The importance of Chichen Itza
Anthony P. Andrews recently asserted:
The rise and fall of the Itzá state in the northern Maya lowlands of the
Yucatan peninsula, Mexico, during the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic
times, was probably the single most important process in late Maya history. This
was a time of momentous changes, of great social stress exacerbated by foreign
influences, invasions, and warfare. It was also a period in which the elite of a
single capital embarked on an attempt to forge the largest polity in Maya
history, and, for reasons that are poorly understood, failed to do so. (A. P.
Andrews 1990:258)
Throughout the Late Classic and Terminal Classic, and perhaps into the
Early Postclassic, Muyil is similar to Coba in its ceramic record. Coba was a
major political and economic force before the rise of Chichen Itza in the ninth
century. It is not surprising that these two major powers collided along the
nearest borders of the areas they controlled. Recent research is bringing to
light the extent to which Chichen Itza spread its trade goods by coastal canoe
travel, at times leap-frogging the ports of its competitors (Andrews et al.
1988:196-207). This may have been of special relevance to Coba, since Itzá
ceramics are documented as far south on the east coast as northern Belize (Nohmul)
and the Itzá may have been severing Coba's trade ties along the coast from port
areas such as Tancah, Xelha, and Muyil. The interaction between Coba and Chichen
Itza serves to highlight the recent proposal that the Itzá were forging a new
political structure in which power resided in a ruling class, perhaps with
multiple rulers or brothers (Andrews 1990:260). This contrasts with the
Classic-period political structure, in evidence at Coba on the stelae, of single
rulers in dynastic succession.
These interactions are the source of our questions about and research
into the ceramics of Chichen Itza at Muyil.
The interpretive problems with Chichen Itza
The final 600 years' history of the preconquest Maya and especially the
history of Chichen Itza has been difficult to establish and frustrating to
researchers for a variety of reasons: (1) conflicting correlations between the
Maya and the Christian calendars — an issue now resolved in favor of the
Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation; (2) failure of the Maya to record
long-count dates in stone after the Terminal Classic; (3) inability to reconcile
high levels of activity in northern Yucatan with the collapse of central Peten
sites; (4) an influx of new people and new iconographic and architectural
elements at Chichen Itza and elsewhere from the central Gulf coast or central
Mexico; (5) the traditional belief that Chichen Itza survived into the
thirteenth century confronting accumulating archaeological evidence that it was
in decline 200 years or more earlier; (6) an apparent resurgence of Maya
activity along the east coast of Quintana Roo in the Late Postclassic; and (7)
ambiguities in and interpretive problems with the Maya chronicles and relaciones,
whose cyclic replay of past history and future prediction obscures the past.
Prior findings about the ceramics of Chichen
Itza
The Cehpech ceramic sphere encompasses Muna Slate ceramics of the Puuc
region and of Coba across the northern lowlands. The Sotuta ceramic sphere to
the north encompasses the ceramics of Chichen Itza, particularly the Muna-like
slate ceramic, Dzitas Slate. Dzitas Slate is often used as evidence of the
presence of Chichen Itza ceramics at sites in the northern lowlands. The Sotuta
ceramic sphere was once believed to follow the Cehpech sphere in time, but most
researchers now accept a considerable temporal overlap between the two (Ringle
and Bey 1991:3).
Andrews (1990:261) says that many sites between Chichen Itza and the
north coast yield substantial amounts of Chichen Itza ceramics. In contrast,
Ringle and Bey found a high proportion (30%) of Muna Slate ceramics at Ek Balam,
58 km east-northeast of Chichen Itza, but few (<1%) Dzitas Slate sherds.
From this they conclude that the ceramics of Chichen Itza must not have affected
the production and distribution of Cehpech ceramics at Ek Balam (Ringle and Bey
1988:42). Robles (1990) considers Sotuta ceramics at Coba to be a minor
intrusion. On Cozumel, Connor (1983:181, 241) reported 85% as many Dzitas Slate
sherds as Muna Slate sherds. At Xelha, Canché M. reported significant
numbers of Dzitas sherds, but in proportions like those of Muyil and Coba.
At the Classic/Postclassic transition, both Coba and Chichen Itza
ceramics appear at many peninsular sites, but in different ways. In some
areas, as has been shown above, one or the other is clearly dominant in the
ceramic record. Muyil could have been closely associated with one or the other
ceramically, or could have had yet a third, more independent ceramic pattern.
Along the east coast, the picture in Quintana Roo is confused, perhaps due to
the common practice of excavating test pits in mixed platform fill. Coba
ceramics and Chichen Itza ceramics sometimes occur in isolation, sometimes
occur in superposition, and sometimes are mixed (see, for example, Canché M.
1992: Tables 1 and 2).
Intersite comparisons of Cehpech and Sotuta
ceramics
Research at Muyil
At Muyil, several questions about the Classic/Postclassic transition,
especially with respect to Chichen Itza, were investigated using the ceramic
evidence: (a) to what extent do we see the ceramics of Chichen Itza at Muyil?
(b) do the ceramics of Chichen Itza follow those of the Puuc in time (and swamp
them) or do they coincide or at least overlap in time and space? The first of
these alternatives would support a later (Early Postclassic) date for the
pre-eminence of Chichen Itza, while the latter would support an earlier
(Terminal Classic) date for Chichen Itza; (c) how does the record of Chichen
Itza ceramics at Muyil compare with the record of Coba ceramics at the site and
at other nearby sites?
|
Figure
2
Dzitas group and Muna group ceramics at selected sites. (Robles 1990,
Connor 1983, Canche M. 1992)
|
Proportions of Cehpech and Sotuta ceramics at
Muyil
I began by constructing the accompanying chart (2),
which shows a percentage comparison of Muna group ceramics with Dzitas group
ceramics. The sherd counts for these two major groups of slipped ceramics are
taken from four sites (Muyil, Xelha, Coba, and Cozumel.) The Muna ceramic group
is associated with the Cehpech ceramic sphere of northwestern Yucatan and
extending eastward to Coba and the coast, and the Dzitas ceramic group is
associated with the Sotuta ceramic sphere centered at Chichen Itza. From the
Muna group the abundant types Muna Slate, Chumayel Red-on-slate, and Sacalum
Black-on-slate are used. From the Dzitas group, the parallel ceramic types are
used: Dzitas Slate, Balam Canche Red-on-slate, and Balantun Black-on-slate.
Sherd counts are from the analyses of Robles (1990:211-214) for Coba, of Canché
M. (1992:183-186) for Xelha, and of Connor (1983:188-192, 202-206) for Cozumel.
The proportion of the Dzitas group is between 15% and 20% of the total at
Muyil, Coba, and Xelha, with Coba the lowest and Xelha the highest. The fact
that the three sites have such similar proportions of Dzitas material challenges
expectations for several reasons. At Coba, Dzitas material is considered by
Robles (1990:212) as a negligible intrusion into a Cehpech sphere site, while at
Xelha, the influx of Chichen Itza iconography is considered stronger — Toltec-style
architectural elements, such as murals and serpent-head balustrades, are cited
in support. Thus, we might expect Xelha to have a much higher proportion of
Dzitas ceramics than Coba does. Xelha has Toltec-style architectural elements,
but none have been found at Muyil. We would, therefore, expect a higher
proportion of Dzitas ceramics at Xelha than at Muyil, but the proportions of
Dzitas material at the two sites are similar. A significant part of the Chichen
Itza ceramics spread by sea travel (from the Itzá port at Isla Cerritos and to
Cozumel, for example), yet Coba, an inland site, has virtually the same
proportion of Dzitas material as do Muyil and Xelha, on the coast. At Cozumel,
long considered an Itzá outpost, the proportion of Dzitas material reaches
about 45%, providing support from ceramic distribution patterns for this
assertion (Connor 1983:192).
These findings lead to several conclusions. Since the ceramics of
Chichen Itza reached Muyil, Xelha, and Coba in similar amounts, but
architectural influences from Chichen Itza are strong at Xelha and weak at Coba
and Muyil, I infer that the architecture of Chichen Itza was propagating
differently from the ceramics. This strongly suggests that Itzá traders were
not significant builder-settlers within the Coba area of control.
Since the ceramics of Chichen Itza reached inland to Coba to the same
extent that they were imported to the coastal sites of Muyil and Xelha, in spite
of the possibility that these Sotuta ceramics were imported into Coba from the
interior to the west as well as from the coast to the east, I suggest that the
cultural correlates of the Chichen Itza ceramics operated similarly throughout
the area that Coba controlled. I infer that Muyil remained within the Coba
hegemony as Chichen Itza ceramics were spreading, but that due to the additional
presence of Chichen Itza architectural elements, Xelha became more closely
associated with Chichen Itza than did Muyil. I also believe that the presence of
the architectural elements at Xelha is a sign that the sea trade of Coba,
through Xelha, Tancah, and Muyil, was beginning to be disrupted. This
architecture is the first evidence of divergence between Xelha on the one hand
and Tancah and Muyil on the other.
The implications of Kukula group ceramics
|
Figure
3
Muna, Dzitas, and Kukula ceramic group proportions at selected sites.
(Robles 1990, Connor 1983, Canché M. 1992)
|
In
the second illustration (3), which still includes the Muna and
Dzitas group sherds as described above, sherds from the Kukula group have been
added. These include the types Kukula Cream and Xcanchacan Black-on-cream. The
proportions of the Postclassic Kukula group ceramics are the same at Muyil and
Xelha, but the group is absent at Coba. The first conclusion is that while heavy
occupation in the Early Postclassic, when Kukula group ceramics first appear,
continued at Muyil and Xelha, it virtually ceased at Coba. This is the data that
Robles (1990:41) reports for Coba and it is fully consistent with the
commencement of a strong coastal development in the Postclassic. Second, the
proportion of Dzitas group sherds to Muna group sherds is similar at Muyil,
Xelha, and Coba. At Muyil and Xelha, the proportion of Dzitas group to Kukula
group is similar, but is strikingly different at Coba. This strongly suggests
that Dzitas Slate predates Kukula Cream and adds support for a Terminal Classic
date for the period of Chichen Itza. The extraordinary proportion of Kukula
group ceramics at Cozumel (Connor 1983:260-271) suggests that both coastal trade
and the site of Cozumel were growing in importance in the Postclassic.
Kukula group ceramics are virtually absent at Chichen Itza also (Ringle
and Bey 1991:2). I infer that this indicates that both these two great interior
sites, Coba and Chichen Itza, had fallen into inactivity at the onset of the
Early Postclassic and Kukula group ceramics.
The date of Sotuta ceramics at Muyil
Does Dzitas Slate appear intermixed with Muna
Slate?
The last line of evidence to consider with the Muyil data is that from
the individual test pits. I was especially interested in the question of whether
Dzitas group ceramics occur earlier than, mixed with, or later than the Muna
group ceramics. I shall briefly review the evidence based on the details of the
stratigraphic excavations. See Appendix 2 for additional details.
Evidence from the Muyil test pits
Dzitas group sherds appear in sixteen Muyil test pits: (1, 2, 11, 13, 16,
17, 22, 23, 24, 32, 43, 48, 49, 50, 65, 68). In these are thirty levels with
Dzitas group sherds. Of these, 21 levels (70%) also contain Muna group sherds.
Three of the remaining nine levels contain Dzitas, but no Muna, but occur
between two levels (one immediately above, one just below) that do contain Muna
group sherds. This establishes that in 80 percent of the levels where Dzitas
group sherds are found, they occur with Muna group sherds.
When one isolates Muna material in only those test pits from the list
above that are located in midden areas, as opposed to platform fill, of which
midden pits 11 and 16 are good examples, we find that the Muna group sherds
occur not only with Dzitas group sherds, but also below them. For example, test
pit 11 contains four levels (1-4) with both Dzitas and Muna group sherds. Below
level 4, eight of the next nine levels (5-9, 11-13) contain Muna but no Dzitas
group sherds. In test pit 16, levels 1-3 contain Muna group sherds only; level 4
contains one sherd each from the Muna group and the Dzitas group; and levels 4-9
contain Muna group ceramics only. In addition to these two examples, seven other
Muyil test pits contain levels with Muna group ceramics below the lowest level
containing Dzitas group ceramics. This indicates that at Muyil the Dzitas group
ceramics arrive during the later part of the period during which slate wares (Muna
and Dzitas) were in use. I infer that Muna Slate was in use during both the Late
Classic and the Terminal Classic, but that Dzitas Slate does not arrive until
the Terminal Classic (A.D. 800 - 1000).
These last findings correspond well with the association of calibrated
radiocarbon dates with ceramic spheres illustrated by Robles in Canché M.
(1992:Table 5, cited with Robles' permission.) Dates associated with the
Cehpech ceramic sphere (Muna ceramic group) from Uxmal, Sayil, Loltun, and Isla
Cerritos show an earliest 1-sigma date of about A.D. 500 (Uxmal Y‑627
calibrated A.D. 560±60, 1390±60 B.P.]) and a latest 1-sigma date of
A.D. 1250 (Loltun I-11, 036) with three dates having 1-sigma limits between
A.D. 640-950 (Isla Cerritos BA-14081, Uxmal IVIC‑485 calibrated A.D.
740±60, 1210±60 B.P., and Sayil IVIC‑484 calibrated A.D. 720±60, 1190±60
B.P.). Dates associated with the Sotuta ceramic sphere show an earliest 1-sigma
of A.D. 630
(Chichen
Itza TBN-313-2 radiocarbon years B.P. 1350.0±70.0) and a latest 1-sigma of A.D. 1400
(Isla Cerritos BA-14085) with six dates whose 1-sigma limits fall in the range
A.D. 850-1050 (Chichen Itza TBN-313-1 radiocarbon years B.P. 1170.0±70.0;
Chichen Itza Y-626 radiocarbon years B.P. 1160.0±70.0; Chichen Itza Y-626-bis
radiocarbon years B.P. 1140.0±100.0]; Chichen Itza UCLA-1706 radiocarbon years
B.P. 1135±60 calibrated A.D. 900-1000; Balankanche P-1132 radiocarbon years B.P.
1072.0±51.0 calibrated A.D. 896-1012 and P-1133 radiocarbon years B.P. 1028.0±42.0
calibrated A.D. 979-1023). This illustrates, using data from other sites, both
the overlap of the two ceramic groups, Muna and Dzitas, and also the somewhat
later temporal position of the start of Sotuta sphere (Dzitas group) ceramics as
compared with the Muna ceramic group.
Conclusions about Chichen Itza
Although these findings suggest the temporal span of Dzitas ceramics at
Muyil, they leave several questions open. Why are Dzitas ceramics found in the
same proportions at two sites (Coba, Muyil) neither of which has Chichen
architectural elements, as well as at Xelha, which does show such architectural
elements? Perhaps as A. P. Andrews (1990:261) says, "the new [Itzá] rulers
permitted local Maya chiefs to continue to rule over their provinces while
paying tribute and allegiance..." Such a policy would have provided the
freedom for local chiefs to incorporate new architectural and artistic elements
from the Itzá repertoire as they saw fit. The result would be that some sites,
such as Muyil and Tancah, might conservatively continue with Classic-period
traits while others, such as Xelha, moved to adopt new Itzá architectural
practices. It is also possible that the trade of Itzá commodities in Dzitas
vessels operated well beyond the locus of sites controlled by Chichen Itza, such
as Xelha (perhaps a satellite distribution point) that adopted Chichen Itza
iconography.
I also leave unanswered whether other sites along the east coast of
Quintana Roo, to the north of Muyil, show the same proportion of Dzitas material
(15-20% Dzitas group; 80-85% Muna group) as is found at Muyil, Xelha, and Coba.
Are there grounds to hypothesize a pervasive (but low level) interaction between
Chichen Itza and the eastern half of the peninsula? I believe Coba, Muyil, and
Xelha show this low-level interaction. The contrast is sharp between this
proportion of ceramics, and that of an Itzá-controlled outpost, if the high
Cozumel proportions (45% Dzitas : 55% Muna; Connor 1983) are to be a model of
the Itzá establishing an outpost under their control and the resulting ceramic
record.
The total absence of Kukula group ceramics at Coba, following a
millennium of ceramic parallels between Coba and its two nearby coastal
neighbors, Muyil and Xelha, suggests that the actions of Chichen Itza prior to
its own collapse did play a role in the disruption of Coba's commerce. In the
Postclassic, the strong presence of Kukula group ceramics along the coast
signals the arrival of new trade networks and heightened coastal activity —
but without the participation of the earlier and more powerful interior sites,
Coba and Chichen Itza.
The evidence from Muyil shows that Muna group ceramics arrive earlier
than Dzitas group ceramics. The record also shows that Dzitas group ceramics are
found with Muna ceramics in levels above those that contain Muna but no Dzitas
group sherds. At Coba and Chichen Itza, in contrast with Xelha and Muyil, Kukula
group ceramics are absent. These factors taken together favor an earlier
(Terminal Classic/early Early Postclassic) date for the fall of Chichen Itzá
over a later (late Early Postclassic) date as has been preferred by some earlier
researchers.
In summary, I believe that the evidence of Chichen Itza ceramics at
Muyil, Coba, and Xelha is quite similar. Dzitas group sherds occur at a rather
modest level when they arrive (constituting only 15-20% of the major slipped
ceramics at the sites). They arrive later at Muyil (and, I believe, at the other
two sites) than the Muna group ceramics of the Cehpech ceramic sphere and they
reflect the growing coastal commerce of the Itzá. Muyil and Xelha, as well as
Coba, never approach the high proportion of Dzitas group ceramics to Muna group
ceramics as Cozumel has. Although Chichen Itza control may have bypassed the
ports at Xcaret, Tancah, and Muyil, the Itzá development of trade routes along
the coast, perhaps with Xelha as an Itzá outpost, may have significantly
disrupted the previously strong flow of goods across the peninsula (to and
through Coba) in the Late Classic. But development at Chichen Itza could not be
sustained either. The Itzá capital, Chichen Itza, was as far from its north
coast port, Isla Cerritos, as Coba was from its ports at Muyil, Tancah, and
Xelha. Andrews' comment about the Itzá may well apply also to Coba:
It was caught in the midst of a desolated and increasingly hostile
countryside, far removed from its main economic base, the coast. This isolation
from the coast, its resources, and related trade networks may have rendered
[its] position all the more vulnerable to the destabilization in the
interior." (Andrews 1990:264)
The
Postclassic commences with the loss of both Coba and Chichen Itza as major power
centers in the northern Maya lowlands.
New Developments on the East Coast
Early Postclassic (Chunkopo ceramic complex
A.D. 1000-1200)
During the Early Postclassic, regional developments in the northwest
around Mayapan and along the east coast proceeded without the influence or
participation of Coba for the first time in a millennium. In addition, Chichen
Itza was no longer a factor in commerce or in political control. Peto Cream ware
(Kukula group ceramics) of the Postclassic is abundant at Muyil, Xelha, and
along the coast as well as in the northwest of the peninsula, but is completely
absent at Coba and at Chichen Itza.
At Muyil, I believe that construction continued to enlarge the structures
at the center of the site, and to build new ones. This period seems the most
likely one for the construction of the upper sacbe segments, for the
Castillo (the radiocarbon date of its lintel places it within this era), and for
the pyramids in the Entrance Plaza Group whose style is the same as the
Castillo. I would also date the pyramids of the same style found at Tancah and
at Chamax on the coast to the same period. This substantial building program
indicates that a vigorous population was thriving in the Muyil area.
