Coba

Coba

Coba, the nearest large center in the area, was settled in the Late Formative or Protoclassic. It grew, during the Classic, into an extraordinarily large site, with the site center containing several pyramid groupings and the tallest Maya pyramids within Mexico. Folan calculates "that during the eighth century an estimated 20,000 structures housed a population of approximately 55,000 inhabitants. It bears numerous hallmarks of a major regional center: areal size, size and number of structures, inter- and intra-site sacbes, dated stelae, and ball courts."

Folan's description of the early exploration of Coba (Folan, Kintz, and Fletcher 1983:2-4) says that Coba was first reported by Contreras and Elizalde in 1886. They were followed by Maler in 1891, by Regil in 1897, and by Gann in 1926.

Intensive archaeological exploration and recording took place primarily from 1926 through 1930 when the Carnegie Institute [sic] of Washington scientists such as J. Eric Thompson, Harry E. D. Pollock, and Jean Charlot (1932) mapped a great deal of the central core area, including the sacbe system. They also recorded numerous stelae.

At about this same time Professor Alfonso Villa Rojas followed and recorded the 100‑km long sacbe connecting Coba with the great Classic center of Yaxuna located a few kilometers to the southwest of Chichen Itza, Yucatan (Villa Rojas 1934) (Folan et al. 1983:3).

The Carnegie Institution report (Thompson, Pollock, and Charlot 1932:9-10) describes six trips to Coba by researchers working at Chichen Itza: the Gann visit of 36 hours in February 1926, an equally brief visit by A. V. Kidder and J. Eric Thompson in March 1926, a five-day trip by Charlot and Thompson in May 1926, a one-week visit by S. G. Morley and J. Eric Thompson in June 1926, an expedition headed by Pollock in February 1929, and a sixth expedition of three weeks by Pollock and Thompson in February and March 1930. The report is based chiefly upon data collected during the sixth expedition. In it are maps and cross-sections that draw attention to the enormous size and complexity of the architecture at the site center: the Coba Group, the Nohoch Mul Group, Macanxoc, and Kucican.

The Carnegie report notes the presence of 32 stelae and 18 altars. The summary is instructive for its frequent comparisons with the east coast:

There are apparently two periods of construction represented in the Coba area. The great majority of the remains belong to the earlier period, while the later period is represented by a few buildings distinctly allied to the ruins of the eastern coast of Yucatan. The majority of structures obey a compact and carefully oriented plan of assemblage that is based upon a system of related and contiguous courts. Masonry is in the form of roughly shaped, deeply tailed-in stone that minimizes the veneer effect of the facing, but still leaves the construction essentially monolithic in character. The most distinctive type of substructure is the large stepped, truncated pyramid with inset and rounded corners. The ball court with sloped inner faces and stone rings is represented in two instances. No large stairways show traces of balustrades; the East Coast class of stairway is typical either in dividing or possessing a distinctive balustrade. The only variety of temple that may be distinguished is that of the East Coast. Palaces are of the conventional multi-chambered type; the typical East Coast palace is absent, but shrines are present. Foundations for wooden superstructures possess a distinctive plan and probably belong to a late period, as is true of stela shrines, which are a feature peculiar to this area. Ground-plans are of a highly developed type showing a large number of parallel vaults, wide rooms, and vaults carried around corners. Buildings of more than one story are present, and vaults are directly imposed upon lower chambers. Floors are of the usual polished cement, and exterior wall surfaces rise vertically, with the exception of two instances of retreating upper zones. Doorways occur in nearly all known forms, with the vaulted variety most distinctive. There is one example of the column, one instance of the large rectangular stone pillar, and probably several examples of masonry piers. Large windows occur above the spring of the vault in both medial and outer walls, and in the latter case are peculiar to the region. There are a few wall depressions, but no cord-holders have been noted. Benches and altars are only known to occur in the late buildings. The typical vault is offset at the spring, slopes inward at the ends as well as on the sides, and is flat-sided or slightly arched. These features vary, however; the stepped vault is present and the late vaulting is characteristically bottle-shaped. Mouldings are rectangular in section, but may be a single broad band rather than a small medial and upper band; exceptions to the rule are apron mouldings that occur with the two instances of a retreating upper zone of the façade. Roof structures are in all likelihood present, but this is not certain. Architectural decoration was probably for the most part stucco, but with some sculptured stone. Remaining examples are naturalistic in treatment. Stelæ and altars are mainly placed with relation to buildings, but not in particularly orderly fashion. The area is unique in possessing an elaborate system of stone roads.

A preponderance of the architectural features of the earlier class of structures find similarities in the remains of the Peten region of Guatemala, but the architecture is of a relatively advanced type. The later structures are probably roughly coeval with the final period of construction at Tulum (Thompson, Pollock, and Charlot 1932:129-130).

Folan continues his own discussion by noting the contributions of E. Wyllys Andrews IV, Michael and William Coe, Carlos Navarette, María José Con, and Alejandro Martínez Muriel, and states: "The remainder of the undiscovered sacbeob was recorded in the summer of 1974 " by Folan, Stuart, Folan, Caamal C. and May H. (Folan et al. 1983:3). A test pit program and ceramic analysis for Coba was completed by Robles C. (1990).

The summary by Folan of the urban organization of Coba indicates unique traits in addition to large size:

The earlier work of Thompson et al. (1932) indicates that Coba is characterized by several major administrative-ceremonial-residential zones formed around and among a constellation of five small lakes, presenting a residence and a hydrographic pattern peculiar to Coba alone among Classic Maya cities.

Research indicates that the ancient Maya modified virtually the entire urban area at Coba by a series of earth-moving activities. the landscape modifications undertaken by the Classic period residents include such activities as (1) intensive mining and quarrying, (2) road and structure building, (3) construction of walkways, linear boundary markers, house-lot walls and soil retention walls, (4) construction of large patios and platforms, (5) kitchen gardens, (6) raised fields, and (7) the modification of areas large and small for the purpose of hydraulic control and development (Folan et al. 1979 as quoted in Folan et al. 1983:51)

The first four of these land-modification schemes are readily observable at Muyil.

According to Robles (1990), whose analysis of Coba ceramics is a major comparative source for my work at Muyil, Coba was occupied in the Late Formative. Folan describes the periods of cultural development in tabular form (Folan et. al. 1983:212 Table 14.1), beginning much earlier (2000 B.C.) than Robles' evidence (100 B.C. and later) (Robles 1990:55). Folan says that Coba was the site of one or more farming villages between 2000 B.C. and A.D. 250. Folan goes on to say that in the Early Classic (A.D. 250 - 600) Coba was developing into an urban center. In the Late Classic (A.D. 600 - 800) Coba became a metropolis and the capital of a larger regional state with Peten connections, especially Naranjo. This is the period of building of most of the sacbes and the period of maximum development as a civic-religious-economic center. During the Terminal Classic (A.D. 800 - 1000) Coba continued to operate as a regional center and the capital of a regional state with lessening Peten connections and increasing Gulf Coast associations. According to Folan, by the Early Postclassic (A.D. 1000 - 1250), Coba had already been invaded by Itza people who probably used it as a civic-ceremonial center at this and later times. According to the evidence Robles supplies, there is very little evidence for a strong Itza presence (1990:261). In the Middle Postclassic (A.D. 1250 - 1441), according to both Robles and Folan, Coba's power had been mostly lost to people from the east coast and Mayapan. In the Late Postclassic (A.D. 1441 - 1546), Coba was a pilgrimage center visited by both coastal and inland people. The move was still toward the coast. (Folan et. al. 1983:212 Table 14.1) In contrast with this decline in the interior, coastal sites expand during the Postclassic, and the east coast of Quintana Roo developed a notable similarity of ceramic and architectural styles.

The expansion of Coba is clearly visible in the physical remains of sacbes, including 50 intrasite roads as well as the longest known Maya roadway, which extends 100 km from Coba to Yaxuna (near Chichen Itza) and a 16 km-long sacbe extending southwest from Coba to Ixil. Folan estimated the area of urban Coba at 63 km² (Folan et al. 1983:196).

Although no sacbes connect Coba with the east coast, its ties to the nearby coastal sites of Xelha, Tancah, and Muyil appear to have been strong. These sites show a parallel development during the Classic that reflects both their proximity to Coba and their natural access to the sea for both trade and marine resources.