architecture and chronology at chichén itzá, yucatán

Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán

Thomas H. Wilson

Arizona Museum of Natural HistoryDigital Publications in Archaeology 1

2014

i

Table of ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. Pure Florescent Architecture of Chichén Itzá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. The Stratigraphic Sequence of Construction on the Great Plaza . . . . . . . . . . 21

III. Great Ball Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Lower Temple of the Jaguars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 South Ball Court Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 North Ball Court Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Sculptured Panels of the Playing Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Upper Temple of the Jaguars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

IV. Court of the Thousand Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Northeast Colonnade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Little Tables Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Temescal Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Mercado and Associated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

V. Structures of South-Central Chichén Itzá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Caracol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 High Priest’s Grave (Osario) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Temple of the Wall Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Minor Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

VI. Outlying Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Group of the Initial Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Southwest Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Group of the Bird Cornice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Southeastern Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Structures of Quadrant 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Northwest Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

VII. Chichén Itzá in Ancient Maya History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Archaeology and History of Later Pre-Columbian Yucatán . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

ii

PrefaceGenesis of Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán began with a series of graduate seminars in Mesoamerican archaeology led by John Graham commencing in the fall of 1970 at the University of California, Berkeley. I was intrigued that, after the tremendous amounts of work expended at Chichén Itzá by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the Government of Mexico, most work at the site focused upon individual buildings and very little upon archaeological synthesis. The idea behind the dissertation was to attempt an archaeological synthesis without engaging issues of ethnicity and historical documentation that had confused or at least complicated archaeological interpretation. It seemed that the archaeology of Chichén Itzá should be clarified to the extent possible, before addressing the confusing variables of the historical record.

I submitted Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of doctor of philosophy to the graduate division at Berkeley, which awarded the degree in 1976. I conducted fieldwork at Chichén Itzá in 1974, and analyzed the data and wrote the dissertation in 1975 and the first half of 1976. In1975, I accepted a position as lecturer (assistant professor in the British system) at the University of Nairobi. Two years later, I joined the National Museums of Kenya, and served as coast archaeologist for five years. As a consequence of seven years in East Africa, I did not return professionally to Mesoamerican archaeology or to the study of Chichén Itzá.

Recently, Michael E. Smith lamented the number of unfinished research projects and unpublished monographs in Mesoamerica generally and at Chichén Itzá specifically (2007:580). The modern digital world makes it possible to share the work that I did at Chichén Itzá years ago. One possibility is to completely rework the dissertation in light of all the new research that has gone on in the intervening years in Mesoamerican archaeology and at Chichén Itzá. That task is daunting given all the subsequent research at the site and in the area. I chose to present the work as it was submitted, and let the field determine what is useful and what is not. The monograph reflects the state of my knowledge of the site in 1975. I have edited the text for clarity, but I have not materially changed any descriptions, comparisons, conclusions or discussions from the original, nor added anything based upon subsequent knowledge or publications.

Viewing the work from the perspective of 40 years later, obviously much has changed, but many issues current then are not completely resolved today. I did not have access to Marvin Cohodas’ thesis, submitted in 1974 and published in 1978 on the Great Ball Court. I visited John Bolles in San Francisco to discuss the Monjas, but his monograph was not published until 1977. At Chichén Itzá in 1974, the Osario (3C1) and Temple of the Big Tables (2D7) were virtually piles

iii

of rubble; today they are restored and we know that, like the Temple of the Warriors-Chacmool Temple relationship, there was an earlier structure within the Big Tables. INAH work in these areas and in the Group of the Initial series adds greatly to knowledge of architecture, stratigraphy and iconography (Schmidt 2007). In the early 1970s, the inscriptions at Chichén Itzá were understood through the work of Morley, Thompson, Beyer, Proskouriakoff and others, but information beyond dating was limited and historical interpretation in its earliest stages; now, the inscriptions are interpreted within the context of the great advances in Maya epigraphy and both detailed studies at Chichén Itzá and more regional approaches (e.g. Grube and Krochock 2007). The inscriptions shed light, unavailable before, on individuals, descent, gods, ceremonies, political structure, regional affiliations, language, functions of buildings and sequencing.

Interestingly, issues of regional chronology have not been completely resolved in the interim. The relationships of Chichén Itzá, both chronological and processual, with the Puuc sites and sites elsewhere on the peninsula, such as Coba, Yaxuna, Ek Balam and others, are insufficiently understood. Indeed, both ends of the chronology of Chichén Itzá remain fuzzy, both in absolute and relative chronology. Ceramic sequences are coming into better focus, but interpretation is fluid. Sotuta Ceramic Complex ceramics predominate at Chichén Itzá, but Cepech ceramics also occur, and the amount of overlap, chronologically or geographically, is not settled. Cobos recognizes earlier and later phases of Sotuta ceramics, the former associated with the area of the Monjas and the later with the architectural sequence on the Great Plaza (2007:326), underscoring the chronological separation suggested by the architecture.

The roles of ethnohistory and ethnicity at Chichén Itzá and in its external relations remain elusively complex. The identity and roles of Maya, Itzá, and Toltec at Chichén Itzá, or mythic/historical figures such as Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan, are still debated subjects (Gillespie 2007). A recent review of stratigraphic, ceramic, sculptural and architectural evidence may indicate that elements of the Toltec exchange were earlier at Chichén Itzá than at Tula (Bey III and Ringle 2007:414-420), which was earlier suggested by Kubler mostly on the basis of architecture (1961, 1962). The issue of influence to and from Chichén Itzá has broadened beyond focus on relationships with Tula to other areas of Mesoamerica. Political and governmental structure at Chichén Itzá has received robust discussion, whether the model is divine kingship following the Classic Maya example, dual rulership, governing council, or some mixture of these. Interpretation of iconography at Chichén Itzá has much advanced, such as at the Great Ball Court and the Chacmool/Warriors complex (Kowalski 2007).

This monograph considers some of these issues, others not at all. This study analyzes the sequence of construction on the Great Plaza (compare Chapter II with Bey III and Ringle 2007:407-413) and then mainly focuses upon individual buildings and structures with similar

iv

characteristics elsewhere at Chichén Itzá, and groups of buildings with similar configurations in relation to each other in different parts of the site, such as the buildings on the east side of the Great Plaza and positions of similar structures in relation to each other on the east-central section of the Court of the Thousand Columns, or similarities in building types and arrangements between the Group of the Initial Series and the Southwest Group. Similar configurations probably indicate similar functions of groups of buildings, but I did not speculate what those functions might be. Better mapping and more recent excavations offer the opportunity for much better understanding of overall site organization and internal dynamics, such as much new information about the functions of sacbeob at the site.

The Center for Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley funded the work at Chichén Itzá in 1974, a Dean’s Fellowship supported the writing, and a Regents’ Grant-in-Aid helped prepare the manuscript, which I completed in the spring of 1976. I wish to acknowledge with thanks once again my dissertation committee: John A. Graham, Robert F. Heizer and Richard D. Ambro. All photos are by the author, taken in 1974.

References Cited

Bey, George J., III and William M. Ringle2007 From the Bottom Up: The Timing and Nature of the Tula-Chichén Itzá Exchange. In Twin

Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 377-427. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Bolles, John S.1977 Las Monjas: A Major Pre-Mexican Architectural Complex at Chichén Itzá.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Cobos, Rafael2007 Multepal or Centralized Kingship? New Evidence on Governmental Organization at

Chichén Itzá. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 315-343. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Cohodas, Marvin1978 The Great Ball Court at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico. Garland Press.

Gillespie, Susan D.2007 Toltecs, Tula and Chichén Itzá: The Development of an Archaeological Myth. In Twin

Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 85-127. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

v

Grube, Nikolai and Ruth J. Krochock2007 Reading between the Lines: Hieroglyphic Texts from Chichén Itzá and Its Neighbors. In

Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 205-249. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Kowalski, Jeff Karl2007 What’s “Toltec” at Uxmal and Chichén Itzá? Merging Maya and Mesoamerican

Worldviews and World Systems in Terminal Classic to Early Postclassic Yucatán. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 251-313. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Kubler, George1961 Chichén Itzá y Tula. Estudios de Cultura Maya I:47-80. Mexico, D.F.

1962 From the Toltec Maya to the Spaniards. In The Art and Architecture of Ancient America, pp. 174-208. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Schmidt, Peter J.2007 Birds, Ceramics and Cacao: New Excavations at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. In Twin Tollans:

Chichén Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 151-203. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Smith, Michael E.2007 Tula and Chichén Itzá: Are We Asking the Right Questions? In Twin Tollans: Chichén

Itzá, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, pp. 579-617. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Dedication

To Sylvanus Morley, who never lost his appreciation for the romance of archaeology;

To Earl Morris, who brought his talents honed in the Southwest to Chichén Itzá; and

To Karl Ruppert, who accomplished so much of the groundwork archaeology at Chichén Itzá.

Red Jaguar Throne, Castillo-sub,which Morley called the “most important single object everdiscovered in the Maya area” (1947:Table XI)

1

IntroductionThis monograph explores the relationship of architecture, chronology, and history at the site of Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico. The aim is to work from a detailed study of the architecture of Chichén Itzá to produce an architectural history of the site, to suggest a sequence of construction, and to tie it to the regional chronology of Yucatán. Then, it examines the place of Chichén Itzá in the later Pre-Columbian history of Yucatán, based almost entirely on archaeological information rather than strictly historical sources.

As an architectural investigation, it is a comprehensive monograph of the site of Chichén Itzá with both diachronic and synchronic dimensions. Given the goal of suggesting an architectural history of the site, one aspect of the architectural study is concerned with changes that can be observed through time. In addition, similarities or differences in plan and orientation of certain types of buildings, or different courtyard organization in the central sections compared to the outlying groups, suggest functional differences sometimes independent of temporal considerations. Techniques of architectural construction, floor plans, and building decoration reveal differences between the constructions of Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá that builds on the work of Ruppert and Tozzer. This is not a study of architecture for its own sake, although a synthetic, comprehensive discussion of the architecture of Chichén Itzá is long overdue; it attempts to integrate the architectural archaeology and chronology of this commanding site with the later prehistory of the Maya area.

The chronological aspects of this study have both local and regional significance. The chronology of Chichén Itzá is based upon the architectural sequence at the site, while ceramic, epigraphic, and radiocarbon data provide evidence for alternative interpretations of the chronology. Working toward absolute dating of the architectural periods at Chichén Itzá offers the possibility of better understanding the regional chronology of the northern Maya lowlands. The evidence will support more than one interpretation of the chronology of Chichén Itzá. These variable possibilities for dating the site are considered within the context of alternative interpretations of the stratigraphy and chronology of the Puuc sites in relation to the ceremonial centers of the southern Maya lowlands (Andrews IV 1960, 1965a, 1973; Thompson 1941, 1945, 1970a).

A study of the architecture of Chichén Itzá alone cannot settle the problems of the regional chronology of Yucatán, but it frames issues of the archaeology of the northern Maya lowlands from the perspective of the major Postclassic site in Yucatán. This critical consideration of the evidence, rather than a definitive statement favoring one view or the other, is the contribution of the study to Mesoamerican archaeology.

2

The relationship between chronology and the later Pre-Columbian history of Yucatán is made clearer by viewing regional stratigraphic and chronological problems within the context of the development of Maya archaeology in the northern lowlands. Almost 140 years after Stephens first visited the area, and over 50 years since major excavations began in Yucatán, uncertainties remain concerning the stratigraphic and chronological relationship of the Pure Florescent sites of the Puuc area with the Classic Maya centers to the south. Briefly, the question is the absolute dating of the Puuc florescence and whether these sites are contemporaneous with or later than the southern centers of the Late Classic period. These important stratigraphic and chronological problems remain because of a lack of problem orientation characteristic of much of the archaeological work in Yucatán. The availability of historical sources bears some responsibility, because even before major archaeological work was attempted in the area, Pre-Columbian histories of Yucatán were written based on Spanish writings and native chronicles (Morley 1911, 1917). The detailed histories that could be produced by using these sources led to less problem orientation in archaeological investigations than would be expected even in those early years, simply because historical answers were available to questions that should have been asked of archaeology. It was on the basis of these sources that Morley came to believe the Puuc sites represented a cultural renaissance following the collapse of the Classic Maya centers of the southern lowlands.

This interpretation, that the Puuc centers represented a Maya florescence in the northern lowlands following the collapse of the southern sites, remained the dominant view for many years. Beginning in the late 1930’s, based on epigraphic and ceramic evidence, and with a new interpretation of the historical documents, J. Eric Thompson championed the view that the Puuc sites were essentially contemporaneous with the Late Classic sites of the southern lowlands (Thompson 1937, 1941; Brainerd 1941). Thompson stated his conclusion strongly in a later paper (1945:8):

It is now amply clear that this style does not represent a renaissance of Maya culture but is contemporaneous with the great buildings of the central area which flourished in the classical age.

Thompson’s latest statement on this subject reaffirmed his earlier writings (1970a: 3-47).

Until a few years ago there was little to disturb the complacent acceptance of the Thompson-Brainerd interpretation of the archaeology of the northern lowlands, except a disquieting paucity of Late Classic trade wares and Maya long count dates associated with Puuc architecture. The archaeological fly in the ointment has since come with the excavations by E. Wyllys Andrews IV at Dzibilchaltún, one of the longest continuously inhabited sites in northern Yucatán (1960,

3

1962, 1965a, 1965b). One of the problems in the archaeology of the northern lowlands has always been the lack of sites with extended periods of occupation, which has led in part to the confusion about the cultural stratigraphy and regional chronology. Dzibilchaltún has the advantage of continuous occupation over a long archaeological sequence, which according to Andrews not only confirms the Pure Florescent-Modified Florescent-Decadent period sequence, but also indicates the Puuc or Pure Florescent sites of the northern lowlands are later than and not contemporary with the Tepeu 2 ceramic phase in the southern lowlands. Andrews defended his observations concerning the stratigraphic position of the Puuc sites in relation to the Late Classic southern centers until the end of his life, and his work is supported by other Tulane archaeologists and by ceramic testing from Uxmal and Kabah (Andrews IV 1973; Ball and Andrews V 1975; Smith 1971). In spite of this opinion of various scholars working in the northern Mara lowlands, this view still seems to be a minority report among Maya archaeologists (Willey and Shimkin 1973:470-472).

This problem of the relationship of the Puuc sites to the southern centers goes to the very heart of historical problems in the Yucatecan lowlands, as indeed it does to the later Pre-Columbian history of the entire Maya area. An architectural and chronological study of Chichén Itzá cannot, unfortunately, settle these important problems in Maya archaeology, but including Chichén Itzá in a detailed discussion of the regional archaeology brings into sharper focus and makes more explicit the factors favoring differing views.

The ground becomes less firm as one moves from observation and description of architecture, to the construction of an architectural history for a site as large as Chichén Itzá, then linking this architectural sequence to absolute dates, and ultimately making historical statements from the architectural study. Most authors who have written archaeological history of Chichén Itzá and the northern Maya lowlands have relied heavily upon the available written sources to interpret the late Maya archaeology of the peninsula. Thompson cautions that the archaeologist neglects this wealth of ethnohistory at his peril (1970a:47). Whereas it is certainly desirable ultimately to link the archaeology and ethnohistory, reliance on ethnohistoric data to interpret the archaeological remains of Yucatán has led to confusing and conflicting statements about the prehistory of Yucatán and to the lack of problem orientation in archaeological investigations. This monograph does not try to reconcile the ethnohistoric information with the archaeological data, but attempts to understand the later Pre-Columbian history of the Maya area directly from hard archaeological materials. The imprecision of our archaeological and chronological knowledge makes this difficult but nonetheless important so that ethnohistoric sources can be more accurately interpreted in future.

4

Establishing a general sequence of construction at Chichén Itzá is a fundamental step in creating a chronological framework for the site. The method relates buildings of unknown stratigraphic relationships to a known stratigraphic sequence. The longest sequence at the site is from the main plaza, where the Castillo-sub, West Colonnade, Castillo, Chac Mool Temple, Temple of the Warriors, Northwest Colonnade, Temple of the Big Tables, and the North Colonnade stand in stratigraphic relationship to each other (Morris, Charlot, and Morris 1931). This basic sequence provides referents against which other buildings of unknown stratigraphic provenience may be compared. Sometimes this is not possible. One of the first problems encountered, considering the desire to construct an architectural chronology for the site, is the lack of stratigraphic associations for many of the buildings at Chichén Itzá. This is particularly a problem with the outlying groups, but even on the Court of the Columns, where several important structures have been tested or completely excavated, basic stratigraphic relationships are conspicuously unknown. The emphasis on restoration of major buildings at Chichén Itzá too often excluded pursuit of stratigraphic, architectural, and sculptural evidence that might have clarified relationships with other buildings. In addition, the concentration of archaeological work in the central sections of Chichén Itzá led to the current lack of knowledge of the archaeology of the outlying groups.

This regrettable situation forces many structures to be placed tentatively in the sequence based on similarities or differences in plan, construction techniques, or associated sculpture. In addition to the complications caused by the lack of excavations in certain areas, this method of analyzing architectural history involves new problems. Some of these difficulties concern interpretation of similarities or differences in any two structures. Do similarities in any two buildings indicate close temporal relationship, or later copying of an earlier model? Do differences represent temporal distance, or distinct architectural preferences constructed about the same time? There is no single answer to this question, and probably both situations occur at Chichén Itzá. This is a classic archaeological problem, and each must be decided on the basis of the best evidence available in each particular case. Sometimes one can suggest placement of buildings between better-known structures in the sequence regarding time of construction, but the lack of more exact categorization makes strict periodization difficult. Although a general outline of the architectural history of Chichén Itzá emerges, specific statements about individual buildings perforce remain tenuous. A further problem is the qualitative interpretation of similarities or differences in sculpture, loosely termed style. Style here refers to judgments concerning the degree of perceived relatedness between two sculptures or sets of sculpture. Features or elements from the massive amount of sculpture from Chichén Itzá normally are not quantified. Observations of stylistic similarity will be confirmed or not based upon more detailed work or better evidence.

5

Ruppert’s 1952 volume on the architectural notes and plans of Chichén Itzá is an invaluable source to understand the architectural archaeology of the site. Tozzer’s monumental study of Chichén Itzá contains over 700 illustrations and detailed discussion of the archaeology of the site (1957). Marquina’s volume on the architecture of Mesoamerica is an important source (1964), and for the Great Ball Court Maudslay is still best (1889-1902, Volume 3, cited hereafter Maudslay 3:). The report of the excavations at the complex of the Temple of the Warriors is important for the stratigraphic information, architectural details, pictures, and drawings it contains (Morris, Charlot, and Morris 1931), and finally, the long article on Chichén Itzá by the prolific German scholar Eduard Seler is still important for his illustrations and discussion of the site (Seler 1902-1923, Volume 5:197-388, hereafter cited Seler 5:).

The buildings of Chichén Itzá are known by a number that refers to their position within the numbered and lettered quadrants of the map of the site produced by Kilmartin and O’Neill, which is reprinted with revisions in Ruppert (1952:Fig. 151). On the map, buildings are individually numbered within rectangles designated 1-7 north to south and A-E west to east. In addition, many of the structures at the site are known by a descriptive or popular name, like the Temple of the Big Tables or the Temple of the Initial Series (structures 2D7 and 5C4 respectively on the Kilmartin-O’Neill map). This monograph often refers to structures by name if they have one and by number if they do not, following Ruppert (1952). A named structure that is not well known, like the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1), is often referenced by both name and number, but well-known structures like the Castillo or the Temple of the Warriors generally are not identified by number.

The terminology used by Andrews is better than any other for the regional archaeological sequence. Throughout this volume the term Pure Florescent refers to the twenty-odd Puuc-related buildings at Chichén Itzá, following Andrews. This work does not use the term Florescent to encompass both the Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent periods in the way Andrews does, and it limits the term to architecture only of the Puuc style in agreement with Andrews V (Ball and Andrews V 1975:242, note 3). I use the term Modified Florescent in the sense used by Andrews.

6

Map of Chichén Itzá by J.O. Kilmartin and J.P. O’NeillRuppert 1952:Fig. 151

7

I. Pure Florescent Architecture of Chichén Itzá

Chichén Itzá was an important center during the Pure Florescent period in Yucatán, and the approximately twenty structures that date to this period at the site make it equal in size or larger than many of the Puuc sites. If a building is not completely in ruins it is relatively easy to identify it as a Pure Florescent construction based on criteria which fall into three categories: floor plan, construction techniques, and decoration. Each of the buildings assigned to the Pure Florescent period at Chichén Itzá is identified by features from at least two of the three categories.

Temple of the Three Lintels (7B3)

Temple of the Four Lintels (7B4)

Temple of the Three Lintels: Plan, Facades and Section Ruppert 1952:Fig. 109

Ruppert 1952:Fig. 109

One can identify almost all of the Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá on the basis of floor plan alone, although other features are usually present that confirm the classification (Ruppert 1952:1-2, Tozzer 1957:23-24). The simplest plan is a single room entered through a narrow doorway, like the Iglesia, but most of the floor plans are multi-room designs. A common plan is a longitudinal row of chambers, the design of the House of the Deer (3C7), the Temple of the Three Lintels (7B3), and struc-tures 5B22 in the Southwest Group and 7B2, west of the Temple of the Three Lintels.

8

Most of the other Pure Florescent floor plans are variations of this theme. One elaboration was simply to add a long parallel outer chamber to the longitudinal row of rooms, a design utilized at the Red House (3C9) and structure 5B25 of the Southwest Group. Builders often added transverse chambers, sometimes to a single room as seen in structures 5B7 and 5A4, or to a single longitudinal row of rooms as in structure 5D2. When two or more longitudinal rows of rooms were constructed in parallel, with transverse chambers at the ends, the result is the so-called “palace” structure, represented at Chichén Itzá by the East Wing of the Monjas, the second story of the Monjas, the Akab Dzib (4D1), and the House of the Phalli (5C14—see the plan in Chapter VI).

House of the Deer (3C7)


9

Red House (3C9), with Caracol in right background

Red House (3C9) Ruppert 1952:Fig. 30




10




Akab Dzib (4D1) Ruppert 1952:Fig. 60

11

Most of the Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá have one of the basic floor plans outlined above; only four structures of unknown or atypical design are exceptions.

The Temple of the Four Lintels (7B4), a building now much in ruin, has a small chamber at the east end with a slightly larger addition to the west (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 109, 150a, b). The asymmetry of this building does not identify it as a Pure Florescent construction, but the four hieroglyphic lintels and its location at the site indicate it is from this period.

Another asymmetrical structure is 5B3, a building not identical in plan to any other Pure Florescent construction at Chichén Itzá, but clearly derived from Classic Maya designs. It has the same plan, for example, as structure H at Nakum (Marquina 1964:Pl. 170).

One of the remaining buildings, the House of the Shells (5C5) adjacent the House of the Phalli, is too much in ruin to determine accurately its floor plan. It is considered a Pure Florescent structure because of the engaged columns at the corners of the building.

The final structure, the Temple of the One Lintel (7B1), is the most problematic of all the buildings that may be Pure Florescent constructions. It is placed in this period because of its hieroglyphic lintel, but the temple itself is a typical, and quite common, Modified Florescent design. It is a small two-chambered structure entered through a triple doorway with two round

columns, and if this temple truly dates to the Pure Florescent period it is the earliest example of this type of structure at the site. There are many examples from the peninsula to document the use of columns in doorways before the Modified Florescent period in Yucatán, and the Temple of the One Lintel may indeed be a Pure Florescent construction; on the other hand there is the possibility the hieroglyphic lintel is reused in this otherwise typical Modified Florescent structure.

Because floor plans are an excellent indicator of types of structures at Chichén Itzá, it is appropriate to enumerate some types of buildings found only in the Modified Florescent. One of the most notable features of the later period at the site is the column, which was boldly used to create freestanding colonnades and colonnades attached to buildings, to form the triple doorways or longer entrances built into almost every Modified Florescent structure at the site, and to vastly broaden interior space by use inside chambers to support the vaults. The frequent use of multiple columns is a distinctly Modified Florescent trait, and indeed nowhere else in Mesoamerica was the column employed with such architectural daring and resultant success than at Chichén Itzá. In addition to the various types of structures made possible by the use of the column, other types of buildings at the site are found only as Modified Florescent constructions. Gallery patio structures, like the Mercado (3D11), are very important buildings during the later period at the site, but they are

12

not present in Pure Florescent times. Eight of the nine ball courts at Chichén Itzá and vicinity are demonstrably Modified Florescent constructions. Certain other types of structures are absent from the earlier period, among which are two-chambered buildings in general, sweat houses, and contiguous blocks of rooms which grew by accretion, including the annexes of the Monjas and Caracol and the block of rooms adjacent to and south of the House of the Phalli. Probably also absent from the earlier period are courtyard platforms, but these are usually too destroyed to make identification certain. These types of structures, while found at Chichén Itzá, are not a part of the Pure Florescent architectural stock.

The second way Pure Florescent buildings can be distinguished from structures of the Modified Florescent is by fundamental differences in the techniques of construction (Ruppert 1952:1-2). Pure Florescent structures were constructed on a basal plinth or sometimes a low platform that was usually decorated,

display vertical lower facades in contrast to the common basal batter of the Modified Florescent, and use stone lintels in the earlier buildings, whereas Modified Florescent architects incorporated predominately wooden lintels to span wider areas. Pure Florescent buildings were often constructed on large platforms and built with large stones deeply tenoned, in contrast to the pyramidal substructures of the later period faced with well cut veneer-like stones. In Pure Florescent structures, there is a riser, a step up, as you pass from outer to inner rooms, while in Modified Florescent buildings the inner room is characteristically at the same level as the outer chamber. These typical Pure Florescent construction techniques usually contrast with the methods employed by the builders of the Modified Florescent period. In well-preserved or excavated structures one can identify most or all of these features, but in some of the most ruined buildings one might recognize only one or two of these diagnostic traits.

Monjas (4C1) Monjas Plan & Section, Marquina 1964:Pl. 259

13

Building decoration, much of which can be segregated into Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent types, is the third way to distinguish the structures of the two periods. Various forms of decoration occur on the low building platforms, facades, and roofs of Pure Florescent buildings. Although the basement that supports the Iglesia and the low platform under the sec-ond story of the Monjas are both plain, the low platforms beneath the East Wing of the Monjas and the Temple of the Three Lintels are decorat-ed. Tunnels along the north and south facades of the East Wing, which penetrate the great platform of the Monjas, reveal the decoration of the low building platform of the East Wing, which is buried today by the present terrace level. On the south side the platform decoration consists of at least two large “X” elements, four times the size of the typical lattice stone, alternating with at least two equally large cylinders or drums. The northern exposure reveals a platform decoration

of large step-fret motifs alternating with at least two of the column or drum elements. Bolles’s drawing of the east facade of the East Wing shows three drums alternating with the step fret motif, presumably the design on the front that has been carried around to the side, only to change on the south face of the platform (Marquina 1964:Photo 415). The design of the platform decoration at the Temple of the Three Lintels also changes from the front to the rear, where alternating cylinders and step-frets on the south side of the building platform give way to a pure lattice decoration across the front, with masks forming the north corners of the platform while single drums mark the change in design at the south corners (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 108, 149a, b). The super-structure of the Red House is built on a low platform slightly different from those just described, for here a single course of “X” shaped lattice stones, encased between single plain horizontal courses of stone, circles the building (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 30).

Iglesia East Wing of the Monjas

14

Facades of Pure Florescent buildings may be plain except for the medial molding and cor-nice (Akab Dzib, Red House, House of the Deer), or decorated above the medial molding (Three Lintels, Iglesia, Monjas Southeast Annex), below the medial molding (second story of the Monjas), or both above and below the medial molding (East Wing of the Monjas). Masks were a favorite facade decoration of the Pure Florescent architects, and their frequent appearance on later structures attests to their popularity as well with Modified Florescent builders. Lattice work, composed osingle “I” shaped stones, seems to be restricted to the Pure Florescent period, and courses withGreek key designs, step-fret motifs, diagonal denticulates, and groups of cylinders or half-columns are other motifs popular with Pure Florescent builders. This list is not exhaustive, particularly considering the complex east façade of the East Wing of the Monjas, but it covers many of the features of Pure Florescent façade decoration at Chichén Itzá. Sometimes single elements combine to form more complex patterns, as on the lower façades of the second story of the Monjas, where on the eastern and western façades diagonal denticulates form a lattice design, while on the long north and south façades elements derived from mask panels, from cylinder bundles, and a rosette element combine to form a geometric design. The engaged column at the corner of buildings is another element of Pure Florescent façade decoration. It is found at the Temple of the Three Lintels, the House of the Shells (5C5), and structure 7B2.

Roof combs and flying facades are the final features of Pure Florescent architecture that are decorated with mask panels and geometric designs. The Red House displays both these features, while the Iglesia and House of the Deer have only flying facades. Three masks form the main decoration of the flying facades of the Red House and the Iglesia, whereas the flying facade of the House of the Deer rises in two zones separated by a band molding. The horizontal lines of this flying facade are broken by regularly spaced rectangular openings in the lower zone (Ruppert 1952:41, Fig. 28).

Types of sculptural ornamentation associated with buildings also differ in the two periods. Anthropomorphic and human forms, as well as representations of mythological creatures, are generally rare in Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá. Mask panels are the most common representation of deity; otherwise, anthropomorphic forms include the four figures on the upper facade of the Iglesia, best interpreted as representations of the bacabs (Thompson 1970b:476), and the figure above the doorway of the East Wing of the Monjas.

Red House from the south, showing roof comb (center) and flying façade (left)

15

Hieroglyphic inscriptions are common on stone lintels above doorways, and at the Akab Dzib an inscription is associated with the carving of a seated human figure on the soffit of the lintel. This is not the only example of human figures on a stone lintel from the Chichén Itzá area, but it is the only one in situ in a building of the Pure Florescent period (Beyer 1937:Pl.2). In summary, sculpture in low relief usually consists of masks and geometric forms on platforms, facades, roof combs and flying facades, and hieroglyphic inscriptions on stone lintels. Sculpture in full round is virtually unknown from Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá.

This contrasts sharply with Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, where low relief sculpture occurs in considerable variety on walls, columns,

pilasters, jambs, lintels, building facades, facings of substructures, stairway ramps, ball court rings, and altars. Sculpture in the round is relatively common during the Modified Florescent period, when some of the forms were serpent heads and serpent columns, large and small atlanteans, chac mools, jaguar thrones, standard bearers, roof ornaments, animal figures, incensarios, and other sundry sculptures. Therefore, like floor plans and basic techniques of construction, the variety and distribution of sculpture in the two periods are fundamental criteria for distinguishing Pure Florescent from Modified Florescent constructions. On the basis of the presence or absence of some these features, the following structures are the Pure Florescent constructions at Chichén Itzá.

Kilmartin and O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

16

Pure Florescent North

• East Wing of the Monjas (4C1)• Second story of the Monjas (4C1) • Akab Dzib (4D1)• House of the Deer (3C7)

• Iglesia (4C1)• Monjas Southeast Annex (4C1)• Red House (3C9)


Pure Florescent Intermediate Area

• House of the Phalli (5C14) Structures 5A3, 5A4, 5B3, 5B7, 5B22, 5B25, 5D2

• House of the Shells (5C5)


17

Pure Florescent South

• Temple of the Three Lintels (7B3) Structure 7B2

• Temple of the Four Lintels (7B4)

The Caracol is not included in this list, although it is sometimes considered to be a Pure Florescent construction. I have discussed the Caracol at length with the Modified Florescent structures in south-central Chichén Itzá; it is clear, however, that the building is very closely tied architecturally with Pure Florescent structures, and certainly no great amount of time elapsed between the construction of the Caracol and some of the Pure Florescent buildings. The problems of classifying the Temple of the One Lintel have been discussed. Architecturally, the Temple of the One Lintel cannot be considered a Pure Florescent construction, but the hieroglyphic lintel obviously dates from that period (Tozzer 1957:23, Table 2). Structure 5D4 may also be a Pure Florescent construction, but it, like structure 5B20, which Tozzer also classified as a Pure Florescent edifice, is not known in enough detail to make identification certain.

Little is known of the sequence of construction and the stratigraphic relationships of the Pure Florescent structures of Chichén Itzá. The longest sequence is at the Monjas, where construction clearly developed over a period of years. Today the great bulk of the Monjas platforms, which tunnels and collapsed portions of the building reveal to be three in number, cover portions of the East Wing. The second story of the Monjas rests atop these platforms, and on top of this is the small Modified

Florescent structure sometimes referred to as the third story. Although the evidence gained from exploration of the tunnels into the Monjas platforms is not unequivocally clear, it seems that the East Wing is partially enveloped by, and therefore earlier than, the second large Monjas platform. Since the second story seems to be built directly on this second platform, the East Wing appears earlier than the second story. Unfortunately the present tunnels do not demonstrate the relationship between the first Monjas platform and the East Wing, but the third massive platform is obviously the latest, and covers even more of the East Wing.

Bolles’s excavations revealed that the first Monjas terrace extended under the Iglesia, and that two extensions to the east were made before the Iglesia was built (Bolles 1963). Further excavations probably indicate the Southeast Annex was built after the Iglesia, so the sequence from earliest to latest appears to be East Wing, Iglesia, Southeast Annex. The relationship of the second story of the Monjas to the Iglesia and the Southeast Annex is unclear, except that they all seem to be later than the East Wing. Most of the Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá are solitary buildings, and, stratigraphic relationships with nearby Pure Florescent structures usually are not known. Important Pure Florescent buildings such as the Temple of the Three Lintels, House of the Phalli, Akab Dzib, Red House,

18

House of the Deer, and all the less well-known Pure Florescent structures cannot be related stratigraphically to each other.

At least four of the outlying Modified Florescent groups at Chichén Itzá developed around Pure Florescent constructions: the Group of the Initial Series around the House of the Phalli and the House of the Shells, the Southwest Group around structures 5B22 and 5B25, the Group of the Bird Cornice around 5A3 and 5A4, and structures 5D1 and 5D3 around 5D2. In spite of this, there little direct stratigraphic evidence that Pure Florescent architecture is indeed earlier than Modified Florescent building. The Monjas annexes and the third floor, Modified Florescent constructions, are later than the Pure Florescent Monjas, and to the north the Red House Ball Court and what appears to be a Modified Florescent colonnade

extension from the base of the House of the Deer are later than the two adjacent Pure Florescent buildings. In the south the House of the Phalli is earlier than the Modified Florescent courtyard to the south and the other buildings on the present courtyard level to the north. In the Southwest Group the Modified Florescent structure 5B23 abuts Pure Florescent 5B22, and the southern addition to 5A4 is probably a Modified Florescent addition to a Pure Florescent building. This is about all the direct stratigraphic evidence that shows that one of the architectural styles is earlier than the other.

The time span of the development of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá is not known, but there are abbreviated dates associated with some of the structures. Thompson interpreted these dates and some others from the Chichén area (1937, 1950:199):

Inscription Long Count Calendar Round Haab

Trough Lintel 10.1.17.5.13 11 Ben 11 Cumku? 18Trough Lintel 10.1.18.6.5 6 Chicchan 18 Cumku?? 19Red House 10.2.0.11.3 5 Akbal 1 Zec?? 1Red House 10.2.0.15.3 7 Akbal 1 Ch’en 1Halakal 10.2.0.7.9 9 Muluc 7 Pop?? 1Akab Dzib 10.2.1.0.0 1 Yula 1 10.2.4.8.4 8 Kan 2 Pop? 5Yula 2 10.2.4.8.12 3 Eb 10 Pop 5One Lintel 10.2.15.0.0 15 Initial Series 10.2.9.1.9 9 Muluc 7 Zac 10 Three Lintels 10.2.10.0.0 Monjas 10.2.10.11.7 8 Manik 15 Uo 11 Four Lintels 10.2.12.1.8 9 Lamat 11 Yax 13 Four Lintels 10.2.12.2.4 12 Kan 7 Zac? 13

19

Remarkably, these dates only span a period of about 18 years, with the majority falling in the katun between 10.2.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0. We know very little about the time necessary to build a ceremonial center, but if these are the dedicatory dates of the respective buildings, we must accept that Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá was built in an incredibly short span of time. Even if the dates are considered commemorative or historical, recording some form of special events rather than the dedicatory dates of the buildings, one might still expect that the inscriptions would convey a wider span of time. Unfortunately, there are no epigraphic dates on the East Wing of the Monjas, the Iglesia, or the Southeast Annex, three structures related stratigraphically, and at least one of which appears to be earlier than the second story of the Monjas with the dated lintels. Two of the structures lacking dated hieroglyphic inscriptions may be two of the earliest Pure Florescent structures at the site, the East Wing of the Monjas and the House of the Phalli. These are the two most similar palace structures on the basis of floor plan, and Tozzer grouped the two buildings on “the heavy character of their stone walls and vaults” (1957:23). The East Wing of the Monjas is probably the earliest extant building at that location, and there is some very tenuous evidence that the House of the Phalli may be an earlier structure than the Temple of the Three Lintels. Engaged columns at the corner of buildings might represent a temporally restricted building practice, and Vaillant thought that stratigraphic evidence showed

that the House of the Shells with its engaged columns was later than the House of the Phalli (Ruppert 1952:157-162). The second story of the Monjas and the Akab Dzib, with dates only nine years apart, also share heavy masonry platforms as part of their architectural design. Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá may have been a rapid architectural development, but known hieroglyphic dates probably do not represent the earliest phases of architectural activity at the site.

Little evidence of city planning exists in the arrangement of the Pure Florescent structures of Chichén Itzá. Some buildings are solitary, but structures in groups demonstrate little formal arrangement and almost no indication of courtyard development. The Monjas, the Iglesia, and the Southeast Annex define certain spatial boundaries that might be more properly termed corner areas than courtyards, and the same is true for the space that would be defined by only the House of the Phalli and the House of the Shells. To the south, the Temple of the Three Lintels and structure 7B2 seem to be built on the same terrace, but their parallel orientation to the northeast defines no space between the buildings. The buildings of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá that are most formally oriented toward courtyard formation are the Red House and the House of the Deer, and there is an interesting parallel in this orientation with two buildings to the south. Structure 5B22 in the Southwest Group, like the House of the Deer, is a structure of three longitudinal rooms facing south, and to the east of these structures are buildings with a

20

row of longitudinal chambers entered through a single long parallel chamber, the Red House and structure 5B25. Although the buildings in the Southwest Group are not built upon large platforms like the House of the Deer and the Red House, similarities in plan and orientation are too similar to be fortuitous, and the two groups of buildings may have served similar functions.

The Pure Florescent nuclear area at Chichén Itzá includes the Monjas and its associated structures, Akab Dzib, Red House and House of the Deer. Other Pure Florescent constructions cluster in the south and west portions of the site, and there are no demonstrable Pure Florescent structures north of the House of the Deer. Since the cenotes of Chichén Itzá were presumably a significant if not preeminent reason for first settlement at this location on the peninsula, the lack of Pure Florescent construction in the area of the sacred cenote, or at least further to the north, must call into question the importance of the “cenote cult” before the Modified

Florescent period. The Xtoloc Cenote, which has easy access to water level, is located about 275 meters directly east of the courtyard of the Red House and House of the Deer complex.

One cannot separate the chronology of the Chichén Itzá Pure Florescent from the general chronological problems of Pure Florescent Yucatán, and this discussion is more properly conducted in the final chapter of this monograph. The architectural changes are well defined between Pure Florescent and Modified Pure Florescent times, and although there is some general continuity through the two styles, one can usually identify buildings as from one or the other period based on recognized architectural features. Chichén Itzá was a site of respectable size during the Pure Florescent period, but it was a massive site that dominated the peninsula in Modified Florescent times. Study of Modified Florescent architecture will help elucidate the archaeological history of Yucatán.

21

II. Stratigraphic Sequence of Construction on the Great Plaza

One must work from the best evidence available to understand the architectural development of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. The excavations at the Temple of the Warriors and related edifices provide the best stratigraphic record of building activity during this period, and this sequence of construction from the Great Plaza provides the framework for reference of the architecture of the rest of the site. The excavations by Earl Morris at the Temple of the Warriors, the Chac Mool Temple, and the related colonnades, when tied to the sequence of building at the Castillo, yield not only the best, but also the longest stratigraphic record known for the site. One must analyze the results and implications of these excavations before attempting an architectural synthesis of the site. Morris, Charlot and Morris provide the sequence of construction of the buildings on the main plaza that follows (1931:165-177).

Great Plaza, Kilmartin & O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

22

The massive excavations at the Temple of the Warriors complex indicate that the earliest construction was the West Colonnade (Structure 3D1, Morris 1952:58-59). This colonnade faces west, and contained 228 columns, 196 columns in four rows in the north-south range, and 32 columns in four rows in the west extension. It provided an eastern boundary of the main plaza upon which was built the Castillo and the Great Ball Court. This colonnade was oriented with the eastern base of the first terrace of the Castillo. This terrace, and the terrace upon which the West Colonnade was built, are almost exactly parallel, the latter swinging “eastward from that of the base of the Castillo less than 30.5 cm. in its entire length” (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:166). The Castillo and the West Colonnade were built in relation to each other, with one of the structures oriented to the other. In order to ascertain the chronological nature of this relationship, Morris sank a line of pits across the plaza from a trench south of the junction of the West and the Northwest Colonnades to the northeast corner of the Castillo. Although he did not excavate an unbroken trench all the way across the plaza, the results from the test pits appear unequivocal. The West Colonnade stands upon the original terrace of the Great Plaza, and this terrace descends to bedrock. Builders constructed three floor levels upon this basal terrace between the West Colonnade and the Castillo. Floor 1, the oldest court level, was built upon loose fill that rested on original ground level. Excavators found two subsequent floors above

this original courtyard paving. Floors 1 and 2, the deepest levels, were found in each of the test pits, which were dug every 7.50 to 9.00 meters across the plaza. The latest level, floor 3, was mostly destroyed, although the remains of this floor were found upon the middle floor, floor 2 (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:167). Archaeologists traced this third floor more distinctly in the colonnades.

The trench that intersected the northeast corner of the Castillo revealed that the two lowest floor levels, floors 1 and 2, continued beneath the basal platform of the Castillo. Since the West Colonnade was constructed upon the original terrace lying upon bedrock, and two courtyard pavements lying upon this terrace extend beneath the basal platform of the Castillo, Morris concluded “it is obvious that the West Colonnade was erected before the

West Colonnade (3D1), plan and section detail Ruppert 1952:Fig. 37

23

area where it stands had been reclaimed and incorporated in any previous plan or courts and buildings; also, that it is older than the Castillo” (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:167). Morris encountered no floor levels in pits sunk to bedrock in the West Colonnade itself.

The stratigraphic sequence continues from excavations in the colonnades in front of the Temple of the Warriors. Excavations in the Northwest Colonnade revealed a fourth floor level overlying floor 3 and the northern portion of the terrace of the West Colonnade. This is the floor level of the Demolished Colonnade, a structure associated and contemporaneous with the Chac Mool Temple. Floor 5, the fifth and last floor level of this series, overlies floor 4. This final floor level is that of the Northwest Colonnade, a structure contemporaneous with the Temple of the Warriors. The stratigraphic relationships of these floor levels indicate that the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors both postdate the construction of the Castillo. The final major addition to the Warriors complex was the North Colonnade, which joins the east wall of the Northwest Colonnade just south of the substructure of the Temple of the Warriors.

Morris presented this sequence of construction based upon the most massive excavations at Chichén Itzá up to then. At the time his report went to press for publication in 1931, excavations had not yet revealed the earlier structure beneath the Castillo. Morris predicted that “it is highly probable that the remains of some preexistent structure are ensheathed

within the great pyramid” (1931:173). Further excavations at the Castillo proved this supposition to be correct. The Mexican Government’s tunneling and excavations revealed that the Castillo concealed a major construction within, the Castillo-sub (Erosa Peniche 1947). With the exception of the Castillo-sub, the discussion of the sequence of construction that follows is adapted from Morris (1931:172-177). Initial construction on the main plaza consisted of leveling and paving a first floor level upon the bedrock base and the construction of the West Colonnade.

The Castillo-sub may have been built upon this first courtyard level, more or less contemporaneous with the West Colonnade. Since Morris established that the West Colonnade was the earliest structure in his sequence, predating the Castillo and aligned with it, probably no great amount of time elapsed between the construction of the West Colonnade and the Castillo-sub.

Following these initial constructions, builders added floor level 2 over the area covered by floor level 1. This floor was leveled to the height of the lowest terrace of the original West Colonnade, and it extends below the basal platform upon which was erected the Castillo. The possibility exists that the Castillo-sub was built upon this second floor level rather than the first, which would indicate that the Castillo-sub postdates the West Colonnade, but more likely this second floor abuts the platform of the Castillo-sub, as it does the terrace of the West Colonnade, and represents

24

a re-pavement of the first floor level. The floor probably served as a foundation for the bulk of the Castillo, which is built almost directly upon floor 2.

At the same time as the construction of the third court level, builders completed a northern extension of the West Colonnade. There are indications that the Castillo was not completed until this time, for the serpent heads at the foot of the stairway ramps on the north side of the Castillo may rest on this third courtyard level (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:175). As the Castillo neared completion, it appears that architects enlarged the West Colonnade to accord with the imposing grandeur of the new pyramid. They probably placed the serpent heads as the West Colonnade neared completion, possibly indicating a temporal connection between the north extension of the West Colonnade and the completion of the Castillo.

The next phase of construction consisted of removing this northern extension of the West Colonnade. On this cleared area builders constructed the Demolished Colonnade and its associated structure, the Chac Mool Temple. At the same time they removed a portion of the east wall of the West Colonnade and rebuilt it synchronously with the substructure of the Chac Mool Temple. The Demolished Colonnade was then joined at roof level to the West Colonnade, and a continuous roof again ran the length of the colonnades.

Architects then removed the Demolished Colonnade and portions of the Chac Mool

Temple, in preparation for the construction of the Temple of the Warriors and the associated Northwest Colonnade. These two structures were built at the same time, much as had been the earlier Demolished Colonnade and Chac Mool Temple complex. The North Colonnade (Structure 2D10) was the final construction of the Temple of the Warriors complex (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:68-69, 1952:26). The North Colonnade abuts the junction of the West and Northwest Colonnades, and covers and obscures portions of the south face of the pyramid of the Temple of the Warriors. This confirms it as the last major construction in the Warriors complex.

The excavations at the Temple of the Warriors and the trenches across the plaza to the Castillo provide the stratigraphic relationships known for the Great Plaza. Each of these structures displays architectural features that distinguish it from other structures in the sequence. One may compare and contrast architectural features from buildings in the established stratigraphic sequence with stylistic elements from buildings elsewhere at the site. This provides an opportunity to suggest chronological relationships based upon stylistic associations, and to tie structures of unknown stratigraphic position to those in the known sequence.

25

Castillo-sub, plan, elevation, cross section and detailMarquina 1964:Pl. 263

The Castillo-sub may be the earliest structure in the sequence, and it was certainly one of the earliest constructions of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá. Architectural features suggest that the Castillo-sub is a building transitional between the Pure Florescent buildings and the fully developed Modified Florescent constructions at the site. The Castillo-sub shares certain features with Pure Florescent structures that are not usually found in Modified Florescent structures, while other features, not found in Pure Florescent buildings, presage the later architectural style.

26

The Castillo-sub shares more specific elements with the buildings of the Pure Florescent period at Chichén Itzá than it does with Modified Florescent structures at the site. Four design elements of the upper facade, for example, are the same types as those used on Pure Florescent structures. A guilloche design on the facade is similar to one from the East Wing of the Monjas (Erosa Peniche 1947:Fig. 1), and the “I” type lattice stones decorating the facade of the Castillo-sub were a favorite facade decoration of Pure Florescent architects. The diagonally placed saw-toothed elements on the facade of the Castillo-sub also occur on some early period buildings, and the Greek key element, associated with the saw-toothed elements at the Castillo-sub, was also a Pure Florescent decoration. Chichén Puuc buildings provided much of the inspiration, if not the actual material, for the facade decoration of the Castillo-sub. Two other architectural features are characteristic of the earlier period. First is the single step up from outer to inner room of the superstructure, a trait characteristic of Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá (Ruppert 1952:2). A feature as subtle as this step suggests that the persons who built the Castillo-sub were well acquainted with the earlier methods of building, and may have worked on some of the Pure Florescent structures themselves. The second feature is the lack of the basal batter on the outer facade, a trait usually but not always present on Modified Florescent structures and always absent on Pure Florescent buildings. The single doorway is also most likely a design feature of the earlier period. Although

two other Modified Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá have single doorways (1D2 and 5B1), the triple doorway was by far the most common type of entrance into two-chambered structures. With the possible exception of the Temple of the One Lintel, all Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá were entered through a single, rather than triple doorway.

Some features clearly link the Castillo-sub with Modified Florescent constructions. For example, no known Chichén Puuc structures rise from a high pyramidal substructure as does the Castillo-sub (Ruppert 1952:2). The shield elements and prowling animals on the upper facade, decorations not used previously at Chichén Itzá, also occur on the Upper Temple of the Jaguars at the Great Ball Court. Finally, the lintel over the outer doorway was of wood (Erosa Peniche 1947:238), a characteristic of the Modified Florescent period.

Two important points emerge from examination of the Castillo-sub. First, the Castillo-sub, one of the two earliest structures in the stratigraphic sequence on the main plaza, also appears to be early in the Modified Florescent period on the basis of style. In the Castillo-sub, there is a concurrence of stratigraphic position early in the Modified Florescent period with architectural traits derived from Puuc buildings mixed with features fully developed later in the Modified Florescent. The stratigraphic record on the main plaza, beginning with the Castillo-sub, apparently dates to the earliest days of the Modified Florescent period.

27

Second, the Castillo-sub shares more features with buildings of the Pure Florescent period than with Modified Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá. The combination of these old elements in the Castillo-sub is both experimental and insecure. Although most of the elements in the facade show Puuc antecedents, Puuc builders seemingly exercised little influence on the overall design of the facade. The prowling animals, without precedent in the immediate area, and the prominent shield elements, may be symbolic or emblematic features as well as decorative elements. Either way, traditional Chichén Puuc design elements were combined with new features in an awkward, unsatisfying decoration. The tradition of the architects who designed the Temple of the Three Lintels and the Red House was gone forever, and architecture of the Modified Florescent period was yet to mature. Architects of the new period soon successfully hid for centuries the uncertainty attendant with the birth of the new era.

The Castillo from the Temple of the Warriors

After the completion of the Castillo-sub, and probably before construction of the Chac Mool Temple, builders erected the Castillo, a building unique in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. At the Castillo, features first appear that later become common in buildings at Chichén Itzá. For example, the first use of pilasters in a doorway at Chichén Itzá was in the Castillo-sub, but they were first sculptured in the doorways of the Castillo. Sculptors carved a human figure on each of the door jambs and on the surfaces of the two columns of the inner chamber of the

28

Castillo. In addition, it is at the Castillo where designers first used serpent columns to create a triple doorway. On the exterior, the lower facade of the Castillo is not vertical, as in the earlier structure, but rises with a basal batter; above, the surface of the facade is plain below the three member medial molding. Four salient and three recessed panels similar to the facing of the pyramid adorn each face of the upper facade. The central recessed panel above each of the four entrances to the temple is not plain like the other panels, but contains a mask. Crowning the three member cornice were the “G” shaped frets used again at the Temple of the Warriors (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:33), the Mercado (Ruppert 1943:Fig. 17d), and the Temple of the Big Tables (Seler 1902-2.3, 5:377).

The design of both the substructure and the temple is unlike almost all other buildings at the site. The broad base of the substructure is almost exactly square. The pyramid rises to its height in nine ascending levels, each level inset from the one on which it rests. The vertical height of each sloping terrace face decreases with each level, and architects designed each level with projecting and recessed panels. Kubler observed that each facade presents eight salient panels and that those on the top level are about one-fifth the width of those at ground level. He concluded that the effect of this “perspective diminution greatly enlarges our illusion of the size of the edifice” (Kubler 1962:180). The wide stairways with flanking ramps that ascend the substructure break these horizontal planes on all four sides.

Castillo, plan and elevation, Marquina 1964:Pl. 261

29

The plan of the temple on top is unique. From the summit of the pyramid, two serpent columns create a triple doorway into the temple. A vestibule gives access to the inner sanctuary, within which two sculptured rectangular columns support triple vaults. An ambulatory, which was entered on the east, west and south sides through centrally-placed doorways in the outer wall of the temple, surrounds the inner room but gives no access to it. Vaulting in the ambulatory “turns the corners” on the southeast and southwest sides, a feature not often demanded by the arrangement of chambers in Maya structures.

The Castillo is a building of bold design and sophisticated construction. Gone are the hesitancy and uncertainty of the Castillo-sub. By the time of the construction of the Castillo, Chichén builders had acquired more confidence and experience, and many of the architectural features at the Castillo were used as a complex of architectural elements that are characteristic of the developed Modified Florescent style. With the exception of the Castillo-sub, little in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá illuminates the developmental stages of this complex of architectural features. During some interval of time, between the construction of the Castillo-sub and the Castillo, builders developed the major elements of the Modified Florescent style.

Plan of the Chac Mool Temple and plan and elevation ofthe Temple of the Warriors, Marquina 1964:Pl. 268

The Chac Mool Temple and its associated colonnade were the next structures erected in the sequence on the Great Plaza. The interior space of this two-chambered structure was expanded by double vaults supported by interior rectangular columns in each of the two rooms. As at the Castillo, two round serpent columns formed a triple doorway that gave entrance to the Chac Mool Temple. The head of the serpent column and the basal drum of the column were carved from a single piece of stone, the same method used at the Castillo. The outer facade of the temple rose with a basal batter to an overhanging apron course; above, it rose vertically. This is all that remained in situ, but Morris postulated a three-

30

member medial molding, vertical upper facade, and a three-member cornice crowned by a roof ornament, based on analogy with the common method of wall construction at Chichén Itzá (1931:76).

An atlantean altar stood at the rear of the inner room of the Chac Mool Temple, flanked by a bench on both sides that continued down the end walls (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:73-74). Both the altar and the benches were removed from the temple prior to its burial within the platform of the Temple of the Warriors, where the altar was probably reused (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:20, 73-74). The first use of an atlantean altar in the stratigraphic sequence on the Great Plaza was in the Chac Mool Temple. The substructure of the Temple of the Chac Mool bears a similar pattern of salient and recessed panels as that decorating the Castillo pyramid (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:82, Kubler 1962:180). If Morris’s stratigraphic sequence is correct, designers conformed the substructure of the Chac Mool Temple to the Castillo pyramid. The successful architectural experiment in the design of the Castillo pyramid was not attained at the Chac Mool Temple, however, and the structure must have appeared squat and puny behind its wide colonnade. The temple, for example, was about the same level as, or only slightly higher than, the roof of the colonnade (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:89-91), and probably seemed to rest directly upon it. The temple would have been hard to see except from a distance, and the size of the colonnade dwarfed the temple.

Construction of the Temple of the Warriors corrected these design flaws. Architects increased the size of the pyramid and temple and added one more upper zone to the Warriors pyramid (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:91). Increasing the height of the temple above the colonnade and placing more emphasis on the temple itself by increasing the size of the pyramid and temple in relation to the colonnade made the Temple of the Warriors more imposing.

Perhaps not over fifty years elapsed between the construction of the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple (Kubler 1962:180), based primarily on the similar design of their respective substructures. Some evidence suggests that the Chac Mool Temple was not used for long following its completion before the ambitious Chichén builders razed part of it and covered the rest. Morris notes “the plaster accumulation on the exterior wall faces, consisting of only fifteen recognizable coats, is 6 to 9 mm in thickness” (1931:77). This compares with 131 coats of plaster found on areas of the Temple of the Warriors. “From this,” Morris concluded, “it may be inferred that no great length of time intervened between the completion and the destruction of the temple” (1931:77). Possibly this evidence is misleading, or perhaps the plaster was once thicker, but taken together with the architectural evidence it appears that the Chac Mool Temple was not used for long. Kubler’ s estimate of fifty years as the maximum time between the construction of the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple is reasonable for the

31

time elapsed between the two buildings. The Chac Mool Temple probably was not in use for more than fifty years, and thus the maximum time between the construction of the Castillo and the Temple of the Warriors likely was not more than about a century.

Temple of the Warriors, with Temple of the Big Tables (2D7), left; and West and North Colonnades, right

The Temple of the Warriors is one of the most imposing buildings at Chichén Itzá. It is most similar to the Chac Mool Temple, which it covers, but the Temple of the Warriors was a more ambitious undertaking than the earlier structure. It was both larger outside and roomier inside. To cover this large interior space, while maintaining the basic two- chambered design, a second row of rectangular columns was added lengthwise to both the inner and outer rooms. The outer chamber contained six columns in each of the two rows, while the inner room was built with two rows of the traditional four columns. In no other two-chambered structure of this type at Chichén Itzá did more than four columns in a row support the vaults. The two extra columns in each row in the outer chamber were not

essential to hold up the vaults, because both chambers are the same width and four columns in each row supported the vaults of the inner chamber. Builders added the extra columns purely as a matter of design. Whatever were the effects of this arrangement, the architects responsible created a building unique at Chichén Itzá.

Unlike the Chac Mool Temple, whose substructure was designed to complement the Castillo pyramid, the substructure of the Temple of the Warriors did not replicate the design on the Castillo. Instead, distinctive talud-tablero profiles contrast dramatically with the sloping lines of the Castillo pyramid (Kubler 1962:181). Craftsmen sculpted the panels in the lower three compound zones (tableros) of the platform in low relief.

32

Morris describes the decorative elements as “pairs of semi-reclining human figures, alternating with pairs of animals, or pairs composed of one animal and one bird” (1931:39). The recumbent human figures, positioned with feet toward each other, look back over their shoulders away from each other and toward a flanking animal. These animals are eagles, jaguars, or “stubby tailed, fuzzy creatures resembling bears.” Each animal sits upright and clutches a rounded object, possibly a heart, in an upraised appendage. A similar portrayal of recumbent human figures and animals in similar poses occurs on the platform of Jaguars and Eagles (2D3), although they are not arranged in the serial order as on the friezes from the Temple of the Warriors.

Ascent to the temple was through the Northwest Colonnade, as entrance to the Chac Mool Temple had been through the Demolished Colonnade. Other structures at Chichén Itzá have a similar entrance design. The Temple of the Wall Panels (3C16) was originally entered from an inner stairway through a colonnade (Ruppert 1931:133). The Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns, structure 5B21, probably had a similar arrangement (Ruppert 1952:113). At the Temple of the Little Tables (3D8) the stairway probably led directly to the roof of the gallery instead of through it (Ruppert 1952:57), paralleling the late change in the Temple of the Wall Panels (Ruppert 1931:134-136). These are the only four examples of this feature known from Chichén Itzá.

Plan, elevation and section of the Temple of the WarriorsMarquina 1964:Pl. 269

33

The lower facade of the Temple of the Warriors rises with a basal batter to a molding course. Above, the facade ascends vertically to the medial molding. This portion of the lower facade was decorated with two types of masks. At the four corners of the temple, in the center of the north, south, and east walls, and flanking the triple doorway on the west, are mask panels. In each instance, three mask panels, one above the other, fill the space between the apron course above the basal batter to the lower course of the medial molding (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931: Figs. 9, 10). Located approximately midway between each of the groups of the masks is a different type of mask motif, called by Morris a plumed serpent shield (1931:28, Figs. 12, 14, 17). Tozzer describes it as “a feathered-serpent panel in low relief with the jaws in the round, out of which hangs a bifurcated tongue with a human head within the open jaws” (1957:93).

Temple of the Warriors feathered serpent wall panel and feathered serpent column

The temple was entered on the west through a triple doorway built with two rectangular serpent columns, in contrast to the round columns of the Chac Mool Temple. In harmony with the columns, the serpent heads are more angular and, again in contrast to the Chac Mool Temple, were carved out of separate stone blocks. The transition from round to rectangular serpent columns suggests the two styles might be indicative of different building periods at the site. As a general trend this may be correct, but there are exceptions. Immediately north of the Temple of the Warriors, round columns with attached heads occur in the Temple of the Big Tables (2D7). This temple cannot be earlier than the Temple of the Warriors, because stones from a demolished stairway, probably the main stairway of the Chac Mool Temple, were found in the backing of the veneer of the Temple of the Big Tables (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:77). Since the Temple of the Warriors presumably was built as the Chac Mool Temple was demolished, then the Temple of the Big Tables must be the same age as the Temple of the Warriors or later. Therefore, major buildings with both round and rectangular serpent columns were constructed during the same period. In addition, small round serpent columns, with heads detached from basal column drums, occur in two structures of possible later date. One example is from the Temple of the Wall Panels, a second is from structure 3E5 (Ruppert 1931:125, 1952:85).

34

The Temple of the Warriors provides a large corpus of sculptural material that can be used for comparative purposes. Sculptures appear on all four sides of each of the columns in the temple, on the jambs and pilasters of both doors, and on each column in the Northwest Colonnade. In addition to the relief sculpture on the columns, jambs, and pilasters, altars occur in the temple and in the colonnade. Nineteen atlantean figures and nine stone posts support an altar at the rear of the inner room (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:19). In the colonnade, two massive altars flank the stairway to the temple, the one to the south built at the same time as the colonnade, the one to the north a secondary construction. Standard bearers and a chac mool figure were also part of the sculptural decoration of the Temple of the Warriors. Among the buildings under discussion, chac mool figures occur in the Castillo-sub, Chac Mool Temple, and Temple of the Warriors. Atlantean altars or good evidence of their presence were found in the latter two structures, while massive altars or evidence of their presence were discovered in the colonnades associated with both buildings. Massive altars are the most common type at Chichén Itzá, and they are the only kind found in the colonnades. The sculptures from these buildings provide comparative evidence when later analyzing buildings unrelated stratigraphically to this sequence.

North of the Temple of the Warriors lies the Temple of the Big Tables, structure 2D7. Although Morris did not specifically discuss this building, he parenthetically presents

Temple of the Big Tables (2D7), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 15

evidence which may tie it to the stratigraphic sequence (1931:77). As mentioned above, stones almost certainly from the Chac Mool Temple were found behind the veneer of the Temple of the Big Tables. If Morris is correct, then the Temple of the Big Tables was built about the time of the construction of the Temple of the Warriors, or sometime probably not long afterward.

The chronological position of the Temple of the Big Tables is important because its plan and sculpture link it to several other buildings at Chichén Itzá. Striking similarities in plan and orientation occur among the Temple of the Big Tables and three other structures at the site, structure 5B16 in the Southwest Group, the solitary Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (structure 4B1), and the solitary structure 5B9.

35

The significance of these similarities becomes more apparent with the discussion below of structure 5B16 of the Southwest Group.

Column sculpture from the Temple of the Big Tables links this structure with the Chac Mool Temple and the Castillo, in contrast to the supposedly more closely temporally related Temple of the Warriors. The round serpent columns that associate this structure to the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple have been mentioned. In addition, the small minor figures in registers above and below the major figures on each column and pilaster, atlantean figures in low relief, often called bacabs, are similar to the treatment and placement of like figures in the Castillo and Chac Mool Temple (Seler 1902-23, 5:Figs. 134-75, Tozzer 1957:Figs. 261-265).

Perhaps the sculptured columns were reused in the Temple of the Big Tables. Possibly the serpent columns were taken from an earlier structure. The Chac Mool Temple, the most logical source, was not tapped, because pieces of those serpent columns are still in the ruins of the Chac Mool Temple. Morris never recovered twelve columns, presumably sculptured, from the colonnade of the Chac Mool Temple (1931:90). These columns were approximately the same dimensions as the columns of the Temple of the Big Tables, and the possibility exists that four of the columns were reused in the latter structure. The sculptured columns, pilasters, and serpent columns of the Temple of the Big Tables exhibit sufficient stylistic similarities as a group to be contemporaneous with the structure in which they occur.

Assuming contemporaneity on the basis of shared subject matter can be problematic. If nothing else were considered but the subject matter of these column sculptures and the round serpent columns, the Temple of the Big Tables would likely be aligned temporally with the Castillo or the Chac Mool Temple. The slim stratigraphic evidence indicates this is not so. If the Temple of the Big Tables is associated with the Castillo or Chac Mool Temple, the basis might be functional rather than temporal. This one example may not refute Tozzer’s segregation of buildings on the basis of subject matter by ethnic groups (1957), but it adds weight to Thompson’s argument for functional rather than temporal interpretations of similar subjects sculptured in particular buildings (1959). The example of the Temple of the Big Tables suggests a cautious approach to grouping buildings temporally based upon sculptural subject matter.

Another example from the Temple of the Big Tables underscores the difficulty of interpreting sculptural evidence. The atlantean bench at the rear of the inner chamber resembles an atlantean altar, except the atlantean figures support a bench that stretches across the entire width of the chamber. The only other atlantean bench at Chichén is in the Temple of the Little Tables (3D8). Atlantean altars occur in structures that predate the Temple of the Big Tables, and the atlantean bench can be considered a later innovation, or extension of the altar type.

What, then, of the bench in the Temple of the Little Tables (3D8), a building on the

36

Court of the Thousand Columns, whose stratigraphic relationships are unknown? Is it a building as late as the Temple of the Big Tables, or is it earlier, indicating that atlantean benches and altars were in use at the same time? Obviously if the latter possibility is the case, a feature as unique as the altantean bench cannot be used to demonstrate temporal relationships. Fortunately, other evidence exists of the relative age of the Temple of the Little Tables and is presented below with the other structures on the Court of the Thousand Columns.

Immediately to the north of the Temple of the Big Tables is structure 2D6, a gallery-patio structure entered through a colonnade. Although its complete plan is unknown, it is clearly asymmetrical and crowded next to the Temple of the Big Tables. Ruppert wrote that the asymmetry of the gallery suggests its construction prior to the Temple of the the Temple of the Big Tables. Ruppert wrote

Structure 3B3, Ruppert 1952:Fig. 19

Although the Temple of the Big Tables and structure 2D6 cannot be tied into the sequence with complete confidence, sound stratigraphic evidence shows that the North Colonnade was built after the Temple of the Warriors and the other colonnades (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:176-177). The North Colonnade, although not formally a structure of the Great Plaza, is the final building securely tied into the sequence established by the excavations at the Temple of the Warriors. The North Colonnade displays a lack of tidiness, when taken

that the asymmetry of the gallery suggests its construction prior to the Temple of the Big Tables (1943:231): “if the gallery-patio structure had been later, sufficient space would have been allowed for the gallery to have been built as a symmetrical unit.” Most of the gallery-patio structures at Chichén Itzá indeed are symmetrical, at least with respect to the gallery. Structure 3B3, however, a structure similar in plan to 2D6, is a gallery-patio structure with an asymmetrical gallery, located about 750 meters west of the High Priest’s Grave (Osario). Whereas structure 3B3 is asymmetrical, its boundary walls can be roughly delimited. Structure 2D6, on the other hand, is cramped in relation to the Temple of the Big Tables and its southern walls can only be imagined without excavation. The proximity of structure 2D6 to the Temple of the Big Tables lends weight to Ruppert’s argument. This probably indicates that structure 2D6 was built about the same time as the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, and reinforces a late date for the Temple of the Big Tables.

37


with its later date, indicates that a degree of laxity or sloppiness crept into at least some of the constructions of this period at Chichén Itzá. For example, builders used at least three different sizes of round columns in construction of the North Colonnade, and they inserted a few rectangular columns in the front row at the west end (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:69, Ruppert 1943:239). The rectangular columns were sculptured, as were some of the round columns in the front row, and Morris concluded that many of these carved drums were reused (1931:69). The lack of building debris at the east end of the colonnade led Morris to speculate that the building material from this area was removed to other places, although he acknowledged the possibility that the end of the platform was not meant to support a colonnade in the first place, or that it was never completed (1931:68).

38

Evidence from the North Colonnade suggests several possible trends in construction of the later architecture of Chichén Itzá. There seems to be an increasing tendency through time to use different size columns in a single structure, and columns and column drums were increasingly reused in other than their original structures. Different size columns in a single structure do not first occur in the North Colonnade. The West Colonnade, the Demolished Colonnade, and structure 2D6 all have columns of different sizes. Usually only two sizes were present, and one size was usually restricted to a specific row or area compared to the other size. Normally less variety in size of columns appeared in these buildings than in the later North Colonnade. Also, there was an earlier reluctance to mix round and rectangular columns in the same structure, with the exception of round serpent columns and rectangular interior pillars. The inconsistent and asymmetrical use of round and rectangular columns of the North Colonnade does not occur earlier. The removal of the atlantean altar from the Chac Mool Temple and its possible reinstallation in the Temple of the Warriors is an example of reuse in earlier structures. This, however, documents the removal of a complete feature, undoubtedly sacred, for reuse in an important later building. If this altar were removed to the Temple of the Warriors, it probably added prestige to the new structure. The reuse of single columns or column drums, often placed upside down, added nothing to a new structure but support for the roof. We do not know the frequency of reuse of column drums or the use of columns of varying sizes in single buildings, but reuse seems to occur more often in later rather than earlier buildings. Reuse of column drums and variability of column size does not indicate with certainty the relative age of a structure, but these two trends occurred with increasing frequency through time.

Summary and Conclusions

The excavations by Earl Morris on the Great Plaza at Chichén Itzá yielded a fairly secure sequence of construction of the major buildings, with the exception of the Great Ball Court and the courtyard platforms (1931:165-177). The Castillo-sub and the West Colonnade were the earliest constructions on the plaza, although their exact relationship to each other is unknown. Trenches across the plaza to the Castillo indicate that it was erected next, predating the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, which followed. The Temple of the Warriors followed the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, and at this time or slightly later was built the Temple of the Big Tables. Sometime following the completion of the Temple of the Warriors and the Northwest Colonnade, the final structure of the complex was built, the North Colonnade of the Court of the Thousand Columns.

This sequence probably does not span the complete architectural history of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, but it is the best sequence based on stratigraphy at the site, and thus must form the basis of comparison for structures whose stratigraphic relationship to other buildings is unknown.

39

the Temple of the Warriors was probably in use for a long time following its completion. This late stage in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá is documented on the Court of the Columns and in the outlying groups rather than on the main plaza, where major architectural projects ceased soon after the erection of the Temple of the Warriors. The North Colonnade postdates the Temple of the Warriors, and shows signs, such as the variability in the size of columns and the reuse of column drums, that builders took less care in construction of this colonnade than in the earlier buildings.

The stratigraphic sequence for some of the major buildings on the Great Plaza is crucial for developing an architectural history for Chichén Itzá. Architectural details and sculptural features from these stratigraphically related buildings may be compared to structures and complexes of buildings elsewhere at Chichén Itzá. It is essential to tie the Great Ball Court buildings to the sequence, and then analyze the structures of south-central Chichén Itzá and the buildings of the outlying groups, before chronological problems can be discussed and Chichén Itzá viewed within the context of the later Pre-Columbian archaeology of Yucatán.

There are no Pure Florescent structures on the Great Plaza, but the Castillo-sub shares so many architectural features with the earlier buildings, that it must be considered one of the very earliest constructions of the Modified Florescent period.

The earliest phase of construction from the sequence on the Great Plaza, including the Castillo-sub and the West Colonnade, was probably the earliest phase of Modified Florescent architecture at the site. The Castillo is stratigraphically transitional between this earliest phase of Modified Florescent construction and the second phase represented by the building and then razing of the Chac Mool Temple and then construction of the Temple of the Warriors. The sequence established by Morris indicates that the Castillo is older than the Chac Mool Temple, and the two structures also are closely related in certain aspects of sculpture and in the design of their substructures. The Castillo and the Temple of the Warriors, on the other hand, separated stratigraphically by the Chac Mool Temple, have much less in common stylistically. Nevertheless, the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors are similar enough to be considered as early and late representatives of a medial phase in the architectural development of Chichén Itzá. There are indications the Chac Mool Temple was not long in use before it was razed to prepare for the construction of the Temple of the Warriors; this, plus the close relationship between the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple suggest that much less than a century separates the Castillo and the Temple of the Warriors. In contrast to the Chac Mool Temple,

40

III. Great Ball CourtThe Great Ball Court, located on the northwest area of the main plaza, is one of the most important groups of buildings at Chichén Itzá. The large quantity and fine quality of the ball court sculptures, and the historical implications attendant with either an early or a late date in the stylistic sequence of the site, make the Great Ball Court crucial to the study of the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. Because of the high quality of the ball court sculptures, an early date for the ball court would indicate a gradual decline in the technical quality of sculpture at Chichén Itzá following its completion. This concept of a progressive decline in the technical quality of carving could not be maintained if the ball court buildings were late constructions. A late date for the ball court would indicate that the finest sculpture at Chichén Itzá was not attained until late in the site’s history. It is perhaps less likely that the Great Ball Court was constructed in the middle period of the sequence on the Great Plaza, at the time of the building of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors and their associated sculptures. The carvings appear simply too distinct.

The Great Ball Court from the Castillo

Kubler argued a late date for the ball court, following the construction of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors, and he suggested such a final flourish of fine sculpture would indicate an artistic renaissance (1962). An early date for the ball court, on the other hand, with its attendant concept of later artistic decline, is the traditional view (Kubler 1962:183). Tozzer believed the ball court to be an early construction (1930, 1957), and Proskouriakoff tends to

41

follow his outline (1950:170-172, 1970:461). Lothrop also thought the ball court early (1952), and Charlot, in his discussion of the art of the Warriors complex, states flatly that the ball court sculptures are earlier than those of the Chac Mool Temple or the Temple of the Warriors (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:340-343).

The problem of the chronological position of the ball court in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá is one of the fundamental questions that a study of the ball court must attempt to resolve. The traditional view of a relatively early date is probably correct. A date coeval with or later than the Chac Mool Temple or the Temple of the Warriors is unlikely in light of the best evidence now available. It is also necessary to analyze the sequence of construction of the four ball court buildings themselves. Although the Lower Jaguar Temple is almost certainly the oldest of the structures, the lack of comparable architectural and sculptural features among all four of the buildings makes the establishment of a secure sequence tenuous. The Upper Temple of the Jaguars may be the latest of the ball court buildings, but probably little time separated it from the North and South Ball Court Temples.

Great Ball Court, Plan and ElevationsMarquina 1964:Pl. 264

42

Lower Temple of the Jaguars

The Lower Temple of the Jaguars, a building architecturally unimposing, is one of the most noteworthy structures at the site because of the quantity and quality of sculpture on its walls and columns. These sculptures, not general features of building design, provide the best indication of the place of this structure in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. The Lower Temple of the Jaguars is a small, single room structure that today rests at the level of the Great Plaza. It constitutes part of the base of the platform of the Upper Jaguar Temple. This large platform envelops the rear facade of the Lower Temple. The side walls rise with a battered basal zone to a plain vertical lower facade; the upper facade is also plain, and both the medial molding and the upper cornice are the typical three-member types. The basal batter does not extend across the eastern front facade, where the end walls are sculptured. The temple was entered through a triple doorway supported by two rectangular sculptured columns. Sculptures covered the wall and vault surfaces inside the small structure.

Lower Temple of the Jaguars

A single individual wearing a turtle carapace was sculptured on each of the wide end walls of the temple, although the north figure is now much destroyed. The individual on the south end wall sports a beard, wears an oyoualli shell pendant, and dangles elongated ovals from the level of the waist (Maudslay 3:Pl. 51c, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 614). Thompson identified these as symbols that indicate sky-bearers or bacabs. Much of the remaining space of the panel is filled with four conventionalized serpent heads. In addition to these forms, behind the head of the main figure, a large fish nibbles at one of the water lilies sprouting from his headdress, and at the lower right of the composition is a tripod bowl full of egg shaped objects, possibly balls of copal. Below the major panel on the south end wall is a bird-serpent-jaguar figure. Due to the width of the composition, this figure is wider than the other figures of this type at Chichén Itzá, and most of the extra space is filled by an expansion of the feather headdress.

43

Artisans carved both columns at the entrance on all four sides, and divided each surface into three sections, a central major panel with minor panels above and below. They depicted a skirted figure in atlantean pose on each face of the north column (Tozzer 1957:176, Figs. 195, 196). A serpent emerges from the minor panel below and passes between the feet to curve behind the figure to the top of the panel. The south column also presents figures in atlantean pose (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 615), but these individuals wear an abbreviated loincloth with hanging ties. A serpent curves from one border of the panel to the other toward the top, and like the serpents on the north column, their tails come directly from the minor panel at the bottom of the column. These basal minor panels contain very fine examples of the underworld deity so often depicted in the ball court sculptures (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 345). These deities are shown full face, with sprouts descending from the eyebrow across the eye, which terminate in water lilies. The tail of the serpent mentioned above emerges from the forehead between the eyes of this figure. Fish, turtles,

End of South Wall Tozzer 1957:Fig. 614

South Column, West Side Tozzer 1957:Fig. 615

Column Base Sculpture Tozzer 1957:Fig. 345

Column Top Sculpture Tozzer 1957:Fig. 346

44

A general consideration of the sculptures on the end walls and columns of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars indicates much of the sculpture deals with the bacabs and the water lily complex. The main figures on the end walls and on the south column have many of the traits of the sky-bearers, and the skirted figures on the north column may also be bacab figures or representations of them, perhaps priests. Water lilies appear in the minor panels at the base of the columns associated with the saurian deity, and lily vines may appear in the upper minor panels with the celestial aspect of a similar deity. On the end walls, the lilies appear on the headdress of the principal figure, and fish or other aquatic animals are associated with the lilies on both end walls and columns. Serpents are closely tied with the symbolism depicted on the columns and end walls, either in naturalistic or conventionalized form. Naturalistic serpents are carved on the columns, conventionalized forms appear on

the end walls. The major themes of these sculptures seem to be associated with the bacabs or ritual directed at the bacabs. The bacabs are associated in turn with shells and aquatic animals which are integral parts of the water lily complex. The lilies, a symbol of life, are available through the beneficence of the saurian deity, from whom also springs the all important serpent, perhaps the mortal form or symbol of the saurian monster. Death is a part of the symbolic complex, depicted as the crossed bone decoration of the skirted figures.

The sculptures on the interior walls of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars are arranged in five tiers above a low border (Maudslay 3:Pls. 45-51). The composition covers all available space on the south, west, and north walls of the structure. The lower border and first three tiers cover the walls, and the upper two tiers, both slightly narrower than the lower three, cover the vault. The composition, although strictly arranged in five rows, is oriented to the central figure in row B. To achieve the effect of a central figure in a composition which is formally tiered, the central figures in adjacent rows turn toward the central scene in row B. Thus, the six central figures in row A look slightly upward, while the central persons in row C gaze slightly downward. Most of the individuals in the two tiers of the vault are stooping as if to view the central scene, and the figure in the sun disc in the middle of row E gestures downward. Although these upper figures are removed from the central scene, they may be reacting to it.

and waterfowl appear among the lilies in these minor panels. The minor panels at the tops of the columns are unique sculptures at Chichén Itzá (Tozzer 1957: Fig. 346). They show a full face view of a deity similar to the bottom panels, but ear ornaments, shoots emerging from the eyes, and the lower jaw with beard are omitted. Instead, two small individuals, possibly bacabs, appear from the area where the ears should be, and a third similar figure emerges with arms outstretched from the top of the head of the deity. Foliage, perhaps a lily plant, frames the entire composition.

45

Lower Temple of the Jaguars, Rows B (lower) and C. Marquina 1964:Photo 435

Lower Temple of the Jaguars, vault sculptures, rows D and E. Marquina 1964:Photo 436.

Discussion of these sculptures is limited to those areas illustrated by Maudslay (3:Pls. 45-51). Luckily, the central figures of each row were in situ at the time of Maudslay’ s work, as were all the figures in row A. Missing from the illustrations of these sculptures are the peripheral figures in rows B through E.

In spite of the incomplete evidence, it is clear that the figures in the lowest tier, row A, are distinct from the figures in the upper rows, B through E (Tozzer 1930:159-160). The distribution of arms, garments, and ornaments indicates this segregation. In weaponry, for example, four types of spear occur in the lowest row, but there are no spears in rows B-E. Similarly, many of the figures in rows B-E carry feathered atlatls and usually hold a group of darts; in row A only two atlatls occur, a different type than in the rows above, and, rather than darts, they are associated with the only two double barbed spears in the row (figures A9, A10). Figures carry both round and flexible rectangular shields row A, but only round body shields in rows B-E.

46

Tozzer 1957:Fig. 622, Row A Fig. 612, Row A Fig. 625, Row A

Body garments also reflect the differences in the two groups of figures. At least 13 of the 23 figures in row A wear a mantle, a garment that covers the shoulders; above, it is worn only by two peripheral figures in row B, a central figure in row B (13), and the central figure in row E. Three types of collars, decoration circling the neck and usually resting on the chest, but not covering the shoulders like mantles, are found only in rows B through E. Bird or butterfly pectorals occur exclusively in the upper rows (B-E), whereas round or oval pectorals are the most common type in row A, and are also worn by figures BC and C15. Two types of waist garment easily divide the figures into two groups, a “skirt” type with horizontal lower hem is found with one exception (C17) only in row A, while an “apron” type, falling in a semi-circle across the front (B15) or back (B17) of the legs, occurs only in rows B-E.

Central Figure, Row E. Tozzer 1957:Fig. 271

Fig. 626, Row B

47

There is much variety in the arm and leg ornaments of all the figures. A tied soft cuff wrist ornament is the most common, but not the only, type in row A. It is the only wrist cuff limited to a single row; at least six other types of wrist cuff are found in at least three of the five rows. Almost all the figures in row A also wear a tied, soft cuff anklet, puffball knee circlet, or both. Almost every figure in row A wears gaiters, leg apparel worn by only two figures in the rows above (B5, B6).

Nose beads again distinguish the two groups. Tubular nose beads are worn by five and perhaps six figures in row A, and by figures B11, B12 and by the central figure of row E (EC). With the exception of figure A9, pendant nose beads are found only in rows B-E, and the nose plug is found only in the upper rows, particularly rows C and D. Often there is more variety in the types of ornaments or garments than indicated above, and some aspects of dress do not sort as well as others. The variety of headdress is enormous, and thus difficult to categorize; sandals also are conspicuously omitted from this brief list. Focus upon certain items of habiliment that one can easily categorize underscores the unique character of the persons in row A.

One can distinguish central and peripheral figures by applying the same method of segregating groups as was used to indicate differences between the figures in row A and those above. The central figures of each row display more variety in arms, accoutrements, and apparel than do the peripheral figures.

Central, not peripheral, figures carry staffs (B12, B13, B14), clubs (A12, A13), and bundles (B13, B14). Central figures carry a bowl (C10) and three (B11, B13, C10) of four (A21) bags. Other ornaments stress the importance of the central figures. They wear the majority of all necklaces in the composition, and only central figures display the plug-and-bar ear ornament (B11, BC, B14, EC).

Analysis of the wall and vault sculpture of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars distinguishes several groups of figures among the sculptures. Tozzer (1930) long ago noted the distinctive character of the figures in row A compared to the figures in rows B-E. None of the upper rows is as easily distinguished from each other as row A is from the other three. The analysis underscores the importance of the central scenes of each row compared to the flanking, peripheral characters, who function more or less in supporting roles to the major actors of the central scenes. The most dramatic event of the composition occurs at the center of row B, approximately the center of the rear wall of the temple. Here the central figure stands facing to the right, with all the authority and power of the large serpent winding behind him. The two figures flanking him are significant to the composition, but other figures become more standardized as the distance from the center increases. As the composition ascends, the figures in row C become less distinctive than those in row B, and those peripheral figures in the upper two rows (D, E) are even more alike than the figures in the rows below. The

48

central figures are exceptions, for the central person of row E, seated upon a jaguar throne within a sun disc, is obviously one of the most important figures of the sculptures.

Several lines of evidence indicate that the Lower Jaguar Temple is the earliest ball court building, and one of the earliest structures at Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. Certain arms and attire of the figures in row A bear similarities to elements in the art of the Classic period (Tozzer 1930, 1957:177). Although these figures are not pure Maya in the Classic sense, elements from Classic sculpture in this lowest row occur either with less frequency or not at all on sculptures from other buildings at the site. The best explanation is that the temple was built early in the architectural history of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, when influences from the Maya Classic tradition were still strong. Kubler, on the other hand, argues the Maya element in these sculptures represents a late resurgence of interest in the art of the Classic period (1962:195). The evidence best supports the view that the Lower Jaguar Temple is early in the sequence at the site and is the earliest of the constructions of the Great Ball Court.

Two other areas of evidence point to an early date for the Lower Jaguar Temple. One area of evidence is “external,” based upon the close association of sculpture in the Lower Temple of the Jaguars with the art of the Classic period. Another is “internal,” independent sculptural evidence that indicates an early date for this temple in particular and for the ball court in general. One line of evidence

arises from the varieties of lilies in the ball court sculptures and the other concerns the arrangement of sculpture in the temple.

Rands, in his study of the water lily in Maya art, recognized 18 types of lily flower in the Maya area (1953:92-97, Tables 1, 3). Of these 18 different types, 17 are certainly (15) or probably (2) present in the ball court sculptures. This indicates an astonishing knowledge at Chichén Itzá of lily forms from Copán and Quiriguá to Palenque. Rands identified the certain or probable occurrence of 14 types of lily flower for the Lower Temple of the Jaguars, compared to four types for the Upper Jaguar Temple, five types for the sculptured panels of the playing field, and four types for the North Ball Court Temple (1952:131-132, Table 1). The sculptors of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars were quite familiar with literally almost every lily flower in Maya art. The builders of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars maintained first-hand familiarity with the Classic tradition. This familiarity most likely occurred because of temporal proximity, rather than a late rediscovery of early forms, as Kubler’s ideas demand. The reduced variety of lily flowers in the other ball court sculptures might indicate that they are later in time than the Lower Jaguar Temple. For example, the early lily (type A) favored in the Lower Temple was replaced on the sculptured panels of the playing field and in the North Temple with forms uncommon in the Lower Temple. Functional differences among the structures provide an alternative to the temporal hypothesis but seem less likely.

49

The second line of external evidence suggesting an early date in the Modified Florescent period for the Lower Temple of the Jaguars is the formal division of the wall and vault sculptures into tiers by the serpent guilloche. On stela 3 at Seibal, a monument clearly non-Classic in style, the sculpture is divided into three distinct tiers, with a large central scene dividing smaller scenes at the top and bottom. Stela 3 at Seibal foreshadowed the wall sculptures in registers from the Lower Jaguar Temple and parallels the common division of column sculptures at Chichén Itzá into two minor panels and a central major panel.

One of the strongest lines of internal evidence in favor of an early dating of the Lower Jaguar Temple is the developmental sequence of saurian deities found in the minor panels on some of the columns, pilasters, and jambs at Chichén Itzá. The examples from the Lower Jaguar Temple are clearly the earliest (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 345, 338). Next in the sequence are types from the South Ball Court Temple, the Upper Jaguar Temple, and the North Ball Court Temple, examples which are transitional between the Lower Jaguar Temple and later forms (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 335-337). These later examples are from the Chac Mool Temple and the Mercado (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 341, 339). The most cursive examples, probably the latest, are from the Northeast Colonnade and the Xtoloc Temple (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 343, 340). This is probably the best example of stylistic change representing temporal divisions in the sculptural art of Chichén Itzá, and the example from the Lower Jaguar Temple is the earliest,

followed closely by the other examples from the ball court.

The jaguar throne positioned between the two columns of the entrance to the temple (Marquina 1964: photo 434) also provides evidence that the Lower Temple of the Jaguars is an early building. The only other sculptured jaguar throne from Chichén Itzá was buried in the Castillo-sub (Marquina 1964: photos 422-424). This jaguar throne is painted red, with inset discs of jade representing the animal spots. The head of the jaguar turns sideward to the left, and behind the head, in the center of the flat back, is a round mosaic disc of turquoise and shell. The jaguar throne from the Lower Jaguar Temple is stylistically quite similar to the one from the Castillo-sub, but it is not decorated with inlaid spots, it lacks the mosaic disc, and today there is no paint preserved. It is tempting to think that the jaguar from the Castillo-sub, because of the projecting mosaic disc on its back, and possibly because of its position in the inner room of a temple, was used primarily as a receptacle for offerings, while the jaguar from the Lower Jaguar Temple, with its flat back and its command of a large plaza area, functioned as a throne. No direct archaeological evidence supports either possibility.

Whatever were the functional relationships between the two jaguars, the stylistic similarities indicate close relationship. Because the Castillo-sub is early in the Modified Florescent period, and the jaguar there was covered when the Castillo was built, the

50

jaguar throne must obviously be earlier than the Castillo. Quite possibly, the jaguar throne from the Lower Jaguar Temple also predates the Castillo. Jaguar thrones in the round are not known from Classic sites. Morley lists sculptured representations of jaguar thrones from Tikal, Piedras Negras, Palenque, and Xultun (1947:371-373). There is a sculptured jaguar before the Palace of the Governors at Uxmal and a sculptured jaguar from Seibal. The two from Chichén Itzá are found with two of the earliest Modified Florescent structures at the site.

South Ball Court Temple

South Ball Court Temple

The South Ball Court Temple has fewer sculptures than the other ball court structures. Nonetheless, the sculpture on the end walls under the position of the lintels, on the six columns across the front facade, and on the stairway ramps, falls within the sub-style of the corpus of ball court sculpture. The temple rests upon a platform extension of the end wall enclosing the court on the south side. On the south face of the wall flanking the platform are two stairways providing access to the temple. The eastern stairway, which has been reconstructed, rises in eight steps to the level of the top of the wall, and it is flanked by sculptured ramps. The design, similar to the sculptures on the stairway ramps ascending to the North Ball Court Temple, shows a tree, upon which grow vines and flowers, rooted around and growing out of a head in profile (Marquina 1964:Fig. 30). This head may represent Cipactli, the first Aztec day, which was associated with the earth and fertility (Tozzer 1957:127). The trunk ascends from the eyebrow, while below the brow and eye descend what appear to be roots of the vegetation. The design of the upper portion of the ramp at the South Temple is difficult to follow, but the illustrations from the North Temple

51

indicate that several types of birds, and perhaps some insects, flutter around the flowers and perch in the top of the tree. Crowning this ramp, on a single block slightly offset, is a figure similar to the sculptures in the minor panels of the jambs and pilasters of the Upper Jaguar Temple (Seler 5:Figs. 110-119, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 336).

The South Ball Court Temple is a long portico or gallery built upon the end wall and the platform extension (Marquina 1964:865, Photo 437; Totten 1926:145). The outer facade rises vertically from a basal batter on three sides; neither antae nor batter extends across the front facade. A one-course apron molding caps the basal batter, which is approximately two meters high. Above this molding the facade is vertical and undecorated. Four courses below the medial molding, at the level of the top of the lintel, the facade is offset approximately eight centimeters, above which the facade again rises vertically. The medial molding is of three members, two beveled courses separated by a plain horizontal band. A part of the upper facade is visible on the east end of the south side. The facade here rises three courses, capped by two remaining members of a typical three member cornice.

The South Ball Court Temple presents an interesting profile. The middle and upper moldings, narrowly separated by only three plain vertical members, could leave an awkward amount of vertical space below. This is not the case, because the offset at the level of the top of the lintel created a horizontal

plane that effectively separates the lower and upper zones. The medial molding is essentially a decoration of the upper facade, dividing the upper zone in two parts, instead of forming the border between the upper and lower zones as it most commonly does.

The six sculptured pillars supporting the vault broke the horizontal planes of the front facade. These pillars, and the entry spaces they define, alternating solids and cavities, form vertical planes against the horizontal lines of the upper zone and the plinth and wall below. The superb design of this simple temple illustrates the architectural quality artisans could achieve in the Modified Florescent period.

Sculpture in low relief in the South Ball Court Temple occurs directly under the previous position of the lintels on the end walls, and on all four sides of each of the six columns of the front facade. The figures on the side walls are poorly preserved, but some details of the design survive. On both walls craftsmen carved a central figure above a smaller reclining individual in a spotted robe, probably similar to the figures from the base of the columns of the North Temple (Breton 1917:Fig. 2). On the west wall, this reclining figure, facing south, is the base from which vegetal motifs spring. The major figure above stands facing south, into the temple. He holds a spear in his right hand and what may be a flexible shield in his left. A six-row bead pectoral graces the chest. The major figure on the east end wall seems to hold darts in his left hand. The torso and portion of the sculpture at chest level in front of the figure are missing.

52

Each of the faces of the six columns of the front facade of the temple had minor panels above and below a central major panel. In the basal minor panel is the jaguar-serpent-bird figure (Kubler 1962:Pl. 100A, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 318). In the upper minor panel is the mask type found on the top of the ramps ascending to the South Temple and above and below the central figures on the jambs and pilasters of the Upper Jaguar Temple (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 336). Although none of the columns stand to their original height, and the sculptures cannot be viewed in their entirety, it is evident that they are some of the finest low relief work at Chichén Itzá.

One can reconstruct details of posture and costume from the incomplete columns and from the few column drums scattered at the rear of the temple. A characteristic pose for these figures, if they faced to their own right, is to hold a curved stick in their left hand and carry a bag over their left arm, while the right arm is raised to shoulder level across the chest. For the figures facing their own left, the arrangement is just the opposite, with bags over the right arm and curved sticks in the right hand, with the left arm raised across the chest. A large bird-butterfly pectoral, which extends from border to border across the column, covers the chest itself. The simple headdress consists of two feathers, forming a “V” shape, between which are identification symbols such as snakes or quadrapeds. The general arrangement of the pectorals, headdresses, and symbols is not unlike the arrangement of these items on the figures on the north pilaster of the

outer chamber and outer jambs of the inner doorway of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars (Maudslay 3:Pls. 37, 38; Seler 5:Figs. 110-112).

One of the best examples of dress below the waist occurs on the south face of the west central column (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 577). This individual stands facing the west with feet slightly overlapping and legs coming together just below the knees. The stance is typical of the figures on these columns: lower body in profile, feet in tandem, either overlapping, touching toe to heel, or slightly apart, and legs meeting at or just below the knees. Square-heeled sandals fasten at the front of the foot, with a cord between the great and second toes and between the third and fourth toes. Puffy anklets cover the top of the sandal, and a similar adornment encircles the knee. A shield depicted in half view attaches to the backs of the figures by a tie around the waist, and streamers fall from the shields to calf level.

The South Ball Court Temple shares sculptural and architectural features with each of the other ball court structures, but associations are strongest with the North Temple and the Upper Jaguar Temple. The sculptured stairway ramps are similar in style and design in both the North and South Temples, and both structures share the figures in spotted clothing below standing figures on either columns or side walls. In addition, the general lines of architectural design are most similar between these two structures than any of the others. The portrayal of individuals on the columns of the South Temple is most similar to the sculptured

53

figures on the jambs and pilasters of the Upper Jaguar Temple. The simple headdresses with identification symbols above is another parallel between these two structures, and the saurian deity from the South Temple most closely resembles those from the Upper Jaguar Temple in the elements depicted and in the style of the carving.

Sculptural and architectural relationships with the Lower Jaguar Temple exist but are not as strong as the parallels with the other two structures. The South Temple, for example, like the Lower Jaguar Temple, lacks antae and batter across the front facade, whereas the North Temple and the Upper Jaguar Temple both have pilasters against the jambs, and the batter extends around the end walls of the front facades. The column sculptures are attired in generally the same manner as the figures in the upper rows of the Lower Jaguar Temple, and if correctly identified, the flexible shield and spear carried by the effaced figure on the west side wall of the South Temple may have been inspired by the arms of the figures in row A of the Lower Jaguar Temple. The evidence suggests that the South Ball Court Temple is later than the Lower Temple of the Jaguars, and that the temporal relationships among the other three ball court structures are quite close.

North Ball Court Temple

The North Ball Court Temple, known for the sculptures on its walls, vault, and columns, is one of the most beautiful structures at Chichén Itzá (Breton 1917, Marquina 1964:867-869, photos 438-441). Less heralded, but just as

striking, the overall design of the temple makes it a gem of grace and beauty. The North Temple stands on a small platform rising in three sloping zones on an extension of the north end wall of the ball court. The stairway from the end wall to the level of the temple floor traverses these zones on the south side. Sculptured ramps flank this stairway, as well as the two stairways ascending the end wall on both sides of the substructure of the temple (Marquina 1964:Fig. 30, Tozzer 1957:124).

The use of horizontal and vertical lines on the front facade of the North Temple is reminiscent of the design of the South Temple. Again, the slight offset at the level of the top of the lintel effectively separates the lower and upper facades. As on the South Temple, the three member medial molding decorates the upper facade rather than dividing the lower and upper facades. The receding terraces of the platform make the temple seem somewhat remote, and the ascending angles break the monotony of the horizontal and vertical lines. Set just inside the outer edge of the stairway ramps, the two round columns once supported the wooden lintel that upheld the upper front facade.

North Ball Court Temple

54

The columns are well proportioned in relation to the size of the structure, which gives the temple a look of sturdy grace lacking in some of the other buildings at the site. Where serpent heads shorten the appearance of the columns, as in the Castillo and the Upper Jaguar Temple, the result is often a squat, heavy look. The North Ball Court Temple looks well balanced, and not ponderous.

Sculptures in low relief cover the two columns, the pilasters and door jambs, and all extant areas of the walls and vault. Both doorway columns are sculptured with designs unique at Chichén Itzá. Two recumbent figures form the basal panel of each column, lying feet to feet and head to head around the column (Breton 1917:Fig. 2, Seler 5:Fig. 182). They wear skirts decorated with spots, bordered at the bottom with a row of crossed bones, and a head piece resembling a nightcap, also decorated with small spots. The body of a serpent, upheld by the upraised arm of each recumbent figure, forms the upper border of this panel. These basal figures in spotted attire are probably similar to the effaced reclining figures at the base of the side walls of the South Ball Court Temple. A similar idea may also be presented on the north column of the Lower Jaguar Temple, where a major figure wears a skirt with crossed bones and spot designs, and is associated with a serpent from the underworld (Maudslay 3:p1. 43d, Seler 5:Fig. 183). On each side of the columns, above the recumbent figures and the serpent border, a figure stands facing the playing field. Between these two figures on each column is a kind of trellis work

with vines and flowers throughout (Breton 1917:Fig. 3). Like the tree and floral designs on the stairway ramps, this vegetation sprouts from the eyebrow of a head partially obscured by the roots of the vegetation. This design occurs on the front and rear of both columns, between the flanking figures on the sides (Breton 1917:188, Tozzer 1957:127). Above, “over both trees on each of the two columns,” is the jaguar-serpent-bird motif (Tozzer 1957:123).

The pilasters of the North Ball Court Temple are sculptured on each of their three sides. Below the major figures is a full face mask most similar to the masks on the columns and jambs of the Upper Jaguar Temple and atop the columns in the South Temple. These face masks appear transitional between the style in the Lower Temple of the Jaguars and the masks of the Chac Mool Temple and the Mercado (Seler 5:Fig. 181, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 337). The mask from the North Temple differs slightly from others of this type, particularly in the treatment of the headdress, which is tied atop the head, and in the eyes. It is most closely related to the other masks of this type from the other ball court buildings. Marquina states that similar masks were positioned above the major figures on the pilasters (1964:867), which if so would parallel the arrangement in the Upper Temple of the Jaguars.

Low relief sculpture on the walls and vault of the North Ball Court Temple is some of the most interesting at Chichén Itzá. Almost 100 figures appear in a variety of scenes on

55

the east, west, and north walls, and on the north side of the vault. The south half of the vault collapsed when the ancient wooden lintel rotted and broke, and this portion of the vault has not been rebuilt. The wall and vault sculptures of the North Temple can be divided into four groups: one, a basal border extending around all three walls; two, the main central scene of the north wall, divided into three tiers; three, the flanking scenes on the side walls, which extend to the peripheral areas of the north wall; and four, the two tiers of vault sculpture.

Centered within the lower border at the bottom of the north wall lies a recumbent figure dressed in a full length outfit made of hexagonal mosaic (Breton 1917:Fig. 4). Two serpents issue from the stomach of the figure, the head of one terminating at the feet of the man, the head of the other adjacent to the head of the recumbent figure. Bacabs, one in a snail shell, the second possibly in a tortoise shell, face these serpents (Breton 1917:Pl. 5). Other small figures appear within the vines and flowers that weave through the rest of the border in undulating lines. A mask in the border on the east side wall appears to be a variety of the mask type found on the lower panels of the columns in the Lower Temple of the Jaguars (Breton 1917:Fig. 7, Kubler 1962:Fig. 67).

North Ball Court Temple: Scene on the North WallDrawing by Miguel Angel Fernández, Marquina 1964:Photo 439

Above this border on the north wall is the central scene of the wall sculptures (Breton 1917:Pl. 3, Marquina 1964:Photo 439). The lowest of three tiers in this central scene shows five figures on the right facing five figures on the left over an altar in the middle. The details of the altar are unclear, but it appears to be in the shape of an animal, or to have an animal draped over it, perhaps a turtle. The two figures facing each other across this altar are the two most important figures in the row, to judge by the scrollwork around them. At least six of the eight flanking figures are warriors; the other two, on the far left, may be associated with sacrifice or offering, for one holds a bowl and the other possibly a knife.

56

The central tier is also organized around two central figures, one in mosaic costume like the supine figure in the border below, and the so-called “bearded man,” emphasized by the serpent in a “Z” curve behind him. Individuals seated on stools flank these central figures, the left group characterized by turban type headdresses, the right group by their high feather panaches. These seated figures bear neither arms nor offerings; rather, they seem to be in audience to what transpires between the figure in the dress of hexagonal scales and the man under the authority of the feathered serpent. In the top row, warriors again surround the figures of the central scene, but unlike the lower two rows, four persons dominate the scene. The principal individuals are probably the two on the right, a figure sitting on a jaguar throne within a sun disc, and a man under a curving feathered serpent. The first figure on the left is not particularly distinctive, but the second person has a very high headdress and a ring around his eye.

Vault Sculptures, North Ball Court Temple, drawn by Miguel Angel FernándezMarquina 1964:Photos 440, 441

The scenes on the east and west side walls and on the east and west ends of the north wall do not maintain the controlled formality of the central composition of the rear wall (Breton 1917:Pl. 4, Figs. 6, 7; Kubler 1962: Fig. 67). There is some loss of the horizontal lines of the three registers, with a resultant blending of the animal, vegetable, and human forms in the compositions, which in their ruined state, gives a somewhat orgiastic effect to the sculptures.

On the west end, eagle men possibly dance to a tune played by a musician (Breton 1917:189, Kubler 1962:197), while others stand in queues or in conference. Vegetation and animals are prominent, and scrollwork or plaited tapes fill extra space. On the east end, more effaced than the west, the scenes include two individuals standing and gesturing over a prostrate figure, two figures sitting on stools in a temple, and possibly two scenes of two individuals facing each other. Unfortunately the sculptures on the side walls are not well preserved and reveal only the general nature of the sculptures.

57

In contrast to the central scene, the three tiers of sculpture on the side walls generally seem to be divided into smaller scenes of two or three individuals. Vegetal motifs, animals, and animal impersonators occur exclusively in the side scenes. Many persons in the central scene carry arms, whereas one cannot clearly identify arms on the peripheral figures, many of which are too effaced to reveal details. These scenes elude interpretation. Kubler suggests (1962:197) that “the intention of the entire room is to portray actual events together with the indications of their symbolic meaning; probably it illustrates an historical account. . . .”

The figures in the flanking scenes are more animated and more informal than the precise symbolism and narrative depicted in the central composition. Perhaps more of the subject matter in the flanking scenes represents daily life or ritual than the central scene, where historic events appear linked to symbolic rituals, figures, or occurrences. Similar themes pervade the vault sculpture, where each of the two tiers is divided into seven scenes (Marquina 1964: photos 440, 441). Sacrifice, ritual, symbolic action and perhaps scenes of daily life are depicted. The linear arrangement and division of the composition into scenes suggest narration. These wall and vault sculptures, arranged in five tiers above a basal border, superficially resemble the composition on the walls and vault of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars. The attempted unification of side wall and vault sculpture into a single composition centered on the rear wall of the Lower Jaguar Temple was not attempted in

the North Temple, where scenes on the side walls and vault were clearly separated from the central scene of the rear wall. In addition, although the interior sculptures of the North Temple are not as well preserved as those in the Lower Jaguar Temple, clearly the technical quality of the sculptures in the North Temple is not as fine as the carving in the Lower Jaguar Temple. Finally, few figures in one temple can be identified in the other. Only the general arrangement of the wall and vault sculptures suggests similarity between these two structures. Otherwise, the structures are architecturally distinct.

Of the ball court structures, the North Temple is probably most closely related to the South Temple, which it faces across the length of the playing field. Similarities between the two structures include the design of the upper facade, the sculpture on the stairway ramps, and the atlantean functions of the figures in the spotted robes on the jambs of the South Temple and the columns of the North Temple. Floor plan, basal platforms, columns and the remaining sculpture in each building distinguish the two structures. The saurian deity on the pilasters of the North Temple is a variation of the type from the South Temple and the Upper Jaguar Temple (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 337). Differences in general architectural design and sculptural features distinguish The North Ball Court Temple from the Upper Jaguar Temple.

The inspiration for the arrangement of the wall and vault sculpture in the North Temple came

58

from the earlier Lower Temple of the Jaguars, but the North and South Temples share similarities in architectural design and associated sculpture. The North Temple is a distinctive building well within the architectural and sculptural sub-style defined by the other ball court buildings. The relationships with the South Ball Court Temple suggest that these two structures are temporally close.

Sculptured Panels of the Playing Field

Six sculptured panels adorn portions of the battered faces of the two low terraces that extend into the playing field from the base of the high vertical playing walls (Kubler 1962:Fig. 65, Marquina 1964:Pl. 266, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 474). Three panels occur on each of the parallel terrace faces, at the north and south ends and in the center. Each panel shows two groups of seven ball players facing each other around a central scene of decapitation. The main actors in the drama are the two central figures of each panel, one of whom has decapitated his keeling opponent, perhaps the captain of the opposing ball team. The victor holds the severed head of his opponent in one hand and a sacrificial knife in the other. Six serpents issue from the neck of the victim, and a seventh shaft turns into a complex lily plant. A death’s head, in side view and enclosed in a circular space, appears at the base of the panel between the two central figures.

Great Ball Court: Sculptures on the Playing FieldMarquina 1964:Pl. 266

59

The attire of the players distinguishes the same two teams, which are repeated almost exactly on each panel. Mosaic mantles, an arching feather panache, and a helmet-like headdress with a projecting band characterize the players of one side. A greater variety of head gear distinguishes the players of the other team, and the projecting band does not occur. Star-shell ornaments characterize this second team. Features common to both groups include a short skirt with a rod extending upwards from the belt, arm padding, and a sandal and knee garter on the left foot and leg. All of the figures wear a knee pad and kicking sandal on the right leg and foot, and all but the man performing the sacrifice hold an object with a short handle and a jaguar face on the front in his right hand. Details vary little among the teams of the panels, but on the two central panels it is the captain of the team wearing star-shells who is sacrificed, while on the north and south panels the sacrifice is the leader of the team wearing mantles and arching feathers.

The scrollwork and other decorative elements added to the bench panels are the most complex of all the ball court sculptures. Where the ornate costumes and feathers of the ball players left an area exposed, sculptors filled the design with scrollwork. No space remained undecorated from one end of these panels to the other. Like the scrolls in the Lower and Upper Jaguar Temples, designers often imbued the scrolls with elements of serpent symbolism that is sometimes quite evident and sometimes subtle. The scrolls on the benches tend to be vertical, in contrast to the diagonal scrolls of

the Lower Jaguar Temple (Kubler 1962:196). The vertical lines and the general crowding of the composition restrict any sense of motion in these otherwise dramatic sculptures.

The two teams on the ball court panels share traits with two individuals in the central scene on the walls of the Lower Jaguar Temple. In the temple, figures B11 and B12, who stand just behind the central figure of the composition, wear elements of attire similar to that of one or the other ball teams. Figure B12 wears a turban type headdress with a snake at the front, a horizontal plug ear ornament with two pendant beads, and a star-shell necklace, adornment associated with the second team discussed above. Figure B11 wears a headdress with a protruding band very similar to the headgear of the opposing team. This suggests the presence of a ball player from each team in a ceremony commemorated in row B of the Lower Jaguar Temple.

The scene in the Lower Temple of the Jaguars shows gifts being presented to, or an offering being made before, the central figure of the row, while figures B11 and B12 look on from the rear. Perhaps this ceremony took place before a ball game, maybe with ball players participating. In contrast to the ball court panels, human sacrifice is not part of this ritual, nor does it occur anywhere in the composition in the Lower Temple of the Jaguars. The water lily vines in front of figures B13 and B14, the only occurrence of lilies in the composition, resemble the lily plant that springs from the neck of the sacrificed ball players in the central scene of the ball court panels.

60

The figure in the sun disc from row E of the Lower Jaguar Temple, and similar figures from the sculptured lintel in the Upper Jaguar Temple, resemble the ball players who wear the mosaic mantle and headdress with protruding head band. The figures in the sun discs also wear the arching bunch of feathers, but it arises from the headdress rather than from the back shield as on the sculptured panels. The figures in the sun discs are all associated with feathered serpents, a symbol often accompanying human sacrifice (Tozzer 1957:128). If the sculptures of the Jaguar Temples imply sacrifice, it is carried out on the panels of the playing field.

Upper Temple of the Jaguars

The Upper Temple of the Jaguars is justifiably renowned for its complex facade, various sculptures, and interior murals. Built on a platform extension of the eastern playing wall, this imposing structure rests on a low terrace built over the platform and playing wall. The terrace, crowned by a serpent cornice, is broken by the western stairway, on whose ramps is sculptured the jaguar-serpent-bird figure (Marquina 1964:Pl. 267, photo 432). The vertical lower facade of the temple, which rises from a basal batter, lacks sculptural decoration, but a series of alternating salient and recessed panels pass around the sides and rear of the structure (Seler 5:Fig. 87).

Upper Temple of the Jaguars from the Playing Field

Two decorated zones cover the upper facade from the level of the top of the lintel to the cornice (Marquina 1964:Pl. 267). The lower decorated zone has three members: a basal serpent guilloche, a central frieze with three shields and eight prowling jaguars, and an upper serpent guilloche. A single course plain band member separates lower and upper decorated zones. The upper zone displays three segments roughly equal in height, and like the lower zone, the central section is inset from the upper and lower members. A serpent band, which undulates between the lower and middle members, merges the two lower courses. Ornamental discs fill the undulations of the lower course and spool elements decorate the open spaces of the middle member. A serpent guilloche, two serpent bodies curved around rosette discs, completes the upper decorated zone. Above, a line of shield and crossed darts ornaments caps an overhanging cornice member (Totten 1926:Pl. 47). Marquina (1964:Pl. 267) and Seler (5:Fig. 86) published complete profiles of the temple.

61

Tozzer called The Upper Temple of the Jaguars the most beautiful building at Chichén Itzá (1957:138), and indeed the structure commands respect. Like the Castillo, the heavy serpent columns, with little vertical distance between the massive heads and tails, create the impression and underscore the reality that they bear a heavy load. The complex ornamentation of the upper facade adds to the impression of weight, presenting a ponderous overall effect. The ornate, heavy design contrasts with the light simplicity of the North Ball Court Temple, where the greater effective length of the columns creates the impression of a strong, but light, building.

Upper Temple of the JaguarsMarquina 1964:Pl. 267

The Upper Temple of the Jaguars, unlike the North Temple and the Lower Jaguar Temple, is a two-chambered structure, without sculptures on the rear or side walls. Interior decoration consists of murals on the walls, a sculptured lintel, sculptured jambs on the inner door, and

62

sculptured pilasters on both doors. Maudslay numbered the pilaster sculptures of the entrance H1 through H6, and the sculptures of the inner doorway K1 to K1O (3:Pl. 27). Each sculptured face of the jambs and pilasters has a minor panel above and below a central major panel (Maudslay 3:Pls. 36-38; Seler 5:Figs. 110-115, 117, Pls. 24, 25).

Dress varies little among the central figures on the jambs and pilasters of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars. Almost every figure wears a body shield and carried an atlatl and darts. Several individuals carry a curved stick in addition to their darts, and figure H4 holds a curved stick in each hand, rather than the atlatl and darts. Most of the figures carry a small bag or pouch in their left hands, with their darts, and almost every person wears either banded or matted armor on the left arm or a cape over his left shoulder. The figures wear a beaded chest collar, and four have a beaded neck collar as well. On the chest collar is usually a pectoral, normally the bird-butterfly type, but in three cases it is a small quadruped, perhaps a jaguar (H5, H6, K7). Cuffs, knee circlets, and sandals vary little among the figures, and usually there is a single standard type. Most figures, for example, wear a sandal with crossed straps covering the ankle, but figure K1 has a heeled sandal. All of the individuals wear variations of a simple headdress with two feathers. Fourteen of the sixteen figures have pendant nose beads, and ten of these have a nose plug as well. Notably absent is the tubular nose bead worn by so many other figures at Chichén Itzá.

The fairly standardized attire does little to distinguish individuals, but identification glyphs above the heads of the warriors may identify specific persons. The table below gives a descriptive name to the glyphs above each of the figures.

Upper Temple of the Jaguars: Identification Glyphs

H1 Flower or lily K3

H2 Four part scroll K4 Quadruped

H3 Frog K5 Two feathers

H4 Head or mask K6 Spear point with

H5 Variation of serpent?

H6 Animal K7 Bird

K1 Spear point with K8 Goblet

K9 Serpent

K2 Serpent? K1O Two feathers

Figure K3 does not have a specific glyph; rather, a large serpent in a curve arches behind his back, and the head and part of the body of the serpent emerge over the shoulders and head of the figure. The glyph for figure H5 is difficult to assess. Possibly it is a creature similar to the “sea serpent” associated with figure A12 in the Lower Jaguar Temple. Figures K1 and K6, and K5 and K10, share the same glyphs. These four figures are on the jambs of the inner door, the only clear correspondence of glyphs and positions among the sculptures (Seler 5:281). At least some of the figures from the South Temple have identification glyphs between the two feathers of their head-dresses. It would be interesting to

flower inscribed

flower inscribed

63

compare a complete list of these glyphs with the identification glyphs from the Upper Jaguar Temple to see how closely they correspond.

The conventionalized saurian “eye and plugs” motif, often considered a solar symbol, is attached to the borders of some of the sculptured panels. This element occurs at the top of the panel (H3, K1, K5, K6, K10) or behind the head of the featured person (H1, H5). The sign appears on the four jamb sculptures of the inner door, paralleling the placement of the two sets of glyphs discussed above, the two feathers and spear point with flower inscribed motifs. Other scroll forms attached to the border of the major panels may represent the saurian deity. The design before the knees of figures H2 and K4, for example, possibly represents the eye and lip of the same deity. Perhaps, but less certainly, the scrollwork near the knees of figures K7, K8, and K9 conveys the same idea.

The saurian deity in the minor panels above and below these central figures is stylistically most closely related to the figures in the minor panels atop the six columns of the South Temple. They are slightly less similar to the saurian deity from the North Ball Court Temple, but all three types are closely related and probably descended from the saurians of the Lower Jaguar Temple (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 335-338, 345).

The carved lintel of the inner doorway presents complex scenes (Seler 5:Fig. 121, Maudslay 3:Pl. 35). On the front of the lintel is a scene unfolding within the bodies of two serpents.

The heads of the serpents, with open mouths, face the central scene. Each head displays teeth and beard-like streamers similar to the conventionalized serpent heads on the end walls of the Lower Jaguar Temple (Seler 5:Fig. 131). A vertical bar formally divides the serpent heads from the central composition, creating two minor panels at the ends of the lintel. Symbolically, this representation of action unfolding within a serpent body is probably a more graphic form of the saurian eye and plug or eye and upper lip symbolism on the borders of the panels on the pilasters and jambs of the temple.

Within the serpent body frame sit two individuals, one on a jaguar throne within a sun disc, and the other surrounded by the “Z” curve of a feathered serpent. A similar composition with the positions of the figures reversed occurs on the inner side of the lintel (Seler 5:Fig. 121c). These figures are the same as the two center characters in rows D and E of the Lower Jaguar Temple, although there are slight differences in specific details. A bowl full of round objects sits between the two figures, and above it is a saurian monster with water lily vines growing out of the eye sockets. Although all the characteristics of this creature are not present on the lintel, in style this saurian resembles the saurians from the Lower Jaguar Temple.

The Upper Temple of the Jaguars shares similarities of architectural design and sculptural features with other ball court buildings. Attire, use of identification glyphs, and general proportions relate the jamb and

64

pilaster sculptures of the Upper Jaguar Temple to the column sculptures of the South Ball Court Temple. The inspiration for these figures may have come from rows D and E of the Lower Jaguar Temple, where figures in similar attire are probably earlier. The lintel sculpture of the Upper Jaguar Temple is also most similar to specific sculptures from the Lower Jaguar Temple, including the favored types of lilies (Rands 1953).

The Upper Jaguar Temple and the North Ball Court Temple are linked through elements of architectural design. Both are built on a basal terrace or terraces, both have sculptured pilasters, and both have a basal batter across the front facade. The Upper Jaguar Temple shares features or subject matter with each of the other ball court buildings. The lack of common elements among all the buildings is the main obstacle to a firm chronological ordering of the structures.

Conclusions

Architectural study of the Great Ball Court should reveal the chronological ordering of the ball court buildings in relation to each other, and the chronological position of the Great Ball Court in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. Ordering the individual ball court buildings is the most difficult and the least important. The Lower Jaguar Temple is one of the earliest Modified Florescent buildings at Chichén Itzá and almost surely the initial construction at the Great Ball Court. It is stratigraphically below the Upper Temple of the Jaguars, and seemingly similarly earlier

than the sculptures of the playing field. Further evidence includes the association of the figures in row A of the wall sculptures of the Lower Jaguar Temple with elements of Classic Maya sculpture, the use of many lily types in this structure from Classic Maya art, the earliest saurian deity of the developmental sequence suggested for Chichén Itzá, the division of the wall sculptures into distinct tiers, and the presence of the jaguar throne.

It is difficult to posit a firm construction sequence for the remaining three buildings and the sculptured panels. The North and South Ball Court Temples are perhaps the most closely related of the ball court structures, but they differ in some aspects of sculpture. The Upper Jaguar Temple shows some affinity with the South Ball Court Temple, primarily in subject matter and the proportions of some of the sculptures, but there are obvious differences in these structures too. With the possible exception of the figures in the minor panels of the North Temple and the Upper Jaguar Temple, the sculpture of the two structures shares little similarity. The North and South Ball Court Temples and the Upper Jaguar Temple share architectural, sculptural, and stylistic features, and some of these may be traced to the Lower Jaguar Temple. The ball court buildings constitute a sub-style within the architectural history of Chichén Itzá, probably of short temporal duration, with closer sculptural relationships among themselves than with other structures at the site. Tentatively, the Upper Jaguar Temple is the latest of the ball court structures, and the South Temple and

65

sculptured panels are intermediate between it and the earlier Lower Jaguar Temple. The North Temple is problematic and could be the latest structure of the group. In any case, the specific chronological ordering of the North and South Temples, the Upper Jaguar Temple, and the sculptured panels is of lesser overall significance if, as appears to be the case, little time elapsed between construction of any of the units.

Even if the Lower Temple of the Jaguars is one of the earliest structures in Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, and the earliest ball court building also, this does not in itself date the ball court. If one of the other three buildings can be relatively dated within the architectural sequence at the site, then it is more than likely that the other units of the ball court sub-style date to the same period. The Upper Temple of the Jaguars is the best structure to compare with other buildings at the site because of the variety of its sculpture and its architectural design.

One of the structures tied to the stratigraphy of buildings on the Great Plaza is the Castillo-sub, which shares similar elements in the upper facade with the Upper Jaguar Temple. Both buildings share prowling jaguars, shields with crescents inside, guilloches, and discs with concentric circles (Erosa Peniche 1947:Fig. 1, Marquina 1964:Pl. 263). Although the facades share these common elements, each design is unique. The facade of the Castillo-sub shares many design elements with the earlier Pure Florescent structures at the site, and these, in combination with the new elements listed

above, form a facade that gives the impression of experimentation and of a style not yet mature. In contrast, the complex and ornate upper façade of the Upper Jaguar Temple is unified and integrated. The prowling jaguars and shields form a single sculptured frieze framed by serpent guilloches above and below. The discs of concentric circles are themselves grouped by threes into three panels in the upper sculptured unit of the facade, compared with their solitary placement on the medial and upper moldings of the Castillo-sub. Compared to the experimental design of the Castillo-sub, the Upper Jaguar Temple is solidly within the developed Modified Florescent style, designed and constructed later than the Castillo-sub.

The next structure in the sequence of construction on the main plaza is the Castillo, a building important because its sculpture may be intermediate between the sculpture of the ball court and the later sculpture of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors. In the Castillo, each column face, pilaster surface, and inner jamb is sculptured (Seler 5:Figs. 122-128, Maudslay 3:Pl. 59b, c), and these figures resemble individuals in the Lower Jaguar Temple, the Upper Jaguar Temple, and the South Ball Court Temple. In regard to subject matter, a figure on the north jamb of the west door of the Castillo, who has the serpent in a “Z” curve arching behind him, closely parallels the figure on the north pilaster of the inner doorway of the Upper Jaguar Temple (Maudslay 3:Pl. 37, Seler 5:Fig. 123). Some of the figures carry curved sticks without atlatl and darts (Seler 5:Figs. 125-128), similar

66

to figure H4 of the Upper Jaguar Temple or the figures on the columns of the South Ball Court Temple, except the Castillo figures do not carry bags. Headdresses of the Castillo figures are more elaborate than the figures in the two ball court structures. They most closely resemble the peripheral figures in rows B and C of the Lower Jaguar Temple, but in most cases they are less ornate. One of the inner jambs (K10) is a death figure, comparable to figure A15 in the Lower Jaguar Temple, but dressed more like the individuals in rows B and C. The small figures in the borders of the Lower Jaguar Temple and the North Ball Court Temple are full atlanteans below and above the major figures on the pilasters of the outer doorway, on the jambs and pilasters of the inner doorway, and on the interior columns (Seler 5:Figs. 136-147). If, in addition to shared subject matter, these figures are stylistically transitional to the later sculptures of the Chac Mool Temple, then the ball court may be earlier than the Castillo, or possibly overlapping it in time, but not as late as the Chac Mool Temple.

The buildings share certain architectural features. All three were designed with massive round serpent columns forming the entrance to the front. The ornate facade of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars contrasts with the upper facade of the Castillo, where the only sculptured decoration is the mask panel above each doorway. Salient and recessed panels flank each of the mask panels, just as salient and recessed panels alternate as the facing of the terraced pyramidal substructure. The

vertical lower facade of the Upper Jaguar Temple, with alternating projecting and inset panels, recalls the similar design at the Castillo (Kubler 1962:185). The panel design of the substructure of the Chac Mool Temple is distantly related to the lower facade of the ball court building, but the Castillo was probably the immediate inspiration of the Chac Mool Temple.

The Chac Mool Temple and the Upper Jaguar Temple both at one time contained atlantean altars. Renovators removed the altar from the Chac Mool Temple before they leveled it (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:74). Early visitors to the ball court discovered the reains of the altar in the outer room of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars (LePlongeon 1896:7-8, Seler 5:269-275, Pls. 16:1, 17-20). This odd placement of the altar, in the vestibule obstructing the doorway rather than within the sanctuary, suggests it was a late addition to the temple.

The features shared among these three structures do not necessarily signify close temporal relationship between any two of them. The use of massive round serpent columns is a trend on the main plaza which shifts to rectangular columns with construction of the Temple of the Warriors, but large round columns were used at least this late or later because they occur at the Temple of the Big Tables. The salient and recessed panels argue a close relationship between the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple, but their use on the facade of the Upper Jaguar Temple is of little chronological significance, except possibly

67

to position the structure closer stylistically to the Castillo than the Chac Mool Temple. The altantean altar in the Jaguar Temple, almost certainly repositioned there from another structure, is of no significance concerning the initial construction of the temple.

The column and pilaster sculpture of the Chac Mool Temple suggests some period of time elapsed between it and the ball court buildings. The figures on the first three columns and the pilasters of the Chac Mool Temple are distinct from the sculpture on the last three columns. In attire, objects carried, and overall style of the carvings, the figures on columns 1 to 3 and on the pilasters most closely resemble the figures from the Castillo. Occasionally there are direct resemblances, like the skeletal figure 3W from the Chac Mool Temple and figure K1O from the Castillo. The curved sticks, often held across the left or right shoulders, recall the curved sticks and postures of the figures in the South Ball Court Temple, but the headdresses share traits with the Castillo figures. Chac Mool figure 2E has a turban headdress like those at the ball court, but he is the only individual at this temple so attired.

The inspiration for the figures on columns 4 to 6, on the other band, may have come from the Lower Temple of the Jaguars, where skirted figures also appear, as do mosaic mantles, gaiters, straight spears, head masks, and flexible shields. Figure 4N, who wears a conical hat and carries an offering, is similar to an individual on the left side of the lower row of figures on the north wall of the North Ball Court Temple. Figure 6W, who wears

a bone necklace and bone in his headdress, also wears the cross hatched elongated ovals. Similar elements occur on the columns of the Lower Jaguar Temple. Although specific elements from the columns and pilasters of the Chac Mool Temple resemble those from the ball court sculptures, the similarity ends with the shared elements. If the sculptures on columns 4, 5 and 6 from the inner room of the Chac Mool Temple most resemble figures from the Lower Jaguar Temple, it is because of the elements themselves. Proportions, poses, and gestures distinguish the two sets of sculpture.

Some period of time elapsed between the two sets of sculpture. The Chac Mool Temple shares elements of sculpture with the Castillo and the ball court buildings. The Castillo is earlier stratigraphically than the Chac Mool Temple. Most probably the ball court buildings are also earlier. The ball court buildings do not share significant elements of style with any structure that is demonstrably later than the Chac Mool Temple. The ball court sculptures represent an early sub-style at Chichén Itzá, and the Castillo sculptures are generally transitional between that sub-style and the later sculptures of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors.

68

IV. Court of the Thousand Columns

The Court of the Columns lies east and slightly south of the main plaza. The West Colonnade separated the two great spaces, and its rear facade defined the western boundary of the Court of the Columns. The North Colonnade bordered the north side of the court, a series of individual adjacent structures created the east side, and the long gallery of the Mercado and the ball court to the west demarcate the south side.

Court of the Thousand Columns, showing the Castillo and Temple of the WarriorsKilmartin & O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

Unfortunately, we know few stratigraphic relationships among these structures, nor can we tie the courtyard levels of this group to the sequence of floors of the main plaza. The West Colonnade, one of the earliest structures on the main plaza in Morris’s sequence (1931:165-177), faced the Castillo and therefore was not really a construction of the Court of the Columns. The North Colonnade, on the other hand, was the latest construction of the Morris sequence. These are the only structures of the Court of the Columns that are tied stratigraphically to the sequence of the main plaza.

69

Court of the Thousand Columns from the CastilloForeground: The West Colonnade (3D1); Left: North Colonnade (2D10);Background: 3D5, 3D6, Northeast Colonnade (3E1), 3D7, Temple of the Little Tables (3D8), Thompson’s Temple (3D9) and the Southeast Colonnade (3D10). Trees obscure the Mercado (3D11).

The paucity of stratigraphic relationships among the buildings of the Court of the Columns means that for the present they can only be tied to the sequence of the main plaza by sculptural and architectural associations. In most cases the ruined state of these buildings accentuates the already difficult problems that accompany stylistic seriation. A secure sequence is elusive, but enough evidence exists to suggest the general period of construction for at least some of the buildings. To facilitate the discussion of the buildings on the east and south sides of the Court of the Columns, one may divide them into four groups. First is the Northeast Colonnade and its two associated structures, 3D5 and 3D6; second is the group

of the Temple of the Little Tables (3D8), flanked by Thompson’s Temple (3D9) to the south and structure 3D7 to the north. Group three, behind and east of the second, includes the Temescal (3E3), the associated ball court (3E2), and some minor constructions to the south. The fourth and final group consists of the Mercado (3D11), the adjacent Southeast Colonnade (3D10), and the Mercado Ball Court (3D4).

Northeast ColonnadeStructures 3D5, 3D6, and the Northeast Colonnade (3E1) form the northeast corner of the Group of the Columns (Ruppert 1952:Fig.40, 130). The former two buildings

70

are much in ruin and almost no architectural details are known. Structure 3D5 opened to the east with two rows of eighteen round columns grounded on a low platform, but its relationship to structure 3D6 adjacent behind is buried in the rubble that obscures the plans of both the buildings. Sometime after the construction of 3D6 the north section of the structure was filled and at least one room was built upon this fill. A battered zone was added to cover the upper facade of structure 3D6 (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 130b), and a stairway was built on the east side that obscures part of the facade of the Northeast Colonnade. The exposed facade of structure 3D6 reveals that large discs were a major design element of the upper facade, similar to the large discs currently in the ruins of the North Colonnade.

Northeast Colonnade (3E1) and Structures 3D5, 3D6Ruppert 1952:Fig. 40

The Northeast Colonnade, one of the first buildings that the Carnegie Institution excavated at Chichén Itzá, reveals some architectural and sculptural details (Morris 1924). The facade decoration provides clues to the architectural associations of this structure. Below the medial molding the vertical, undecorated lower facade rises from a basal batter capped by an apron course. The central band of the three member medial molding is sculptured in a serpent guilloche with rosettes between the intertwined bodies. Above, the upper facade was decorated; today only portions remain. Morris reported that masks and shield panels alternated with “grotesque

71

human figures” across the facade (1924:213). At the west end of the front facade two masks, one above the other, still span the distance between the medial molding and the upper three member cornice. These masks are small in size and poor in workmanship. In the adjacent panel, three discs similar to the larger types from the North Colonnade and adjacent structure 3D6 were arranged in a vertical row. The disc decorations from the facades of these three structures may reflect a desire to bring harmony to the appearance of contiguous structures, and they probably also imply a close chronological relationship. The superimposed mask panels most likely derive from the superimposed mask panels of the facade of the Temple of the Warriors, and an earlier structure like the Upper Temple of the Jaguars might have inspired the serpent guilloche of the medial molding.

The sculptured columns and associated altar within the colonnade, and not the façade, provide the best evidence that this is a late structure (Ricketson 1927). Of the four sculptured columns, the two around which the massive altar was built have a single human figure on each column face. The two sculptured columns in front of the altar, in addition to a central human figure, have minor panels at the top and bottom of each column face. As a group, these sculptures most resemble the sculptures from the temple on the northeast bank of the Xtoloc Cenote, structure 3D13 (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 134-136), but individual figures on the columns can be

traced to the Chac Mool Temple, the Temple of the Warriors, and the Northwest Colonnade. Figure 4E (Ricketson 1927:11, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 670), for example, while similar to figures from the south bench of the Chac Mool Temple (Morris 1931:Pl. 133, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 671), also resembles the figure on column 39S in the Northwest Colonnade (Morris 1931:Pl. 105, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 669). The famous snake handler sculpture, column 1S (Ricketson 1927:13, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 658), resembles a similar treatment on column 10S from the Temple of the Warriors (Morris 1931:Pls. 50, 67) and columns 8E, 51N and possibly 4W from the Northwest Colonnade (Morris 1931:Pls. 76, 115, 72). The adjacent sculpture, column 1W (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 663), resembles another figure from the south bench of the Chac Mool Temple (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 660), but closer similarities seem to be with columns 56S and 52S from the Northwest Colonnade (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 661, 662) and with sculptured figures from the south side of the dais in the same structure (Tozzer 1957: Fig. 664).

These comparisons underscore the difficulty of assigning the Northeast Colonnade or the Xtoloc Temple to the period either of the Chac Mool Temple or the Temple of the Warriors solely on the basis of the subject matter of the sculptures. Evidence from the minor panels above and below the central figures of columns 1 and 2 may be brought to bear here. The placement of the jaguar-serpent-bird motif at the base of these two columns suggests affinity

72

with the Temple of the Warriors rather than the Chac Mool Temple, although as Tozzer points out this figure occurs at the base of almost 500 column faces at Chichén Itzá (1957:71).

The masks in the minor panels at the top of these two columns are the best single line of evidence for the relative dating of the Northeast Colonnade (Ricketson 1927, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 343). These cursive, stylized forms, seen also at the Xtoloc Temple (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 134-136, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 340), are almost certainly the latest examples of forms of a saurian deity seen earliest in the sculptural art of Chichén Itzá in the Lower Jaguar Temple (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 345, 338). Other forms at the Great Ball Court follow (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 335-337), and later in time are examples from the Chac Mool Temple and the Mercado (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 341, 339). Given the rather secure trend thus established, which almost certainly reflects chronological change, the examples from the Northeast Colonnade and the Xtoloc Temple can only be the latest forms of the sequence.

The massive altar built around columns 3 and 4 provides the final evidence concerning the possible time of construction of the Northeast Colonnade. The altar is contemporaneous with the carvings on the columns, or earlier, because the base of the two columns that are set into the altar are not carved below the level of the top of the altar. The procession on the side of the altar is most similar to the sculptures on the altars from the Northwest and North Colonnades (Tozzer 1957:182). It is most

consistent with the other lines of evidence that the altar in the Northeast Colonnade is either contemporaneous with or later than the altars in the two structures mentioned by Tozzer, rather than an earlier example.

The various lines of sculptural evidence from the Northeast Colonnade indicate that it was constructed subsequent to the major constructions on the main plaza. The superimposed mask elements of the upper facade were possibly derived from the Temple of the Warriors, and the disc elements from the facade are similar to larger forms from the facade of the North Colonnade. The main figures on the four sculptured columns, similar to the column sculpture from the Xtoloc Temple, can be compared to individual column sculptures from the Chac Mool Temple, the Temple of the Warriors, and the Northwest Colonnade. The evidence from the minor panels and the altar suggests that the latest rather than the earliest possibility is the most likely. A date sometime after the completion of the Temple of the Warriors is the best estimate for the time of construction of the Northeast Colonnade. Because of the clear trend seen in the minor panels and the close association of this structure with the North Colonnade, it is highly unlikely that the Northeast Colonnade was an early structure from which were derived similar traits in other buildings.

Little Tables Group

The Temple of the Little Tables (3D8) and the two adjacent structures form the central portion of the eastern side of the Court of the Columns.

73

The northern building, structure 3D7, is a structure of complex plan built upon a low platform. According to Ruppert, the three inner rooms were entered through a vestibule which was itself fronted by a colonnade or gallery (1952:Fig. 41). There is little to suggest a relative date for this structure, but the large size of the columns may associate this building with the North Colonnade. The southern building of the three is Thompson’s Temple (3D9), a small two-chambered structure built above a colonnade. The colonnade, which may be an extension of the Southeast Colonnade, seems to abut the substructure of the Temple of the Little Tables and may therefore be later than the central structure. The diameter of the columns of this colonnade is within two centimeters of the diameters of the columns of structures 3D5 and 3D6 to the north, which could have temporal as well as functional significance. If so, the facade decoration of structure 3D6 may tie all three of these buildings to the North Colonnade. This tenuous but suggestive evidence, not conclusive, is almost the only information available for these structures.

Temple of the Little Tables (3D8)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 42

The Temple of the Little Tables, a large two-chambered temple built on a substructure about 5 meters high with a small gallery in front, offers more sculptural and architectural detail (Ruppert 1952:67). Of the structures on the main plaza, the Temple of the Little Tables is most closely

74

associated stylistically with the Chac Mool Temple, the Temple of the Warriors, and the Temple of the Big Tables. The plan of the temple itself is almost a direct copy, with almost the same dimensions, as the Chac Mool Temple. The rectangular serpent columns and the floral design on the door jambs, however, follow the design of the serpent columns and jamb sculpture in the Temple of the Warriors (Seler 5:Pl. 30, Morris 1931: Pls. 40, 53). The atlantean bench across the rear of the sanctuary links the Temple of the Little Tables with the Temple of the Big Tables, the only two structures at Chichén Itzá with this design feature. Finally, the Little Tables, Big Tables, and Chac Mool Temple are associated by the treatment of the small atlanteans above and below the main figures on the columns.

What can these shared features of design tell us about the relative date of the Temple of the Little Tables? Since the floor plan and dimensions of the superstructure are almost identical to the Chac Mool Temple, it is most likely that the design of one of the buildings was borrowed from the other. Because of the association of the Temple of the Little Tables with structures later than the Chac Mool Temple, it is probable that the Little Tables postdates the Chac Mool Temple. The dimensions of the superstructure and the treatment of the small atlanteans in the minor panels perhaps indicate it was built before the Chac Mool Temple was destroyed, or as the Temple of the Warriors was built. The Temple of the Little Tables may be a stylistic “link” between the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Big Tables, possibly helping to explain some of the similarities in the two temporally distinct structures.

The Temple of the Little Tables was probably not as early as the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, but it might have been built about the time the structure was razed. How late the structure might be, on the other hand, is difficult to say. The Temple of the Warriors was probably in use much longer than the Chac Mool Temple, and the Little Tables could date any time during this period. It is closely related to the Temple of the Big Tables, but how long after the construction of the Temple of the Warriors this structure was built is not known. The design of the colonnade and stairway of the structure might indicate that the Temple of the Little Tables is later than both the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors. The colonnade of the Temple of the Little Tables is much reduced, almost to a formality, and entrance to the temple was probably over, rather than through, this gallery. This contrasts with the large colonnades with interior access to the superstructure seen in the designs of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors.

The Temple of the Wall Panels provides some evidence that the Temple of the Little Tables was later. There, the original entrance through an interior stairway from the colonnade was blocked and an entrance over the colonnade was added (Ruppert 1931). This might indicate a late change in preference concerning access to the temples.

75

Ruppert 1952:Figs. 43, 41

The asymmetrical placement of the stairway ascending to Thompson’s Temple (3D9), and the seeming abutment of the colonnade to the substructure of the Temple of the Little Tables, probably indicates Thompson’s Temple is the later of the two structures. If the tenuous connection of this structure to the North Colonnade is in any way valid, then the Temple of the Little Tables would fall generally within the period following the construction of the Chac Mool Temple and the building of the North Colonnade, a period of unknown duration.

Temescal Group

Behind the three structures of the Little Tables group are a Sweat House (3E3) and an associated ball court (3E2). The ball court is “I”-shaped and approximately 11 by 33 metres, oriented north-south. The playing walls rose approximately 2 metres above the bench. There was a small room on the south mound (Ruppert 1952:79, Fig. 49). The ball court abuts the Sweat House, which faces east, away from the ball court. Its long outer chamber, surrounded by benches, was entered through five doorways created by four columns. An altar was built over a section of bench, and on the walls were traces of black, red and green paint. Within, a low narrow door led to an inner steam chamber with a fire box at the rear.

Ruppert, who helped excavate the Sweat House in 1936, states that the structure rises directly from a portion of terrace east of the Court of the Columns. While tracing a drain from below the flagstones of the gallery toward the northwest, he found it opened through a “well-finished and plastered battered face of a terrace” (1952:82). This facing, he states, is covered with a fill

76

of large, un-weathered, unworked stones, set without mortar. He concludes that this fill might represent an extension to the great terrace. Unfortunately this does not give a good indication of the relative age of these two structures, for it is the fill that is the extension of the Court of the Columns, not necessarily the plastered terrace upon which the Sweat House is built. Thus the only piece of stratigraphic evidence available to relate these two buildings to other structures on the Court of the Columns is inconclusive. It makes most sense to suggest that these two structures were part of the general architectural development of the east side of the Court of the Columns and probably postdate the Temple of the Warriors, but the possibility always exists that these were earlier structures in the area.

Temescal (Sweat House, 3E3) Temescal Ball Court (3E2)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 50 Ruppert 1952:Fig. 49

Mercado and Associated Structures

A.V. Kidder described the architect of the Mercado as a man of bold ideas and much technical daring (1932:92). Alternating round and rectangular columns across the wide front facade supported the widest corbelled vault at Chichén Itzá (Ruppert 1943). Inside the patio, high

77

slender columns supported the roof over the ambulatory, while the area over the sunken central section remained open. Sculpture from the Mercado includes a carved stone from the stairway ramp (Ruppert 1943:Fig. 12), sculptured pilasters at the entrance to the patio, and one of the finest massive altars at Chichén Itzá. Sculpture and other features of architectural design offer the best evidence from which to estimate the period of construction of the Mercado. The stratigraphic information available does not tie the structure to any other building in the sequence.

The best sculptural evidence for a relative date of the Mercado comes from the minor panels above and below the central figures on the doorway pilasters (Ruppert 1943:Figs. 19, 20). Two groups of these sculptures have already been discussed, early types from the Great Ball Court (Tozzer l957:Figs. 335-338, 345), and late types from the Northeast Colonnade and the Xtoloc Temple (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 343, 340). The masks from the Mercado do not fit easily into either of these two groups, nor do they and the remaining types from the Chac Mool Temple form a distinct third group of their own (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 339, 341). Based on shared elements of the design and technical quality of the carving, the panels from the Mercado and the Chac Mool Temple are intermediate between the group from the ball court and the later group from the Northeast Colonnade and the Xtoloc Temple.

Mercado from Temple of the Little Tables

78

Other sculpture at the Mercado is not as suggestive of the time of carving. The main figures on the doorway pilasters are in poor condition, which increases the difficulties of comparison (Ruppert 1943:Figs.19, 20). Three of the six figures wear an animal cape, their heads emerging through the open jaws of the animal. Except for pectorals, sandals, garters, and wrist or arm coverings, the figures seem to be without clothing. Neither style nor subject

matter of these figures compares fruitfully to other sculpture at Chichén Itzá, in part because of the ruined state of the carvings, which obscures the style, and in part because of the uncommon subject matter.

The sculptured sides of the massive altar in the gallery are well preserved and details are fairly easy to recognize. There are many massive altars, perhaps daises, at Chichén Itzá, but few are sculptured and few can be dated

Mercado, Plan and Elevation, Marquina 1964:Pl. 272

79

relatively to each other. Massive altars are found in the Northwest, North, and Northeast Colonnades, and in the colonnades or galleries before Thompson’s Temple, the Temple of the Wall Panels, and the Sweat House. They occur in the so-called Toltec annexes of the Monjas and the Caracol, in the Temple of the Wall Panels, the Xtoloc Temple, and the Temple of the Interior Atlantean Columns. Structures 3D6, 5B8, 5B14 have them, and there may have been one in the High Priest’s Grave. The best examples for comparison are the altars from the first three colonnades in the list, but the amount of time separating these altars is unknown, and the possibility of reuse of an earlier altar always exists. Evidence was found for a massive altar in the colonnade associated with the Chac Mool Temple (Morris 1931:90), perhaps the earliest use of a massive altar. Many of the buildings in the list are as late as or later than the Temple of the Warriors. The massive altar is an architectural feature that appeared with increasing frequency through the architectural history of Chichén Itzá.

The Mercado is built “directly upon the floor of the terrace of the Court of the Thousand Columns” (Ruppert 1943:234). This position on the final courtyard level led to the assumption that the Mercado is a “late” building, but the relationships among courtyard levels and terraces may be more complex than just those discovered in a pit directly under the platform of a structure. The relationships among courtyard levels in the Court of the Columns are simply not known, nor has there been an attempt to correlate the courtyard

levels of the Court of the Columns with those from the main plaza. Until archaeologists complete investigations to elucidate these issues, the chronological relationships among these buildings and the chronological significance of a structure built on the final courtyard level of the Court of the Columns will remain uncertain.

It is primarily from comparisons with the Mercado that Kubler arrives at a “late” date for the Great Ball Court (1962:184). This is based on shared features and elements of architectural design and the position of the Mercado on the highest level of the Court of the Columns. He states that the profiles of the ball court buildings most closely resemble the profile of the Mercado, which presumably is late in the architectural sequence. There is no doubt about similarities of design between the Upper Jaguar Temple and the Mercado; indeed, spool elements from the facade of the Mercado were used in the reconstruction of the Upper Jaguar Temple. The saurian deity, although stylistically distinct in the two buildings, appears above and below the main figures on the pilasters of both structures, and the basal batter extends across the end walls of the front facades of both buildings.

No doubt the Mercado and the Upper Jaguar Temple share features of design, the problem is their chronological relationship to each other. There are few strictly architectural features that are good clues to the age of the Mercado; profiles and spool elements link it to the earlier Upper Jaguar Temple, and

80

the saurian deities are stylistically closest to those of the Chac Mool Temple. From this a date earlier than usually considered could be argued for the Mercado. Inferences based on available stratigraphic information and the ceramics associated with the structure seem to indicate a later date. An unusually high proportion of the black-on-cream ceramics called Coarse Slateware by Brainerd was found at the Mercado and adjacent Southeast Colonnade (Brainerd 1958:57). This pottery, called Peto Cream Ware by Smith, seems to be late in the Modified Florescent at Chichén Itzá, and has been isolated in unmixed collections from Dzibilchaltún between Modified Florescent and later Decadent ceramic contexts (Smith 1971:4, 253-254; Andrews 1965b:55-57). Thus, if the associated ceramics have anything to do with the construction or major occupation of the Mercado or Southeast Colonnade, these structures may be late in the Modified Florescent sequence.

The Southeast Colonnade (3D10) and Mercado Ball Court (3D4)Ruppert 1952:Figs. 44, 39

There may be some stratigraphic support for this view, other than the Mercado’s position on the final courtyard level of the Court of the Columns. This is based on the observation that the colonnade before Thompson’s Temple is almost surely an extension of the Southeast Colonnade. The columns of the two units seem to be aligned, and the distance from the top of the columns to the capstones of the vaults is estimated to be exactly 1.40 meters in both structures (Ruppert 1952:68, 70). The colonnade before Thompson’s Temple appears to abut the Temple of the Little Tables, so both the Southeast Colonnade and Thompson’s Temple might postdate that structure.

81

In Brainerd’s discussion of the Southeast Colonnade, he observed that Ruppert thought the Mercado was later than this colonnade, which means, if the links in the chain are correctly forged so far, that the Mercado postdates the Temple of the Little Tables (Brainerd 1958).

This view of the relationship of the Mercado and the Southeast Colonnade contradicts the view that the Mercado postdates the Southeast Colonnade. I could find no break in the masonry of the wall of the Southeast Colonnade and the Mercado’s so-called East Passageway, a unit which is clearly later than the Mercado (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 44). This indicates that the Mercado predated the Southeast Colonnade, and a link in the chain from the Temple of the Little Tables to the Mercado would be broken. It may be best to follow the opinion of the excavator on this point, and if the other observations stand, the Mercado postdates the Temple of the Little Tables.

Conclusions

It is difficult to state with confidence exactly when any of the buildings on the Court of the Columns was built in relation to the structures on the main plaza. Although about a third of the buildings on the Court of the Columns have been excavated, almost no stratigraphic relationships are known. Stylistic details are often poorly known or of little aid in securing the chronological positions of the structures. If the precise building sequence of these structures is undetermined, considering the buildings as groups elucidates relationships among structures on the Court of the Columns to those on the main plaza.

The trend is fairly clear. None of the buildings is as early as the first constructions on the main plaza. Some of the structures on the Court of the Columns may be only slightly later than the Chac Mool Temple (Little Tables, for example), but the majority of these buildings probably postdate the Temple of the Warriors, including the Northeast Colonnade, Xtoloc Temple, structures 3D5 and 3D6, Thompson’s Temple, and the Southeast Colonnade. Although there may be some overlap in the period of construction on the two plazas, in general the buildings of the Court of the Columns were developed following the erection of the Temple of the Warriors.

Similarities between the constructions on the east side of the main plaza and the buildings of the east central section of the Court of the Columns suggest that the two groups had similar functions. Five buildings in one group are the same general type, in the same relative position, and with the same orientation as five buildings in the second group. Long colonnades form the southern buildings of these two functional complexes, the West Colonnade on the main plaza and the Southeast Colonnade on the Court of the Columns. Adjacent to the north are temples entered through colonnades, the Temple of the Warriors and Thompson’s Temple respectively, and again to the north on both courts are the obviously similar Temple of the Big Tables and the Temple of the Little Tables. The north structures of the four aligned buildings on each plaza, 2D6 and

82

3D7, are both multiple-columned buildings entered through a colonnade or gallery. The north and south colonnaded structures of both groups are built on low platforms, and the central two structures of each group are both mounted on higher substructures. The fifth building in each of these functional complexes is a ball court to the east, the Warriors Ball Court (2D9) nestled behind the structures of the main plaza, and the Temescal Ball Court to the east of the four buildings of the Court of the Columns.

Ball Court behind the Temple of the Warriors (2D9)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 16

Differences also exist between the buildings. Thompson’s Temple can only be compared to the Temple of the Warriors in the most general way, and structures 2D6 and 3D7 are unlike in detail. Nevertheless, given the general similarities among the buildings of the two groups, each building in one group apparently stood in a similar functional relationship to the other four structures of the group as the comparable building in the second group stood to its related structures. Even though there might have been some overlap in the period of construction of the five buildings of the two groups, the structures on the Court of the Columns are generally later than those on the main plaza. Thus, the group on the Court of the Columns appears to derive from the constructions on the main plaza.

83

V. Structures of South-Central Chichén ItzáCaracol

Almost no building at Chichén Itzá is more interesting than the Caracol, both for the problems inherent in interpreting its architecture and for its possible function as an observatory (Ruppert 1935). Although the excavations at the Caracol have made a wealth of architectural data about the structure available, unfortunately direct stratigraphic relationships with nearby structures are unknown.

The Caracol, High Priest’s Grave (Osario) and Temple of the Wall PanelsKilmartin & O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

84

The general sequence of building at the Caracol itself is clear. The first unit of construction at this location was the massive lower platform (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 8-92), distinctive for its size, for the large apron molding at the top, and for the parapet around the circumference. The masonry of this large lower platform, with its large, deeply tenoned blocks, is similar to the platforms of nearby Pure Florescent structures, the Monjas, Red House, and the House of the Deer (Ruppert 1935:273, Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:211). This contrasts with the veneer-like facing covering the platforms of the Castillo, the Temple of the Warriors, or other Modified Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá. A steep, early stairway initially gave access to the top of the platform, but at an unknown later time, a more gently rising stairway ascended to the top of the platform (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 57-90). Ramps decorated with a serpent guilloche flanked the second stairway. There was no indication that ramps flanked the early stairway (Ruppert 1935:56).

The Caracol

The next unit of construction at the Caracol was possibly the first circular platform built upon the large substructure (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 94-100). This platform was faced without decoration except for two three member moldings and a single member vertical cornice (Ruppert 1935:78). Ruppert found no evidence to indicate that a stairway ever ascended this platform, and the moldings, which completely encircle the platform, seem to confirm the absence of a stairway. Because he did not find finished floors below nor atop this structure, Ruppert concluded that the unit was incomplete (1935:271).

85

Caracol, plan and section, after Ruppert 1935

At a later time, builders added a second circular platform around the first (Ruppert 1935:Figs.103-114). A bench extends around the base of this second platform, except for a 12-meter section on the west. The masonry of this second platform is cruder than the masonry of the initial platform, requiring chinking between the stones, which are only roughly shaped. Again there was no evidence for a stairway, and floors were not finished either at the top or at the base. From this evidence, and from abutments at the south end of the bench, Ruppert concluded that this second circular platform was not completed before first construction of the upper rectangular platform began (1935:87-97, 271).

One architectural feature, the stylobate, cannot be clearly placed in this sequence, although it must be later than the initial large lower rectangular platform and earlier than the upper rectangular platform (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 162-165, 181, 182). The stylobate is a small rectangular platform, 2.14 by 1.79 by .33 meters, upon which rests two circular columns (Ruppert 1935:144). The relationship of the stylobate, which was built on the lower rectangular platform, to the two circular platforms is unknown. The stairway of the upper vertical platform was built upon and around the stylobate, so this feature must be earlier than the later rectangular platform.

86

The upper rectangular platform was constructed in two units, first a western section, enclosing approximately one third of the circumference of the second circular platform, and an eastern section that enveloped the rest of it (Ruppert 1935:97-144, Figs. 115-180). Ruppert believed the eastern section was added while the western section was under construction, and the two were finished as a unit (1935:101, 272). The stones of the upper platform are deeply tenoned and vary greatly in size, which causes variation in the masonry (Ruppert 1935:107). In general, quality of the masonry is better than the outer circular platform, but not as good as the first circular platform.

Like the stairway ascending the lower platform, the smaller upper stairway is on the west side of the platform. It too is decorated with an intertwined serpent design on the upper face of the stairway ramps. The most important feature of this upper stairway is the niche built to accommodate the two columns rising from the stylobate (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 162-165). This niche is important not only because it contains the stylobate and columns, a feature with possible astronomical significance (Ruppert 1935:275; Aveni, Gibbs, and Hartung 1975:979-980), but also because a rectangular stela and circular sculptured stone were found here (Ruppert 1935:135-143, Figs. 164-169, Morley 1935:276-283, 293). Thompson believes the dedicatory date of the stela to be 10.3.0.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin (1937:183). This is based on a reading of Glyph Block P22 as “end of cycle 10 (or 11), end of Katun 3,”

while the adjacent Glyph Block, 022, records the date Tun 17 (Morley 1935:280, Thompson 1937:183). This presumably reflects the long count date 10.2.17.0.0 (Thompson 1937:186).

The circular sculptured stone is probably best dated on stylistic grounds (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 168, 169). Lothrop wrote that this sculpture, centrally divided by a border, is the single sculptural link to the cenote discs. In subject matter, composition, and style, the sculpture parallels the battle discs, which Lothrop places at the very beginning of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá (1952:57, 111). Thus the circular sculptured stone and the stela, both associated with what is most likely a Pure Florescent or an early Modified Florescent architectural complex, are probably not chronologically distant. Evidence of a masonry block, which probably served as the foundation for the stela and circular stone, was found above the rear wall of the niche (Ruppert 1935:140, 143, Figs. 171-173). This clearly associates the upper platform with these two sculptured pieces. If Thompson is correct that the dedicatory date of the stela was 10.3.0.0.0, then this date is associated with this architectural unit. Naturally, the stela might be reused, or the date might be historical. The date is compatible with the Pure Florescent nature of the structure, and may be a good indication of the absolute date of this architectural unit.

The final major construction of this sequence was the tower itself (Ruppert 1935:153-237). The fundamental building techniques of the tower reveal architectural characteristics

87

that were either shared with Pure Florescent structures at the site or were very early traits of the Modified Florescent period. The lower and upper facades, for example, have both Puuc Maya and early Modified Florescent characteristics. The lower facade rises vertically, a detail that is often overlooked when considering the unique lines of the Caracol. This would perhaps be of little significance, except that the only other well-studied round structure at Chichén Itzá, the Casa Redonda, has a basal batter (Pollock 136a:140-141, Pls. 3a, 5a). This vertical lower facade is a feature of design shared with the nearby Castillo-sub, an early structure in the Modified Florescent period. The facade above the five-member molding is most reminiscent of the design of the Castillo. Here the parallel is general: over each of the four entrances to the Castillo temple is a mask panel, and although portions of only one panel were found in situ at the Caracol, the evidence indicates there was a panel over each of the four doorways (Ruppert 1935:179, 181, Figs. 220-223).

Other constructional practices betray the influence of the Pure Florescent tradition. There was a step up between the outer and inner annular chambers (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 192, 280), and inner rooms were constructed on a slightly higher level than outer rooms, a characteristic of Pure Florescent structures, although it also occurs in the Castillo-sub. Details of the vault also reflect Pure Florescent practices. The vault stones of the Caracol were unspecialized, “long, relatively thin,

with the exposed face only occasionally square, dressed or slightly beveled” (Ruppert 1935:203, Figs. 258, 259, 261). This contrasts with the specialized veneer type vault stones characteristic of the Modified Florescent period. Rather than capping the vault with a horizontal stone, the usual procedure, the two ascending sides of the vault simply leaned together at the apex (Ruppert 1935:207, Figs. 192, 270). The upper course was slightly offset at the base. Of all structures at Chichén Itzá, the vaults in the East Wing of the Monjas, the Iglesia, and the Southeast Annex of the Monjas were the closest in design to the top of the vaults of the Caracol. In these three structures the vault stones of the upper course were offset and ascended at an angle, with only a very small space between the two sides. Unlike the Caracol, however, a horizontal stone capped the vaults. In other vaults at Chichén Itzá, the final course was either set vertically rather than at an angle (Red House, second story of the Monjas, Lower Jaguar Temple, Upper Jaguar Temple, Castillo), or if the final course was at an angle, the space between the walls was two or three times as great as in the examples above (inner rooms of Akab Dzib, Northwest Colonnade, Sweat House).

The five-member molding that separates the lower and upper zones of the facade is unique in the Maya area (Ruppert 1935:159). The molding is essentially an expansion of the three-member type, with two beveled members flanking the central band rather than only one (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 193-195, 203-205). There is a curved groove on one or both of the lateral,

88

vertical faces of each of the molding stones in the lowest course of this five-member molding (Ruppert 1935:159, Figs. 195, 196, 206). Similar grooves, possibly cord-holders, were discovered in the lowest overhanging member above the plain lower facade of the Iglesia, again suggesting the close relationship between the Caracol and structures of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá. Use of stone lintels is a final feature associating the Caracol with earlier structures. Stone lintels were the rule in Pure Florescent structures, whereas wooden lintels were most common in Modified Florescent structures, even though stone lintels were employed occasionally.

These architectural features indicate that the Caracol is Pure Florescent or among the earliest Modified Florescent constructions at the site. Traits shared with the earlier Pure Florescent structures include the vertical lower zone, the step up into the interior chamber, the unspecialized vault stones, and the stone lintels. The method of capping the vault is unique, but it most closely resembles the technique employed at the East Wing of the Monjas, the Monjas Southeast Annex, and the Iglesia. The cord-holders cut into the stones of the basal member of the five-member molding occur at the Iglesia, where they are present in the basal course of the medial molding. The four doorways with mask panels above are reminiscent of the design of the Castillo temple, while the masks themselves perhaps most resemble the masks of the Monjas (Pollock 1936b:103). Techniques of construction, from lower

platform to vault, indicate strong influence from Pure Florescent builders. Little evidence distinguishes the Caracol from Pure Florescent buildings. Pollock concluded “that the Caracol shows the more fundamental constructional practices to be cast in the Maya mold, while more superficial features, such as balustrades and roof crests, pertain to the Mexican era” (1936b:103).

The inscriptions of the Caracol suggest absolute chronology, or at least its position relative to other dated inscriptions. The date on the Caracol stela, possibly 10.2.17.0.0 in the Maya long count, has already been mentioned. Both Thompson and Morley interpreted a date of 10.7.0.5.1 from the hieroglyphic serpent band that decorated the upper facade of the Caracol (Morley 1935:283-292, Thompson 1937:182, 186). This date is over four katuns later than the cluster of dates associated with the Pure Florescent constructions of Chichén Itzá. While the Pure Florescent period might have extended to this date or possibly even later, this date is incompatible if, on the other hand, a date of around 10.4.0.0.0 or 10.5.0.0.0 is favored for the beginning of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. Thus, although the later date on the Caracol can be interpreted as Pure Florescent or Modified Florescent according to differing opinions on the regional chronology, the early date is consistent with the strongly Pure Florescent aspect of the construction techniques of the building.

89

High Priest’s Grave (Osario)

The High Priest’s Grave (structure 3C1), a building notable for its architectural design and for the associated hieroglyphic date, is located north and slightly east of the Red House, about a third of the way to the Castillo or the central part of the main plaza (E. H. Thompson 1938). The High Priest’s Grave is built upon a high platform, probably of ascending terraces, with four stairways on each side. Serpent ramps flank each stairway, with the heads positioned at the base of each ramp. Main entrance to the temple was from the east through a triple doorway, and small doorways were built on each of the other three sides. Serpent columns supported this main entrance, which gave access to an inner sanctuary surrounded by an ambulatory. Similarity in general design with the Castillo has long been recognized; one of the differences in plan between the two structures is the lack of a dividing wall in the ambulatory of the High Priest’s Grave, a feature which allowed access to the sanctuary only from the main entrance in the Castillo. In the sanctuary itself, four sculptured columns supported the vaulting, rather than two as in the Castillo, and the former has square serpent columns whereas those in the latter are round (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 24, 119d-121). A distinctive feature of the High Priest’s Grave is the shaft that descends from the floor of the sanctuary through the center of the structure, including an earlier building within, to a grotto below the level of the ground. E. H. Thompson discovered seven burials as he cleared this shaft, including numerous artifacts of flint, jade, shell, bone, obsidian, copper, and ceramic material, among other items.

High Priest’s Grave (Osario) in 1974

90

High Priest’s Grave (Osario), Marquina 1964:Pl. 275

91

J. Eric Thompson, writing in the report by E. H. Thompson, which he prepared for publication, believed the similarities between the High Priest’s Grave and the Castillo suggest a short time span between the two structures (E. H. Thompson 1938:59). The square serpent columns, he maintained, suggest association with the Temple of the Warriors rather than the Castillo, Chac Mool Temple, or the Upper Temple of the Jaguars. On the basis of this evidence, he suggested that the High Priest’s Grave was transitional between the Castillo and the Temple of the Warriors, and later than the Chac Mool Temple. It is unfortunate these relationships are not known on the basis of sound stratigraphy, for there is a hieroglyphic inscription at the High Priest’s Grave which may date the structure and thereby provide a clue to the period of construction of the other buildings.

The abbreviated hieroglyphic date is from the southeast column of the sanctuary, and apparently records the day 2 Ahau of the month 18 Mol (Thompson 1937:185). If Thompson’s method of deciphering Yucatecan dates is correct, the corresponding position in the long count for this inscription is 10.8.10.11.0. There has been some uncertainty whether this inscription was reused in its present position. Thompson first argued that the “asymmetrical position of this inscription in relation to the column on which it is carved and in relation to the whole building suggests that the drums on which it occurs have been reused” (J. E. S. Thompson in B. H. Thompson 1938:59), but he later accepted the inscription as the date

of the structure (1970a:44). Proskouriakoff never considered the blocks reused, and argued against Thompson’s original position (1970:459): “The design of the glyphic panel, however, is fully integrated with the Figure on the column, and since the inscription spans two blocks and no blocks of such thickness are used in Maya buildings, I fail to see how this view can be justified.” She suggested that the inscription should be “provisionally accepted as the best evidence we have of the date of this building” (1950:170).

If 10.8.10.11.0 is indeed the date of the structure, then on the basis of stylistic grounds alone the Castillo and Castillo-sub, the Caracol, and probably the Great Ball Court are earlier than this date. If this is the date of construction of this building, then a date of 10.4.0.0.0 or 10.5.0.0.0 is probably indicated for the beginning of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá, to accommodate the constructions at the site that are stylistically earlier than the High Priest’s Grave. If the regional chronology indicated by the work at Dzibilchaltún is followed, which dates the beginning of the Modified Florescent period around the time of the date of the High Priest’s Grave or even later, then the 10.8.10.11.0 date from the High Priest’s Grave has to be considered historical to allow time for the construction of the earlier buildings at the site. The date could be considered historical, for example, if it commemorated the arrival of the first Modified Florescent people at Chichén Itzá, or if it was the date of birth of one of the persons buried inside the pyramid.

92

It is possible, therefore, that the date on the High Priest’s Grave is compatible with either an early (10.4.0.0.0 or 10.5.0.0.0) or late (ca. 10.9.0.0.0) beginning of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá.

Temple of the Wall Panels

Like the Caracol, Karl Ruppert excavated and published the Temple of the Wall Panels (3C16)(Ruppert 1931). It is a two-chambered structure entered through a triple doorway, built upon a substructure about 5 meters high. A small colonnade, roofed with three vaults, joined this substructure on the west. The outer facade of the colonnade, like the temple above, rose with a basal batter to an apron molding, above which the wall was vertical to a three-member molding. The upper facade was plain, crowned by another three-member molding, the upper member of which was an extended beveled course.

Temple of the Wall Panels from the Caracol

Temple of the Wall Panels (3C16)Ruppert 1931:Pls. 1, 3

93

Ruppert discovered some but not all stones from sculptured panels in the debris of the north and south sides of the temple (1931:123). The panels were most likely positioned in the north and south walls in the medial zone of the lower facade. He also recovered pieces of mask panels, but never more than about half of the stones for any mask. The building is named for the sculptured panels located on the north and south exterior walls of the colonnade (Ruppert 1931:Pl. 11).

Two periods of architectural activity are evident from the excavation of the Temple of the Wall Panels. Initially, a stairway at the rear of the colonnade gave entrance to the upper temple, similar to the access to the Temple of the Warriors through the rear of the Northwest Colonnade. Sometime later architects walled up this entryway and added a new stairway to the front of the colonnade to allow access to the temple (Ruppert 1931: 133-134). First, builders encased the central two columns of the four of the west facade of the colonnade in masonry piers, then they enclosed the piers with a wall, and lastly they constructed the stairway. Finally, they added flanking ramps to the stairway, and moved the serpent heads, which had rested against the two columns of the temple, to the bases of these stairway ramps (Ruppert 1931:134-136, Fig. 2, Pls. 2, 3, 9a, 15).

There are few architectural clues to the general chronological position of this structure. The serpent heads are unique among those in the major buildings of Chichén Itzá, for they

have a concavity at the rear to allow them to fit against the bases of the round columns of the temple. Serpent columns in the other major buildings at the site, when the columns were round, were constructed with the head and lower column drum carved from a single block of stone (Upper Jaguars, Castillo, Chac Mool, Big Tables), while heads and basal columns were separate if the column shaft was rectangular (Warriors, High Priest’s Grave, Little Tables). The design of the serpent heads from the Temple of the Wall Panels was a third variety, of unknown chronological significance, but sometimes considered late among the serpent columns. Some slight support for this view comes from structure 3E5, a small building on the southeast side of the Court of the Columns, where a similar type of head and column arrangement was probably used (Ruppert 1952:85). This building, because of its peripheral position on the Court of the Columns, probably falls in the latter half of the architectural sequence of the site.

In addition to secondary use of the serpent heads at the bases of the stairway ramps, at least one of the serpent tails was carved from what had been a hieroglyphic lintel, and Ruppert reported that 15 glyph blocks could still be recognized, although the glyphs themselves are obliterated (1931:124). Another example of a reused sculptured stone in the construction is the inverted column drum carved with two atlantean Figures found in situ in the southeastern column of the colonnade (Ruppert 1931:132). Since atlantean sculptures are only found in the Modified Florescent

94

period at Chichén Itzá, some building dating to this period must have been demolished before the drum was incorporated in the construction of the Temple of the Wall Panels. Ruppert reported that the column drums in the colonnade often vary in circumference, which may indicate that many of the drums were reused from other structures.

The wall panels for which the structure is named cannot be clearly related to any of the sculpture from the architectural sequence (Ruppert 1931:128-132, Pl. 11). Both panels were organized around central sculptures, most often scenes of confrontation. The south panel was divided into three tiers; the central scene of the upper tier shows a Figure with a serpent in an “S” curve behind him facing a figure in a sun disc with offerings between them. The central scene of the north panel shows three individuals, two with arching serpents, standing before a house or temple, with a figure suspended in the air above. These arching serpents were repeated at least six times in the two small panels, usually around central figures. In the top rows of the two panels human figures extend all the way across the field, whereas in the lower rows various animals and birds break the tiered effect of the sculptures at the periphery.

A sculptured stone tablet found covering a cist in the upper temple was carved in a style similar to the wall panels (Ruppert 1931:126-127, Pl. 10c). Here again two figures confront each other over an offering, one below the curving serpent. Above the other figure,

emerging from what appears to be a serpent-like body, are the head and fore limbs of an animal, probably a jaguar. This curious design was repeated twice on the south wall panel, perhaps an alternate way of indicating the figure in the sun disc, who usually sits on a jaguar throne.

The overall presentation of the scenes of the wall panels, the division into central and peripheral areas as well as a rough division into tiers, the presentation of a figure in a sun disc confronting a person associated with the arching serpent, and the chaotic impression given by the peripheral figures recalls the organization of the wall sculptures of the North Ball Court Temple. There is a vague resemblance to some of the dais sculptures, and some resemblance to small block sculptures of the type from the Mercado Ball Court or the south building of the Southeast Court of the Monjas, but these associations cannot be pushed too far nor can their meaning be confidently interpreted.

The few indications of the chronological position of the Temple of the Wall Panels in the architectural history of the site suggest that it is later rather than earlier Modified Florescent. The entrance through the colonnade suggests affinity with the Chac Mool Temple, the Temple of the Warriors, and the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns. The second period of construction at the temple, when the interior access was walled and the stairway was built in front of the colonnade, indicates a later preference for entry over the colonnade. If the

95

Temple of the Wall Panels was not the prototype of the structures designed with entrance through a colonnade, and it probably was not, then this second period of construction surely postdates the Chac Mool Temple, and is most likely later than the Temple of the Warriors as well.

Minor Modified Florescent Structures

The following structures are the remaining Modified Florescent constructions of south-central Chichén Itzá:

Monjas “Toltec” Annexes

Caracol Annexes

Red House Ball Court (3C10)

Monjas Ball Court

Monjas “third floor”

East extension from the House of the Deer

Temple of the Grinding Stones (3C5)

Temple of the Interior Atlantean Columns (3C6)

Structures 3C2, 3C3, 3C4, 3C8, 3C11, 3C12, 4C3

We know little about most of these structures and their place in the Modified Florescent sequence. Some of their most interesting features warrant brief comments.

At the Monjas during the Modified Florescent period were constructed a ball court to the south, about which almost nothing is published, the Northeast Annex, East Building, and Southeast Court, buildings descriptively named for their location in relation to the Monjas proper, and the jerry-built “third story.” The latter structure, perched above the graceful second story of the Monjas, is most likely a late Modified Florescent construction. The sloppy masonry full of reused stones was probably built after structures like the Temple of the Warriors were erected on the main plaza. Some of the sequence of building among the structures of the Monjas annexes can be determined on the basis of wall abutments, but the lack of distinctive architectural features makes such a recital unnecessary. The south building of the Southeast Court is notable for its sculptured jambs, columns, capitals, and stone bench. Sculptors depicted a procession of ten persons on the north side of the bench, each two of whom seem to be bound together with a rope.

96

There is also a series of buildings around the basal platform of the Caracol, referred to as the West and South Annexes (Ruppert 193, 1952:Figs. 126-128). These structures are of interest mainly because of the types of structures found here, including a portal vault, a sweat house, and a cistern, in addition to more typical buildings of the Modified Florescent period (Ruppert 1952:55-57). These buildings are later than the basal platform of the Caracol, which is either Pure Florescent or early in the Modified Florescent period. Some of these structures were razed in the past.

Two of the excavated structures among the buildings of this group, the House of the Grinding Stones (3C5) and the House of the Interior Atlantean Columns (3C6), exhibit some interesting architectural features, although the structures cannot be securely placed in the building sequence (Ruppert 1952:38-39). The House of the Grinding Stones was probably roofed with beams and mortar roof, rather than the more common vaulted type, and its plan is superficially similar to the temples of the Castillo and the High Priest’s Grave. The House of the Grinding Stones was constructed at ground level rather than on an elevated substructure, but it appears to be built on the terrace supporting the High Priest’s Grave, and so may be later than that structure. Adjacent to the House of the Grinding Stones, the House of the Interior Atlantean Columns is notable for the sculptured columns, which are constructed with plain blocks in the middle of the Figures, and carved with thumbs on the wrong side of the hands (Ruppert 1952:39 Fig. 122a).

House of the Grinding Stones (3C5) and the House of the Interior Atlantean Columns (3C6)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 27

97

The remaining Modified Florescent constructions in this area reveal few details. In front of the High Priest’s Grave are structures 3C2, 3C3, and 3C4 (Ruppert 1952:35-37). Structure 3C2 is a low platform with almost no details known, and 3C3 is a slightly larger platform that in plan and profile resembles a smaller version of the Platform of Jaguars and Eagles (2C3). Structure 3C4 is a small construction with two or three vaulted chambers that might have been tombs. Structures 3C8 and 3C12 might have been oriented in relation to the Red House and the House of the Deer; the former is a low platform with cylindrical stone in the middle, and the latter is a long low platform with columns and central dividing walls (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 29, 35). A flagstone pavement projects northward from 3C8 toward the House of the Deer, just as a similar pavement connects the Caracol with 3C11 (Ruppert 1952:50-51, Fig. 125). Structure 3C11 may be an early building of the Modified Florescent period, because the platform is built of deeply tenoned stones similar to the large platforms of the Caracol and Red House. In addition, this structure has a stone lintel, and inside the vaults turned the corners, a technique seen at the Castillo. Between this structure and the Red House, indeed abutting the Red House platform, is a small ball court (3C10) with sculptured panels (Ruppert 1952:48-49, Fig. 124b,c).

Of the Modified Florescent constructions in south-central Chichén Itzá, the Caracol, High Priest’s Grave, and Temple of the

Wall Panels are the most architecturally and chronologically significant structures, including the distinctive architectural features of all three and the hieroglyphic dates associated with two of them. Only superficial features brand the Caracol as a Modified Florescent structure; basic construction techniques are strongly Pure Florescent. The remaining structures cannot be placed with confidence in the architectural sequence. This chapter completes the discussion of the Modified Florescent construction in the central sections of Chichén Itzá. The less well known archaeology of the outlying groups remains to be discussed in detail.


98

Ruppert 1952:Fig. 26 Ruppert 1952:Fig. 29

Ruppert 1952:Fig. 34Structure 3C12Ruppert 1952:Fig. 35 Ruppert 1952:Fig. 58

99

Outlying groups are clusters of primarily Modified Florescent structures that lie away from the central groups. Seven outlying clusters are discussed: the Group of the Initial Series, the Southwest Group, the Group of the Bird Cornice, the structures of quadrant 3B, the Northwest Group, and two groups in southeastern Chichén Itzá, the Group of the Hieroglyphic Jambs and the cluster of structures 5D1 to 5D3. The East Group, the Far East Group, and the Chultun Group, located off the map of Chichén Itzá to the east of the Court of the Columns, yield few buildings and reveal little architectural detail. There is little to add to Rupert’s discussion of these groups (1952:150-153).

The outlying groups of Chichén Itzá warrant study for several reasons. Tracing the internal architectural development of each group, to the extent possible yields clues of architecture and chronology, and ultimately, history. Differences or parallels between or among groups might suggest developmental information, such as whether a particular group, or portion of a group, is relatively late in the sequence, or whether there was a gradual development of the group spanning the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. Reference must be made, when possible and however tenuous, to better-known buildings in the central section of the site. Some difficulties plague such efforts. Stratigraphic relationships among the buildings of the outlying groups are usually unknown due to lack of excavation, and rubble or vegetation often obscures architectural details. Even when features of design can be usefully compared between two areas, interpreting the observation can be challenging. In spite of these obstacles, the systematic, synthetic study of the outlying groups reveals useful information about the development of Chichén Itzá.

Group of the Initial Series

The Group of the Initial Series, structures 5C1 to 5C17, is located about 200 meters east of Sacbe Number 7 from a point approximately midway between the Monjas and the Temple of the Three Lintels. With the exception of structures 5C9 and 5C10, these buildings were loosely arranged in three courtyard clusters around the House of the Phalli. The portal vault (5C16) at the north edge of the terrace of the Initial Series Group gives entrance to a courtyard delimited by the Temple of the Initial Series (5C4) and structure 5C11 on the east, structure 5C2 on the north, and the House of the Phalli (5C14) on the south. West of the Phalli Group, the Temple of the Little Heads (5C3), the Temple of the Owls (5C7), and structure 5C6 form a second cluster. In contrast to the two courtyards that these freestanding structures roughly outline, contiguous structures added one to the other by a process of accretion form the small courtyard south of the House of the Phalli.

VI. Outlying Groups

100

Group of the Initial SeriesKilmartin & O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

The Group of the Initial Series developed around the House of the Phalli, a structure clearly of the Pure Florescent period at Chichén Itzá on the basis of floor plan and features of construction. Some stratigraphic evidence indicates that the building predates any structure built on the present plaza level. One of Vaillant’s trenches sunk through the courtyard to bedrock exposed a portion of the basal terrace upon which rests the House of the Phalli, revealing that the present court level was an extension from the initial basal terrace supporting the House of the Phalli (Ruppert 1952:157-162). The only other possible Pure

Florescent structure in this group is the House of the Shells (5C5), the building adjacent to the House of the Phalli to the south. This edifice is much in ruin, but the engaged columns at the corners of the building suggest it was built during the same period as the Temple of the Three Lintels and the House of the Phalli. Unfortunately the Initial Series lintel, which bears the only long count date from Chichén Itzá, and after which this group is named, is not in association with a building of the Pure Florescent period, and its original context is unknown.


Vaillant’s excavations revealed the building sequence around the courtyard south of the House of the Phalli (Ruppert 1952:157-162). The first construction certainly of the Modified Florescent period is the colonnade attached to the House of the Phalli. No colonnades are known from Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá, and the sculpture on the columns is clearly from the later period. Three of the eastern columns

101

House of the Phalli, Structures of the South Courtyard (5C14, left; 5C5 and 5C15)

history of the site. The low relief sculpture shares more with the sculpture from the Warriors complex than the earlier buildings of the Great Ball Court, but knowledge of the later sculpture of Chichén Itzá is insufficient to place these columns in a sequence with certainty. Large atlantean columns, like those found in structure 5C15, are not known from well-dated contexts at Chichén Itzá, and therefore do not help to place the courtyard in the general sequence for the site.

No unequivocal information yields a relative date for the buildings north of the House of the Phalli, but inferential evidence suggests the northern court was developed late in the architectural history of the site. Probably no great amount of time passed between the construction of the gallery patio structure 5C11, the Sub-Temple of the Initial Series, the small colonnade structure 5C2, and the two-chambered structure 5C1. The fact that the columns in the patio of structure 5C11 are the same diameter as the columns in 5C2, the capitals of structures 5C1 and 5C2 are

of this colonnade were later removed in preparation for the construction of two rooms south of the east end of the House of the Phalli. Builders added more rooms south of these, and then completed the south court with the construction of the range of rooms joining the east and west sides of the patio on the south side. A colonnade similar to the one at the north end of the patio was built at the south end of the court, and the west patio completed the corner between the House of the Shells and the southern range of rooms. The two chambers above the western end of the House of the Phalli probably were added during the later phases of construction of this group.

The general building sequence in the courtyard south of the House of the Phalli is fairly clear, but little evidence exists to indicate the position of these buildings in the architectural

House of the Phalli, south court looking north

102

at the time of the construction of the Temple of the Initial Series. In their present position, they awkwardly press against the door jambs, rather than standing free in a triple doorway as they normally would. Some of the jamb stones themselves might be reused column capitals from structure 5C11 nearby, to judge from similar dimensions, or the blocks may have been carved for both structures at the same time. Other reused stones occur in the wall masonry of both the Initial Series Temples. The Temple of the Initial Series itself is much too small for the substructure upon which it rests, an example of poor design similar to the misuse of the atlantean columns in the doorway. Undoubtedly the sculptured lintel originally was not set in this building, the atlantean columns probably were used first somewhere else, and some of the jamb stones perhaps originated from a nearby structure. Cumulatively this is among the best circumstantial evidence for dating a building in an outlying group at Chichén Itzá.

Temple of the Initial Series (5C4)

similar dimensions, and the roofs of all four structures were flat rather than vaulted based on the absence of vault stones, probably indicates contemporaneity as well as a wish for stylistic homogeneity (Ruppert 1952:117, 118, 128, 157-162). Since no demonstrably early building at Chichén Itzá lacks a corbelled vault, whereas flat ceilings became the norm in Late Postclassic (Decadent) Yucatán, most likely buildings at Chichén Itzá that lack vaults are late in the sequence. No building at Chichén with a flat ceiling is demonstrably early in the history of the site.

The Temple of the Initial Series, which also lacked a vaulted roof, is almost certainly one of the latest buildings at Chichén Itzá. The atlantean columns upon which perches the Initial Series lintel are probably reused from the south block of rooms of the courtyard south of the House of the Phalli. Originally positioned like the large atlantean columns of structure 5C15, their removal may indicate that this group of rooms bad fallen into disuse

Initial Series Lintel on Large Atlanteans

103

Temple of the Initial Series (5C4), 5C2 and 5C11Ruppert 1952:Figs. 85, 83, 92

The small courtyard group formed by structure 5C6, the Temple of the Little Heads (5C3), and the Temple of the Owls (5C7) yields agonizingly small amounts of architectural detail and sculpture. The Temple of the Little Heads is a small single room structure opening to the south. Vaillant’s excavations revealed that double vaults had been supported by large atlantean columns, while portions of smaller atlantean figures were found in the debris, as well as stone slabs from a tabletop altar or bench (Ruppert 1952:157-162). Outside, the facade rises with a basal batter, and the jamb stones are long and beveled. A sculptural band in the upper facade was probably decorated with a frieze of birds and bats (Ruppert 1952:119). Ruppert reported that the Temple of the Little Heads is constructed on “an independent terrace rising from that of the Initial Series Group” (1952:119), which suggests that, like the House of the Phalli, it too predates the present courtyard level.

Temple of the Little Heads (5C3) Ruppert 1952:Fig. 84

The position of this structure in the relative sequence is problematic. The large atlantean columns used for vault support in the Temple of the Little Heads are less massive than the atlantean columns in structure 5C15 or in the Temple of the Interior Atlantean Columns (3C6), and the sashes which fall from the waists of the figures are pulled aside to reveal

104

were sculptured with owls and plaited tapes on the front and rear, and owls only on the side (Ruppert 1952:124, Fig. 146a, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 98). Neither plaited tapes nor owls are particularly diagnostic features at Chichén Itzá. Plaited tapes occur nearby as pectorals on the large atlanteans from the Temple of the Atlantean Columns (5C15), but they are also found at the Red House, the Lower Jaguar Temple, the Venus Platform (2D4), and as adornment on figures 16N and 6OE in the Northwest Colonnade (Tozzer 1957:96-97). A figure wearing a plaited tape from the Northeast Colonnade also wears a bird headdress, although it cannot be identified as an owl (Ricketson 1927:11). Of the many birds in the sculpture at Chichén Itzá, owls are surely identified only at the Temple of the Wall Panels (Ruppert 1931:130-131, Pl. 11), but at the North Ball Court Temple birds, plaited tapes, and foliage are all found in the scenes. Phallic sacrifice is a theme in the vault sculpture of

Temple of the Owls (5C7) Ruppert 1952:Fig. 88

the genitals. The exposed genitals recall the low relief sculpture on the pilasters of the Mercado, where possibly the genitals are exposed. The similarity of the long beveled jamb stones in the Temple of the Little Heads to the corner stones of the Mercado slightly strengthens the association of these two structures. The original location is unknown of the atlantean bench or altar subsequently deposited in a pile at the rear of the Temple of the Little Heads. Because the two complete atlanteans vary in height from 63 to 82 cm, and only parts of other figures remain, most probably the bench or altar was destroyed before the remains were repositioned where they were found. Seler reported that the variation among the atlantean figures in the Temple of the Little Tables is from 64 to 88 cm, and postulated their reuse. Perhaps the slabs and atlanteans in the Temple of the Little Heads came from the same source as the slabs and atlanteans in the Temple of the Little Tables (Seler 5:277). In any case, the association of the Temple of the Little Heads with two structures from the Court of the Columns that might be related chronologically is possibly the best indication of the relative position of this structure in the architectural history of the site.

The Temple of the Owls, a single chambered structure entered through a triple doorway, is the south building of this small court. Sculptors carved owls and plaited tapes on the sides of the columns and a plant motif on the front. Pilasters in the doorway and in the entrance to a shrine in the rear of the structure

105

the North Ball Court Temple, which ties this building thematically with the House of the Phalli and the Temple of the Little Heads. All this says almost nothing about the relative chronological position of the Temple of the Owls. Morley recovered a fine painted capstone from this structure that might offer clues, but little comparative material exists. The capstone was later burned in a fire at Hacienda Chichén (Morley 1927:235, Tozzer 1957:Fig. 384, Willard 1926: facing page 248). The association of the Temple of the Owls and the Temple of the Little Heads with three structures on the Court of the Columns is suggestive but inconclusive.

Structure 5C6, a gallery with three small rooms, forms the west side of this small court. Few details are available, but the measurements of the columns and capitals associate this gallery with the gallery of structure 5C11 on the other side of the Initial Series Group (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 87, pp. 123, 128). In structure 5C6 the columns 47 cm. in diameter are capped with capitals measuring 70 by 60 by 35 cm, rather odd proportions among the column capitals at Chichén Itzá. The capitals in the gallery of structure 5C11, which rested upon columns 50 cm. in diameter, measure 72 by 57 by 34 cm. (Ruppert 1952:123, 128). The use of capitals that are so nearly the same size in these two structures may indicate that they were constructed about the same time.

The complete sequence of construction of the Group of the Initial Series is unknown, but a general outline can be proposed. The Initial Series Group developed around the large Pure Florescent structure, the House of the Phalli, and the House of the Shells (5C5) to the south is most likely also a Chichén Puuc construction. Initial Modified Florescent construction might have been the colonnade south of the House of the Phalli or the Temple of the Owls. Structures 5C6 and 5C11 probably predate structures 5C1, 5C2, and the Sub-Temple of the Initial Series, and possibly they fell into disuse before the construction of the Temple of the Initial Series. The large atlantean columns of the Initial Series Temple were probably retrieved from the south

Structure 5C6 Ruppert 1952:Fig. 87

106

Southwest GroupKilmartin & O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

The southeast court probably developed around two structures of the Pure Florescent period, 5B22 and 5B25, buildings similar in plan and orientation to the Red House and the House of the Deer. Vault stones not of the veneer type in one of the structures probably confirm they are Pure Florescent buildings, not simply later copies of Pure Florescent plans. Of the Modified Florescent structures in the court, no details are known of 5B20 and 5B24, so only 5B19, 5B21, and 5B23 remain to be discussed (Ruppert 1952:111-115).

block of rooms south of the House of the Phalli, indicating that this area too may have been abandoned at the time of construction of the Initial Series Temple. Few clues indicate the time of construction of the buildings of this group within the Chichén sequence, and none appears very early in the Modified Florescent period. Possibly the long, beveled jamb and corner stones in the Temple of the Owls and the Temple of the Little Heads were set during the same period when similar stones appear in the Mercado and the High Priest’s Grave. If so, this may give a loose relative date of these two buildings. The lack of vaulted roofs in most of the other northern buildings in the court indicates buildings late in the architectural sequence. The Temple of the Initial Series is almost certainly one of the latest structures at the site.

Southwest Group

The Southwest Group lies west of the Initial Series Group, across the sacbe linking the Monjas with the Temple of the Four Lintels. The thirteen structures that comprise the group form two plaza clusters, a northwest plaza delimited by structures 5B13 to 5B18, and a southeast plaza defined by structures 5B19 to 5B25.

107

Ruppert 1952:Figs. 79, 81

Because no sculptural detail is known, if any ever existed, in the gallery patio structure 5B19 at the west end of the court, this edifice can only be compared to other structures on the basis of floor plan and the measurements of columns and capitals. In plan, this building resembles the patio portion of structure 3B3, an association pursued below in the discussion of that structure. Since the capitals of the columns in structure 5B19 are probably reused column blocks from other buildings (Ruppert 1943:232), it is worthwhile to compare the measurements of width and breadth of these capitals with the size of columns in other Chichén structures.

When the building or buildings were demolished that yielded the stones utilized as

capitals in 5B19, it is possible that other stones from the same source, therefore with the same measurements, were utilized as columns in other buildings. Five buildings with rectangular columns can be associated with 5B19 through measurements falling within 3 cm. of the upper and lower limits given by Ruppert for the capitals from structure 5B19. The columns in two of these buildings, 2C10 and the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1), are probably also reused (Ruppert 1952:20, 88). The link to the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs is significant because this structure is probably later than the Temple of the Big Tables, for reasons discussed below, which in turn is no earlier than the Temple of the Warriors. Thus if structures 4B1 and 5B19 belong to the same

108

building period, they almost surely postdate the Temple of the Warriors.

Two of the five buildings with rectangular columns about the same size as the capitals in 5B19 are adjacent: the addition to the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21), and the Castillo of Old Chichén (5B18). The columns in the latter are probably in their original positions, but little can be said about the columns in the former, for all but a portion of one sculptured column is buried in debris. The association of the capitals in structure 5B19 with columns in two adjacent buildings is interesting, but its significance is unclear. Perhaps the unknown demolished structure was built about the same time as the Castillo of Old Chichén, and following its dismantling, columns or portions of columns were utilized in the addition to 5B21 and 5B19. The fifth building with columns near the size of the width and depth of the capitals of 5B19 is structure 3B11, of interest only because it is located near structure 3B3, the building linked to structure 5B19 on the basis of ground plan.

When one compares the column capitals in structure 5B19 to the capitals of columns in other buildings, the measurements from 5B19 are very close to measurements from structures 2C5, 3D9, 5A2, 5B23, and 5C9. Structure 5B23 is across the plaza from 5B19. Three structures on this court, 5B19, 5B23, and the addition to 5B21, are therefore associated on the basis of either column or capital measurements. This, together with their proximity on the courtyard, might mean that they were built about the same time. Linking

5B19 to 3B3 on the basis of ground plan and selected measurements, and associating 5A2 with 5B19 on the basis of the size of the capitals, is reinforced by the similar plans of structure 5A2 and the colonnade before structure 3B3. Possibly 3B3 and 5A2 were constructed about the time 5B19, 5B23, and the addition to 5B21 were built in the Southwest group.

Two of the structures listed above may give a clue to the relative age of these structures compared to buildings in other areas of Chichén Itzá. Structure 2C5 in the Northwest Group and Thompson’s Temple (3D9) on the Court of the Columns are both buildings which probably postdate the Temple of the Warriors, and it is likely that these three structures in the Southwest Group and 3B3 and 5A2 are also later than the Temple of the Warriors.

Structures 5B21 Ruppert 1952: Fig. 78

109

Structures 5B23 Ruppert 1952: Fig. 80

The Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21) faces north on the south side of the southeast court. Its ground plan is unique at Chichén Itzá. Single transverse rooms flank two central longitudinal rooms, one behind the other. Entrance to the transverse rooms was through the inner longitudinal chamber. Entry to the four rooms was through a triple doorway supported by two atlantean columns and two atlantean pilasters attached to beveled jambs (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 143b, 143d). The Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21) is probably earlier than 5B19 and 5B23 because of their close association with the later addition to 5B21.

The small colonnade that fronts the substructure probably gave entrance to the temple above by an interior stairway, like the arrangement in the Temple of the Warriors and the early entrance to the Temple of the Wall Panels. The colonnade, however, is much reduced, with only four columns spanning the front facade. This small gallery is reminiscent of the small colonnade before the Temple of the Little Tables, although the stairway there was probably over the colonnade rather than

through it. The sculpture from this building is not a great help in fixing the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns in the architectural sequence of the site. A serpent band encircled the pyramid, but serpent bands occur through time from the Upper Temple of the Jaguars to the Northeast Colonnade. Small atlanteans were carved in the minor panels above the warriors on the columns of the gallery, but these are found through time from the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple to the Temples of the Big and Little Tables. The jaguar atlantean columns are unlike any other columns at Chichén Itzá. Because Morris discovered evidence for the first sculptured atlanteans at Chichén Itzá in the Chac Mool Temple (1931:74), one may suggest 5B21 is no earlier than the Chac Mool Temple. The Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns probably was built a little bit later, perhaps about the time of the Temple of the Little Tables. The association of the addition to 5B21 with Thompson’s Temple, a building that probably postdates the Temple of the Little Tables, may reinforce this association. The sequence of construction on this plaza was first the two structures of the Pure Florescent period, 5B22 and 5B25,

110

followed in the Modified Florescent period by the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21) and later still by 5B19, 5B23, and the addition to 5B21. Lack of information precludes placing structures 5B20 and 5B24 in the sequence.

Structures 5B13 through 5B18 form the northwest plaza, the second courtyard of the Southwest Group. The south building is the Castillo of Old Chichén (5B18). Two structures face the courtyard on the east side, 5B16 and 5B17, and structures 5B13 and 5B14 bound the plaza on the north. There are no buildings on the west side, but a small platform (5B15) is located in the middle of the courtyard slightly north of center.


Structure 5B16 is one of the most important structures in the outlying groups, because it is closely tied architecturally to the Temple of the Big Tables on the main plaza. Both of these buildings have the same plan and orientation as two solitary structures, the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1) and structure 5B9. A stylistic sequence can be suggested based upon similarities among these buildings that is tied to the sequence on the main plaza through the Temple of the Big Tables. Each of these buildings is a two-chambered structure, with a narrow outer room entered through a triple doorway to the west, and a larger chamber on the east with double vaults supported by four columns. Each of the four temples was built upon a high substructure, although the Temple of the Big Tables, 8.5-9 meters high, was about a third again as high as the other three substructures, which were about 5 and 6 meters high (Ruppert 1952:22, 88, 106, 110). Features such as the atlantean bench, feathered serpent columns, and sculptured pilasters in the Temple of the Big Tables are absent in the other three structures, but other information suggests meaningful associations. The temple of structure 5B16, for example, is approximately 13.5 meters wide by 11.5 meters deep, almost exactly the same size as the Temple of the Big Tables, which is approximately 13 by 11.5 meters. Both of these structures are in courtyard groups, and both are associated with gallery patio structures. Both temples have sculptured columns, with atlantean figures above the major panels (Tozzer 1957:71, Ruppert 1952:Fig. 142a). All the temple

111

structures have a basal batter capped by an apron molding, but the batters of structure 5B16 and the Temple of the Big Tables measure within one centimeter of each other, 1.27 and. 1.26 meters respectively (Ruppert 1952). Such close parallels both in general architectural design and in certain specific measurements may indicate that one of the buildings served as the design model for the other. Since the interior columns in structure 5B16 are 61 cm. square, the same size of the interior columns of the Chac Mool Temple, and since the columns in both structures have small atlanteans above the major panels, there is a natural association of these two buildings. We know the Temple of the Big Tables is as late or later than the Temple of the Warriors, so the best interpretation of the available evidence is that structure 5B16 is older than the Temple of the Big Tables.

Although the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1) and structure 5B9 are similar in plan and orientation to the two structures just discussed, they differ from each other and from 5B16 and the Temple of the Big Tables in several respects. Both the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs and 5B9 are solitary structures, and both are smaller than 5B16 and the Temple of the Big Tables. Structure 4B1 is the most narrow of the group, approximately 13.5 meters wide by 9 meters deep, while structure 5B9 is the most nearly square, about 10.5 by 9.75 meters. The columns in structure 5B9 are round and plain, in contrast to the square or rectangular sculptured columns in the other three temples. The columns in structure

4B1, while sculptured, are probably reused (Ruppert 1952:88). Other sculptural detail from 4B1 includes a roof ornament of crossed darts similar to those from the Temple of the Big Tables and portions of a serpent band like those from the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21) and the Castillo of Old Chichén (Ruppert 1952:88, Fig. 138c).

The reused column blocks in the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs probably indicate it is later in the sequence than the Temple of the Big Tables and structure 5B16, based on the observation that there is an increasing frequency of reused blocks through time in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. Structure 4B1 was probably modeled after the Temple of the Big Tables. Structure 5B9 is problematic, for a seriation based on the proportion of width to depth of the structures would indicate 5B9, the most nearly square of the four buildings, is the oldest, while column and capital measurements associate it with late buildings on the Court of the Columns. Its peripheral, solitary position and the poor quality of its masonry (Ruppert 1952:106) probably tip the balance in favor of it being late in the sequence.

Little is known about the gallery patio structure southeast of structure 5B16 (Ruppert 1952:232). This structure, 5B17, most closely resembles the gallery patio buildings 3B8, 3C13, and 5C11, although there are specific differences between it and the other three structures. The patio was entered through a triple doorway from the gallery, a design that

112

might have been used in 3C13 and 5C11. A unique feature of this building is the two narrow rooms constructed across the entire width of the patio on the east and west sides. Another triple doorway in the wall of this long narrow room on the east side gave entrance to a shrine. There is little information about the temporal relationship of 5B17 to other structures in the Southwest Group. The doorway in the south wall of the gallery may indicate some or all of the structures on the southeast plaza were already built at the time of the construction of 5B17, but this is of relatively little value since two of the buildings there date from the Pure Florescent period, whereas others are possibly quite late in the Chichén sequence (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 79, 144b, 144c, 144d).

Five Gallery Patio Structures at Chichén Itzá:a, 6E3; b, 5B19; c, structure at Chultun Group; d, 5B17; e, 2D6Ruppert 1943:Fig. 3

The most imposing of all buildings in the Southwest Group is the Castillo of Old Chichén, structure 5B18. The temple, a basic two-chamber design entered through a triple doorway, is built upon a pyramidal substructure approximately 10 meters high (Ruppert 1952:111). The two-chamber temple and triple doorway are common design features at Chichén Itzá, but the north orientation and high substructure make this a unique building at the site. Comparisons with other structures at Chichén Itzá must be made on the basis of three varieties of sculpture found at the Castillo of Old Chichén: the floral designs on the jambs and columns, the hieroglyphic inscription at the base of the west jamb, and the sculptured eagle on the temple substructure. Plant motifs are fairly common at Chichén Itzá, especially on jambs, but floral designs with birds like this one from the Castillo of Old Chichén are less frequent. The most obvious inspiration for

113

designs of vines, flowers, and birds might have been the Great Ball Court, which perhaps served as the model for the incomplete floral panels found in the Xtoloc Temple and in the fill of the Temple of the Warriors (Proskouriakoff 1970, Morley 1925:249, Morris 1931:148-150). Floral designs first appear very early at Chichén Itzá in the Lower Jaguar Temple and variations on the theme occur intermittently thereafter. The hieroglyphic inscription at the base of the west jamb beneath the floral design bears no decipherable date among the eight glyphs and is therefore of limited chronological value (Proskouriakoff 1970).

Castillo of Old Chichén in 1974


The sculptured eagle, carved on a recessed panel of the battered west face of the pyramid, is also of limited chronological significance (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 77b, 142e). The wings of this eagle are outstretched in full ventral view, while the position of the torso and feet indicates the bird faced the observer’s left, toward the front of the pyramid. One leg is upraised, clutching the round object often supposed to be a heart. Tail feathers descend to the observer’s right, presenting the torso of the bird in a three-quarter view. The result, with the wings in full ventral view and the feet in side view, is awkward, but not strained.

114

Eagles first appear in the sequence on the main plaza on the facing of the substructure of the Temple of the Warriors (Morris 1931:Figs. 25-28). Although the treatment of the talons and the object held is similar to the bird from the Castillo of Old Chichén, the eagles from the Temple of the Warriors are in side view in contrast to the eagle described above. Eagles are also sculptured on panels of two sizes on the platform of Jaguars and Eagles (2D3), a structure on the main plaza not tied into the sequence on the basis of stratigraphy. The eagles on the narrow panels of this platform are shown with their feathers curving downward, somewhat similar to the treatment at the Castillo of Old Chichén, but this is probably due to the small amount of space allowed for the sculpture. Wing and body details are not shown on these narrow panels from the platform, and the feathers appear almost like a cape around the animal (Tozzer 1957:Fig. 435). The wings of the birds from the larger panels of this platform, like those from the Tzompantli (2D2), are shown in side view with the feathers swept back horizontally. None of the sculptured eagles from the main plaza shows striking affinities with the sculpture from the Castillo of Old Chichén. The strongest resemblance is not to the sculptured eagles just discussed, nor to eagle figures like the carved stone from the stairway ramp at the Mercado (Ruppert 1943:Fig. 12), but to a mural painting from the Temple of the Warriors. This mural, covered by 109 of the 131 coats of plaster found on the exterior of the temple, shows an eagle with wings and body

in full view and head turned to the observer’s left (Morris 1931:Pl. 164). Although this bird holds no object, it resembles the sculpture from the Castillo of Old Chichén perhaps more than any of the other eagles known from the site.

This limited information makes it difficult to ascertain the chronological position of the Castillo of Old Chichén in the architectural sequence at Chichén Itzá. Unlike some of the other structures in outlying groups at the site, no evidence clearly relegates it to the later days of the Modified Florescent period. Floral designs of vines, birds, and flowers occur in early structures at Chichén Itzá, but this does not mean the Castillo of Old Chichén is early, nor do we know how long hieroglyphic inscriptions were carved at the site. The sculptured eagle is unlike the sculptured eagles from the main plaza and may or may not have been sculptured at about the same time. All the evidence taken together suggests that the Castillo of Old Chichén was constructed after the Lower Jaguar Temple and slightly before the Temple of the Warriors. It was probably built about the same time as 5B16. It is almost certainly earlier than the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1), with which it shares several architectural features, possibly including a serpent band. The measurements of width and depth of the Castillo of Old Chichén are almost exactly the same proportion as the respective measurements from the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs, and the 43 by 64 cm. dimensions of the columns in the former are almost the same as the 43 by 66 cm. dimensions of columns in the latter (Ruppert

115

1952). Unless both 5B16 and the Castillo of Old Chichén are later than the Temple of the Warriors, which the best interpretation of the evidence does not support, then probably quite a few years passed between the construction of 5B16 and the Castillo of Old Chichén and the later Temple of the Sculptured Jambs. The Temple of the Sculptured Jambs was obviously designed from the two earlier structures.

Structures 5B13 and 5B14, Ruppert 1952:Figs. 74, 75

The remaining buildings in the Southwest Group are 5B13, 5B14, and 5B15 (Ruppert 1952:108-109). The first two of these structures, a colonnade and a two-chambered structure with a triple entrance, delimit the northern boundary of the northwest court. Structure 5B15 is a small mound, paved on top with flagstones, located in the middle of the courtyard in front of these two northern buildings and structure 5B16. Since no sculpture or other diagnostic details are known from structures 5B13 and 5B14, these two buildings must be compared with others on the basis of floor plan, column size, and capital measurements. Using these three criteria, structure 5B13, with columns 36-40 cm. in diameter and capitals measuring 55 by 40 by 23 cm., is most closely associated with 5C2, a small colonnade with columns 38 cm. in diameter and capitals 54 by 38 by 18 cm. (Ruppert 1952). Structure 5C2, like structure

5B13 of the Southwest Group, stands on the north side of a court in the Initial Series Group. Adjacent to both of these small colonnades in both groups is a two-chambered structure, 5B14 in the Southwest Group and 5C1 in the Initial Series Group. No vault stones were seen in structures 5B13 or 5C1, and none was reported for 5C2 (Ruppert 1952), which may indicate these three buildings were not covered with vaulted roofs. The columns of structure 5B14, which was a vaulted building, are 55 cm. square, the same size as columns in the gallery of the Temple of the Jaguar Atlantean Columns (5B21), an association that may have temporal significance.

Similarities between the Southwest Group and the Initial Series Group extend beyond these four structures to the general arrangement of buildings on the northern plazas in the two groups. An elevated temple structure, for example, stands to the southeast of the

116

northern colonnades and their associated two-chambered buildings in both groups, structure 5B16 in the Southwest Group and the Temple of the Initial Series in that group. To the southeast of these temples is a gallery patio structure in each group, structures 5B17 and 5C11 respectively. Small platforms are found in each courtyard, although 5C17 is less centrally positioned than 5B15. Each of five structures in one group is therefore the same type of building as each of five structures in the other group, and the arrangement of the buildings in one group generally parallels the arrangement of buildings in the other. Like the relationships of the buildings in the Warriors complex to the structures on the east side of the Court of the Columns, the types and relative arrangement of the structures on the north courts of the Southwest Group and the Initial Series Group are too striking to be mere chance. Parallel developments of this nature probably indicate similar functional complexes in both areas.

Modified Florescent construction in these northern courtyards was probably earliest in the Southwest Group. The north court of the Initial Series Group is thus probably modeled after the northwest court of the Southwest Group, but it is not known how much overlap in time there might have been between the two groups.

Group of the Bird Cornice

North and west of the Southwest Group is the Group of the Bird Cornice, a small cluster of six structures that forms a courtyard. Structures

5A3 and 5A4, the southern buildings of the court, are possibly constructions of the Pure Florescent period (see plan of 5A4 in Chapter I). Two colonnades, structures 5A1 and 5A2, form the west and north sides respectively, and on the east is a pyramid temple, structure 5B1. In the center of the courtyard is a small platform, structure 5A5. The similarities of the arrangement of this group to the northern plazas of the Southwest Group and the Initial Series Group are evident: development around earlier Pure Florescent constructions, colonnade to the north, pyramid temple to the east, and a small platform in the courtyard. Here, unlike the other two groups, a colonnade closes the court to the west. Nearby, slightly south of east, is the Temple of the Turtle (5B2), a building that is not directly associated with the other structures of the group.

The Colonnade with the Bird Cornice (5A1) and the pyramid temple across the courtyard from it (5B1) seem to be formally oriented to each other as their facades more or less parallel each other. Both structures are somewhat unique. Of the small, free-standing colonnades at Chichén Itzá, 5A1 is the only one constructed with rectangular columns. No other columns with known measurements are the same dimensions as these in the Colonnade with the Bird Cornice (50 by 70 cm.), but those with the closest dimensions are the Northwest Colonnade, the High Priest’s Grave, and the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1). Of these structures, only the columns in the Colonnade with the Bird Cornice are unsculptured. The structure is named for the

117

sculptured band which is the central section of a three member molding (Ruppert 1952:Figs. 61b, 141a). This sculptured molding comprises three motifs set in small, bordered panels. A disc design is set in every other panel, and between disc panels are panels with either a single bird or double “X” motif. These panels with the double “X” designs are related to Pure Florescent forms, and similar designs may be seen at Uxmal. Both birds and discs are rather nondescript sculptures, offering little for comparisons.

Group of the Bird Cornice, Temple of the Turtle, and Temple of the Sculptured JambsKilmartin and O’Neill map (detail), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

The Colonnade with the Bird Cornice (5A1) and Structure 5B1Ruppert 1952:Figs. 61, 64

118

The building across the plaza, structure 5B1, is one of three two-chambered structures at Chichén Itzá entered through a single, rather than triple, doorway. The other two structures are 1D2 and the Castillo-sub. The facing of the pyramid of structure 5B1 rose in two-meter zones to a height of 6 meters (Ruppert 1952:98), paralleling the height of the facing zones of the Castillo-sub, where nine such zones reach 17 meters in height. Unlike the Castillo-sub, structure 5B1 has a basal batter rising to a triangular molding, and jambs of large horizontal blocks with a concavity in back. Floor plan, height of the facing zones of the substructure, and stone lintel link structure 5B1 with the Castillo-sub; jambs, batter, and molding indicate a later date. On the substructures of the two buildings, the quoins of the Castillo-sub are rounded, while those of structure 5B1 are rectangular, perhaps paralleling the shift seen from rounded quoins in the Chac Mool Temple to rectangular quoins in the Temple of the Warriors.

There is little distinctive about the northern colonnade, structure 5A2. The “L” shape is similar to the shape of the gallery of structure 3B3, but the chronological position of this solitary structure is not known. On the basis of column size and capital measurements, 5A2 is associated with structures 5B19, 5B23, 2C5, and 5C9. For example, the columns of structure 5A2 are 45 cm. in diameter, and the capitals measure 62 by 45 by 24 cm. (Ruppert 1952:96). The upper limit for the capitals on the 44 cm. diameter columns in structure 5B19 is 63 by 45 by 24 cm. (Ruppert 1943:232). Such a close correlation in the size of the columns and the capitals can hardly be fortuitous. The sizes of the capitals in structure 5B19 vary, so if 5A2 were not constructed out of the same dismantled structure as 5B19, which is unlikely, it is probably safe to say structure 5A2 is earlier than structure 5B19.

Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1) and Temple of the Turtle (5B2)Ruppert 1952:Figs. 56, 65

119

The Temple of the Turtle, structure 5B2, has a plan unique at Chichén Itzá (Ruppert 1952:99). Three rooms end to end are flanked longitudinally by galleries on both sides. The center room opens to the north gallery, while the two larger end chambers open into the southern gallery. Six round columns provided entryways to each gallery. There was no interior access from one room to the next. The stone turtle sculpture that gave the temple its name was probably part of a facade decoration consisting of plain stones alternating with a vase-like motif.

Considering the group as a whole, there is little to suggest the time of construction in relation to the sequence on the main plaza, but some of the associations with earlier structures are suggestive. Structure 5B1 is certainly later than the Castillo-sub, but there are obvious similarities in design in the two structures. These links with the Castillo-sub, the group development around two Pure Florescent structures, and the similarity of the double “X” panels and turtle sculptures to carvings from Uxmal possibly indicate that this is an early group at Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. The general similarities in organization between this group and the north courts of the Southwest Group and the Initial Series Group are significant. The development of the Group of the Bird Cornice around structures probably of the Pure Florescent period, the temple on the east side of a court bounded by colonnades to the north and west, and a platform centered in the courtyard, is the third example in the outlying groups of this general pattern of courtyard arrangement.

Southeastern Groups

Two groups in the southeastern section of Chichén Itzá, one formed by structures 5D1 to 5D3 and the other formed by the six structures in the vicinity of the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs (6E3), will be discussed together because most of the buildings possibly are early Modified Florescent. Only one building in these two areas is clearly a Pure Florescent structure. Structure 5D2 is a five-chambered building on a platform about two meters high, with the two rooms at each end perpendicular to the central row of three rooms (see plan of 5D2 in Chapter I). This design, a longitudinal row of rooms with transverse end chambers, is typical of the Pure Florescent period, and other architectural features confirm a Chichén Puuc date. The facade rises vertically, and construction is of well-cut stones with little chinking (Ruppert 1952:134). The building probably had stone lintels, the vault stones are not of the veneer type, and “X” shaped lattice stones, a typical decoration of the Pure Florescent period, were found at the west base of the platform (Ruppert 1952:134). All of these features are characteristic of the early period, and although some are found later, the association of all these traits together in a single building unmistakably marks it as a Pure Florescent construction.

The two groups are associated with each other through the two gallery patio structures, 5D3 and the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs (6E3). Both buildings face north and both are similarly designed, with a shrine against the east wall. When shrines are present in

120

gallery patio structures they are always to the east, and because most of these structures face west, the shrine is usually on the rear wall. Since structures 5D3 and 6E3 both open to the north, however, these eastern shrines are on side walls, one of the features which strongly links these two structures. Unfortunately there is no good indication of the relative ages of either of these buildings. The Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs is named for the inscriptions on the door jambs, but they have not been dated (Beyer 1937:Pl. 1). The very fact of an inscription on the building possibly indicates that it is earlier rather than later in the Modified Florescent sequence.

Structures 5D1-5D3 and Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs (6E3)Kilmartin & O’Neill map (details), Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

Structures 5D1 and 5D3, Ruppert 1952:Figs. 95, 97

The Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs is the southern structure of a small cluster of four buildings that loosely defines a courtyard. At the northeast corner of this court lies structure 6E1, a building important for its sculpture and hieroglyphs (Proskouriakoff 1970). These sculptures are on the large round columns of the triple doorway into this two-chambered structure. Two

121

individuals face each other on both sides of the south column, and between each pair is a glyph panel. Proskouriakoff notes a difference in the style of execution of these glyphs in comparison to other texts at Chichén Itzá, with the possible exception of the nearby Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs, and sees a similar manner of rendering glyphs at certain sites in the western Puuc area, such as Xcalumkin, Xcocha, and Halal (1970:462). The areal distribution of certain elements of attire from the four individuals on the column reinforces these glyphic associations with some Puuc sites. Specific elements worn by the figures at structure 6E1 are seen at such sites as Uxmal, Kabah, Oxkintok, Halal, Etzna, and Seibal (Proskouriakoff 1970:464-465). This does not date the structure, but such strong associations with sites of the Pure Florescent period suggest that these carvings were sculpted early in the Modified Florescent of Chichén Itzá.

There may be some ties with temporal significance between structure 6E1 and the Caracol, a building clearly early in the architectural history of the site. Ruppert reported the discovery of a roof ornament of sagittate type from structure 6E1, a type similar to that used at the Caracol (1935:Fig. 246j). Some of the figures from the sculptured circular stone found at the Caracol can be compared with the figures on the column of 6E1, although the Caracol stone is weathered and much detail is obscured (Ruppert 1935:Figs. 168, 169). In spite of the paucity of evidence, associations with the Caracol, like the ties to the earlier Pure Florescent sites, suggest this structure is early in the Modified Florescent period.

Structures 6E1 and 6E4, Ruppert, 1952:Figs. 103, 104

The other two structures in this small cluster, 6E2 and 6E5, reveal little detail. Structure 6E2, a small mound in the center of the area, may be the central courtyard platform seen in some of the other building groups (Ruppert 1952:141). The fourth structure of the group, 6E5, although in poor condition, seems to be a type of shrine rising from two small terraces (Ruppert 1952:143). Traces of a wall suggest a small room on the second terrace, in which is set a stone phallus, 35 cm. high.

122

The evidence suggests that the buildings in these two southeastern groups are early structures in the Modified Florescent. Structure 5D3 and the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs share similarities in plan and orientation. The Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs probably was built about the same time as structure 6E1, a building early in the sequence because of sculptural and glyphic ties to certain Pure Florescent sites and to the Caracol through the roof ornament and sculptured figures. The simple proximity of a Pure Florescent building, structure 5D2, may reinforce an earlier rather than later date for 5D3. Considering the associations of structure 6E1 with some of the Puuc sites, the presence of a stone phallus at structure 6E5 recalls the stone phalli at Uxmal. Admittedly any of these features could be later copies of earlier examples, or as in the case of the phalli at Uxmal, associated with features of essentially unknown age. The associations with Pure Florescent structures most likely indicate an early date for these buildings, because structures demonstrably late in the Chichén Itzá sequence show less and less affinity with the art and architecture of the previous eras of Mesoamerican history.

Three structures in these two groups show evidence of being dismantled or unfinished. The gallery of the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs might have been intentionally dismantled based upon the lack of debris (Ruppert 1943:233). The two columns of the triple doorway of structure 6E4, a solitary structure south of the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs, were removed

(1952:142). Although the vault stones in 6E4 are of the veneer type, the facade rises vertically, which in this case may indicate the building is early in the Modified Florescent sequence. Little data exists to place structure 5D1 within the architectural sequence of the site. Ruppert thought the building to be under construction because of the low wall height and lack of debris inside the building (1952:132). In plan this structure is unique at Chichén Itzá. The outer room is reduced to the size of a vestibule, while the inner room was designed to be spanned by triple vaults resting on two rows of four square columns. This expansion of the inner room occurs only at the Temple of the Warriors, where two rows of four columns maintained the large interior space. Structure 5D1 may postdate the buildings associated with the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs, and 5D3 also might be later, and modeled after rather than more or less coeval with the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs. Most likely structure 5D2 was built in the Pure Florescent, then the buildings near the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs were erected in the early part of the Modified Florescent period, followed at a later time by the construction of 5D1 and 5D3.

Structures of Quadrant 3B

The Kilmartin-O’Neill map of Chichén Itzá records eleven structures in quadrant 3B, but only three or four buildings are arranged in a way that suggests courtyard development. Structures 3B7 and 3B8 open to the west on an irregularly shaped terrace, on which

123

is probably the standard courtyard platform, structure 3B6. Structure 3B7 is a two-chambered structure entered through a triple entrance supported by rectangular columns. The columns in this building probably were reused, because the north column is plain, while the south column has feather decoration as on serpent columns (Ruppert 1952:30). Just to the south and a little to the east of 3B7 is structure 3B8, a gallery patio building. The contours of the debris suggest a shrine room to the east, across the patio from the entrance (Ruppert 1952:31). This is the third gallery patio structure of this type that is positioned to the southeast adjacent to what can be termed a temple; the two examples already discussed are structures 5B17 in the Southwest Group and 5C11 in the Initial Series Group. These two types of structures, thrice associated in courtyard groups, therefore must be an integral part of courtyard design. Unfortunately, good clues are lacking to the chronological position of these units. There is no good evidence to support a date early in the Modified Florescent sequence, and it is likely that they are later in the architectural chronology.

The Structures of Quadrant 3B, Kilmartin & O’Neill map (detail)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

To the west of this small court lies structure 3B5. A two-chambered structure, 3B5 is unique at Chichén Itzá for the three columns forming the doorway, unusual because an even number of columns were normally used (Ruppert 1952:29). The nine 35 cm. diameter interior columns are among the smallest at Chichén Itzá, and their size and arrangement indicate that this structure had a beam and mortar roof rather than the heavier vaulted type. The odd use of columns and possible flat roof may indicate that 3B5 dates to one of the latest phases of construction at the site.

124

Structures 3B7, 3B8, 3B3, 3B2, 3B5, 3B11Ruppert 1952:Figs. 21, 22, 19, 18, 20, 23

125

Of the seven remaining numbered structures in quadrant 3B, little is known of structures 3B1, 3B4, 3B9, and 3B10. Pollock wrote that structure 3B1 may be a circular structure similar in type to the Casa Redonda, but the structure is much in ruin and details are difficult to observe (1936b:109). Structure 3B4 is actually three or four small structures and a chultun (Ruppert 1952:28), about which exist few details, and little more than mounds now remain of structures 3B9 and 3B10 (Ruppert 1952:32).

Structures 3B2, 3B3, and 3B11 are the remaining structures of quadrant 3B. Structure 3B2 is a shrine surrounded by a gallery on three sides built upon a platform 6-8 meters high (Ruppert 1952:27). A subfloor chamber built below the shrine has been cleared and the contents are unknown. Structure 3B3 is a solitary gallery patio type building unique in plan at Chichén Itzá (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 19). The gallery is more of a colonnade like 5A2, while the patio portion resembles structure 5B19. The close relationship of structure 5A2 and 5B19 on the basis of column and capital measurements was discussed above, and to see this association re-emerge from a comparison of the plans of structure 5B19 and 5A2 to structure 3B3 is interesting. The earliest of these is unknown, and possibly no great amount of time passed between construction of any of the three. 3B11, the last numbered structure in quadrant 3B, is a two-chambered building probably rising directly from the terrace. The structure was entered through a triple doorway with plain rectangular columns;

outside, the facade rises vertically, while inside a stone lintel spanned the doorway to the second chamber (Ruppert 1952:33). Structure 3B11 may be an early construction because of its vertical facade and stone lintel, but this is not enough information on which to classify a building.

Not enough information is known securely to place any of these eleven structures within the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. 3B5 may be late in the sequence because of its odd plan and possible flat roof, and the reuse of columns in structure 3B7 may indicate it is later in the sequence rather than earlier. In contrast, 3B11 may be an early building. Construction in quadrant 3B might reflect sporadic architectural development throughout much of the history of Chichén Itzá, or alternately early design features might have been incorporated in a structure built later in the history of the site. Only more architectural details and stratigraphic information will clarify relationships among the buildings of quadrant 3B.

Northwest Group

The Northwest Group, one of the smaller outlying groups at Chichén Itzá, is interesting for the arrangement of its buildings and for some of its sculpture. The group comprises six small structures located about 200 meters northwest of the Great Ball Court. Four of these structures, 1C1, 2C1, 2C3, and 2C4, are arranged around a central mound, structure 2C2, while the sixth building, 2C5, is located just to the south of this small group (Seler

126

5:302-305). All of the buildings were probably constructed on a single small terrace reached from the main plaza by a short sacbe.

Northwest Group, Kilmartin & O’Neill map (detail)Ruppert 1952:Fig. 151

Structures 1C1, 2C4 and 2C1, Ruppert 1952:Figs. 1, 9, 7

The structures of the Northwest Group are simple one- or two-room chambers constructed on very low platforms. The north building of the group, structure 1C1, is a single room structure entered through a triple doorway formed by 45 cm. square, unsculptured columns (Ruppert 1952:5). Facing this building across the small courtyard is structure 2C4. As in all the structures of this group, structure 2C4 is entered through a triple doorway, and like structure 1C1, the two columns measure 45 cm. square (Ruppert 1952:15). Unlike the plain columns of 1C1, the columns in 2C4 are sculptured on the front only with a serpent design.

Structure 2C1 on the west side of the court is basically a two-chambered building, although a shrine built against the rear wall divides the west room into three small compartments (Ruppert 192:13). Here the columns of the triple entrance are 68 cm. square, again carved with a serpent design on the front (Seler 5:Fig. 177, Pl. 32; Ruppert 1952:Fig. 117c). These serpent columns are quite different from any others at the site, for they depict a complete serpent body in low relief on both the columns;

127

the rattles are at the top of the panel, the winding serpent body in the middle, and the head in front view at the bottom. This dorsal view of the rattles and full-face view of the head indicate the columns were meant to represent serpent columns with the tail and head carved in full round. These sculptures resemble serpent stairway ramps more than they do traditional serpent columns, but even stairway ramps normally have attached a serpent head carved in full round. Apart from these columns, undulating serpent bodies are found only on ramps or facades. The sculptured columns of structure 2C1 resemble ramp sculpture set vertically, with the head moved into the plane of the relief rather than tenoned in the round to the bottom of the column. In addition to this unique carving on the columns, small serpent heads, like those associated with the Venus platform (structure 2D4), and a rather stiff looking standard bearer were also discovered at 2C1 (Ruppert 1952:Fig. 117d, Seler 5:Figs. 178,179).

Structure 2C3 opened onto the courtyard on its east side, and like 2C1, 2C3 has a shrine built against its rear wall (Ruppert 1952:14). The two 65 cm. square columns of the triple doorway are clearly reused (Seler 5:Pl. 33). Blocks carved with the upper torso, head and headdress, or feet of human figures are positioned indiscriminately above or below mask panels correctly positioned only above or below the central figure on a column, and two of these blocks are even placed upside down. The fragments of the mask panels incorporated into these two columns vaguely resemble some of the masks of the Great Ball court, in contrast to some of the later types (Tozzer 1957:Figs. 320, 342). These columns possibly were assembled from the remains of a structure somehow related to the nearby ball court.

Only slight inferential evidence exists to place the buildings of this group in the architectural history of Chichén Itzá. Tozzer believed that the group is late and that the arrangement of the buildings resembles some of the courts at Mayapán (1957:68). The shoddy reuse of columns in structure 2C3, completed without interest in placing the column blocks in their correct positions, indicates that some structures had been dismantled by the time this structure was built. The serpent columns are difficult to assess, for they are unlike others at the site. Comparing them to

Structures 2C3, 2C5 and 2C6, Ruppert 1952:Figs. 8, 10, 11

128

related sculptural forms presents challenges because it is unknown when the first serpent ramps were carved at Chichén Itzá. In the sequence on the main plaza, serpent ramps first appear on the Temple of the Warriors. It is unknown whether the Chac Mool Temple had them, and the north ramps of the Castillo, with the serpent heads below, are plain. Serpent ramps at the Ball Court, when present, are carved in half round, and are therefore not clearly comparable, and the undulating serpents on the ramps of the Caracol may have been later additions. Thus, there are no positively early examples of the undulating serpent on a stairway ramp, nor is it common to omit a serpent head carved in full round from ramp or column. All things considered, the serpent column from structure 2C3 is probably a late form, carved for the same symbolic effect as the carvings in full round but requiring much less effort on the part of the sculptors. What evidence there is suggests that the Northwest Group is late in the architectural sequence at the site.

Conclusions

Study of the outlying groups reveals that the architects of Chichén Itzá usually, but not invariably, followed certain conventions of group organization and development. The closest parallels in courtyard organization are observed between the north court of the Initial Series Group and the northwest court of the Southwest Group, where five buildings of similar type in each group occupy similar locations on the court in relation to each other. A similar, although not quite so close, arrangement is seen in the Group of the Bird Cornice, and three of the much ruined structures in quadrant 3B seem to have this nucleus of courtyard development. The general pattern is this: a central two-chambered structure or “temple” stands on the east side of the court, facing west or northwest. Adjacent to the south and slightly east is a gallery patio structure. A small colonnade might enclose the north end of the court, and this colonnade might

Structures 2C7 and 2C8, Ruppert 1952:Figs. 12, 13

129

be associated with another two-chambered building. A small platform characteristically sits in the center of the courtyard, which on the west side is usually open.

This courtyard design shares only the most general parallels with the arrangements of buildings in the central sections of the site. Outlying groups do not repeat the functional complex of types and the arrangement of structures on the east side of the main plaza and repeated on the east side of the Court of the Columns. Since some of the outlying groups were built at the same time as some of the major construction on the main plaza and the Court of the Columns, the differences in building types and courtyard arrangement must be explained as functional rather than chronological differences. In addition to general courtyard arrangement, the distribution of two types of structures underscores the functional differences between the main plaza and Court of the Columns and the outlying groups. Of the nine ball courts at Chichén Itzá, none is found in the seven outlying groups just discussed. Although there is a ball court at the Far East Group, and another at the Chultun Group (Ruppert 1952:151, 153), all six of the ball courts within the area covered by the Kilmartin-O’Neill map of the site are located in the central sections of Chichén Itzá. On the other hand, gallery patio structures are very important buildings in the outlying groups, where a total of eight are known, including at least one in six of the seven groups discussed above. Only two gallery patio structures occur in the central sections of the site, the Mercado

and structure 2D6. Although the Mercado is obviously an important building on the Court of the Columns, structure 2D6 is the most atypical of all the gallery patio buildings, the patio being entered through a colonnade rather than a simple gallery. Thus the distribution of certain types of structures emphasizes differences observed based on courtyard arrangement. The distribution of certain sculptures may also reflect these differences, for of the 14 chac mool figures Ruppert listed from Chichén Itzá, only two come from an outlying group, the Group of the Initial Series (1952:166).

The greatest difficulty in assessing the outlying groups is the problem of the relative chronological position of the buildings and clusters in the architectural history of the site. In part this is the result of lack of excavation in these areas, with the consequent paucity of stratigraphic and architectural information, and in part it is the result of the difficulty of interpreting information even when data are available. The most difficult chronological problem is specifying structures early in the Chichén sequence. Although four of the seven outlying groups grew up around structures of the Pure Florescent period, none of the other outlying building can be placed early in the Modified Florescent sequence with the same degree of confidence as the Caracol or the Castillo-sub in the central section of the site. Slim evidence makes elusive those structures that might be the earliest Modified Florescent structures in the outlying groups. Of the seven clusters of buildings, the Group of the

130

Hieroglyphic Jambs might be earlier than any other group of structures, and structures 5D1 and 5D3 nearby also might be early constructions. Some of the buildings at the Group of the Bird Cornice have features that seem to be early, but the evidence is slightly less convincing than that for the Group of the Hieroglyphic Jambs. Unfortunately in the two largest clusters, the Group of the Initial Series and the Southwest Group, it is difficult to state which structures are the earliest, and more specifically how early any building might be.

The general chronological picture that emerges from analysis of the outlying groups suggests sporadic construction at the time of the earliest developments in the area of the main plaza. As the pace of construction increased around the main plaza, it also increased in the outlying groups during what for the moment may loosely be termed the middle period in the history of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. Study of the outlying groups sustains the view of progressive architectural decline at Chichén Itzá. Increasing reuse of earlier material in later structures combined with indifference to the quality of construction supports this conclusion. Examples include some of the structures of the Northwest Group, possibly the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1), and certainly the Temple of the Initial Series. This probably represents a late and final architectural phase at Chichén Itzá not represented by major constructions in the central sections. Maybe Chichén builders simply would not countenance such shoddy building practices in the central sections even while it occurred in the outlying groups. However, the final architectural phase at the site is probably best seen in the outlying groups, exemplified by the Initial Series Temple, while in the central section only certain patchwork jobs occurred, such as the construction of secondary walls inside some of the buildings. In general, although quite early constructions in the outlying groups were sporadic or nonexistent, by the time of the greatest architectural activity in the central section, building in the outlying groups was also in full swing. Construction in the outlying groups probably continued for a time after major building on the Court of the Columns ceased.

131

This chapter moves from a strictly architectural discussion of the archaeology of Chichén Itzá, through a discussion of both the local and regional chronological interpretations possible within this architectural framework, to a consideration of the historical interpretations possible or likely within the archaeological context of the Maya lowlands. The narrative considers different historical interpretations based almost entirely upon the archaeological evidence, with little reference to the Maya chronicles or other early written sources. The text moves from observation towards speculation, from architecture to chronology to historical considerations in an attempt to understand better, through the perspective of Chichén Itzá, the later Maya history of the northern lowlands of Yucatán.

VII. Chichén Itzá in Ancient Maya History

Architecture

Although the sequence of architectural construction at Chichén Itzá will never be known entirely, one can propose a general outline of the architectural history of the site. Chichén Itzá is broadly a two period site, temporally spanning at least part of the Pure Florescent period in Yucatán, and essentially defining the limits of the Modified Florescent period of the peninsula. Architecturally, differences in plan, construction techniques, and decoration distinguish the buildings of Pure Florescent from those of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. Where buildings of both periods are adjacent, structures of the Modified Florescent tradition are always stratigraphically later than the Pure Florescent structures. Differences in site organization underscore the basic Pure Florescent-Modified Florescent dichotomy in architecture: buildings of the earlier period are either solitary, or if they are associated with other constructions, there is little tendency toward courtyard development. This contrasts with structures of

the later period, which are usually organized in or around courtyards both in the central sections and in the outlying groups.

Little evidence exists to suggest a sequence of the Pure Florescent structures of Chichén Itzá. The East Wing of the Monjas might be the earliest building extant at the site, and the later series of constructions at the Monjas could form a stratigraphic basis for sequencing the buildings. The Pure Florescent structures of Chichén Itzá seem to be closely related within a tightly integrated architectural tradition. The fact that these Pure Florescent buildings do not easily lend themselves to sequencing probably has more chronological and historic import than inferences based on a seriation of stylistic features. Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá might have been developed relatively rapidly.

The architectural archaeology of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá lends itself to greater chronological distinction. Three architectural stages can be defined, Early, Middle, and Late Modified Florescent, each divided into

132

two sub-stages, A through F. Sub-stage A of the Early Modified Florescent is the time of the erection of the Castillo-sub, the West Colonnade, and possibly the Caracol. The Lower Jaguar Temple is a building slightly later than the Castillo-sub in this initial burst of Modified Florescent construction at the site. The second half of the Early Modified Florescent probably saw the completion of the Great Ball Court, and this sub-stage B ends with the construction of the Castillo, a building generally transitional in architecture and sculpture between the Great Ball Court and the Warriors complex. The Middle Modified Florescent is divided into sub-stages C and D based on the stratigraphic relationship of the Chac Mool Temple and the Temple of the Warriors. This stage begins somewhat arbitrarily about midway between the time of construction of the Castillo and the Chac Mool Temple, and the first sub-stage of the period (C) ends at the time of the demolition of the Chac Mool Temple. The beginning of the second sub-stage (D) dates to the erection of the Temple of the Warriors, and ends three to five decades following the construction of the Warriors pyramid. Sub-stage E of the Late Modified Florescent is a time of continued architectural growth following the early years of the Temple of the Warriors, mainly in the Court of the Columns and in the outlying groups. The final architectural phase, sub-stage F, is not based on stratigraphic associations, but subsumes the final architectural endeavors of the people of Chichén Itzá, including such obviously late structures as the Temple of the

Initial Series. This sequence is based entirely on architecture, with the first half grounded in stratigraphic relationships, without attempts to correlate historic events with the architectural sequence. Although this sequence generally agrees with the architectural sequence proposed by Tozzer, the schemes differ in many details, and neither the chronology nor the historical considerations discussed below contributed to the generation of this sequence, which is presented solely on the basis of architecture and stratigraphy.

In general, it is difficult to recognize buildings of the Early Modified Florescent in the outlying groups. Tentatively, most of the structures in the Group of the Hieroglyphic Jambs, structure 5D3 to the north, and most of the buildings in the Group of the Bird Cornice are early constructions. The Castillo of Old Chichén could conceivably date to the latest period of this stage. Tozzer, whose Chichén II generally parallels Early Modified Florescent in that we both place the Castillo-sub, Castillo, and Great Ball Court in the early period, also seemed to have difficulty recognizing edifices comparable in age in other parts of the site (1957:32-35). He suggested as possibly early structures the unknown structure inside the High Priest’s Grave, the original Temple of the Wall panels, although he admits this is a “perplexing problem,” the Modified Florescent structure on top of the House of the Phalli, and the Temple of the Owls, although elsewhere in the monograph he seemed equivocal about this structure (1957:44). Tozzer’s opinion is included to illustrate that while we both

133

base these early periods on the same structures on the main plaza, neither of us could very successfully isolate early structures in the outlying groups. One reason is lack of excavation in the outlying groups and consequent lack of architectural and sculptural evidence upon which to base identifications. The paucity of evidence also indicates that criteria of the early period may be present but not recognized, that the period was of short duration, that early buildings were later razed, or that initial occupation of Chichén Itzá in the Modified Florescent period was sparse.

No matter how dense the initial occupation of Chichén Itzá, the architectural evidence points strongly to a burst of construction in the Middle Modified Florescent, especially in the latter half, the time of the erection of the Temple of the Warriors. Some of the buildings on the Court of the Columns and in the Southwest Group were probably begun during the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, use of which was probably of short duration. Construction at Chichén Itzá did not attain its full intensity until about the time the Temple of the Warriors was built. The period saw increasing construction through time on the Court of the Columns and in the outlying groups, and this is particularly true of the final days of the Middle Modified Florescent.

The great architectural expansion that took place during the Middle Modified Florescent period carried over into the first sub-stage (E) of the Late Modified Florescent, when builders completed most of the construction on the Court of the Columns and much building in the outlying groups continued. The boundary set between the two stages, arbitrarily placed some years following the construction of the Temple of the Warriors, is indicated mainly by a shift away from construction on the main plaza to the Court of the Columns and the outlying groups, rather than on a clear cut stratigraphic break. The only structures on the main plaza that may postdate the Temple of the Warriors are the Temple of the Big Tables, the Tzompantli, the Platform of Jaguars and Eagles, and the Platform of Venus. The time of construction of the three large platforms is not easy to determine, but they are probably not much earlier or later than the Temple of the Warriors. The Temple of the Big Tables was probably built not long after the Temple of the Warriors.

Platform of the Eagles (2D3) Platform of the Eagles (detail)

134

With these possible exceptions, by Late Modified Florescent times construction on the main plaza had ceased, and the remaining building at the site in this period is in the Court of the Columns, south-central Chichén Itzá, and in the outlying groups. Some of the constructions that probably date to the Late Modified Florescent are the North, Northeast, and Southeast Colonnades, Thompson’s Temple, the buildings of the Northwest Group, and the ball courts

of the Red House, Sweat House, and perhaps Temple of the Warriors. Much of the Group of the Initial Series probably dates to this period, as do the Modified Florescent structures of the southeast court of the Southwest Group. The Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1) is almost certainly late, and the House of the Grinding Stones (3C5) and House of the Interior Atlantean Columns (3C6) may also date to this period. Some of the final constructions at the site include the secondary walls in the Northeast and Southeast Colonnades, the third floor of the Monjas, and the Temple of the Initial Series.

Platform of Venus (2D4)

Tzompantli (Skull Rack, detail)(2D2)

135

Tula, Mound B Complex, Dutton 1955:Plan II

Through time at Chichén Itzá an increasing proportion of buildings display poor masonry and the reuse of sculptured stones. The story written in the Late Modified Florescent architecture of Chichén Itzá is one of gradual decline through time, until large-scale construction protects ground to a halt. Chichén Itzá seems to have died a slow death from a lingering sickness rather than quick extinction from some sort of mortal wound.

Where did the inspiration come from for the design and organization of the structures on the main plaza of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá? The use of columns in doorways was earlier in the Puuc sites. The colonnade might have developed by reducing exterior wall area until piers were formed, particularly in Late Classic sites of the Usumacinta zone (Thompson 1966:128-129). Some features of Modified Florescent architecture have roots in earlier Maya architecture (Andrews 1942:262-263). On the other hand, a close relationship in architecture and sculpture has been recognized between Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá and the central Mexican site of Tula, Hidalgo (Dutton 195, 196; Ruz 1964:217-219).

136

Comparing a specific site in central Mexico with Chichén Itzá, to the exclusion of other central Mexican sites, the ceremonial centers of Oaxaca, or the important sites of the Gulf Coast, leaves potentially useful evidence unexplored. The close similarities in arrangement of buildings in the central sections of both Chichén Itzá and Tula suggest close relationships between the sites. Parallels in the arrangement of structures on the east side of the main plaza at Chichén Itzá with the structures on the east side of the Court of the Columns have already been discussed, and the central ceremonial precinct at Tula shares the same basic arrangement (Dutton 1955:247). The similarity of Pyramid B and its associated colonnade at Tula with the Temple of the Warriors and the Northwest Colonnade is obvious. At Tula the colonnade is quite reduced, whereas at Chichén Itzá the Northwest Colonnade grades into the long West Colonnade before the turn at the southern end. Both pyramids and colonnades, however, stand in the same general relationship to a large flanking pyramid, Mound C at Tula and the Castillo at Chichén Itzá. Both colonnades have altars in the same position relative to the stairway ascending the pyramid, and columned structures surprisingly similar in floor plan, Sala 3 at Tula and structure 2D6 at Chichén Itzá, stand in analogous positions to Pyramid B and the Temple of the Warriors (Dutton 1955:240-241, Ruppert 1952:Fig. 3e). Both these major pyramids have ball courts behind them, Ball Court I at Tula and the Warriors Ball Court (2D9) at Chichén Itzá. There is another ball court at Tula across the plaza from

Pyramid B and Mound C, and although it is not in the same position in relation to the other buildings at Tula and the Great Ball Court at Chichén Itzá, it is oriented north-south, like the Chichén court. The central platform is a final similarity of formal site organization, which makes seven structures at each site that stand in more or less the same relationship to each other.

Structures somewhat similar in plan to Chichén’s gallery patio structures are also found at Tula. The similarity between Sala 3 at Tula and 2D6 at Chichén Itzá was mentioned above, although structure 2D6 is the most atypical gallery patio structure at Chichén Itzá. More specific parallels are found in the plan of House VI of the Central Group at Tula (Healan 1974:Fig. 4). Although this structure lacks interior columns, characteristic of gallery patio structures at Chichén Itzá, a wall separates the roughly square interior area from an outer vestibule, and there is a shrine on the rear wall oriented slightly north of east, a plan generally similar to some of the gallery patio structures at Chichén Itzá.

The two sites obviously have much in common architecturally, sharing types of structures, building orientation in relation to other structures, and overall arrangement of the central sections of the two ceremonial centers. Neither site is dated with enough precision to state if one developed earlier than the other, so it is premature to discard Kub1er’s idea that Tula was an outpost of Chichén Itzá rather than the reverse (1962). Perhaps both areas were colonized from a third area.

137

Chronology

Two areas of inquiry arise concerning the chronological aspects of the architectural sequence at Chichén Itzá. The first is the actual length of occupation at the site represented by the architecture of both the Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent periods, and the methods used to arrive at reasonable estimates in each case must necessarily be based on different evidence. No architectural sequence has been advanced for the Pure Florescent architecture at Chichén Itzá, although inscriptions associated with the structures might date several of the buildings. On the other hand, there are few epigraphic dates from Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, so lengths of occupation are based on the architectural sequence. The absolute dating of the Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent periods is a second area of inquiry. Estimates for initial and terminal dates for both periods cannot be divorced from the dates associated with the Pure Florescent structures nor from the length of occupation of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá based on the architectural sequence, so the two areas of chronological inquiry are partially linked. Chichén Itzá is not an island in the sea of the Maya lowlands, and the two lines of inquiry regarding local chronology also must be viewed from the context of the regional chronology.

Internal evidence does not yield a very satisfactory way of estimating the length of time of the Pure Florescent period at Chichén Itzá. The time span represented must be at

least as long as required to build and use the East Wing of the Monjas, to construct the three succeeding large platforms, and to add the Monjas second story. We do not know how much time this successive construction represents, nor how much of the total Pure Florescent sequence at the site is actually represented in the stratigraphy of the Monjas. Although the second story of the Monjas has epigraphic dates associated with it, unfortunately no hieroglyphic dates exist for comparison from the earlier East Wing.

The epigraphic dates that are available may be the best indication of the age of some of the Pure Florescent structures at Chichén Itzá (Thompson 1937, 1950). It is striking that all the dates associated with Pure Florescent architecture at the site fall within the two katuns between 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0 in the Maya long count, an actual span of only about 15 years. It is difficult to imagine what a determined population of Maya builders could do in 15 years, but if these dates represent the dedicatory dates of the structures on which they are carved, then the Red House, Akab Dzib, Temple of the Three Lintels, Temple of the Four Lintels, and the second story of the Monjas stand in silent testimonial to the aggressive labors of the Pure Florescent people of Chichén Itzá.

These dates do not reveal the span of time of the Pure Florescent period at Chichén Itzá. There is little evidence to indicate lengths of occupation either before or after the short range of these dated inscriptions at Pure

138

Florescent Chichén Itzá. This problem is critical for the regional chronology. If the dates indeed do date the structures in which they are found, and earlier Pure Florescent occupation represented by the sequence at the Monjas was a relatively brief span of time, then Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá may be considered essentially a post-Classic site, in the main following the Tepeu 2 period of the southern centers. This interpretation of the archaeology would see the main occupation of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá falling after the dates on the Pure Florescent structures, and would support the Andrews-Tulane version of the archaeological and chronological sequence for northern Yucatán. On the other hand, no date is associated with a clearly Pure Florescent structure later than 10.3.0.0.0, a date that represents the formal termination of Classic civilization in the southern centers. If the Pure Florescent occupation of Chichén Itzá was very long, but did not extend much later than 10.3.0.0.0, then it can be argued Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá is roughly coeval with the Late Classic centers to the south, following the Thompson-Brainerd interpretation of the archaeology.

The archaeology of Chichén Itzá alone provides little strong evidence to support either view. If the dates represent the time of construction of the Pure Florescent buildings, then Chichén Itzá could not have been a very prosperous site much earlier than 10.1.0.0.0. If the House of the Deer is approximately contemporary with the Red House, then only the East Wing of the Monjas, the House of

the Phalli, and perhaps the Iglesia and the Southeast Annex remain possibly to represent major earlier Pure Florescent constructions. If the dates were carved when the structures were built, then even if the dates are historical and refer to earlier events the buildings could be no earlier than the associated dates. The slim but unlikely possibility remains that the lintels were carved after they were in place, and the buildings therefore could in reality be earlier than the dates. Viewed from the perspective of Chichén Itzá, the Pure Florescent archaeology from this site probably slightly favors the Andrews-Tulane ordering of the later archaeology of the peninsula (Andrews IV 1965a, 1973; Ball and Andrews V 1975), but the evidence can also support the Thompson-Brainerd chronology (Thompson 1937, 1941, 1945, 1970a:3-47; Brainerd 1941; Morley and Brainerd 1956:76-77).

The Pure Florescent archaeology of Chichén Itzá alone cannot elucidate problems of Pure Florescent regional chronology and history, which also must be viewed in relation to the Modified Florescent sequence at the site. Like the alternate interpretations possible for the archaeology of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá, we lack the evidence to state precisely the length of occupation of the site during the Modified Florescent period or its time span in absolute chronology. The architectural sequence can serve as the basis to estimate maximum and minimum time spans necessary for the development of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá and to better understand the regional chronology.

139

One of the earliest structures of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá is the Castillo-sub, which is covered by the later Castillo. Although there is little to suggest the length of time between construction of the two buildings, the span of the Early Modified Florescent, the maximum time elapsed was probably not more than half a century. The lack of buildings assignable to this early stage may indicate it was of short duration. The awkwardness in architectural design of the Castillo-sub, which betrays hesitancy and indecision, probably was not long allowed to document the imperfections of the earliest architecture of the new era before the imposing Castillo covered it. Probably fewer than 50 years passed from the erection of the Castillo-sub to the construction of the Chac Mool Temple, and the mere 15 layers of plaster counted on the exterior of the Chac Mool Temple suggests that it, like the Castillo-sub, was not long in use before Temple of the Warriors replaced it.

One of the problems in estimating the time span of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá is the length of time from the erection of the Temple of the Warriors to the cessation of architectural activities at the site. The sequence on the main plaza ends soon after the construction of the Temple of the Warriors and does not extend to the end of Chichén Itzá as a Modified Florescent site. The Temple of the Warriors does offer some tenuous, but suggestive, evidence of how long architectural activity might have continued in the outlying groups and on the Court of

the Columns. The 131 layers of plaster on the Temple of the Warriors, assuming the structure was refurbished almost until the end of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, may represent the time span from construction until the essential abandonment of Chichén Itzá. Problems with this approach include whether the structure was plastered at a constant rate through time or only when needed, whether all the coats ever applied were still extant when they were counted, and if they were counted correctly (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:35). If one assumes regularity, and the building was plastered each solar year, then a period of 131 years is indicated. If the exterior was plastered every 260 days, a Tzolkin or sacred year, then the time span represented is about 90 years. If the building was refreshed simply when needed, a period of less than 90 years is probably too short, and a maximum estimate of not over 150 years is reasonable.

Using the maximum estimates for the length of architectural activity at Chichén Itzá during the Modified Florescent period, the longest possible span of time for the period is:

Castillo-sub to Castillo 50 years

Castillo to Chac Mool Temple 50 years

Chac Mool to Warriors 50 years

Warriors to end of sequence 150 years

Total 300 years

Minimum estimates are obtained by reducing the amount of time in the sequences both before and after the construction of the Temple of the Warriors:

140

Castillo-sub to Castillo 35 years

Castillo to Chac Mool Temple 15 years

Chac Mool to Warriors 40 years

Warriors to end of sequence 90 years

Total 180 years

Although rough estimates, Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá probably was not occupied longer than three centuries nor much less than two. Because of the known stratigraphic relationships among buildings on the main plaza, one might estimate a longer period of time between the Castillo-sub and the Temple of the Warriors than was actually the case. The minimum dates may be the best estimate for the first half of the Modified Florescent sequence. The time span of architectural endeavor following the erection of the Temple of the Warriors is difficult to estimate, but one may underestimate the capabilities of peoples determined to construct architectural monuments for their society or their gods. Three centuries is a generous outer limit for the length of the Modified Florescent at Chichén Itzá, and a span of around 200 years is a more realistic suggestion based on the architectural sequence.

Lacking a battery of epigraphic or radiocarbon dates for the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá, there are two ways to attempt to assign absolute dates to the Modified Florescent period. One way is to “sandwich” the Modified Florescent between dates for the preceding Pure Florescent and succeeding Decadent periods, but the uncertainties of the

Pure Florescent regional chronology preclude this method as a secure way of obtaining the requisite absolute dates. A second way is to work back in time from the estimated earliest date of the Decadent period using the maximum and minimum estimates for the time length of the Modified Florescent period to suggest possible dates for the beginning of this period. The fixed date needed for this method is estimated on archaeological grounds to be not later than A.D. 1240 (Thompson 1941), and a date of around A.D. 1200 for the abandonment of Chichén Itzá has been widely accepted on both archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence (Roys 1933:204; Thompson 1937, 1941, 1945, 1950:7, 1966:139; Smith 1971:4; Ball and Andrews V 1975:Table 1). If this date of A.D. 1200 is provisionally accepted as a terminal date for the Modified Florescent at Chichén Itzá, and one subtracts the maximum and minimum estimates for the length of occupation of the site during this period, then possible absolute dates for the beginning of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá are bracketed within maximum and minimum possibilities. A 300 year occupation of Chichén Itzá would push the initial Modified Florescent at the site to A.D.900, 10.3.11.0.0 in the Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation of the Maya and Christian chronologies. The minimum estimate of about two centuries places the beginning of Modified Florescent architecture at Chichén Itzá at about A.D. 1000, or about 10.8.13.0.0 in the Maya long count following the same correlation.

141

The most obvious implication of this hazardous guesswork is that the minimum and maximum extremes estimated for the length of occupation of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá can be evoked to support either the Thompson-Brainerd or Andrews-Tulane view of the regional chronology. Thompson’s most recent publication on the subject places the first Modified Florescent peoples at Chichén Itzá in A.D. 918, or 10.4.9.7.3 in the long count (1970a), which indicates he favors a span of slightly over 280 years for the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá based on historic sources. This is a revision of his earlier estimate of the first arrival of foreigners at the site at A.D. 987, or 10.8.0.0.0, based on a later recurrence of a katun 4 ahau (1937, 1945, 1950), but “the earlier reading is preferable if the gap at the end of the Classic period is to be closed” (Thompson 1970a:14). The excavations at Dzibilchaltún, on the other hand, indicate that Puuc Pure Florescent architecture follows the Tepeu 2 period of the Late Classic in the south, and thus occupies this “gap at the end of the Classic period.” Ball and Andrews V (1975) date the beginning of the Modified Florescent period at 10.0.0.0.0, close to the date generated using the minimum estimate for the span of Modified Florescent architecture at Chichén Itzá, and only two katuns later than Thompson’s original estimate of the first foreigners at the site.

No matter which view one prefers of late Yucatecan history, the stylistic and chronological position of the Caracol must be considered within the archaeological

framework of Chichén Itzá. The Caracol is a building constructed, from platform to vault, utilizing building techniques characteristic of the Pure Florescent architecture of Chichén Itzá; only the serpent carvings on the stairway ramps and Tlaloc censers indicate a Modified Florescent touch. There are two epigraphic dates from the Caracol, one of 10.2.17.0.0 from the Caracol stela, and a 10.7.0.5.1 from a hieroglyphic band once presumably positioned on the upper facade (Morley 1935, Thompson 1937). The earlier date falls near the cluster of dates associated with the Pure Florescent architecture at the site, and the date of 10.2.17.0.0 is thus consistent with the Pure Florescent flavor of the structure. If the people responsible for Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá arrived shortly after 10.4.0.0.0, a view favored by Thompson and Proskouriakoff among others, then the 10.7.0.5.1 date would be an addition of the later peoples, and the structure itself would be considered either Pure Florescent or transitional between the two periods. If the Dzibilchaltún sequence and chronology are favored, then the Caracol is a completely Pure Florescent structure, if the dates are accepted as dating the building, and the later date would simply indicate a time of late Pure Florescent occupation at the site.

Little other adjustment in the archaeology of Chichén Itzá is required to accommodate either scheme. If Modified Florescent peoples arrived at Chichén Itzá shortly after 10.4.0.0.0, then the date of 10.8.10.11.0 on the High Priest’s Grave probably dates that structure. If so, then about 80 years passed from the time of

142

first Modified Florescent occupation of the site and the construction of the High Priest’s Grave. Since the High Priest’s Grave is almost certainly later than the Castillo on architectural grounds, estimates of less than 80 years for the Early Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá seem justified. Alternatively, if one accepts a date of between 10.8.0.0.0 and 10.10.0.0.0 for the beginning of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, following Thompson’s original suggestion, my estimate of the length of the Modified Florescent period, and the Dzibilchaltún work, then the date on the High Priest’s Grave would have to be interpreted as historical (Thompson 1937, 1941, 1945, 1950; Ball and Andrews V 1975). Thompson’s original estimate of about 10.8.0.0.0 for the first Modified Florescent occupation of Chichén Itzá is very close to my estimate of 10.8.13.0.0 based on a short estimate of the length of occupation of the Modified Florescent period, and both are noticeably close to the date of 10.8.10.11.0 on the High Priest’s Grave. The possibility that the date on the High Priest’s Grave does not date the structure but commemorates an important event in the history of Chichén Itzá cannot be ignored.

These issues remain unanswered for now. Unfortunately the radiocarbon dates from Chichén Itzá are difficult to interpret in light of other evidence, and they do little more than suggest the Pure Florescent is indeed earlier than the Modified Florescent. The following radiocarbon dates from Chichén Itzá and from a Modified Florescent censer at nearby

Balankanche Cave are from Andrews (1965b: Table 5):

Sample Date

Red House, original beam 610±70(Lab. no. TBN-313-3)

La Iglesia, original beam 600±70(Lab. no. TBN-313-2)

La Iglesia, another original beam 780±70 (Lab. no. TBN-313-1)

Monjas, East Patio (?) 810±00(Lab. no. LJ-87)

Castillo, zapote lintel 790±70(Lab. no. Y-626)

Castillo, re-run of Y-626 810±100(Lab. no. Y626b)

Balankanche, twig charcoal 860±90 (Lab. no. LJ-272)

Balankanche, twig charcoal 860±100 (Lab. no. LJ-273)

These dates raise a number of questions. They apparently place the Pure Florescent architecture of Chichén Itzá squarely within the Late Classic of the south, but why the 180 year difference between the two beams from the Iglesia, a gap not even bridged by adding the variation to the earlier date and subtracting it from the later date? And if the Red House were built anywhere near 610, why are there hieroglyphic dates associated with the structure which have been interpreted by Thompson to be 10.2.0.11.3 and 10.2.0.15.3? The dates from

143

the Castillo lintel also appear too old, as do the other Modified Florescent dates, although a very generous interpretation following the addition of about a century to each would generally favor the idea that the first foreign elements reached the site about 10.4.0.0.0. Considering the problems with both the Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent dates, with really none of the dates very surely dating the structure from which the sample came, it is prudent to treat them with caution until a battery of radiocarbon samples can be tested from a carefully selected variety of structures.

In summary, the archaeology of Chichén Itzá can be used to support either the Thompson view that Pure Florescent architecture is essentially contemporaneous with the Late Classic of the southern centers, or the Andrews idea that the Pure Florescent constructions are basically post-Classic, stratigraphically later than the Tepeu 2 ceramic phase of the southern Late Classic. In part this is because the dates associated with Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá cluster between 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0, which can be interpreted as terminal Late Classic in the Thompson scheme or in the early part of the Pure Florescent using a modified version of the Andrews IV sequence based on the Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation (Andrews IV 1965a, Ball and Andrews V 1975). Based on estimates of the possible minimum and maximum lengths of Modified Florescent architectural activity, the beginning of the later period can be bracketed between about A.D. 900 and A.D. 1000, or roughly 10.4.0.0.0 and 10.9.0.0.0 in the long count.

The terminal date of the Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá, most scholars agree, is about A.D. 1200, or about 10.19.0.0.0. The later periods of ancient Maya history must now be considered within the context of possible interpretations of the archaeology and chronology of Chichén Itzá.

Archaeology and History of Later Pre-Columbian Yucatán

One of the purposes of this monograph is to work from archaeology to history, not a conciliation of the documentary histories of the Maya chronicles with the archaeology of Yucatán, but an elucidation of general historical possibilities compatible with current archaeological knowledge. Chichén Itzá was a prominent site in Pure Florescent Yucatán, and with the dawn of the later Modified Florescent period it became the predominant center of the Maya lowlands. In order to understand the place of Chichén Itzá in the history of the peninsula, it is necessary to place the site within a regional archaeological context. To understand the momentous events of later Pre-Columbian Yucatán, one must refer to the terminal Classic of the southern lowlands, because the northern cultures cannot be isolated from the Classic collapse in the south. Although the nature of this relationship remains elusive, neither area can be well understood until each is examined in relation to the other.

Following the cessation of the practice of erecting dated sculptured monuments in the Classic style in the southern lowlands,

144

pottery types related to Puuc ceramics make their appearance in certain Maya sites of the Usumacinta zone and the northwestern periphery of the Maya area (Rands 1973a, 1973b; Smith 1971; Sabloff 1970, 1973). At Seibal, on the Pasión River, a tributary of the Usumacinta River, sculpture and architecture appear at this time that are related to forms found in the northern lowlands. Exploring this relationship will lead to better understanding the place of Chichén Itzá in ancient Maya history.

In the great Maya sites of the Usumacinta zone and northwestern periphery, Classic architectural and sculptural activity ceased by about 9.19.0.0.0, with the last dated monument at Palenque at 9.17.13.0.7, at Piedras Negras in 9.18.5.0.0, at Bonampak around 9.18.10.0.0, and at Yaxchilán about 9.19.0.0.0 (Rands 1973a:48-52, 1973b:171-173). Just as the erection of dated monuments ceased earlier in the west and later further to the east, there was also an increase in the popularity of Fine Paste ceramics at the expense of Maya polychromes that began earlier in the west and was later in the east (Rands 1973a). Thus, in the Trinidad-Lower Usumacinta area, polychromes were of major importance until about 9.13.0.0.0 and Fine Paste ceramics were rare to appreciable. In the early Naab phase, from about 9.13.0.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0, polychromes became less important as Fine Paste ceramics became more abundant, and following a late Naab phase with polychromes seemingly absent, Fine Orange ceramics mainly of the Balancan Ceramic Group appeared between about 9.19.0.0.0 and

10.0.0.0.0. At Palenque, polychromes remained dominant until around 9.17.0.0.0, with Fine Paste ceramics appearing about 9.13.0.0.0 and gaining importance, especially in the early part of the Late Balunte phase, until the appearance of Fine Orange Wares dated to 10.0.0.0.0 to 10.1.0.0.0. Polychromes remained important at Piedras Negras until around 9.19.0.0.0 in the Chacalhaaz Ceramic Complex, the end of which Rands says effectively marks the abandonment of the site. These were followed, however, with Fine Gray Ware and a related pottery, both with affiliations to ceramics from the Balunte Complex at Palenque, and to ceramics from the Campeche coast, Tabasco, Dzibilchaltún, and Yoxiha (Rands 1973b:176). Rands believes the scattered Fine Orange pottery at Piedras Negras is later than the first Fine Paste ceramics at the site, which are themselves later than the final polychromes marking the final Classic occupation of the site (1973b:176-178). At Altar de Sacrificios, at the confluence of the Salinas (Chixoy) and Pasión Rivers, Fine Paste ceramics first appear in the early Boca phase around 9.17.0.0.0 and are associated with Maya polychromes until about 10.0.0.0.0, when Fine Orange Ware first appears here and at Seibal. The general picture that emerges is of the long and increasingly important position held by various Fine Paste ceramics in the western Maya area, which are introduced at increasingly later times into Classic Maya sites to the southeast still using Maya polychromes. The Fine Orange horizon of the Altar and Balancan Ceramic Groups is dated slightly earlier in the Trinidad-Lower

145

Usumacinta zone, about 9.19.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0, than it is at Palenque, Altar de Sacrificios, Seibal, Tikal, and Uaxactun, where ceramics of the two groups are estimated to first appear around 10.0.0.0.0 to 10.1.0.0.0 (Rands 1973a:Fig. 8).

At about the time Fine Orange Wares of the Altar and Balancan Groups appear in the southern Maya lowlands the Classic tradition at these sites ceased. Whether the peoples responsible for bringing the Fine Orange ceramics to the southern centers were directly responsible for the Classic Maya collapse is not settled (Culbert 1973). In any case, the Fine Orange ceramics appearing in the southern Maya lowlands are closely related to the Fine Orange types at Uxmal and Kabah, presumably during the same Pure Florescent temporal horizon as Puuc Chichén Itzá. About the same time as this Fine Orange horizon in the southern Maya lowlands, a sculptural and architectural florescence occurred at Seibal, which can be related in certain aspects to the archaeology of the northern lowlands. In order to place Chichén Itzá within the context of regional developments, it is necessary to discuss archaeological relationships in ceramics, sculpture, and architecture following the Classic Maya collapse in the south with the cultures of the northern Maya lowlands.

In ceramics, the pottery of the Bayal Ceramic Complex from Seibal on the Pasión is closely related to pottery of the Cehpech Ceramic Complex at Uxmal and Kabah, through the Fine Paste ceramics present in both areas. The list below of the Fine Paste ceramics from the Cehpech and Bayal Ceramic Complexes indicates this relationship (Smith 1971, Sabloff 1970).

The most obvious observation from a comparison of the simple presence of types of Fine Paste ceramics from Uxmal or Kabah and Seibal is the correspondence of four ceramic types to the variety level in the Altar Group Fine Orange pottery of the two ceramic complexes. The Balancan Group of Fine Orange Wares provides less striking associations, where the two areas share only two related ceramic types, and the lack of Fine Gray Wares in this ceramic complex in the north contrasts with their presence at Seibal.

At Seibal, where ceramic classification was based on over 2,000 Fine Paste sherds and eleven whole vessels in burials and caches (Sabloff 1970:361), Fine Paste ceramics of the Altar Group seem to predominate simply in number of specimens, whereas of the Fine Orange Wares that Smith listed for the Cehpech Ceramic Complex, about nine out of ten sherds belonged to ceramics of the Balancan Group (1971:160). Thus, although ceramics of both the Altar and Balancan Groups occur at sites in both the northern and southern lowlands, Fine Orange pottery of the Altar Group is more common in the south while Fine Orange pottery of the Balancan Group is predominant in the north. Ceramics of the Altar and Balancan Groups probably were closely related chronologically. Perhaps contiguous, culturally related peoples, possibly from the

146

Cehpech Ceramic Complex Bayal Ceramic Complex (Uxmal and Kabah) (Seibal)

Fine Orange: Altar Group Fine Orange: Altar GroupAltar Orange Type: Altar Orange Type:

Altar Variety Altar VarietyPabellon Modeled-carved Type: Pabellon Modeled-carved Type:

Pabellon Variety Pabellon VarietyTrapiche Groove-incised Type: Trapiche Groove-incised Type:

Trapiche Variety Unspecified VarietyCedro Gadrooned Type: Cedro Gadrooned Type:

Cedro Variety Cedro VarietyTumba Black-on-orange Type: Tumba Black-on-orange Type:

Tumba Variety Tumba Variety Islas Gouged-incised Type: Islas Variety

Fine Orange: Balancan Group Fine Orange: Balancan GroupBalancan Orange Type: Balancan Orange Type:

Balancan Variety Unspecified VarietyCaribe Incised Type:

Caribe Variety Caribe Incised Type:

Red-paint Variety Caribe Incised Type:

Groove-incised VarietyPalizada Black-on-orange Type:

Palizada VarietyProvincia Plano-relief Type: Provincia Piano-relief Type:

Provincia Variety Unspecified VarietyTenosique Red-on-orange Type:

Tenosique Variety Fine Gray:Tres Naciones Group

Tres Naciones Gray Type: Tres Naciones Variety

Poite Incised Type: Poite Variety

147

lowland Gulf Coast area adjacent the western Maya area, were responsible for their manufacture (Rands 1973b:147, Smith 1971:160). If so, then preference for Balancan Group ceramics in the north and Altar Group ceramics up the Usumacinta and into the Pasión region perhaps reflects inverse trading preferences with the manufacturing centers of these ceramics in the Gulf Coast lowlands. Presumably this trade occurred about the same time, with the greater volume of Balancan Group ceramics going to the northern lowlands while the majority of Altar Group ceramics were traded into the upper Usumacinta.

The sculpture of Seibal also shows affinities to the art of the Mexican Gulf Coast and northern Maya lowlands. Graham has identified two non-Classical facies in the late sculpture of Seibal, Facies A represented by stelae 8, 10, 14, 20, and 21, and Facies B from stelae 3, 13, and 17 (1973). The stelae of Facies A, dating from about 10.1.0.0.0 to 10.3.0.0.0, although clearly non-Classic in certain aspects, attempt to follow the Classic Maya mold and aspire to the Classic tradition. The stelae of Facies B, on the other hand, have affinities to Gulf Coast sculptures from western Yucatán to southern Veracruz. The dating of the stelae of Facies B is less secure than the sculptures of Facies A, but Graham suggests stelae 3 and 13 might have been carved in the katun between 10.2.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0, and stela 17 slightly later, possibly erected around 10.3.10.0.0 (1973:215-216). Interpretation of this observation is challenging, but it raises the possibility of a relationship between ceramics

of the Altar Group with one of the non-Classic facies and pottery of the Balancan Group with the other.

The sculpture of Seibal has been definitely linked to the Fine Orange ceramics of the Altar Group by certain design elements that are present both on the non-Classic sculpture of the site and on pottery of the Pabellon Modeled-carved Type: Pabellon Variety. Sabloff lists some of these shared traits (1970:403):

1. hair style 2. “helmet” 3. plumes from headdress 4. beard 5. round earplugs 6. bead necklaces 7. three-element or bead bracelets 8. arm and leg bracelets (garters) 9. nose bar 10. distinctive “staff” 11. bar with three tassels across chest 12. chest disc (pectoral) 13. loincloths 14. bare feet 15. faces with mouth slightly open

16. physical characteristics (forehead, lips, etc.)

17. Maya and non-Maya glyph combination

18. square glyph 19. Cipactli glyph 20. mat for seating; plus a characteristic

sitting position and out-stretched arm holding a glyph

148

In a later paper, Sabloff gives a preliminary list of traits that are common to the sculpture of Seibal, the Puuc area, Chichén Itzá, and Pabellon Modeled-carved pottery (1973:126):

Some of the traits (many of which are non-Classic) linking the pottery and monumental sculpture of Seibal, the Puuc, and Chichén Itzá include: straight, long hair; beard and/or mustache; helmet under jaw; helmet with sprouting feathers, masked face; open slit mouth; non-Classic facial features and facial expression; eye surrounded by circle; “late” earplugs; nose bead; peculiar pectoral bar; bead armlets, anklets, and wristlets; loincloth as only clothing; atlatl or curved staff; and non-Classic Maya glyphs.

Without attempting to improve Sabloff’s admittedly preliminary lists, he has demonstrated two points: there is a relationship between the Pabellon Modeled-carved pottery of the Altar Group and the non-Classic sculpture of Seibal, and that selected numbers of these traits are also found in the Puuc area and at Chichén Itzá. Adams has extended Sabloff’s list to 51 distinctive traits common to Seibal 10th cycle sculpture and Pabellon Modeled-carved ceramics, and noted which elements also occur in Classic Maya sculpture (1973:160-163). He summarizes (1973:163):

1. Summary of Sabloff list (items 1-22)

Common to Pabellon, Seibal sculpture, and Classic sculpture 10

Common to Pabellon, Seibal sculpture, and distinctive from Classic art 11

Unaccounted for 1

Total traits 22

2. Summary of combined trait list (items 1-51)

Common to Pabellon, Seibal sculpture, and Classic sculpture and pottery 23

Common to Pabellon and Seibal sculpture and not in Classic art 11

Unique to Pabellon 16

Unaccounted for 1

Total traits 51

One may conclude from this list that first, the 23 traits common to Pabellon, Seibal sculpture, and Classic Maya sculpture and ceramics indicate, as Graham’s study of the sculpture of Seibal suggests, that at least some of the people on the Pasión at this time were interested in and had a working knowledge of Classic Maya art forms. Also, whoever was making the Pabellon Modeled-carved ceramics traded to Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios also had a working

149

knowledge of elements of Classic Maya art, which suggests that if they were Gulf Coast people, they were quite acculturated in the Classic Maya tradition. Second, the 11 traits common to Pabellon and Seibal sculpture but not in Classic art indicate that the people who were making Pabellon pottery either shared a common artistic and cultural heritage with the people carving the Seibal sculptures, or that the potters were familiar with the carvings at Seibal. The former interpretation seems preferable. Third, the traits unique to Pabellon simply mean that the potters were not limited to elements in the Classic Maya repertoire, nor were they only interested in elements that occur in the sculpture of Seibal.

Published references to the late architecture of Seibal suggest that there may be affinities to the northern lowlands, Chichén Itzá, and perhaps the Gulf Coast. Sabloff mentions “a round structure (Str. 79 on the second highest point of the site), a temple in the center of a plaza with four stairways (Str. A-13), three-member moldings, engaged drum like columns, and house group burial platforms” (1973:128). Graham notes the presence of a platform on which stelae 14, 15, and 16 stood (1973:213), and Sabloff lists some sculptures of foreign inspiration including “a jaguar-head altar supported by two dwarflike figures (probably phallic) in front of the round structure . . . a Tula-style jaguar carved on an altar in front of Stela 17 . . . and an hacha-stone” (1973:128).

The ceramic and sculptural ties between Seibal and the Gulf Coast and northern Maya

lowlands encourage looking in these areas for similarities with the features listed by Sabloff and Graham. The round structure placed on high ground at Seibal must be about contemporary with the Caracol at Chichén Itzá, a building almost totally constructed in the Pure Florescent manner. Engaged drum-like columns sound typically Puuc, phallic figures may also be related to Puuc examples, and the stela platform recalls Uxmal. The jaguar on the altar is perhaps related to central Mexican types, but jaguars are also found in Classic Maya art, at Pure Florescent Uxmal, and later at Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. The hacha stone is presumably from Veracruz, and the inspiration for the round structures at Seibal and Chichén Itzá might also originate on the Gulf Coast. Adams writes that the buildings in question at Seibal look very similar to Puuc and Chenes styles of architecture (1973:143), an observation that follows Willey and Smith (1966:19).

Relationships in ceramics, sculpture, and architecture among Pure Florescent sites of the northern lowlands, particularly Uxmal, Kabah, and Chichén Itzá, with sites in the northwestern periphery of the Maya area and the Usumacinta zone, particularly Seibal on the Pasión tributary of the Usumacinta River, raise questions of what they mean for chronology and history. Given the appearance of related Fine Paste ceramics from both the Altar and Balancan Groups in the Cehpech Ceramic Complex in the northern lowlands and in the Bayal Ceramic Complex at Seibal, it may be that late Seibal and Uxmal and Kabah are in

150

part contemporaneous. The appearance of Fine Paste pottery at Seibal dates to around 10.0.0.0.0, based on the discovery of a Fine Orange sherd in a context that dates to 10.1.0.0.0 at the latest (Sabloff 1970:360), and the association of Pabellon Modeled-carved ceramics with the non-Classic sculpture dated to about 10.1.0.0.0 to 10.3.10.0.0 links these Fine Paste ceramics to Maya long count dates (Sabloff 1973, Adams 1973, Graham 1973). Dates spanning the katuns from 10.1.0.0.0 to 10.3.0.0.0, are precisely the dates associated with the Pure Florescent architecture of Chichén Itzá, where pottery of the Cehpech Ceramic Complex also occurs (Smith 1971). Parallels in ceramics, sculpture, architecture, and associated dates at late Seibal with certain Pure Florescent sites in the northern lowlands, render it likely that they were all occupied between 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0. This underscores the basic problem of the regional chronology: was the major occupation of the Puuc sites before or after this two-katun time span? Ball and Andrews V date the beginning of the Pure Florescent to slightly before 10.0.0.0.0 in the Puuc area, possibly as early as 9.17.0.0.0 or 9.18.0.0.0 (1975), a dating which closely approximates Smith’s estimate of A.D. 800, 9.18.10.0.0.0 in the long count, for the beginning of the Cehpech Ceramic Complex (1971).

Any date after about 9.19.0.0.0 in the northern lowlands realistically must be considered post-Classic in view of the terminal dates of Classic sculptures in most centers of the southern lowlands. Considering the evidence

that indicates much of the Puuc florescence came after 9.19.0.0.0, the northern lowlands grew in importance as the power of the southern centers declined. The great sites of the Puuc area waxed strong as the southern cities culturally waned. Chichén Itzá was certainly part of this northern florescence, probably reaching the peak of its expansion at the same time as late Seibal, from 10.1.0.0.0 to 10.3.0.0.0.

Whatever the relationships of the Puuc sites with the southern Maya lowlands or the Mexican Gulf Coast, the architectural study of Chichén Itzá offers clues to the transition from Pure Florescent to the Modified Florescent period. The Castillo-sub, clearly one of the earliest Modified Florescent structures at the site, has decorative elements and design features characteristic of the architecture of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá combined with new traits that reappear in the fully developed architecture of the Modified Florescent period. The hybrid style of the Castillo-sub implies that architects of the Pure Florescent period had little to do with the overall design of the structure, although Pure Florescent peoples likely had a hand in its actual construction. In addition, the strong Pure Florescent flavor of the architecture of the Castillo-sub probably indicates little or no temporal hiatus between the occupation of Pure Florescent Chichén Itzá and the beginning of the Modified Florescent period. The experimentation with the arrangement of old and new elements in the design of the façade makes one suspect the absence of skillful Pure Florescent architects

151

in planning the structure, while subtle parallels with Pure Florescent buildings in basic construction techniques such as the step up into the inner room, the lack of a basal batter, and the single doorway may suggest some sort of active participation in construction by Pure Florescent builders.

The art and architecture of Chichén Itzá strikingly reflects the cosmopolitan knowledge of the people who occupied Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. Robert Rands’s important paper on the water lily in Maya art demonstrates the point (1953). Based on a detailed analysis of flowers, leaves, flower elements, stems and roots, and other elements associated with the lilies, he found the lilies of Chichén Itzá closely related to the water lily motifs at Palenque and, to a lesser extent, to the Usumacinta sites of Piedras Negras and Bonampak. More surprising than the ties to the Usumacinta and western Maya sites on the basis of these water lily elements is the association of Chichén Itzá with Quiriguá and less strongly to Copán on the southeastern edge of the Maya area, and to some extent to sites in the Alta Verapaz. With 17 of 18 recognized flower types for the entire Maya area either surely or probably identified at Chichén Itzá, it is clear the Modified Florescent people had a firm grasp of detailed elements of Maya art from all over the area.

Comparison with Seibal again produces interesting associations. From non-Classic stelae 10 and 11 at Seibal, Rands found lily flower types which he classified as types G

and I (1953: Table 3). Type G is not present at Chichén Itzá, and is found only at Seibal, upriver from Seibal at Cancuen, and at Quiriguá. Given the non-Classic aspects of stela 11 at Seibal, it is interesting to note on it the presence of a flower type found earlier at Quiriguá at the southeastern periphery of the Maya area. Flower type I is more widely distributed, commonly occurring at Piedras Negras, Yaxchilán, and Bonampak. It is the third most prominent flower type at Chichén Itzá, found in the sculptures of the Great Ball Court, the Chac Mool Temple, and the Temple of the Warriors (Rands 1953: Table 3). The lilies of stelae 10 and 11 at Seibal occur in two symbolic associations, a fish eats flower motif also prominent at Palenque, Bonampak, Copán, and Chichén Itzá, and a lily associated with a human headdress common at these sites and at Yaxchilán (Rands 1953: Table 5).

Although much other sculptural and architectural information could be mustered to support the following conclusions, Rands’s study underscores several important points about Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. First, in contrast to the non-Maya element often stressed in the art of Chichén Itzá, many aspects of the art and architecture of this great site have their roots deep in the Classic Maya artistic tradition. The art and architecture of Chichén Itzá are an amalgamation of forms and elements tested through time in various areas, producing a vigorous and distinctive style of eclectic origin. Second, the specific elements considered in Rands’s study indicate the most important sources of influence

152

from the Maya areas were sites with access to watercourses: Palenque, Piedras Negras, Yaxchilán, Bonampak, Seibal, Quiriguá, and Copán. Considering the evidence for an influx of new people into the western Maya area and the drainage of the Usumacinta and its tributaries, the historical importance of the artistic relationship between these sites and Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá cannot be denied nor yet clearly understood. At the same time it is important to underscore the artistic relationship of the southeastern sites, particularly Quiriguá, not only to Chichén Itzá but also to the Usumacinta sites listed above. All these sites with the exception of Chichén Itzá are accessible by water, which emphasizes the importance of water routes or transport in the background of some of the people at Chichén Itzá. This helps to explain the aquatic scenes and boats pictured in the murals at Chichén Itzá.

It is difficult to ignore but hard to interpret what this means for the history of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá. The wide knowledge of elements of Classic Maya art displayed by the Modified Florescent sculptors at Chichén Itzá indicates that whoever was responsible for this work had not just marched in from central Mexico. Years ago Proskouriakoff wrote that a simple fusion of the styles of Tula and the Puuc sites could not sufficiently explain the origin of the sculpture of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, and the present study makes this abundantly clear (Proskouriakoff 1946:211). The great influence the Gulf Coast lowlands might have had on ancient Maya

history has been often suggested but little explored archaeologically, and architectural comparisons are almost nonexistent.

Better understanding of the later Pre-Columbian history of the Maya area must await a systematic approach to interregional archaeological problems in both synchronic and diachronic dimensions. Basic problems of chronology, stratigraphy and interregional relationships must be solved in order to more accurately reconstruct these periods of Yucatecan history and better understand any movements of peoples involved. The people of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá selected artistic elements from various areas of Mesoamerica that they blended into often pleasing artistic and architectural forms. Many of these elements and forms do not have a local history in the area and thus are foreign to the northern lowlands. On the other hand, many continuities exist from Pure Florescent to Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, particularly in architecture, certain sculptural themes, and ceramics (Andrews 1942:263, Smith 1971:253). These continuities, plus the evidence for a short period of transition from the Pure Florescent to the Modified Florescent at Chichén Itzá, suggest that total population displacement did not accompany the transition from one period to the next. The arrival of new peoples was most likely a factor in the cultural florescence of later Chichén Itzá, but the continuities with the earlier period probably indicate much of the previous population was still present.

153

Chichén Itzá was not born in tranquility; rather, it arose from social, political, economic, and probably military events that rocked Mesoamerica, a drama that we can perceive but only imperfectly understand because of current limitations of our information. Its birth gave the society a secular vigor, but in its beginning were the seeds of its end, and if its history consisted of great eras led by great men and times controlled by those of lesser mettle, of this we know little. From purely archaeological evidence the decline and fall of Chichén Itzá is less well understood than its rise. The architectural and sculptural record suggests a brilliant beginning of unknown duration followed by progressive artistic decline, but for the present this can only be observed, not explained. Until further advances in Mesoamerican archaeology, neither historical nor processual hypotheses will be well supported. This monograph contributes to the foundations upon which further research will rest.

154

References CitedAbbreviationsAPS American Philosophical Society BAE Bull. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin CIW Pub. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication CIW YB Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book HAMI Handbook of Middle American Indians ICA International Congress of Americanists INAH Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia MARI Middle American Research Institute MPMAE Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology PPMAE Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology RMEA Revista Mexicana de Estudios AntropológicosUNAM Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Adams, R. E. W.1973 Maya Collapse: Transformation and Termination in the Ceramic Sequence at Altar

de Sacrificios. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 133-163. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Andrews IV, E. W.1942 Yucatán: Architecture. CIW YB 41:257-263. Washington.1960 Excavations at Dzibilchaltún, Northwestern Yucatán, Mexico. Proceedings, APS 104:254-265. 1962 Excavaciones en Dzibilchaltún, Yucatán, 1956-1962. Estudios de Cultura Maya 2:149- 183. Mexico: UNAM.1965a Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowlands: An Introduction. HMAI 2:288-330. 1965b Progress Report on the 1960-1964 Field Seasons, National Geographic Society-Tulane University Dzibilchaltún Program. Tulane University, MARI Pub. 31:23-67.1973 The Development of Maya Civilization after Abandonment of the Southern Cities. In The

Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 243-265, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Aveni, A. F., S. L. Gibbs, and. H. Hartung1975 The Caracol Tower at Chichén Itzá: An Ancient Astronomical Observatory? Science 188:977-985.

155

Ball, J. W. and. E. W. Andrews V1975 The Polychrome Pottery of Dzibilchaltún, Mexico: Typology and Archaeological

Context. Tulane University, MARI Pub. 31:229-247.

Beyer, H.1937 Studies on the Inscriptions of Chichén Itzá. CIW Pub. 483, Contribution 21. Washington.

Bolles, J.S.1963 La Iglesia. San Francisco.

Brainerd, G. W.1941 Fine Orange Pottery in Yucatán. RMEA 5:163-183. Mexico.1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatán. University of California, Anthropological Records, vol. 19. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Breton, A. C.1917 Preliminary Study of the North Building (Chamber C), Great Ball Court, Chichén

Itzá, Yucatán. 19th ICA (Washington 1915), Proceedings, pp. 187-194. Washington.

Culbert, T. P.1973 The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Dutton, B. P.1955 Tula of the Toltecs. El Palacio 62:195-251. Santa Fe.1956 A Brief Discussion of Chichén Itzá. El Palacio 63:202-232. Santa Fe.

Erosa Peniche, J. A.1947 Descubrimiento y exploracion arqueológica de la subestructura del Castillo en Chichén-

Itzá. 27th ICA (Mexico 1939), Proceedings, 2:229-248. Mexico.

Graham, J. A.1973 Aspects of non-Classic Presences in the Inscriptions and Sculptural Art of Seibal. In The

Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 207-219. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Healan, D. M.1974 Residential Architecture at Tula. In Studies of Ancient Tollan: A Report of the University

of Missouri Tula Archaeological Project, ed. by R. A. Diehl, pp. 16-24. University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology, no. 1.

Kidder, A. V.1932 Archaeological Research. CIW YB 31:92-95. Washington.

156

Kubler, G.1962 The Art and Architecture of Ancient America: the Mexican, Maya, and Andean Peoples. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Le Plongeon, A.1896 Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx. New York.

Lothrop, S. K.1952 Metals from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. MPMAE, Harvard University, vol. 10, no. 2. Cambridge.

Marquina, I.1964 Arquitectura prehispánica. Memorias, INAH, vol. 1, segunda edicion. Mexico.

Maudslay, A. P.1889-1902 Archaeology. Biologia Centrali-Americana. 5 vols. London.

Morley, S. G.1911 The Historical Value of the Books of Chilam Balam. American Journal of Archaeology, 2nd series, 15:195-214.1917 The Rise and Fall of the Maya Civilization in the Light of the Monuments and the Native Chronicles. 19th ICA (Washington 1915), Proceedings, pp. 140-149. Washington.1925 Archaeology. CIW YB 24:247-251. Washington.1927 Archaeology. CIW YB 26:231-240. Washington.1935 Inscriptions at the Caracol. In The Caracol at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico, by K. Ruppert, CIW Pub. 454:276-293. Washington.1947 The Ancient Maya. 2nd ed. Stanford University, Stanford University Press.

Morley, S. G. and. G. W. Brainerd1956 The Ancient Maya. 3rd ed. Stanford University, Stanford University Press.

Morris, E. H.1924 Report of Mr. E. H. Morris on the Excavations at Chichén Itzá, Mexico. CIW YB

23:211-213. Washington.

Morris, E. H., J. Charlot, and A. A. Morris1931 The Temple of the Warriors at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. CIW Pub. 406. Washington.

Pollock, H. E. D.1936a The Casa Redonda at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. CIW Pub. 456, Contribution 17.

Washington.

157

1936b Round Structures of Aboriginal Middle America. CIW Pub. 471. Washington.

Proskouriakoff, T.1946 A Study of Maya Sculpture. CIW YB 45:209-211. Washington. 1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. CIW Pub. 593. Washington.1970 On two Inscriptions at Chichén Itzá. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, ed. by W. R. Bullard, J., PPMAE, Harvard University, vol. 61, part V, no. 2. Cambridge.

Rands, R. L.1953 The Water Lily in Maya Art: A Complex of Alleged Asiatic Origin. BAE Bull. 151, Anthropological Papers, no. 34. Washington.1973a The Classic Collapse in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Chronology. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 43-62. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.1973b The Classic Maya Collapse: Usumacinta Zone and the Northwestern Periphery. In The

Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 165-205. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Ricketson, E. B.1927 Sixteen Carved Panels from Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. Art and Archaeology 23:11-15.

Roys, R. L.1933 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. CIW Pub. 438. Washington.

Ruppert, K.1931 Temple of the Wall Panels, Chichén Itzá. CIW Pub. 403, Contribution 3. Washington.1935 The Caracol at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico. CIW Pub. 454. Washington.1943 The Mercado, Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. CIW Pub. 546, Contribution 43. Washington.1952 Chichén Itzá: Architectural Notes and Plans. CIW Pub. 595. Washington.

Ruz Lhuillier, A.1964 Influencias mexicanas sobre los mayas. In Desarrollo cultural de los mayas, editado por E. Z. Vogt y A. Ruz L., pp. 203-241. Mexico: UNAM.

Sabloff, J. A.1970 Type Descriptions of the Fine Paste Ceramics of the Baal Boca Complex, Seibal, Peten,

Guatemala. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, ed. by W. R. Bullard. PPMAE, Harvard University, vol. 61, part IV, no. 2.

1973 Continuity and Disruption during Terminal Late Classic Times at Seibal: Ceramic and other Evidence. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 107-131. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

158

Seler, E.1902-23 Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikaniachen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde. 5

vols. Berlin.

Shepard, A. 0.1948 Plumbate, a Mesoamerican Trade Ware. CIW Pub. 573. Washington.

Smith, R. E.1971 The Pottery of Mayapán. PPMAE, Harvard University, vol. 66. Cambridge.

Thompson, E. H.1938 The High Priest’s Grave, Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. Prepared for Publication with Notes

and Introduction by J. E. S. Thompson. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, vol. 27, no. 1. Chicago.

Thompson, J. E. S.1937 A New Method of Deciphering Yucatecan Dates with Special Reference to Chichén Itzá. CIW Pub. 483, Contribution 22. Washington.1941 A Coordination of the History of Chichén Itzá with Ceramic Sequences in Central Mexico. RMEA 5:97-111. Mexico.1945 A Survey of the Northern Maya Area. American Antiquity 11:2-24.1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. 3rd. edition. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.1959 Review of Chichén Itzá and its Cenote of Sacrifice, by A. M. Tozzer. American Journal of Archaeology 63:119-120.1966 The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. 2nd edition. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1970a Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.1970b The Bacabs: Their Portraits and Their Glyphs. In Monographs and Papers in Maya

Archaeology, ed. by W. R. Bullard. PPMAE, Harvard University, vol. 61, part V, no. 3. Cambridge.

Totten, G. 0.1926 Maya Architecture. The Maya Press. Washington.

Tozzer, A. M. 1930 Maya and Toltec Figures at Chichén Itzá. 23rd ICA (New York 1928), Proceedings, pp. 155-164.1957 Chichén Itzá and its Cenote of Sacrifice. MPMAE, Harvard University, vols. 11 and 12. Cambridge.

159

Vaillant, G. C.1952 Report of George C. Vaillant on the Excavations at Station No. 13 (1926). In Chichén Itzá: Architectural Notes and Plans, by K. Ruppert. CIW Pub. 595:157-162. Washington.

Willard, T. A.1926 The City of the Sacred Well. New York.

Willey, G. R. and D. B. Shimkin1973 The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. P. Culbert, pp. 457-501. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.

Willey, G. R. and A. L. Smith1966 Seibal 1966: Third Preliminary Report. Mimeographed, Harvard University.

I

architecture and chronology at chichén itzá, yucatán

Documents

archaeology of chichn

chichn itz years

study of chichn itz

mesoamerican archaeology

chronology137 archaeology

temescal group

southwest group

north ball court temple