as one might perhaps expect them to be if they were specifically intended for inclusion in burials. More particularly, the pottery all shows heavy weathering, suggesting prior usage. Of course, the weathering may be the result of several centuries during which the pottery was in the ground. On balance, therefore, it may be said that the burials of Gp. 2G-1, 5D-2, 4G-3, 6C-1, Str. 2G61, and Str. 6C-61 reasonably meet Criterion 6. The suspicion is that those of all other groups do as well, though it cannot be proven.

Relative Simplicity When the present burials are compared with the “tombs” of the Great Plaza—North Acropolis, their relative simplicity is obvious. This is true even in the case of Bu. 128, by far the richest of the ones discussed here, when one compares it to the contemporary chamber Bu.

61

167. Of the present graves, the most elaborate, formalwalled-roofed and chultun-like, fall far short of the relatively spacious chambers (including that of Bu. 160 in the large domestic Gp. 7F-1; see TR. 22). The latter are not only much larger than necessary for purposes of housing the corpse and whatever objects were placed with it, but required much more effort to construct (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:53). Moreover, they were constructed in such a way as to prevent earth or other fill from entering. Conversely, none of the graves discussed here was earth-free. Even the individual in Bu. 169 had dirt in his face, despite a grave somewhat larger than required to contain him and his two broken pots. The present burials also differ from “tombs” in both quality and quantity of associated materials. Aside from Bu. 128, the most objects in any grave were four pottery vessels and a jade bead (Bu. 70). Although Bu. 128 includes many more objects, indications are that the whole interment is equivalent to what may be regarded as the associated material in Bu. 167. Another indication of the relative simplicity of the present burials is the lack of any evidence for the inclusion of sacrificial victims, a near-constant in chamber burials up to about AD 570 (Haviland 1997:2). There is no indication that the children with the adult of Bu. 151 were sacrificed, nor is there evidence for sacrifice in the case of the extra bones with Bu. 143. In this respect, though, it may be noted that human sacrifice may have been involved with some burials of special significance in Gp. 4F-1 (TR. 19:132). Richness of chamber burials, compared to those discussed here, is manifest in one or perhaps two other ways. Coe (1959:135) says of burials containing red pigments: “With specific regard to the Maya, this feature and its variations seem to appear in burials that in other ways evidence richness and social importance.” At Tikal, most chamber burials show evidence of red pigment. With two exceptions, the present burials, with those of Gp. 4F-1 and 2, do not. The two exceptions are the aforementioned Bu. 128, and the Tzec-related Bu. 158. The latter, however, does not appear to be nearly as rich as the roughly contemporary Bu. 121 (TR. 14:22), which seems to be the precursor of the subsequent chamber burials of the Great Plaza—North Acropolis. Nor do the two broken vessels of Bu. 158 suggest richness. Landa remarked: “Once dead, they put them in a shroud” (Tozzer 1941:130). At Tikal, in chamber burials, fabric impressions are normally found in the debris around the principle body. No such traces have been found in the present burials, but poor preservation could easily account for this. In sum, all of the burials here, including 128, are judged to meet the criterion of simplicity.

62

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

2. Conclusions On the basis of the preceding, the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. There is no reason to question these as being residential, mostly household, burials. All meet the first and seventh criteria. The burials of Gp. 2G-1 and 2, Str. 2G61, Gp. 3F-1 and 2, 5D-1 (with one exception), 4F-3, 5F1, 6C-1, 6C-2, Str. 6C-61 (143), Gp. 6E-1, and probably Gp. 6E-14 and 7F-2 all satisfy the second criterion. Of the remaining burials, none can be said to fail Criterion Two. The burials of Gp. 2G-2, 5D-1, 4F-3, 6C-1, 6C-2, Str. 6C61, Gp. 6E-1, and 1D-2 all satisfy Criterion Three, and those of Gp. 2G-1 probably do as well. None of the remaining burials can be said to fail it. Criterion Four is met by the burials from Gp. 2G-1 and 2, Str. 2G-61, Gp. 3F-1, 3F-2, 5D-1, 4F-3, 4F-6, 4G-3, 5F-1, 6C-1, Str. 6C-61, Gp. 6C-5, 6E-1, 6E-14, 7E-6, 1D-2, and 1D-7. Group 6C-2 does not necessarily fail to meet this criterion. Criterion Five is certainly met by the burials from Gp. 2G-1, Str. 2G-61, Gp. 3F-1 and 2, 5D-1, 6C-1, and 6E-1. None of the others can be said to fail it, and certainly all are within the range of variation displayed by those burials that satisfy it. The probability is, were more burials known from those groups from which but a single one is recovered, Criterion Five would be satisfied. Finally, Criterion Six is surely satisfied by burials in Gp. 2G-1, Str. 2G-61, Gp. 5D-1, 5F-1, 6C-1, and Str. 6C-61. The suspicion is that all burials with associated materials satisfy it. Although the burials of Gp. 5D-1 collectively satisfy all seven criteria, Bu. 169 stands apart from the others in that it has an initial, rather than terminal, relationship to construction, is axially placed, has a grave somewhat larger than necessary, and is of the sort found only beneath ceremonial structures. Consistent with these signs of ceremonial significance, the grave has the proper N-S orientation, and the body was laid out in a position normal for such burials. The most likely interpretation of all this is that Bu. 169 is a residential burial of special significance. 2. Given this first conclusion, the second is that the occupants of different residential groups occasionally developed their own distinctive burial customs, within an acceptable range of variation. In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, following the appearance of Imix pottery, males were always buried in some sort of roofed grave, with head to the N on an inverted bowl with a hole in its base. Two other vessels, a vase and plate or bowl, were also placed in the grave. In Gp. 6E-1, males throughout Classic times were buried in some sort of formal grave. In Gp. 6C-1, placement of a morsel of meat in the mouth of the deceased may have

been customary throughout Classic times. Finally, residents of Gp. 3F-1 and 2 may have had a preference for axial placement of adult burials, but this is not very clear. It is interesting that these distinctive residential group customs involve males in the clearest examples: Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2, and Gp. 6E-1. The same may be true for Gp. 6C-1 and Gp. 3F-1 and 2, though this is not clear. One might interpret this as an indication that the core members of these groups were men, suggesting a patrilocal residence pattern. On the other hand, the wide variation in male burials from Gp. 2G-1 might suggest a lack of unilocal residence patterns. Perhaps, though, residence patterns generally had little to do with burial practices. The above remarks apply to household burials, but perhaps distinctive residential group customs appear in residential burials of special significance as well. The subject is not pursued here, because no more than two of the present burials fall into this category. None, however, duplicate the pattern of multiple interment, possibly with human sacrifice involving both sexes, juveniles as well as adults, seen in Gp. 4F-1 (TR. 19:153). This may be unique to that group. 3. The third conclusion is that diachronic changes have little to do with the variation displayed by these burials. Some trends already noted are that, in Preclassic times, there may have been less preferential treatment of men in relation to women. Conversely, age discrimination against non-adults may have been greatest in the Late Classic burials. Two-stage burial may have been most common in Preclassic times, and non-existent by Late Classic times. So far, urn burial seems restricted to the Preclassic period. Added to these, it may be that placement of objects in the mouth of the deceased, which first appeared in Early Classic burials, was becoming more common in the Late Classic period (to culminate in the Postclassic situation described by Landa?). Finally, chultun-like graves (as opposed to reused chultuns) seem to have been restricted to Early Classic times. Otherwise, aside from those associated with changing ceramic styles, there are no other significant changes in burial customs evident. 4. Given the second and third conclusions, the fourth is that much of the variation seen in these burials has to do with such things as the age of the dead person, sex, wealth, and the personal whims of his or her survivors. Speaking generally, the preceding discussion certainly indicates that more pains were apt to be taken with the burial of an adult over a non-adult, a male over a female, and a wealthy person over a poor person. Since this does not account for all variation, there seems no recourse but to fall back on the likes, dislikes, and personal idiosyncrasies of the survivors.

IV

Special Deposits: Problematical Deposits

1. Introduction In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, a total of thirteen problematical deposits were discovered. Most were probably cached and other offerings in and or near houses or special purpose domestic adjuncts; two were probably secondary burials, one was workshop debris, and one remains problematical (TR. 19:159–160). The present excavations produced a total of twenty problematical deposits, as described in TR. 20A and listed here in Table 4.1. In the following section these are analyzed to see what they may indicate about the groups in which they occur. To put it another way, small-structure groups are traditionally thought of as residential. Do these deposits either refute or enhance this assumption? More particularly, do they resemble deposits from the residential Gp. 4F-1 and 2? For the most part, the answer to the last question is yes (see Table 4.2 and TR. 19:Table 114).

Cached Offerings Four deposits from Gp. 4F-1 were interpreted as cached offerings, Ca. 85 and PD. 23–25 (TR. 19:159). All were associated with structures thought to have served some special function (i.e., Str. 4E-31, and 4F-8). Of the deposits under discussion here, PD. 109 shows similarities to those just mentioned. The most obvious is the lip-to-lip placement of the vessels. Like PD. 23–25, which are contemporary, it was set into bedrock. In this case, though, it was a pit that may have been specially excavated for the purpose. The other deposits were all placed in Qu. 4F-1. Like PD. 23–25, its vessels contained nothing more than organic material, if that. And like them, with Ca. 85, it appears to have been dedicatory to a structure (Str. 3F-12-2nd). Like Ca. 85, PD. 109 may have been placed on the front-rear axis of its overlying

structure (3F-12-2nd); certainly this is where the axis of Str. 3F-12-1st was positioned. Finally, Str. 3F-12-1st is, architecturally, much like Str. 4E-31, beneath which was Ca. 85. Structure 3F-12-2nd is thought to have been a simpler version of 1st. Moreover, this structure seems to be associated with a discreet aggregate of small structures much as Str. 4E-31 and (earlier) 4F-8 were with Gp. 4F-1 and 2. This will be discussed further in the conclusions to this report. All of this suggests that PD. 109 was a hidden offering of the sort also represented by Ca. 85 and PD. 23-25. Problematical Deposit 124 seems to be a second example of this type of offering. Again, two containers were set lip-to-lip. In this case, the vessels were likely heirlooms; like those of PD. 23–25 and 109, they pertain to the Manik Complex, although the deposit itself dates from the Late Classic period. Like its near contemporary, Ca. 85, it was set in construction fill, rather than down into bedrock in the manner of the other deposits. Perhaps it was set on the front-rear axis of the structure to which it appears to have been dedicatory (5D-7-2nd), as was Ca. 85. Unlike Ca. 85, but like the earlier offerings, the vessels contained nothing, unless it was organic material that has long since decomposed. A third example may be PD. 99. The situation is not clear, though, probably because the deposit was later disturbed. Like the others just discussed, a lip-to-lip placement of two vessels is probable. Moreover, they are of the same type as those in PD. 23–25 and 109 (TR. 25A:Fig. 127a–c, 142c, and 143b). The shells, pigment, and mosaic element, if they were placed in the container, could represent miscellaneous items of value that happened to be available, and so were used for the offering much like the jade pieces of Ca. 85. Problematical Deposit 99 was placed in bedrock in what may be thought of as a much-reduced version of the pit in which PD. 109, its near contemporary, was placed. Finally, as with the other six deposits discussed here, PD. 99 was associated with architecture (represented by at least one posthole).

64

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

In sum, these deposits (Table 4.2) seem to represent a unique and distinctive kind of cached offering. In Early Classic times, they were placed into bedrock, in later times simply in fill. Four of the seven are associated with non-residential structures in residential groups, (TR. 19:177 and 181), so the same could be true of the other three. The possible significance of this will be discussed in the concluding section of this report.

Secondary Burials Two problematical deposits from Gp. 4F-1 and 2 were identified as secondary burials (TR. 19:160). They consisted of major portions of human skeletons that could have come from residential burials. Of the problematical deposits discussed here, four have been interpreted as secondary or disturbed burials (Table 4.2). The possibility also exists for PD. 72 and 101. Of the four likely cases, all but PD. 231 are suggestive of household burials; PD. 64 because it occurs in a structure containing several such burials, and because the one vessel is consistent with this, PD. 110 because the skeleton is that of a young child and is not accompanied by any other associated materials; PD.

221 because the two vessels are typical of those used in household burials. Secondary or disturbed household burials bring to the fore the question of whether these burials were forgotten, and consequently disturbed in the course of household renovations. This is important, for remembrance of burial locations is suggestive of continual occupation of a locus over a long period. Forgetfulness, on the other hand, could imply substantial periods of abandonment at a given locus. Given the numbers of burials encountered in these excavations, the number of secondary burials (including Bu. 152) is not large. Groups 2G-1 and 6E-1 produced the greater number of inhumations, and yet each only produced a single secondary burial. Otherwise, burials were placed in Str. 2G-59 and Plat. 6E-1 time and time again, without disturbance to those already there. Certainly, this suggests long-time remembrance of most burial locations, so that they were infrequently disturbed in the course of architectural modifications. Given this, the best explanation for these secondary burials is that with perhaps one or two exceptions, extensive architectural modifications on occasion required the disturbance of a burial, even though its location was

SPECIAL DEPOSITS: PROBLEMATICAL DEPOSITS

known in advance. This certainly fits well with what is known of the architectural history of Gp. 6E-1, for Bu. 152 was reinterred at a time of extensive architectural alterations. The same is true for PD. 64 (extensive demolition of Str. 2G-59-3rd and construction of 2nd). The reburial of PD. 110 seems to have been brought about by the complete removal of one or more houses so that large-scale quarrying could take place at the locus. Another deposit associated with wholesale demolition of a structure (5C-57) is PD. 72. As noted, it too could be a redeposited burial. In this case, though, its resemblance to burial-like PD. 22, 50, and 74, interpreted as terminal deposits by Moholy-Nagy, suggests that this is a two-stage burial (see TR. 20A for discussion). Like other household burials, it was associated with termination of one structure and construction of a new one. But for whatever reason, it differed from the usual kind of interment. As noted, PD. 231 deserves separate discussion. This is because it apparently is the secondary interment of someone who was the principal occupant of an elite chamber burial, presumably from the center of Tikal, along with some or all of his grave goods. The question raised is why were these remains redeposited in Gp. 6C5? Does this indicate a special significance for this group? This seems unlikely for the structures are among the simplest known for Tikal. Moreover, there is nothing unusual about the sherds and artifacts from the group (excepting those from the problematical deposit itself), except that they are few in numbers. They combine with the architecture to suggest that, if this were a residential group, its occupants were poor and of low status in society. Since there is nothing to suggest that Gp. 6C-5 was not residential, and since people of rank and status lived in more elaborate residences (i.e., Gp. 7F-1; TR. 22), it is doubtful that PD. 231 reveals much concerning Gp. 6C-5. It may be that the placement of remains from an elite chamber burial in such apparently lowly surroundings was

65

a deliberate postmortem insult to that individual. This is hypothetical, but perhaps this man was a member of the nobility who, following some kind of political upheaval, fell into official disfavor even though he had died sometime previously. Consequently, his remains were removed from their honored place of burial, much as the remains of the late Joseph Stalin were removed from their place of honor in the Lenin Mausoleum in Moscow following the rise to power of Nikita Khrushchev. To add insult to injury, the remains of the Maya noble were taken to what may have been a particularly poor, lower class residential group, and reinterred in a storage pit. It is possible that, having had their chultun commandeered in this manner by the ruling elite, the occupants of Gp. 6C-5 had to build a new chultun for themselves. In support of this hypothesis, it is now generally accepted that there were periods of political instability in the late Early Classic and Intermediate periods (Martin 2003:11–30). Either is satisfactory on the basis of the excavation data for abandonment of Ch. 6C-11 and placement of the problematical deposit. The excavation data also suggest, though they certainly do not prove, that construction of Ch. 6C-7 was necessitated by abandonment of Ch. 6C-11. In opposition to this hypothesis, the man in Bu. 160 (TR. 22), who possibly was deposed as a ruler of Tikal in a late Early Classic upheaval, was nonetheless buried with full honors. On the other hand, he was not buried in the center of Tikal, and this could be why he was permitted to “rest in peace.” His survivors, though, do appear to have removed and discarded, just after the Early Classic period, monuments honoring him and his female co-ruler.

Other Offerings In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, six problematical deposits were interpreted as non-dedicatory household offerings (TR.

66

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

19:160). Excluding one Terminal Classic offering, they had the following attributes in common: all postdated some related construction; no attempt appears to have been made to conceal them; and all consisted of a few items, none of which were out of place in houses. None of the problematical deposits here (Table 4.2) duplicates any of these offerings from Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2. This finding, by itself, may be significant. It suggests that families and other residential kin groups may have had their own ritual practices, in addition to those commonly held. In the case of Gp. 4F-1 and 2, this involved what appears to have been a unique offertory assemblage. This proposition may have significance with respect to the four problematical deposits from Gp. 5F-1 (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). As with those offerings from Gp. 4F-1 and 2, these seem to involve materials not out of place in a residential group. Problematical Deposit 130 is composed of ash and burned material reminiscent of a few other such deposits at Tikal (see TR. 27A, Chapter 5) and probably represents the burning of objects used in some rituals. The other problematical deposits are a diverse group not precisely duplicated elsewhere (though PD. 131 may come close, as noted below). All postdate some construction at their loci; none are surely dedicatory (PD. 108 and 131 almost surely were not). These deposits, therefore, constitute offerings associated with distinctive ritual activities practiced by people living in Gp. 5F-1. Firm proof for this, however, is lacking. Another such offering may be PD. 214, from Gp. 3G-1; in this case the bones of small mammals appear to have been bundled up and placed in a chultun, which then was filled to permit construction above. The previously mentioned PD. 131, also from a chultun, consists of animal bones. They were not, however, bundled, and mixed with them were a few human bone scraps. Thus, it is not quite similar to PD. 214. In fact, it may be no more than habitation debris, having no special significance. Problematical Deposit 262 is also from Ch. 7F-2. Like the others just discussed, it is clearly non-dedicatory. Smashed censers (like these) were often associated with termination rituals in central Tikal (TR. 27A, Chapter 5), but many households seem to have possessed censers of one kind or another (see section V). Moreover, those in

PD. 262 had apparently been in use for some time prior to their ultimate deposition in the chultun. Like PD. 131 and 217, this also was hidden in a chultun. Unlike them, however, it did not involve bones. This difference, though, may be one more example of the diversity of household offerings from one group to another.

Other Problematical Deposits Five other problematical deposits listed in Table 4.2 remain to be accounted for. Of these, PD. 65 appears to relate to Postclassic activities, and so is of no value in unraveling the secrets of groups utilized in Classic times. Problematical Deposit 101, 126, 163, and 275 may simply be fill drawn from domestic middens (or the middens themselves), having no special significance.

2. Conclusions In summary, four conclusions seem warranted. The first is that these deposits, except for PD. 72 and 231, are similar enough to those from Gp. 4F-1 and 2 to suggest that the groups in which they were placed were residential. Problematical Deposit 72, however, could be a distinctive kind of household burial. In a kind of negative way, the hypothesis presented to account for PD. 231 suggests that the group in which it occurred was a household group. A second conclusion is that those structures with cached offerings may not have been houses. Like Str. 4E31 and 4F-8, they may have served some special function for residents of nearby houses. A third conclusion is that secondary or disturbed burials are relatively rare, and usually are associated with major architectural alterations, rather than minor ones. This, and the frequent sequential placement of burials at specific loci (as in Str. 2G-59) suggest remembrance of burial locations over long periods of time. A fourth and final conclusion is that the occupants of specific residential groups may have their own unique ritual practices within the larger context of Classic Maya ceremonialism at Tikal.

V

Sherds and Artifacts

1. Introduction This section attempts to do two things: to present a group-by-group summary description of the artifacts recovered in the course of the excavations reported in TR. 20A and to see what the artifacts suggest about those who made use of those groups. As with the preceding discussion of architecture, burials, and problematical deposits, the point of departure is the analysis of the artifactual material from Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19). This analysis, in turn, owes a large debt to the various Tikal artifact specialists, especially H. Moholy-Nagy (see TR. 27A and B). As with the preceding discussions, though, a somewhat different format is required. In the first part of this section are summary reviews of the artifacts from each of the small-structure groups. Detailed, structure-by-structure lists of artifacts will be found in TR. 20A. For suboperation and lot numbers, the relevant tables of section II of that report should be consulted. Each summary here is organized to shed light on the question: What were the structures of each group used for? Hence, each summary is at the same time a test of the hypothesis that small-structure groups were residential compounds. To this end, the data from Gp. 4F-1 and 2 suggest that the artifact collections should meet five criteria. First, material should occur in abundance, ideally in midden deposits. Second, utilitarian ceramic wares would be expected along with them. Third, there should be large numbers of utilitarian tools, useful for cutting, scraping, shredding, chopping, pounding, perforating, and grinding a variety of substances. Not only should ceremonial artifacts be relatively few in numbers, they should be types expected in household, rather than formal ritual situations. Precisely which artifact types fit these descriptions will be dealt with in the second part of this section. Fourth, the utilitarian artifacts should include a number of implements of potential use for food preparation. These would be tools useful for cutting, chopping, and grinding food, and perhaps some of the waste products (animal

bones). Finally, there should be some evidence for the use of fire, although one must keep in mind that fires were not confined to domestic situations (cf. TR. 14:935–939). In the second part of this section, similarities between the artifact collections are analyzed for purposes of defining what, specifically, were the basic household tools used by the ancient inhabitants of Tikal. Following this, the differences between collections are analyzed to see what may lie behind them. In both cases, the basic starting point consists of the conclusions of the first part of this section. In dealing with the collections of cultural materials from these small structures, there are a number of serious problems. Most of these are discussed in TR. 19 (pp. 161–178), and so will not be repeated here. It is therefore essential that the reader be familiar with the relevant section of that report. There are some problems peculiar to this report, however. The first of these is that a number of different excavations, by different people, for different purposes, have been brought together here. For example, some groups were excavated extensively for the specific purpose of understanding the groups themselves as probable living situations. In such cases, considerable information exists as to the meaning of a particular collection of material relative to architecture and other such collections. In other groups, the purpose of excavations was solely for the procurement of large ceramic samples, and so little may be known about the meaning of the collections relative to others, or relative to architecture. Finally, in some groups, only chultuns have been excavated, which again limits information as to the meaning and association of collections. In addition to problems of meaning and association, there are vast differences in quantities of material available from group to group. Sample sizes vary from large (e.g., Gp. 6E-1) to non-existent (Ch. 4G-2 locus). This presents obvious difficulties when making comparisons from one group to another. A final problem is one of analysis, and applies primarily to ceramic vessels. All of the sherds from the 1961

68

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

small-structure excavations (Op. 24) were analyzed by myself (excepting those from Str. 2G-61). Hence, I was able to sort them into functional classes defined by T. P. Culbert wherever this gave promise of shedding light on the nature of the group from which they came. Culbert analyzed the sherds from the 1963 small-structure excavations (Op. 67 and 68); he sorted them into functional categories in the field, wherever I alerted him that such sorting was worthwhile. Unfortunately, later analysis suggested situations where this had not been done but would have been worthwhile, but it was then too late. Also, too, Culbert had not then set up functional classes of Early Classic or Preclassic pottery, and so such collections have never been so sorted, even where the eventual utility of such a procedure was pointed out. Even at that, the sheer volume of sherds with which Culbert had to deal did not always permit him the time for this sorting of Ik and Imix sherds, even where he had been alerted beforehand. Beyond all this, sherds from excavations other than Op. 24, 67, and 68 were never sorted into functional classes. The upshot of this is that data on ceramics, useful for other than dating purposes, are lacking in a large number of cases. Because of this, the discussion here is heavily focused on artifacts other than pottery vessels, which have received rather short shrift. This is unfortunate, and in future programs of small-structure excavations, the functional and social implications of pottery vessels ought to get far more consideration. For reasons given in TR. 19 (pp. 161–162), the concern here is primarily with material from undisturbed trash deposits. With a few exceptions, such material relates to later time spans of a group or locus, and is absent for earlier time spans. Sometimes, though, collections are available from early and late, but not intermediate, time spans. Hence, there is uneven coverage of material chronologically and within any given group, and there are likely to be large gaps where no artifact data exist to complement other information. Two things minimize these problems. First, the data for Gp. 4F-1 and 2 suggest that small-structure groups, which in later time spans were residential, were originally constructed for such a purpose. As will be seen, further support for this comes from the present study. Second, the basic conservatism of the Maya with respect to artifacts is well known. With the exception of pottery vessels, changes for the most part are minimal through time. As will be seen here, there seems to have been very little substantive change in household artifacts from Preclassic through Late Classic times.

A Note on Terminology When the artifacts from these excavations were processed in the Tikal laboratory, the terminology used was

that developed by A. V. Kidder (TR. 27A:2; 27B:3). This was subsequently reworked by Moholy-Nagy. In the final revision of this report, an attempt was made to conform to the typology of TR. 27A and B. Good intentions aside, these efforts may have been less than perfect.

2. Description Introduction Following are summary descriptions of the sherds and artifacts from each excavated (as opposed to test-pitted) locus, with a functional assessment in terms of the five criteria already noted. For further data, Tables 5.13 through 5.18, with Tables 5.21 through 5.25, may be consulted (see below). Full and detailed data, as already noted, will be found in TR. 20A. GROUP 2B-1 The collection from this group is small, and not terribly instructive. There certainly is no deposit remotely suggesting a primary midden, but given the restricted scope of excavations, this is not significant. Most of the material comes from fill sources; Str. 2B-7:LG. 4 (TR. 20A:Table 2.4), from the surface, is the only one that surely contains occupation debris discarded by those residing in the structures of 2B-1. This cannot be specifically associated with any one particular structure, however; Str. 2B-7 had been abandoned by the time this material was discarded. Because of this, because the quantity of material in the lot group is so small, and because there is a high probability that all the fill material derives from earlier time spans of Gp. 2B-1, the best procedure in this instance is to lump all the material from this group together, in hopes of gaining some clue as to the nature of Gp. 2B-1 as a whole. All of the non-problematical lithic artifacts are of a utilitarian nature, useful for cutting, chopping and grinding. Four are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 29d, 70e7 and 12, and 98a. Grinding implements include three manos. While certainly not conclusive, this suggests that food preparation took place here. The bones in Ch. 2B-15:LG. 1 (TR. 20A:Table 2.3) might be taken as further evidence for this, but there is the very real possibility that these are the remains of creatures that died in the chultun in relatively recent times. The ceramic sample was not analyzed in terms of utilitarian versus decorated wares, so no definitive statement is possible. There is no indication, though, that the sample is in any way unusual for a group of small structures. On the basis of this evidence alone, there is no reason to suspect that Gp. 2B-1 was anything but a domestic group, though all of the structures need not have been houses.

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

GROUP 3D-3 As was the case with Gp. 2B-1, most of these sherds and artifacts are from fill sources. A single one, a jar neck from fill of Str. 3D-10, is illustrated in TR. 27B (Fig. 139m). Given the proximity of this group to others, especially including the major constructions a short distance to the S, it is not safe to assume that all of this material relates to earlier time spans of Gp. 3D-3, although much of it may. There are, however, two lot groups that include material referable to the final occupations of two out of the three structures here. These are Str. 3D-8:LG. 2, and Str. 3D-10:LG. 1b (TR. 20A:Table 2.12). Although contaminated to some extent by washed-out fill, the former is the best deposit. It includes a large number of sherds of midden-like quality, most of which are from utilitarian vessels. Representative are 93 sherds of 67E/10; 33% of which are from decorated vessels, 23% from monochrome red bowls, 9% from monochrome red jars, and 33% from coarse jars. These figures are reasonably consistent with those for other small-structure groups (Table 5.10; see below). The artifacts include a metate and figurine fragment, common household objects, and two ovate bifaces, certainly not out of place in a house (see TR. 27B:14). On the other hand, MS. 66, a probable monument fragment, and a possible censer fragment, are also included. The latter occasionally occur in potential domestic situations (TR. 19:166–167), but the former seems quite out of place. Its presence could be explained near a house if its occupants were carvers of monuments, but tools useful in such an occupation are lacking here (TR. 19:178), thus this possibility may be ruled out. Most likely, MS. 66 is an item that has eroded out of the structure fill following abandonment and collapse. While Str. 3D-10:LG. 1b seems to contain some occupation material, it also contains some from below the living level. Hence, it is more mixed than Str. 3D-8:LG. 2. Added to this, the cultural material is not abundant. There is, then, little to say about it. On the premise that much, though not all, of the cultural material in the structure fills is from earlier times spans of Gp. 3D-3, it is interesting to note that out of thirty-four artifacts, only one (a possible censer fragment) is non-utilitarian. Moreover, these thirty-four include twelve manos and metates, a substantial number of household items in an otherwise small sample. Although the sherd samples were not analyzed as to frequencies of utilitarian and ornamental vessels, there is no indication that the frequencies are unusual for small-structure groups. All in all, the evidence here is in favor of domestic functions for the structures of Gp. 3D-3. GROUP 3D-9 In this instance, the existence of plentiful occupation debris frees us from reliance on a discussion of fill mate-

69

rial. It may be said, however, that there seems to be no significant difference between the fill and other material. For illustrations of selected artifacts from this group, see TR. 27B:Fig. 11b, 31q, 38f, 39k, 43w, and 58i1, 2, and 4. Platform 3D-3:LG. 2a and 2b (TR. 20A:Table 2.20) are parts of a small midden in back of Str. 3D-127, and may therefore be related to its use. Unfortunately, the sherds were neither weighed nor sorted to functional classes. There is no reason to believe, however, that decorated vessels were especially common, nor that bowls or jars were at all uncommon. Of the 52 artifacts (Table 5.11; see below), 87% are utilitarian, including items useful for chopping, cutting, scraping, incising, and grinding. Certainly, food preparation could have taken place here (1 metate, 4 manos, 3 thin bifaces, 8 used flakes, 8 prismatic blades, 1 irregularly retouched flake), as well as the occasional production (or refurbishing) of stone tools (17 unused chert flakes). Full-time stone-tool making certainly is not indicated. The one ceremonial item is a figurine, expectable in a household situation. An L-shaped object of shell is the sort of ornament not out of place around the house. An unworked shell may have been household garbage; at least, it had been burned. Since it is a marine univalve, however, it could be a ceremonial item. The material in Plat. 3D-3:LG. 2C (TR. 20A:Table 2.20) probably represents occasional littering by the occupants of Gp. 3D-9 over a long span of time. Although it cannot be specifically associated with any one structure within the group, it at least offers support that the group was residential in nature. The seventeen artifacts are 100% utilitarian, duplicating (with the exception of an ovate biface) types included in Plat. 5D-3:LG. 2a and 2b. In sum, these artifacts suggest (but do not prove) that Str. 3D-127 was a house, and that Str. 3D-32 may have been a house. GROUP 2F-1 Three artifacts from this group are illustrated in TR. 27B (Fig. 3e, 41l, 99l). The only apparently undisturbed trash deposit here, relatively uncontaminated by fill, is LG. 4a of Plat 2F-1 (TR. 20A:Table 2.30). Although only eighteen artifacts are included, all sixteen of the classifiable ones are utilitarian (Table 5.11; see below). The two that are unclassifiable may have been as well. These include a mano fragment (an obvious household implement) with the other implements useful for cutting and chopping. Food preparation, therefore, could have taken place here, and whatever structure or structures were associated with Plat. 2F-1 could have been houses. The sherds from LG. 4a were neither weighed, nor appraised as to functional possibilities. For Str. 2F-31 and 2F-Sub.1, undisturbed trash deposits are lacking. Some such material may be included in LG. 3 of Str. 2F-31 (TR. 20A:Table 2.30), but there

70

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

is also a heavy mixture of fill material. There is, though, the good possibility that much of the fill for the later architectural development of Str. 2F-Sub.1, as well as those of Str. 2F31, was drawn from earlier trash deposits at this locus. Of interest, therefore, is that the artifacts are 96% utilitarian. These include a metate fragment, an obvious household item, as well as several implements potentially useful for food preparation (2 thin bifaces, 1 prismatic blade, 53 used flakes). Added to this are several bone scraps from the fill of Str. 2F-Sub.1, these are possible garbage. Sixteen unused flakes, and four chert (and one obsidian) cores might derive from occasional tool making. The three non-utilitarian artifacts: a censer, a figurine, and a perforated, shaped sherd are not necessarily out of place in a household situation. Again, the sherds from Str. 2F-31 and 2F-Sub.1 were not evaluated as to functional possibilities. The most that may be said is that there is no reason to suspect that utilitarian vessels were not present. In sum, while the artifact collections do not prove a residential function for Gp. 2F-1, they are at least consistent with such a function. The lack of a good midden may only suggest that the excavations failed to sample the right area. GROUP 2G-1 Artifacts from this group are abundant (see Table 5.1 for a list of objects illustrated in TR. 27B) and include collections from each of the structures that consist for the most part of material deposited during the final period of each (TR. 20A:Table 2.40; Str. 2G-56:LG. 3a-c, 4; Str. 2G-57:LG. 3a,b, 4b; Str. 2G-58:LG. 2a; Str. 2G-59:LG. 5b, 6b-f; Str. 2G-60:LG. 3a). For this reason, little need be said of fill material, save that it does not seem to differ significantly from the material discussed here. Although no actual midden is known for Gp. 2G1, debris was widely scattered and in some abundance. Ceramic material ranges from a low of 4 pounds per cubic meter in some (but not all) deposits near Str. 2G-59, to 15.5 pounds per cubic meter near Str. 2G-56, and the midden-like 21 pounds per square meter near Str. Str. 2G60. Actually, all of these figures are biased on the low side, since surface material is included. Generally, frequencies are higher on living surfaces than they are above them. Frequencies of major typological classes of pottery vessels are given in Table 5.10. In all cases, fine pottery constitutes less than 45% of the sample (far less in the case of Str. 2G-56 and 60). Further, monochrome red bowls are well represented; their frequencies tend to be highest where those for fine vessels are lowest.

If utilitarian pottery is abundant in Gp. 2G-1, utilitarian artifacts are even more so (Table 5.11). Interestingly, in two cases the high frequencies correlate with low frequencies of fine pottery and high frequencies of coarse jars (Str. 2G-59 is the exception). In all cases, artifacts potentially useful for food preparation are included (12% for Str. 2G-56, 42% for Str. 2G-57, 20% for Str. 2G-58, 20% for Str. 2G-59, and 21% for Str. 2G-60). In each instance, one or more manos and/or metates are included (as many as 8 for Str. 2G-59). In all cases, there is indirect evidence for fire associated with each structure in the form of fire-spalled chert flakes (13 for Str. 2G-56, 1 for Str. 2G-57, 2 for Str. 2G-58, 21 for Str. 2G-59, 1 for Str. 2G-60). Finally, a few scraps of bone, possibly from food, were found near Str. 2G-59. Most of the other utilitarian objects consist of unmodified chert flakes, a few cores (Str. 2G-56:2), nodules (Str. 2G-57:1 obsidian) and hammer stones (Str. 2G-56:1; Str. 2G-58:2; Str. 2G-59:3). Not only are ceremonial artifacts scarce, but also they are not the sorts that would be out of place around a house. This is particularly true for figurines (1 for Str. 2G-56, 4 for Str. 2G-57, and 2 for Str. 2G-58). The others consist of a censer fragment each for Str. 2G57 and 59 (and see Fig. 4a). Possibly these “censers” were actually braziers. Some of the problematical objects from Str. 2G-58 and 59 deserve special comment. They consist of shell fragments that may be parts of ornaments, or they might be food remains and/or ceremonial objects. All in all, the sherds and artifacts from Gp. 2G-1 suggest quite strongly that food was prepared in all of its structures. In addition, some occasional chert knapping may have been undertaken; certainly a pastime not necessarily out of place in a household situation.

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

71

GROUP 2G-2 Artifacts here are not abundant, but some fair samples from Str. 2G-14 and good samples from Str. 2G-15 exist (TR. 20A:Table 2.54; Str. 2G-14:LG. 4 and 5; Str. 2G-15:LG. 4a-c). All are contaminated to a degree by fill, more so in the case of Str. 2G-14. On the other hand, fill material does not appear to differ significantly from that just noted. For illustrations of selected artifacts in TR. 27B, see Table 5.2. Chultun 2G-10 constitutes a special case in that its fill was surely drawn from a midden. Not only were large sherds with sharp breaks frequent, many were burned and ash was abundant. The possibility exists that those who used Str. 2G-Sub.2 originally discarded some or all of this material. Culbert analyzed the ceramics in 1962, but he did not record percentages of major typological classes. All Ik and Imix typological classes were present, however. Percentages for Str. 2G-14 and 15 are given in Table 5.10. Percentages are low for fine vessels, as might be expected in a household situation. Indeed, for Str. 2G-15, the percentage of coarse jars is extraordinarily high. By Str. 2G-15, also, sherd frequencies reach as high as 11.9 pounds per cubic meter, a figure biased on the low side by inclusion of surface material. As Table 5.11 shows, most of the artifacts are utilitarian. For Str. 2G-14, 22% of these are potentially useful for food preparation. These include 1 mano and 2 metate fragments. Three fire-spalled flakes give indirect testimony to the presence of fire. The other artifacts all are compatible with occasional chert knapping (unmodified flakes and a core). For Str. 2G-15, 16% of the utilitarian artifacts (including fragments of 1 mano and 1 metate) suggest food preparation, and 15 fire-spalled flakes testify indirectly to the presence of fire. Other utilitarian artifacts include a spindle whorl (TR. 27B:Fig. 106e), and objects suggestive of occasional chert knapping (2 cores, 85 unmodified flakes, 2 hammer stones). The ceremonial objects are a figurine and a candelero, not necessarily out of place around a house (candeleros could be personal incense burners; see Millon 1973:14, n. 1). Although the overall inventory from Str. 2G-15 is not impressive, it does contain a thin biface of green obsidian (TR. 27B:Fig. 65u). The midden-like nature of the chultun fill, some or all of which may have come from Str. 2G-Sub.2, has already been mentioned. The abundant ash gives good evidence for fire. Unmodified animal bones account for 58% of the artifact inventory, suggestive of garbage. Of the remaining artifacts, 9% could have been used for food preparation. Some 19 unmodified flakes suggest chert work and 3 celts, 1 elongate biface, and 3 hammer stones could suggest occasional stone working (TR. 27B:15, 45). Of interest, in

view of the green obsidian thin biface from Str. 2G-15, is a green obsidian nodule. Once again, the overall picture suggests a residential situation. On the basis of artifacts alone, any of these structures could have been habitations. STRUCTURE 2G-61 LOCUS A reasonably good collection of sherds and artifacts that probably relate to the use of Str. 2G-61 (TR. 20A:Table 2.65: LG. 6a,c–f, 7a,b, and all lot groups of Ch. 6C-1), were recovered near that structure. Sherd frequencies range generally from 1.17 to 5.21 pounds per cubic meter, which do not compare with true midden situations. Yet, sherds and other artifacts are nonetheless scattered about in some profusion. As illustrated in TR. 20A:Fig. 40, quantities are highest near the structure, sherds reaching concentrations as high as 35 pounds per cubic meter, which is typical of other middens. This is what one might expect where trash was periodically tossed or swept from a structure. Unfortunately, Culbert had not provided a framework for analysis of Preclassic pottery comparable to the major typological classes of fine and utilitarian Ik and Imix pottery utilized in this report. All that can be recorded here is the excavator’s subjective impression that the bulk of sherds were from vessels of no great aesthetic merit; they certainly suggested utilitarian pottery. A breakdown of other artifacts by components is given in Table 5.11 (see below). As can be seen, they are overwhelmingly utilitarian (those illustrated in TR. 27B are listed in Table 5.3). The only potential ornamental objects are 6 pieces of shell, most of which are probably pieces of garbage. Of the utilitarian artifacts, about 16% are potentially useful for food preparation. Indeed, this

72

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

includes 8 scraps of bone, along with 2 mano and 1 metate fragments. Indirect evidence for fire comes from 89 fire-spalled flakes, although in view of probable milpa activity here in more recent times, not much can be made of this. Another 82%, consisting of 343 unmodified flakes, a core, and 3 hammer stones, suggests that chert knapping was an important activity. The closest thing to undisturbed debris associated with Str. 2G-62 is in Str. 2G-61:LG. 3. As can be seen in Table 5.11, artifacts are not numerous, nor are sherds (1.75 pounds per cubic meter). Nonetheless, the artifacts are 100% utilitarian, with 35% potentially useful in food preparation. These, though, do not include mano and metate fragments, although these are found in fill of Str. 2G-61, much of which likely was drawn from trash associated with Str. 2G-62. The rest of the artifacts from LG. 3 consist of unmodified chert flakes, presumably from chert knapping. In sum, the collections from Str. 2G-61 and 62 certainly are compatible with a residential situation.

tent with either (TR. 27B:14, 15), whereas the 19 prismatic blades are consistent with woodworking (TR. 27B:22–23, 33). Their number compares to a total of 3 for Str. 3F-24. Overall, the collections from Gp. 3F-1 are not incompatible with a residential situation. The case is perhaps best for Str. 3F-24, but certainly nothing suggests that Str. 3F-25 was anything other than a house.

GROUP 3F-1

GROUP 3F-2

In Gp. 3F-1, artifacts from deposits of occupation debris are included in Str. 3F-24:LG. 2a–c and 3 and Str. 3F-25:LG. 3–5 (TR. 20A:Table 2.80). None of these can be described as a real midden. For Str. 3F-24, sherd frequencies range from 1.5 to 5 pounds per cubic meter. For 3F-25, they range from 1.3 to 6.4 pounds per cubic meter. As shown in Table 5.10, percentages of sherds from fine vessels are on the low side, with coarse jars about as well represented. As shown in Table 5.11, other artifacts are overwhelmingly utilitarian. Four are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 53a, 97f, 100k, and 117d. The only ceremonial items are two figurines from Str. 3F-25, thought to be household items. Of the utilitarian artifacts, about 21% of those from Str. 3F-24, including a mano fragment, are potentially useful for food production. Indirect evidence for the use of fire comes from 7 fire-spalled flakes. A total of 32 unmodified flakes, 3 cores and a hammer stone suggest some chert knapping. About 47% of the utilitarian artifacts might be associated with food preparation in Str. 3F-25. There are no mano or metate fragments, however, even in fill lots. Six fire-spalled flakes do suggest the use of fire; all are from LG. 3, which is the least contaminated of those with occupation debris. Some chert knapping is suggested by the presence of 27 unmodified flakes along with 5 cores. The presence of a ground celt, in the above-mentioned LG. 3, suggests that the occupants of this structure may have done some stone or woodworking. The presence of an elongate biface and 5 ovate bifaces is consis-

Four artifacts from this group are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 55g, 66r, 106j, and 141l. Material includes a number of deposits of occupation debris (TR. 20A:Table 2.89; Str. 3F-26:LG. 4a,b; Str. 3F-27:LG. 2; Str. 3F-29:LG. 3a,b; Plat. 3F-2:LG. 3a,b). All are mixed with fill to varying degrees, with the most mixture for Str. 3F-27 and the least for Str. 3F-29 (especially LG. 3b). The best deposits, considering both quantity of material and amount of mixture, are Str. 3F-29:LG. 3b, with 11.3 pounds of sherds per cubic meter, and Plat. 3F-2:LG. 3a,b, with 2.7 and 4.3 pounds of sherds per cubic meter. In the latter instance, the question as to the source of the material arises; the data in Table 5.10 suggest that much originated around Str. 3F-26. Although none of these deposits would qualify as a true midden, debris does occur in sufficient quantity that a domestic situation cannot be ruled out. Nor can it be ruled out on the basis of the data in Table 5.11. Here, though, Str. 3F-27 and 29 appear to be more likely houses than Str. 3F-26. As can be seen from Table 5.11, frequencies of utilitarian artifacts are high. The only ceremonial items are three figurines found off the edge of Plat. 3F-2, these probable household items. Furthermore, percentages of artifacts potentially associated with food preparation are unusually high: 41% of the objects from Str. 3F-26 (one metate included), 40% from Str. 3F-27 (three metates included), and 54% from Str. 3F-29 (one mano included). Beyond the edge of Plat. 3F-2, 54% of the utilitarian artifacts recovered also show this potential, though there are neither

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

mano nor metate fragments. Coupled with these figures, indirect evidence for the use of fire is provided by four fire-spalled flakes from Str. 3F-26 and 3 from Str. 3F-29. If suggestions of food preparation are apparent, so are signs of chert knapping. These include 19 unmodified flakes and 2 nodules, or 46% of the collection from Str. 3F-26; 7 hammer stones (alone, 28% of the collection); 2 nodules and 6 unmodified flakes, or 60% of the collection from Str. 3F-27; 2 cores and 20 unmodified flakes, or 42% of the collection from Str. 3F-29; 1 hammer stone and 9 unmodified flakes, or 42% of the collection from beyond the edge of Plat. 2F-1. All told, there is nothing here to indicate that the structures of Gp. 3F-1 were not houses, but much to suggest that some or all were. GROUP 3F-3 Objects recovered from this group have little to offer, on two counts. In the first place, objects in those lot groups most likely to contain occupation debris (TR. 20A:Table 2.100; Str. 3F-12:LG. 5a–c; Str. 3F-13:LG. 1; Str. 3F-14:LG. 2) are few in number. In the second, most of the material in the 3F-12 lot groups, and undoubtedly some in those from the other two structures, pertains to the activities of users of Eznab ceramics. The possibility is quite strong that they may have used the structures, particularly Str. 3F-12, for purposes other than those for which they were built. Nor is the fill material at all helpful; not only is there a paucity of sherds and artifacts, but the proximity of other groups raises the real possibility that some or all of it comes from nearby groups, rather than early trash from Gp. 3F-3 itself. With these strictures in mind, the very rarity of artifacts in and around Str. 3F-12 at least raises the possibility that this may not have been a house, even though it does not prove it. Only two artifacts (Table 5.11), a mano and a biface tool, come from Str. 3F-13, but this particular lot group includes some fill as well as probable Eznab-related material. These do not provide much information concerning this structure; they can either be “explained away” or used to argue for a residential function. The one remaining excavated structure, 3F-14, produced 13 artifacts, of which 69% were utilitarian, 8% ceremonial (1 figurine) and the rest problematical (Table 5.11). At any rate, 44% of the utilitarian artifacts are potentially useful for food preparation, though there are no mano or metate fragments. Four unmodified flakes and 1 hammer stone (55% of the utilitarian artifacts) are suggestive of chert knapping. Again, there is the problem of Eznab-related material, except that 13 artifacts might offer more hope of having a fair Late Classic content than just 2, and small though the numbers are, they suggest an inventory much like that seen for Gp. 3F-2. Unfortunately, the ceramic sample was not sorted into major typological classes.

73

In sum, the artifact inventory says little. It may, perhaps, hint that Str. 3F-12 was not a house, but that 3F-14 was at least related to a domestic function. In the last analysis, functional assessment will have to rest on other criteria. GROUP 3G-1 Five artifacts are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 19b, 34g, 55l, 59dd, and 97h. Unfortunately, there are no good sources of occupation debris from the one structure of this group that was excavated. Indeed, only Str. 3G-1:LG. 2 (TR. 20A:Table 2.109) clearly contains such material; in this case, apparently a monochrome red bowl left on the floor of the structure and a few other sherds (Table 5.10). The only artifacts from this lot group consist of an unclassifiable biface, a used flake, three unused flakes and an unclassifiable pecked and ground stone artifact (Table 5.11). These are not terribly revealing, although they are utilitarian so far as can be told. Some or all of them, however, could be fill items. Given this situation, all that can be done is to refer to fill material for clues as to the function of the group, on the premise that much was drawn from trash in the group itself. This is by no means certain, given the number of small-structure groups in the vicinity. Be that as it may, the percentages of major typological classes of pottery from the fills of Str. 3G-1 (n=191) are as follows: 32% fine pottery, 32% monochrome red bowls, 8% monochrome red jars, and 28% coarse jars (Ch. 3G-5:LG. 2 was not studied). The artifacts from all sources are 96% utilitarian, 1% ceremonial and 3% problematical. The ceremonial items consist of 2 figurines, probable household items. Of the utilitarian items, 52% are bone fragments and another 14% (including 2 metate fragments) are suggestive of food preparation. Six fire-spalled flakes give indirect evidence for the presence of fire. Another 27% (6 cores, 61 unmodified flakes, 2 hammer stones) suggest chert knapping. Three drop-shaped bifaces may be failed attempts to produce small bifaces (TR. 27B:19). All in all, there is nothing here that would be out of place in household trash. Unfortunately, it is almost all redeposited. Taken with the monochrome bowl apparently left on the floor of Str. 3G-1, this material strongly suggests a residential function for the group, including Str. 3G-1. CHULTUN 2F-5 LOCUS As noted in TR. 20A, it is assumed that Ch. 2F-5 was associated with a structure or structures that remain to be discovered, just as Gp. 2F-1 was associated with Ch. 2F4, Str. 2G-61 and 62 with Ch. 2G-1 and 2, Str. 5C-56 and 57 with Ch. 5C-5 and 8, Str. 6C-60, 61, and Sub.1 with Ch. 6C-9 and 10, and Str. 6C-62 and 63 with Ch. 6C-6, 7, and 11. Much of the material in LG. 2–4 (TR. 20A:Table

74

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

2.116) may relate to that structure or structures. There has been no functional analysis of the ceramics, but the other artifacts are 100% utilitarian (Table 5.11). The overall number is not large (27), but 87% is potentially useful in food preparation including two manos. Chert knapping is represented, albeit sparsely, by one core, two unused flakes, and perhaps a hammer stone. On the basis of this collection, it is entirely possible that Ch. 2F-5 was associated with one or more habitations. Any more definitive statement is not possible. CHULTUNS 3F-4 AND 5 LOCUS It does not seem worthwhile saying much about this material. Not only is it not abundant, but its source is completely unknown. GROUP 5B-2 Artifact collections from this group are not large, which may mean no more than that the excavations failed to locate primary dump areas. Three objects are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 21d, 58h, and 67g. The most likely sources of occupation debris are LG. 3 of Str. 5B-6 and LG. 4 of Str. 5B-7 (TR. 20A:Table 2.128). Unfortunately, both are contaminated by fill, but they are the best available samples. Of the two, the material from Str. 5B-7 is the best, so that will be discussed first. Table 5.10 gives the percentages of fine and utilitarian pottery. The percentage of fine pottery is low, as might be expected around a house, but the percentage of monochrome red jars is abnormally high, and that of monochrome red bowls abnormally low. Given the small sample involved, perhaps not much should be made of this. At any rate, peculiar though the figures may be, by themselves they certainly do not rule out a residential function for the structure. The percentages of utilitarian, ceremonial, and problematical artifacts are given in Table 5.11. The ceremonial item consists of a figurine, the problematical of two unmodified human bones. The figurine is not out of place near a house. The bones may have been uprooted from the fill or, for all that is known, may have been household possessions of special significance. Of the utilitarian artifacts, 38% are of potential use in food preparation. Only 3 objects are considered here, however: 2 used flakes and a metate fragment. It is perhaps worth noting, though, that if the assumption is made that all of the fill for Str. 5B-7 was drawn from trash at this locus, and all of the artifacts are examined for potential tools for food preparation, the percentage of utilitarian artifacts possibly associated with this activity is 36%, very close to the figure for LG. 4 alone. Also represented is possible debitage from the production of chert tools; 50% of the utilitarian artifacts of LG. 4 consist of unused flakes, or if utilitarian artifacts from all lot groups of Str. 5B-7 are considered, the figure is 57%.

Because so few rims were found in Str. 5B-6:LG. 3, percentages of fine and utilitarian pottery have not been calculated. Indeed, the collection neither supports nor rules out a residential function. The same is true of the artifacts, which consist of an elongate biface and a hammer stone. If one assumes that all the artifacts derive from earlier occupations at this locus, which may not be true, then 74% may be classed as utilitarian, 4% (a figurine) as ceremonial, and the rest as problematical. In the latter category are three unclassifiable bifaces, probably utilitarian tools of some sort. Of the utilitarian items, 76% are potentially useful for food preparation, including two manos and a metate fragment. Once again, the available clues suggest, though they by no means prove, a residential situation. GROUP 5C-3 For this group, there is a small deposit of occupation debris S of the platform (TR. 20A:2.135, LG. 3a) and some incidental trash from a test pit (TR. 20A:Table 2.135, LG. 3b). The ceramics were not sorted into major typological classes, but a breakdown of other artifacts is given in Table 5.11. The bulk of the non-ceramic material is utilitarian. The problematical material consists of a probable utilitarian unclassifiable biface, and ten human bone fragments of unknown significance. Of the utilitarian items, 80% may relate to food preparation. Although mano or metate fragments are not included, there are six unmodified animal bone fragments. The rest of the utilitarian artifacts consist of unmodified chert flakes, possibly from occasional stone-tool manufacture or reworking. If the assumption is made that all of the artifacts (two are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 32q and 54l) found in Gp. 5C-3 are from occupation here, the picture does not change significantly. Out of 57 artifacts, 77% are utilitarian and the rest problematical. Of the utilitarian items, 80% may relate to food production (including one mano), and 18% to chert knapping. In sum, this collection is consistent with a residential function for Gp. 5C-3. STRUCTURE 5C-56 LOCUS Several artifacts from this locus are illustrated in TR. 27B (see Table 5.4). Potential occupation material from Str. 5C-56 is included in LG. 2 (TR. 20A:Table 2.142), although there is undoubtedly fill material mixed with it. Nonetheless, the sheer abundance of material is at least suggestive of a domestic situation. Again, the ceramics were never sorted into utilitarian and fine categories. A breakdown of the large artifact sample is given in Table 5.11. As will be seen, the artifacts are overwhelmingly utilitarian. Evident ceremonial items consist of figurines and a censer, though this could be a brazier. The problematical items include a cut bone fragment (possibly garbage); a whole land snail shell and two cut shell fragments, some

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

or all of which might have ceremonial significance, could have been household garbage (especially the land snail), or connected with shell working; and 14 human bone fragments of unknown significance. Of the utilitarian items, 60% may relate to food preparation. Included are two metate fragments and two pieces of unmodified animal bone. Two burned bones (one of them human) afford indirect evidence for fire. Another 36% of the utilitarian items strongly suggest chert knapping: 1 core, 12 nodules, 61 unmodified flakes, and 3 hammer stones.

75

worked sherd (a token, counter, or gaming piece?; TR. 27B:76), and an unclassifiable fragment. Of the items in the utilitarian category, 71% may relate to food production. These 238 items include 145 animal bone fragments and 8 mano and metate fragments. These, in particular, with the ash, charcoal, bean, and corn remains (and shells from freshwater and land species?) point strongly to food preparation. Another 23% of the utilitarian artifacts, 17 cores, 56 unmodified flakes, and 4 hammer stones, seem to relate to chert knapping. In sum, evidence derived from these artifacts almost surely indicates a residential function for Str. 5C-57. The case is not quite as clear for Str. 5C-56, but it is strong nonetheless. Perhaps if its trash had been afforded the protection offered by a chultun, as was that from Str. 5C-57, ash, charcoal, and organic remains would be equally in evidence. GROUP 5B-3 The only material of any sort from this source came from Ch. 5B-11. It presumably consists of discards made occasionally by those who used the structures of the group. The sherds and artifacts are so few in number that they have virtually nothing to offer as to the function of the group. For what it is worth, the three artifacts are utilitarian, and are of types commonly found in probable household groups. CHULTUN 5C-6 LOCUS

Structure 5C-57, which preceded Str. 5C-56 at this locus, is represented by the material in Ch. 5C-8 (TR. 20A:Table 2.142, LG. 1–10). Some of this material may have been fill for Str. 5C-57, but the abundance of sherds of large size, ash, charcoal, and bones, along with the remains of corn and beans, seems to indicate that most is from a midden. No sorting of sherds into utilitarian and fine categories was done, but percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. Although the percentage of utilitarian artifacts is high, this figure is biased on the low side by the inclusion of 16 worked animal bones (from butchering?), 3 bone needles/pins, 4 unclassifiable bifaces, and 14 unworked shells in the problematical category. Since thirteen of the latter are from land or freshwater species, the possibility is high that they represent household garbage. The figure for the ornamental objects may also be too low, as some or all of the five worked Marginella shells in the problematical category could be ornamental. Indeed, the only obvious ornamental items are a bead and, possibly, a miniature vessel. Ceremonial items include 6 figurines and a censer (or brazier?), not out of place around a house. Other problematical items are 2 bone rasp fragments, 54 human bone fragments (1 worked), a pellet, a centrally perforated

This chultun is thought to be associated with one or more structures presently invisible, such as have been found near other chultuns (see earlier discussion of Ch. 2F-5). Presumably, all sherds and artifacts collected relate to the occupation of that structure, or structures (TR. 20A:Table 2.158). The chultun itself was filled with material from a nearby midden. Sherds were abundant, but were not sorted into fine and utilitarian categories. The 23 artifacts (Table 5.11) are 100% utilitarian, with 69% suggestive of food preparation (this includes 11 unmodified animal bones). Four unused flakes and a core (22% of the collection) suggest occasional chert knapping. In short, this collection is not significantly different from most of the others reported here. GROUP 4E-1 Three objects from this group are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 46e, 48a, and 120a2. Occupation material is not abundant, although locally rich deposits occur by Str. 4E15 and N of Plat. 4E-1 (TR. 20A:Table 2.164, LG. 1 and 2). Sherd frequencies reach 18.8 and 16.1 pounds per cubic meter. Elsewhere (TR. 20A:Table 2.164, Str. 4E-14:LG. 2a,b, and 3; Str. 4E-16:LG. 3a,b) they are much lower, and deposits are more mixed. Sherd frequencies reach just 1.4 pounds per cubic meter by Str. 4E-14 and 2.6 pounds

76

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

per cubic meter by Str. 4E-16. Considering the extent to which Gp. 4E-1 remains unexcavated, this scarcity of living refuse may not be significant. Percentages of major typological classes of pottery are given in Table 5.10. Generally, percentages of fine vessels are low, and coarse jars and monochrome red bowls are well represented. It may not be significant that monochrome red jars are more prominent than coarse jars around the architecturally substantial Str. 4E-16. At any rate, the pottery inventory is consistent with a domestic function for these structures. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. The best sample is that from Str. 4E15, which is mostly utilitarian. The ceremonial items are figurines, thought to be used in household rituals. Some or all of the problematical items could be utilitarian. Of the known utilitarian items, 40% are potentially useful for food preparation, including one mano fragment. Sixteen unmodified flakes (53% of the utilitarian collection) suggest chert knapping. These facts, coupled with the midden-like nature of the deposit and a 63% frequency of utilitarian pottery strongly argue in favor of a domestic function for this structure. The other artifact collections from Gp. 4E-1 are not very good, but they are consistent with that from Str. 4E15. At least it can be said that food preparation and chert knapping could have taken place in Str. 4E-16. Moreover, three fire-spalled flakes suggest, indirectly, the use of fire. A core and three unmodified flakes from Str. 4E-14 suggest chert knapping there. Overall, a domestic function is a possibility for the structures of Gp. 4E-1, a rather strong one in the case of Str. 4E-15. Given this, the possibility of such a function for the others is enhanced. GROUP 4E-2 Occupation material from this group is included in Str. 4E-50:LG. 4, Str. 4E-51:LG. 3a, Str. 4E-52:LG. 3 and Str. 4E-53:LG. 3 (TR. 20A:Table 2.174). In none of these is material abundant; respective sherd weights per cubic meter are 2.3 pounds, 4.0 pounds, 3.0 pounds, and 3.7 pounds. Table 5.10 gives percentages of fine and utilitarian pottery. In view of the small sample sizes, perhaps not much should be based on these data, although the high percentage of fine pottery from Str. 4E-53 is a surprise. This structure also shows a high percentage of coarse jars, however. It should be noted in connection with Str. 4E-50, that a coarse jar was apparently standing on the floor of the building when the vault collapsed and broke it. Also, a neck from a monochrome red jar was sitting on the front platform floor. The Maya frequently recycled necks broken from globular jars for other uses. These include cord holders (TR. 27B:80) and (apparently) drains, as in Gp. 4F-2 (Plat. 4F-7; TR. 19:Fig. 30:5, 6), 4F-3 (TR. 20A:Fig. 102:3), and 6E-1 (TR. 20A:Fig.

149:U. 3). Another likely use was as stands to hold globular vessels. Without such a ring-shaped stand, these vessels would have tipped over when set on a flat surface. This, with two other jar necks, is illustrated in Fig. 2 (a fourth is illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 56b2). The frequencies of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. For Str. 4E-50, there are all of 3 artifacts: a spindle whorl (TR. 27B:Fig. 140k) found off the end of the structure, and fragments of a mano and metate on the building floor. The presence of these items, along with the pottery previously noted, combine to present a reasonable case that this structure, at least in its final form, was used as living quarters. There is not much to say concerning the other structures. The few artifacts from Str. 4E-51 and 52 do not rule out a domestic function. Those from the former suggest chert knapping; a mano and an unused flake were found in the latter. Structure 4E-53 produced three items not out of place around a house: a mano, a prismatic blade, and an unused flake. The ceremonial item is a candelero (TR. 27B:Fig. 141h), which might be found associated with a house if it were a personal incense burner as Millon thinks (1973:14, n. 1). In sum, artifacts do not help much to establish the function of any of these structures, save Str. 4E-50-A. They are not incompatible with domestic functions. There is one further point worth noting for Gp. 4E2. Although it cannot be proven, it is possible that the majority of artifacts in the other lot groups pertain to the activities of Gp. TS. 7 through 4. The artifacts are almost 100% utilitarian, although a stemless thin biface from Str. 4E-50 fill could have served a ritual function (TR. 27B:18 and Fig. 40d). But the frequencies of major typological classes of pottery are interesting. These are as follows: Str. 4E-50 (n=90): 42% fine, 26% red bowls, 8% red jars, 24% coarse jars; Str. 4E-51 (n=57): 21% fine, 33% red bowls, 14% red jars, 32% coarse jars; Str. 4E-52 (n=108): 23% fine, 25% red bowls, 10% red jars, 42% coarse jars; Str. 4E-53 (n=28): 21% fine, 39% red bowls, 8% red jars, and 32% coarse jars. In other words, the figures are quite consistent for the three smaller structures, but differ for Str. 4E-50 with its greater frequency of fine vessels and lower frequency of coarse jars. Now, if much of the fill for Str. 4E-50 was debris associated with earlier construction at this locus, a possibility in accord with the excavation data, these figures might suggest a change in function of construction here at some point. This possibility will be discussed further in the conclusions of this report. GROUP 5D-1 For this situation, the only usable sources of occupation debris are Str. 5D-7:LG. 6 and Str. 5D-8:LG. 3b (TR. 20A:Table 2.184). Unfortunately, they do not con-

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

tain much material; 3.38 pounds of sherds per cubic meter for Str. 5D-7 and none for Str. 5D-8. Those from Str. 5D-7 were not sorted into major typological classes. The nine artifacts are broken down into utilitarian and other categories in Table 5.11. Obviously, given so few objects, these figures are not significant. For Str. 5D-7, a used flake and a prismatic blade could have been used in food preparation, as could an irregularly retouched flake and a prismatic blade for Str. 5D-8. This, though, is slim evidence indeed. An unused flake and three nodules from Str. 5D-7 suggest chert knapping. The problematical artifact is an unclassifiable biface. Since these artifacts have little to offer, it is worth noting that of the 386 artifacts from all sources in this group (three are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 93a, 106l, and 141n), 91% are utilitarian. These consist of the usual finds, and include 6 manos, 8 metates, 20 unworked bone fragments, and a spindle whorl (TR. 27B:Fig. 106l). All five objects show traces of burning. Ceremonial objects consist only of three figurines, three censers (or braziers?), and a candelero (TR. 27B:Fig. 141n; perhaps a personal incense burner; see Gp. 2G-2 and 4E-2). Possibly, much of this derives from early activity in Gp. 5D-1, in which case a residential function is a reasonable possibility. Since living debris was constantly being hauled in from elsewhere for nearby major construction, it is hazardous to assume that none of this outside debris was used in Gp. 5D-1.

77

(TR. 27B:77), a centrally perforated sherd (Str. 4F-49), possibly a token, counter, or gaming piece (TR. 27B:76, 77), and unclassifiable objects. Given the continuous nature of these deposits, along with the data above, it seems reasonable that debris from both structures is, to a degree, mixed together. Overall, everything seems to point to a domestic situation, with food preparation most strongly indicated for Str. 4F-49. The deposits from Str. 4F-21 and 48 are not as good as those discussed above. For Str. 4F-21, occupation trash occurs in LG. 3a–c (TR. 20A:Table 2.199). Sherds per cubic meter in these deposits range from 1.2 to 2.4 pounds. For Str. 4F-48, occupation debris occurs in LG. 3 and Plat. 4F-6:LG. 2a (TR. 20A:Table 2.199). Sherds per cubic meter in these range from 1.9 to 4.7 lbs. Though quantities are smaller, the situation is reminiscent of Str. 4F-47 and 49, where quantities are greatest near the smaller structure.

GROUP 4F-3 For a list of illustrations of selected artifacts from this setting, see Table 5.5. Good sources of occupation debris are associated with Str. 4F-49 (TR. 20A:Table 2.199, LG 2b) and Str. 4F-47 (TR. 20A:Table 2.199, LG. 3a,b). Midden-like in nature, material is most abundant near Str. 4F49 (21.1 pounds of sherds per cubic meter), dropping off steadily to the N behind Str. 4F-47 (LG. 3b: 7.2 pounds of sherds per cubic meter; LG. 3a: 0.7 pounds per cubic meter). Percentages of fine vessels are below 40%, those of coarse jars are high (Table 5.10). Surprising is the very low percentage of red bowls for Str. 4F-49. Percentages of utilitarian artifacts are similarly high (Table 5.11). Of these, 12% from Str. 4F-47 are suitable for food preparation, including a pestle (TR. 27B:Fig. 107b). Ten fire-spalled flakes give indirect evidence for the use of fire. The rest of the utilitarian artifacts, except one unmodified obsidian flake, suggest chert knapping (1 core, 70 unused flakes). For Str. 4F-49, the comparable figures are 27% suitable for food preparation, including 3 manos and a metate, 4 fire-spalled flakes, and 46 unmodified flakes with a core from chert knapping. All of the ceremonial items from these deposits are figurines. The problematical items are an eccentrically perforated sherd (Str. 4F-47), possibly worn as a pendant

Frequencies of utilitarian and other pottery are given in Table 5.10. As with Str. 4F-47 and 49, percentages of fine vessels are low, with coarse jars well represented. The percentage of monochrome red bowls approximates that of Str. 4F-47. Percentages of utilitarian artifacts are a bit lower, and those of ceremonial artifacts a bit higher, than for Str. 4F-47 and 49 (Table 5.11). This may not be significant, given the difference in sample sizes. Of the utilitarian artifacts, 37% of those from Str. 4F-21 are potentially useful for food preparation. Included are one mano and two metates. For Str. 4F-48, the figure is 100% and two out of the total of five artifacts are metates. So, in spite of the poorer samples, this distribution suggests a situation similar to Str. 4F-47 and 49, where food preparation seems more strongly indicated for the smaller of the two. The ceremonial artifacts consist of a figurine and candelero (possibly a personal incense burner; see discussion of Gp. 2G-2 and 4E-2) from Str. 4F-21 and a figurine from Str. 4F-48. The problematical items are unclassifi-

78

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

able artifacts. Chert knapping is suggested by ten unmodified flakes from Str. 4F-21. In sum, a domestic context seems clearly indicated here. To anticipate a bit, food preparation seems strongly suggested for the very small Str. 4F-49, and, by analogy, Str. 4F-48. These could well have been kitchens for the larger two structures. GROUP 5F-1 For a selection of artifacts from this group illustrated in TR. 27B, see Table 5.6. Here, a veritable treasure-trove of material is associated with the Preclassic Str. 5F-Sub.1. This is in Str. 5F-Sub.1:LG. 2a–c (TR. 20A:Table 2.213), a midden that accumulated while Tzec and Chuen ceramics were in vogue. This is packed with sherds from such ceramics, along with numerous artifacts and much charcoal. Unfortunately, the sherds were not weighed, nor were they sorted into utilitarian and other classes. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts associated with Sub.1 are given in Table 5.11. As one would expect in a midden, the artifacts are overwhelmingly utilitarian. Of these, 89% may be related to food preparation. These include 12 unworked animal bone fragments and 3 manos. It may be that 20 unworked shells, which are in the problematical category, should also be included here. At least 17 of them are from land or freshwater species, which may have been eaten (TR. 27A:33). Charcoal in the midden, as well as 55 chert artifacts that show traces of burning, indicates the use of fire.

Chert knapping is suggested by 81% of the utilitarian artifacts. These include 11 nodules, 17 cores, 5 unmodified flakes, and 3 hammer stones. Only 2% of the artifacts in the midden may surely be classed as ceremonial: 11 figurines and a minor sculpture. Although the sculpture is unusual, the figurines are not out of place in a domestic situation. It may be that some or all of the seven worked shells and one or two of the unworked shells included in the problematical category were actually of ceremonial significance. Alternatively, some or all could be ornamental. Only one shell tinkler surely belongs in the ornamental category. Another possibility for some or all of the shell is that the occupants of Str. 5F-Sub.1 were part-time shell workers. Included in the problematical category, in addition to the shells already mentioned, are two centrally perforated, worked sherds (possibly used as tokens, counters or gaming pieces; TR. 27B:76), an irregular biface, a limestone sphere, two human bone fragments, and an incised bone tube. The entoptic design on one of the perforated sherds (TR. 27B:Fig. 132e) could be indicative of household ritual activity (Haviland and Haviland 1995:307). From all of this, a domestic function for Str. 5F-Sub.1 seems highly probable. For later construction, the evidence is not so strong, but the same probability remains. No undisturbed occupation trash exists for Str. 5F-17 and 18 (which are almost totally unexcavated), but some midden-like material was found off the E edge of Plat. 5F-1 that probably derives from both structures (TR. 20A:Table 2.213, LG. 6a,b). This consists mostly of sherds (not weighed), and all major typological classes are present, although percentages were not calculated. Other artifacts were rare (Table 5.11), but it is noteworthy that the three found are fragments of two manos and a metate. Given the paucity of artifacts in the deposit noted above, it may be helpful to look at those in Plat. 5F-1:LG. 5a,b (TR. 20A:Table 2.213). Some living debris left on the platform is undoubtedly included in these, though there is certainly contamination from earlier fill and the later Postclassic occupation. Of 66 artifacts, 85% are utilitarian, of which 86% may relate to food preparation (included are two manos, two metates, and three unworked animal bones). Two cores, two nodules, and an unmodified flake suggest chert knapping. Three figurine fragments (4% of total) represent the ceremonial component. The remaining artifacts are two

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

ground-stone spheres, two worked and two unworked shells (the latter from a marine species), an unclassifiable biface and an unclassifiable pecked and ground artifact. GROUP 5F-2 Seven artifacts from Gp. 5F-2 are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 29m, 54g, 56l, 75a1,2, 78e, and 107d. Potential occupational debris is included in Str. 5F-42:LG. 5, Str. 5F-43:LG. 3, Str. 5F-44:LG. 1 (refuse from Str. 5F-42) and 3, Str. 5F-45:LG. 2, Str. 5F-47:LG. 2a,b, and Gp. 5F-2:LG. 3 (TR. 20A:Table 2.223). The only midden, a small one at that, is Str. 5F-47:LG. 2a, with 22.04 lbs of sherds per cubic meter, and a large number of artifacts for a small deposit. Material is, however, widely scattered. Sherd frequencies range from 3.13 to 9.38 lbs per cubic meter around Str. 5F-42; 9.38 lbs per cubic meter by Str. 5F-43; 1.80 lbs per cubic meter by Str. 5F-44; 3.62 lbs per cubic meter by Str. 5F-45; 13.21 to 22.04 lbs per cubic meter by Str. 5F-47; and 9.81 lbs per cubic meter W of the group. Percentages of utilitarian and other pottery have not been calculated, so all that may be recorded is the subjective impression that utilitarian types seem well represented. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. As can be seen, frequencies of utilitarian artifacts are high. For Str. 5F-42, the only artifact in a non-utilitarian category is an unclassifiable piece of a pecked and ground object. All of the utilitarian implements (which include two unmodified animal bone fragments) could have been connected with food preparation. In the case of Str. 5F-43, such a small sample is a hindrance, but all of the artifacts could have been used in food preparation. There are, however, no positive indications of this in the form of bones, manos, or metates. For Str. 5F-44, the only non-utilitarian item is a censer. Otherwise, 83% of the utilitarian artifacts, which include two metate fragments, could have been used for food preparation. One unused flake is very slim evidence for chert knapping. For Str. 5F-45, the situation is much like that for Str. 5F-43, although a bone fragment is present. For Str. 5F-47, though, a reasonably good sample does strongly point to food preparation; 76% of the utilitarian artifacts, among them three manos and four metates (including the set illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 75a1 and 2). The one ceremonial item is a figurine, and the one problematical item is an Arca shell, which could have been an ornament, or have had ceremonial significance, or (less likely) it could even have been a piece of garbage. Two cores and three unused flakes suggest chert knapping. The items in Gp. LG. 3 cannot be associated with any specific structure. A core and two unused flakes lend some credence, however, albeit slight, to occasional chert knapping in Gp. 5F-2. Three used flakes, and, more particularly, two charred bones, probably from animals, provide slight

79

evidence for food preparation in the group. Overall, the evidence at least suggests that Gp. 5F-2 was residential, even though it does not strongly indicate this. Structure 5F-47 is the one exception, for which indications of food preparation are quite good. Certainly, the evidence does not point to any other function for Gp. 5F-2. GROUP 4F-5 Lot Group 2, from Ch. 4F-5, is presumed to contain objects discarded by those who used this group (TR. 20A:Table 2.241). It contains just four unused flakes and a hammer stone. Given such small quantity, and given evidence of activity by the users of Eznab ceramics, it does not seem worthwhile to make much of this collection. GROUP 4F-7 Lot Groups 3, 4, 5a, and 6 of Ch. 4F-2 (TR. 20A:Table 2.244) provide material that should help determine the uses to which the structures of this group were put. In particular, LG. 5a appears to consist of a midden, probably from Gp. 4F-7, which was used to fill the chultun. Percentages of utilitarian and other vessels have not been calculated, but sherds from utilitarian vessels certainly are present. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. The utilitarian items consist overwhelmingly of unmodified animal bones (80%). Some of these could be from animals that died in the chultun, but it is improbable that all were. Moreover, most are in the redeposited midden material, as would be expected if most were ancient Maya garbage. The other utilitarian items consist of 17 unused flakes, possibly from chert knapping, and a used flake, which could possibly have been used in food preparation (among other things). The ceremonial items include four figurines, expected household items, and the problematical item is a pottery pellet. Overall, these facts seem to point to a domestic function for Gp. 4F-7. CHULTUN 4G-2 LOCUS No cultural material was found in or near this chultun, so no statements are possible. GROUP 6C-1 For a list of artifacts illustrated in TR. 27B, see Table 5.7. Good samples of occupation debris come from beneath Str. 6C-45-8th (LG. 1), from the fill of Str. 6C-457th (LG. 2) and 5th (LG. 4b; TR. 20A:Table 2.251). As discussed in TR. 20A (PD. 275), these are all primary middens, probably with a few stray fill items included when they were incorporated into later construction. Sherds (not weighed) are extraordinarily abundant, as are other artifacts including bones. A good deal of ash and charcoal has also survived, undoubtedly because of

80

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

the protection afforded by overlying construction. Other potential sources of occupation material are quite poor; LG. 8a (TR. 20A:Table 2.251), which accumulated while Str. 6C-45-7th and 6th were in use, contains few artifacts. Lot Group 8b (TR. 20A:Table 2.251) is composed almost wholly of fill. So is LG. 6 (TR. 20A:Table 2.251) beneath Str. 6C-45-2nd, except that a large monochrome red bowl seems to have been broken in situ on the floor of 453rd. Finally, LG. 3 of Str. 6C-46 (TR. 20A:Table 2.251), the only one to contain any occupation debris from that structure, shows a good deal of fill admixture. Since at least some of the deposits from 6C-45 contain so many artifacts, they may be treated separately, in terms of the specific architectural developments with which they are associated. For the predecessor of Str. 6C-45-8th-C (here referred to as 45-9th), frequencies of major typological classes of vessels were not calculated. A personal communication from Culbert, however, indicates that the pottery does not differ significantly from that in LG. 2, 4b, and 8a, to be discussed shortly. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. Of the utilitarian artifacts, 89% could be related to food preparation. Included are 477 unmodified animal bone fragments and a mano fragment. Ash and charcoal in this deposit have already been mentioned. Three cores, a rectangular/oval biface (TR. 27B:16), 51 unused flakes, and 2 hammer stones suggest chert knapping. Four bone perforators, a stamp, and perhaps some of the other utilitarian artifacts may relate to textile and/or basketry work. Ceremonial items are few; they consist of two figurines and four censer fragments, not necessarily out of place in a

house (especially if the censers were actually braziers). The ornamental items consist of 3 shell tinklers, a shell adorno, and perhaps the 3 worked and 15 unworked shell remains currently in the problematical category. These, however, could be ceremonial items, garbage, waste from the production of objects of shell, or a combination of the three. That some are garbage is suggested by the fact that 13 of the 15 unworked shells are from freshwater and land species (TR. 27A:33). Therefore, the figures for ornamental, utilitarian and/or ceremonial items may be too low. Some of the problematical items, besides the shells, consist of unclassifiable fragments, but also included are an unclassifiable biface, a centrally perforated sherd, a perforated disc of bone, a bone tube, and two worked animal bone fragments. Some or all of these could be utilitarian, for example, the centrally perforated sherd a token, counter or gaming piece (TR. 27B:76), and the bone disc, perhaps used to fasten clothing (TR. 27B:60). Also included are 141 human bone fragments from two individuals, one an adult male. Other bones of the same individuals are included in LG. 4b (see above). Quite likely, these represent disturbed burials, redeposited as architectural developments of Str. 6C-45 were torn down and rebuilt. The trash from Str. 6C-45-5th (LG. 4b) does not differ greatly from that of 6C-45-9th. Culbert’s figures for a sample of 281 rims from Lots 32, 33, 35, 36, and 41 indicate frequencies as follows: 17% coarse jars, 7% small jars, 14% large bowls, and 62% small bowls. He has also informed me that there are not many complex and skillfully made designs on the incised pottery. Such pottery accounts for only 51 sherds in the current sample. Indeed, exterior decoration through appliqué, incision, grooving, punctation, or painting is seen on only 35% of the sample. Speaking generally of the polychrome Manik ceramics from Gp. 6C-1, most of which are from this and other lot groups of Str. 6C-45, Clemency Coggins (pers. comm., and 1975:213–214) notes that they differ significantly from those near ceremonial structures in Gp. 7F-1 (TR. 22). In the latter instances, ceremonial types (basal and medial-flanged tripod bowls) predominate, but in Gp. 6C-1, they are mixed with other not necessarily ceremonial polychromes. The percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

are given in Table 5.11. Food preparation is suggested by 78% of the utilitarian items, 68% of which are fragments of unmodified animal bone. Manos and metates (four of each) constitute 9% of the remainder. Again, ash and charcoal are present. Chert knapping is suggested by 11% of the utilitarian artifacts (4 cores, 66 unused flakes, and a hammer stone). A bone perforator, two point-retouched flakes, a stamp, and some other artifacts may indicate both textile and basketry work. Finally, the hammer stone, a celt, and an elongate biface could have been used in stonework (TR. 27B:45). The ceremonial component is once again indicated by a few figurines (two) and censers (four); the ornamental component by two tinklers, and perhaps two worked and eight unworked shells in the problematical category. Of the latter, though, none are from marine species, so the chances are good that they represent garbage (TR. 27A:33). Besides the shell and some unclassifiable artifact fragments, problematical items include the potentially utilitarian worked animal bones (four), unperforated sherd disks (two), and a sandstone nodule. There is also a bone tube, 3 worked human bone fragments, and 40 unworked human bones. The latter relate to the bones noted above, apparently from an older disturbed burial. Debris from Str. 6C-45-8th (LG. 2) is not so abundant, but is consistent with the material so far discussed. Of a sample of 73 rim sherds from Lots 40 and 43, 7% are from coarse jars, 12% from small jars, 19% from large bowls, and 62% from small bowls. Exterior decoration can be seen on 23% of the sample. Of the utilitarian artifacts, 66% may relate to food preparation. Half of these consist of unmodified animal bones. Ash and charcoal are also present. The other 33% of utilitarian items are unmodified flakes, presumably from chert knapping. The ceremonial component is represented by a figurine, the ornamental perhaps by an unworked shell in the problematical category. Four human bones, a worked bone, and an unclassifiable artifact account for the other problematical items. Generally, this impresses one as a diminutive version of the two lot groups just discussed. Lot Group 8a, from Str. 6C-45-6th and 7th, is not a good sample. Of 19 sherds, 21% are from coarse jars, 5% from small jars, 21% from large bowls, and 53% from small bowls. Sixteen percent show surface decoration. The artifacts (Table 5.11) consist only of three unmodified flakes and three human bones. From the above, there is no reason why Str. 6C-455th, 8th, and 9th could not have been houses, or domestic adjuncts. The range of artifacts, and their presence in good middens, strongly points in that direction. Given these indications for these architectural developments of 6C-45, the data for 3rd, 6th, and 7th, rare though they are, suggest the same for them.

81

As already noted, data for Str. 6C-46 are insufficient. Sherd material (not weighed) is not abundant, and much of it predates occupation of 46-1st, with which any trash in this deposit should be associated. Among the Ik and Imix sherds, there are only two rims, both from decorated vessels. Obviously, such a sample means little. If the sherds are mixed, so too must be the artifacts. Again, the sample is small. Percentages of utilitarian and other artifacts are given in Table 5.11. One figurine constitutes the ceremonial component, and an unclassifiable fragment the problematical. Of the utilitarian artifacts, 57% (four objects including a metate) are suitable for food preparation; a core and unused flake could be from chert knapping. In short, this collection really does no more than leave open the possibility that Str. 6C-46 was a house. GROUP 6C-2 For this group, potential occupation debris from Str. 6C-57 (the only structure excavated) should be included in LG. 2 (TR. 20A:Table 2.261). Yet, much, if not all, of this deposit is fill from structure collapse. The best approach, therefore, is to consider all fill material, on the assumption that it all derives from earlier trash deposits in Gp. 6C2. Fortunately, there is a strong likelihood that this is so. Hence, the material should afford clues to the use of Gp. 6C-2 as a whole, although not necessarily to Str. 6C-57. The sherds from Str. 6C-57 were not sorted into major typological classes, but both utilitarian and decorated vessels are represented. Of the artifacts (n=29), 62% are utilitarian, 28% are ceremonial, 3% are ornamental, and the remainder (a cut shell fragment and a human bone fragment) are problematical. The cut shell fragment could be ceremonial, garbage, or a by-product of shell working. Seven out of the eight ceremonial items are censer/brazier fragments. Of the utilitarian items, 89% are potentially indicative of food preparation. These include three mano and metate fragments, as well as six cut (butchered?) animal bones. Overall, there is nothing to rule out a domestic function. While the percentage of ceremonial objects is a bit on the high side (see Table 5.11), the objects are not out of place in a residential group. But, there certainly is no strong positive indication from the artifacts that Gp. 6C-2 was residential. GROUP 6C-5 Debris from occupation of this group is not abundant, and sherd frequencies are no greater than the 2.20 lbs per cubic meter recorded for LG. 1a of Str. 6C-63 (TR. 20A:Table 2.269). Yet, as Table 5.11 indicates, 58% of the artifacts (Str. 6C-63:LG. 1a,b, and Ch. 6C-6:LG. 1; TR. 20A:Table 2.269) are utilitarian, with the rest (ten human bone fragments), problematical. Of the utilitarian

82

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

artifacts, 57% are suggestive of food preparation. These include four unworked animal bones (possible garbage), but no mano or metate fragments. Thirty-six percent of the utilitarian artifacts are unused chert flakes, suggestive of some chert knapping. Potential occupation debris from Str. 6C-62 (Ch. 6C-7:LG. 1; TR. 20A:Table 2.269) consists of a single unworked animal bone fragment, which could be household garbage, and a few sherds. Just how the material in Ch. 6C-11 (other than PD. 231) relates to Gp. 6C-5 is not known for certain, but occupation trash from the group may account for the mano, two metates, prismatic blade, and cut-shell fragment in LG. 1, and 4a,c (TR. 20A:Table 2.269). Frequencies of major typological classes of pottery were not recorded for Gp. 6C-5. Obviously, all of this constitutes slim evidence by which to identify the function of these two structures. Yet, it is suggestive of a domestic function for Str. 6C-63, and, by extension, 6C-62. Failure to find evidence for the use of fire may be the result of poor preservation combined with the scantiness of the remains. STRUCTURE 6C-60 LOCUS For Str. 6C-60, an undisturbed small midden is known (TR. 20A:Table 2.283, LG. 2). Unfortunately, a functional analysis of the ceramics has not been done, and other artifacts are scant (three ovate bifaces, illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 5d1, and two used flakes). These are, however, utilitarian and have potential use for food preparation. The best that can be said is that the arrangement of debris relative to the structure suggests that it could have been a habitation, and the artifacts themselves are not inconsistent with this. Lack of evidence for fire may be the result of an inadequate and poorly preserved sample. Although refuse in association with Str. 6C-61 (TR. 20A:Table 2.283, LG. 2a,b) is not abundant, its distribution suggests household trash discarded from this structure (TR. 20A:Fig. 40). As in the case of 6C-60, a functional analysis of ceramics was not made, but the artifacts are 100% utilitarian and include a mano fragment, found by a corner of the structure (TR. 20A:Fig. 129:3), and several fragments of unworked animal bone, possible garbage. An unused chert flake and hammer stone may represent chert knapping. No evidence of the use of fire was found, but the unprotected nature of the remains, coupled with the small numbers of artifacts recovered, may account for this. GROUP 7C-1 The best deposits of occupation debris are LG. 2b and 3a from Str. 7C-4 (TR. 20A:Table 2.296). A high percentage of sherds from utilitarian pottery were recorded. Of the artifacts (Table 5.11), 44% (including a

metate) are potentially useful for food preparation, and 51% (a core and 19 unused flakes) suggest some chert knapping. A point-retouched flake, along with some used flakes and prismatic blades, could have been utilized for making clothes and baskets. The ceremonial component is represented by a single censer fragment. Of the problematical items, two pieces of worked animal bone may represent butchering, and an unclassifiable obsidian biface might have been utilitarian. Overall, this seems a reasonable assemblage of domestic tools (see TR. 27B:Fig. 67l for an illustration of a green obsidian thin biface from LG. 2b). Lot Group 3b (TR. 20A:Table 2.296) is the only source of material clearly referable to the occupation of Str. 7C-3, though a mano, metate, and barkbeater fragment (TR. 27B:Fig. 102g), with two prismatic blades from the fill of Str. 7C-4, could be trash from 7C-3-2nd. The sample is small, but includes items that may have to do with food preparation and chert knapping. Of the problematical items, an unworked marine shell might be ornamental, ceremonial, or (less likely) garbage, and a worked animal bone could be from butchering. In sum, the cultural material from Str. 7C-4 suggests a domestic function. Although relatively uninformative by itself, the material from 7C-3, taken in conjunction with that from 7C-4, is consistent with a domestic function. No evidence for the use of fire was found in association with either structure, but there was a piece of burned limestone in Ch. 7C-3 that may have come from the group. Overall, a domestic function seems reasonable. GROUP 7C-2 There is no adequate sample of occupation debris from the one structure (7C-7) excavated in this group. It is known to postdate other construction in Gp. 7C-2, however, so its fill quite probably was drawn from earlier trash from the group itself. It seems, therefore, worthwhile to consider the cultural material from the structure fill (TR. 20A:Table 2.304, LG. 1, 2, 3a,b). The ceramics were not sorted into major typological classes, but both utilitarian and decorated types are represented. Of the 16 artifacts, 88% are utilitarian and 6% (a stone bead) ornamental. An unclassifiable artifact is problematical. Utilitarian items include seven prismatic blades, a thin biface and a mano, used or potentially useful for food preparation, and an unworked animal bone. Along with the artifacts, two burned limestone fragments came from the fill. These afford indirect evidence for the use of fire. Objects from fill of Plat. 7C-2 (including a thin biface illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 42h), though of limited worth, are 100% utilitarian (there are only four items). In short, the artifacts suggest, without proving, that Gp. 7C-2 was a domestic group.

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

STRUCTURE 7C-62 Cultural material associated with this structure is abundant, and comes from midden-like deposits (TR. 20A:Table 2.310, LG. 3, 4a–c). In addition to these, all other lot groups also seem to contain occupation debris that has been trampled into the occupation surfaces outside and inside the structure. Although ash and charcoal are not noticeable in the deposits, this may be explained by the lack of protection afforded from the elements, given the absence of substantial architecture or great depth of the deposits. There is, however, one fire-spalled chert flake that suggests use of fire. For a list of artifacts illustrated in TR. 27B, see Table 5.8.

Two samples of sherds were sorted by Culbert into major typological classes for Manik ceramics. These are from 39F Lots 7 and 8, which represent LG. 4a and 3, respectively. For Lot 7, the percentages are 11% coarse jars, 16% small jars, 39% large bowls, and 35% small bowls. For Lot 8, the percentages are 15% coarse jars, 10% small jars, 31% large bowls, and 34% small bowls. These figures are not seriously out of line with comparable totals for Manik ceramics from Str. 6C-45 already discussed (Gp. 6C-1). The main differences are that large bowls are more abundant and small bowls less so. There are no data on frequencies of decorated sherds. Frequencies of artifact components are given in Table 5.11. As can be seen, utilitarian types are well represented. Of these, 82% are potentially useful in food preparation. These include three mano and metate fragments, one of which appears to have been trampled into the structure floor. Over 100 unworked animal bones, probably garbage, are also included. To these, three worked fragments, presently included in the problematical category, might be added, for they could be the result of butchering. Six unidentifiable bone fragments, also in the problematical category, could also be garbage.

83

The remainder of the utilitarian artifacts includes 25 unused chert flakes, a nodule and 2 hammer stones, which combine to suggest that some chert knapping took place here. Eight beveled-end bones, presently included in the problematical category, were probably special-purpose, heavy-duty tools (TR. 27B:61), perhaps used to work some soft material such as animal hides, textiles, or wet clay. In addition to the various utilitarian artifacts, the ornamental component is represented by such objects of personal adornment as an earplug, a shell tinkler, and two shell pendants. Also three pieces of unworked shell, presently considered problematical, could have been used for personal adornment (there is no evidence for shell working). The same may be true for some bone fragments. The ceremonial component is represented by several censer fragments, a figurine fragment, and two apparent monument fragments (MS. 79 and 136). Only the monument fragments seem out of place in a domestic context. A possible explanation for their presence might be that monument carving took place here. This does not seem likely, however, in the absence of a single greenstone celt, even though some other possible “tools of the trade,” two elongate bifaces and some hammer stones, are present (TR. 19:178 and Haviland 1974). Some of the problematical items have already been discussed, as possible utilitarian and ornamental objects. To those already mentioned, two unclassifiable bifaces and an unclassifiable fragment of a pecked-and-ground artifact may be added as probable utilitarian items. Eighty-four unworked human bone fragments could represent disturbed burials or household items of special significance. Two worked human bones could represent tools made from such bones. A bone rasp and a piece of unworked slate are the two remaining items. The overall picture, therefore, seems strongly suggestive of a domestic situation. There is nothing to indicate any other obvious function for Str. 7C-62. GROUP 6B-3 The artifact sample from this locality is small, and comes exclusively from the pit labeled Ch. 6B-1. It is therefore of minimal use in trying to assess the function of any structure in the group. Most abundant are censer fragments, but there are utilitarian items including a metate fragment. GROUP 6E-1 In Gp. 6E-1, extensive excavations produced abundant cultural material (see Table 5.9 for a list of selected artifacts illustrated in TR. 27B). Consequently, there are a number of sources of occupation material that may be discussed, starting with the earliest such deposit. This is

84

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Plat. 6E-1:LG. 1b (TR. 20A:Table 2.320), which should relate to some unknown structure in use in Gp. TS. 26. The sherds were not weighed, but their sheer abundance suggests a very old midden. Culbert has not done a functional analysis of the sherds, but as Table 5.11 indicates, the other artifacts are almost all utilitarian. Of these, 26% are potentially of use in food preparation, including a metate. The sole ceremonial object is a figurine, and the problematical object is an unworked freshwater shell, possibly either garbage (TR. 27A:33) or (less likely) intended for personal adornment. While not conclusive, all of this suggests a domestic situation. Lot Group 4b is a somewhat younger midden, which eventually was incorporated into fill for Plat. 6E-1 (TR. 20A:Table 2.320). It should pertain to Str. 6E-Sub.3 or Str. 6E-Sub.1 (or both). Unweighed sherds were especially abundant, but were not analyzed by Culbert for functional possibilities. My own subjective impression is that they do not differ significantly from the Manik ceramics of Gp. 6C-1. Once again, the other artifacts are overwhelmingly utilitarian (Table 5.11) with 61% suggestive of food preparation. These include no less than 12 mano and metate fragments and 25 unworked animal bones (37 out of the 58 objects). Two stamps, an antler perforator (TR. 27B:Fig. 126f), and some of the prismatic blades could have been used in the production of clothing. A

chert core, 27 unused flakes, and 2 hammer stones may indicate some chert knapping. An alternative purpose for the antler “perforator” may have been for pressure flaking (TR. 27B:61). The ceremonial component is represented solely by four figurine fragments, which could be household objects (or even pot-lid handles and the like). The problematical items are a piece of worked shell, possibly garbage, a ceremonial object or a piece of an item of personal adornment, and a human bone scrap. The latter could have been for tool manufacture, or from a disturbed burial. In short, the data strongly suggest a domestic situation. In Gp. TS. 16, a midden began to accumulate off the end of the newly constructed Str. 6E-26-4th. This refuse continued to accumulate with minimal disturbance as subsequent versions of 26 were built and used (TR. 20A:Table 2.320; LG. 2a–d,f). Unfortunately, with one exception, the sherds were not weighed, but this concentration of sherds was the equal of any seen in four seasons of small-structure excavation at Tikal (and see TR. 20A:Fig. 181d). The one exception is 68G Lot 5, from LG. 2b, with 46.13 lbs of sherds per cubic meter. Other artifacts are also numerous. Hence, we have here an excellent sample of material reflecting use of Str. 6E-26 from Gp. TS. 16 through 2. On stratigraphic grounds, it is possible to consider this midden in three parts. The earliest consists of LG. 2a,

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

associated with 26-4th. The pottery has not been sorted into major typological classes, and the artifacts are few in number (Table 5.11) compared with later samples. Given this, plus the absence of any artifact types not duplicated in later portions of the midden, there is no reason to dwell at length on them. They suggest that the use of 26-4th was the same as that of later versions of the same structure. Lot Group 2b is from the part of the midden associated with 26-3rd. The pottery was not sorted into major typological classes, but no noticeable difference was detected from LG. 2C, to be discussed shortly, when the excavation of this midden was in progress. The frequency of utilitarian artifacts (Table 5.11) is consistent with a domestic situation, and 73% of these artifacts suggest food preparation. These include fragments of two manos, a metate, what could be a corn husker (TR. 27B:Fig. 121a), and several unworked animal bones. A flake core, an unused flake, and five hammer stones suggest some chert knapping. The high frequency of ceremonial items might seem incompatible with a domestic situation, but the objects include several figurine and two censer or brazier fragments, none out of place in household refuse. In particular, as here, figurine fragments were quite common in domestic debris from Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19:Table 117). Problematical items consisted of an unperforated worked sherd, an unworked shell, and an unclassifiable pecked and ground artifact. The first is a possible token, counter, or gaming piece (TR. 27B:78), the second could be garbage, a ceremonial object or an ornament; the latter could be utilitarian. The other lot groups from the 6E-26 midden are a mixture of debris associated with 26-3rd through 1st. Not all sherds were sorted into major typological classes, but this was done for a sample from LG. 2C (Table 5.10). The table shows frequencies for utilitarian classes that are compatible with those for other probable domestic structures. As shown in Table 5.11, the utilitarian component is well represented among the artifacts (note, too, that the frequencies for 26-3rd and 4th are reasonably consistent with this figure). Of the utilitarian objects, 69% suggest food preparation. These include fragments of 7 manos, 9 metates, and 15 unworked animal bones. Four spindle whorls, four point-retouched flakes, some of the flakes and prismatic blades, and perhaps the barkbeater suggest the production of cloth and clothing. A flake core, a nodule, 4 hammer stones, and 24 unused flakes suggest some chert knapping. The ornamental component is represented by four objects: a jade pendant, a shell peg, and two shell tinklers. All probably relate to items of personal adornment. Ceremonial items, as before, consist of abundant figurine fragments, a few censer fragments, and a single leaf-shaped, thin chert biface (the last is actually problematical as a

85

ceremonial item). In spite of the high frequency of the ceremonial component, all items but one are typical of a domestic context. The latter could have been made for use elsewhere. Included as problematic are two miniature vessels (probably ornamental or ceremonial); two unworked and a miscellaneous worked shell (pieces of ornament, ceremonial objects or garbage); nine pieces of miscellaneous worked animal bone (possible garbage); and more than three pieces of unworked human bone (possibly from a disturbed burial or tool manufacture). Other problematical items, aside from unclassifiable fragments, are one perforated and one unperforated worked sherds. These probably were tokens, counters, or gaming pieces (TR. 27B:75, 76). To sum up, evidence from artifacts seems strongly to indicate a residential function for Str. 6E-26 in all its forms. The only things lacking are ash, charcoal (or both), but their absence may be a matter of preservation. Structure 6E-25 was in use along with 6E-26, and potential occupation material should be included in Str. 6E-25:LG. 2a,b (TR. 20A:Table 2.320). Unfortunately, these include fill as well. To add to the problem, the ceramics have not been sorted into typological classes. Finally, all of three artifacts are included in both of these lot groups: two used chert flakes and an unused flake. Although such a small sample surely does not prove anything about function, its utilitarian nature is of interest in view of the data already presented. The sample of material from Str. 6E-162 is scarcely better (TR. 20A:Table 2.320, LG. 1 and 2). In this case, though, the arrangement of the material is of particular significance. Apparently, a single metate was left on the floor of the structure, where it was broken (TR. 20A:Fig. 149[27]; 181c). Of the three remaining objects, two (another metate and some kind of biface) suggest food preparation. In the problematical category (Table 5.11) is a worked bone fragment, which could be the result of butchering. In addition to all this, charcoal was very much in evidence around the structure, testifying to the use of fire. The amount was not sufficient to suggest that the structure itself burned down. Although the ceramics were not sorted into major typological classes, altogether the material from Str. 6E-162 gives reasonable evidence for the preparation of food in that structure. Occupation debris from Str. 6E-163 should be included in LG. 2 of that structure (TR. 20A:Table 2.320). Unfortunately, fill contamination is once again a problem, nor have the sherds been sorted into major typological classes. The artifacts are utilitarian in nature (Table 5.11), but more of them seem suggestive of chert knapping (one core, twelve unused flakes) than food preparation (one ovate biface). This seems strange, given the close similarity of the structure to 6E-162. Hence, the inclination is to

86

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

87

88

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

think that almost all of these objects, along with the problematical object (a piece of slate) are from fill. Therefore, they afford no sure clue to the function of this structure. To sum up this discussion of sherds and artifacts from Gp. 6E-1, Str. 6E-26-1st through 3rd were almost surely houses. The associated Str. 6E-162 almost surely was a domestic adjunct. The material from 26-4th is sufficiently like the later material to indicate that it, too, was probably a house. Samples from Str. 6E-25 and 163 are inadequate, but do not point to a different function from 26 and 162. Given these conclusions, the material from Str. 6E-Sub.1 and 3 almost surely suggests that these were either houses or domestic adjuncts. Moreover, the earliest material from the group is sufficiently like this to suggest that Gp. 6E-1 was built in Preclassic times as a domestic compound. In short, continuity of function seems indicated from beginning to end by the artifacts. STRUCTURE 6F-62 LOCUS For this structure, there is no good source of occupation material. No middens were excavated, or even located, and the scattering of trash in Plat. 6F-1:LG. 2a–c (TR. 20A:Table 2.343) contains only one artifact, a point-retouched flake (TR. 27B:Fig. 55p). Sherds were not sorted into major typological classes, nor were they abundant (the greatest concentration is 3.18 lbs per square meter in LG. 3c). Clearly, more than test excavations are required to produce cultural material useful for a functional assessment. Although material with Str. 6F-62 leaves much to be desired for present purposes, LG. 1a–c from Ch. 6F-3 (TR. 20A:Table 2.343) are worth discussion. This is because the material comes from a midden that was perhaps associated with a Preclassic structure built at this locus. Sherd frequencies here reach concentrations of 66.93 lbs per cubic meter. Culbert has not carried out a functional analysis of the ceramics, but of 56 artifacts, 86% are utilitarian, and the rest are problematical. In the latter category is an unperforated shaped sherd and some unworked, unidentifiable bone fragments. The former is an expedient artifact, whereas some of the latter could be garbage, for 15 unworked animal bones are included in the deposit. Or they could be human bone fragments, for, in addition to the 56 artifacts, there were an unspecified number of human bone fragments near the floor of Chm. 2. The human bones could be from a disturbed burial, could have been for production of bone tools, or could have been household items of special significance. Of 48 utilitarian items, 52% suggest food preparation. These include fragments of a mano and metate, as well as the animal bone fragments already mentioned. A piece of fire-spalled chert gives indirect testimony to the use of fire. Five cores, 10 unused flakes, and 4 nodules suggest chert knapping.

89

GROUP 7F-2 Occupation litter associated with the mapped structures of Gp. 7F-2 is assumed to be the source of material in LG. 1 and 2 of Ch. 7F-9 (TR. 20A:Table 2.351), though final proof of this is not available. Sherds are both abundant (41.31 lbs per cubic meter) and widely scattered. Unfortunately, they were not sorted into functional categories. Artifacts are not nearly so abundant, but are overwhelmingly utilitarian (Table 5.11). The only non-utilitarian item is a figurine, a probable household item nonetheless. Of the utilitarian items, a thin biface and a used flake (33%) are of potential use for food preparation, although there are no manos nor metates. Nor is there evidence of cooking fires, but this is not surprising in a collection that comes from an area 22 m from the nearest mapped structure. The other 67% of the utilitarian items are suggestive of chert knapping (a core, two nodules, and an unused flake). Also of interest are LG. 3 of Ch. 7F-2 and 1 of Plat. 7F-4 (TR. 20A:Table 2.351). Presumably, this derives mostly from occupation debris associated with Str. 7F-89 and 90. The sherds in the chultun are particularly suggestive of redeposited midden material. Of the 32 artifacts (one is illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 55v), 91% are utilitarian, 6% are ceremonial (1 figurine, 1 censer), and the remainder problematical (1 unclassifiable biface). Of the utilitarian items, 35% are suggestive of food preparation. Included are two bone fragments and two manos and a metate. Another 42%, including a core, nodule, and 11 unused flakes, are suggestive of chert knapping. Overall the collections strongly suggest that Gp. 7F-2 may have been domestic, even though they do not prove it. They do not, however, suggest any other obvious function for the group. GROUP 7G-1 The bulk of the sherds and artifacts from this setting undoubtedly come from fill (TR. 20A:Table 2.363). It is unlikely, though, that any of this was brought in from elsewhere. Rather, it probably derives from various occupations of the group itself. This being so, it is worth lumping this material together for consideration. The ceramics were not sorted into functional categories, but utilitarian types are present. They are reasonably abundant, including some midden-like deposits in Ch. 7G-4. Of 43 artifacts, 88% are utilitarian, 5% (a figurine and a censer) are ceremonial, and the rest (including a scarcely altered shell) are problematical. Of the utilitarian artifacts (two are illustrated in TR. 27B:Fig. 41k and 70e1), 89% suggest food preparation. These include 2 metates, 20 unworked bones and 3 cut (butchered?) bones. A nodule and an unused flake hint at some chert knapping. The nodule was burned, indirect evidence for the use of fire.

90

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

CONCLUSIONS From the discussion thus far, it is possible to sort the small-structure groups into the four categories that are listed in Table 5.12. Those that almost surely were domestic seem reasonably to meet all five criteria stated earlier. Although functional analysis of ceramics was not undertaken in some instances (Str. 2G-61 locus, Str. 5C-56 locus, Gp. 5F-1, Gp. 5F-2), the overall situations are such that their inclusion here seems justified. Those in the second category meet at least three, and often four, of the criteria. Those in the third meet at least two, while those in the fourth category are placed there on the basis of insufficient data. From the negative standpoint, there is nothing in any of the collections reviewed here to suggest that any of these small-structure groups were other than domestic in nature. To the degree that non-artifactual similarities exist between the small-structure groups of category two, and especially categories three and four, on the one hand, and those of category one on the other, then they most probably were residential. At this point, a word of warning is in order. To state that a group of structures is residential in nature is not to state that all structures included were necessarily houses. For example, Gp. 4F-1 and 2 were identified as residential, but not all structures in those two groups were houses (TR. 19:184). This particular point will be dealt with in the final section of this report, for a final structure-by-structure assessment must rest on more than ar-

tifacts alone. It is raised here, however, to discourage premature conclusions. At the start of this section, the assumption was made that, unless there are clear indications to the contrary, a small-structure group used for residential purposes in Late Classic times was constructed originally for such purposes. By way of example, the case of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 has already been cited. The consideration of evidence suggests that the case of Gp. 2G-1, and especially 6E-1 and Str. 5C-56 and 57, can now be added as further support. In all three instances, there are fairly good deposits of both early and late occupation debris, which show consistency with one another. Hence, not only do the sherds and artifacts rule out any apparent change of function, they give positive evidence for continuity of function. From a negative standpoint, there is no evidence for change of function for any group discussed here although, as will be noted, the function of specific structures in them may occasionally have changed.

3. Discussion Introduction The preceding group-by-group review of sherds and artifacts supports the hypothesis that all of these groups served a domestic function. This, however, is more certain in the case of some groups than others. It is the purpose of

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

this section to discuss further the artifactual material in the light of this provisional conclusion, and to see what else these artifacts may indicate about the occupants of these groups. To this end, Tables 5.13–5.17 have been prepared. These give the numbers of classifiable artifacts for each group, giving first the number from all occupation contexts, followed by the total from all contexts (undisturbed occupation debris plus fill). The groups are arranged in each table according to the four categories of Table 5.12. There has been no attempt to subdivide Tables 5.13– 5.17 according to blocks of time as was done, for example, with the burials. This is due to the well-known conservatism of the ancient Maya where artifacts are involved. This means that basic artifact types, with only a few exceptions, are present at Tikal from Preclassic through Late Classic times, although the varieties of these types did change over time (see TR. 27A:7–16). There is, though, more specific evidence that such lumping of artifacts is warranted. In Table 5.18 are listed items from the Preclassic sources of occupation debris where artifacts were most abundant. As can be seen by a comparison of this with Tables 5.13–5.17, there is little difference from later deposits (see Gp. 5F-2, 6C-1, and Str. 7C-62 for Early Classic, and Gp. 2G-1, 2G-2, 3F-2, and 4F-3 for Intermediate to Late Classic deposits). There is no artifact type listed in Table 5.18 that does not appear in some later collection somewhere, excepting the minor sculpture. Moreover, the common types remain common through Late Classic times. There are other similarities between early and late collections that will be revisited as the discussion proceeds.

Basic Domestic Artifacts If the small-structure groups under discussion here were residential in nature, then it should be possible to identify a basic inventory of domestic artifacts—those considered essential in any residential group. The best way to go about this is to consider only the collections from those groups that almost surely were domestic (and for this discussion, I shall consider Gp. 4F-1 and 2 to belong in this category). Besides being probable domestic groups, these are the sources of the most adequate samples. Tables 5.13–5.16, with Tables 117, 119, 120, 122, 123 in TR. 19, indicate that nine artifact types are virtually always present: figurines (absent only from Str. 2G-61 and 62), cores (absent only from Str. 7C-62), ovate bifaces, irregularly retouched flakes (absent only from Gp. 3F-2), prismatic blades, used and unused flakes, and manos and metates (absent only from Gp. 4E-1). The absence of figurines from Str. 2G-61 and 62 is easily explained, for figurine production seems to have ceased by the time Str. 2G-61 was built (though note the surprising presence of a few figurines in Early Classic debris from Str. 6C-45 and

91

7C-62. Some of these could be heirlooms; some could be modeled pot lid handles). There are, however, three figurine fragments in the fill of Str. 2G-61, so perhaps the occupants of Str. 2G-62 possessed a few. The other absences can also be explained: unused flakes from Str. 7C62 suggest that some chert knapping took place here, and that cores would be found given a larger sample. Likewise, a sampling problem may account for the lack of irregularly retouched flakes from Gp. 3F-2; they were at least present in fill samples. At any rate, such flakes might perhaps be thought of as special kinds of used flakes, which certainly were present in this group. The absence of metates from occupation debris in Gp. 4E-1 surely is the result of small samples of such material. Since manos evidently were used there, metates must have been as well. The types mentioned above seem to constitute the basic domestic artifact inventory (Fig. 3a–f). To these should probably be added elongate bifaces, which occur in small numbers in occupation debris in all but one instance, and this exception is Gp. 4E-1. Since indications are that only small numbers of such implements were necessary in a domestic group, and since samples from Gp. 4E-1 were small, absence from collections there probably is not significant. Perhaps worth noting is that mano and metate fragments never occur in large numbers. This suggests that they were valued items that were not casually discarded. In some modern Maya communities, they last a long time and may be inherited by daughters from their mothers (TR. 19:99). Jar necks recycled to serve as stands for globular vessels may also belong in the basic category (see Fig. 2 and discussion of Gp. 4E-2 artifacts). Unfortunately, this possibility was not recognized until recent years, so counts were not made of jar necks in artifact collections (sometimes it takes years to recognize the obvious). Our impression is that whole or fragmentary examples were present in debris from virtually all groups. This brings the total of basic domestic artifacts to eleven. A glance at Table 5.18 shows that this basic inventory apparently goes well back into the Preclassic period, for when samples are sufficient, all ten or eleven artifact types are present. The exception is the previously noted absence of figurines around Str. 2G-61. Absence of metates near Str. 5F-Sub.1 is meaningless, given the presence of manos. Note that all the other types are present in this deposit, which accumulated between 600 BC and 1 BC. In addition to the basic domestic artifact inventory, there are a number of other items that are frequently present, usually in small numbers only (Fig. 4a–f). This suggests that, while not essential, they were desirable and useful items to have available in domestic groups. These include censers (Fig. 4a; present in 8 out of 14 instances; 10 out of 14 if candeleros were personal censers); centrally

92

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

93

94

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

95

96

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

97

98

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

99

100

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

101

102

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

103

104

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

105

106

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

107

108

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

109

110

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

112

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

perforated sherds (Fig. 4b; 7 out of 14;); thin bifaces (Fig. 4c; 10 out of 14); point-retouched flakes (Fig. 4d; 9 out of 14); hammer stones (Fig. 4e; 11 out of 14); and rubbing stones (Fig. 4f; 10 out of 14). All other artifact types are quite sporadic in their occurrences. Again, a glance at Table 5.18 indicates that these common artifact types (probably excepting thin bifaces, which are rare prior to Early Classic times; TR. 27B:18) were desirable and useful in Preclassic, not just Classic times. Of the eleven basic artifact types, six are the cutting, chopping and grinding tools referred to in the introduction to this chapter, and a seventh (elongate biface) is a pick-like implement. An eighth is an apparent household ceremonial type (TR. 19:166), which has a modern counterpart in the household belongings of some modern Maya peoples (Thompson 1958:136). The three other types will be dealt with below. Of the six common artifact types, one is useful for cutting, one for pounding, one for perforating and drilling, and one for smoothing. Censers presumably were ceremonial and, like the basic ceremonial type (figurines), censers have their uses in some Maya communities today in household ceremonial activity. On the other hand, as I have suggested in the preceding section, some or even all of these objects could have served as braziers. The remaining types were all made by reworking sherds. Though two are placed in the problematical category, they may have served as tokens, counters, or gaming pieces, as may smaller round or oval sherds (TR. 27B:77, 78). Jar necks, as previously noted, are thought to have served as pot stands. All worked sherds represent an expedient industry (TR. 27B:75) and seem “at home” in domestic contexts. Unlike the expediently produced worked sherd objects, most thin bifaces were imports. About 64% of chert bifaces were made of various fine-textured stones not found at Tikal (TR. 27B:17). Evidently all obsidian examples arrived as imports, most of them directly or ultimately from central Mexico (TR. 27B:29). If local production had been common, thin bifaces might have fallen into the basic, rather than common, household inventory. Two of the basic, and one of the common, artifact types suggest that chert knapping, no matter how sporadic, took place in all domestic groups. These are flake cores, unused flakes, and hammer stones. Of these, unused flakes, probable chipping waste, seem to be the best evidence, since hammer stones may have had many uses, and flake cores may have been procured elsewhere as potential hammer stones. But, the combination of all three, sometimes in combination with raw nodules, seems most convincing. The combination of all four occurs in occupation debris from Gp. 3F-2, 4F-1, 4F-2, 5F-1, 6E-1, and the locus of Str. 6C-56. All but the first of these groups produced some of the most abundant known trash de-

posits; comparable samples elsewhere might produce nodules. Conversely, in some groups chert knapping may have been so sporadic that evidence for it is lacking. Suffice it to say that all small-structure groups from which artifacts have been collected, excepting three, produced some evidence for chert knapping, at least in the form of unused flakes (see also TR. 19:168, 177–178). The artifact samples from the three exceptions, Gp. 6B-3, 6C-2, and 7C-2, were among the poorest in numbers, and so they are of little worth. The subject of chert knapping will be revisited below. It is perhaps surprising that neither the basic domestic tool inventory nor those artifacts commonly present in domestic groups give clear evidence for the manufacture of textiles. It is true that some of the prismatic blades and flakes may have been used in this connection, as may point-retouched flakes and perhaps some presently unclassifiable bone tools. Spindle whorls, however, are rare; they are known from occupation debris from only four groups, and are present in the fills of but two others. One possibility is that spindle whorls virtually never wore out, and so rarely found their way into trash deposits. More likely, everyday whorls may have been made of wood, as are present-day whorls (TR. 27B:46). But stamps, which could have been used to decorate cloth, are also known from only three groups. Barkbeater fragments (useful for papermaking as well as the production of bark cloth) are likewise rare. Perhaps the answer to this seeming paradox is that the manufacture of certain kinds of cloth was a specialized occupation. We shall return to this possibility later. The inclusion of figurines and censers in the basic and common categories calls attention to the subject of household ritual. Related to this are the entoptic designs noted on various objects of pottery (see Fig. 5a–c and TR. 27B:Fig. 132d and 137j). These may be the proverbial “tip of the iceberg,” as there has been no systematic examination of pottery sherds, be they worked or unworked, for such designs. We simply do not know how common they may have been (Haviland and Haviland 1995:307). The significance of entoptics is that they are products of altered states of consciousness, and a number of peoples in the Americas and elsewhere are known to have depicted the vision experiences in states of trance on their pottery and other media. We know from graffiti on the walls of temples and palaces of Tikal that trancing was practiced by the elite of the city (Haviland and Haviland 1995). It may be that ordinary householders did so as well. Before leaving the subject of basic and common artifacts, it is worth mentioning the frequent presence of a specific material, bone, in occupation debris (7 out of 14 cases in groups that were almost surely domestic). Some of this material is worked, and some is unworked, so a single artifact type is not involved. Indeed, there is no known

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

basic or common artifact of bone. It does appear, though, that human bones, whole or fragmentary, worked or unworked, not infrequently were included in domestic possessions. Since some are worked, it may be that such material was valued for the making of bone tools. This would be particularly likely if large animal bones were in short supply. Human bones may have been procured from disturbed burials (cf. PD. 64), or from recently deceased individuals just prior to burial. Another possibility is that human bones were sometimes retained as relics of special significance, but this seems less likely in view of known worked bones and the presence of fragments in ordinary habitation debris.

Artifact Variation Aside from the regularities just discussed, Tables 5.13–5.17 show that there is considerable variation in numbers of specific artifact types from one group to another. Some, but by no means all, of this is attributable to differing sample sizes. In addition, there are a number of artifact types that do not belong in the basic or common categories, which occasionally appear in the collections in various combinations. Such variation might be explained as a reflection of occupational specialization, social stratification, individual variance, or a combination of all three. OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALIZATION Tikal Report 19 (pp. 177–178, 184) suggests that the residents of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 were artisans employed in a variety of specialist occupations including obsidian working, some special chert working, figurine production, and possibly monument carving and shell working. The present artifact collections tend to support the idea that these were specialist activities, and that the occupants of the groups under discussion here, with few exceptions, did not participate in them. Clear evidence (PD. 217) for obsidian working was noted for Gp. 4F-2, but not 4F-1. Evidence for such activity consisted of large quantities of prismatic blades, along with core fragments, unused flakes, and artifacts (such as eccentrics) produced for use elsewhere. Prismatic blades by themselves are not good evidence, for they were evidently regarded as essential tools for all households. Of the groups under discussion, none give evidence of obsidian artifacts produced to be used elsewhere, nor did any produce a quantity of prismatic blades comparable to that known for Gp. 4F-2. Table 5.19 presents data for those groups that are the only possible candidates for ones in which obsidian working took place. Not only are such groups few in number, even allowing for this the evidence is still not convincing. There are no flakes or prismatic blades from Gp. 3D-3, and the core is a fill

113

item that could have been brought in from elsewhere. The flakes from Gp. 3F-2, 4E-1, 4F-3, 5B-2, 5D-1, 6C-1, 6C-2, and 6E-1 could merely be chips broken from artifacts in use, or those in the fill could be from some other primary source. The cores from Gp. 2G-2, 4F-3, and 5D-1 are fill items, and their point of origin is not certainly known, particularly for Gp. 5D-1. Another possibility is that cores, since they are objects of exotic material, were valued for their looks, such as some people today value glass insulators from telephone lines. Furthermore, cores may have had other secondary uses, for many look worn (TR. 27B:32). This could explain the cores in the groups just noted, as well as in Gp. 3D-9, 6E-1, and the locus of Str. 6C-60. Indeed, the only real possibilities for obsidian working seem to be the locus of Str. 5C-56 (but where are the cores and abundant prismatic blades?) and Gp. 6E-1, but even they do not resemble Gp. 4F-2. The most one can say is that there may have been some sporadic obsidian working in only two of the groups that form the subject of this report. As already noted, it is quite possible that some chert working, however sporadic, took place in all residential groups. Some people, however, seem to have specialized in chert working over and beyond this. Of the present groups, only Str. 2G-61 gives evidence of such specialization, but a word of warning is in order here. Comparisons are difficult for, as repeatedly noted, a few groups have been more extensively excavated, and occupation debris was more abundant in some groups. Hence, large numbers of chert-knapping artifacts from one group and small numbers from another need mean only that one group was more extensively excavated, or that workshop debris was found in one group but missed in another. Similarly, percentages may be grossly misleading, in view of wide differences of sample size and extent of excavation. Keeping these problems in mind, it appears that chert-knapping debris was less abundant in most of these groups than it was in Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 (TR. 19:168). It was most abundant around Str. 2G-61 (82% of the utilitarian artifacts from a very large sample). In raw numbers, the 347 items compare with a low of 62 (from Str. 4F-14) and a high of 1,015 (from Str. 4F-10) for Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Although later milpa burning confuses the issue, perhaps some or all of the abundant fire-spalled chert from Str. 2G-61 is the result of heat treatment to aid in the knapping. At any rate, I doubt that any structure other than 2G-61 was the scene of specialized chert work. Note that this implies occupational specialization may have been underway in Preclassic times. As Table 5.18 shows, none of the other Preclassic groups begin to approach the number of unused flakes seen around Str. 2G-61. Figurine manufacture in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 was suggested by the great number and diversity of the figurines

114

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

found, as well as the discovery of two identifiable figurine molds (TR. 19:165, 178). None of the present groups produced such molds nor did any produce the quantity and diversity seen in the figurines of Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Group 6E-1 comes closest, but the total of 136 from all sources is a far cry from the 257 in occupation debris alone for Gp. 4F-1. Group 4F-2 produced 130 from occupation debris, but a total of 223 from all sources. Since Gp. 6E-1 was fairly extensively excavated, including a large and rich midden, the numerical comparisons seem valid. In short, it appears more convincing that figurines were made by occupational specialists, some of whom lived in Gp. 4F-1 and perhaps 4F-2. Although a few certain and possible monument fragments are included in the artifact collections from the present groups, none produced an overall inventory of artifacts comparable to that from Str. 4F-3 in Gp. 4F-1 (Haviland 1974 and TR. 19:175). Hence, that structure remains the only one known in which monument carving might have taken place. The unusual number of celts from Gp. 2G-2 might indicate that some other specialized occupation, requiring the use of tough chisels, took place there. Possible shell working in Gp. 4F-1, if not 4F-2, was suggested by the presence of substantial quantities of worked shell, cut fragments, and unworked shells (TR. 19:175–176). Any of these, by themselves, are not convincing evidence; worked shells could be objects procured elsewhere, some cut shells could be garbage or fragments of larger objects, and unworked shells could be garbage (especially land and freshwater species; TR. 27A:33), or objects of special significance (marine shells in particular), even though unworked. Of the present groups, the only ones in which shell working could possibly have taken place are Gp. 5F-1, 6C-1, 6E-1, and Str. 5C-56 and 7C-62. Of these, Gp. 6C-1 comes closest to a really convincing case, for here almost all the material was associated with Str. 6C-45. The only problem is that most, if not all, of the unmodified shells are from land or freshwater species, probable food refuse. For Gp. 5F-1 and the loci of Str. 5C-56 and 7C-62, the material is mostly probable food refuse or ornaments. The totals from occupation debris and all sources in Gp. 6E-1 are low, when the extent of excavations, especially of middens, is considered. On the other hand, a number of shells are of marine origin. It is less likely that marine species served as food at Tikal than freshwater or land species (TR. 27B:33). Perhaps in one of the earlier group time spans, some occupants of Gp. 6E-1 carried out specialized shell working. Shell working was later discontinued and, with time, the waste material was widely distributed in the group spatially and temporally as trash deposits were used and reused over time as construction fill. In any event, shell working does not seem to have been regularly

115

practiced in domestic groups, any more than does obsidian work or figurine manufacture. As already noted, it does not appear that fancy textile manufacture took place in many domestic groups. Stone or terracotta spindle whorls occur only in occupation debris from Gp. 2G-2 and 6E-1. The latter group also produced two stamps, of potential use for decorating cloth, and a barkbeater. This may have been useful for making bark cloth and not just paper (TR. 27B:45). Indeed, if barkbeaters from all sources are considered, there appears to be a tendency for association with spindle whorls. Two of the four found are from groups that produced spindle whorls. Groups 4F-1 and 2, which also produced barkbeaters, also produced spindle whorls. Hence the association holds for four out of six cases. Since neither artifact type is common, this frequent association may not be coincidental. Groups 4F-2 and 6E-1 produced stamps along with the barkbeaters and spindle whorls; Gp. 6C-1 produced stamps but no spindle whorls nor barkbeaters. None of this necessarily means that few households were involved in cloth manufacture. For one thing, wooden spindle whorls may have sufficed in most households for spinning thread. Conversely, it does at least suggest, without proving, that a few households did more in the way of textile work than most other households. Consequently, the situation may be analogous to chert knapping; perhaps some textile work took place in all households, but a few households specialized in it. In this category would be Gp. 4F-1, 2, 6E-1, and perhaps 2G-2. Also possibly included in this category are the locus of Str. 5C-56 and Gp. 3F-2. These, though, represent the only apparent possibilities among the groups discussed here or in TR. 19. To sum up the discussion to this point, the artifacts from Gp. 4F-1, 2, and those considered in this report suggest that obsidian working, figurine manufacture, monument carving, shell working, some chert working and perhaps textile production were specialized occupations. This surely does not exhaust the list of specialized occupations at Tikal, as evidence from other excavations than those reported here makes clear. The occupants of those groups considered in this report generally were not involved in any of these occupations, with those exceptions listed in Table 5.20. This being so, it is evident that not all artifact variation under discussion can be explained as a reflection of occupational differences. Another possibility is that some or all of it reflects differences in status on the part of the occupants of small-structure groups, for in a stratified society, personal belongings frequently reflect class differences (Barber 1957:97). SOCIAL STRATIFICATION The task of investigating artifact variation possibly related to stratification is again made difficult, in that some

116

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

small-structure groups have been more extensively excavated than others, not to mention that the Maya may have allowed trash to build up in greater amounts in some groups, but not in others. So, a comparison of quantities from group to group is probably meaningless, even though upper-class individuals would be expected to have more possessions. Keeping in mind the limitations of the collections, however, they ought to reflect stratification, if it existed, in two ways. First, upper-class people ought to have possessed a wider variety of objects. Those of a lower class would be expected to have had few possessions beyond the basic essentials. Second, there ought to be a qualitative difference in basic possessions between upper and lower classes. Translating this into operational terms, it is expected that the occupants of those groups from which little more than the basic domestic inventory is known to rank lower than the occupants of those groups from which a wider inventory of tools, including apparent luxury items, are known. It is also expected that lower-class householders would have few basic or common artifacts of other than locally available raw materials. The exceptions would be manos and metates, for which imported hard stone was essential. In particular, expected would be few (if any) thin bifaces, irregular retouched flakes, or used flakes of obsidian (Fig. 6). The percentages of prismatic blades of chert, as opposed to those of obsidian, might be higher in lower-class than in upper-class residences. It is possible, however, that the edge on a prismatic blade of obsidian is so far superior to that on one made of chert that obsidian was virtually essential for such tools. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the basic domestic artifact inventory is assumed for all groups, although they are known only in the case of those classified as almost certainly domestic along with Gp. 3D-3 (Table 5.12) and Gp. 4F-1 and 2. In Table 5.21 are listed the numbers of common artifact types known for each group. In some it has been necessary to consider fill samples, as undisturbed occupation debris is either scanty or non-existent. If scanty, and if consideration of fill and occupation debris produces the same results, the group is included in the table without further qualification. If the results differ, then the group is considered problematical, and omitted from the table. Where occupation debris is entirely absent, the group is included in the table with a question mark if it seems likely that the fill derives from occupation trash that accumulated earlier in the same group. Included in the problematical category is Gp. 5D-1, where the figure for common artifact types could be as

low as 0 or as high as 6. In this case, much of the fill could have been procured elsewhere for use in construction here. This is less likely in the case of the other problematical groups, which include the following: Gp. 2F-1 and 3G-1, where the figure could be as low as 0 or as high as 5; 5B-2, as low as 1 or as high as 3; 3F-3, as low as 1 or as high as 2; 7F-2, as low as 2 or as high as 5; 2B-1, 3D-3, and 5C-3, as low as 0 or as high as 1. As can be seen from the table, the groups seem to fall into two categories: one where four or more common types occur, and one where two or fewer occur. I shall refer to these simply as Categories I and II. Group 3F-1 and probably Gp. 7G-1 fall between the two, so that the distinction is not absolute. If fill from Gp. 3F-1 is considered, however, a fourth common type is added. Group 3F-1, therefore, is indeterminate; it could fit either category. Of the problematical groups, 2B-1, 3D-3, 3F-3, 5C-3, and 5B-2 seem to belong in Category II. The others could belong to either category. In Table 5.22 are listed the numbers of classifiable artifact types present in each group other than those that are basic or common. What this table appears to indicate is that there seems to be a continuum, from those groups in which no such artifacts have been found to those in which several have been found. To divide this continuum at any point is perhaps arbitrary, but it does seem reasonable to do this so that 11 or more “other” artifacts are classified as Category I, and 6 or fewer as Category II. Considering artifacts from both occupation debris and fill, two groups appear to be problematical in terms of the categories defined above. These are Gp. 2G-1 and 5F-1; they are problematical because although occupation debris suggests affiliation with Category II, the totality of artifacts from all sources is slightly high for this category. In each of these groups, there are good sources of occu-

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

pation debris, and assignment on this basis alone to Category I may be warranted. On the other hand, there is at least a good possibility that fill in these groups was drawn from earlier occupation debris in the same place. Still, the totality of artifacts in these groups is not seriously higher than 6, and so Gp. 2G-1 and 5F-1 do not rest comfortably in Category II. One would suppose that “other” artifact types would be prevalent only in those groups in which common types are well represented. There is some tendency for this; common artifacts are well represented in all of the groups assigned to Category I. Conversely, common artifacts are scarce in all but 6 of the 29 groups assigned to Category II. Two of these are the problematical groups noted above. Table 5.23 presents data on obsidian prismatic blades. As expected, frequencies of obsidian, as opposed to those of chert, tend to be high (83% or better) in those groups that, on the basis of common artifacts, fit Category I and also include numbers of other artifact types. On the other hand, some of those groups that produced frequencies of obsidian prismatic blades below 83% fit Category I also, although they yield few other artifacts. More surprising, a number of groups that, on the basis of common artifacts fit Category II, with few if any other artifact types, did yield high frequencies of obsidian prismatic blades. In some cases this may be the result of inadequate samples, but this is not true of all cases. The conclusion drawn from this is that if stratification existed at Tikal, the proportion of obsidian to chert prismatic blades is a very poor indicator of it. Interestingly, this conclusion has also been reached independently by Moholy-Nagy (pers. comm.) in her study of all Tikal artifacts. Such a situa-

117

tion could be explained, however, if obsidian was a virtual necessity for the production of razor-sharp cutting tools. Certainly, the locally available chert does not produce a comparable edge. The use of obsidian, rather than chert, to make thin bifaces might be a slightly better indicator of class status than prismatic blades. The reason for this is that a biface of obsidian is not significantly superior to one of chert, especially those of the high quality imported cherts of which most were made. Table 5.24 lists the occurrence of obsidian thin bifaces, by group. The same could be true where used and irregularly retouched flakes are concerned. These are listed in Table 5.25. The data on obsidian thin bifaces and flakes are combined in Table 5.26 with the data already discussed, along with those on the presence or absence of green obsidian, jade, shells, and other exotic material. Working with this table, a score can be assigned each group or locus, ranging all the way from 0 (e.g., Gp. 4F-3) up to 9 (e.g., Gp. 4F-1). The result is a continuum, without any obvious break anywhere. Arbitrarily setting apart those groups or loci with scores of three or less from those with scores of six or more, however, produces two categories, with only one group and one locus falling between the two. This is suggestive of status differences. Specifically, on the basis of possessions alone, it is a possibility that the occupants of twenty-seven groups were less well off than the occupants of seven other groups (Table 5.27). A situation such as this suggests, but does not prove, social stratification. For one thing, the differences noted could be connected with occupational specialization. Specialized tasks, for example, may require specialized

118

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

tools, and the artifact inventory may appear richer in some groups than others because of this. Similarly, some of the shell and exotic materials present in some groups may have been connected with specialized craftwork. It is of interest to note, therefore, that the “higher status” category in Table 5.27 includes four groups in which specialized occupations were apparently pursued (Gp. 4F-1, 2, 6C-1, and 6E-1). Structure 5C-56 is a fifth, though very dubious, possibility. In the “lower status” category, there is only one such case (Str. 2G-61). Yet this fact, and the inclusion of two groups (6C-2, 7C-1) in the “higher sta-

tus” category, which almost surely were not occupied by occupational specialists, is sufficient to indicate that the two categories of Table 5.27 do not reflect occupational differences alone. Hence status differences, such as would be expected in a stratified society, do seem to have played a role in artifact differences between groups. It should not be inferred that the occupants of Gp. 4F-1, 2, 6C-1, 2, 6E-1, 7C-1, or Str. 5C-56 were members of an “upper class,” or that the occupants of Gp. 2G-2 or Str. 7C-62 were members of a “middle class.” They simply appear to have enjoyed higher status than the oc-

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

cupants of the other groups, so far as can be told from their possessions, but may have had considerably lower status than the occupants of various other groups at Tikal. It is worth emphasizing that, in spite of the differences in the collections from one group to another that have been emphasized here, they do have much in common. Also obvious is that evidence for social stratification must ultimately deal with other kinds of data in addition to those just discussed. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that some variation in artifacts may be explained as a reflection of stratification. It should be explicitly stated that these possible reflections of social stratification apply to Early Classic, as well as Intermediate and Late Classic times. The collections from Gp. 6C-1 are virtually all Early Classic; those

119

from Gp. 5F-2 and Str. 7C-62 completely so. As Table 5.27 shows, the occupants of Gp. 6C-1 seem to have ranked higher than those of either Gp. 5F-2 or Str. 7C62 (a conclusion consistent with architectural differences). Further, the collections suggest that the occupants of Str. 7C-62 ranked higher than those of Gp. 5F-2. For Preclassic times, a comparison of the extensive collections exclusively associated with the roughly contemporary Str. 2G-61 and 5C-57, in terms of the categories of Table 5.28, suggests that the occupants of Str. 5C-57 were of higher status than those of Str. 2G-61. This is problematical, since both structures were not abandoned until after the start of Early Classic times. Still, this is one more suggestion that time differences are relatively insignificant in a consideration of artifacts from small-structure groups.

120

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

121

122

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

SHERDS AND ARTIFACTS

4. Conclusions The analysis of the material presented in this section leads to seven conclusions, as follow: 1. Most, if not all, small-structure groups discussed in this report probably were residential. This conclusion is firmer in the case of some structures than others (Table 5.12), but in no case do the artifacts suggest any other function. Those individual structures that were not houses were probably domestic adjuncts. 2. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that small-structure groups used just prior to abandonment for residential purposes were originally constructed for such purposes. The evidence is best for Gp. 2G-1, 6E-1, and the Str. 5C-56 locus; contrary indications do not exist for any group or locus. On the other hand, the function of individual structures within groups may have changed from over time.

123

3. The basic domestic artifact inventory seems to consist of eleven artifact types: figurines, ring stands for globular jars, cores, ovate and elongate bifaces, irregularly retouched, used and unused flakes, prismatic blades, and manos and metates. These seem to be the essential artifacts for everyday tasks, including the cutting, chopping, and grinding of food, and performance of household ceremonies. These artifacts were, with one exception, the same in Preclassic as in Early, Intermediate, and Late Classic times. The one exception is that figurines were not made in the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods, although a few objects classified as figurines are known from Early Classic collections. 4. In addition to the eleven basic artifact types, six other types commonly occur in probable domestic groups, and seem to have been considered as desirable and useful, if not essential. These are censers/braziers, centrally perforated (and other worked?) sherds, thin bi-

124

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

faces, point-retouched flakes, hammer stones, and rubbing stones. 5. In addition to food preparation, some chert knapping, no matter how sporadic, seems to have taken place in all probable domestic groups. 6. Six occupations appear to have been performed by specialists. They are obsidian working, special chert working, figurine production, shell working and perhaps monument carving and special textiles manufacture. Few of

the groups that form the subject of this report appear to have been occupied by such specialists (Table 5.20). 7. Although the artifact collections from the various groups discussed here show considerable similarities, there are differences between them that may reflect differences of status between the occupants of the various groups, suggestive of a stratified society. This is true probably for Late Preclassic, and surely Early, Intermediate, and Late Classic times.

VI

Summary and Conclusions

1. Introduction In the previous sections of this report, architecture, burials, other special deposits and artifacts recovered from small structures within the central 16 m2 of Tikal were analyzed in light of the hypothesis that these were either houses, or at least domestic-related structures. What remains to be done in this section is to synthesize the results of these analyses to see what they suggest about the nature of Tikal settlement, society, and demography. Before doing any of these things, however, I must discuss small-structure chronology, in order to control at the outset the time dimension.

2. Chronology The chronology for each group of small structures has been presented in the appropriate sections of TR. 20A. Where relatively extensive excavations were carried out, the chronological data are fairly detailed, and formal time spans have been defined. For those groups investigated only by test pits (or equivalent), information is less detailed, so in all but a very few cases no formal time spans have been defined. On this basis, we may speak of the excavated sample, as opposed to tested sample, of small structures (Table 6.1). To the former will be added those groups discussed in TR. 19 (Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2); to the latter Gp. 5F-5, discussed in TR. 37. If the time spans defined in TR. 20A for the bestknown groups are consulted (Gp. 2G-1 and 2, 3D-3, 3F-1 and 2, 4E-1 and 2, 4F-1 through 3, 5B-2, 5D-1, 5F-2, 6C1, 6E-1, 7C-1), it is apparent that, for the most part, the structures within each group were in use together. Some, of course, were constructed earlier than others, and new structures might replace a few old ones. In this last case, the abandoned structures were normally partially razed and buried beneath new construction. As the use of a given group continued through time, the number of struc-

tures in most (but not all) cases increased. All of this supports the expectation that the structures of a group functioned as a unit. The chronological data from all small-structure groups excavated or tested at Tikal is correlated in Fig. 7 through 14. The reader who has had the fortitude to wade through all of TR. 20A will be aware that these data are heavily dependent upon the ceramic chronology established for Tikal. There are two reasons for this. First, the lithic collections do not provide such easily utilized time-markers, as do the ceramics (the same may generally be said with regard to most pottery artifacts other than vessels). Second, although a great deal of variation has been noted in architecture, and also burials, these differences are not all of sequential value. Where they are, they generally delimit rather large blocks of time. What remains are the ceramic vessels, which show fairly marked changes over relatively restricted periods of time. The dates given in Fig. 7 through 14 are those for the beginnings and ends of the various Tikal ceramic complexes (see TR. 27B:2). Of course, such dates provide only outside limits within which the construction, use, and abandonment of a particular structure or group took place. For example, the discovery of Manik sherds within a construction fill does not mean that the overlying construction originated in AD 250. It means only that it was constructed no earlier, and most probably later. Obviously Manik ceramics had been in use for a while, or they would not have been present in the material used as fill. Since it is usually impossible to be more precise, such construction would be depicted in Fig. 7 through 14 with a vertical line extending down to the horizontal line at AD 250. This makes it appear as if there were sudden bursts of building activity at a few particular times, especially 350 BC and AD 250 and 550. Yet, this probably was not the case; it is more reasonable to suppose that construction was more or less constant. Similarly, the presence of Imix but not Eznab ceramics in late occupation debris, for example, does not indicate that a group was abandoned precisely in

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

AD 869. Yet, in the absence of further information, the group would have to be presented in Fig. 7 through 14 as though that were the case. There are a number of other problems involved in ceramic dating that require explicit mention here. One is the occasional prevalence in early fills of a few sherds earlier than the bulk of those present. For example, a fill may contain a large number of Manik sherds, but there may be a few Preclassic fragments as well. Although the lower-limit date for such construction would not be in doubt (AD 250 in this particular example), the Preclassic sherds raise the possibility of an earlier occupation of the group in question. Alternatively, they could represent a basket-load of fill brought in from a trash deposit in a nearby group. This sort of situation arises most often in the case of the tested, rather than the excavated, small-structure groups. In the interpretation of such situations, it is assumed that one or two sherds from an earlier ceramic complex are probably strays, unless the total sample is small, or there is no likely nearby source for such strays. Given that fill used for construction in one group could have been brought in from another, an early piece of architecture full of Manik sherds, for example, could have been built after AD 550, and the group of which it was a part may not have been occupied before that time. Again, this is a particular problem where tested rather than excavated groups are concerned. The assumption here is that, for small-structure groups, fill material was readily procured nearby, whereas larger construction would be more likely to require that fill be brought in from some distance (see TR. 19:162 for a possible example). As a consequence, unless there is a specific reason to suppose otherwise, the assumption is that the earliest sherds from test pits (excepting strays) pertain to the initial occupation of the group in question. As such, they may be redeposited (e.g., the Manik sherds in the excavated Str. 2G-59) or not (e.g., the midden beneath Str. 6C-45-8th-C). Still another problem is that sherd collections cannot always be precisely identified as to complex. In the case of a number of tested small-structure groups, later sherds collections are identified only as Ik, Imix, or both. Since no more than two or three groups in use when Ik ceramics were in vogue seem to have been abandoned by Imix times, and since only seven or eight groups occupied when Imix ceramics were produced are definitely known not to have an earlier Ik-related occupation, it is assumed that Ik and/or Imix collections indicate that a group was in use ca. 700 AD, with the strong possibility of occupation as early as AD 550 and as late as AD 869. If Manik sherds are also present, an Ik occupation is virtually certain; if Eznab sherds are present, a late Imix occupation is probable. This assumes continuous rather than periodic

127

occupation of small-structure groups. As will be seen, this evidently was usually the case. Just as some collections are identifiable as Ik, Imix, or both, so other collections are identifiable only as “Late Preclassic,” a period of time spanning the use of Chuen, Cauac, and Cimi ceramics. In such cases, Fig. 7 through 14 show groups that produced such collections as having occupations beginning as early as 350 BC. Actually, few of the groups were probably occupied so early. Three Tzec, 6 Chuen, 7 Cauac, and 3 or more Cimi occupations are certain; we suspect that most collections diagnosed as Late Preclassic are probably later, rather than earlier. Another problem with the tested groups is that Culbert’s concentration on architecture for test pits did not always produce late occupation samples. Fry, in Sq. 1D, used a different approach so that this is less of a problem there (TR. 26). Lack of such late occupation samples, if not allowed for, could suggest that a group was abandoned before it actually was. Keeping all these considerations in mind, a number of conclusions about small structures are possible. To begin, the dates of the structures of the excavated sample for which there is evidence for modification, and which were in use in Late Classic times (Table 6.2), suggest that modifications were carried out on small structures about every 60 years. There are, though, three reasons why this calculation is too high. The first has already been alluded to: the structures used for this calculation were not all built precisely when ceramics of the Ik-Imix transition

128

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

appeared, nor were they all abandoned precisely in AD 869. For example, Str. 4E-16-2nd was not built until after production of late Imix ceramics began, probably after AD 770. Conversely, for all that is known, Str. 2G-59-1st could have been abandoned by then, even though Gp. 2G-1 as a whole was not. The second reason why this calculation is too high is as follows. If these structures consisted in part of poleand-thatch buildings, a virtual certainty, the buildings were undoubtedly rebuilt when the platform was altered, for conformity in shape between the two would be expected. This is the case with Maya houses today (Wauchope 1938:14), and it was true of some, and perhaps all, houses in the past. Conversely, if the building alone was renovated, the platform would not need to be altered, and there would be no archaeological trace of such an alternation. The third reason is that even for Late Classic structures, about which more is generally known than earlier ones, the state of preservation differs considerably. Compare, for example, Str. 2G-15 and 6E-26. For the former, poorly preserved structure, there is evidence for only two Late Classic architectural developments. For the latter, better-preserved structure, six architectural modifications are known for the 175 years or so during which Imix (and transitional Ik-Imix) ceramics were in vogue (Table 6.2). This last case would suggest alteration about every 30 years. There are other structures that suggest a similar time interval for alterations: Str. 6C-45 about every 11 years during the time that late Manik ceramics were in production; Str. 2G-59 every 46 years during the interval when Ik ceramics were in vogue; Str. 4E-16 about once every 20 years, while late Imix ceramics were present. Previously excavated examples from Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 may also be cited (TR. 19). In the 138 years while Ik ceramics were in vogue, there were three modifications at the locus of Str. 4F-10, and of Str. 4F-15 and 43 (once every 46 years). In the same interval, Str. 4F-14 was altered four times (once every 34 or 35 years). It is probable that these various examples are closer to reality than the figure of 60 years mentioned above (this point will be discussed again below). A possibility that must be considered is that the structures were used, abandoned for a significant length of time, and then rebuilt (see Sanders and Price 1968:165). This hypothesis is rejected, as it is not consistent with several lines of evidence. First, an apparent 25- to 35-year interval between alterations is inconsistent, especially when it is realized that by age 55, 68% of the men and 80% of the women at Tikal were dead (TR. 31). For men, who were most likely the heads of households, mortality was highest in their 40s. If these structures were houses, this would suggest modification upon death of the inhabitants, as discussed later in this section. Second, when a

small structure was altered, portions of older floors and walls commonly remained in use. Had the structure stood abandoned for too long a time in the northeast Peten climate, the component floors and walls would have rapidly deteriorated and not been in any condition for reuse. Third, there are middens such as those associated with Str. 6C-45, 6E-26, and 5F-Sub.1 that show continuous deposition. The midden behind Str. 4F-3 may also be cited here (TR. 19). Had associated architecture been abandoned for any length of time, soil would have accumulated to some degree over the middens prior to further deposition. This would leave stratigraphic evidence in the form of layers in the middens, which in fact they lack. The one exception is the midden behind Str. 6C-45-5th, but here the structure was clearly in continuous use before and after the break. It was not abandoned and subsequently modified at this time. Fourth, small-structure burials suggest continuity of occupation, in two ways. Already discussed is the rarity of disturbed burials in structure platforms, which implies remembrance of their location over several generations. This is particularly evident in the case of Str. 2G-59, with its eleven undisturbed, but only one secondary burial. It is also evident in the case of Str. 6E-Sub.1, in or near which at least nine burials were placed over a period of several hundred years. The only one disturbed apparently was on account of its position relative to large-scale architectural alterations that were to be carried out. It was not disturbed by accident. Such remembrance would not be expected in the absence of continuous occupation. Nor, it may be added, would one expect the locus of Str. 6E-Sub.1 to continue as a favored spot for burial after the structure was abandoned and buried in the fill of Plat. 6E-1, unless an old tradition relative to burial location was being continued. This is the second argument in favor of continuity of occupation from the burial evidence. These four points were touched upon in an earlier article (Haviland 1970b:191). To these, Puleston (1973) added two other supportive arguments. Firstly that, if the cultivation of Ramon trees around houses was an important feature of Classic Maya subsistence, then householders would not be abandoning productive trees important to their livelihoods. Secondly, the construction at times of substantial building and group platforms seems more in accord with a degree of residential permanence than it does with shifting residence. Returning to the subject of architectural modification, it appears that it was not unusual in small-structure groups to modify several structures at one time, along with the plaza. Evidence for this seems clear in the case of Gp. 2G-2, 3F-2, 6C-1, and 6E-1, in this report, and in Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19). Although the evidence is not so clear in other groups, at least it is not inconsistent. The significance of this is discussed below.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It is clear from Fig. 7 through 14, coupled with the data just discussed, that there was a substantial increase through time in the number of small-structure groups in use at a given time. In Preclassic times, 35 of these groups are known to have been in use. In the period during which Manik ceramics were in use, the figure is 81. When Ik ceramics were in vogue, 103 groups were almost surely occupied. Finally, 109 groups were almost surely in use between AD 700 and 869, when Imix ceramics were produced. This, of course, is a rather gross breakdown of figures. Although greater precision is difficult, some can be achieved. Working backwards in time, of the groups in use between AD 700 and 869, 24 almost surely were in use in late Imix times, probably after AD 770 (Table 6.3). A twenty-fifth (Gp. 5B-2) is highly probable. On the other hand, only two loci are known to have been abandoned by late Imix times: Gp. 4F-5 and Str. 5C-56. These are balanced out, though, since no more than two groups or loci are known to have had their first occupation in late Imix times: Gp. 4E-1, surely, and Str. 4C-34, possibly. It appears as if the number of small-structure groups or loci in use associated with Imix ceramics was fairly constant, with abandonments matched by new occupations. Furthermore, if these were residential groups, then residence patterns appear to have been quite stable, with a minimum of shifting about. To pursue this further, it appears that, with only one sure exception (Gp. 5G-3, although there is one other very doubtful exception, Gp. 7F-3), all the groups of both the excavated and tested samples appearing on the site map were in use during the Late Classic period between AD

129

700 and 869, even though the antecedents of some reach further back into antiquity than others. A complicating factor, however, is the existence of other structures that probably were occupied between AD 700 and 869 that do not appear on the map. Seven of these at four different loci on the 9 km2 site map are listed in Table 6.4; these are structures that are marked by prominent ruin mounds that were missed by the mappers, and so these seven structures may simply be added to the total for the mapped central 9 km2 of Tikal and treated as mapped structures. The sample is sufficient to state with confidence that 99% of all groups of small structures that appear on the site map were in use in this Late Classic time-period. The situation for the peripheral squares of the 16 km2 site map is more complex. Unlike the squares of the central 9 km2, these were originally mapped by reconnaissance methods, rather than plane-table survey. Later investigations suggest that visible ruins for all 28 peripheral squares probably total closer to 923, as opposed to the 543 actually shown on the map (TR. 20A and Table 6.5). Of these, those that have been tested (Fig. 14) seem to have been occupied between AD 700 and 869. On this basis, one is inclined to extend the preceding conclusion and state that 99% of all groups of small structures that appear on the 16 km2 map were in use in Late Classic times.

Of the Intermediate Classic (Ik-related) small-structure groups or loci, 73 surely or almost surely were occupied by AD 550 (Table 6.6). The number may have been considerably higher, for none of the groups are known to have been first occupied in late Ik times. Only one structure (6C-60) was surely abandoned by late Ik, while Gp. 6C-5 was probably abandoned by AD 700. Group 7F-2 may have been as well, but this is very doubtful. Again, stability of residence, rather than shifting residence, is suggested (assuming that these were residential groups).

130

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Of the 81 Manik-related groups or loci, one (Str. 2G61) was abandoned by late Manik, and others may have been. Eight are known to have been abandoned by AD 550 at the latest: “vacant terrain” in Sq. 2G and 6E, the Ch. 2F-5 locus, as well as Gp. 2F-1, 5B-2, 5C-3, 5F-2, and Str. 7C-62. Four groups did not exist until the middle to late Manik period: Gp. 2G-1, 3F-2, 6C-1, and Str. 7C62. What these figures suggest is that, if all groups or loci were residential, stability of residence may not have been as great prior to AD 550 as it later was; this point will be revisited later in this text. A breakdown of Preclassic occupation, so far as is now known, has already been given. There are three known Tzec occupations: in Gp. 2F-1, 4F-7, and 5F-1. Those for Gp. 1D-5 and 1D-6 (Fig. 14) are not certain; ceramics from these were identified only as “Preclassic.” Six definite Chuen occupations are known, for Gp. 2F-1, 5G3, 6E-1 and the loci of Str. 2G-61, 6C-60, and vacant terrain in Sq. 2G. Cauac occupation of seven groups or loci is definite: Gp. 2F-1, 5C-3, 5G-4, 6E-1, Str. 2G-61, 6C-60, and vacant terrain in Sq. 2G. Group 3F-3 Str. 5C-56 and probably Gp. 5D-1 came into being following the appearance of Cimi ceramics. One group (5G-3) was abandoned by 1 BC, whereas the Preclassic occupation of Gp. 4F-7 came to an end by 350 BC. No other Preclassic abandonments are known, but if these were residential groups, there may have been some shifting of residence as has been suggested for Early Classic times. Some confirmatory evidence in favor of this comes from an examination of twelve groups or loci occupied prior to AD 550, for which sufficient information exists to indicate whether individual structures were built and continuously occupied with occasional modification, or built, occupied, and replaced by a new structure. The former was the case in Gp. 4F-2, 5C-3, 5D-1, 5F-1, 6C-1, 6C-5, and 6E-1. The latter was the case in Gp. 2F-1 and the loci of Str. 2G-61, 5C-56, and

6C-60. In addition, Str. 7C-62 seems to have been very briefly occupied, and in Gp. 5F-2 there were essentially only two reconstructions. Considerable residential stability is obvious, but somewhat less than after AD 550. It is clear from Fig. 7 through 14 that there was widespread abandonment of small-structure groups by ca. AD 869. This observation, of course, is not new (see Culbert 1973:67–70). Twenty groups show traces of Eznab-related occupation. Sixteen of these may represent brief occupation of the groups in question after AD 869 before their final abandonment. Three others seem to represent late reoccupations. Obviously, if these were houses, a dramatic drop in population (ca. 84% by shortly after AD 869) is indicated. Terminal Classic occupation was widely dispersed, but there may have been some tendency to congregate near water sources. This is suggested by five occupations known for the Camp Quadrangle, which suggest a focus of interest on the Tikal Reservoir. Evidence for Caban-related occupation is even more rare than that of Eznab times (Fig. 7–14). Six areas are known, of which three are located in the Camp Quadrangle at no great distance from the Tikal Reservoir. A fourth and fifth are near the Inscriptions Reservoir. The concentration near the Tikal Reservoir is of interest; two of the three known Tzec-related sites also occur here. Evidently in the last days of Tikal, there was some tendency to return to one of the earliest focal points for settlement. It is important to know not just how many groups, but approximately how many of the individual structures that appear on the site map were in use in Late Classic times between AD 700 and 869. In the excavated sample of small-structure groups, 60 mapped ruins were actually investigated. Of these, Str. 3F-13 probably, and Str. 3F28, 4F-8, 4F-11, and 4F-12 certainly, were not structures. Conversely, five unmapped structures were discovered (3D-127, 4F-48, 49, 6E-162, and 163). The numbers to

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

be eliminated and added, therefore, appear to balance out. Of these, Str. 2B-7, 4F-14, 4F-42, and possibly Str. 4F15 and 43 were abandoned by AD 770. Structures 3F-27, 4C-34, 4E-14 through 16, and 50, however, all appear to postdate the others. There is no evidence that any other excavated mapped structures were abandoned by AD 770, although some, such as Str. 2G-59, or 7C-4, may have been deserted not long afterward. The structures just noted do not exhaust the number of Late Classic unmapped structures in use between AD 700 and 869. Structure 5C-56 is not a part of any mapped group. Others were almost certainly built close to Ch. 5C6, as Str. 5C-56 was near Ch. 5C-5. Finally, the possibility exists that “Ch. 2E-2” and Ch. 4G-2 might indicate the nearby presence of unmapped Late Classic structures. It seems obvious that there are more to be found, but there is no way to estimate how many. Although these known “hidden” structures were in use in the Late Classic period, there is no evidence whether they were still in use by AD 770. Quite possibly, they were not; Str. 5C-56-1st and Plat. 5C-1-1st, for example, were built when Ik ceramics were in production, and there is no evidence of further modification. The Imix ceramics around the structure cannot be identified as early or late. A logical interpretation is that the structure and plaza were used for a time after the appearance of Imix ceramics, but were abandoned early, by AD 770. Perhaps the early abandonment of this locus is the reason for the absence of a visible mound, as opposed to those structures that were abandoned in the last days of Tikal. Thus it is likely that all such “hidden” structures and groups were abandoned by ca. AD 770, and need

131

not be considered in calculations of the number of small structures in use at that time. To reinforce this, in addition to the cases noted above, thirteen other tests of “vacant terrain” (including Str. 7F-89 and 90 discussed with Gp. 7F-2) produced as many indications of “hidden” structures, but all were abandoned by Late Classic times (AD 700). Alternatively, it is important to know if AD 770 represents the high point for Tikal in terms of small-structure density. Certainly, structures were more numerous than during the Preclassic period, as is apparent from the previous discussion. This demonstrated that structure density surely increased in Early Classic times, but by how much is uncertain. On the one hand, there are undoubtedly many Early Classic “hidden” structures that remain to be discovered at Tikal, but it is impossible to estimate just how many. On the other hand, this is offset by the fact that not all Early Classic structures were in simultaneous use. Almost as many small-structure groups were in use between AD 550 and 700 as in AD 770, however. This, coupled with the undoubted existence of more “hidden” structures occupied between AD 550 and 700, suggests that structure density did indeed reach a peak by AD 550. To conclude, Fig. 7 through 14 give a reasonable general representation of the increase in numbers of small structures at Tikal up to the peak at AD 550. There is then a kind of plateau until at least AD 770, with the abandonment of existing structures offset by construction of new ones. Sometime after AD 770, there was a marked decrease in the number of occupied structures. The significance of these trends will be discussed later in this section.

132

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

3. Functional Assessment Introduction Having reviewed the chronology of small-structure groups, the next task is to assess the probable function of the structures described in this report, pulling together the conclusions of sections II through V. Some of the criteria used for this have been indicated in the preceding sections, but for an overall discussion, see TR. 19. The procedure is to review the excavated small structures, group by group for each quadrangle, in the same order as in TR. 20A and section V of this report. Emphasis is placed on structures in their final form, since these were, in most cases, found with presumably associated artifacts lying on occupation levels. As has been noted, there is reason to suppose that the function or purpose of most small structures remained constant. Following this review is a general discussion of the tested small-structure groups. GROUP 2B-1 It is difficult to assess function of the structures within this group, except in a very tentative way, for only one was excavated. This was Str. 2B-7, which in its two manifestations seems to have consisted in part of a rectangular, one-level platform. There is a high probability that such structures were residences. Since the arrangement and configuration of the other mounds of Gp. 2B-1 are similar to those of most known household groups, all structures of this group probably share this function. The artifact collection from Gp. 2B-1 is not as enlightening as one might hope, but it does not suggest that this occupation was anything other than residential. The presence of seven chultuns suggests that food was stored here (Puleston 1971). Lack of household burials is not surprising, given the limited nature of the excavation. At least the sequence of structural modifications is consistent with the practice of household renovation discussed later in this section. Overall, there seems no reason to suspect that the structures of Gp. 2B-1 were not habitations. Clear proof, however, would require further excavation. GROUP 3D-3 Architecturally, any of these structures are good candidates for houses. The probability is particularly high for one- and two-level rectangular platforms, such as 3D-8, 3D-9-1st and 2nd, and 3D-10-2nd. It is almost as high for structures with three-level rectangular platforms, such as 3D-10-1st. The sherds and artifacts are overwhelmingly utilitarian, and suggest that food preparation took place at least in Str. 3D-8 and possibly elsewhere. Failure to dis-

cover household burials is not surprising in view of the limited nature of excavation. Architectural modification of two of the structures, though, is consistent with a practice discussed below (see “Abandonment of Houses”). In summary, the evidence suggests a residential function for this group. The most high-ranking individuals may have lived in Str. 3D-10, for this was the largest and most complex structure of the group. GROUP 3D-9 Although information on this group is limited, it is sufficient to suggest that this group was probably residential. Architecturally, Str. 3D-127 appears to have had a square to rectangular platform suitable for a house platform (Table 2.17). Structure 3D-32 has not been excavated, but its ruin mound is within the ranges of size and shape for known house ruins. On the basis of associated artifacts, the group has been classified as probably domestic (Table 5.12). The material is overwhelmingly utilitarian, with items useful for food preparation. Failure to find household burials is expected, given the limited extent of excavations. GROUP 2F-1 Structure 2F-31, in its two manifestations, seems suitable from an architectural standpoint for residential purposes. So little is known of the other structures that architecture is of no help in a functional assessment. One can but argue that earlier structures in this group may have served the same function as later ones. The artifacts found are consistent with a domestic function, but do not prove it. The presence of a chultun, though, does suggest that food was stored here (Puleston 1971). Absence of household burials may be explained as a consequence of insufficient excavations. In short, Gp. 2F-1 is tentatively identified as residential. This, however, is based on the absence of evidence supporting another interpretation. GROUP 2G-1 Group 2G-1 almost surely involves the remains of five houses with, at one time, a separate kitchen off the end of Str. 2G-59. Architecturally, any of the structures could have been houses, with the sole exception of Str. 2G-Sub.1. The similarity of 2G-Sub.1 to known kitchens (especially Str. 6E-162) both in plan and position relative to a larger structure indicates that it was probably a kitchen for Str. 2G-59-2nd. Structure 2G-56-A and B, 2G-571st, and 2G-60-1st are the most probable houses, having, as they do, rectangular, two-level platforms. The same is true for the main platform of 2G-59-1st. The position of Str. 2G-56 relative to 57 might suggest that it was an outbuilding, but its size and quality of its construction argues

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

against this. One would not expect such a well-made and large platform to serve as a foundation for an outbuilding, particularly in view of what is known concerning other ancient outbuildings (e.g., Str. 6E-162 and 6E-163). Structure 2G-58 does not show as close a resemblance to modern house platforms, but there is no reason why it, with its three-level, rectangular platform, could not have been a habitation. Structure 2G-59, as a multi-platform structure, is more elaborate than any of the others. Yet, the association of 59-2nd with a probable kitchen, and the similarity of the main platform of 59-1st to the other structures noted above suggest that it was a house. Moreover, there is a general resemblance to Str. 4F-15-1st-B of Gp. 4F-2, which probably was a house (TR. 19:181–182). On the basis of its artifacts, Gp. 2G-1 has been classified as almost surely domestic (Table 5.12). Evidence suggests that food preparation took place in all structures, although by analogy with Str. 4F-48, 49, and 6E-162 and 163, Str. 2G-Sub.1 could have been a separate kitchen for Str. 2G-59-2nd. There is, however, no artifactual evidence for this proposition. It is worth noting that the highest frequencies of fine-ware sherds were distributed around Str. 2G-58 and 59, the most elaborate in the group. Burials were found only in and near Str. 2G-59. All seem to meet criteria for household burials. Moreover, the association of burials with sequent modifications of the structure suggests the abandonment and rebuilding practices discussed later in this section, which may characterize dwellings. No burials were found in any of the other structures, but then none were completely excavated. Nevertheless, Str. 2G-59 was obviously a favorite place for burials. The presence of two chultuns (2G-5 and 2G-11) also suggests a domestic function for Gp. 2G-1, for chultuns most likely were used for food storage (Puleston 1971). The absence, too, of any evident ritual deposits of the sort associated with ceremonial architecture lends support to the idea that the structures of Gp. 2G-1 were habitations. To summarize, the evidence is strong that Gp. 2G-1 was a residential compound. During its span of use, its structures were modified, and at least two were added (Str. 2G-56 and 60). The most important people probably lived in 2G-59, for this was the most elaborate in the group. It was apparently the first building in the group, and it stands apart from the others not only in size and complexity, but also by virtue of its relatively rich and varied artifact inventory, its desirability as a burial spot, and the high percentage of fine ceramics possessed by the occupants, so far as this is reflected by the surrounding debris. Structure 2G-58 may have held second place in this respect. Next to 2G-59, it was the most elaborate in the group, and like 59, it was associated with a high frequency of fine pottery.

133

An interesting problem is the significance of the placement of two burials at the time of abandonment of Str. 2G-59-3rd and apparently four with abandonment of 59-2nd. Skeletal remains were poorly preserved, but there was no reason to suspect that the individuals were of different sexes. It seems coincidental that so many people in the group should die at the same time, yet the possibility exists that disease might strike down more than one individual at once. This is an important point in interpreting differences between the interments. Looking at the sequence of burials suggests they may reflect the varying fortunes of the occupants of the group. The earliest intact one, Bu. 58, is well equipped with four pottery vessels. Perhaps its subject was actually the occupant of 59-4th. An occupant of 59-5th or 6th may have been the individual in PD. 64, whose remains were disturbed when 59-2nd was built. If so, Bu. 58 seems much richer, so the fortunes of the occupants of the group may have increased by its time. The next interments after Bu. 58 (Bu. 54 and 57) were presumably contemporary, but their contrast is great. One, conceivably the occupant of Str. 2G-59-3rd, was provided with three good vessels. The other was provided with a clay bead and a pot fragment. Possibly this individual was a poorer, lower-status relation from Str. 2G-57-2nd or 58-3rd, neither of which seems to have been as elaborate as 59-3rd. The next interments were Bu. 49, 50, 52, and 56, the contents of which again differ, but not as greatly. Three individuals were provided with three whole pots, the other with two and pieces of a third. Again, one can imagine the individual of Bu. 56 to be of lesser means than those of Bu. 49, 50, and 52. Possibly, this was an occupant of one of the other structures of Gp. 2G-1, perhaps 56-B or 60-2nd, the least elaborate in the group. The most elaborate of the four burials is 49, typologically a logical successor to Bu. 54. Perhaps the individual was the occupant of Str. 2G-59-2nd. Taken together and compared with the earlier and later burials, these four interments suggest that the fortunes of the occupants of Gp. 2G-1 had reached their apex. Consistent is the presence of a substantial separate kitchen for Str. 2G-59-2nd, but not for 59-1st or, as far as is known, for 59-3rd. The remaining burials also show differences, some being provided with one vessel, none, or fragments. This likely reflects declining fortunes of the occupants of the group as a whole. For more on Gp. 2G-1, see the later discussion in this text of social implications. GROUP 2G-2 The composition of this group is somewhat problematic. Architecturally, either Str. 2G-14 or 2G-15 could have been a dwelling. The former has a rectangular, two-level platform, which closely resembles modern

134

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

house platforms. The latter has a rectangular, one-level platform, which again suggests a house. The identification of Str. 2G-15 as a house is enhanced by the presence of Str. 2G-Sub.2. Structure 2G-15-3rd seems to have been a small structure erected off one end of the larger 2G-Sub.2-2nd-A, analogous to Str. 6E-162 with respect to Str. 6E-26 in Gp. 6E-1 (see below in this section). This implies that 15-3rd was a kitchen for Sub.2-2nd-A. The succeeding Str. 2G-15-2nd and 2G-Sub.1-1st seem to have exchanged functions, as the former was larger, the latter smaller. Thus, Sub.2-1st may have been a kitchen off the end of the larger 15-2nd. The situation again recalls Str. 6E-162 with 6E-26. None of this speculation is negated by the artifacts from Gp. 2G-1, which suggest that the group was almost surely domestic in nature. Many of the artifacts came from a redeposited midden, full of ash, in Ch. 2G-10. The chultun itself indicates food storage (Puleston 1971). Only one burial was found, despite intensive excavation of one of the structures. But since one structure was not excavated, another only tested, and the third unexcavated where a large Ramon tree stood, it cannot be stated categorically that other burials are lacking. Moreover, the known burial fits the household category. In any case, a complex architectural sequence at the locus of Str. 2G-15, and the alterations of Str. 2G-14, suggest the practice of abandonment and rebuilding of houses outlined later in this section. In sum, Gp. 2G-2 was almost surely domestic. Further, it is at least a possibility that the inhabitants of the group were involved in some specialized textile production. STRUCTURE 2G-61 LOCUS Just what this structure was used for remains something of an enigma. In the discussion of its architecture, it was concluded that it might have been a house, although the platform bears no particular resemblance to present-day house platforms. Structure 2G-61 was early, however, and one might expect that houses of the time differed from later ones. Burials 62 and 64 are comparable to other household burials. Burial 62 may have been connected with abandonment of Str. 2G-62, even though it was placed beneath the future location of 2G-61. Burial 64 may have been connected with abandonment of 61. Such an interpretation suggests a domestic situation, as discussed later in this section. The artifacts recovered indicate that Str. 2G-61 was almost surely domestic. The quantity of chert flakes is a sign that more than usual chert working was carried out in 2G-61. Whether the people who lived here were full-time knappers is not known, but this is a possibility. Finally, if chultuns were used for food storage (Puleston 1971), Ch.

2G-1 would be one more factor indicating a residential function for Str. 2G-61. It seems reasonable to assume that Str. 2G-62, about which little is known architecturally, served the same function as the structure that replaced it (2G-61). This is especially true since this replacement was accompanied by a burial, and since the earlier structure, too, was associated with a chultun (Ch. 2G-2). There is also nothing in the artifact collections to suggest that the function of 2G-62 differed from that of 61. GROUP 3F-1 Although the data do not conclusively prove it, they do strongly suggest that the structures of Gp. 3F-1 were houses. Architecturally, Str. 3F-25-1st and 2nd, with their positive posthole configurations, are the strongest candidates for houses (Tables 2.5, 2.8). The probability is also high for Str. 3F-24-2nd and 3rd, the platforms of which are similar to those for 25-1st and 2nd. The probability is almost as high for 24-1st (Table 2.12). Little is known of 24-4th, but the existence of postholes and a strong possibility that 24-3rd was a habitation suggests that this may also have been a house. The three burials recovered satisfy five of the criteria for household burials, and cannot be said to fail the other two. Further, terminal burials associated with abandonment of Str. 3F-24-3rd and 4th suggest the practice discussed later in this section (see “Abandonment of Houses”). On the basis of the associated artifacts, the group has been classified as probably domestic (Table 5.12). Implements are predominantly utilitarian, and include items suggestive of food preparation. The presence of a chultun suggests that food was stored in the group (Puleston 1971). If the hypothesis is accepted that Gp. 3F-1 was a household compound, then certain other assumptions become possible. Structure 3F-24 is slightly larger, and in its final form, somewhat more elaborate than 3F-25. In 3F24, both burials were in formally walled, roofed graves; the one in 3F-25 was not. These observations might suggest a slightly higher status for the occupants of Str. 24, compared with those of 25. They do not seem to have been significantly wealthier than those dwelling in 25, however, for the burial that terminated the occupation of 24-4th was not provided with pottery (perhaps their fortunes improved, though, for the next one was). Although a higher percentage of sherds from decorated vessels (26%) was associated with Str. 3F-25, this is not significantly higher than the 23% from Str. 3F-24. Many prismatic blades were found near Str. 3F-25, not enough by any means to suggest a workshop, but the occupants might have been engaged in a fair amount of woodcarving, for which prismatic blades seem suitable.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

GROUP 3F-2 Two, if not three, of the structures here almost certainly were houses. Architecturally, the probability is particularly high for 3F-26-1st, 2nd, and 3F-29-1st and 2nd, all of which seem to have consisted in part of rectangular platforms of one or two levels. Structure 3F-26-3rd may have been similar (Table 2.17). Little is known of Str. 3F-Sub.1, but since it consisted at least in part of a poleand-thatch building, it could have been a house (Table 2.17). As the predecessor of 26-3rd, it seems a likely residence if 26-3rd was. The burials of Gp. 3F-2 surely meet five of the seven criteria for household burials, and cannot be said to lack the other two. Those beneath Str. 3F-26 appear to be terminal, associated with rebuilding of that structure and suggestive of the practice proposed later in this section. On the basis of the artifacts, Gp. 3F-2 has been classed as almost surely domestic (Table 5.12). The material was reasonably abundant, and utilitarian items were well represented. These include numerous items suggestive of food preparation. There are differences between the collections from Str. 3F-26 and 29, with utilitarian pottery considerably more abundant near 3F-26 (72% as opposed to 60%). Yet, obvious household items were found near both buildings. Structure 3F-27 has been purposely omitted from the discussion thus far because it presents special problems. On the Tikal site map (TR. 11), it is depicted as a square structure on the E side of the group plaza. On its front-rear axis Bu. 70 was found, which is a bit richer than most contemporary burials (Table 3.5). Taken together, these might suggest a small temple on the E side of the group (see, for example, Puleston 1973:appendix 9). This is probably not the case, for the following reasons: first, although its end walls were not excavated, a thorough removal of vegetation and surface cleaning of the ruin in 1963 showed the mound to be clearly rectangular, and not square. The probability is high that such one-level rectangular platforms were houses. In this case, a portion of the plaza in front may have been included beneath the roof of a building of perishable materials. Thus, the building platform may have been analogous to two-level square or rectangular platforms, but this does not in the least rule out the structure as a house. Although Bu. 70 is richer than most contemporary household interments, it is not markedly so. Rather, it could be seen as belonging to one end of a continuum of household burials, at the other end of which are those with simple graves and no associated material. Further, household burials were sometimes placed on the frontrear axis of a house. Finally, the burial could have a terminal, rather than initial relationship to the structure. None

135

of this proves that the burial was not one of special significance, such as are normally associated with household shrines. It does demonstrate, however, that there is no compelling reason to suppose that it was. The artifacts associated with Str. 3F-27 are of special interest, for 40% of them suggest food production. The other 60% seem to point to chert knapping in this structure. The percentage of utilitarian pottery is very high (Table 5.10), although in this case the sample is small. Certainly, this constitutes strong evidence against Str. 3F-27 having been a small temple. On the basis of existing evidence, it is highly probable that all structures of Gp. 3F-2 were houses. If so, then Bu. 70 raises the possibility that at least some of the occupants enjoyed a modicum of wealth, for jade is rarely found in burials except for “rich” tombs. Burial 68, though not so rich as Bu. 70, included three vessels in one of the more elaborate graves found in these excavations. On the other hand, Bu. 69 included neither vessels nor an elaborate grave. The impression conveyed is that whatever wealth there may have been, not all shared equally in it. It is somewhat surprising that Bu. 70 should be associated with the least elaborate structure in the group. Structure 3F-26 was the largest and most elaborate of the three; it contained the most burials so far as is known, and the greatest percentage of sherds from decorated vessels (40%) was found near it. These factors certainly suggest an analogy with previously discussed Str. 2G-59, and hint that the most important occupants of the group lived here. GROUP 3F-3 Two of the structures (3F-13 and 14) that were excavated here definitely were not houses, and it is doubtful that the third was. This conclusion with respect to 3F-12 is based on analogy to Str. 4E-31, which clearly was not a house (TR. 19:179). Structure 3F-12 is quite similar architecturally to 4E-31 (see TR. 20A:Fig. 53, 54 and TR. 19:Fig. 2, 3). Both are small range-type structures of similar size and plan, although Str. 4E-31 was not vaulted. Moreover, both have buildings based on one-level platforms that were built on large supplementary platforms, a trait shared by many ceremonial structures at Tikal. It is, however, shared with the residential Str. 7F-29 (TR. 22), so this trait is not conclusive. Problematical Deposit 109 was found on the frontrear axis of Str. 3F-12 and thought to be dedicatory to 3F-12-2nd, the earliest version of 3F-12. In section IV of this report, it is argued that this deposit probably constitutes a cached offering, like Ca. 85, similarly positioned relative to Str. 4E-31. Such offerings are unknown for residences at Tikal, with the exception of some Central Acropolis structures. In addition to the cache, Str. 4E-31

136

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

has a number of dedicatory burials arranged along either side of its front-rear axis that were not duplicated in Str. 3F-12. It is entirely possible, however, that the relatively limited excavation of the structure failed to encounter burials that might be found E and W of the trench. Alternatively, perhaps burials were absent because of some unknown differences in status or family traditions between those who utilized Str. 3F-12 and 4E-31. Finally, there is the relation of 3F-12 to the other structures of Gp. 3F-3, as well as to those in Gp. 3F-1 and 2, and various others nearby. These other groups consist of two to the N that include Str. 3F-5 through 3F-10, and three to the S and E that include Str. 3F-16 through 23. These 8 sets of 23 structures are all located together on the same ridge. Together, they seem to be set apart from other groups of small structures, as was the case with Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19:185). Structure 3F-12 is the only range-type structure in any of these 8 groups on the ridge, recalling the contrast of 4E-31 to the 17 structures of Gp. 4F-1 and 2. Indeed, the situation on this ridge may be visualized as a somewhat less compact version of Gp. 4F-1 and 2, and it is this that initiated the investigation of Str. 3F-12. A complicating factor that must be taken into account is that 3F-12 seems to have been used as a house, after abandonment of the structures in the group. Evidence for this takes the form of Eznab habitation trash in and around the structure. The question raised is whether this represents a late change in function (as in the case of Str. 4E-31; TR. 19:179), or simply a late continuation of the original function (as in the case of Str. 7F-29 and 32; TR. 22). In this circumstance, the former seems indicated by the lack of any pre-Eznab utilitarian debris near the structure. Unfortunately, this could be a consequence of very limited excavation. The arrangement of buildings, however, suggests that structure walls would have made trash disposal by occupants of 3F-12 most inconvenient N and W of that structure. The nearest convenient place (other than the plaza itself) would have been off the E end, where in fact a test trench was dug without finding any apparent habitation debris. On balance, it appears that Str. 3F-12, as did 4E-31, served some special function, in this case for the people who lived on the ridge, who were all probably members of some sort of kin group (discussed later in this section). Structures 3F-13 and 14 can be ruled out as houses based on their size (see section II). In fact, 3F-13 may simply be a part of 3F-12. Because of its square shape and its position on the E edge of the plaza, 3F-14 might be taken as the sort of ceremonial structure that is described in TR. 21. That it was not is indicated by the lack of any burial whatsoever on its front-rear axis, such as is always found in small ceremonial structures that are similarly situated

on the E edge of the plaza. The functions of Str. 3F-11 and 15 are not known, but by analogy with the structures of Gp. 4F-1 near Str. 4E-31, they may well have been houses. If so, 3F-14 was probably an outbuilding serving the occupants of the other two structures. In view of this, it is worth noting the similarity of the structure (though not in placement) to known kitchens such as Str. 6E-162 (Table 2.2). The probability of this hypothesis is enhanced by the ceramics and other artifacts recovered from Gp. 3F-3, which would not be out of place in a residential situation. The artifact inventory is admittedly quite small, and there is no way to tell how much of it relates to the Eznab occupation. At least there is nothing in the collection to rule out a domestic-related function for Str. 3F-14. To summarize, the evidence appears to indicate the same non-residential function for Str. 3F-12 as for Str. 4E-31. The other structures of Gp. 3F-3 were probably houses with one or two associated outbuildings. GROUP 3G-1 Only one structure, 3G-1, was excavated in this group. Since it was only tested on its front-rear axis, failure to find any hearth, midden, or even burials is scarcely surprising. Architecturally, there is no reason why this could not have been a house, although perhaps a bit more imposing than many. The possibility is greatest for 3G-13rd, with its probable two-level rectangular platform. The possibility is only slightly less high for 3G-1-2nd and 1st, with their three-level, rectangular platforms. No burials were found here, hardly surprising in view of the limited excavation. At least the sequent modifications to Str. 3G-1 suggest the practice of residential abandonment and rebuilding discussed later in this section. Problematical Deposit 217 was found in Ch. 3G-5 beneath Str. 3G-1. This, however, seems to be analogous to household offerings occasionally found in residential groups. The artifact samples are not sufficient to prove a domestic function for the structure, though they do suggest such a function. Particularly significant, a monochrome red bowl seems to have been left in place on the floor of 3G-1-1st, where it broke at about the time the structure was abandoned. Although Ch. 3G-5 was covered over by 3G-1-3rd, it does lend support to the idea that the structure was a residence. Some of the structures of Gp. 3G-1 probably were in use with the chultun. If chultuns were used for food storage as has been proposed (Puleston 1971), this then suggests that Gp. 3G-1 was residential. As the numbers of occupants increased, Str. 3G-1 was added. To judge from the outward appearance of the ruin mounds, Str. 3G-2 was the largest structure in the compound, and may have been the house of its most important occupants.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CHULTUN 2F-5 LOCUS Excavations here were even more restricted than in the case of Gp. 2B-1, 3D-9, and 3G-1, discussed above. Since chultuns usually were associated with what appear to be houses (e.g., Gp. 2G-1, 2G-2, 3F-1, 6C-6, 6E-1, 7C1, and the loci of Str. 2G-61, 5C-56, and 6C-60, all this report), this one probably was as well. The remains of such a house, however, have not been found. The artifacts are consistent with a residential situation. Absence of household burials is easily explained as the result of very limited excavations. GROUP 5B-2 These structures fall into two categories: those with rectangular, one-level platforms (5B-6-2nd and 5-7-2nd), and those with rectangular, two-level platforms (5B-6-1st, 5B-7-1st-B and A). The probability is high that all such structures were houses. Excavations were limited, which may account for the lack of household burials. The one problematical deposit (PD. 110) found has been interpreted as a disturbed burial. The remains suggest a household burial, but it probably pertains to an occupation of the locus before the known Gp. 5B-2 came into being. At the very least, the architectural alterations of the two structures are in keeping with the practice discussed below in connection with abandonment of houses. On the basis of the artifacts, Gp. 5B-2 has been classified as probably domestic (Table 5.12). Food preparation and chert knapping could have taken place in both structures. The data alone do no more than suggest a domestic function. There is nothing to suggest any other function, and the overall situation is strongly reminiscent of more obvious domestic groups such as Gp. 3F-2 and 4F-3. GROUP 5C-3 Since next to nothing is known of the architecture of this group, it is of no real help in an assessment of function. Its small-scale nature suggests a domestic situation, but this is far from conclusive. Absence of burials is also a handicap, although the limited excavations could have missed existing household burials. Lacking are special deposits that might indicate other than a domestic function. The artifacts, though not numerous, are consistent with a domestic function. Although the evidence does not strongly indicate that Gp. 5C-3 was residential, there is no reason to believe that it served any other function. STRUCTURE 5C-56 LOCUS Structures 5C-56-1st and 2nd both appear to have consisted in part of rectangular, one-level platforms. This

137

being so, the probability is high that they functioned as habitations. Less is known of the architecture of Str. 5C57, but it consisted of a building of pole-and-thatch, probably rectangular, and probably built on a platform (Table 2.17). Therefore it, too, is a likely candidate for a dwelling. The associated artifacts indicate that 5C-57 almost certainly was domestic, and the possibility is almost as strong for 56 as well. Food preparation is suggested for all structures, as is chert knapping. There may also have been some obsidian working, although this is doubtful. An apparent association of all structures with chultuns suggests that food was stored here (Puleston 1971). No obvious household burials were discovered, but much at this locus remains unexcavated. Problematical Deposit 72, however, has been interpreted as a burial associated with abandonment of Str. 5C-57 and possibly construction of 5C-56-2nd. If so, this is consistent with the practice discussed below (see “Abandonment of Houses”). The problem is that the burial is not like other household burials, showing as it does a resemblance to burial-like PD. 22, 50, and 74, possible terminal deposits. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, however, for the deposit is less well equipped than these other three. Given this, it may be interpreted as a two-stage burial, the result of ordinary householders emulating a particular style currently fashionable among more elite members of Tikal society. All things considered, there seems little doubt that all structures at the locus of Str. 5C-56 were dwellings. CHULTUN 5C-6 LOCUS Chultun 5C-6 is thought to be associated with one or more structures of which there are no visible ruins (TR. 20A). Given the limited excavation, there are no architectural clues as to function. Since comparable, more thoroughly excavated contexts elsewhere at Tikal were revealed as residential (e.g., Str. 2G-61 and 5C-56), this probably was as well. The chultun itself suggests food storage (Puleston 1971), and the artifacts are consistent with a residential function. Thus despite a paucity of data, the probability is reasonably high that the occupation was residential in nature. GROUP 4E-1 The functions of the structures here are perhaps somewhat enigmatic owing to, among other things, very limited excavation. The most elaborate structures are the various manifestations of 4E-16, all of which could have served as houses. Since they closely resemble other rangetype structures at Tikal, they may best be considered in relation to them. Although they show some similarity to Str. 3F-12 and 4E-50 in plan, they are considerably simpler in construction. It seems certain that no version of

138

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Str. 4E-16 functioned as a ceremonial building, for no initial burials or caches were found along the front-rear axis. Possible occupation debris was rare in back, and only a bit more abundant off the W end. What exists is utilitarian, and sherds from decorated vessels account for only 26% of the total ceramic sample. There is no guarantee that a mano fragment and other objects found inside the rooms were not disengaged from structure fill, or perhaps were left by the individuals who moved the probable monument fragments behind Str. 4E-14 and who left a few Pabellon Modeled-carved sherds and a late small stone point in the group. At any rate, it is possible that both food preparation and chert knapping took place in Str. 4E-16. The similarity of 4E-16 to other larger, range-type structures might suggest an administrative function. If it were a house, one would surmise that the occupants were people of some wealth and importance, but associated sherds and artifacts certainly do not indicate this. Yet, a similar situation pertained in the case of Str. 4E-50, a much more elaborate structure that may have been a dwelling (see below). Structures 4E-14 and 15 are not known in any detail, so architecture is of little help in the assignment of function. The similarity of the ruin mounds of the two structures suggests that 4E-15 appeared similar to 4E-14. The latter could have been a reduced version of the kind of structure which 4E-16 was, or it could have been a structure with a larger-than-average rectangular, two-level platform. In either case, it could have served as a house. Deposits behind Str. 4E-15 and N of Plat. 4E-1 seem to be household trash, suggesting that at least some of the structures of this group, 4E-15 in particular, were lived in. This reinforces the provisional identification of 4E-16 as a house, for the artifact collection from it is consistent with the richer deposit behind 15. In sum, considering the limited nature of excavations in Gp. 4E-1, the data reasonably indicate a domestic function. Failure to find such things as household burials in the group seems no obstacle; presumably more thorough excavation would reveal their presence. GROUP 4E-2 The conclusion reached after the 1961 excavations here was that all four structures were houses, with 4E51, a possible kitchen, the only exception (Haviland 1963:494–498). With the accumulation of further data, this assessment requires modification. To begin, there are definite clues that Str. 4E-50-A was a dwelling. Architecturally, there is no reason why it could not have been a residence though it does closely resemble the non-residential Str. 4E-31 (TR. 19:179). More specific evidence comes from a coarse jar that was obviously left in situ in the building, along with fragments

of a mano and metate. These were found directly on the floor of the center room. Found on the front porch was a whole jar neck that may have been used as a pot stand (Fig. 2a). Aside from these, no objects were found that could be said with assurance to pertain to the occupation of this structure. Their presence directly on floor surfaces indicates that they were not left after abandonment of the building. Thus, they had to be left before any debris had accumulated over the floor, presumably when the building was abandoned. The situation may be compared to 4E-31, a non-residential structure that had a late reoccupation by users of Eznab ceramics. There, some of the occupation debris overlay material that had accumulated on the floor. Added to this difference, there is no known Eznab occupation of Gp. 4E-2. While Str. 4E-50-A seems to have served as a house, 50-B did not. The first reason pertains to building plan: it consists of a single room with three doors. This brings to mind the non-residential, range-type structures of the twin pyramid groups, and it is quite unlike probable residential, range-type buildings. It seems significant, therefore, that when 4E-50 was converted into a house (4E-50-A), it was divided into rooms so as to resemble residential, rangetype structures. The second reason for suggesting that 50-B was non-residential is the presence of U. 18 on its front-rear axis, directly in front of the structure. Unit 18 is a deep pit quarried from bedrock, and if Fig. 54 and 82 of TR. 20A are compared, one can see that U. 18 bears a striking resemblance to the pit into which PD. 109 was set. This deposit is interpreted as on the front-rear axis of, and dedicatory to, Str. 3F-12-2nd, which is thought to have been a small, range-type structure. As such, it seems to be one of a number of cached offerings dedicatory to non-residential structures located in otherwise residential groups. A near-constant feature of such offerings seems to be that they are set into bedrock. Putting this all together, the following hypothesis seems plausible. When 4E-50-B was built (or its immediate precursor), a pit was excavated into bedrock on the structure axis, into which a dedicatory, cached offering was placed. Later, when 4E-50 was converted into a house, the cached offering was removed from the pit, which was then refilled. The third reason for considering 4E-50-B as non-residential is the greater apparent frequency of fine vessels in association with it (and its unknown precursor at this locus). This may only mean that the structure was occupied by more affluent individuals, but it could just as well mean that the structure served a different purpose. The fourth reason for considering 4E-50-B non-residential is the presence in the group of what may have been an earth oven. This is Str. 4E-51:U. 3 (TR. 20A:Fig. 84). Though not completely excavated, the pit seems to

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

have the proper dimensions for an earth oven, and it was filled with burned stones of appropriate size. Its location in front of Str. 4E-51 seems peculiar; if the oven were in use at the same time as 51, there would have been a large opening in the group platform in front of that structure. Possibly, the earth oven, if such it was, was abandoned when 51-2nd was built. Gann (1927:176) commented on such ovens as follows: Among the Maya of today, as amongst their ancestors, the Pib is a favorite method of cooking, though, with the introduction of modern appliances and utensils, it has fallen into desuetude, and its use is now almost exclusively ceremonial, during the festivals given in secret to their ancient gods. In the 1960s, earth ovens were used on special occasions in two settlements on Late Peten for roasting pigs’ heads for certain ceremonies that appear to be very ancient (R. Reina, pers. comm.). They were located in any convenient place, usually a level spot. Situations such as that seen archaeologically in Gp. 4E-2 are possible, with the oven near a building. In this connection, the plaza of Gp. 4E-2 would have provided the only level area nearby and the only spot where bedrock was not near ground surface. It is noteworthy that earth ovens today are under the direction of a prioste, an elder in the village. No feature has been seen in any probable or possible household group at Tikal, except for Str. 4E-51:U. 3, which could be interpreted as an earth oven. This suggests that Gp. 4E-2 was not an ordinary household group. From this and the other points it is possible that Str. 4E-51:U. 3 was an earth oven used for ritual purposes in conjunction with a non-residential precursor to Str. 4E-50-B. Associated with this building was a dedicatory cached offering placed in Str. 4E-50:U. 18. The earth oven was no longer used after Str. 4E-51-2nd was built, at which time Plat. 4E-2 was renovated and Str. 4E-50-B was built as a replacement for the earlier structure at that locus. Structure 4E-50-B continued to serve a non-residential purpose, and no new dedicatory offering was placed, a feature also of the construction of Str. 3F-12-1st-C. Apparently, the original offering was sufficient. That the original offering continued to be “effective” is indicated by the apparent necessity to remove it when 4E-50 was altered to serve another function (Str. 4E-50-A). The other structures of Gp. 4E-2 are all thought to have been dwellings. Structures 4E-51-1st, 2nd, 4E-531st, 2nd-A, and 2nd-B all included rectangular platforms of one or two levels. There is a high probability that such structures were houses. The probability is almost as high for structures with rectangular, three-level platforms, such as 4E-53. No household burials were found, but much of

139

each structure remains unexcavated. Perhaps this also explains the paucity of artifacts. The few that were found do not rule out a domestic function, nor do they suggest any other obvious function. Since most, if not all, of these structures were probably residential, it is interesting that there is nothing aside from architecture indicative of differential social status or wealth. Yet, anyone living in a house such as 4E-50-A surely must have ranked above people living in houses such as 4E-51, 4E-52, or 4E-53. Perhaps debris lying around structures is not a good indication of such differences. In lieu of finding furniture left in situ in a house, or associated burials, architecture is the only potential indicator of differential social status. In view of the presence of structures on all four sides of Plat. 4E-2, it is not improbable that one of them was a kitchen. Structure 4E-51, as the smallest and simplest structure, is the most likely candidate for a kitchen, though there is no further evidence (Haviland 1963:496). A very small percentage of sherds from fine pottery vessels was found in association, but the percentage was higher than for the other two small structures. This has little meaning, however, in view of the poor samples involved, and in view of the fact that Gp. 4F-3 had the highest percentage of associated fine-ware sherds of any structure from around 4F-49, a probable kitchen. More persuasive is the lack of architectural resemblance between Str. 4E-51 in either of its forms and known kitchens such as Str. 6E-162, its similarity in both of its forms to known houses, and the lack of any appreciable differences between its associated artifacts and those from Str. 4E-52 and 53. In short, it is now doubtful that 4E-51 served exclusively as a kitchen. GROUP 5D-1 A functional assessment of this group is made difficult by the limited extent of excavation, the unusual architecture, and the lack of artifacts not from fill sources. This is unfortunate, for the location of this group in the midst of major architecture at the center of Tikal makes it particularly desirable to learn its function. Of all the structures of Gp. 5D-1 (Table 2.1), specific architectural data exists for 5D-6-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5D-7-1st, and 5D-8-A, B, and C. Structure 5D-6-1st, 2nd, and 3rd all seem to have consisted of buildings based on rectangular, two-level platforms, possibly in appearance not unlike some small, range-type structures. They could have served as houses, albeit more elaborate than most of the others discussed in this report, but they could have served other functions. A more probable house is Str. 5D-7-1st. Nothing is known architecturally about earlier versions of 5D7, save that most could have resembled the final building. Structure 5D-7-6th, though, may not have. Structure 5D-8, a range-type structure in its three forms, may have

140

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

been a house, but also could have served other purposes. It does seem to resemble small range-type structures that probably were habitations (e.g., 4E-16), rather than those that probably were not (e.g., 4E-50-B). Structures 5D-9 and 10 are totally unknown, but their ruin mounds resemble those of 5D-6 and 7. Group 5D-1 produced a series of burials that collectively satisfy all the criteria of household burials, although one stands apart from all the others. This one, Bu. 169, is typical of those placed beneath household temples (see TR. 21), and probably was initial to Str. 5D-7-6th. The latter could have been square, as such temples normally are (see Table 2.17). The burials therefore suggest a household compound with a temple included within it. Lack of other residential burials of special significance, however, and the known form of Str. 5D-7-1st suggest a change of function at some point for 5D-7. Two problematical deposits are known from Gp. 5D1, and both are associated with Str. 5D-7. One (PD. 126) probably is of no special significance. The other (PD. 124) appears to have been dedicatory to Str. 5D-7-2nd, and seems to be the same sort of cached offering as has already been discussed for Gp. 3F-3 and 4E-2. Such offerings seem to relate to non-residential structures in otherwise domestic groups. This raises the possibility that, though 5D-7 may have ceased to be used as a temple, it continued to serve some non-residential function, at least through 7-2nd. Such a change through time would duplicate that previously reported for Gp. 4F-1, where the small rangetype Str. 4E-31, with its cached offering similar to PD. 124, replaced an earlier group temple, Str. 4F-8, with its burial reminiscent of Bu. 169 (TR. 19:179, 181, 185). The artifacts from Gp. 5D-1 imply a residential situation, though they are not as persuasive as could be desired. Accordingly, the group has been classified as possibly domestic (Table 5.12). Overall, the evidence does suggest that Gp. 5D-1 was residential, with Str. 5D-7 usually serving some non-residential purpose. As the most impressive structure in the group, 5D-9 may have served as the house of the most important occupants. In general, the architecture suggests that whoever lived in this group enjoyed higher status than the occupants of most of the others discussed in this report. Consistent is that the individual in Bu. 171 was exceptionally tall, which could reflect a better-than-average diet and relatively superior living conditions in general. On the other hand, higher status is not reflected in richness of burials or in artifacts. Perhaps, then, the status of the occupants of Gp. 5D-1 was lower than the architecture would suggest. A possible explanation for this is that they constituted a sort of custodial staff for some of the public buildings at Tikal. Because their houses were close to the buildings for which they were responsible, they were more elaborate than they

would otherwise have been, in keeping with the surrounding architecture. GROUP 4F-3 The group appears to have been composed of two dwellings with associated kitchens. Architecturally, Str. 4F-47-1st and 2nd, both of which were rectangular with two platform levels topped by a pole-and-thatch building, almost surely were houses. Structure 4F-21-1st shows considerable resemblance to 4F-47-1st and the rectangular, one-level platform of 4F-21-2nd strongly suggests a house platform. Structures 4F-48 and 49 are too small to have been houses, and their positions relative to the larger structures is suggestive of outbuildings. Indeed, their size and placement are both similar to known kitchens, such as Str. 6E-162 (cf. TR. 20A:Fig. 99, 149). Group 4F-3 has been classified as almost surely domestic on the basis of associated artifacts (Table 5.12). Percentages of utilitarian objects are high, and implements of use in food preparation are well represented. As might be expected, trash is more abundant, and frequencies of implements useful in food preparation are greater near Str. 4F-49 than 4F-47. The collections from Str. 4F-21 and 48 are not as satisfactory, but the situation is reminiscent of 4F-47 and 49. The only inhumation found was beneath the plaza, but it could be a household burial. Otherwise, the sequential reconstruction of Str. 4F-21 and 47 suggests the practice discussed later in this section (the abandonment and reconstruction of structures). In summary, functional identifications in the case of Gp, 4F-3 are firm; Str. 4F-21 and 47 almost surely were houses, and 4F-48 and 49 almost certainly were kitchens. The important occupants of the group probably lived in 4F-47, for this is more elaborate, and occupies a more commanding position than 4F-21. Moreover, the highest frequency of fine pottery comes from near its kitchen. GROUP 5F-1 Little is known of the architecture of this group (Table 2.1). Structures 5F-18-1st and 2nd probably included rectangular platforms of one level highly suggestive of house platforms. The ruin mound of Str. 5F-17 is similar to that for 5F-18. The earlier Str. 5F-Sub.2 (Table 2.17) at least cannot be ruled out as a possible house. Structure 5F-Sub.1-1st also could have been a habitation (Table 2.3). The only interment from this group probably qualifies as a household burial. Absence of several such burials is easily explained as a result of very limited excavations. Four problematical deposits are unusual for a domestic group, but they may be analogous to a series of household offerings known from Gp. 4F-1 and 2. At least they are unlike offerings at Tikal associated with non-residential structures.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The artifacts from Gp. 5F-1 seem most instructive. They strongly point to food preparation, and the presence of a chultun suggests the storage of food (Puleston 1971). Chert knapping is also indicated. On the basis of the artifacts, the group has been classified as almost surely domestic (Table 5.12). GROUP 5F-2 The most probable habitations in this group are structures with rectangular, one-level platforms: 5F-422nd, 44, 45-1st, and 46-1st. Those with square, one-level platforms that could have been houses are 5F-42-1st and 3rd, 43, and 46-2nd. Structures 5F-45-2nd and Sub.3, which also have square, one-level platforms, are too small to have been houses, but could have been domestic adjuncts. The placement of Str. 5F-Sub.3, particularly, suggests an outbuilding associated with Str. 5F-42-2nd and 3rd (TR. 20A:Fig. 109). When it was abandoned, Str. 5F43 was built just to the E, suggesting that it was intended as a replacement for Sub.3. Structure 5F-47 is in a class by itself (Table 2.17). It could have been a house, but it also is a strong candidate for some kind of outbuilding. No burials are known for this group, but there are large unexcavated areas where they might be found. No other special deposits are known, which probably is significant given the amount of excavation of the structures themselves. The artifacts from Gp. 5F-2 imply that it was almost surely domestic. Food preparation is suggested for most structures, but is especially clear in the case of 5F-47. Some chert knapping seems to have been carried out in the group. On the basis of these considerations, the following interpretation seems reasonable: Str. 5F-42, 44, and 46, in their various forms, probably were houses. Structures 5F-45-2nd, 47, and Sub.3 surely were not houses. Structure 5F-47 was almost certainly a kitchen, and 5F-Sub.3 may have been. This suggests that 5F-47 was a kitchen for 5F-44 and Str. 5F-Sub.3 was for Str. 5F-42-3rd and 2nd. If so, it is logical to suppose that 5F-45-2nd served a similar function for 5F-46-2nd. Given this interpretation, and the construction of Str. 5F-43 when 5F-Sub.3 was abandoned, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that 5F-43 served as a kitchen for 5F-42-1st. Similarly, Str. 5F-45-1st, as the replacement for 5F-45-2nd, could have served as a kitchen for 5F-46-1st and the final period of use of 5F-46-2nd.

141

platforms. There is a high probability that such structures were houses, although 6C-47 is more elaborate than usual. Structures 6C-45-8th-A, B, and C feature square to apsidal platforms, and the main portion of 46-1st features a three-level rectangular platform. The probability is almost as high that such structures, too, were houses. Possibly, the small platform attached to 46-1st and 2nd was a kitchen, though there is no direct evidence for this. Structure 6C-46-3rd is poorly known (Table 2.17), but could have been a house. Structure 6C-44 is totally unknown, but its ruin mound is not unlike that of 6C-45. Two burials are known from Gp. 6C-1, and they satisfy all criteria for household burials. Moreover, they can be interpreted in terms of the custom of abandonment and rebuilding discussed later in this section. The one problematical deposit (Table 4.2) could be a secondary household burial, or fill derived from a midden. On the basis of artifacts, the group has been classified as almost surely domestic (Table 5.12). There is good evidence for food preparation in Str. 6C-45, and the same is suggested, less clearly, for 6C-46. For 6C-47, occupation debris was not found, probably because excavations were so limited. Chert knapping also took place in the group, and there is a strong likelihood that whoever lived in Str. 6C-45 specialized in shell working. Given that Gp. 6C-1 was probably domestic, there is some suggestion that the occupants ranked a bit higher than those of many other domestic groups. Within the compound Str. 6C-47 must have been the house of the most important occupants. Before it was built, however, 6C-45 may have held this position. GROUP 6C-2 Here, a single structure was tested, so there are few architectural data. The ruin mounds, however, are comparable to those of known houses. Structure 6C-57 seems to have consisted in part of a rectangular, one-level platform, strongly suggestive of a house platform. The single burial could be a household burial; at least, it appears to have had no special significance. No other special deposits are known. The artifacts are not much help, but they indicate that the group was possibly domestic. Though the data appear inconclusive overall, if the exceedingly limited nature of the excavation is considered, there is no reason to doubt a domestic function for this group, including Str. 6C-57.

GROUP 6C-1

GROUP 6C-5

There seems little doubt that this was a domestic compound. Structures 6C-45-2nd, 3rd, 4th-A through C, and 5th through 7th feature rectangular, one-level platforms of various sorts. Structures 6C-45-1st, 47, and the main portion of Str. 46-2nd feature rectangular, two-level

Architecturally, Str. 6C-62 and 63 could certainly have been houses, though simpler than most. No household burials were found in association with them, but may exist nearby. PD. 231, however, may be the reinterred remains of one of the Tikal elite. This does not preclude a

142

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

domestic function for the group; indeed, one may argue that the situation suggests a lower-class living situation. Group 6C-5 has been classified as possibly domestic on the basis of its artifacts. Though few in number, they are consistent with such an interpretation, and suggest nothing else. Paucity of the remains would be expected in a lower-class situation, but it may be that excavations were not sufficiently extensive to locate relevant trash deposits. The presence of chultuns in Gp. 6C-5 suggests that food was stored here (Puleston 1971). With the other data, however scant, this strongly points to a domestic function for the group. STRUCTURE 6C-60 LOCUS Of the structures here, 6C-60 and Sub.1 consisted of square or rectangular buildings of pole-and-thatch, with or without building platforms. In either case, it is probable that they were houses. Structure 6C-61, with its square, one-level platform with inset corner almost surely was a house. A single burial seems to qualify as a household burial, and no special deposits are known. The artifacts suggest that the group was probably domestic. Food preparation is indicated for all structures, and the presence of chultuns suggests food storage (Puleston 1971). Chert knapping also may have taken place. Overall, it is highly probable that these three structures were houses. GROUP 7C-1 The known architecture of this group consists of structures (7C-3-1st, 2nd, 7C-4) that include rectangular platforms of one or two levels. There is a high probability that these were dwellings, and it is noteworthy that they resemble structures arranged in a similar manner in the known domestic Gp. 4F-3 and 6E-1. The only important difference is that there are no known separate kitchens in Gp. 7C-1. No burials are known from this group, but considering that much remains unexcavated, this is not unexpected. The rebuilding of Str. 7C-3 suggests the practice discussed in the section on abandonment (see below). There is one known problematical deposit, but this predates the known structures and will be discussed below. The artifacts suggest that the group was probably domestic. Evidence is best for Str. 7C-4, where food preparation and chert knapping may well have taken place. Few artifacts were recovered from Str. 7C-3, perhaps because the right places were not excavated, but the few that were found are consistent with those from 7C-4. Chultun 7C-3 may have been used by the occupants of Gp. 7C-1, although this is not certain. If so, it suggests food storage in association with the group (Puleston 1971).

As noted, a single problematical deposit was found (PD. 99). It predates any known structure at this location, and so it does not necessarily indicate anything about their function. The deposit is thought to be the same sort of cached offering represented by PD. 109 and 124 already discussed for Gp. 3F-3 and 5D-1. This, and association with at least one posthole, suggests that a structure once stood here that had the same function as Str. 3F-12, 4E-50-B, and 5D-7. In this connection, it may be that Gp. 7C-1 was a part of a settlement unit similar to the one with which Str. 3F-12 was associated. Possibly, a new structure in another group replaced the one associated with PD. 99. Apparently, it was totally razed by the time Gp. 7C-1, as now known, was built. GROUP 7C-2 Of four structures, 7C-7 alone was excavated. It was only tested on its front-rear axis, but its two architectural developments apparently included rectangular platforms of one or two levels. Hence, architecturally, 7C-7-1st and 2nd are both excellent house candidates. Failure to find any burial is not surprising, in view of the limited excavation. The rebuilding of 7C-7, however, does suggest the practice of house abandonment discussed below. The artifacts include nothing out of place around a house, and suggest that somewhere in the group food preparation took place. Overall, the layout of Gp. 7C-2 is much like that seen in Gp. 6C-1, which was apparently a domestic group. To judge from the ruin mounds, 7C-5 appears to have been the largest of the structures, much like 6C-47 in Gp. 6C1. Perhaps it housed the most important residents of the compound. Structure 7C-7-2nd apparently was added to the group as its occupants increased in number through time. STRUCTURE 7C-62 Architectural data for this structure are scanty, in large part because it seems to have been built without masonry or plaster. It is at least possible that such a structure was a house. Certainly, its simplicity argues against other possible functions, excepting perhaps storage. This is not likely, however, for the structure appears to have stood alone. Lack of household burials is no particular problem; the brief occupation suggests that there probably were few interments. In any case, they could be located in unexcavated areas nearby. The artifacts suggest that Str. 7C-62 was almost surely domestic (Table 5.12). Food production certainly took place here, along with some chert knapping. Perhaps the inhabitants of Str. 7C-62 were engaged in some specialized occupations.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

GROUP 6E-1 There is no doubt that Gp. 6E-1, from TS. 17 onward (TR. 20A:Table 2.339), was a residential compound. Structures 6E-25-1st and 2nd included rectangular two-level and one-level platforms respectively, and so the probability is high that both were houses. The probability is equally high that 26-3rd was a house, a conclusion that also may reasonably be extended to Str. 6E-26-4th (Table 2.17). The other versions of 26, with their square, two-level platforms, are unusual architecturally for houses, but remain good house candidates. Size rules out Str. 6E-162 and 163 as houses, but their positions off the ends of the larger structures is suggestive of domestic adjuncts. As will be seen, other information reasonably indicates that they were kitchens. Of the nine burials from this group, all but two relate to the time spans presently under discussion, and these meet six of the seven criteria for household burials. The seventh they do not necessarily fail. No other special deposits are known for the group. The association of burials with a number of sequent architectural modifications suggests the practice discussed in the section on abandonment of houses, below. The sherds and artifacts that pertain to the time spans following TS. 17 clearly indicate a domestic function for Str. 6E-26 in all of its manifestations. Food preparation certainly took place, and probably some chert knapping. Material from Str. 6E-25 is rare, probably largely because excavations were limited at this locus. There is nothing to indicate that the structure was anything other than a dwelling. In the case of Str. 6E-162, a kitchen is reasonably indicated (Fig. 15). A similar artifact inventory is missing for 6E-163, but its architectural resemblance to 162, and its similar location vis-à-vis a larger structure, suggest that it, too, was a kitchen. Food storage in the group is suggested by the continued use of Ch. 6E-7 until Gp. TS. 13 (Puleston 1971). From the above, it is clear that from Gp. TS. 17 on, Gp. 6E-1 included two houses, off the ends of which separate kitchens were eventually built. The most important occupants probably lived in Str. 6E-26, for this seems more elaborate architecturally than 6E-25, and since the known burials are all close to 26, it seems to have been a preferred location for disposal of the dead. The nature of Gp. 6E-1 prior to TS. 17 is less clear. For one thing, the architecture is less well known and, where it is known, it is problematical. This is particularly true for Str. 6E-Sub.1-1st and 2nd. These are unusually small for dwellings, but they are not definitively ruled out on the basis of size. Nor do they closely resemble known habitations, but then one would not necessarily expect this in very early examples, as these may be. It does seem

143

that the construction of Sub.1-2nd, at least, is more elaborate than expected for an outbuilding (see TR. 20A:Fig. 142). Another possibility, since it is square, is that it was a small temple. The problem is that it opened to the S, rather than the W, as with all known household temples. Perhaps it is significant that when Str. 6E-26-4th (which also opened to the S) was built, Sub.1-1st was eliminated from the group. Structure 6E-26-4th was built just N of Sub.1, all of which suggests that the one structure was a replacement for the other. Implied is functional continuity, and with the other considerations just reviewed, suggests that Sub.1 was a dwelling, however small. If Str. 6E-Sub.1 is enigmatic, 6E-Sub.2 and Sub.3 are even more so, for less is known about them. They could have consisted in part of square or rectangular platforms, which might have been house platforms. Two burials have been found in proximity to these structures. One (Bu. 138) is a type expected in a household situation, but the other (Bu. 128) is unusual. Since the second was placed in 6E-Sub.1, it once again calls into question the function of the structure. It is, however, reasonably clear that the interment is associated with abandonment of Sub.1-2nd and construction of Sub.11st. This, and the lack of a burial initial to Sub.1-2nd, is suggestive of a house, rather than a ceremonial structure (see discussion of abandonment, below). At the same time, its presence suggests that the structure was not some other kind of outbuilding. Although unusually elaborate for a household burial, it is nonetheless relatively simple by comparison with contemporary chamber burials. All things considered, it does appear most probable that Bu. 128 was a household burial, albeit an exceptional one. This, however, cannot be proved. Also on the subject of burials, it may be noted that the locus of Str. 6E-Sub.1 seems to have continued as a favored location for interments after the replacement of the structure by 6E-26. Three of the later household burials were actually intruded into its fill. All of the other later household burials were in or near 6E-26. If 26 replaced Sub.1, as suggested, then continued placement of the dead here may be seen as another link between the two structures. As was the case with the later material, artifacts of the early time spans of Gp. 6E-1 strongly point to a domestic function. Consistent is the presence of two chultuns, suggestive of food storage (Puleston 1971). Given these, and the conclusion that the group was surely domestic from Gp. TS. 17 on, it becomes more likely than not that Gp. 6E-1 was domestic from its first construction through its last. This still does not prove that Str. 6E-Sub.1, Sub. 2, and Sub.3 themselves were houses, as opposed to domestic adjuncts. But in view of the considerations discussed above—presence of what may have been a household

144

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

burial, lack of detailed architectural resemblance to known household ceremonial structures or outbuildings, and implied continuity with Str. 6E-26—plus the lack of any apparent special offerings, it is probable that Sub.1 was a house, in spite of its small size. Structures 6E-Sub.2 and 3 may also have shared this function. In summary, Gp. 6E-1 almost surely was a domestic group from first to last. Known houses include Str. 6E25 and 26 in their various manifestations, and probably 6E-Sub.1. Known kitchens include Str. 6E-162 and 163. Some of the occupants of this group probably were involved in more than the ordinary amount of textile manufacture and, at some time, they may have specialized in shell working. If so, this seems to have been discontinued. Some obsidian working is possible, though dubious. STRUCTURE 6F-62 LOCUS Nothing concrete is known of the architecture here, but the ruin mound is comparable to those of known residential structures. A partially excavated burial is similar, so far as is known, to other household burials. The limited excavations did not recover a good sample of artifacts contemporary with Str. 6F-62, but there is nothing inconsistent with a residential situation. An earlier, Preclassic occupation is known for this locus. Again, there are no architectural data available, but there is a good sample of artifacts. This was found inside a chultun, which itself suggests that food was stored here for a nearby structure (Puleston 1971). The artifacts are fairly certainly from a domestic situation, with tools for food preparation and chert knapping well represented. Absence of household burials is easily accounted for by the limited extent of excavations. GROUP 7F-2 So little is known about this group that any functional assessment is bound to be tentative. No architecture is known, save that of Str. 7F-89 and 90, which are poorly known. Nevertheless, they appear to have included some sort of rectangular platforms suitable for house platforms (Table 2.17). The mounds marking the other structures are similar to known house ruins. Burial 219 was found in Str. 7F-90. It has not been excavated, but the little that is known about it is suggestive of a household burial. The artifacts are consistent with a domestic situation, and seem to indicate food preparation and chert knapping. The presence of two chultuns suggests food storage (Puleston 1971). In one of the chultuns is a problematical deposit (262) that may be interpreted as a non-dedicatory household offering. Overall, there is no reason not to regard Gp. 7F-2 as domestic, given the evidence at hand. Still, such a function is not clearly indicated.

GROUP 7G-1 The architecture of this group is unknown, but the ruin mounds and their arrangement are comparable to known residences. No burials are known, household or otherwise, but this could be the result of insufficient excavation. A problematical deposit from Ch. 7G-4, however, is suggestive of a non-dedicatory household offering. The chultun itself may reflect food storage (Puleston 1971). Finally, the artifacts strongly imply a residential function for the group. Included are items suggestive of food preparation, chert knapping and household ritual activity. TESTED SMALL-STRUCTURE GROUPS The several groups in this category are not discussed in detail, since information about them is so limited. Most, if not all, are assumed to be domestic because they are so numerous, but more importantly, because the ruin mounds in size, form, and layout are similar to those of house ruins discussed here or in TR. 21 and 22. Actually, there is some variation, and this is assessed in TR. 20A, where the groups are described. In the case of several tested groups, there are additional clues that they are domestic in nature. First, fourteen of them appear from inspection of the site map to be associated with chultuns. These include Gp. 2G-3, 3C-4, 3D-4, 3D-5, 3D-8, 4F-5, 4F-7, Ch. 4G-2 locus, 5C-5, 5G2, 6D-4, 5E-12, 7C-4, and 7C-5. This suggests the storage of food in or near these groups (Puleston 1971). Second, what appear to be household burials are known from seven groups that include Bu. 45 from Gp. 4F-6, Bu. 118 from Gp. 6E-14, Bu. 119 from Gp. 7E-6, Bu. 189 from Gp. 4G-3, Bu. 205 from Gp. 1D-7, Bu. 208 from Gp. 1D2, and Bu. 212 with PD. 221 (probably a secondary burial) from Str. 4C-34. Third, in no case do the artifacts, where present, point to anything other than a domestic situation. In the case of Gp. 4F-7, a good sample of material suggests that this (in which there is also a chultun) was probably domestic. Other midden-like situations were noted in Gp. 1D-2, 2G-3, 5C-5, 6D-4, 7E-3, and 7E-6. Chultuns are associated with three of these groups. Group 6B-3 produced an unusually large number of censers, as well as some utilitarian items. It was all collected, however, near what could be a small, household temple. The provenience was a pit that its excavator, Puleston, believed was some kind of planting pit. One other situation that merits special mention is the possible sweathouse, Str. 7E-Sub.1, from Gp. 7E-3. There are two possibilities: perhaps this sweathouse was built in a residential area, as present-day sweathouses may be, or perhaps there once were major structures here that were later removed (Gp. 6C-XVI comes to mind; see Laporte 2003a:206–209; 2003b:295–298). In any event, the final

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

group looks domestic in nature, and the test-pit excavators encountered midden-like deposits. In sum, there seems no reason to doubt that most of the tested small-structure groups were residential. Whatever few exceptions there may be to this probably are limited to some of the groups of the Great Plaza Quadrangle.

Summary The following was written in 1962, after an attempted functional assessment of the Op. 24 small-structure groups: “We are still faced with the question: if they are not houses, what are they? However, a few features have emerged from excavation which will serve to bolster this assumption” (Haviland 1963:505). Today, with more data at hand, one could be less cautious. The preceding review of the evidence indicates that a domestic function for Gp. 2G-1, 4F-3, and 6E-1 is virtually certain. Such a function is as certain for Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19). It is nearly as certain for Gp. 3F-1 and 2, 5F-1 and 2, 6C-1, and Str. 5C-56 and 57. For the other groups of the excavated sample, the evidence may not be quite so clear, but in every case it is consistent with a domestic function. Indeed, the evidence in these cases appears as an imperfect copy of the evidence as seen in the certain domestic groups, rather than something really different. Thus, for example, given reasonably clear evidence that Gp. 6C-1 was residential, there is no reason to question an identification of Gp. 7C-2 as domestic. In other words, the oft-made assumption that most, if not all, small-structure groups at Maya sites were residential in nature receives solid support from the evidence considered here. The assumption that most, if not all, small-structure groups were domestic is borne out by the evidence, but another frequent assumption, that all small structures were houses, is not. The present study shows that the following structures were surely or almost surely not houses: Str. 2G-Sub.1, 2G-15-3rd, 2G-Sub.2-1st, 3F-12-2nd, 1stC, B, and A, 3F-13, 3F-14, 4E-50-B, 4F-48, 4F-49, two if not all versions of 5D-7, 5F-43, 4F-45-2nd, 1st, 5F-47, 5F-Sub.3, 6E-162, 6E-163, and 7E-Sub.1. In Gp. 4F-1 and 2, structures that were not houses are 4E-31-D, C, B, and A, 4F-8, 4F-14-2nd, 4F-42-A and B, 4F-43-2nd, 1st-B, 1st-A, and perhaps Str. 4F-Sub.3 and Sub.5. This is between 15% and 18% of the excavated structures listed in Table 2.1 and TR. 19:Table 83. In any one domestic group, up to 50% of the structures in use at one time might not be houses, as demonstrated for Gp. 4F-3, 5F-2, 6E-1, and perhaps Gp. 3F-3 (this assumes that Str. 3F-13 was really part of 3F-12 and that Str. 3F-11 and 15 were houses. In Gp. 3F-3, the percentage of non-houses could actually have been greater than 50%).

145

It was stated earlier in this report that most small structures were initially built for purposes that remained consistent throughout their period of use, and this has been generally confirmed. The only instances (exclusive of Eznab reoccupation) where altered functions are indicated include Str. 2G-15, from outbuilding to house; 2G-Sub.2, from house to outbuilding; 4E-50, from special-purpose structure to house; 5D-7, from small temple, to house, to special-purpose structure, and perhaps back to house. In Gp. 4F-2, the function of Str. 4F-14 changed from outbuilding to house (TR. 19:181).

4. Discussion Abandonment of Houses Given the conclusion that most small structures were dwellings, the earlier argument that such structures seem to have undergone architectural modification every 25 to 35 years takes on potential significance. In the first place, this is close to Wauchope’s (1938:151; 1940:239) observation that, in the 20th century, Maya houses were occupied until they were about 30 years of age. In the second place, taken in conjunction with mortality data for Tikal, it suggests that the use of any specific house was limited to a period of time slightly less than an average lifetime. This allows the necessary time for individuals to reach adulthood before moving into their own residences. A few houses were apparently rebuilt after relatively short periods of time and, conversely, some were rebuilt after longer periods of use. This is consistent with the varying age of the heads of households, many of whom may have died in their forties, though some died earlier, and some later. In view of these considerations, the physical relationship of household burials to structures becomes of interest. As already noted, there is reason to suppose that all such burials have a terminal relationship to associated architecture. It is therefore possible that the death of a householder motivated abandonment of a house, in accord with Landa’s observation in the 16th century: They buried them inside or in the rear of their houses…Usually they abandoned the house and left it deserted after the burials, except when there were a great many persons in it, so that they with their society lost some of the fear which remained in them on account of the death (Tozzer 1941:130). It certainly is quite possible that this description applies to the Maya of Tikal. Instead of the remaining occupants usually moving elsewhere, however, it would appear

146

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

that they commonly built a new house on the site of the older one. One objection that might be raised to this hypothesis is that burials have not been found in all the small structures excavated. This objection is weakened by two facts. First, many houses have not been completely excavated, so that associated burials may be present, though undiscovered. Second, excavations in Gp. 2G-1, 4F-2, and 6E-1 show that some structures were obviously preferred over some others for burial. Since the use-spans of houses without known associated burials are comparable to those that contain them, it is probable that abandonment of a house was not really the result of the burial so much as the result of the death. The deceased might be placed elsewhere, in some other structure or beneath the plaza.

Population It is not the purpose of this volume to become involved in population estimates. Elsewhere preliminary calculations have been presented (Haviland 1970b; 1972a). Some consider these too high (Sanders 1973:357); others think them too low (Puleston 1973), but they seem to have gained a fair measure of acceptance (Culbert 1974:64; Weaver 1972:155; Willey and Shimkin 1973:480). Hence, they will suffice until a final assessment of the Tikal Project takes place (in the interim, see Haviland 2003b:128–129). Some broad conclusions about trends, however, can be drawn on the basis of the evidence presented here. Other investigations at Tikal fill in many details, but do not alter the general picture. From the chronological and functional data just discussed, it appears that whatever the actual numbers were, the population of Tikal reached a peak around AD 550. It then held more or less constant until sometime between AD 770 and 869, when a population crash began. Given this, it is important to take note of two other phenomena that also occurred ca. AD 550. One was the development of nutritional problems (Haviland 1967). Apparently, for the next 300 years, the Tikal Maya had trouble acquiring sufficient nutritious food, producing undernutrition (but not malnutrition). This probably was a consequence of the population having grown slightly beyond optimum size. Evidently, this growth was halted in time to avoid an immediate catastrophe. To pursue this matter further, the problem of undernutrition may have played a role in the ultimate population crash, when it came. Obviously, it was not the sole cause, or the Tikal Maya would not have continued to thrive for 300 years or so. It may have set the stage, however; should food production have been adversely affected by something else, a crisis may have resulted that was far more serious than it would have been had there not

already been a problem of undernutrition. The second occurrence ca. AD 550 was, apparently, the construction of the system of earthworks N and S of Tikal (Haviland 2003b:136–141). Again, a connection with the achievement of maximum population is indicated. Evidently population growth in the region corresponds with a time of increased competition between Tikal and other centers of growth.

Small-Structure Groupings THE SINGLE PLAZA-RESIDENTIAL UNIT Given the conclusion that most small-structure groups were residential in nature, an inspection of the site map (TR. 11) suggests that houses could be built singly, in isolation. This is borne out by the data of Table 6.7, which show that of the 20 most thoroughly excavated and bestknown groups or loci, 8 surely, 11 probably, and 14 possibly began as single, isolated houses. At the same time, inspection of both the site map and Table 6.7 uphold Carr and Hazard’s (TR. 11:8) statement: Almost all the ruins consist of groups, usually arranged around a leveled court or raised platform. This pattern is adhered to even where the topography is most unsuited to it. For example, even small groups built on steep slopes usually surround a terraced court raised on the downhill side and, at times, sunken on the uphill side. The major mound in this situation is usually the uphill mound, often more like a shelf built into the side of the hill. Courts may have mounds on one, three, or all four sides, usually more than two. Carr and Hazard, in their statement, speak of all Tikal ruins, regardless of one-time function. In the case of residential groups, or at least the smaller ones, Table 6.7 indicates that they began as one or two houses alone, with others usually being added later. In addition to the 10 groups surely (14 probably) of Table 6.7, to which houses were added in this manner, Gp. 2G-2, 3G-1, 5D-1, 6C-2, and 7C-2 are also known to have added structures. The same is probably true in other cases. Such added houses were generally built on the available open edges of plazas or platforms. Once these edges were filled, further structures could be built on new plazas or platforms adjacent to the original. Other factors must have played a role, however, for in Gp. 4F-1, the best-known case (TR. 19), no more than two houses were ever built on plaza or platform edges, and yet adjacent plaza-house units were established. Whatever the reasons for deciding whether or not to fill all available edges of a platform or plaza,

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

though, this kind of growth presumably accounts for the many small-structure groups depicted on the site map that consist of more than one plaza-structure unit. Another option, once the available plaza or platform edges in an existing group were filled as far as desired, would have been to start a new household compound. This would account for the appearance of new groups from time to time, and probably for some of the apparent single-house situations depicted on the site map. What all this suggests is that the basic unit of Tikal settlement was not the individual house. Rather, individual houses were constituents of a basic residential unit that usually consisted of two or more houses, with outbuildings when present, arranged around the edges of a single plaza or platform. Single-house situations, for their part, appear to be preludes to such units. I have called the basic unit the “single plaza-residential unit.” Such a designation is relatively free of further cultural implications, and avoids confusion with the term “small-structure group.” Although many small-structure groups are the same as single plaza-residential units (e.g., Gp. 2G-1), some are composed of multiple single plaza-residential units (e.g., Gp. 4F-1; TR. 19:185).

147

THE MULTIPLAZA-RESIDENTIAL UNIT Although the basic unit of Tikal settlement is the single plaza-residential unit, there seem to exist some larger order assemblages that consist of a number of single plaza-residential units. One such multiplaza-residential unit consists of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (Table 6.11 [see below], and TR. 19:185). These are located together on a knoll, and are closer to one another than they are to any other structure groups, large or small. Associated with them is a single non-utilitarian, special-purpose structure (Str. 4F-8, later 4E-31). A similar, though less compact, multiplaza-residential unit is one that includes within it Gp. 3F-1, 2, and 3 (Table 6.11; see below). These, with five other groups, are all located together on a single ridge. The greatest distance of one group from another is 0.80 m, whereas the nearest structure of any outside group is 110 m distant. There is one structure that stands apart from all the others architecturally, and this is 3F-12 in Gp. 3F-3. As noted, 3F-12 greatly resembles Str. 4E-31 in plan and in the presence of a cache. In short, it seems probable that Str. 3F-12 had the same function vis-à-vis the houses on this ridge that 4E31 had in relationship to the houses of Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2.

148

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Other multiplaza-residential units seem to exist at Tikal. One such, centered on Str. 5G-8, was excavated by Marshall J. Becker in 1964 (Table 6.11, and TR. 21). Another may consist of Gp. 5D-1 with some of the probable residential groups to the N of it. This is not obvious from the distribution of the various ruins in the way that the other three are, but features associated with Str. 5D-7 suggest that it may, at various times at least, have served the same function as 4E-31 and 3F-12. Perhaps, in this instance, structure distributions have been affected by their proximity to major public construction. A careful inspection of the six quadrangles of the site map suggests sixteen other instances where such units may be defined with somewhat less confidence and eight instances where such units are highly problematical (Table 6.11). Elsewhere in the northeast Peten, Bullard identified similar units he called clusters (1960:367). The way such multiplaza-residential units were formed has already been suggested. Once the available edges of a single platform or plaza were filled as far as desired, further structures could be built on new plazas or platforms adjacent to the original or just a bit farther away. This may often have been the result of population growth, such that the single plaza and structures could not house everyone. In Gp. 4F1, though, other considerations must have been involved, for plazas and platforms there never had more than two houses at their edges (TR. 19:Fig. 23). This will be discussed further in connection with social implications. The probable and possible multiplaza-residential units listed in Table 6.11 account for a mere 750 structures out of a total of approximately 2,137. On the face of it, this would seem to indicate that multiplaza-residential units were not a constant feature of Tikal settlement. The situation is complicated, however, by many factors, one being the previously discussed point that small residential groups were not always as they appear on the site map. Some may include hidden structures, whereas certain mounds may not cover ruins at all. Moreover, some structures that appear on the map were abandoned before others. There are, therefore, limitations in placing too much reliance on a visual inspection of the site map. This may not be too serious, though, in view of the prior conclusion that 99% of the mapped small-structure groups were in use in Late Classic times, ca. AD 770 (all “hidden” structure groups were abandoned by then). Another problem, potentially more serious, is that geography may in some instances have favored the isolation of discrete multiplaza-residential units, and in other instances it favored denser settlement so that such units cannot be distinguished from one another. Thus, it is possible that some of the remaining 1,387 structures were included in multiplaza-residential units. Some of these, however, belong in special groups, such as the major civic-ceremonial and twin pyramid groups. Nevertheless, it seems likely that a substantial

number of these remaining structures were not parts of multiplaza-residential units. Two possibilities come to mind from all of this. One is that these residential units were emerging at Tikal in the Classic period; the other is that they were important units of Early Classic settlement but became less important with time. Favored here is the latter opinion, for two reasons. The first is that those multiplaza-residential units that have been investigated all had their beginnings in Early Classic times. In Gp. 4F-1, a new, non-utilitarian, special-purpose structure for the unit was built ca. AD 700 (Str. 4E-31-D), complete with a new cache offering and special burials. In Gp. 3F-3, the existing non-utilitarian, special-purpose structure was substantially renovated at about the same time (3F-12-1st-C), but no new cache offering was made. This might suggest a declining importance for the unit served by the structure, although it could just as well mean that, when an existing structure was modified, the original offering retained its efficacy. The second reason for suspecting that these units were declining in importance is more persuasive than the first. This is the evidence that Str. 4E-50-B served a function similar to that of 3F-12, but that it was later converted into a house. A similar situation is the apparent abandonment of such a structure at the locus of the later Gp. 7C-1. This might reflect the demise of the settlement units with which such structures seem to be associated, although in the latter case Str. 7C-18 may have replaced an earlier one at the locus of Gp. 7C-1 (much as Str. 4E31 eventually replaced 4F-8 in Gp. 4F-1). Hence, even this evidence is not clear. The problem will be discussed further in connection with social implications. OTHER FEATURES OF SETTLEMENT No units of settlement have been recognized at Tikal that would correspond to what Bullard (1960:367) called a zone. Each such zone should include one minor ceremonial center. Potential minor centers are, at the very least, rare at Tikal, at least where covered by the 16 km2 site map (TR. 11), outside the very center of the site. The most likely candidate on the basis of appearance before excavation was Gp. 7F-1, in which St. 23 once stood (TR. 2). Excavation demonstrated, however, that 7F-1 served after AD 524 as an elite residential compound, probably founded by the family of a deposed ruler (Haviland 1981 and TR. 22). Another group that remains unexcavated, but which could be the same sort of elite residential unit, is the one that includes Str. 6B-19 through 40. In short, it appears that if multiplaza-residential units are features of the Tikal pattern of settlement, then the next larger unit is the site itself. A final feature of Tikal settlement that deserves notice is the tendency for architectural complexity to correlate

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

roughly with distance from the center of the site. This is certainly true in the case of non-residential architecture. Temple architecture in or near the site center, for example, is far more grand than temple architecture elsewhere. The same seems to be true for residential architecture. Elsewhere, it has been argued that several of the major rangetype structures of Tikal were residential in function (Harrison 1999 and TR. 15). While substantial range-type structures may be found at some distance from the site center (e.g., 7F-32), they occur in greater frequencies towards the center. Similarly, although fairly small residential structures may be found near the site center (e.g., Gp. 4E-1, 5D-1), they account for a greater percentage of residential structures at some distance from the center.

Social Implications INTRODUCTION The preceding discussion of settlement units provides a basis for a number of inferences about Tikal social organization, a subject of several previous publications (Haviland 1963, 1968, 1972b). The following section constitutes a rethinking of the subject, and therefore supersedes those earlier publications. NUCLEAR FAMILIES Houses occasionally occur in isolation at Tikal, but the preceding discussion reveals that they more usually occur as part of house compounds. Indeed, most single houses eventually became only one among others that were added around the edges of a small plaza or platform. It is argued below that these multihouse arrangements, referred to as single plaza-residential units, probably housed extended families. This, and the size of the individual houses, suggests that each house was probably occupied by individual nuclear families consisting usually of a husband and wife with their unmarried children. In actuality, some other individuals might be present for varying periods of time. Likely candidates include an elderly widow or widower who was a parent of one of the married couples, or a newly married child, with his or her spouse, who had not yet set up housekeeping for themselves, or some other relative. In any event, house size does not seem adequate to have accommodated more than five people on average (Haviland 1972a). There would seem to be no need for them to have normally accommodated more than one married couple, given the common existence of multiple house units within a compound. EXTENDED FAMILIES The rarity of individual houses outside of single plaza-residential units suggests the existence of some kind

149

of group composed of two or more nuclear families. The most likely candidate would be the extended family, which typically consists of a husband and wife with some of their married offspring with their spouses and children. Thus, they are made up of related nuclear families spanning two or more generations. Such extended family groups have continuity through time for, as old members die, younger members bring their spouses into the family and give birth to new members. A half-century ago, Redfield and Tax (1952:32) noted that in Mesoamerica generally: Whatever the form or material of the house, it is so constructed as to provide a separate structure or structures for each family, whether that family consists of one couple and their children, or be a compound family. Further: There is a tendency, in not a few cases, for multiple family households to form in which related married couples of two generations live together (Redfield and Tax 1952:34). Finally, looking more specifically at the lowland Maya: I think the Cozumel census tells us much about household composition which applies to sixteenth century Yucatan in general. I think it suggests that, prior to the upset of Spanish conquest, the Yucatan Maya lived in patrilocal extended family households (Haviland 1970a:224). In spite of suggestions of some continuity from Classic times up to the 16th century, and perhaps recent times, there is no guarantee that this was so (e.g., Haviland 1972a:136–137). Another way to approach the problem is to examine the developmental cycle of Tikal household groups and construct a model that seems to account for what is observed. As already noted, a household group in final form usually consisted of more structures than it did in its original form. As Murdock (1949:36) observed, it is characteristic of extended families that they often split, sending off branches that migrate and settle elsewhere in response to population and other pressures. It certainly looks as if, at Tikal, one family, or in some cases presumably related nuclear families (e.g., brothers and their wives and children), sometimes moved to a new locality to set up residence. After a period of time, new structures were added, presumably as the children of the original family or families married and set up their own households in the single plaza-residential unit. The time lag between the first and ensuing construction in such units (25–35 years) is consistent with this.

150

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

To get more specific, the following interpretation of a specific single plaza-residential group has been developed, to see if an extended family model will work (Table 6.8 and Fig. 16). The group chosen is 2G-1, since more is known about it than many other single plaza-residential units. An added advantage is that it consists of more than two structures, but not so many as to get unduly confusing. The table is based on the data on Gp. 2G-1 presented in TR. 20A, the discussions of Bu. 49–60 in section III of this report, and the functional assessment presented in this section. In addition, the following assumptions have been made: (1) Residence was patrilocal. Justification for this will be presented below; (2) The senior nuclear family occupied the most prominent structure in the group. This has already been proposed in the functional assessments of the various groups and will be discussed further, below; (3) Seniority was based on age and generation. Generally, an older brother had seniority over his younger brothers and a father had seniority over his sons. Such an arrangement is common in a patrilocal extended family organization (e.g., Haviland 2003a:547–548, 553–554; Sjoberg 1960:325; Wolf 1966:68). Putting all of this together, considering the amount of Gp. 2G-1 that remains unexcavated, and considering the imperfect nature of archaeological data, the “fit” is surprisingly good. Moreover, ages can be assigned to the various “actors” in this reconstructed “drama” that allow for the births of sons at reasonable stages in their fathers’ life spans, which do not require men to live to unbelievable old age, and yet which fit the available time-frame of TS. 13 through 3. There is a problem from TS. 3 on, however, for the evidence indicates that Gp. 2G-1 was occupied into late Imix times. Yet, there has not been sufficient rebuilding of structures to fill the time available and not do violence to expectable data on life spans and length of generation. A possible solution to this dilemma is suggested by the burial data that, in turn, suggest declining fortunes for residents after TS. 3. This could mean later rebuildings were entirely of pole-and- thatch, as masonry construction was no longer affordable. If so, there would be no archaeological evidence for such reconstruction. Perhaps the first purely pole-and-thatch construction was carried out on Str. 2G-57 in TS. 3. There are three more comments that may be made respecting this hypothetical history of Gp. 2G-1. One of them has to do with the unusual physical arrangement of Str. 2G56 and 57, which are not separated from one another as are the other structures. Possibly, the great-great-grandsons of the founder who are thought to have occupied Str. 2G-56-B and 57-1st were brothers, while the other greatgreat-grandsons were only cousins (Haviland 1988:126). The second has to do with the four deaths that occurred in TS. 3 and the two in TS. 5. The latter could be a case of two

brothers close in age dying naturally at about the same time. Indeed, one death apparently inaugurated a renovation of Str. 2G-59, while the other evidently took place slightly later as that alteration was in progress. The four deaths in TS. 3 could have been the result of some fatal disease. The “fit” between the burials and the rest of the data was surprising, revealed by other considerations that seemed to require this number of burials at these particular times. A third issue goes beyond Gp. 2G-1. Earlier was noted that it was not unusual for the Maya to modify several structures at one time in small-structure groups. The significance of this seems indicated by the hypothetical history of Gp. 2G-1; it is just what one might expect on the death of the senior member of the extended family. This would trigger a kind of “musical hammocks,” as the dead person’s successor to seniority moved out of one house into a remodeled version of the dead person’s house, while someone also moved into the just-vacated house. None of this proves that this reconstruction of events in Gp. 2G-1 from TS. 13 through 3 is correct. It does demonstrate, though, than an extended family model is realistic as a device for understanding the unit of social organization that occupied the single plaza-residential unit of settlement. This, then, lends powerful support to the oft-made assertion that the usual Classic Maya household was an extended family (e.g., Culbert 1974:59). In the preceding assessment of function for each small-structure group, it was frequently noted that one structure stands apart from the others in the same groups. These data have been pulled together in Table 6.9 (see also TR. 19:185). As shown in the tables, these structures tend to be the most elaborate architecturally, and to have the longest sequence of any structure in the particular group. The only exceptions seem to be in Gp. 2G-2, and 6C-1 (and probably 6C-2 as well), where one structure may have replaced another as most prominent, and 5D-1, where the most elaborate structure was probably a house, whereas the one with the longest sequence may have been non-residential. In those groups where burials were found, greater numbers occur in or near the most elaborate structure. Apparently, they were especially desirable places to be buried in each group. Finally, there seems to be a tendency for the highest frequencies of decorated pottery to be associated with such structures. The few exceptions to this may stem from the occupants of some houses having taken greater pains about trash removal than the occupants of others. Hence, the artifacts found around a structure are not always representative of the occupants’ belongings. Still, it looks as though those who lived in the more elaborate dwellings had somewhat better quality belongings than other residents of a particular group. What this seems to indicate (excepting Gp. 3F-3 and 5D-1) is a situation such as has been reconstructed for

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Gp. 2G-1, where the house of the founder of a particular extended family came to serve as the house of the senior nuclear family (Table 6.10). Occasionally, though, a change was made when a new house was built to serve this purpose (e.g., Str. 6C-47 in Gp. 6C-1). Worth noting is that the architectural reflection of status differences seen in these residential groups is reminiscent of findings at Mayapan (Smith 1962:266). Extended families were certainly characteristic of Classic-period Tikal. It is probable that they were characteristic of Preclassic times as well. Unfortunately, Preclassic groups are not known in as much detail as are later ones. Group 5G-3, however, which looks just like extended groups of

151

the Classic period, seems to have been occupied exclusively during the Preclassic period. In Gp. 6E-1, both Str. 6E-Sub.1 and Sub.2 were in use together in Preclassic times, and both may have been houses. Finally, many groups occupied in Classic times had their beginnings during the Preclassic period. It seems reasonably clear that extended family organization was quite old at Tikal. UNILOCAL RESIDENCE Extended family organization requires the establishment of a pattern of matrilocal, patrilocal, or ambilocal (bilocal) residence. In the preceding discussion, patrilocal residence has been assumed. Briefly, the prime determi-

152

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

nants of residence are ecological circumstances, especially in North American Indian societies, although other factors may be involved (Naroll 1973:329). Some such circumstances make the role of the man predominant in gaining a living for the family. Others make the role of the woman predominant. Still others make the role of both sexes of equal or alternative importance. These varying circumstances tend in time to give rise to varying rules of residence. Where the role of the man is predominant, newly married couples tend to live with or near the parents of the groom. Where that of the woman is predominant, they tend instead to live with or near the parents of the bride. Where both are of equal importance, they tend to found a new household. Where importance varies from family to family within the society, newly married couples often tend to live with or near the more important or wealthier set of parents; in such societies, more important older people have a cluster of married sons and daughters living together with their spouses and children in or near the household of these older people. Thus ecological variations give rise to variations in residence rules (Naroll 1973:320). Although Naroll speaks of “residence rules,” these are not explicitly stated; rather, they are post hoc summations of observed tendencies (Haviland 1988:133, n. 1). At Tikal, a number of conditions known to be condu-

cive to patrilocal residence are indicated by the archaeological information. For one thing, as Murdock (1949:206) pointed out: “Patrilocal residence seems to be promoted by any change in culture or the conditions of life which significantly enhances the status, importance, and influence of men in relation to the opposite sex.” In this connection, Gough (1961:519) noted that: “As productivity and political centralization increase, women appear to become more definitely subordinate to their male heads.” Although her concern here is with matrilineal societies, the point has more general relevancy. Finally: “Political expansion increases the power and prestige of the men and normally establishes a rule of patrilineal succession, both of which favor patrilocal residence” (Murdock 1949:207). At Tikal, there is abundant evidence for political and religious complexity as early as the last or penultimate centuries BC (Coe 1965). Evidence from Tikal chamber burials (Haviland 1967), as well as monumental art and inscriptions (Coggins 1975), clearly indicates the existence of a hereditary elite, evidently with patrilineal succession (Martin 2003). If a ruler had no son to succeed him, then the husband of a daughter might succeed to rule until a grandson of direct descent was available. In the monumental art itself, portrayals of men are far more common than those of women (Haviland 1997:1–2).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Other indications of male prominence come from burials (Haviland 1997). In residential interments, the graves of men are more likely to include pottery and other objects than are the graves of women. Considering the skeletons from all burials, a wholly improbable sex ratio of 220 is suggested for Tikal (TR. 30). This high figure is the result of two biases: 39% of the skeletons from which the ratio is derived are from elite burials and offerings, and the others were found in excavations that focused on structures, rather than plazas and surrounding areas. In other words, they come from the favored places for burials, where men were buried more often than women—or from human sacrifice, for which men were preferred. Another factor that must be considered is trade, for this gives men access to movable property, or wealth, which can be accumulated by them and inherited in a patrilineal manner. The result is usually an increase in the status of men relative to women (Deetz 1965:33–34). The development of trade, therefore, strongly favors the development of patrilocal residence (Murdock 1949:206). At Tikal, the presence of substances such as jade, obsidian, granite, fine chert, and marine materials foreign to the area testifies to the existence of a developed trade. Such materials appear at Tikal in Preclassic times. The extent of trade in perishable materials is unknown, but was probably great. This is emphasized, for M. D. Coe (1961:65), among others, once portrayed the Maya lowlands as characterized by a single, universally distributed crop that ma-

153

tured everywhere at the same time. Thus, there was no incentive for large-scale trade. It is now clear that this is a false picture. Finally, Ember and Ember (1996) have pointed out that the strongest predictor of patrilocality cross-culturally is warfare. Given what we have learned about the importance of warfare to the Maya over the past few decades, combined with the other factors just discussed, it is reasonably certain that at Tikal extended families were patrilocal. By this I mean that, at any given time, most extended families were patrilocal. Undoubtedly there was variation in the system (e.g., Vogt 1969:129), at the least on those occasions when new extended families were formed by those who, in response to disputes and other pressures, moved out of other established family groups. That Tikal extended families were patrilocal is in accord with distributional evidence, for this pattern is common in Mesoamerica (Driver 1961:280). Patrilocal residence at Tikal probably may be projected back at least to the reign of Yax Ehb’ Xook (Martin 2003:5) around 75 AD, for by then patrilineal succession implies patrilineal descent (Haviland 1997:10), and patterns of descent develop out of residence patterns (Naroll 1973:329). A trend to higher relative status for men may have begun around 200 BC, as political and religious complexity in addition to external trade began their great developments (Coe 1965:1417). As already noted, these are the sorts of developments that can lead to an increased prominence for men. LINEAGES As noted, several single plaza-residential units frequently occur together as parts of larger, multiplaza-residential units. In an early publication (Haviland 1968:109), the suggestion was made that these units represented clans, a term that was used following Murdock. This usage, however, caused confusion to some (cf. Adams 1969; Haviland 1971:102), and the term is not commonly used in this way today (Haviland 2003a:575–576). Hence, the term “localized lineage” is now preferred, meaning in this case a local group of people living in six to nine extended families on average (Table 6.11), the core members of which were lineal relatives (Haviland 1972b:5; 2003b:129–132). Others have suggested the same thing (Bullard 1960; Vogt 1961). Not all agree, though, and some prefer to view such units as neighborhoods (Culbert 1974:59). The two views are not in total opposition, however, for the members of a localized lineage obviously live in the same neighborhood. Culbert’s opposition to the lineage idea seems based in part, at least, on the presence of what may be administrative structures (such as 3F-12 or 4E-31) in multiplaza-residential units. Yet such structures need mean no more than that these units rep-

154

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

resent organized social groups of some sort, which may be lineages. The present study lends support to the idea that multiplaza-residential units represent localized lineages. To see how this is so, a further understanding of the lineage is

necessary. By lineage, a corporate descent group is meant, whose members can trace their genealogical links back to a common ancestor (Murdock 1949:46, 47; 1960:5). Membership is based on some form of descent-phrased rule, and if this is consistent with residence—for example, if

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

155

156

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

patrilineal descent is coupled with patrilocal residence— then lineages will be localized. It is generally agreed that lineages arise from extended family organization, so long as there are problems of organization that such groups help solve (see Goodenough 1963:927–928; Murdock 1949:74, 75; Naroll 1973:329; Service 1971:112–113). All that is required is that as numbers of existing extended families find it necessary to split off and establish new families elsewhere, they not move too far away, that the core members of such related families explicitly acknowledge their descent from a common ancestor, and that they continue to participate in common activities in an organized way. Looking at multiplaza-residential units, participation in common activities is implied by the proximity of the single plaza-residential units of which they are composed, as well as by the inclusion of non-residential, special-purpose structures in each multiplaza-residential unit. Moreover, as already noted, such units do seem to have developed as single plaza-residential units (which almost surely housed extended families), grew as much as desired, and then some members split off and founded a new family in the same general neighborhood. Indeed, the growth of multiplaza-residential units seems to have been very much like the growth of individual extended families, but on a larger scale. The most fully described example of the growth of one of these units consists of Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19). It is noteworthy that occupants of the single plaza-residential units that make up this multiplaza-residential unit developed their own distinctive burial customs. Despite features in common, these were not precisely like burials elsewhere at Tikal. Descent is more of a problem, but if father-son links were jurally relevant for succession to positions of authority, as has already been argued, the chances are that they were for group membership as well. Patrilineal descent is also suggested by the apparent development of multiplaza-residential groups out of what are thought to have been patrilocal extended families. Finally, multiplaza-residential groups are not so large that those who lived in them would have had trouble recalling their genealogical links to a common ancestor. Earlier it was proposed that multiplaza-residential units were more important in Early Classic times than later. The implication is that lineage organization was on the wane during the Late Classic. In order to shed further light on this, the advice of Goodenough will be followed (1963:927–928), and descent groups will be examined in relationship to the kind of problems they may solve. In agrarian societies, lineages commonly act as landholding corporations, allocating plots as necessary for their members to farm. They also provide a labor pool to handle tasks that are beyond the capacity of family members to manage by themselves (Haviland 2003a:575).

During Classic times, two factors would have served to weaken lineage organization. These are the development of economic diversity, and an increasing scarcity of land. Economic diversity tends to exert a centrifugal force on residential units, in which there are also likely to be potentially disruptive tendencies anyway (see Haviland 2003a:553–554). Given the presence of economic diversity, lineage members have available alternatives to the tasks they would otherwise share, and can develop divergent interests. In this situation, descent groups such as lineages lose their economic basis. At Tikal, there is evidence for at least some economic specialization (Moholy-Nagy 2003:107–109). Moreover, in Late Classic times, pole-and-thatch houses based on masonry platforms are sometimes found in proximity to monumental construction that includes possible houses of the elite. One example consists of two small structures in Gp. 7F-1 (TR. 22), located off the end of a plaza, around which stood two substantial range-type structures and two temples. Data from this group suggest a situation of servants living near their elite masters (Haviland 1992). This kind of living pattern would certainly have exerted a disruptive influence on lineages, for it is incompatible with residential unity for the core members. With respect to the second factor, given the previously noted increase of population at Tikal and presumably in the surrounding countryside through Early Classic times, farmland must have become sufficiently scarce, so that provision of enough food became a problem. Analysis of human skeletal material from Tikal definitely indicates that this had become a problem about AD 550. Under such circumstances, one might expect land management to be taken over by the rulers of Tikal. By the Intermediate Classic period, these lords had sufficient power to undertake major projects for the public good (Haviland 2003b:135–136). In any event, the most efficient use of land had become of crucial importance, and for this, centralized control was necessary, particularly if more people in non-farming occupations had become dependent on others for food. Dispersal of lineage membership, and loss of the economic functions of lineages, if carried too far would seem to be incompatible with the existence of such groups, but not of clans, larger-order descent groups that tend to develop with time as lineages increase in size and fission (Haviland 2003a:575–576, 581). One would expect clans to have developed at Tikal, and to have survived into Late Classic times, in spite of the demise of lineages, because of the particular problem they may help to solve. This is the problem of integration, which is crucial in the case of a population center with ties to other “satellites” beyond. Clans, non-corporate kin groups with widely dispersed membership, provide a means whereby members of one local group can claim protection and support from individuals in others. They provide individuals with rights

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

of entry into local groups other than their own (Goodenough 1963:925–926). Clan organization may very well have become quite important for purposes of socio-political organization in later Classic times, at least at Tikal. From this point of view, it is interesting that Roys (1957:4) remarked, apropos the 16th-century Ch’ibal of Yucatan, that these had too many members and were too widely dispersed to be considered lineages in the anthropological sense (see also Haviland 1972c:63–64). As already noted, membership in lineages is on the basis of some descent-phased rule, and at Tikal, descent was probably patrilineal in Classic times. In the discussion of residence, it was suggested that patrilineal succession to positions of authority may have become fixed by ca. 75 AD. Before that, women may have been able to occupy positions of high authority, which suggests that sex was not then jurally relevant for succession to such positions of authority. SOCIAL DIVERSITY The foregoing sections of this report have clearly demonstrated the existence of considerable variation in residential architecture, burial practices, and artifact inventories at any given time. In addition, non-dedicatory household offerings seem to have been made periodically in some residential groups, but not in others. The offerings themselves are highly variable not only from one group to another, but even within a given group. Although some of this architectural, burial, artifactual, and offertory variation relates to the limitations and potentials of particular materials, not all of it does. Much of it has been interpreted as reflecting differences of family traditions and status as well as individual whims and preferences. Overall, this seems a reflection of the diversity of the population of Tikal from Late Preclassic times on. There seems to be a general agreement that at some point Classic Maya society became stratified (e.g., Willey and Shimkin 1973:459). Social classes are manifest in a number of ways: What people have to say about their own society, who associates with whom and how, and in observable differences in life styles and life chances such as health and longevity (e.g., Barber 1957:97; Haviland 2003a:603–607; Tumin 1967:18). Archaeologically, it is possible to deal only with the latter two, which is unfortunate, because sociologists consider these to be cruder indicators of class distinctions than the first two (Barber 1957:158). Added to this, stratification may involve a continuum of statuses that can be divided into classes in a number of places. If fine discriminations are made, the system may be said to consist of several classes (Barber 1957:78). The important point is that the values held by the members of the society in question might result in the recognition of only a few classes. An outsider, operating

157

from a different set of values, might describe the society as including several classes. Or, the situation might be reversed. In sum, just because the archaeologist is able to identify what appear to be two or three classes on the basis of symbolic indicators does not mean that the members of that society recognized the same number. This report deals with the category of life styles (life chances are dealt with in TR. 30; see also Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:56–57). In this category, it was noted that social class differences seem to be indicated by some of the differences in residential architecture. Some of the variation seen in the burials, also, may relate to class differences. Finally, some of the differences between artifact collections from one group to another seem suggestive of a stratified society. There is no need to repeat the previous discussions of those points. Although there is no one-toone correlation between apparent “richness” of belongings, burials, and architecture, there is a tendency in this direction. At least the richest artifact inventories (Table 5.27) tend not to be associated with groups that feature the simplest architecture. Conversely, those groups that produced the “poorest” artifact inventories tend to be the simplest in terms of architecture. One of these groups is 2G-1, in which a number of burials suggest the occupants of the group could not always do as well by the deceased as might be desired. Moreover, the skeletal remains show tendencies towards shorter than average stature and poor dental health, both more expected in lower-class rather than upper-class living conditions. One reason correlations are not more clear-cut could relate to the roles played by differing family traditions, individual preferences, and limitations and potentials of materials in producing the variation of concern here. More to the point is that the small-structure investigations reported here sampled only a limited portion of the full range of residential structures. None of the potential elite residences at Tikal were investigated (see TR. 15, 22), nor were the numerous potential residences that are larger than those discussed in this report, but less elaborate than potential elite residences (TR. 21). This, and the previously noted tendency for the most elaborate residential architecture to be situated in proximity to the site center, suggests that Tikal society was indeed stratified. The arrangement suggests the Postclassic situation described by Landa: … in the middle of town were their temples with beautiful plazas, and all around the temples stood the houses of the lords and priests, and then (those of) the most important people. Thus came the houses of the richest and of those who were held in the highest estimation nearest to these, and at the outskirts of the town were the houses of the lower class (Tozzer 1941:62).

158

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Precisely this kind of residential arrangement is reported by A. L. Smith (1962:265) at the Postclassic site of Mayapan. From all of the foregoing, it seems likely that the occupants of most, if not all, the residential groups discussed here ranked towards the bottom of Tikal society, which was stratified. Further discussion of stratification must await the presentation of data on the full range of residential groups. In the interim, see Haviland and Moholy-Nagy (1992). ECONOMIC SPECIALIZATION Earlier in this section, the point was made that the population of Tikal became quite large. The significance of this is as follows: …it is evident that among the most populous nonliterate peoples, the surplus is large enough to enable these groups to support considerable numbers of persons not engaged in the production of subsistence goods. This point is the more striking if the literate historic cultures are included, since these comprise both greater populations, greater economic surplus, and larger leisure classes than are found elsewhere (Herskovits 1952:413). Others have phrased this point of view even more strongly: An increase in the food supply results in an increase in population. This is an inter-acting system wherein innovations result in greater utilization of the environment, which in turn results in specialization… (Hester 1962:1003). By this reasoning a large population is its own best argument that many people will not be engaged in farming. At Tikal it is clear that few, if any, of the residents of the central 16 km2 could have been farmers, at least in Intermediate and Late Classic times, as there was insufficient land for more than kitchen gardens (Puleston 1973:66). Some, of course, could have had farms at some distance from their homes. This does not seem likely, though, since by AD 550 the boundaries of Tikal were far removed from the central 16 km2 and there were others living closer to potential farmland (Haviland 1970b; Puleston 1973). Some of the residents of Tikal were apparently engaged in specialized occupations, including obsidian work, figurine manufacture, monument carving, shell and chert working, and perhaps textile production. These probably do not exhaust the specialized occupations at Tikal. For one thing, other studies have suggested other specializations (Becker 1973). For another, some

specialized occupations would be hard to identify archaeologically. Examples known from modern Mesoamerican communities are merchants, butchers, carters, carpenters, curers, brewers, band masters, candle makers, tanners, artificial flower makers, thatchers, hired men (Parsons 1936). Expected is that a larger community such as Tikal would have had a more varied assortment of specialists, including full-time priests, administrators, bureaucrats, architects, laborers, maintenance personnel, and others. In sum, there is no reason to doubt that the population of Tikal was economically, as well as socially, diversified. In view of the prior conclusion that the occupants of the residential groups discussed here rank low in the stratified society of Tikal, it is of interest that occupational specialization did not necessarily bring upper-class status. This is suggestive of the situation generally in pre-industrial cities throughout the world, where people engaged in economic activity are either of the lower class or outcasts (Sjoberg 1960:325). On the other hand, Becker’s data on the peninsular groups where squares 4G, 4H, 5G, and 5H join suggests that some economic specialists may have ranked higher than those discussed here (TR. 21). Perhaps, though, the occupants of those groups constitute an example of “…large-scale merchants, who may succeed in buying their way into the elite…” (Sjoberg 1960:325). There may have been some tendency for members of lineages at Tikal to specialize in certain occupations. A good example is afforded by Gp. 4F-1 and 2 (TR. 19). The members of this probable localized lineage seem to have specialized in cloth manufacture, figurine manufacture, chert knapping, obsidian working, and shell working (Table 5.20). In other words, the members of this lineage were broadly specialized, in that all were artisans. This at least raises the possibility that some lineages functioned as hereditary craft guilds. In pre-industrial cities, the key economic unit is usually the guild, and customarily each guild controls recruitment, based often on kinship (Sjoberg 1960:325). Earlier it was suggested that lineage organization was on the wane at Tikal during the Classic period. A possibility is that some lineages continued to flourish into Late Classic times because they took on the new function of craft guilds. Those that did not transform themselves in this manner ceased to be important. To pursue this point, of the three probable lineage groups investigated at Tikal (Table 6.11), two may have functioned as craft guilds. The exception is the one that includes Gp. 3F-1 through 3. This appears to be a less tightly knit unit than the other two, in that the single plaza-residential units of which it is composed are more dispersed, and less clearly set apart from neighboring residential units, than are those of the other two proposed lineages. Perhaps lineage ties were more important in the

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

case of the two that functioned as craft guilds than they were in the case of one that did not. Along with lineage specialization, it is possible that some craft specializations were confined to particular family lines. For example, in Gp. 4F-2, obsidian working is known only for Str. 4F-15, where it was carried out on a platform associated with Str. 4F-15-1st-A, B, and C. This might be interpreted as several generations of occupants of 4F-15 engaged in this occupation.

Concluding Remarks In the final summing up, conclusions already expressed will be reviewed, and then viewed in two broader perspectives. The conclusions that emerge from this final section fall into six main areas: 1. Most, if not all, small-structure groups at Tikal were residential, although some individual structures within groups were not houses (up to 50% in any one group). Most houses and residential adjuncts were built initially for the purposes for which they were used in their final form. Death of a householder seems usually to have required the architectural alteration of a house. 2. The basic residential unit was usually two or more houses, with associated outbuildings (if any) arranged on the edges of a single plaza or platform. This single plaza-residential unit was probably occupied by a patrilocal extended family, with each individual house occupied by a nuclear family. Single houses built in isolation represent the first stage in the development of single plaza-residential units. 3. There is some tendency for basic residential units to be grouped together in larger units of several plazas or platforms with their associated structures. These multiplaza-residential units are thought to represent localized patrilineages. There are reasons to suppose that lineage organization was on the wane during the Classic period, although some may have continued to serve as craft guilds. 4. The population of Tikal was large. Maximum population was achieved ca. AD 550, and remained more or less constant thereafter until ca. AD 869. During this period, the construction of new houses was balanced out by abandonment of old ones. It looks as if the population maximum strained the subsistence base of the Tikal Maya. 5. The population of Tikal was socially diversified, including stratification. Upper-class members of society tended to live in larger structures near the site center, while members of lower classes lived in smaller structures scattered centrifugally toward the periphery of the site. 6. The population of Tikal was economically diversified, including specialists in various occupations. These specialists did not necessarily rank very high in the system of stratification. There may have been some tendency for

159

lineages to function as hereditary craft guilds. A few preliminary comparisons suffice to put these conclusions in a broader perspective. There are, for instance, a number of apparent continuities between Tikal and the later site of Mayapan. At Mayapan, there is the same random scatter of single plaza-residential units seen at Tikal, as well as other Classic sites (see Smith 1962:265). These units are much more compact at Mayapan than at Tikal, but there is still no gridded layout such as is found at some Mexican sites (see Millon 1973). Although house types differ between Tikal and Mayapan, the gross sizes are comparable, and there is even some suggestion for a tandem placement of rooms in at least some Tikal houses, as was later the case at Mayapan. At both sites there is comparable architectural variation between simple and elaborate houses, which seems to reflect social differences. At both sites there was some tendency to build special kitchens off the ends of houses (see Smith 1962:220). In short, despite differences in detail, it is difficult to visualize the Mayapan settlement pattern as anything but an outgrowth of the sort of pattern represented at Tikal, whereas there is little in common with Mexican sites save density of population. Even the Mayapan wall has its analogue at Tikal, in the apparently defensive earthworks (Haviland 1969:431; 2003b:134–135). To pursue this question further, burial customs may also be compared. At Tikal, there is a suggestion that death precipitated abandonment of a house, a custom described by Landa for 16th-century Yucatan, although it is not known if this was practiced in Mayapan. At both sites, however, burial was in or near the house. Objects apparently used during a lifetime were commonly placed in burials at both sites. A comparable degree of variation in burial patterns existed at both sites. In sum, as was suggested almost 50 years ago (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1963), there is reason to question the traditional assumption that the settlement pattern at Mayapan is the result of Mexican influence (Haviland 1969:431). Rather, the Mayapan pattern looks distinctively Mayan. Unsettled conditions and the availability of more open and level terrain may have promoted a greater degree of population density than at Tikal. Comparing Tikal to two contemporary sites in the lowlands, there are similarities with Altar de Sacrificios. Here again residential units show a random distribution, but there does appear to be three multiplaza-residential units (Smith 1972:185). As at Tikal, most structures are rectangular and there seems to have been variation in size and other architectural details (Smith 1972:185–188). Burials, comparable in richness and variation to Tikal household burials, are frequently associated with houses (Smith 1972:212–221).

160

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

In spite of these similarities, Tikal seems to have more in common with later Mayapan than contemporary Altar. For one thing, Altar is a much smaller site, with far fewer residences than Tikal (Smith 1972:185–188). Indeed, there does not seem to have been sufficient inhabitants to build and maintain Altar without help from other communities. A second difference is the lack of any artificial barrier at Altar comparable to the Tikal earthworks. Finally, the Altarians never made use of true plaster floors in their house constructions. In sum, Altar has the appearance of a small town, as compared to the more urban Tikal. Barton Ramie has even less in common with Tikal (Willey, Bullard, Glass, and Gifford 1965:571–581). Here, single plaza-residential units are randomly distributed, as expected, but in a continuous ribbon of settlement along the Belize River. The density of such units is about half that seen at Tikal. The structures themselves, architecturally, are quite different from Tikal houses, although they do show variation in size and other details. Burials, as expected, are associated with Barton Ramie houses, and exhibit variability (Willey, Bullard, Glass, and Gifford 1965:530–535). In general, Barton Ramie appears to be a more rural type of settlement, even compared to Altar. The above comparisons are far from exhaustive, as such comparisons must await the final analysis of all Tikal settlement data. The purpose of this report is simply to indicate that there is sufficient evidence to indicate, first, that Maya settlement in the southern lowlands was un-

doubtedly quite varied through Classic times. One should not expect features of settlement known from one site to necessarily to be repeated at other sites. Second, as argued elsewhere (Haviland 1969, 1970b), urbanism among the lowland Maya does not seem to have been a late introduction by Mexicans into the northern region. Rather, the Maya developed their own very distinctive urban form. The subject of urbanism leads to the final, broadest, comparison: the pre-industrial city throughout the world (Sjoberg 1960:323–328). There are a number of features that the present study suggests Tikal had in common with such cities. These are a spatial arrangement such that most elite residences are near the city center, with lower-class residences scattered centrifugally towards the periphery; a tendency for occupational groups to live together; a preference for extended family households in which men are dominant; economic activity weakly developed (compared to industrial cities) and often in the hands of the lower classes, with the guild usually an important unit. Other key features of the pre-industrial city are that political structure is in the hands of an upper class, is highly centralized, and authority rests upon appeals to tradition and absolutes. Religion is a potent force making for order, and is also controlled by the upper class. Communication is largely word-of-mouth, and only the elites are formally educated. It is doubtful that anyone would seriously question that these last features were characteristic of Classic Tikal. Given this, it would appear that, when all the data are considered, Tikal will stand as a classic example of the pre-industrial city.

References

Adams, Richard E. W. 1969 Maya Archaeology 1958–1959, A Review. Latin American Research Review 4:3–45. Barber, Bernard 1957 Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Becker, Marshall J. 1973 Archaeological Evidence for Occupational Specialization Among the Classic Period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 38:396–406. Bullard, William R., Jr. 1960 Maya Settlement in Northeastern Peten, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:355–372. Coe, Michael D. 1961 Social Typology and the Tropical Forest Civilizations. Comparative Studies in Society and History 4:65–85. Coe, William R. 1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. Museum Monographs, Philadelphia: The University Museum. ———. 1965 Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Science 147:1401–1419. Coggins, Clemency C. 1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal, an Historical and Iconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Culbert, T. Patrick, ed. 1973 The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ———. 1974 The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya. New York: Harper and Row. Deetz, James 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthropology, 4. Driver, Harold E. 1961 Indians of North America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

162

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Ember, Carol R., and Ember, Melvin 1996 What Have We Learned from Cross-cultural Research? General Anthropology 2(2):5–7. Gann, Thomas 1927 Maya Cities. London: Duckworth. Goodenough, William H. 1963 Review of Matrilinear Kinship, edited by D. W. Schneider and K. Gough. American Anthropologist 65:923–928. Gough, Kathleen 1961 Descent-group Variation Among Settled Cultivators. In Matrilineal Kinship, edited by D. M. Schneider and K. Gough, pp. 457–521. Berkeley: University of California Press. Harrison, Peter D. 1999 The Lords of Tikal. London: Thames and Hudson. Haviland, William A. 1963 Excavation of Small Structures in the Northeast Quadrant of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. ———. 1967 Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Classic Maya Demography and Social Organization. American Antiquity 32:316–325. ———. 1968 Ancient Lowland Maya Social Organization. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 26. ———. 1969 A New Population Estimate for Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 34:429–433. ———. 1970a Marriage and the Family Among the Maya of Cozumel Island, 1570. Estudios de Cultura Maya 8:217–226. ———. 1970b Tikal, Guatemala and Mesoamerican Urbanism. World Archaeology 2:186–198. ———. 1971 Entombment, Authority and Descent at Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala. American Antiquity 36:102–105. ———. 1972a Family Size, Prehistoric Population Estimates, and the Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 37:135–139. ———. 1972b A New Look at Classic Maya Social Organization at Tikal. Ceramica de Cultura Maya 8:1–16. ———. 1972c Principles of Descent in Sixteenth Century Yucatan. Katunob 8:63–73. ———. 1974 Occupational Specialization at Tikal, Guatemala: Stoneworking-Monument Carving. American Antiquity 39:494–496.

REFERENCES

163

———. 1981 Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala: An Investigation into the Identification of Valid Units in Settlement Hierarchies. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by W. Ashmore, pp. 89–117. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ———. 1988. Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems of Reconstructing Household Composition. In House and Household in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 121–134. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ———. 1992 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: The View from Tikal. American Anthropologist 94:937–940. ———. 1997 The Rise and Fall of Sexual Inequality: Death and Gender at Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:1–12. ———. 2003a Anthropology, 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ———. 2003b Settlement, Society, and Demography at Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 111–142. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Haviland, William A., and Anita de Laguna Haviland 1995 Glimpses of the Supernatural: Altered States of Consciousness and the Graffiti of Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 6(4):295–309. Haviland, William A., and Hattula Moholy-Nagy 1963 Review of Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, by H. E. D. Pollock, R. L. Roys, T. Prouskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith. American Journal of Archaeology 67:327–330. ———. 1992 Distinguishing the High and Mighty from the Hoi Polloi at Tikal, Guatemala. In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. E. Chase, pp. 50–60. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Herskovits, Melville. J. 1952 Economic Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Hester, James J. 1962 A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures. American Anthropologist 64:1001–1015. Laporte, Juan P. 2003a Architectural Aspects of Interaction between Tikal and Teotihuacan during the Early Classic. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G. E. Braswell, pp. 199–216. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 2003b Thirty Years Later: Some Results of Recent Investigations in Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 281–318. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

164

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Martin, Simon 2003 In the Line of the Founder: A View of Dynastic Politics at Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 3–46. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Millon, Rene 1973 The Teotihuacan Map. Austin: University of Texas Press. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 2003 Beyond the Catalogue: The Chronology and Contexts of Tikal Artifacts. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 83–110. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. Oxford, England: Macmillan. ———. 1960 Cognitive Forms of Social Organization. In Social Structure in Southeast Asia, edited by G. P. Murdock, pp. 1–14. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Naroll, Raoul 1973 Holocultural Theory Tests. In Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology, edited by R. Naroll and F. Naroll, pp. 309–384. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Parsons, Elsie W. C. 1936 Mitla, Town of the Souls, and Other Zapoteco-speaking Pueblos of Oaxaca, Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Puleston, Dennis E. 1971 An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic Maya Chultuns. American Antiquity 36:322–334. ———. 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Models. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Rapoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Redfield, Robert, and Sol Tax 1952 General Characteristics of Present-day Mesoamerican Indian Society. In Heritage of Conquest, edited by S. Tax, pp. 31–39. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Roys, Ralph L. 1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie Institution of Washington 613. Ruppert, Karl, and A. Ledyard Smith 1955 Mayapan, Yucatan. Carnegie Institute of Washington Yearbook 54:269–271. Sanders, William T. 1973 The Cultural Ecology of the Lowland Maya: A Reevaluation. In T. P. Culbert, The Classic Maya Collapse, pp. 325–366. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sanders, William T., and Barbara J. Price 1968 Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization. New York: Random House.

REFERENCES

165

Satterthwaite, Linton 1952 Sweathouses. In Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture, Part 5, No. 3, pp. 1–91. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Service, Elman R. 1971 Primitive Social Organization, 2nd ed. New York: Random House. Sjoberg, Gideon 1960 The Pre-industrial City Past and Present. New York: Free Press. Smith, A. Ledyard 1962 Residential and Associated Structures at Mayapan. Carnegie Institution of Washington 619:165–320. ———. 1972 Excavations at Altar de Sacrificios: Architecture, Settlement, Burials, and Caches. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Vol. 62:2. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1970 Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ———. 1971 Estimates of Maya Population: Deranging Factors. American Antiquity 36:214–215. Thompson, Raymond H. 1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 15. Utah: Salt Lake City. Tozzer, Alfred M., ed. and trans. 1941 Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan, A Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Vol. 18. Tumin, Melvin M. 1967 Social Stratification: The Forms and Functions of Inequality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vogt, Evon Z. 1961 Some Aspects of Zinacantan Settlement Patterns and Ceremonial Organization. Estudios de Cultura Maya 1:131–145. ———. 1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wauchope, Robert 1938 Modern Maya Houses, A Study of Their Archaeological Significance. Carnegie Institution of Washington 502. ———. 1940 Domestic Architecture of the Maya. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by C. L. Hay, R. Linton, S. K. Lothrop, H. L. Shapiro, and G. C. Valliant, pp. 232–241. New York: Appleton-Century. Weaver, Muriel P. 1972 The Aztecs, Maya, and their Predecessors: Archaeology of Mesoamerica. New York: Seminar Press.

166

EXCAVATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIKAL

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Vol. 54. Willey, Gordon R., and Dimitri B. Shimkin 1973 The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 457–502. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Willey, Gordon R., and A. Ledyard Smith 1969 The Ruins of Altar de Sacrificios, Department of Peten, Guatemala: An Introduction. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Vol. 62:2. Wolf, Eric. R. 1966 Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tikal Reports, see TR. 12: TR. 2: Coe, William R. and Vivian L. Broman 1958 Excavations in the Stela 23 Group. Facsimile Reissue of Original Reports Published 1958–1961. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 11: Carr, Robert F., and James E. Hazard 1986 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Facsimile Reissue of Original Reports Published 1958–1961. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 14: Coe, William R. 1990 Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis of Tikal, Vols. 1–4. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 15: Harrison, Peter D. n.d. Excavations in the Central Acropolis of Tikal. TR. 16: Jones, Christopher 1996 Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal, Vols. 1, 2. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 18: Jones, Christopher n.d. Excavations in the Twin Pyramid Groups of Tikal. TR. 19: Haviland, William A., with Marshall J. Becker, Ann Chowning, Keith A. Dixon, and Karl Heider 1985 Excavations in Small Residential Groups of Tikal: Groups 4F-1 and 4F-2. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

REFERENCES

167

TR. 20A: Haviland, William A. 2014. Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Non-elite Groups without Shrines: The Excavations. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 21: Becker, Marshall J., contributions by Christopher Jones 1999 Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Groups with Shrines. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 22: Haviland, William A. n.d. Excavations in Group 7F-1: An Elite Residential Group of Tikal. [in prep.] TR. 25A: Culbert, T. Patrick 1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches and Problematical Deposits. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 26: Fry, Robert E. n.d. The Ceramics of Tikal: Peripheral Area. TR. 27A: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, with William R. Coe 2008 The Artifacts of Tikal: Ornamental and Ceremonial Artifacts and Unworked Material. Part A. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. TR. 27B: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 2003 The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material. Part B. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. TR. 30: Monge, Janet and William A. Haviland n.d. The Skeletal Series of Tikal. [in prep.] TR. 31: Trik, Helen and Michael E. Kampen 1983 The Graffiti of Tikal. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. TR. 32: Puleston, Dennis E., and William A. Haviland n.d. The Chultuns of Tikal. TR. 37: Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 2012 Historical Archaeology at Tikal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Illustrations

A Variety of Small-Structure Masonry a. North portion of the W end wall of Str. 4E-16-2nd. Wall style is 1a. b. Portion of the E wall, Str. 2G-59-1st, showing where new masonry (right) was added to the old wall of 2nd (left). Wall styles 3a (left), 1a (right). c. Center of the W wall, Str. 4E-14. Wall style 3a. d. E portion of the N wall, Str. 2G-583rd. Wall style 3c. e. S portion of the W wall, Str. 4F-47-2nd. Wall style 3a. f. Photograph of N wall, Str. 6E-26-3rd, looking E. Wall style 1a. Note the small portion of Plat. 6E-1:U. 5, TR. 20A:fig. 143 projecting out from beneath the base of the wall. For photographs illustrating wall styles 1a, 3a, and 3b, see TR. 27A:Fig. 178b,c, and 179d.

FIGURE 1

Jar Necks a, b, c: Monochrome red jar necks 24N/3, 24C/140, 24R-35/17. For a drawing with section of this last, see TR. 25A:Fig. 56b2 (the assignment there to Bu. 166 is in error). Necks and neck fragments from both monochrome red and coarse jars are frequently found in debris from small-structure groups. Any of these necks could have served as stands for globular vessels; 24N/3 was found in situ on the floor of Str. 4E-50.

FIGURE 2

Basic Household Implements of Stone: a–e: All chert. Not shown: core, unused flake, metate. a. Ovate biface (24R-12/20); b. Elongate biface (24C-254/120); c. Irregular, retouched flake (24U-14/3,4); d. Prismatic blade (24T-28/23); e. Used flake (24C-34B/29); f. Mano (24L-12/3).

FIGURE 3

Common Household Objects: a. Censer fragments (24C-350/130); b. Centrally perforated sherd (24C-360/74); c. Thin biface (24X-25); d. Point retouched flake (24A-74/44); e. Hammer stone (24W-5/3); f. Rubbing stone (24R-23/24).

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

Three Worked Sherds with Entoptic Designs a. 24T/20, unworked body sherd with incised spider-web design (compare with TR. 31:Fig. 32a). From Str. 3F-26:LG. 1 (TR. 20A:Table 2.89). b. 24N/12, unworked rim sherd with incised design highlighted with white pigment showing fragmented zigzag (Haviland and Haviland 1995:301–302). From Str. 4E-50:Lg. 4 (TR. 20A:Table 2.174). c. 24E/9 centrally perforated worked sherd with incised design showing curved ladderlike entoptic fragmented grid (TR. 20A:176–177). A line drawing of this object appears in Fig. 132d in TR. 27B. From Str. 2G-14:LG. 3 (TR. 20A:Table 2.54). For a worked sherd with entoptic design from Gp. 6E-1, see TR. 27B:Fig. 137j.

FIGURE 6

Obsidian Counterparts of Basic and Common Household Implements More Often (Excepting Prismatic Blades) Made of Chert. Top row: thin bifaces 24E-56/30 (green), 24C-352/13, 24W-6/4; unmodified flake 24L/9-2; unclassified 24C-192/75; retouched flake 24E-20/7; second row: core fragments 24A-157/51, 24A-36/24; chip (green) 24E-58/22; nodule (green) 24F-26/11; retouched prismatic blades 24G-154/24, 24G-51/61.

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15

A View of Str. 6E-162, an Apparent Kitchen in Gp. 6E-1, Under Excavation. Shown on the floor are fragments of a metate.

Figure 16 (facing page) A Hypothetical Genealogy for Occupants of Gp. 2G-1. Blacked-in circles (women) and triangles (males) designate deceased ancestors.

FIGURE 16