The Settlement Survey of Tikal: Tikal Report 13 9781934536353

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Illustrations
Preface
I. Introduction
II. Field Procedures
III. Map Preparation
IV. Survey Commentary
V. Conclusions
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
References
Figures

Citation preview

University Museum Monograph 48

Tikal Report No. 13

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL Dennis E. Puleston

William A. Haviland, Volume Editor Series Editors William R. Coe William A. Haviland

Published by THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM University of Pennsylvania 1983

Copyright © 1983 THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Puleston, Dennis Edward, 1940-1978. The settlement survey of Tikal. (Tikal report; no. 13) (University Museum monograph; 48) Bibliography: p. 1. Tikal Site (Guatemala) 2. Land settlement patterns— Guatemala—Petén (Dept.) I. Title. II. Series: Tikal reports; no. 13. III. Series: University Museum monograph; 48. F1465.1.T5T5 no. 13 972.81'2s 83-14553 ISBN 0-934718-07-5 (set) [972.81'2] ISBN 0-934718-47-4

Table of Contents

vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PREFACE

xi

PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Objectives Definitions

1 2 2

PART II: FIELD PROCEDURES The Limitations of Aerial Survey The Brechas: Backbone of the Ground Survey Mapping Techniques Evolution of a Method Description of Techniques Location of Centers off the Strips

3 3 4 4 5 5 6

PART III: MAP PREPARATION Map Scale Designation of Features and Orientation Symbols and Standards of Representation

7 7 7 9

PART IV: SURVEY COMMENTARY The East Survey Strip 0.25-0.50 km 0.50-2.00 km 2.00-5.20 km 5.20-5.80 km 5.80-7.00 km 7.00-8.00 km 8.00-10.50 km 10.50-12.00 km The South Survey Strip -0.25-0.15 km 0.15-0.40 km 0.40-2.90 km 2.90-3.50 km 3.50-6.50 km 6.50-9.40 km 9.40-10.50 km 10.50-12.00 km

10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 16 16 17

v

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS The West Survey Strip 0.25-0.75 km 0.75-2.00 km 2.00-3.20 km 3.20-5.50 km 5.50-8.10 km 8.10-9.50 km 9.50-12.00 km The North Survey Strip 0.25-1.00 km 1.00-4.60 km 4.60-11.15 km 11.15-12.00 km The Northwest Border Survey Strip -0.25-0.00 km 0.00-1.80 km 1.80-3.45 km The Uaxactun Survey Strip 6.25-4.75 km 4.75-3.65 km 3.65-2.00 km 2.00-0.00 km

17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21

PART V: CONCLUSIONS Relation of Construction to Topography Relation of Construction to Other Centers The Site Limits of Tikal Subzones within Tikal Minor Centers The Uaxactun Resurvey

23 23 23 23 24 25 25

APPENDIX 1

27

APPENDIX 2

44

APPENDIX 3

46

REFERENCES

48

Illustrations

Figure 1.

Map of the Tikal National Park showing the four survey strips, the minor centers, and Uaxactun

Figure 2. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1.

East Survey Strip 0.25-1.00km 1.00-2.00 km 2.00-3.00 km 3.00-4.00 km 4.00-5.00 km 5.00-6.00 km 6.00-7.00 km 7.00-8.00 km 8.00-9.00 km 9.00-10.00 km 10.00-11.00 km 11.00-12.00 km

Figure 3.

South Survey Strip a. -0.25-1.00 km, in conjunction with Fig. 3b b. to LOO km, continued from Fig. 3a c. 1.00-2.00 km d. 2.00-3.00 km e. 3.00-4.00 km f. 4.00-5.00 km g. 5.00-6.00 km h. 6.00-7.00 km i. 7.00-8.00 km j. 8.00-9.00 km k. 9.00-10.00 km l. 10.00-11.00 km m. 11.00-12.00 km

Figure 4.

West Survey Strip a. 0.25-1.00 km b. 1.00-2.00 km c. 2.00-3.00 km d. 3.00-4.00 km e. 4.00-5.00 km f. 5.00-6.00 km g. 6.00-7.00 km h. 7.00-8.00 km i. 8.00-9.00 km vii

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS j. 9.00-10.00 km k. 10.00-11.00 km l. 11.00-12.00 km Figure 5.

North Survey Strip a. 0.25-1.00 km b. 1.00-2.00 km c. 2.00-3.00 km d. 3.00-4.00 km e. 4.00-5.00 km f. 5.00-6.00 km g. 6.00-7.00 km h. 7.00-8.00 km i. 8.00-9.00 km j. 9.00-10.00km k. 10.00-11.00 km l. 11.00-12.00 km

Figure 6

a. b. c. d.

Northwest Border Northwest Border Northwest Border Northwest Border

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Uaxactun Survey Strip 0.00-1.00 km 1.00-2.00 km 2.00-3.00 km 3.00-4.00 km 4.00-5.00 km 5.00-6.00 km 6.00-6.25 km

Figure 7.

Survey Strip Survey Strip Survey Strip Survey Strip

Figure 8.

Map of Jimbal

Figure 9.

Map of El Encanto

Figure 10 a. Map of Santa Fé b. Map of El Descanso Figure 11 a. Map of Corosal b. Map of Avila Figure 12.

Map of Uoluntun

Figure 13 a. Map of Tintal b. Maps of Navajuelal, Groups SE-1 and SE-2 Figure 14.

Map of Bobal

Figure 15.

Map of Mixta Xuc

Figure 16.

Map of Chikin Tikal

Figure 17.

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles a. East Strip b. South Strip

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 18.

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles a. West Strip b. North Strip

Figure 19.

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for Northwest and Uaxactun Strips

Figure 20.

Boundaries of Tikal by structure density, and location of earthworks and bajo

Figure 21.

Limits of Epicentral and Central Tikal

Figure 22 a. Schematic presentation of terms used for main subdivisions of Tikal, Jimbal, and Uaxactun b. Computerized perspective view of Tikal-Uaxactun region

ix

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

chultuns. Two weeks later we made a similar excursion to Chikin Tikal with Edward Crocker and Rafael Morales F., who was then the newly appointed Director of the Tikal National Park. We followed the overgrown oil company road shown in Fig. 1. Halfway there we blundered off the trail into a large plaza group which I described and laughingly dubbed Taxicab, though we considered the names Uaxin Maxin and Mixta Xuc (the latter was later given to a minor center mapped by Denny and Christopher Jones in 1964) that had originated in an earlier "happy hour" session with William Coe. Further on we came to the large platform that is the "site" of Canmul, of which Denny made a sketch map before continuing on to Chikin Tikal. Here we explored and ate lunch before beginning what turned out to be a long trek back to camp. Thus, bushwhacking trips to outlying sites that began as weekend adventures gradually took a more serious turn as we realized the significance of the data that could be gleaned from this sort of operation, including architectural details, site plans and locations relative to Tikal as we then knew it. Although I did not return to Tikal for the 1964 season, Denny did, and continued the weekend trips. Following up reports of sites made by various workmen who had been chicleros (chicle gatherers) in these forests, architectural drawings and maps of Corosal, El Encanto, Avila, and other sites were made with the assistance of Hans-Rudi Hug, Andrew Nagy, Christopher Jones, and Peter Harrison. Locations were calculated on the basis of treetop compass sightings back to the temples of Tikal and of a set of aerial photographs. At the end of the 1964 season one of our more reliable workmen, Gil Martinez, was assigned the task of following up reports of sites that came in during the "off * season. It was this commission that led to the discovery of Jimbal with its strikingly late monuments. All this was done with the idea that it would be our last chance, but in October of 1964, financial support from the Guatemalan Government began to pour in (TR. 12), giving the entire Tikal Project a future of at least two more years. The time was ripe for a more systematic

In the winter season of 1961, there arrived at Tikal two eager undergraduates from Antioch College who had volunteered their services to the project. Since neither was thinking then of making archaeology a career, there was some concern about how useful their services would be. Nevertheless, their offer was accepted providing they could pay their own way down and back. At the time, I was carrying out the third season of small structure excavation, and quickly put in a bid for one of the "Sunshine Boys," as we had already dubbed them, to serve as my field assistant. So it was that Dennis E. Puleston got involved in the investigation of ancient Maya settlement patterns. Although Denny had no previous archaeological field experience, he quickly grasped the intricacies of small structure excavation, and soon was drawing plans and sections every bit as good as my own. Never have I seen anyone catch on so fast. Soon he was as fascinated by the implications of my work as I was myself. At the end of the season, when I became seriously ill, I had no reservations in leaving Denny to close down my operations. Denny and I visited several times over the next two years, at which times I worked hard on him to forgo biology in favor of anthropology as a career. We both made arrangements to return to Tikal in the summer of 1963, by which time I had completed my dissertation. In it, I had borrowed from Satterthwaite (1951:2) the concept of a sustaining area, proposing that a large population living at Tikal consumed food that was raised by people living in a surrounding rural region (see Haviland 1963:538-539). Once in the field we began to follow up this idea with a series of informal weekend expeditions to places far beyond the confines of the 16 km2 map of TR. 11. One of the earliest of these was to Uolantun in 1963 with Santiago Cifuentes, one of the Tikal workmen. As we had read everything published on Uolantun in Morley's (1937-38) The Inscriptions of Peten before we left, we were excited to find that it consisted of more than the reported single "temple" and stela. Both of us commented on this in our field notes, and Denny counted fifteen mounds and two xi

xii

PREFACE

look at the postulated sustaining area of Tikal. A major question that could not be resolved by the recording of outlying sites was where the "city limits" of Tikal lay, and whether or not the dense scatter of small structure groups at Tikal shown on the 16 km2 map was fairly typical for the whole of the northeastern Peten, as most scholars then thought. In 1965, the Sustaining Area Project began in earnest with the mapping of Chikin Tikal by Francis Bowles and of the S Brecha Survey Strip by Denny. The impetus for the latter came largely from the existence of four already cleared survey trails (brechas) which had been laid out in 1964-65 when the limits of the Tikal National Park were established by government surveyors. Sampling excavations were carried out at Chikin Tikal and a number of sites on the survey strip. On the basis of this work an application for further funds was drawn up by me and submitted to the National Science Foundation in the spring of 1966. In 1966, mapping on the E, W, and N Survey Strips was completed with the help of Jeffrey Parsons and Richard Blanton (Puleston 1967). Peter Puleston and Erik Ekholm cleared and staked the survey trails. Although the season was devoted almost entirely to the strip surveys, Donald Callender's discovery of the N Earthworks led to the mapping of 9.5 km of this feature (Puleston and Callender 1967). At the time of this discovery I was in Maine. I received the following cablegram which I still have: "Found city wall. Dennis." An expedition to Uaxactun investigated the W arm of the Ricketson Survey (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937) to learn if the settlement densities that it suggested were really as low as seemed to be indicated (Puleston 1969). In 1967, with the National Science Foundation grant (GS-1409) at our disposal and the projected mapping so far along, heavy emphasis was placed on excavation. Robert Fry planned and directed the testing of approximately one-third of all mapped structure groups on the N and S Survey Strips (Fry 1969). Several minor centers, including Uolantun and Navahuelal, were excavated fairly intensively. Work at the latter site provided Ernestene Green with a six month dissertation project, in which she was assisted by Lilita Bergs (Green 1970). Back in the field myself, I excavated the stelae at Jimbal and a small structure group on the S Survey Strip. Returning to the N Earthworks that season, Denny and Callender (Puleston and Callender 1967) excavated this feature at three points. Wilfried Westphal recorded elevations with a transit along the S Brecha. As an extension of the earlier mapping project, the strip survey was extended along the N edge of the National Park for 3 km and then N to the approximate center of the old Ricketson housemound survey (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937). Callender laid out the survey trails for this, and the strips were mapped by Blanton and Denny. It was also during this season that Peter Puleston and Elias Contreras mapped

ramon trees and collected botanical information. Numerous other small projects, including a survey by H. Stanley Loten of standing architecture found on the survey strips, the excavation of the embankment around the Laguna Verde Reservoir, a study of Maya traps, and the collection of small mammals by Peter Puleston were carried out. Intensive laboratory work, under the direction of Denny's wife, Olga, assisted by Natasha Levkovich and Emily Praeger, kept abreast of large quantities of artifacts from the various excavations. A report on the project at the end of the season was filed with the National Science Foundation (Haviland, Puleston, Fry and Green 1968). In 1968, excavations at Uolantun were continued with Peter Stavrakis, who assisted at a crucial time when Denny became ill with hepatitis. Particularly important was the investigation of a new earthworks system SE of Tikal that was discovered by Martinez, between the 1967 and 1968 field seasons. In 1968, Denny collected fish from Tikal aguadas because of their possible significance to a diet with little in the way of animal proteins, and a survey of zapote trees was initiated by Daniel Higgins with the aid of Contreras. Denny Puleston died ten years later, in the summer of 1978, struck by lightning on the Castillo at Chichen Itza. Although he had, by then, several completed manuscripts to his credit (Harrison and Messenger 1980:275-276), this one was not among them. Thus, this report represents something of a salvage operation. What had been completed were the maps of the survey strips, a real labor of love and the centerpiece of Denny's doctoral dissertation (Puleston 1973). Also completed were some of the maps of minor centers. Inked versions of those not yet finished were in Philadelphia and have been completed for this report. Also on file in Philadelphia was a revised version of Chapter IV of his dissertation that, along with Chapters II and III of his dissertation, forms parts II, III, and IV of this report. They have been edited for presentation here, but the substance of what Denny had to say has not been changed unless there is a clear indication to the contrary. This is true as well of Appendices 1, 2, and 3, which are slightly revised from Appendices I, V, and VI of the dissertation. Parts I and V here have no counterpart in Denny's dissertation. Although both include large segments from it, they have been put together by me expressly for this report. Thus, while there is much of Denny in these sections, my own thoughts and biases are also present. They should not be held against Denny. This preface is also a joint effort; obviously, much of it was written by me, and the first person pronoun throughout applies to myself. But in writing it, I have adapted substantial portions of the preface that Denny wrote for his dissertation. Denny was a superb field man, and the energy and ingenuity he brought to the preparation of the maps in

PREFACE this report were phenomenal. Although mine was the first statement of the sustaining area hypothesis, Denny and I together worked out the overall research strategy for the project. But it was Dennis who developed the actual mapping strategy, and who realized the potential importance of ramon as a subsistence resource (TR. 38). I can think of no more fitting tribute to his memory than the publication of his maps. Thanks are due a number of people for their assistance with various parts of this report: Jane Homiller who did all the initial inking of the structures on the brecha maps; Peter Stavrakis, whose steady hand helped draw contour lines; and Richard Werner, Keith Manthie, and Audrey Harris, who assisted in other inking and preparatory tasks. Wally Zubrow of the Photographic Laboratories of the University of Minnesota faced successfully the task of reducing by five times

xiii

some 50 m of completed maps. The unfinished maps of minor centers drafted by Eileen Fleury were completed by Carl P. Beetz under the supervision of W. R. Coe. Technical and editorial assistance were provided by Barbara Hayden, Jennifer Quick, and Julie Meehan. Unfortunately, completion of the illustrations was seriously hampered by the donation of the Puleston Papers—including materials prepared under the auspices of, and for, the Tikal Project—to the Princeton University Library. In particular, we were frustrated in our attempts to obtain the maps Denny prepared comparing his resurvey with Ricketson's original maps of two arms of the old Uaxactun housemound survey. Thus, the reader of part V of this report is forced to turn for illustration to the poorly reproduced Figs. 3 and 4 in Denny's dissertation (1973). William A. Haviland Burlington, Vt. April 1982

This page intentionally left blank

I

Introduction

"Centers are aggregates and nucleated arrangements of pyramids, big platforms, palaces and other buildings that were the foci of Maya political and religious life... In effect, they are what 'old-fashioned' Maya archaeology was all about." (Willey 1981:391).

A persisting legacy of this "old-fashioned'' archaeology has been a lack of detailed maps that go much beyond the immediate vicinity of known centers. Apart from the rather unspecific generalizations produced by Tozzer's early muleback survey in Peten (1913:149-150 and PL 31), and Sanders's (1962-63:211) rough coverage of a 300 km2 area in the Chontalpa (for which maps have yet to be published), good comparative data on the distribution of structures and other features constructed by the Maya beyond the confines of what have been called major and minor centers (see below) are sadly lacking. The Uaxactun housemound survey (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937), for several decades the focal point of discussions of settlement density in the southern Maya lowlands as a whole, also is of limited value. Though there was no way the fact could have been recognized at the time, it now appears that the area surveyed at Uaxactun lies within the nucleus of settlement that is usually associated with major centers and so is of restricted utility for the examination of regional densities. The same limitation applies to more comprehensive surveys at Tikal (TR. 11), Mayapan (Jones 1952; Pollack et al. 1962), Dzibilchaltun (Kurjack et al. 1979), the Belize River Valley (Willey et al. 1965) and Seibal (Willey et al. 1975). At Dos Aguadas, Bullard (1960:366) sampled an area of 0.5 km2 and obtained a very rough figure for structure density per unit area. Site maps such as Bullard's of Topoxte (Bullard 1970), Altar de Sacrificios (Willey and Smith 1969) and Hellmuth's (1971) preliminary map of Yaxha are specifically excluded here because they make no real attempt to go beyond the limits of major architectural remains. Not until the late 1960's were concerted efforts made to break out of this "center bias" (Ashmore and Willey 1981:16-17; Rice and Puleston 1981:136), and the first such effort was that of the "Tikal

Sustaining Area Project" (TR. 12). In an effort to resolve problems first raised by Haviland (1963:538539), four strips extending outward from Tikal's center for a distance of 12 km were surveyed and tested by excavation. Ultimately, one of these was extended all the way to Uaxactun, overlapping part of the old Uaxactun housemound survey. Concurrent with this work, efforts were made to locate and map minor centers throughout the region at the center of which Tikal is located. The decision to break out in this way, rather than by extending outward the entire existing maps of TR. 11, was based upon simple logistical considerations. With the square shape of the existing map, greater and greater efforts would have to be expended to increase the coverage for the site. At some point, the increment in the effort expended to obtain a slight increase in the radius of the map makes continuation financially unrealistic. At Tikal, four seasons of mapping by several teams were not enough to cover more than about 13 percent of what we now know may be called the site. In the equivalent of about eleven man-seasons of work (1957: Hazard, Jones, Coe; 1958: Wurman, LeVine, Coe and Hazard; 1959: Carr; 1960: Martinez, Gregersen and Carr), only 9 km2 were mapped by plane table survey when the total "site" area, as defined by Willey and Phillips and applied here (see below), seems to comprise roughly 120 km 2 . Hans Gregersen (TR. 11) almost doubled the mapped area of Tikal with a rapid reconnaissance, in 1960, that covered 7 km2. In spite of this effort, he was able to add a bare 500 m to the site map radius. Another 500 m outwards would have required truly heroic efforts, with greater inaccuracies since spatial control was based entirely on: (1) aerial photographs without clear-cut landmarks; and (2) paced measurements from the edge of the central 9 km2. 1

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

2

Objectives The purpose of this report is to present and discuss the maps which resulted from the work beyond the confines of the 16 km2 of Tikal covered by the maps of TR. 11. These maps are as complete and accurate as possible from the surface information visible to the surveyors: with those few exceptions noted in part III and Appendix 2 of this report, they do not reflect

knowledge gained through excavation. It is important to bear this in mind for, unless mappers are equipped with X-ray vision, even the best map based on surface features is only an approximation of prehistoric reality (Haviland 1982:428). Such maps require interpretation, and sound interpretation requires excavation. These excavations are reported in TR. 24.

Definitions In the text that accompanies these maps, the terms and abbreviations used adhere to the standards discussed in TR. 12. Two other definitions are, however, necessary. For site, we follow Willey and Phillips (1958:18) who write that "about the only requirement ordinarily demanded of the site is that it be fairly continuously covered by remains of former occupation " The logical question that follows is: what is meant by "continuously covered?" Here, we have to face the reality of the situation and admit that this cannot be understood in universally applicable terms. While Willey and Phillips see the term "site" as applying to a continuum, "which may be anything from a small camp to a large city," for the Maya lowlands it is more useful to view the concept as being applicable to two discrete levels. At the microlevel, we may speak of the site as consisting of single structures, or (more commonly) groups of structures that are physically connected by floors and/or walls. These units represent the epitome of the site as Willey and Phillips define it. At the macrolevel, we must think of sites in relative terms, as places where structures and groups of structures are more continuously distributed than they are in the surrounding region. Thus we are able to define the site of Tikal in terms of structure density as an area of about 120 km 2 , within which there are roughly 112 structures per km2 as opposed to about 39 km2 in the surrounding region (see part V of this report). That this is a valid definition of the site of Tikal is suggested by a correspondence between the drop-off in structure density and boundary

features artificially constructed by the Tikal Maya (the N and S Earthworks). By minor centers we mean what Carr and Hazard (TR. 11:9) called "outlying sites"; what in TR. 12 are sometimes referred to as "satellites"; and what many Mayanists have spoken of as "minor ceremonial centers." For reasons discussed elsewhere (Haviland 1981: 117 n. 1), the latter term is inappropriate, although the more neutral term derived by dropping the word "ceremonial" is satisfactory. Following Willey (1981: 391) and Haviland (1981:90), we define these as being aggregates and nucleated arrangements of pyramids, big platforms, range-type structures, and associated smaller structures that are appreciably larger than sites at the microlevel (see above) but smaller than major centers (such as Tikal or Uaxactun). Whether or not they fall within the limits of a major center is irrelevant to this definition. Thus Avila, Bobal, Chikin Tikal, Corosal, Mixta Xuc, Santa Fe, Tintal and Uolantun, all of which are located within the limits of Tikal as defined above, are classified as minor centers. So too are El Descanso, El Encanto, Jimbal (but see part V of this report), and Navahuelal and Ramonal, all of which are located outside of those limits. In many cases, minor centers that fall within the limits of a major center, such as Tikal, may have been outside those limits when they were first constructed, even as towns and small cities are engulfed by the expansion of larger cities today. Such seems to have been the case with Uolantun, which has been more extensively excavated than most other such centers (see TR. 24C).

II

Field Procedures

available aerial photography, along with limitations of time, energy, and money, forced us to devise new techniques for mapping and even for ceramic survey. Despite their limitations, they served us well and should be useful in other areas.

The task before us was really unknown. Our intention was to map as many square kilometers of terrain beyond the 9 km2 area covered by the 1:2000 maps presented in TR. 11 as we could. The difficulties of survey in the Maya lowlands (Rice and Puleston 1981:121-137), including the impossibility of using

The Limitations of Aerial Survey Aerial survey can occasionally serve to identify other kinds of features. At Mirador, Graham (1967:44, Fig. 30) was able to detect the largest structures on aerial photographs and thus check a ground survey. Moreover, at least one artificial aguada has been recognized in aerial photographs and subsequently investigated on the ground, again by Graham (personal communication). The causeways of Coba were first recognized in aerial photographs because of the difference in the vegetation that grew on them where they crossed the larger bajos (Madeira 1931). The ridged fields and canals of El Tigre in Campeche were discovered in a similar fashion (Siemens and Puleston 1972). These instances, however, are exceptions. The identification of small ruins often less than 1 m high, through use of visible aerial photography at least, is clearly out of the question. Even so, the possibility of studying settlement patterns through vegetation differences does offer some potential. For example, certain tree species, including mahogany (Lamb 1966:37), can be recognized from the air at certain times of the year on the basis of changes in leaf coloration. Survey has revealed, however, that the association of what is probably the best indicator species, the ramon (Brosimum alicastrum), with settlement is general rather than specific (Puleston 1968). Thus, while the overall distribution of settlement might be revealed by an aerial photographic survey of ramon trees, the layouts of settlement groupings, as well as the relative sizes and numbers of the individual structures, can not be discerned. In spite of such problems, the approximately 1:50,000

The use of aerial photographs has become a mainstay of settlement surveys all over the world. They were essential to the surveys carried out in the Virú Valley (Willey 1953), Teotihuacan (Sanders 1965, 1970; Millon 1967, 1970), Texcoco (Parsons 1971), the Ixtapalapa region (Blanton 1972), the Candelaria Basin (Siemens and Puleston 1972), and now Kaminaljuyu (Sanders, personal communication; the valley survey they were used in is referred to by Sanders and Michels 1969:61). Photogrammetric techniques have been applied to ecological and land use surveys at San Lorenzo (M. Coe 1969) but not to prehistoric settlement. All these sites, apart from San Lorenzo, are located in relatively open areas, in direct contrast to the southern Maya lowlands, where dense forest canopy stands more than 30 m above ground level. It is this canopy which makes the use of aerial photographs impossible for detailed local survey. This drawback does not mean that aerial survey cannot be useful in other ways. The 25 and 50 m contour intervals that can be derived from aerial photographs, and which are shown on the maps prepared by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, were useful for a rough check of the 10 m contours we plotted in the field. In many instances they provided valuable leads to the location of minor centers. At Tikal, Gp. 6B-2 (Str. 6B-19/40) was discovered from an oil company helicopter (E. M. Shook, personal communication). Careful study of aerial photographs by Earle Hindley of the FAO-FYDEP Project located a number of probable sites in other parts of the Peten, some of which have been checked out on the ground by Ian Graham. 3

4

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

scale aerial photographs of the Tikal area proved useful for locating certain minor centers by means of their

aguadas and the paths left by the oil company survey trails or brechas which are visible in some photographs. They were also used to check the orientations

of the survey strips by comparing the configurations of major transitional zones in vegetation such as occur at the edges of tintal (logwood) bajo. The survey itself, however, was conducted entirely on the ground with ground controls.

The Brechas: Backbone of the Ground Survey Without aerial photographs for location, a ground level datum had to be established. For this, straight, narrow trails or brechas were used. These were carefully measured and staked. Fortunately, the transitcontrolled delimitation in 1963-64 of the 576 km2 Tikal National Park by FYDEP (La Empresa Nacional de Fomento y Desarrollo Económico de El Petén) left us with serviceable trails extending 12 km N, S, E, and W from the center of Tikal, and around the four sides of the Park. The location of these is shown in Fig. 1. The availability of these trails was really a major factor in the success, and even formulation, of the original plan to undertake the present survey. Each was about a meter wide and only slightly overgrown, so that little labor was required to clear and stake them. Actually, we were restaking them, but in the one or two years since they were placed to establish the park limits, these original stakes had decayed beyond legibility in most cases. Where they were legible (on the S Brecha in 1965), they served as a useful check on our own measurements. By the following year, all but one or two stakes on the other brechas were completely decomposed. New stakes were placed on each brecha at 25 m intervals and marked on both sides with the distance in kilometers and meters from the center of Tikal (i.e., 5+275, 5+300, 5+325, etc.). For the N Border Brecha, these measurements were made from the end of the N Brecha, while for the Uaxactun Brecha they began at the approximate center of the Ricketson housemound survey. Unfortunately we were unable to get a precise fix on this, because the Uaxactun Aguada which served as our datum point is incorrectly located on the Ricketsons' map. Furthermore, the distortions and inaccuracies of the Ricketsons' map are so gross that even if this mislocation could be taken into consideration, an accurate alignment, correct for the entire map, would be impossible. The center of the Tikal National Park unfortunately bears little relation to the existing map of Tikal (TR.

11). The Park center, which forms the beginning of the N, S, E, and W Brechas, was established by a wooden stake near the center of the Great Plaza which I located in 1965 but was never able to find again. Measurements taken at that time showed this stake to have a position 141 m S and 325 W in Sq. 5D of the TR. 11 map. The beginning of the Uaxactun Brecha is a point 60 m W and 87 m S of an Aero-Service Corporation Shoran station marked as "9." According to an inscription on the side of this marker, it was erected first in 1959 and again in 1960 by Ing. E. Roeich L. for the Argus Petroleum Corporation. The starting point of the brecha was determined in 1967 by measuring from the SE corner of the Uaxactun Aguada (as mentioned above) to the center of the Ricketson housemound survey (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937:Fig. 2). The orientation of the brechas, excepting the Uaxactun Brecha, followed that of the National Park as laid out. This turned out to lie rather enigmatically between true and magnetic N, approximately 1° 30' E of the N-S orientation of the maps of TR. 11. At two points on the W Brecha and one on the S, the trail made by the FYDEP surveyors shifted several meters to the left or right following a new course parallel to the old one. Going E to W on the W Brecha, there is a displacement of 87 meters to the N at 5,892 m and two small displacements of 5 m to the N at 6,022 and 7,220 m. (Figs. 4 and 5 depict these.) The location of the 4-5 m displacement to the E on the S Brecha was not recorded. While our Uaxactun Brecha was oriented to magnetic N, this too may be slightly off, as the transit we used did not line up exactly on a backsite when used in certain directions. Fortunately, this problem was realized in the field, and in order to keep the brecha straight, the error was kept constant by consistently setting up the instrument in the same way. The error involved amounts to less than a degree, and so is insignificant at the scale at which the survey is presented.

Mapping Techniques Mapping began once the brechas had been cleared and staked. Of the four radial brechas, all except the S were mapped beginning at the edge of the central 9 km2 1:2000 scale map so that the peripheral squares of the

1:6250 scale map in TR. 11 could be remapped. As can be seen by comparing maps, the general distribution of the mounds and their numbers are in agreement.

FIELD

PROCEDURES

5

The Evolution of a Method The problem of how to gain the best coverage was basically how to control and organize manpower. This stage of the work, which involved working out an effective procedure, was accomplished in 1965 with the help of Francis P. Bowles. We began by sending out reconnaissance teams controlled from the brecha, but our first attempts with more than one assistant were disastrous. Not only was coverage inefficient, but our reconnaissance men, with no idea of how far they were from the brecha, wandered off into adjoining squares and sometimes became lost. Once beyond earshot, which was considerably less than 250 m (the limits of our survey to either side of the brechas), even experienced woodsmen often became disoriented, and much time was lost while they circled back from as far as half a kilometer away, or in their enthusiasm followed a promising ridge far beyond the limits of the intended strip. By this method, once structural remains were located, the reconnaissance man returned to the brecha and then, going out again cutting a trail perpendicular to the brecha, he tried to relocate the ruins. This was often difficult and frequently our carefully laid out secondary brechas missed the intended mark, so that further searching was needed to relocate it. Taping from the structure to the brecha on a compass line was more efficient, but still time-consuming, since new trails had to be cut for every group; moreover, we were never sure how complete the coverage of the survey area by our assistants really was. This technique was soon abandoned. In an attempt to control our search teams, I assigned myself the task of pacing around the outside of each 250 m square, keeping the reconnaissance men inside the square and reporting the features as they found them. Even with this arrangement, we often lost contact and frequently I had to backtrack large distances to map mounds found or announced after having passed them.

Coverage was still erratic. We finally settled on keeping the search teams within 25 or 50 m and rather than trying to cover a 250 m square in one circuit, doing it in two or three. At the same time, we began pacing distances to the brecha when we realized how close we could come to the measured distance. How much were we missing? Experience soon revealed that most mounds 0.15 to 2 m high could be spotted from a distance of 0-10 m, and sometimes up to 15 m. At greater distances, even ruins 1 m high were effectively screened from view by the vegetation. A distance of 20-30 m often sufficed to obscure even the largest structures. Since most groups of structures are 15-20 m wide, a distance of 25 m was finally settled on as appropriate to maintain between the searchers (see detailed description of the techniques below). Any mound or group of mounds located between the paths of two searchers then had a good chance of being spotted by one or both searchers. This system worked well once decided upon, and in a dry run on an already mapped portion of the Camp Quadrangle (TR. 11), we were able to pick up every structure as well as an unmapped chultun. Where we overlapped the outer perimeter of the 0.5 km2 blocks mapped by Gregersen, we were able to locate many new structures and chultuns. Thus we probably missed few structures. Discounting invisible and barely visible situations (0-0.15 m high), I would judge that the completeness of the survey was in the range of 95 percent as far as structures are concerned. The same cannot be said for chultuns, however, and we undoubtedly missed many throughout the survey. Once we were able to control our manpower by keeping searchers 25 m to either side of the actual mapper, we were able to increase the size of our team as well as its efficiency. With a few other changes, there eventually evolved the system described below, which was used with great success over the next three years.

The Description of Techniques The mapping team consisted of five individuals. At the beginning of a particular sweep, the team lined up on the brecha at 25 m intervals, the mapper at its center and the line facing into the 250 m square to be mapped. The equipment carried by the mapper, who was the navigator and recorder for the team, included a Brunton compass, a clipboard on which a strip of waterproof Mylar was taped over a piece of graph paper, and a 9H pencil. At a sign the team would begin to advance into the forest, being careful to maintain as closely as possible the 25 m spacing. The team's orientation as a whole was determined by the man at the center with the compass, which was found to be quite accurate if used carefully, even though it was hand-held. Long sitings

on distant trees brought the best results. The centerman also kept track of the distance covered, counting his paces accurately. When a calculated distance of 250 m had been covered and the team stood at the outer edge of the survey strip, all shifted down the edge 125 m, turned back towards the brecha, and began the return sweep to complete the mapping of the 250 m square. If all went well, the team members emerged on the central brecha on the correct count at numbered stakes 125 m down from where they had started. Accuracy within 15 m in either direction could be expected, and with experience our sweeps became ever more precise. Often the team emerged at exactly the correct point. During a sweep, the center man had the task of plotting rough contour

6

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

lines so as to record the general lay of the land, the relative steepness of the hills, and the location and direction of arroyos. An interval of approximately 5 m was used. These impressionistic contours were later tied into transit and altimeter readings taken on the central brecha, and were translated into lines separated by 10 m intervals on the final map. Major changes in the vegetation were also recorded along with trails, as were chiclero camps when encountered. (Extra material recorded increased with each strip surveyed.) When the remains of a chultun or a structure or other ruin was spotted by someone of the team, a relayed cry of "monticulo" or "chultun" brought the entire team to a halt. The center man then recorded his paced position on the map with an "X" and, after marking the ground and blazing a nearby tree, he then paced out perpendicular to the course towards the indicated feature where its discoverer waited. If the center man did not arrive directly at the feature, he paced until he was abreast of it and then, turning 90 degrees, paced off the intervening distance. Lengths and widths of structures were paced. When orientations of structures, particularly smaller ones, could not be determined, they were assumed to be oriented to a magnetic N-S axis. While mapping proceeded, the discoverer of the group was sent out to scour its periphery for chultuns and other small structures. The three other

members of the team held their positions. Once a group was mapped, the center man returned to his position and the team started forward again. If, at the end of a full sweep, the team emerged on the brecha more than 10 or 15 m off, the most recently mapped groups were shifted proportionately to place them nearer their actual locations on the map. A constant rate of error was assumed in most cases. Using this system a single team was able to map up to 375,000 m2 in a day, not counting groups off the edges of the strip, which were mapped whenever possible. The completeness of coverage, with the exception of chultuns, is certainly nearly comparable to that of the map of the central 9 km2 of Tikal. For the peripheral squares mapped by Gregersen and included on the 1:6250 scale map in TR. 11, we were able to make many corrections and additions. The accuracy of group locations and structure orientations inevitably is not so precise but is partially compensated for by our use of a scale that is 2.5 times less than that used by Carr and Hazard. In certain instances, groups at the outer edges of each strip may have accumulated a total error in placement, relative to the central 9 km2 of Tikal, of as much as 20-25 m. Tests of the technique in plane table mapped areas on the E brecha indicated that error N and S was about equal to error E and W.

The Location of Centers off the Strips At the same time that the strip surveys just described were carried out, reports of new minor centers, within the Park and just outside, were constantly followed up. Since these were not necessarily near to any of the brechas, another solution to the problem of location had to be found. Various possible solutions were considered, but the most feasible and reliable was the use of a Veripistol with red and white flares. Transit readings on the flares were taken out over the forest from the tops of the major temples at Tikal, and the positions of the

flares were triangulated. The sites themselves were mapped either by pacing, use of compass and tape, or plane table and alidade, depending on size and accessibility. Each method had its advantages and limitations, but it was decided that plane table surveys of larger centers, such as Chikin Tikal (Fig. 16), were desirable because of the importance of knowing with greater accuracy the proportional distance between structures in a situation of complex and concentrated architecture.

III

Map Preparation

The preparation of the peripheral survey maps posed a number of problems that did not always have easy

solutions. In most instances we had to compromise in some way, and so not all solutions were ideal.

Map Scale One of the first problems faced was the question of scale. Since publication of the TR. 11 maps, it has been the custom to publish maps of Maya ruins at a scale of 1:2000. We have followed this precedent for the maps of minor centers that appear as Figs. 8-16; however, publication of the strip surveys at that scale would be prohibitively expensive, and would result in maps much too long to be easily used. Furthermore, the greater potential for detail and accuracy at a 1:2000 scale seemed unnecessary in view of the simplicity of most of the features we recorded as well as the reduced precision of our mapping as compared to plane table survey. Therefore, a smaller scale was decided upon. The next question was whether or not to continue the precedent of 1:6250 set by the 16 km2 map included in TR. 11 or go to some other scale. We finally decided on a 1:5000 scale for the following reasons: (1) 1:6250 was just a little too small to show structures as more than black rectangles; (2) 1:5000 seemed more amenable to comparison with 1:2000 scale maps than 1:6250; (3) maps of some other sites, including Mayapan, have been presented at a scale of 1:5000 (Pollack, Roup, Proskouriakoff and

Smith 1962; the Mayapan map was also presented at a scale of 1:2500 by Jones 1952); and (4) our field mapping was carried out at a scale of 1:5000. Further, this scale would be amenable to comparison with the overall map of Dzibilchaltun, which has been published at a scale of 1:10000 (Kurjack et al. 1979). The large scale map of the Tikal National Park and Uaxactun (Fig. 1) is presented here at a scale of about 1:165000 simply to fit it on a standard page. It was prepared from a preliminary map of the NE Peten released by the Dirección General de Cartografía of Guatemala and aerial photographs obtained from the same agency. The orientation of the National Park boundaries was determined by us in the process of survey because I was unable to contact the original surveyors, or find a map on which the boundaries were correctly located. Several sketch maps I have seen, including one in the agency, had the Park oriented to true N which it definitely is not, nor is it oriented to magnetic N as I have indicated above and will show in detail below.

Designation of Features and Orientation and double letters; (2) our maps, based on the trails laid by the National Park Boundary Survey, were out of alignment with the old grid and so would be difficult to use anyway; and (3) our control of horizontal measurements along the 12 km brechas was not so exact that we could be sure that structures would not have to be renumbered if and when more exact placement of the grid lines could be accomplished. For these reasons, we decided to use an independent

The second problem faced was designation of the structures and chultuns. Though Andrews (1965) decided to use an 8-digit grid numbering system for Dzibilchaltun, we chose to follow the system of numbering used on the already published Tikal maps. In doing so, however, the grid and square designation system used on the original maps had to be abandoned. This was done because: (1) there was no provision on the old grid for expansion N or W without using negative numbers 7

8

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

numbering system originated by Coe that could be applied to the National Park as a whole. In order to eliminate the necessity of grid lines, we used the brechas themselves as a basis for dividing the National Park into four quadrants. Thus, our maps and the quadrants are oriented to the National Park as it was surveyed. This orientation is approximately 4° 30'E of true N, as indicated on the TR. 11 maps. This was determined by plotting the path of the S Brecha on the TR. 11 map from observations of the structures it crossed. The reasons for the orientation of the National Park to 4° 30'E of true N are unclear. The calculated magnetic declination for Tikal in 1957 was 6° 45'E of true N (TR. 11:3). Though there is a difference of 2° 15' between these two figures, it seems likely that the Park was meant to be oriented to magnetic N. The difficulty of obtaining a consistent value for magnetic declination in this area is manifest on the survey maps published by the Dirección General de Cartografía of Guatemala. For the Jobompiche Sheet (Fotomapa, Hoja 2267 II) which includes the S edge of the National Park, the calculated magnetic declination for 1963 was 6° 11' with an annual deviation of 3' to the W. For the Papactun Sheet (Fotomapa, Hoja 2267 III) immediately SW of Tikal, the declination for 1963 was 4° 24' or 6° 14', depending on whether one was calculating from zone 15 or 16 of Clarke's spheroid of 1866 as applied to the Universal Mercator Grid. Finally, the zone 15 declination for Flores (Fotomapa, Hoja 2266 IV) is 4° 30', which is the same as the declination apparently used for the National Park. Though mechanically I cannot see how it could have happened, the latter figure suggests that somehow instruments corrected for use in Flores were incorrectly realigned in Tikal before being used to lay out the Park brechas. This is only a possibility, however, which assumes the correctness of the orientations of the TR. 11 map, and the reason for the indicated orientation of the National Park remains a mystery. Be that as it may, the brechas were used as a basis for dividing the National Park (as surveyed) into four quadrants, within which known structures were continuously numbered. Structures within the 16 km2 of Tikal which had already been mapped were, of course, excluded from this system. Structures within the outer strip of squares (i.e., Sq. ID, IE, 4H, 5H, 8D, 8E, 4A, and 5A), outlined on the 1:6250 scale map of Tikal (TR. 11), have been given structure numbers for the first time according to the system used for the central 9 km2. Numbering of structures and chultuns in each quadrant beyond the 1:6250 map begins with the structures on the brecha strips. The brechas are numbered in clockwise order; i.e., in the SW quadrant the structures on the W side of the S Strip (W of the brecha) were numbered first. Numbering on each strip begins with those structures nearest Tikal. Those discovered after

the initial numbering have been given next available numbers, which of necessity are out of sequence. For this reason a special appendix (Appendix 1) has been included in which all out-of-sequence numbers are listed and the locations of the structures given. Those mapped in association with centers off the strips, but still within the Park, received numbers after the initial numbering of the structures on the strips. The definition of structures and the system of designating them in the Figures follow as closely as possible the standards used for the maps of TR. 11 (see also captions for Fig. 2 and TR. 12:Appendix A). The quadrant designations NW, NE, SW, and SE replace the 2B, 5C, 5D, etc., designations used in central area numeration. Thus, structures are designated as follows: Str. SE-34, Str. NE-268, etc. In order to facilitate the location of structures on the maps when it is not clearly indicated in the text, the optional designations (N), (S), (E), and (W) are used after the quadrant designation to indicate on which strip the structure is found. For example, a structure on the N Strip situated on the W side of the brecha, and therefore in the NW quadrant, could be indicated as Str. NW(N)-290 to show that it is located on the N rather than the W survey strip. Minor centers off the brecha strips are indicated in the same way when discussed out of context; i.e., Str. SE (Uolantun)-492 (Fig. 12). Structures outside the limits of the National Park are labeled "EP" (extra-Park). Spatially separated extraPark mapping projects are given separate numbers which, together with the EP number, replace the quadrant and square designations of the more formally arranged inner maps. Thus, the structures of Jimbal, which lies outside of and a little N of the National Park, all receive the prefix Str. EP1-, because Jimbal was one of the first extra-Park mapping projects (Fig. 8). The system was chosen because it avoids the problems posed by Jimbal Str.-l, Jimbal Str.-2, etc., when mapping extends beyond the limits of fairly continuous ruins of the "site" as defined by Willey and Phillips (1958:18). As for comparable sites within the Park, these designations can be supplemented for the sake of clarity with the name of a site of location in parentheses after the EP number, e.g., Str. EP1 (Jimbal)-14, EP2 (Uaxactun)-67. To date, the following EP mapping areas have been assigned: EP1 Jimbal (Fig. 8) EP2 500 meter-wide strip between Uaxactun and the northern edge of the Tikal National Park, plus a 250 meter-wide strip along the northern edge of the Park between the meeting place of the above-mentioned strip and the N end of the N Strip (Fig. 6) EP3 Outside the National Park at the end of the E Strip (Fig. 2) Chultuns in all respects are designated in the same way with the prefix Ch. as in TR. 11 (see also TR. 12).

MAP PREPARATION

9

Symbols and Standards of Representation The illustration of structures on the plates follows the conventions established by Morley (1937-38, V:P1. 2) and used in TR. 11. Chultuns are represented by small circles, as on the TR. 11 maps, and are numbered with a slightly smaller type face than the structures. The symbol for limestone quarry edges and pits is limited to small crosses. On the TR. 11 maps, negative contours are also used, but because only 10 m contour intervals are used on the strip maps, the symbol system has been slightly simplified. Negative contours are used only for major pits, like that just W of Navajuelal on the S Strip, and as a designation for aguadas and sinkholes (resumideros). Stelae and altars are indicated by small black circles and rectangles, as in TR. 11. Standing wall masonry is represented by dextral lines that slope downwards (left to right). This marking is indicated only on the portions of the strip beyond the limits of the central 9 km2 of Tikal because: (1) for the purposes of following up information on visible masonry this designation is virtually meaningless in the central area; (2) it would have obscured details of the map in the central area at the scale used here; and (3) all this information can be obtained on the TR. 11 maps. Modern buildings and the experimental Ch. 4F-7, constructed in 1965, are indicated by sinistral lines (sloping upwards, left to right), again as in TR. 11. On those portions of the strips which cover the central 9 km2 presented in TR. 11, structures and chultuns which have been discovered since that time have been inserted. Similarly structures and chultuns which in the opinion of their excavators do not deserve these designations have been removed. All these changes are listed in Appendix 2. The totals are as follows: structures, added-35, subtracted-7; chultuns, added-29, subtracted10. Structures of the Sub series (i.e., structures which lie beneath a regularly numbered structure but are differ-

ent enough not to be included in an architectural series that relates directly to the final numbered structure, see TR. 5:6) have not been included. It should be noted, however, that further changes will be made when full assessment of the mapped features of Tikal's central 16 km2 is completed. Various vegetation types, although they will be described and discussed in TR. 38, are designated on the strip survey maps. The major types indicated are tintal and escoba palm forest, which comprises a semi-bajo plant assemblage of considerable variety. Undesignated areas on the maps generally may be taken to represent high forest of great variety. Several smaller assemblages that are indicated include jimbal, featuring Guada sp., pital, with Aechmea magdalenae, and corozal, characterized by Orbignya cohune. Though many other important assemblages exist, they have not been indicated, either because they were not recognized at the time of mapping or because they did not seem important or distinctive enough to warrant the effort when we had so little time. A good example of the former omission is a dense grove of manax trees (Pseudolmedia spuria) between 4.0 and 4.2 km on the S Strip. Examples of the latter include various subcategories of escobal and tintal, as well as many high forest assemblages such as those described by Lundell (1937) and Wright et al. (1959:Appendix II) The boundaries of the vegetation types are of varying sharpness and reliability. They are most meaningful on the E and W Strips where the rapidity of transition from very low tintal to high forest has produced fairly clear-cut changes in the vegetation. On the S Strip, the boundaries of escobal had to be determined from aerial photographs and spot checks made from along the brecha, as we had no intention of mapping this form of vegetation until after we had finished the S Strip, the first that we mapped.

IV

Survey Commentary

record significant information and observations which do not appear on the maps at all. Starting in each case at Tikal's center and working outwards, the commentary will cover first the E survey strip and then in order the S, W, N, NW Park border, and Uaxactun strips.

Though the bulk of the information on the survey strips is self-evident, there is also an important body of more subjective information which is best presented in the form of a running commentary. This should serve to highlight anomalies which might otherwise pass unnoticed, while also providing an opportunity to

The East Survey Strip (Fig. 2) 0.25-0.50 km Quadrangle (TR. 11), structures still seem quite sparse. The possibility that such zones may have been occupied by groves of selected fruit trees or gardens is suggested by the concentration of manax trees (Pseudolmedia spuris [Sw.] Griseb.) in the comparable zone at Bobal. Haviland, in a personal communication (1972), has suggested that "since 'palaces' are, in a sense, extralarge houses,'' this apparent residential vacuum may be just "an extra-large version of the space around most small house groups." Other features indicative of the elite, civic and ceremonial orientation of this section include the Mendez Causeway and the two large groups represented by Str. 5E-63 and 69 which encroach on it; Str. 5E-22, the only known sweat bath at Tikal (see TR. 16); and the large level area behind Plat. 5E-1 defined by the unusually long and functionally enigmatic Str. 5E-18/20.

Apart from Plat. 5E-1, this small block is best characterized as being part of a ring of large civic and ceremonial structures with elite residences (Harrison 1968) surrounding the real core of Tikal's epicenter (see part V for definition of this term). The group, comprised of Str. 5E-1 and 4E-44/48 (Morley's "F Group": see TR. 11:19), in layout is not unlike a less elaborate household group of the sort discussed in TR. 20, and so may be an elite residential complex, massive and yet structurally simple and isolated in comparison to the Central Acropolis. Attention is called to the apparent residential vacuum around this complex, particularly to the N, W, and NE, which is reminiscent of that found around minor centers such as Bobal and Navajuelal (see below). The arroyo that runs N of this group may account for this absence in part, but in comparison to construction on the hill slopes of the North Zone

0.50-2.00 km invisible house ruin situations (reported in TR. 20 as Gp. 5F-2) and do not appear on the TR. 11 maps. The groups on the long hill to the E were extensively excavated by Marshall J. Becker (TR. 21), and his remapping of this area has been incorporated in the survey. Two obvious things appear to distinguish this complex of groups from those close to the civic and ceremonial heart of Tikal: (1) the predominance of groups with a square ostensibly ceremonial structure on the E; and (2) the comparative frequency of chul-

In this section structure groups of fairly typical arrangement are found, ranging from large, stone masonry vaulted so-called palaces to low platforms on which pole and thatch buildings were undoubtedly constructed. The one exception is the group a little E of 0.5 km on the central brecha (Str. 5F-42/47). These are small, tending to be square instead of rectangular in plan, and they form a tight cluster instead of being arranged around a plaza in the usual way. They were excavated in 1967 by Bennet Bronson as part of a test for 10

SURVEY COMMENTARY tuns. The unity of these groups, as indicated by their proximity to one another, their similarity in general appearance, and their relative isolation on a long

11

penisula extending into escoba bajo, supports Becker's (1971) contention that a social unit of some kind is represented by the complex.

2.00-5.20 km This long stretch of escoba and logwood bajo revealed no evidence of occupation or modification for agricultural purposes. It is across this stretch that water from the Arroyo Holmul drains, though there is no evidence of a wet season stream bed here such as exists for the La Pava further E at 9 km. Off the edge of the map to the N, somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5 km, the embanked Pucte Reservoir is located. This is best approached today by means of the old road which runs from the end of the Tikal airfield to the Los Terminos Reservoir as it passes within 2 or 3 m of its N edge. The 5 m deep pit excavated by Ursula M. Cowgill (1963) is also located somewhere S of this road in the logwood bajo. Efforts to relocate her pit with the assistance of a workman who had helped excavate it were unsuccessful. Within the mapped portions of escobal, small islands of higher vegetation occasionally occurred. Large chico zapote (Manilkara sapota) were sometimes found on these islands growing in what were essentially bajo conditions. The logwood bajo, as elsewhere, was characterized by an open woods of gnarled and thorny trees. The ground surface, broken up by hummocks of coarse, saw-toothed sedges, was very irregular and difficult to walk in. Sedge growth was particularly dense N and NW of the Los Terminos Reservoir. It is in this area that Peter Harrison observed and photographed linear and polygonal patterns in the

vegetation as viewed from the air in 1973. These were briefly reported in a paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology meetings held in Houston, Texas that same year (Harrison 1978:251-252). Subsequent aerial investigations carried out by Siemens and Dahlin in 1976 revealed further faint indications of these patterns elsewhere in the Santa Fé Bajo. While it has been suggested that they represent the remains of raised fields, their size, shape, and location make it most probable in my opinion that they are natural formations known as gilgai. These features are hallmarks of montmorillonitic clays, such as those of this bajo, and tend to be most pronounced in regions with significant variation in the seasonal moisture regime (Puleston 1978). (Editor's note: In the same publication in which the Harrison and Puleston articles cited above appear, Siemens [1978:139-140], who worked on raised fields with Puleston, notes that the linear patterns in the Santa Fé Bajo are reminiscent of those associated with raised fields along the Candelaria, while Turner and Harrison [1978:339] point out that gilgai patterns are usually smaller, and rarely maintain the precision and angularity of raised field patterns. Since Puleston's death R. E. W. Adams, in a ground check of linear features picked up on radar, has reported an apparent raised field near Tikal in the Santa Fé Bajo [Adams, Brown and Culbert 1981:1461].)

$.20-5.80 km The embanked Los Terminos Reservoir dominates this section of the survey strip. As on several other reservoirs at Tikal, a low section which probably functioned as a spillway is located on the lower end. Camps of chicleros, and/or xateros have been constructed on the broad embankments on the reservoir's southern side in the past as evidenced by the crumbling remains of structures and the presence of tin cans nearby. An important trail that once headed SE from here was pointed out to us by Martinez, a former chiclero of this zone, but in 1966 it was already too overgrown to follow. The structure groups on the peninsula E of the Reservoir undoubtedly represent the northeasternmost portion of fairly heavy settlement on a ridge that extends in that direction from the minor center of Avila (Fig. llb). The large group on the strip at 5.55 km, apparently with a temple on the E, presents an unusually dense but relatively isolated cluster of structures

that finds its best parallels in groups beyond the N Earthworks on the N Survey Strip (Fig. 5). The quarry Sof Str. NE-196, which is 1.2m deep, is rather inexplicably located in a plaza. North of this group, 250 m from the central brecha, a unique complex of ridges was discovered on the edge of logwood bajo. Vertically, the ridges average 0.20 m from trough to crest with a range of 2 to 3 m from crest to crest on the horizontal. They were constructed predominantly of unworked chert nodules 0.05-0.20 m in diameter. The possibility that the ridges were formed by some natural process seems unlikely. As suggested by their arrangement, they follow the contours of the gently descending terrain fairly closely. A 4 m trench excavated across two ridges in 1967 by Peter Puleston (reported in TR. 24E) revealed that the chert nodules continued to a depth of at least 0.80 m. Heavy rains cut short intentions to go deeper. Briefly, the section revealed a black humus layer about 0.10 m thick under-

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

12

lain by a 0.60 m layer of light brown mud. At the bottom of the trench was a layer of gray clay. At the S end of the trench there was a 0.10 m layer of reddishbrown clay between the brown mud and gray clay. A few undiagnostic sherds were found, all within 0.15 m of the surface. The quantity and concentration of chert at this locus argues against this being a natural or modified local deposit. The chert was brought here and piled up for a specific purpose. At least two alternative functions can be suggested: (1) the ridges were constructed to serve some unique form of intensive agriculture; (2) the ridges represent a chert repository for tool making accumulated by the inhabitants of the structures just to

the S. Ridges similar to these were not found on bajo edges elsewhere in the survey. An agricultural function seems unlikely; the area is too small, and chert as opposed to more easily obtained limestone seems unnecessary. The closest analogies occur in chert ridges mapped by Prentice Thomas in the vicinity of Becan. Investigations carried out by Marc Thompson (1978, personal communication) on the Becan ridges point strongly to a resource repository and workshop function. Thus, a specialized chert workshop in the immediate vicinity of the ridges or the adjacent group seems highly likely and an excellent target for controlled excavation.

5.80-7.00 km East of the above mentioned groups the survey strip drops quickly into a broad arm of logwood bajo. At the

7.00-8.00 km

At 7 km the central brecha moves up onto an impressive ridge which carries the survey more than 40 m above the surface of the bajo. This broad ridge, extending into the Santa Fé Bajo directly between the Holmul and La Pava Arroyos, was heavily built up. Many chultuns were fund on the ridge. Of particular interest are the numerous groups with recognizable temples on the E following the format of Becker's "Plaza Plan 2" (1971). At 7.25 km, there is an unusual pair of pyramidal structures (Str. NE-206, 207) facing each other across a narrow plaza that is vaguely reminiscent of twin-pyramid groups at Tikal (Jones 1969 and TR. 18). In front of the easternmost of the two structures is a low mound (Str. NE-402) in about the position occupied by plain stelae in known twinpyramid groups. Finally a large, vaulted, range-type structure (Str. SE-30) is situated on the S side of the small plaza, which again recalls the palaces with nine doorways of twin-pyramid groups at Tikal. A visit to this plaza in 1975 revealed looters' tunnels going into Str. NE(E)-206 and 207 from the centers of the E and W sides respectively. The tunnel into Str. NE-206 went in perhaps 4 m but was only a little over a half meter high. The underside of a buried floor served as its ceiling. A slight widening at the terminus looked more like the product of frustration than discovery. The tunnel into Str. NE-207 was taller but went in about the same distance, again without evidence of discovery. However, a pit extending downwards 1.5 m from the entrance apparently entered a chultun or cache which might well have contained something. The growth of green slime on the rocks in this excavation made it look as though the looters had been at work two and possibly three years earlier. Not one looted mound was dis-

other side of this bajo the transition back to high forest is more gradual.

covered on these survey strips between 1965 and 1968 when they were mapped. Structures SE-24 and 25, connected by Str. SE-474, have the appearance of a rather unusual double pyramid on the E. A 6 m high pyramid (Str. NE-222) bears striking contextual similarities to a 9 m high pyramid on the S Survey Strip (Str. SE-387). Both pyramids are more or less isolated, face the W, have an association with only three or four small structures, and are located on relatively low and flat terrain. Structure NE-417 presents an appearance that is unique in its own way among the some 2,000 structures mapped on the brecha survey strips. Much like the twin-pyramid stela compounds before excavation, its center is in the form of a rectangular depression that could not have been formed by a tree fall. It almost certainly has masonry walls and most probably was either an open compound or a structure with a beam and mortar roof. Three structures with visible standing masonry were found here. Of these, available architectural data were recorded by Loten for Str. NE-252 and 260 (reported in TR. 24E). Only a single course of masonry remains on the back of Str. NE-255. Evidence of more recent looting was found in 1975 in the E side of Str. SE-66. The apparently uncompleted tunnel went in less than 2 m and had been made less than a year earlier. Construction on this ridge and on the following ridge, 10.5-12.0 km, is as dense as anywhere in the immediate vicinity of Tikal's center. The proximity of large bajos which permitted the construction of reservoirs for water storage may have been a significant factor.

SURVEY

COMMENTARY

13

8.00-10.50 km Apart from a small complex of seventeen mounds on a slightly elevated piece of ground, this stretch is comprised of escobal and logwood bajo. The Arroyo La Pava is quite evident here, with its central channel in most portions completely clear of vegetation when it is dry. On June 20, 1966, following a cloudburst several days earlier, the arroyo was filled with running water. The channel was of variable depth and in some places deeper pools formed which could have held water for a considerable time. But like the pools in this same stream bed at Navajuelal, they probably dried up later in the summer.

10.50-12.00 km La Sartenja Reservoir, like Los Terminos and other reservoirs, has what appears to be a spillway on the downstream side of its embankment. One of the workmen in our mapping crew reported camping there as a xatero in 1965 (and was later one of the xateros captured by the National Park rangers at Las Cucas in 1965). Of particular interest on this densely built-up ridge is the relatively large number of elevated plaza platforms. At least ten show signs of elevation above the surrounding terrain on all four sides. Excavation of elevated house ruin plazas by Haviland (personal communication) in the central 16 km2 of Tikal suggests that they were built up over the remains of earlier construction (e.g., Gp.6E-l, reported in TR. 20). They appear to be good places to look for Preclassic structures, and the possibility that there was substantial Preclassic occupation of this ridge at this point does not seem unreasonable. Directly in front of Str. NE-283, we made the surprising discovery of a shattered plain stela (P85) with its base in situ. We planned to excavate this in 1967, but the necessity of completing excavations at Jimbal prevented our doing so. Its association with the small platform and single mound about 3 m high seems most comparable to the location of P77 in front of Str. 4D-19 near the center of Tikal. Unworked fragments of hard dolomitic limestone were found on the surface in the vicinity of P85. One large piece is located 10 m SW of Str. NE-290. La Presa Reservoir at 11.0 km represents one of the highest reservoirs we found with respect to local topography. The embankment is constructed so as to dam up the bottom of a narrow arroyo. Approached from the N, this construction presents an impressive view to passers-

Indistinct levees along the sides of this channel supported trees and shrubs more characteristic of upland vegetation than that found in the surrounding logwood bajos. The possibility that these levees might have been used for cultivation needs to be investigated. As evidenced by where water collected, the lowest part of this bajo lay close to the border between logwood and escoba bajo at 10.3 km. Hummocks and ridges in the surface between 10.0 and 10.3 km caused rain water to collect in pools that were awkward to cross without going into holes up to our knees.

by. When mapped in late July 1966, it was full of water. On the SW side there is a dense pital. Corozo palms grow on the embankment, around the W side and across the central brecha into the SE quadrant where they blend into an escoba bajo at 11.5 km. Another stand of corozo liesin alowspot N of the brecha at 11.4 km. As in the case of the corozo palms on the S Strip at 5.5 km, these may be remnants of stands maintained and utilized by the ancient Maya. A major group (Str. NE-333/352) with two pyramids on the E side of its plaza dominates a hilltop near the end of the strip. Nearby, a single pyramid (Str. NE-384) approximately 7 m high is situated on the N end of a small plaza platform. It bears some resemblance to a similar pyramid on the N end of a platform called Canmul nearly 1 km S of the 4 km mark on the W Survey Strip (Fig. 4) and another pyramid-on-aplatform, Str. EP2-86, on the Uaxactun Survey Strip (Fig. 7). One structure with visible standing masonry (Str. SE-181) was located here. Plan data and a rear wall section were obtained by Loten (reported in TR. 24E). The group which includes this structure is notable also for a series of low wall-like mounds, Str. SE-482/484, running between larger structures on the S and E sides of the plaza. Whether these mounds were: (1) simply house platforms; (2) the base of some sort of defense structure; or (3) walls for the maintenance of privacy, perhaps even serving a ceremonial function as may those along the side of Tikal causeways, could not be determined without excavation. Just outside the edge of the NE quadrant of the National Park, two small structures were mapped which have been designated Str. EP3-1/2.

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

14

The South Survey Strip (Fig. 3) -0.25-0.15 km This section, including the North Acropolis, the Great Plaza, and the Central Acropolis, belongs to the

civic-ceremonial and elite residential core of Epicentral Tikal.

0.15-0.40 km This section, which includes the major temple Str. 5D-5, the South Acropolis, and various other large and rather unique groups to the E, seems comparable to the 0.25-0.50 km section on the E Strip. Together these groups form part of the ring of civic, ceremonial and elite residential structures that surrounds the core of the epicenter. Whether this distinction has more than spatial real-

ity can be determined only by careful examination and excavation of burials and architecture of this ring. Apart from the extensive work of Harrison in the West Plaza area (TR. 17), the Twin-Pyramid Groups project conducted by Jones (TR. 18), and the recent work of the Guatemalan archaeologist Miguel Orrega in Group G (Str. 5E-57/58), this ring has received comparatively little attention.

0.40-2.90 km This stretch can be compared to the 0.5-2.0 km piece of the E Survey Strip, representing a good cross section of the primarily residential units that cluster around the nucleus of Tikal. There are, however, two large groups which, with respect to their size and probable ceremonial orientation, might be best included as part of the epicentral ring. It is worth noting that these two groups (Str. 6D-38/66 and Str. 7D-29/33), crossed by the brecha itself, lie on a line that follows magnetic N through the major temple Str. 5D-5 and certain large groups in the vicinity of Group H (Str. 3D-109/120 and Str. 3D-49/54). Again, as on the E Survey Strip, the ratio of chultuns to structures increases with distance from the site epicenter. Groups with square temples on the E occur with distinctly less frequency here than on the E Strip. One of these, Str. 8D-10/13, is located in, or at least on the

2.90-3.50 km

Across this section of the strip passes the upper drainage of the Holmul. There is no evidence of a permanent stream bed here, though further E and W pools that generally dry up fairly rapidly form in deeper spots. The possibly artificially dammed Aguada Naranjal, which is part of this system (located on the SE corner of the 16 km2 Tikal map), is an exception. It generally retains its water from one season to the next, though it has been known to dry up completely. The sinkhole on the S side of the arroyo at 3.2 km is quite deep, with a difference of 8 m between the upper lip on its S side and the flat floor in its center. The steepness of the slope allows one to step into it easily at the bottom of the hill on the N side. A rather peculiar channel

edge of, escoba bajo. Several groups here were excavated as part of the test-pitting programs carried out by me in 1965-66 and by Fry (1969) in 1967 (TR. 24A). In 1965, Postclassic Caban ceramics were discovered in a test pit beside Str. SW-16. Further excavations at this locus in 1966 failed to produce more Caban material though a Caban vessel foot was found in excavations of the nearby Str. SE-211. This seems to confirm a Caban presence somewhere in this area. Structures SE- 211/213 were excavated fairly completely by Donald Callender (see TR. 24A). A large Late Classic (Transitional Imix/Eznab) midden was found at the N end of Str. SE-213. On the whole, excavation of this group seemed to confirm our suspicion of a continuation of the heavy Late Classic occupation pattern established by Haviland (TR. 20) for the central 9 km2.

drains into it from a dense growth of pita. Apart from a small, possibly embanked aguada that is so small it is entirely overgrown with vegetation, there is no evidence of human activity here in this arroyo. It was apparently unfavorable for settlement, probably because of poor drainage of the soils and the consequent danger of flooding. It is worth noting that the hill slope S of the arroyo is also uninhabited, though there are some spots which would appear to be level enough to permit the construction of small plazas. One such spot is located 50 m or so SW of the sinkhole. The moldering remains of a Park surveyors' camp were found there in 1965.

SURVEY

COMMENTARY

15

350-6.50 km This section of fairly dense settlement, apart from bajo areas, appears to be an extension of the 0.4-2.9 km section. The interval without visible construction that extends from 2.9 to 3.5 km is probably an artifact of the frequently flooded arroyo and its steep S side. Group configurations show some variation. While some twenty-five "temple-on-the-east" plans (Becker 1971) can be recognized, it is surprising to note that there is no large temple structure at the minor center of Bobal such as occurs at Jimbal, Navajuelal, Chikin Tikal (Figs. 8, 13b, 16) or Gp. 6B-2 (Str. 6B-16/40) at Tikal. Three or four possible small ones should be noted (Str. SE-269, 273, 275, and 279). Bobal is comprised of two large plazas linked by a causeway (Fig. 14). A second causeway extends SSE, descending into low semi-bajo much as does the NNWextending Morley causeway in Gp. 6B-2 at Tikal. These two causeways are further similar in that both: (1) lead off from a broad plaza with a large range-type structure on the W and a long, low structure on the E; and (2) terminate with a rectangular structure blocking their open end. With respect to the latter point, they are also similar to the Mendez Causeway at Tikal, the end of which is blocked by Str. 6F-26 ("Temple of the Inscriptions"). The overall configuration can also be compared to the group formed by Str. EP2 (Uaxactun)117/129 where an almost identical layout occurs. The exceptionally large range-type structure, SE281, with a few headers still in place on the exposed core of the back wall, was examined by Loten (reported in TR. 24D). He judged it to be of top grade workmanship with architecture much more like that found in the central 9 km2 of Tikal than in other structures he examined on the survey strips. He suggests the plan may be like that of Str. 5D-65. Bobal, like other such groups at Tikal, is surrounded by an apparent settlement vacuum. Much of this vacuum W of the northern group is taken up today by a dense grove of manax trees which bear a sweet but firm red fruit very much like the cherry that is one of the most highly appreciated wild fruits in these forests today. Hunters and chicleros will often fell a good-sized tree when they find one fruiting, putting all other considerations in abeyance to pick and eat themselves to satiation. Conceivably this grove dates back to Classic Maya times. Several hundred meters SE of Bobal there is an aguada called Zapote Bobal which I remember as being embanked. A modern trail that went through the S plaza of Bobal and down the causeway led to it in 1965, though I was unable to retrace its path several years later. The zapote bobo (Pachira aquatica) trees which grow around the aguada provided us with a name for the nearby site.

Another structure of particular interest is Str. SE-236, less than 2 m high but with its back wall still standing. A profile and elevation were drawn by Loten (see TR. 24A). The well-preserved, small stone wall facing seems comparable to that found on Str. NE(N)-165, 5D-49, 5D-51, 3D-40, and 3D-43. Structure SW-76 represents one of the few small features in this region of the Maya lowlands on which even a single line of masonry is visible. Though it is only 0.5 m high, the masonry runs almost the entire length of it. Just NW of this structure, in the quarry S of Str. SW-75, there is a block of masonry which was cut out but never broken free of the quarry wall. Unusually large masonry was found on Str. SW-99, but unfortunately no measurements were taken. Str. SW-343, in spite of its small size, appears to have been vaulted. Further S, stretching from 5.4 to 5.9 km, there is large corozal bajo. The magnificent fronds of these palms are often used as thatching material for houses in Belize, although according to my informant, Elias R. Contreras, they do not last nearly as long as the fronds of the botan (Sabal sp.). The rich, oily meat in the nuts can be eaten raw, or boiled to extract the oil. Again we are dealing with a stand of economically significant trees which may be a relic of ancient Maya horticulture. Within this bajo is an aguada which is without any obvious embankments. While it was dry when mapped, the aguada obviously holds water for part of the year, as nothing but grass grows in its center. To the W, there is a dense and vigorous stand of pita beneath the corozo palms. West of 5.5 km, up on the hillside above the bajo, are some rather unimpressive cavities in a bedrock outcrop that for lack of a better term are designated as caves. South of the corozal bajo, near 6.0 km, a test pit on the E of Str. SE-454 (reported in TR. 24A) produced several pounds of obsidian flake blades and also very small chips of the same material, suggesting a workshop existed here. Ceramics from the test pit included Early and Late Classic material. The Laguna Verde Reservoir, located at 6.45 km, is almost completely surrounded by embankments over 1 m high. Three test pits excavated in the S embankment (reported in TR. 24E) suggest that there were two developmental modifications in the construction of the reservoir. The earlier of these could not be dated ceramically, but the later one, which may actually represent no more than a dredging of the first, probably took place in Late Classic times. Many chiclero camps have been located on the embankments on the W side of the reservoir over the years. Chicle poachers had established a camp there in February of 1967. During the 1950's, when the Petty

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF T1KAL

16

Company was exploring concessions for Esso, a landing place for helicopters was made here by cutting down all the brush and trees. Though now covered

with vegetation, the stumps of trees still revealed the heliport's extent and we mapped it in.

6.50-9.40 km Construction is sparse on this section, even though the terrain here is high and fairly well drained. The structure groups and individual mounds that do occur are widely scattered. In an attempt to test the possibility that houses without platforms may have been located between the visible mounds, a "vacant terrain" survey technique was tested in the vicinity of Str. SE-157, SW382 (Fry 1972 and TR. 24A). This technique involved laying down a grid of postholes at 5 m intervals and checking the sherd content of the material removed. While quantities of sherds were found in the vicinity of visible structures, there was no comparable evidence which might be taken to suggest the presence of invisible structures on the ridge between Str. SE-157 and 158. The beginning of this section appears to mark the outer limits of Tikal on the S, insofar as this may be defined on the basis of a marked drop-off in structure density. This seems to correspond to the more gradual decline associated with earthworks at 4.5 km on the N Survey Strip. Unfortunately we still do not know where the earthworks mapped 8 km SE of the center of Tikal cross the present strip (but see part V of this report). A rather unusual mound type begins to make its appearance here. The mounds are almost square, are sometimes associated with other structures, but more often occur alone (Str. SW-156, 158, 159, 332, and SE374, 381, 393). Other examples, such as Str. SE-340 and SW-27, may be found nearer Tikal's center, but generally they seem to occur with greater frequency in the

peripheral areas. Though test pits were excavated in approximately one-third of all mound groups on the N and S Survey Strips (Fry 1969 and TR. 24A), certain areas were chosen for more intensive excavation. This peripheral section was one of those areas. Mounds excavated include Str. SE-373, 452, 382, 393, and SW-159, 332 (see TR. 24A). Structure SW-159 was mapped as a single square platform but, upon being excavated by Haviland, turned out to be two structures, designated as Str. SW-159 and 332. Chultuns excavated were Ch. SE-86 and SW-90. While all the more completely excavated structures contained evidence of Early Classic occupation, none revealed significant evidence of later occupation, except for Str. SE-373 and 452 which produced large quantities of Caban ceramics. Preclassic material was found in the fill of some of these structures; possible Eb/Tzec material turned up in Str. SE-394. One of the most striking groups on this section was that of Str. SE-383, 385/388. The large pyramid, Str. SE-387, is nearly 9 m high. Str. SE-386 is 2.6 m high. This group has been compared with Str. NE(N)-222 on the basis of the similarity of the relative isolation of the groups, their location on low-level terrain, and the presence in each case of a single strikingly large pyramid. Two boulders of hard limestone were found about 125 m from this group at S8930, W20.

9.40-10.50 km Just off the limits of the S Survey Strip at 9.5 km, is the minor center of Navajuelal, excavated by Ernestene Green in 1967 (Green 1970 and TR. 24B). Composed of at least three groups of buildings, the central one, on which excavation was concentrated, is the largest. Green's work suggests that its major period of construction was Early Classic, though it was also occupied in Late Classic times. Excavation in the most northerly of the three groups revealed what may have been a kitchen in Str. SE-409. As at Bobal and elsewhere, Navahuelal is surrounded by the characteristic settlement vacuum. Structure SE-408, which is only 1.7 m high, provides an unusual exception. While it could not have been vaulted, it probably had masonry walls like those of Str. 4E-16 (Haviland 1963:192 and TR. 20). West of Navajuelal is a small clearing in which a saw-toothed sedge known locally as navajuela is growing. During the rainy season this spot is clearly an

aguada. No good evidence of embankments, which would have allowed its designation as a reservoir, could be found. Water may well have been obtained from ponds in the Arroyo La Pava in ancient times, but the largest of these to the SW of the site, where Green's camp was located, dried up completely in 1967. It is highly likely that undiscovered reservoirs lie either to the E or W of the survey strip, where bajo begins at 10.5 km. The large pit, 1 or 2 m deep, just W of the central group at Navajuelal, appears to have been a huge quarry from which much of the limestone masonry and fill used in the construction of the group could have been derived. A slight ridge may be observed running along the pit's western edge. This may represent accumulations, of unused topsoil or spoil removed from the quarry during operations there. This quarry in the immediate vicinity of Navajuelal may be com-

SURVEY COMMENTARY pared to similar quarries N of Str. 5C-4 at Tikal. What appears to be settlement associated with Navajuelal is concentrated SW of that site near the edge of a logwood bajo. The small structure groups here look more like those found close to Tikal than those in the

10.50-12.00 km

This section of the strip is comprised principally of escobal and logwood bajo, which was all carefully searched by the survey. While the Arroyo La Pava was dry when mapped on August 7, 1965, it was obvious that water at least 1 m in depth had been running in it not long before. The only water still in the mapped portions of the arroyo on the indicated date occurred in a pool 25 m long at Sll400, W160. Tapir tracks were found in the mud near this pool. One of the most

17

6.5-9.4 km section of the S Survey Strip. Possibly four groups out of ten can be identified as having a square temple-on-the-east in the format of Becker's Plaza Plan 2 (1971). Test-pitting by Fry (1969 and TR. 24A) indicated Early and Late Classic occupations.

impenetrable tangles of vines encountered on the entire survey covered an area with a diameter of approximately 100 m centered near S11300, E125. At the end of the brecha, a hill on which two structures were mapped begins. Informal investigation by one of our workmen revealed that larger groups are located further up on this hill which is entirely surrounded by bajo.

The West Survey Strip (Fig. 4) 0.25-0.7'5 km This section with the major temple Str. 5D-3 and 5C-4, a twin-pyramid group, numerous other large temples and palace complexes and two major causeways, falls in

0.75-2.00 km Outside the core and epicentral ring of elite residences, civic and ceremonial structures, groups of smaller structures were found, roughly equivalent in density to those found on the 0.50-2.00 and 0.40-2.90 km sections on the E and S surveys. One difference that should be pointed out is that behind Str. 5C-4, settlement is considerably less dense than might be expected. A reason for this is suggested by the disappearance of the twin-pyramid group for which only the monuments and the foundations of Str. 5B-21 survive (Jones 1969 and TR. 18). The base of Str. 5B-21 is reconstructed

the ring around Tikal's epicenter already described for the E and S Survey Strips.

on the maps presented here. It is presumed that the fill from the pyramids was used in Str. 5C-4 or one of the other large structures in that area. A similar fate is indicated for other smaller structures which might be expected to have existed in this area. Fill piracy has been documented for other portions of the site, even in areas without major construction. Farther from Str. 5C-4 in the outer portions of Sq. 4A and 5A expected structure densities resume.

2.00-3.20 km

A little beyond the edge of the 16km2 map, the brecha dips into an escoba bajo which drains N into a large logwood bajo that lies under the El Palmar ridge. Apart from two small groups and a hilltop platform there is no evidence of settlement in this section.

3.20-5.50 km This section, in spite of its separation from the central 9 km2 of Tikal by a bajo, seems to be part of that site (see above). Topographically, the structures found here are concentrated on a N to S running ridge about 2 km long. Also located on this ridge is Chikin Tikal (Fig.

Reconnaissance carried out in 1965, however, indicates that a more continuous distribution of settlement could be found between Tikal and the next section beginning at 3.20 km if a survey were run 1 or 2 km S of the present strip, where the bajo could be bypassed.

16) and a single large platform, not unlike Str. NE(E)384, which appears on earlier maps as Canmul (Puleston and Callender 1967, Fig. 1; Puleston 1973, Fig. 6); because of its small size, it has been removed from the overall map (Fig. 1).

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

18

Of particular interest in this section is the large number of chultuns. Structure groups that deserve comment include the large range-type Str. SE-249 and the two incongruously small platforms that accompany it, and the two elevated platforms with Str. SE238/240 and SE-278/281. The latter platform, until it is climbed and the four low structures on it are visible, has all the appearances of a 5 or 6 m high pyramid. The long range-type Str. SE-245 may have parallels

in the similar Str. NE(N)-102/105. At 5.2 km there is an aguada without apparent embankments. Though remnants of an old chiclero camp were found on its N side, none of our workmen had ever camped there and did not know of a name for it. Inspired by a rusting ''Rosemary" powdered milk can that was lying near the camp, we named it Aguada La Lata. South of this aguada dense thickets of spiny, bamboo-like jimba (Guadua sp.) were encountered.

5.50-8.10 km Beyond the preceding heavily built-up section, a broad arm of escobal and logwood bajo crosses the survey strip. At 5.890 km and 6.023 km the survey

brecha as laid out by the surveyors for the National Park shifts N 0.083 and 0.005 km respectively.

8.10-9.50 km On a low ridge that projects into the El Palmar Bajo, structures reappear on the strip with a density that is comparatively high in view of the bareness of the terrain and the area available. The groups seem fairly typical of those found nearer the center of Tikal. At

least two groups have what appear to be temples-onthe-east. The four chultuns at the end of the peninsula at 9.5 km suggest the presence of structures without visible surface evidence.

9.50-12.00 km Apart from a small piece of escoba bajo at 9.5 km, this section is made up entirely of logwood bajo. This inhospitable area was certainly uninhabited and may

have served as a natural defensive barrier as well as a resource area for logwood bajo clay and other resources, if conditions were at all similar to those of today.

The North Survey Strip (Fig. 5) 0.25-LOO km Most of this section appears to fall within what has here been considered Epicentral Tikal. This includes what appears to be a rather puzzling settlement vacuum in the area enclosed by the Maudslay, Maler, and Tozzer Causeways. In view of the high density of structures on the NW side of the Maudslay Causeway in particular, it is curious that there are so few structures on the inside edge. Perhaps careful excavation would reveal hidden structures pirated for fill by the builders of some of the

many massive constructions that surround this area. Deep deposits of alternating layers of gravel and silt in the Causeway Reservoir suggest that this area was subject to considerable erosion (Olson 1969:16 and TR. 38). The repetitive succession of deposits suggests a ritually determined periodicity in epicentral architectural activity or perhaps the use of this piece of ground for open field agriculture involving an alternation between fallows and heavy clearing.

1.00-4.60 km Structure density on this section of the N Strip is comparable to that found on the Tikal end of the other three strips (0.50-2.00 on the E Strip, 0.40-2.90 on the S Strip, and 0.75-2.00 km on the W Strip). Remapping of Sq. ID and portions of Sq. 1C and IE, covered by the

1:6250 map in TR. 11, revealed many new structures and indicated corrections as well. For an area within which Gregersen counted a total of approximately twenty-six structures we mapped seventy-six. Several of these have been tested, and are reported in TR. 20.

SURVEY

COMMENTARY

Within this stretch there are at least three clustered groups comprised of three or more contiguous plazas, two at 1.9 km and one at 3.6km. Of particular interest is the temple Str. 1C-1 with its "wings" (Str. 1C-2 and 9). Winged temples do not occur frequently at Tikal; other examples include a temple at Corosal B and the standing temple at Avila (Fig. lla, b). The group at 3.6 km was of interest because it was here that a large series of small tools were discovered. Olga Puleston has suggested that this was a woodworking shop area (O. Puleston 1969:87-91).

19

At 4.6 km the central brecha crosses the N Earthworks (Puleston and Callender 1967 and TR. 24E). At this particular point they are not impressive and may be passed over by the unwary without recognition as indeed they were by travellers on the Uaxactun trail to the E for many years. Another point of interest is the square platform on the knoll W of 4.6 km on the central brecha. This platform has an appearance that is similar to platforms on the Uaxactun and S Strips (Str. SE-374 and SW-158).

4.60-11.15 km Outside the N Earthworks structure density decreases considerably. One reason for this may be that the survey strip follows a large arroyo which, with steep hill slopes and bajos, greatly decreases the total area actually available for construction. But even on available areas, there appears to be a significant drop. Groups tend to be more clustered and in several instances structures almost entirely enclose their plazas as if defensive considerations had been taken into account in their design. Groups associated with Str. NW-182/194, NE90/100, NE-102/104, NW-216/221, NW-225/243, and NE-108/113 can be classed as belonging to this type. Similar groups are also found within the confines of the central 9 km2 of Tikal and may include the following: Str. 2C-73/78; 2D-2,3, 2E-1/2; 2E-6/14; 2G-1/10; 3B-26/29; 3D-73/76; 3E-23/38; 4E-45/48; 5E-1; 6G12/15; 6G-45/48 and 65; 6B-16/37. Some of the larger

groups at the very center of Tikal give the same feeling: witness the South Acropolis and the group just W of it (Str. 5D-78/99). The proposed defensive function of restricting access to plazas may have included the defense of privacy as well as defense from actual physical attack. Other groups of particular interest include those comprised of Str. NE-102/105 and NW-225/234, which have already been referred to. The former, apart from its defensive appearance, stands out from all other groups mapped for its size and the simplicity of its long narrow mounds. The E and W mounds are considerably higher than the N and S mounds. The latter group is interesting because it has two examples, on the same plaza, of an unusual pattern involving a series of three adjacent structures that decrease in size from S to N. Structures NE(N)-35/37 at 3.3 km are also of this type.

11.15-12.00 km This last section of the N Brecha Survey Strip is quite different from preceding ones. Structure density, along with the large size of many structures, is more like what one would expect to find in association with a major site, such as Tikal. The largest and most impressive group on the edge of the survey strip at 11.6 km has two structures with standing masonry. The small stone masonry facing of Str. NE-165 has already been compared to that of SE(S)236 and various structures near the center of Tikal, including Str. 5D-49, 5D-51, 3D-40, and 3D-43. Structure NE-169 has little more than an exposure of wall core and a few headers. Southwest of this group is the peculiarly long Str. NE-150 which can be compared to Str. NE-102/105.

Some of the groups have a defensive appearance produced by elevated platforms (Str. NE- 267/272, NE165/170) or by enclosure of a plaza with vaulted structures or long mounds which may or may not represent habitations (Str. NE-125/131, NE-157/162). Aguada Seca at 11.3 km showed no evidence of embankments. A dense growth of pita surrounds its SW corner, and remnants of a chiclero or xatero camp survived on higher ground about 75 m to the NW. A little W of this is a chultun (Ch. NW-53) with a unique lenticular orifice. Almost 5 m NE of this is a level spot which may be the location of an invisible structure. Structure density on this small knoll may reflect the proximity of Jimbal which lies a mere 1.3 km or so to the NE on the same ridge.

20

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

The Northwest Border Survey (Fig. 6) -0.25-0.00 km This small section includes evidence for possibly four separate groups, which are clearly part of the cluster of structures just described. While the small remnants of platforms and mound are fairly typical,

the larger complex (Str. EP2-276/285) is on an elevated platform with a defensive appearance like that described above. Structures almost entirely enclose the two small plazas that make up this group.

0.00-1.80 km West of the ridge just described, the survey strip crosses a stretch of escoba bajo with a small island of settlement on a knoll near the middle. The arroyo which twists back and forth across the N Survey Strip drains across this bajo into the large logwood bajo E of

Uaxactun called La Joventud. In a total of eight plaza groups there are at least four with what appear to be temples-on-the-east (Str. EP2251, 256, 261, and 266).

13.80-3.45 km Between 1.80 and 2.00 there is an abrupt rise in the terrain on what are foothills to the El Palmar ridge and escarpment. A line of structures crosses the survey at the top of the first rise that arches around from SW to NE. One square structure, EP2-248, was found at the foot of the rise. Fifteen meters NE of the NE corner of this structure (at W1945, N105) there is a bench mark inscribed "Geodesico Interamericano 0.0.27 Mayo 1967." Several similar benchmarks were placed at other points along the adjacent road, opened between Tikal and Uaxactun by the Ghetti Company in 1967. The configurations of ridge crest groups seem somewhat less than typical. Structure NW-274 consists of a single, vaulted structure on one side of an elevated platform. Structure NW-278 is situated in a similar way on an elevated platform, one end of which is further elevated to form what has been designated as Str. NW277. The hilltop group associated with Str. EP2-243 has an auxiliary platform on the N side, on which the largest, and apparently vaulted, structure is located. This is an unusual variant of the temple-on-the-east format. Further W across a small bajo is another series of anomalous and rather peculiar mounds. Structure

NW-279, with three associated chultuns, seems to stand alone. Structure NW-280 is a low, almost square platform, not unlike those found on the outer half of the S Survey Strip. The platform, composed of Str. NW281/284, is elevated at one end as in the case of Str. NW-277. The plaza formed by Str. NW-285, 286 is unusually small. Finally the large group composed of Str. EP2-229/232 and NW-287 presents an unusual composition of a single temple, auxiliary platform, and smaller structures. North of the NE corner of Str. NW-287 there is a large, rough fragment of hard limestone that, in view of its location on a level plaza surface too far from any of the larger structures to have rolled there, must have been dragged there by human effort. Whether these humans were Classic Maya or not cannot be determined without excavation; thus it is labeled as a "possible plain stela." Finally, the large square structures EP2-225 and 228 represent forms that are rarely seen on the survey strips radial to Tikal. The location of the latter on the S edge of a plaza suggests that the mound represents a single structure rather than a platform for several pole-and-thatch structures as may be the case in other instances.

SURVEY COMMENTARY

21

The Uaxactun Survey Strip (Fig. 7) This strip, which is marked in kilometers from Uaxactun to the border of the Tikal National Park, will be described in reverse order.

6.25-4.75 km

Apart from the obvious bajo areas, structure density on this fringe of the El Palmar ridge is comparatively high and seems to represent a continuation of that described for the 1.80-3.45 km block of the NW Border Survey Strip. As on that section, groups often assume unfamiliar configurations. Structures EP2-216, 192/194, 177/179, and 170/173 are some of the most outstanding ones. Common here are large, square, flattopped platforms; no less than a dozen may be counted,

including Str. EP2-175, 179, 180, 182, 186, 188, 189, 191, 214, 215 and 217. The occurrence of the barely visible Str. EP2-183 and 184 on a platform of this kind suggests that small structures may have been constructed on other platforms. A comparatively large number of chultuns occur in this section. Structure EP2-169, numbered so that it could easily be referred to, may not be a structure at all, but rather a spoil heap associated with the pit beside it.

4.75-3.65 km This section is separated from the preceding one because of the low structure density on it, even though the soils and drainage appear to be favorable for settlement. The chultuns at 4.5 km (Ch. EP2-52, 53, and 54) suggest that invisible structures may exist here, but it is

still curious that visible mounds were not discovered. Structure EP2-159, a crescent-shaped terrace, may well have been a structure platform and is not comparable to Str. EP2-169, which is probably a spoil heap.

3.65-2.00 km This section, with few structures, is distinguished from the preceding one on the basis of topography. Facing N at 3.65 km one looks up the steep face of the El Palmar ridge. In some places, this ridge is so steep that it is barely climbable. From the crest, S of Str. EP2-151, one can clearly see the temples of Tikal without climbing a tree. Our estimate of the height of the ridge here, from top to bottom, is about 40 m. The possibility that this ridge may have served as part of an outer defense perimeter for Uaxactun is worth consideration. Within the ridge itself there appear to be deposits of alabaster, examples of which were not found elsewhere in the survey. A fist sized chunk was found on the surface of the hill slope at S3430, E35. Thirty-five meters E of S2990 on the strip is a small cave with a mouth diameter of 2 or 3 m and a chamber that extends back into the hill about 2 m. The alabaster, which had the appearance of a paraffin flowstone, did not appear to have been worked or quarried. It may be that accretion of the deposit since Maya abandonment has

covered up such evidence if it existed. In view of the occasional discovery of alabaster objects, such as the pair of alabaster agoutis or serekis (Dasyprocta punctata Gray) from Bu. 196 at Tikal (TR. 14, 27), we had hoped to find some indication of exploitation of the cave. Another smaller alabaster cave was found just off the W edge of the new Uaxactun road E or NE of here. The few structures found on this section were all rather atypical. Most of them are either isolated rectangular mounds or square platforms. Only Str. EP2147/148 and 152 are associated with anything which could be identified as plazas. The sparsity of structures on these ridges is puzzling, particularly in view of the comparative density of structures on the steep ridges directly W of Uaxactun. Isolated chultuns (Ch. EP244/48) suggest that ramon trees may have been tended on these ridges and that invisible construction may for some of the apparent scarcity of habitations. It is also possible that the ridge lies beyond the limits of Uaxactun.

2.00-0.00 km The dramatic increase in structure density on this section is clearly associated with the proximity of Uaxactun. In spite of the increase, however, density

levels nowhere approach those found on the S side of Tikal, particularly on the 0.40-1.50 section of the S Strip.

22

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

In comparison with structure distributions at and around Tikal, there seem to be a relatively greater number of clustered groups on elevated platforms, such as occur on the outer portions of the N Survey Strip. These include Str. EP2-37/45, EP2-65/82, EP2-111/116, and EP2-117/129. Elevated platforms are also found in association with the groups formed by Str. EP2-1, EP215/16, EP2-17/21, EP2-22/24, EP2-52/56, EP2-58/59, EP2-61/63, EP2-86/92, and EP2-101/104. Another contrast to Tikal is provided by the frequency of square, elevated platforms, including Str. EP2-2, 6, 35, 36, 50, 80, 97/100, 138/139. These platforms also occur with considerable frequency on the 6.25-4.75 km section of this same survey strip. Nowhere in the vicinity of Tikal do they occur with such frequency. Individually, certain groups deserve comment. The layout of the clustered group formed by Str. EP2117/129 bears a striking resemblance to the layout of Bobal (Fig. 14) insofar as: (1) two separate mound group units are joined by a causeway that runs NNWSSE; (2) the northern unit is divided approximately in half, with E and W plaza subunits; and (3) the southern unit is comprised of a simple plaza with four structures, the largest of which is on the W. Also of interest is the 4 m high pyramid (Str. EP2-86) at 1.2 km, which, with its comparatively small plaza and associated mounds, is similar to Str. NE(E)-222 and SE(S)-387, though it is not situated in bajo. The group made up of Str. EP2-37/45 deserves attention for the unusual linear arrangement of plazas and structures along its eastern edge. The numerous "caves" noted on this strip are another peculiarity of the Uaxactun region. Though they generally consist of little more than a shallow

crevice or overhang, the only similar features found on any of the radial strips around Tikal were the small "caves" near 5.5 km on the S Survey Strip. Other cavelike features in the vicinity of Uaxactun include a series of natural sinkholes labeled as "chultuns" near the end of the W arm of the Ricketson housemound survey. At S150, E280, on the lip of the small quarry illustrated there, is an example of another feature which occurs in various parts of Uaxactun but which I have never seen around Tikal. These are small, round, tureen- or cauldron-shaped holes in hard bedrock which, when discovered, were filled with water and rotting leaves. I was informed by one of our workmen that these are called chonup. He was not aware that they had any function and it is possible that they are a natural formation. Attention is drawn, however, to the pilas (manufactured basins cut into bedrock) of the Puuc-Chenes region, chem haltun (canoe-shaped wells in bedrock) described in the Motul dictionary and referred to by Hester (1954:66), and haltun—"a hollowed stone, which usually contains water" (Avendaño ca. 1910?:8). All of these were apparently used for water collection. Sartenejas are natural pot holes used for the same purpose (Hester 1954:67). At a point 87 m N and 60 m E of the starting point of the Uaxactun brecha, there is an Aero-Service Corporation Shoran Station on a small concrete pedestal which could serve as an excellent datum point for anyone wishing to locate the starting point of our survey strip. Communications directed to the above Philadelphiabased organization in an attempt to elicit information as to the location of this bench mark have been to no avail.

V

Conclusions

data, even the best maps can be seriously misleading. The data needed to understand these maps are presented for the most part in TR. 24 and 38. Nonetheless, there are a few broad conclusions that we can draw on the basis of the data in hand.

Maps, such as those presented in this report, represent the essential first step in understanding regional settlement patterns of the past. Necessary though they are, they are not sufficient by themselves, for the fact is that without a substantial body of excavation and other

Relation of Construction to Topography invariably associated with low structure and chultun densities. Clearly, the Maya preferred well-drained land on which to build. The lower and less well drained the land, the more it was avoided for building purposes.

In Figs. 17-19 are presented graphs that depict structure and chultun densities in relation to elevation on all of the survey strips. As can easily be seen, higher structure and chultun densities tend to be associated with higher elevations, while low elevations are almost

Relation of Construction to Other Centers Although the highest structure densities occur on well-drained uplands, not all such topography was heavily built up. This shows up most clearly on the S Survey Strip (Fig. 17b) from about 6 km to the end, and on the Uaxactun Survey Strip (Fig. 19) especially between 2 and 5 km. Conversely, an unusual association of high structure density with relatively low terrain may be seen at the end of the N Survey Strip (Fig. 18b: 11 to 12 km). Clearly, topography was not the sole determinant of structure density. The constant factor in all of these instances seems to be the location of the terrain, irrespective of its elevation, in regard to the important centers of Jimbal, Tikal and Uaxactun. The nucleus of Jimbal is only

about 1.3 km from the end of the N Strip, and so the structures there may actually have been a part of that site. Thus, structure density drops off markedly as one goes S from Jimbal, just as it does as one goes S from Tikal. As one might expect, given the greater elaboration of Tikal's epicenter (see below for definition), the dropoff in structure density occurs farther out than does that at Jimbal. On the Uaxactun Strip, the low density of structures between 2 and 5 km on the El Palmar Ridge is probably related to the region's distance from any important center; note that density does pick up within 2 km of Uaxactun, even though the elevation of the land drops overall here.

The Site Limits of Tikal one goes outward in the four cardinal directions. As the S Survey Strip demonstrates, this is not entirely a matter of topography, although on the E and W Strips, the

Related to the above considerations is the question of Tikal's boundaries. On the four radial survey strips (Figs. 17, 18), structure density drops off markedly as 23

24

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF T1KAL

drop-off is associated with the presence of bajos unsuitable for construction. That this drop-off may be taken to indicate the limits of Tikal is its association with boundary marking features. On the N Strip, this feature is the earthworks which are located at 4.6 km N. These run for a distance of 9.5 km, linking the great logwood bajos that are located E and W of Tikal. Because these bajos are unsuitable for construction, they constitute natural boundary features, but no such natural features exist to the N. It seems to have been this lack that prompted the Maya to construct earthworks. Unfortunately, the S Earthworks are less well known than those on the N. They do appear to have run to the Santa Fé Bajo on the E and, by analogy with the N Earthworks, we expect that they ran to the western bajo as well. We do not know where they cross the S Survey Strip, but the location and orientation of the segment mapped in the SE quadrant of the Tikal National Park (Fig. 1) indicate that the crossing could have been no closer in than about 6 or 7 km. As it happens, this is where the marked drop-off in structure density occurs, and again by analogy with the N Strip, it is where we would expect the earthworks to be located. Our failure

to actually see them here may be attributed to the presence of a swampy area near the Laguna Verde Reservoir (Fig. 3h). Wherever the N Earthworks crossed such terrain, they were invisible, save through excavation (Puleston and Callender 1967:47). If we take, then, the combination of earthworks (as known and reconstructed) with the bajos E and W of Tikal as that site's boundaries (see Fig, 20), we find that within this area of approximately 120 km, terrain sufficiently well drained to permit it was almost invariably heavily built upon. As previously noted (part I of this report), structure density within these boundaries works out to about 112 per km2, as opposed to about 39 per km2 outside them. In a recent settlement survey in Quintana Roo, Mexico, Harrison (1981 and cited in Marcus 1982:901) found major centers to be spaced at about 26 km from one another. Comparing this to the distance between Tikal and Uaxactun, a mere 11.75 km separates the two centers, if the southern boundary of Uaxactun is set at 2 km S of its center, where the drop-off in structure density occurs. The distance between the nuclei of the two centers is about 19 km, still short of Harrison's 26 km.

Subzones within Tikal Within the limits of Tikal as defined above, on the basis of the four strip maps (Figs. 2-5) and the running commentary on them of part IV (above), it is possible to define certain subzones, concentrically arranged, of the site. So let it be clearly and unequivocally stated at the outset: Arnold and Ford (1980, 1982) are wrong in their assertion that Tikal shows no evidence of concentric zonation. Starting at its very core, we have epicentral Tikal. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Grove 1961), the word "epicenter" has a second meaning which is defined as being synonymous with "...a point, area, person, or thing upon which attention, feeling or action converges." Since the term and its adjectival form have already been used in the literature, it is used here to refer to the core of Tikal which has sometimes been referred to as the "ceremonial nucleus," though it contains elite residences (Harrison 1968 and TR. 15) and other nonceremonial buildings (TR. 16). The approximate limits for the epicenter may be set at 0.50 km on the E Survey Strip, 0.40 km on the S Survey Strip, 0.75 km on the W Survey Strip, and 1.00 km on the N Survey Strip. These boundaries correspond to the area enclosed by the buildings illustrated by Guillemin (1968:2) as the "main buildings for the religious cult at Tikal." The occurrence of at least one twin-pyramid group outside this area (as outlined in Fig. 21) and the inclusion of the sparsely built-up area enclosed by the Maler, Tozzer, and Maudslay Causeways make this

delimitation of epicentral Tikal only approximate. Elite residences within the epicenter can probably be divided into at least two groups: those at the core of the epicenter in the Central Acropolis and those with more peripheral locations with respect to the Great Plaza, "unquestionably the heart of ancient Tikal" (Coe 1967:27). Though the term central Tikal was once used to characterize "a central zone of roughly 63 km 2 " as distinguished from a "peripheral zone ... of roughly 60 km2" (Haviland 1970:190), a more meaningful division within the site limits of Tikal can be made closer to the epicenter (which we include as part of Central Tikal), at 1.50 km on the N Survey Strip, 0.75 km on the E Survey Strip, 1.00 km on the S Survey Strip, and 0.75 km on the W Survey Strip (see Fig. 21). The critical factor here is settlement density on potentially cultivable land. Outside epicentral Tikal, a well-marked threshold appears to fall between 0.16 and 0.20 ha per residential structure; that is, in central Tikal, 0.20 ha seems to represent the maximum amount of potentially cultivable uplands available for any one house there. Although Central Tikal, outside of the epicenter, does include some major range-type structures that served as elite class residences (Haviland 1981 and TR. 22), they are few and far between compared to those in the epicenter itself. In particular, there is nothing comparable to the epicentral ring of range-type structures that was mentioned several times in part IV (above).

CONCLUSIONS These stretch in an arc from Str. 4D-14 around through Str. 5C-9, 13, 5D-77, 90/92, the South Acropolis, Str. 5D-105, 5E-50, 51, 55, 57, and 58, to Str. 5E-1 and 4E44/48. While not every single one of these was necessarily an upper class house, it is likely that many, if not most, were. Again, following Haviland's (1970) terminology but moving the limits closer to the epicenter, peripheral Tikal is redefined here as the area that falls between central Tikal as defined above and the site limits of Tikal, also defined above and illustrated in Fig. 20. The cut-off points on the N and S Survey Strips are 5.0 and 6.5 km respectively, which correspond to the crossing of the earthworks on the N Strip and the presumed cross-

25

ing at 6.5 km (see above) on the S Strip. The land available per residential structure within peripheral Tikal in Late Classic times (see Puleston 1973:Appendix 4) falls in a range of 0.5-1.5 ha with but few exceptions. A schematic diagram of Tikal's subzones as just defined is presented in Fig. 22a. Presumably, other major centers such as Uaxactun, and perhaps Jimbal, were similarly structured. Each was presumably the dominant center within a surrounding zone where structure densities are quite low. Where the outer boundaries of these low density zones fell is anybody's guess, although the El Palmar Ridge is a possibility for the boundary between a Tikal and Uaxactun zone.

Minor Centers Recently, Joyce Marcus (1982:902) observed that: "The regular spacing of Maya centers, an observation considered heretical and implausible by many when it was first proposed a decade ago, is now confirmed by independent fieldwork and may, in fact, characterize much of the southern Maya lowlands,"

The "recent fieldwork" referred to is that of Peter Harrison in Quintana Roo, where he found "...smaller centers equidistantly spaced between them (major centers) at recurrent distances of 13km" (Marcus 1982:901). At Tikal, there is no such neat and regular spacing of the minor centers that are shown in Fig. 1. On the other hand, minor centers do appear to cluster into three groups based upon their distance from Tikal's Great Plaza (see Table 1). Two are within 3 to 3.5 km, another 7 are on or within 1.5 km of being on a circle based on the Great Plaza with a radius of 5 km, while another 3 are on or within 1.5 km of being on a second such circle with a radius of 10 km. It is tempting to think of the Maya as having arranged these minor centers in a series of rings at approximately 3, 5, and 10 km, but if they did, why are there no counterparts for Avila and Santa

Fé in the SW and NW quadrants? Why does the "5 km ring" break down N of Chikin Tikal and Corosal? And why are there no counterparts for Navahuelal, Ramonal, and El Descanso N, NW, and SW of Tikal? Moreover, the spacing of these minor centers relative to one another, as well as to the outside limits of Tikal, is not nearly as regular as is their spacing relative to Tikal's Great Plaza. The difficulties mount as one considers the specific characteristics of the individual sites themselves. Some have monuments and some do not, and there are almost as many different plans as there are sites (Figs. 8-16). Several include substantial range-type structures, and may have been lived in by high ranking people, as Navahuelal seems to have been (TR. 24B). Minor centers are assumed by most Mayanists to have been units in some sort of hierarchical administrative structure (e.g., Willey 1981:402-403), in this case subservient to Tikal; however, in view of the problems of their spacing, the great diversity in their composition and the added complication that centers similar in form may have served different functions (Haviland 1981:117), caution is clearly called for.

The Uaxactun Resurvey Leaving now Tikal and its surrounding region, some observations are in order with respect to Uaxactun. In resurveying the W arm of the old Uaxactun survey, large ruins as much as 2 m high were found to have been overlooked by the Ricketsons' surveyors. On one hilltop where they found three chultuns and five mounds, our resurvey found five chultuns and eight mounds (Puleston 1973:44-45). Further work on the S arm showed that where the Ricketsons' assistants

should have picked up forty-four structures, only seventeen were recorded (Puleston 1973:46-47). Clearly, structure density at Uaxactun was greater than the Ricketsons' map indicates, but it was still lower than at Tikal (compare Fig. 19: 0-2 km with Figs. 17, 18: 0-2 km). This difference in settlement density at the two sites is one more to add to other known differences between Tikal and Uaxactun (TR. 12).

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

26

Table 1 Approximate Distances of Minor Centers and Uaxactun from Tikal and Each Other (in Kilometers) (See Fig. 1) Distance from Center of Tikal

Distance from Outer Limits of Tikal* (as shown in Fig. 20)

Distance to Center of Nearest Neighbors

Inner Sites**

3.5 3

-5.5(E)-4(S) -.1.5

2.5 (to Uolantun) 3 (to Avila)

Chikin Tikal

4

-.75

1.5 (to Tintal)

Tintal

5

-0

3 (to Mixta Xuc)

Mixta Xuc

5

-1.25

4 (to Bobal)

Bobal

5

-2

2 (to Uolantun)

Uolantun

5.5

-1.75

4.5 (to Corosal A) 5.5 (to Corosal B)

Corosal A

5.75

-2.25

3 (to Avila) 3.75 (to Santa Fé)

Corosal B

6.5

-1.75

1 (to Corosal A)

Navahuelal

10

+3

5 (to Ramonal)

Ramonal

9

+0

El Descanso

11.5

+5

7.5 (to Jimbal) .5 (to El Encanto)

El Encanto

12

+5.5

7.5 (to Jimbal)

Jimbal

13

+8.5

8 (to Uaxactun)

Uaxactun

19

+ 11.75

Avila Santa Fe Middle Sites**

Outer Sites** 3 (to Corosal B) 12 (to El Descanso)

Distant Sites**

**for explanation, see text *- indicates distance inside Tikal's outer limits + indicates distance outside Tikal's outer limits

Appendix 1 Structure and Chultun Locations in the Four Quadrants of the Tikal National Park

This appendix serves as an aid in locating numbered features which are out of sequence. While every effort was made to avoid numbering structures and chultuns out of sequence, the discovery of new groups during ceramic test-pitting (reported in TR. 24A), after numbers had already been assigned, made it necessary. In certain cases, as when a feature designated as a structure turned out to be a treefall, numbers are listed for a quadrant that, in the final analysis, were not used. To avoid possibly confusing contradictions for workers who may refer to our field notes, these numbers were not reassigned. In the following lists there is one series of structure

numbers and one series of chultun numbers. The survey strips on which they may be found for each quadrant are listed (each quadrant contains portions of two survey strips, i.e., the NW quadrant includes one-half of each of the N and W Survey Strips). A small cross (x), indicates that the chultun or structure is in sequence and can be easily located by scanning the maps for numbers near that of the number desired. Numbers out of sequence naturally occur at the end of the list when the approximate locations are given in kilometers from the center of Tikal. They are also listed behind the "x" of in-sequence structures that are near them.

Structure List: SE quad.

Str.

SW quad.

E

S

strip

strip

S strip

NE quad.

NW quad.

W strip

W strip

N strip

EP 2

N

E

strip

strip

Uaxactun border strip

1

X

X

X

X

X

2

X

X

X

X

X

3

X

X

X

X

X

4

X

X

X

X

X

5

X

X

X

X

X

6

X

X

X

X

X

7

X

X

X

X

X

8

X

X

X

X

x

385-388

9

X

X

X

X

X

10

X

X

X

X

X

11

X

X

X

X

X

12

X

X

X

X

X

27

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

28 Structure List: SE quad.

NW quad.

13

X

x

x

14

X

X

X

x

X

15

X

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

X

17

X

X

X

X

X

18

X

X

X

X

X

19

X

X

X

X

X

20

X

X

X

X

X

21

X

X

X

X

X

22

X

X

X

X

X

23

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

474

W strip

N strip

N strip x

E strip

Uaxactun border strip

E strip

S strip

W strip

EP 2

NE quad.

St/r.

24

S strip

SW quad.

x

25

X

X

X

26

X

X

X

X

X

27

X

X

X

X

X

28

X

X

X

X

X

29

X

X

X

X

X

30

X

X

X

X

X

31

x

475

X

X

X

X

32

x

476

x

X

X

X

33

x

x

345

X

X

X

34

X

x

346

x

x

X

35

X

X

x

x

X

36

x

X

x

x

X

37

X

X

X

x

X

38

X

X

X

X

X

39

X

X

X

X

X

40

X

X

X

X

X

41

X

X

X

X

X

42

X

X

X

X

X

43

X

X

X

X

44

x

X

X

X

X

45

X

X

X

X

X

46

X

X

X

X

X

47

X

X

X

X

X

48

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

49 50

x

477 X

x

347

APPENDIX 1

29

Structure List: SE quad. Str.

E strip

51

x 478

SW quad. S strip

S strip

W strip

NW quad. W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

E strip

EP 2 Uaxactun border strip

X

X

X

X

52

X

X

X

X

X

53

x

X

X

X

X

54

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

55

x

479

56

x

X

X

57

X

X

X

X

X

58

X

x

X

X

X

59

X

x

X

X

X

60

X

X

X

X

X

61

X

X

X

X

X

62

x

X

X

x

X

63

X

X

X

X

X

64

X

X

X

X

X

65

X

x

339342

X

X

X

66

X

x

337, 338

X

X

X

67

X

x

x

X

X

68

X

X

X

X

X

69

X

x

X

X

X

70

X

X

X

X

X X

71

X

X

X

X

72

x

X

X

X

X

73

X

X

X

X

X

74

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

75

X

X

X

76

X

X

X

X

X

77

X

X

X

x 389

X

78

X

X

X

X

X

79

X

X

X

X

X

80

x

X

X

X

x

81

X

X

X

X

X

82

X

X

X

X

X

83

X

X

X

X

X

84

X

X

X

X

X

85

X

X

X

X

X

86

X

X

X

X

X

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF T1KAL

30 Structure List:

E strip

Str.

S strip

S strip

W strip

NE quad.

NW quad.

SW quad.

SE quad.

W strip

N strip

N strip

E strip

EP 2

Uaxactun border strip

87

X

X

x

x

x

88

X

X

X

X

X

89

X

X

X

X

x 390

90

X

X

X

X

x

91

X

X

X

X

x 391394

92

X

X

X

X

x

93

X

X

X

x

94

X

X

X

X

x

95

X

X

X

X

X

96

X

X

X

X

X

97

X

X

X

X

X

98

X

X

X

X

X

99

X

X

X

x 395

100

X

X

X

X

X

101

X

X

X

x 396

X

102

X

X

X

X

X

x

343

103

X

X

X

X

X

104

X

X

X

X

X

105

X

X

X

X

X

106

X

X

X

X

X

107

X

X

X

X

X

108

X

X

X

X

X

109

X

X

X

X

X

110

X

X

X

x

X

111

X

X

X

X

X

112

X

X

X

X

X

113

X

X

X

X

X

114

X

X

X

X

X

115

X

X

X

X

X

116

X

X

X

X

X

117

X

X

X

X

X

118

X

x 348

X

X

X

119

X

x 336

X

X

X

120

X

x

X

X

X

121

X

X

X

X

X

122

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

123

x

480

APPENDIX 1 31

31

Structure List: SE quad. Str.

E strip

SW quad.

s

strip

s

strip

NW quad,

w

strip

W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

E strip

EP 2 Uaxactun border strip

124

X

X

X

X

x

125

X

X

X

X

x

126

X

X

X

X

X

127

X

X

X

X

X

128

X

X

X

X

X

129

X

X

X

X

X

130

X

X

X

X

X

131

X

X

X

X

X

132

X

X

x 288

X

X

133

X

X

X

X

X

134

X

X

X

X

X

135

X

X

X

X

X

136

X

X

X

X

X

137

X

X

X

X

X

138

X

X

X

X

X

139

X

X

X

X

X

140

X

X

X

X

X

141

X

X

X

X

X

142

X

X

X

X

X

143

X

X

X

X

X

144

X

X

X

X

X

145

X

X

X

X

X

146

X

X

X

X

X

147

X

X

X

X

X

148

X

X

X

X

X

149

X

X

X

X

X

150

X

X

X

X

X

151

X

X

X

X

X

152

X

X

X

X

X

153

X

X

X

X

X

154

X

X

X

X

X

155

X

X

X

X

X

156

X

X

X

X

X

157

X

X

X

X

X

158

X

X

X

x 397

X

159

X

x 332

X

x 398

X

160

X

X

X

x 399

x

161

X

X

X

X

X

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

32 Structure List: SE quad.

Str.

E strip

S strip

NE quad.

NW quad.

SW quad. S

W

strip

strip

W strip

N strip

N strip

EP 2

E strip

Uaxactun border strip

162

X

x

x

x

x

163

X

x

x

x

x

164

X

X

X

X

165

X

x

X

X

X

166

X

X

X

X

X

167

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

335

168

X

169

X

X

X

170

X

x

X

X

X

171

X

X

X

X

X

172

X

X

X

X

X

173

X

X

X

X

174

X

X

x

X

X

175

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

334

x

289

176

X

177

x 481

178

X

X

X

X

X

179

X

X

X

X

X

180

X

X

X

X

X

181

X

X

X

X

X

182

X

X

X

X

X

183

X

X

X

X

X

184

X

X

X

x

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

185

x

482

186

x

483

187

x

x

x

484

197

198

X

X

X

188

x

x

333

X

X

X

189

X

x

199

X

X

X

190

X

x

X

X

X

191

X

X

X

X

192

X

X

X

X

X

193

X

X

X

X

X

X

194

X

X

X

X

X

195

X

X

X

X

X

196

X

X

X

197

X

x

177

X

X

198

X

x

185

x

X

199

X

x

189

X

X

x

400

X X

x

401 X

APPENDIX 1

33

Structure List: SE quad.

Sir.

E strip

NW quad.

SW quad.

W strip

W strip

NE quad.

N strip

N strip

EP 2

E strip

Uaxactun border strip

S strip

S strip

200

X

X

x

x

x

201

X

X

x

X

X

202

X

X

X

X

X

203

X

X

X

X

X

204

X

X

X

x

205

X

X

x

X

X

206

X

X

X

x

X

207

X

X

X

x 402

X

208

X

X

X

X

X

209

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

not used

210

not used

211

X

X

X

X

X

212

X

X

X

X

X

213

X

x 349

X

X

X

214

X

X

X

X

X

215

X

X

X

X

X

216

X

X

x

X

X

217

X

X

X

403, 404

X

218

X

X

X

X

X

219

X

X

X

X

X

220

X

X

X

X

X

221

X

X

X

X

X

222

X

X

X

X

x

223

X

X

X

X

X

224

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x 405415

X

225

x

453

x

226

X

X

X

x

X

227

X

X

X

X

X

228

X

X

X

x 416418

X

EP 2 NW border strip 229

X

X

X

x

x

230

X

X

X

X

x

231

X

X

X

X

X

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

34

Structure List: SW quad.

SE quad.

Str. 232

E strip

S strip

S strip

X

NE quad.

NW quad.

W strip

W strip

N strip

N strip

EP 2

E strip

Uaxactun border strip

X

x

x

x

X

x

x

X

X

X

X

233

X

234

X

235

X

X

X

X

X

236

X

X

X

X

X

237

X

X

x 290

X

X

238

X

X

x 291

X

X

239

X

X

X

X

X

240

X

X

X

X

X

241

X

X

x 292

X

X

242

X

X

x

X

X

243

X

X

X

X

X

244

X

X

x

X

X

245

X

X

X

X

X

246

X

X

X

X

X

247

X

X

X

X

X

248

X

X

X

X

X

249

X

X

X

X

X

250

X

x 351

X

X

X

251

X

X

X

X

X

252

X

X

X

X

X

253

X

X

X

X

X

254

X

X

X

X

X

255

X

X

X

X

X

256

X

X

X

X

X

257

X

X

X

X

X

258

X

X

X

X

X

259

X

X

X

260

X

X

X

261

X

X

X

262

X

X

X

X

X

263

X

X

X

X

X

264

X

X

X

X

X

265

X

X

X

X

X

266

X

X

X

X

X

267

X

X

X

x 421

X

268

X

X

X

X

X

269

X

X

X

X

x

350

x

419 X

x

420

X X X

X

APPENDIX 1

35

Structure List: SE quad. Str.

E strip

S strip

SW quad. S strip

W strip

NW quad. W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

E strip

EP 2 Uaxactun border strip

270

X

X

X

X

X

271

X

X

X

X

X

272

X

X

x 293

X

X

273

X

X

X

X

X

NW quad. NW border strip 274

X

X

X

X

X

275

X

X

X

X

X

276

X

X

X

X

X

277

X

X

X

X

X

278

X

X

X

X

X

279

X

X

X

X

X

280

X

X

X

X

X

281

X

X

X

X

X

282

X

X

X

X

X

283

X

X

X

X

X X

284

X

X

X

X

285

X

X

X

X

X

286

X

X

X

X

X

Uaxactun strip 287

X

288

X

X

2.2 km

X

289

X

X

4.3 km

X

290

X

X

8.1 km

X

291

X

X

8.1 km

X

292

X

X

8.1 km

X

293

X

X

11.6km

X

X

X

x

N strip

294

X

X

X

295

X

X

x

296

X

X

X

297

X

X

X

298

X

X

X

299

X

X

X

300

X

X

X

301

X

X

X

302

X

X

X

2.7km

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

36 Structure List:

SW quad.

SE quad.

Str.

E strip

S strip

S strip

NW quad.

W strip

W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

EP 2

E strip

303

X

x

x

304

X

X

x

305

X

X

X

306

X

X

X

307

X

X

X

308

X

X

X

309

X

X

X

310

X

X

X

311

X

X

X

312

X

X

x 422

313

X

X

X

314

X

X

X

315

X

X

X

316

X

X

X

317

X

X

X

318

X

X

X

319

X

X

X

320

X

X

X

321

X

x 352

X

322

X

X

X

323

X

X

X

X

X

324

x

466

325

X

X

X

326

X

X

X

327

X

X

X

328

X

X

X

329

X

X

X

x

X

x 353

X

330

x 468

331

x

x

332 333

469

x

7.5km

X

x

470

X

334

x

9.2 km

335

X

8.5km

336

X

4.9 km

X

337

X

4.3 km

X

338

X

4.3 km

X

339

X

4.3 km

x 424

340

X

4.3 km

X

X

x

423

Uaxactun border strip

APPENDIX 1

37

Structure List: SE quad.

Str. 341

E strip

SW quad.

S strip

S strip

W strip

NW quad.

W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

EP 2

E strip

456465

4.3 km

x

342

x

4.3km

x

343

x

4.7km

X

344

x

10.25km

X

345

x

2.8km

X

346

x

2.8km

X

347

x

3.6km

X

348

x

4.8km

X

349

x

4.6km

X

350

x

4.7 km

X

351

x

4.0km

X X

x

352

x

8.6km

353

x

9.0km

354

x

355

x

471

356

x

454, 455

357

x

472

X X X X

X

358

x

X

359

X

X

360

X

X

361

X

X

362

X

X

363

x

473

x

364

x

X

365

X

X

366

X

X

367

X

X

368

X

X

369

X

X

370

X

X

371

X

X

372

X

X

373

X

X

374

X

X

375

X

X

376

X

X

377

X

X

Uaxactun border strip

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

38 Structure List: SE quad. Str.

E strip

SW quad.

S strip

S strip

W strip

NW quad. W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

EP 2

E strip

378

x

x

379

X

X

380

X

X

381

X

X

382

X

X

383

X

X

not used

X

384 385

X

2.3km

386

X

2.3km

387

X

2.3 km

388

X

2.3 km

389

X

4.4 km

390

X

5.2km

391

X

5.3 km

392

X

5.3 km

393

X

5.3 km

394

not used

395

X

5.3 km

396

X

6.1 km

397

X

11.5km

398

X

11.5km

399

X

11.5km

400

X

5.8 km

401

X

5.8km

402

X

7.3 km

403

X

7.3 km

404

X

7.3km

405

X

7.7 km

406

X

7.7 km

407

X

7.7 km

408

X

7.7 km

409

X

7.7 km

410

X

7.7 km

411

x

467

5.3km

7.8km

7.8 km

412

X

413

X

7.8km

X

7.8 km

414

Uaxactun border strip

APPENDIX 1

39

Structure List: SE quad.

Str.

E strip

SW quad.

S strip

S strip

W strip

NW quad. W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

E strip

415

X

7.8 km

416

X

7.8km

417

X

7.8km

418

X

7.8km

419

X

8.0km

420

X

8.0km

421

X

8.6 km

422

X

11.4km

423

X

11.5km

424

X

11.5 km

425

X

11.5 km

426

X

427

X

428

X

429

X

430

X

431

not used

432

not used

433

X

434

X

435

X

436

X

437

X

438

X

439

X

440

X

441

not used

442

X

443

X

444

X

445

X

446

X

447

X

448

X

449

X

450

X

EP 2 Uaxactun border strip

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

40

Structure List:

Str.

E strip

S strip x

451 452

6.3 km

453

2.2 km

454

6.0 km

455

6.0 km

456

5.8 km

457

5.8 km

458

5.8 km

459

5.8km

460

5.8 km

461

5.8 km

462

5.8 km

463

5.8 km

464

5.8km

465

5.8 km

466

5.0 km

467

9.4 km

468

5.1 km

469

5.1 km

470

5.1 km

471

6 km

472

6 km

473

6.2 km

474

7.2 km

475

7.3 km

476

7.3km

477

7.3 km

478

7.6 km

479

7.6 km

480

10.9 km

481

11.9km

482

12

km

483

12

km

484

12

km

485

NW quad.

SW quad.

SE quad.

12 km

S strip

W

W

strip

strip

N strip

NE quad.

N strip

E strip

EP 2

Uaxactun border strip

APPENDIX 1

41

Chultun List: SEquad.

NW quad.

SW quad.

NE quad.

EP 2

Chul

E strip

1

X

x

X

X

X

2

X

X

X

X

X X

S strip

S strip

W strip

W strip

N strip

N strip

E strip

Uaxactun strip

3

X

X

X

X

4

X

X

X

X

X

5

X

X

X

X

X

6

X

X

X

X

X

7

X

X

X

X

X

8

X

X

X

X

X

9

X

X

X

X

X X

10

X

X

X

X

11

X

X

X

X

12

X

X

X

X

X

13

X

X

X

X

X

X

14

X

X

X

X

X

15

X

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

X

17

X

X

X

X

X

18

X

X

X

X

X

19

X

X

X

X

X

20

X

X

X

X

X

21

X

X

X

X

X

22

X

X

X

X

X

23

X

X

X

X

X

24

X

X

X

X

X

25

X

X

X

X

X

26

X

X

X

X

X

27

X

X

X

X

X

28

X

X

X

X

X

29

X

X

X

X

X

30

X

X

X

X

X

31

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

32

X

X

X

33

X

X

X

34

X

X

X

35

X

X

X

36

X

X

X

X

37

X

X

X

X

X

X

not used

X

3.5 km

X

42

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL ChultunList: SE quad. Chul

E strip

NW quad.

SW quad.

S strip

S strip

W strip

W strip

NE quad.

N strip

N strip

E strip

EP 2 Uaxactun strip

38

X

X

x

39

X

X

x

X

40

X

X

X

X

41

X

X

X

X

42

X

X

X

X

43

X

X

x

X

44

X

X

X

X

45

X

X

X

X

46

X

X

X

X

x

47

X

X

X

X

48

X

X

X

X

49

X

X

X

X

50

not used

x

X

X

51

not used

x

X

X

52

not used

x

X

X

53

X

X

X

X

54

X

X

X

X

55

X

X

X

X

56

X

X

X

X

57

X

X

X

X

58

X

X

X

X

59

X

X

X

X

60

X

X

X

X

61

X

X

X

x

62

X

X

X

x

63

X

X

X

64

X

X

X

65

X

X

X

66

X

X

X

67

X

X

X

68

X

X

X

69

X

X

X

70

X

X

X

71

X

X

X

72

X

X

X

73

X

X

X

APPENDIX 1

43

Chultun List: SW quad,

SE quad. Chul

E strip

S strip

S strip

NW quad.

W strip

W strip

N strip

NE quad. N strip

E strip

EP 2 Uaxactun strip

74

X

X

X

75

X

X

X

76

X

X

X

77

X

X

X

78

X

X

X

79

X

X

X

80

X

X

X

81

X

X

X

NW border strip 82

X

X

X

83

X

X

X

84

X

X

85

X

X

86

X

X

87

X

X

88

X

X

89

X

4.75 km

90

X

7.3 km

91

X

10.3 km

92

X

10.3km

93

X

10.4km

94

9.75km

95

+6.5 km

Appendix 2

This appendix lists surface structures and chultuns that have been added or removed since publication of the map of the central 9 km2 of Tikal in TR. 11. These

changes are included on the Survey Strip maps presented here.

ADDED

ADDED

Structures

Comments

3D-126

discovered by Bronson in "hidden" structure survey, reported in TR. 21

3D-127

discovered by Bronson in "hidden" structure survey, reported in TR. 20

5B-21

discovered by Jones in twinpyramid survey, reported in TR. 18

Structures

Comments

5E-88

discovered by Jones, reported in TR 16

5F-42, 43, 44, 45, 46,

discovered by Bronson

47

in "hidden" structure survey, reported in TR. 20

5G-53, 54, 55

discovered by Becker, reported in TR. 21

6E-162, 163

discovered by Haviland, reported in TR. 20

5B-22

discovered by Puleston in chultun survey, reported in TR. 20

5B-23

discovered by Puleston in chultun survey, reported in TR. 20

4C-4

discovered by Puleston

4F-5, 6

discovered by Puleston

(Group 5C-3)

discovered by Bronson in "hidden" structure survey, reported in TR. 20

4F-7

constructed by Puleston (experimental chultun), reported in TR. 32

5C-56

discovered by Jones during excavation of Ch. 5C-8, reported in TR. 20

4D-3

discovered by Puleston, reported in TR. 23H

4G-1

5C-57

discovered by Jones during excavation of Ch. 5C-8, reported in TR. 20

discovered by Becker, reported in TR. 21

5C-8

discovered by Mora, reported in TR. 20

5D-11

discovered by Puleston

5D-12

discovered by Puleston

5D-4, 5, 6

discovered by Coe, reported in TR. 14

5D-118, 119, 120, 122, discovered and assigned by 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, Harrison, reported in TR. 15. 131, 137, 138, 139, 140 (Platform 5E-1)

assigned by Jones, reported in TR. 16

Chultuns

44

Comments

APPENDIX 2

45

REMOVED

ADDED Comments

Chultuns

Structures

Comments

5D-7

discovered by Harrison

5D-64

5F-4

discovered by Puleston, reported in TR. 20

actually part of Str. 5D-63 (see TR. 15)

5E-23, 28

excavated by Jones (see TR. 16)

5F-5

discovered by Day, reported in TR. 20

5G-15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

discovered by Becker, reported

Chultuns

Comments

20, 21, 22, 23

inTR. 21

3D-8

slight depression in soil

5G-24

discovered by Puleston

5B-2

6E-6

discovered by a test-pitter working for Culbert, reported in TR. 20

could not be found (perhaps it is5B-12)

5B-5, 6, 7, 8, 9

all turned out to be holes, quarries, or soil depressions

6E-7

discovered by Haviland, reported in TR. 20

5F-1, 2, 3

could not be found (probably soil depressions)

Appendix 3

This appendix presents raw counts of structures and chultuns taken directly from the survey strips. These features are counted only if they lie within the dashed lines that mark one-quarter of a kilometer from the central brecha strip.

The counts are presented in the order of assigned block numbers which also appear with Figs. 2-7. It should be noted that not all blocks are exactly 0.25 km2 in area. These data are presented graphically in Figs. 17-19.

Block No. Em.

Block No. Em. E Brecha Survey Strip

W Brecha Survey Strip 1 11.5-12.0 11.0-11.5 2 10.5-11.0 3 4 10.0-10.5 9.5-10.0 5 9.0-9.5 6 8.5-9.0 7 8.0-8.5 8 7.5-8.0 9 10 7.0-7.5 11 6.5-7.0 6.0-6.5 12 13 5.5-6.0 14 5.0-5.5 4.5-5.0 15 16 4.0-4.5 3.5-4.0 17 18 3.0-3.5 2.5-3.0 19 20 2.0-2.5 1.5-2.0 21 22 1.0-1.5 23 0.5-1.0 24 0.25-0.5

Area (km2)

No. of Strs.

No. of Chs.

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0,25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.125

0 0 0 0 0 9 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 18 29 85 29 17 4 2 17 12 42 32

0 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 29 8 2 1 2 4 6 8 2

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

46

0.25-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 7.0-7.5 7.5-8.0 8.0-8.5 8.5-9.0 9.0-9.5 9.5-10,0 10.0-10.5 10.5-11.0 11.0-11.5 11.5-12.0

Area (km2)

No. of Strs.

No. of Chs.

0.125 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

18 64 34 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 68 91 11 5 0 0 0 38 65 82

0 1 13 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 5 1 0 0 0 0 8 12 8

APPENDIX 3 Block No. Em, N Brecha Survey Strip 49 11.5-12.25 50 11.0-11.5 51 10.5-11.0 10.0-10.5 52 53 9.5-10.0 54 9.0-9.5 55 8.5-9.0 56 8.0-8.5 7.5-8.0 57 58 7.0-7.5 6.5-7.0 59 60 6.0-6.5 5.5-6.0 61 5.0-5.5 62 4.5-5.0 63 64 4.0-4.5 65 3.5-4.0 66 3.0-3.5 2.5-3.0 67 68 2.0-2.5 1.5-2.0 69 70 1.0-1.5 0.5-1.0 71 0.25-0.5 72 S Brecha Survey Strip 0.25(N)-0.25(S) 73 74 0.25-0.5 75 0.5-1.0 76 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 77 78 2.0-2.5 79 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 80 3.5-4.0 81 4.0-4.5 82 4.5-5.0 83 84 5.0-5.5 85 5.5-6,0 86 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 87 7.0-7.5 88 7.5-8.0 89 90 8.0-8.5 91 8.5-9.0 9.0-9.5 92 9.5-10,0 93 94 10.0-10.5 10.5-11.0 95 11.0-11.5 96 11.5-12.0 97

Area (km2)

No. of Sirs.

No. of Chs.

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.125

46 34 0 0 0 0 6 30 2 0 19 3 1 1 26 12 32 27 24 48 37 52 105 54

2 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 3 4 1 2 2 1 2 7 1

0.25 0.125 0.25 0.25 0,25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

113 29 153 58 23 35 12 0 35 43 91 38 29 24 4 6 10 7 6 6 4 35 0 0 2

7 0 5 4 6 2 0 0 6 9 25 15 1 5 2 6 0 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 0

Block Area (km2) No. Em. Uaxactun Brecha Survey Strip 98 0.0-0.5 0.25 0.5-1.0 0.25 99 100 1.0-1.5 0.25 1.5-2.0 0.25 101 2.0-2.5 0.25 102 103 2.5-3.0 0.25 0.25 104 3.0-3.5 105 3.5-4.0 0.25 106 4.0-4.5 0.25 4.5-5.0 0.25 107 5.0-5.5 0.25 108 5.5-6.0 0.25 109 110 6.0-6.5 0.125 NW Border Brecha Survey Strip 3.0-3.5 0.25 111 0.25 2.5-3.0 112 0.25 113 2,0-2.5 114 1,5-2.0 0.25 0.25 115 1.0-1.5 0.5-1.0 0.25 116 0.0-0.5 0.25 117

47

No. of Strs.

No. of Chs.

30 26 28 28 3 0 1 3 3 16 21 16 8

4 13 8 11 1 1 3 1 1 9 9 9 2

13+ 2 18 2 0 22 1

0 1 3 0 0 0 0

References

Adams, R. E. W., W. E. Brown, Jr., and T. Patrick Culbert 1981 Radar Mapping, Archaeology, and Ancient Maya Land Use. Science 213:1457-1463.

Cowgill, Ursula M., and G. E. Hutchinson 1963 El Bajo de Santa Fe. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 53:7.

Andrews, Edward Wyllys IV 1965 Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico (Maps). Middle American Research Institute, New Orleans.

Fry, Robert E. 1969 Ceramics and Settlement in the Periphery of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1972 Manually Operated Post-Hole Diggers as Sampling Instruments. American Antiquity 37:259-260.

Arnold, Jeanne E., and Anabel Ford 1980 A Statistical Examination of Settlement Patterns at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 45:713-726. 1982 A Reexamination of Labor Investments at Tikal: Reply to Haviland, and Folan, Kintz, Fletcher and Hyde. American Antiquity 47:436-440.

Graham, Ian 1967 Archaeological Exploration in El Peten, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, Publication 33.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Gordon R. Willey 1981 A Historical Introduction to the Study of Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 3-18. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Green, Ernestene L. 1970 The Archaeology of Navahuelal, Tikal, Guatemala and a Test of Interpretive Method. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Avendano y Loyola, Fray Andrew ca. 1910 Relation of Two Trips to Peten, translated by Charles P. Bowditch (1842-1921), revised by G. Rivera. Ms., Peabody Museum Library, Harvard University.

Grove, Philip B. (editor in chief) 1961 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. C. and C. Merriam Company, Springfield.

Becker, Marshall J. 1971 The Identification of a Second Plaza Plan at Tikal, Guatemala, and Its Implications for Ancient Maya Social Complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Guillemin, George F. 1968 Development and Function of the Tikal Ceremonial Center Ethnos 33:1-39. Harrison, Peter D. 1968 Form and Function in a Maya "Palace" Group. Thirtyeighth International Congress of Americanists (StuttgartMunich) 1:165-172. 1978 Bajos Revisited: Visual Evidence for One System of Agriculture. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 247-253. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1981 Some Aspects of Preconquest Settlement in Southern Quintana Roo, Mexico. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 259-286. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Blanton, Richard E. 1972 Prehispanic Adaptation in the Ixtapalapa Region, Mexico. Science 175:1317-1326. Bullard, William R., Jr. 1960 Maya Settlement Pattern in Northeast Peten, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:355-372. 1970 Topoxte, A Postclassic Maya Site in Peten, Guatemala. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Paper 61. Coe, Michael D. 1969 Photogrammetry and the Ecology of Olmec Civilization. Paper presented at Working Conference on Aerial Photography and Anthropology, Cambridge.

Harrison, Peter D., and Phyllis E. Messenger 1980 Dennis Edward Puleston, 1940-1978. American Antiquity 45:272-276,

Coe, William R. 1967 Tikal, A Handbook of the Ancient Maya Ruins. The University Museum, Philadelphia.

Haviland, William A. 1963 Excavation of Small Structures in the Northeast Quadrant of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

48

REFERENCES

1970 1981

1982

Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Tikal, Guatemala and Mesoamerican Urbanism. World Archaeology 2:186-198. 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 Wendy Ashmore, pp. 89-117. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Where the Rich Folks Lived: Deranging Factors in the Statistical Analysis of Tikal Settlement. American Antiquity 47:427-429.

Haviland, William A., Dennis E. Puleston, Robert E. Fry, and Ernestene L. Green 1968 The Tikal Sustaining Area: Preliminary Report on the 1967 Season. Report presented to the National Science Foundation, Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1971 Possible Streets at a Maya Site in Guatemala. Paper presented at the Seventieth Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New York City. Hester, Joseph A. 1954 Natural and Cultural Bases of Ancient Maya Subsistence Economy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Jones, Christopher 1969 The Twin-Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Architectural Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Jones, Morris R. 1952 Map of the Ruins of Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Current Reports 1:2-6. Kurjack, Edward B., George E. Stuart, John C. Scheffler, and John W. Cottier 1979 Map of the Ruins of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, Publication 47. Lamb, B. F. 1966 Mahogany of Tropical America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Lundell, Cyrus Longworth 1937 The Vegetation of Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington 478. Madeira, Percy Childs 1931 An Aerial Expedition to Central America. The Museum Journa/22(2):95-153. Marcus, Joyce 1982 Review: Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore. American Antiquity 47:899-902. Millon, René 1967 Teotihuacan. Scientific American 216(6):38-48. 1970 Teotihuacan: Completion of Map of Giant Ancient City in the Valley of Mexico. Science 170:1077-1082. Morley, Sylvanus Griswold 1937- The Inscriptions of Peten. Carnegie Institution of 1938 Washington 437.

49

Olson, Gerald W. 1969 Descriptions and Data on Soils of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala, Central America. Cornell Agronomy News 69(2). Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 3. Ann Arbor. Pollack, H. E. D., Ralph L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith 1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington 619. Puleston, Dennis E. 1967 Settlement Pattern Surveys in the Southern Maya Lowlands, Paper presented at the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Ann Arbor. 1968 Erosimum alicastrum as a Subsistence Alternative for the Classic Maya of the Central Southern Lowlands. M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 1969 Settlement Patterns and Tree Crops: A Model for Ancient Maya Land Use and Demography at Tikal, Guatemala. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston. 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Models. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1978 Terracing, Raised Fields, and Tree Cropping in the Maya Lowlands: A New Perspective on the Geography of Power. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by Peter D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 225-245. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Puleston, Dennis E., and Donald W. Callender, Jr. 1967 Defensive Earthworks at Tikal. Expedition 9(3):40-48. Puleston, Olga S. 1969 Functional Analysis of a Workshop Tool Kit from Tikal. M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Rice, Don S., and Dennis E. Puleston 1981 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns in the Peten, Guatemala. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 121-156. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Ricketson, Oliver G., Jr., and Edith Bayles Ricketson 1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-31. Carnegie Institution of Washington 477. Sanders, William T. 1962- Cultural Ecology of the Maya Lowlands Parts I and II. 1963

Estudios de Cultura Maya 2:79-121 and 3:203-241.

1965

The Cultural Ecology of the Teotihuacan Valley. Mimeograph, Pennsylvania State University.

Sanders, W. T, A. Kovar, T. Charlton, and R. A. Diehl 1970 The Natural Environment, Contemporary Occupation and the 16th Century Population of The Valley. In Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report I. [Occasional Papers in Anthropology No, 3.] Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

50

THE SETTLEMENT SURVEY OF TIKAL

Sanders, William T., and Joseph W. Michels 1969 The Pennsylvania State University Kaminaljuyu Project1968 Season: Part I-The Excavations. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University 2, Satterthwaite, Linton, Jr. 1951 Reconnaissance in British Honduras. University Museum Bulletin 16(l):21-37. Siemens, Alfred H. 1978 Karst and the Pre-Hispanic Maya in the Southern Lowlands. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 117-143. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Siemens, Alfred H., and D. E. Puleston 1972 Ridged Fields and Associated Features in Southern Campeche: New Perspectives on the Lowland Maya. American Antiquity 37:228-239. Tikal Reports 5: Shook, Edwin M., and William R. Coe, Tikal: Numeration, Terminology, and Objectives, 1961. 11: Carr, Robert F., and James E. Hazard, Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala, 1961. 12: Coe, William R., and William A. Haviland, Introduction to the Archaeology of Tikal, 1983. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23H, 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, 24E, 32, 38 (forthcoming; see Tikal Report 12, Appendix B and pp. 57-61). Tozzer, Alfred M. 1913 A Preliminary Study of the Prehistoric Ruins of Nakum, Guatemala, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoir 5(5): 136-197 Turner, B. L. II, and Peter D. Harrison 1978 Implications from Agriculture for Maya Prehistory, in Pre-

Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 337-373. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution 155. 1981 Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 385-415. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Paper 54. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Willey, Gordon R. and A. Ledyard Smith 1969 The Ruins of Altar de Sacrificios, Department of Peten, Guatemala-An Introduction, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Paper 62(1). Willey, Gordon R., A. Ledyard Smith, Gair Tourtellot III, and Ian Graham 1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Introduction: The Site and Its Setting, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoir 13(1). Wright, A. C. S., D. H. Romney, R. H. Arbuckle, and V. E. Vial 1959 Land Use in British Honduras: Report of the British Honduras Land Use Survey Team. Colonial Research Publications 24. London: Colonial Office.

Opposite Page:

Map of the Tikal National Park showing the location of the four survey strips extending outward from Tikal's center (Figs. 2-6), the minor centers (Figs. 8-16), and Uaxactun (Fig. 7). The portions of Tikal covered by the 9 km2 and 16 km2 maps of TR. 11 are shown at the center of the Park. The limits of the old Ricketson cruciform housemound survey are shown at Uaxactun.

FIGURE!

Figures 2-7. The Survey Strips The following sixty illustrations represent the six survey strips shown in Figure 1. Scale is 1:5000 (see below). (Note the exception of a discrepancy in the first portion of the South Strip.) The generally kilometer-long segments are overlapped by a centimeter and thus may be converted to continuous maps through photocopying. For the radial strips, segments closest to Tikal's Great Plaza are the first to be shown; medially marked distances are relative to the Plaza ("0 km"). On the remaining two strips, distances are measured from their indicated beginnings. The East Strip is the first presented (Fig. 2a-l), followed by the South (Fig. 3a-m), the West (Fig. 4a-l), the North (Fig. 5a-l), the Northwest Border (Fig. 6a-d), and the Uaxactun (Fig. 7a-g) Strips. Structures and chultuns are numbered as discussed in the text (''Designation of Features and Orientations''). Locations of all structures and chultuns numbered out of sequence will be found in Appendix 1. Major Plant Associations

Other Structure

(Haematoxylum campechianum) tintal (logwood bajo)

Quarry

Structure with standing masonry as crosshatched (Central Tikal excepted)

(Crysophila argentea) escoba (bajo)

Modern trail or brecha

Modern construction

(Orbignya cohune) corosal (bajo)

Modern road

Chultun

Impressionistic contour in terms of Tikal vertical datum of 200 m (as in TR. 11)

Minor Plant Associations

Cave

Earthworks (ditch, depression contour; embankment top, single line)

(Aechmea magdalena) pital Depression contour, or observed water level within aguadas or reservoirs

250 m limit of survey strips

(Guadua sp.) jimbal

Arroyo bottom with observed flowing water

Separates quadrants for independent numbering of structures and chultuns

Limit of 16 km2 Tikal map (TR. 11)

100

0

100

200

300M.

FIGURE 2a

E Survey Strip, 0.25-1.00 km

FIGURE 2b

E Survey Strip, 1.00-2.00 km

FIGURE 2c

E Survey Strip, 2.00-3.00 km

FIGURE 2d

E Survey Strip, 3.00-4.00 km

FIGURE 2e

E Survey Strip, 4.00-5.00 km

FIGURE 2f

E Survey Strip, 5.00-6.00 km

FIGURE 2g

E Survey Strip, 6.00-7.00 km

FIGURE 2H

E Survey Strip, 7.00-8.00 km

FIGURE 2i

E Survey Strip, 8.00-9.00 km

FIGURE 2j

E Survey Strip, 9.00-10.00 km

FIGURE 2k

E Survey Strip, 10.00-11.00 km

FIGURE 21

E Survey Strip, 11.00-12.00 km

FIGURE 3a

S Survey Strip, -0.25-1.00 km, in conjunction with Fig. 3b

FlGURE 3b

S Survey Strip, to 1.00 km, continued from Fig. 3a

FIGURE 3c

S Survey Strip, 1.00-2.00 km

FIGURE 3d

S Survey Strip, 2.00-3.00 km

FIGURE 3e

S Survey Strip, 3.00-4.00 km

FIGURE 3f

S Survey Strip, 4.00-5.00 km

FIGURE 3g

S Survey Strip, 5.00-6.00 km

FIGURE 3h

S Survey Strip, 6.00-7.00 km

FIGURE 3i

S Survey Strip, 7.00-8.00 km

FIGURE 3j

S Survey Strip, 8.00-9.00 km

FIGURE 3k

S Survey Strip, 9.00-10.00 km

FIGURE 3l

S Survey Strip, 10.00-11.00 km

FIGURE 3m

S Survey Strip, 11.00-12.00 km

FIGURE 4a

W Survey Strip, 0.25-1.00 km

FIGURE 4b

W Survey Strip, 1.00-2.00 km

FIGURE 4c

W Survey Strip, 2.00-3.00 km

FIGURE 4d

W Survey Strip, 3.00-4.00 km

FIGURE 4e

W Survey Strip, 4.00-5.00 km

FIGURE 4f

W Survey Strip, 5.00-6.00 km

FIGURE 4g

W Survey Strip, 6.00-7.00 km

FIGURE 4h

W Survey Strip, 7.00-8.00 km

FIGURE 4i

W Survey Strip, 8.00-9.00 km

FIGURE 4j

W Survey Strip, 9.00-10.00 km

FIGURE 4k

W Survey Strip, 10.00-11.00 km

FIGURE 4l

W Survey Strip, 11.00-12.00 km

FIGURE 5a

N Survey Strip, 0.25-1.00 km

FIGURE 5b

N Survey Strip, 1.00-2.00 km

FIGURE 5c

N Survey Strip, 2.00-3.00 km

FIGURE 5d

N Survey Strip, 3.00-4.00 km

FIGURE 5e

N Survey Strip, 4.00-5.00 km

FIGURE 5f

N Survey Strip, 5.00-6.00 km

FIGURE 5g

N Survey Strip, 6.00-7.00 km

FIGURE 5h

N Survey Strip, 7.00-8.00 km

FIGURE 5i

N Survey Strip, 8.00-9.00 km

FIGURE 5j

N Survey Strip, 9.00-10.00 km

FIGURE 5k

N Survey Strip, 10.00-11.00 km

FIGURE 5l

N Survey Strip, 11.00-12.00 km

FIGURE 6a

NW Border Survey Strip

FIGURE 6b

NW Border Survey Strip

FIGURE 6c

NW Border Survey Strip

FIGURE 6d

NW Border Survey Strip

FIGURE 7a

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 0.00-1.00 km

FIGURE 7b

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 1.00-2.00 km

FIGURE 7c

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 2.00-3.00 km

FIGURE 7d

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 3.00-4.00 km

FIGURE 7e

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 4.00-5.00 km

FIGURE 7f

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 5.00-6.00 km

FIGURE 7g

Uaxactun Survey Strip, 6.00-6,25 km

FIGURES

MapofJiml,1:20

This page intentionally left blank

FIGURE 9

N

mag

Map of El Encanto, 1:2000

FIGURE 10

Map of Santa Fe, 1:2000

Map of El Descanso, 1:2000

FIGURE 11

Map of Corosal, 1:2000

Mapof Avila, 1:2000

FIGURE 12

Map of Uolantun, 1:2000

FIGURE 13

Map of Tintal, 1:2000

Maps of Navajuelal, Groups SE-1 and SE-2; 1:2000

FIGURE 14

Map of Bobal, 1:2000

FIGURE 15

Map of Mixta Xuc, 1:2000

FIGURE 16

MapofChiknTl,1:20

FIGURE 17

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for the East Strip

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for the South Strip

FIGURE 18

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for the West Strip

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for the North Strip

FIGURE 19

Structure, chultun, and elevation profiles for the Northwest Strip (right) and Uaxactun Strip (left)

FIGURE 20

The boundaries of Tikal, as defined on the basis of structure density and location of earthworks and bajo

FIGURE 21

The limits of Epicentral and Central Tikal. The inner line demarcates Epicentral Tikal, the civic, ceremonial, and elite residential core; the outer line encompasses Central Tikal as defined in terms of settlement density on cultivable land.

FIGURE 22

Schematic presentation of the terms used to describe the main subdivisions of Tikal, Jimbal, and Uaxactun

Computerized perspective view of the Tikal-Uaxactun region