BREATHING LIFE INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT:

DEDICATION, TERMINATION, AND THE LIFE CYCLE OF

CLASSIC MAYA ARCHITECTURE

by

Brian Battaglino

BREATHING LIFE INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

To the casual eye, the Maya universe appears to be a chaotic palimpsest of

superstitious beliefs revolving around an intricate pantheon of deities, nature spirits, and

ghostly ancestors. This perhaps is due in part to the multivocality of Mayan semiotics

(Schele and Freidel 1990). A ceiba tree is not merely a tree to Mayan eyes, but an artifact

of the cultural landscape: it is the pillar that raised the sky during the mythological age,

the central axis of the cosmos, the axis mundi, and the conduit through which the levels

of the cosmos converge. But, when the proper ritual practices are observed, any tree at

any time could manifest itself as the axis mundi of the cosmos, just as any cave, natural

or artificial could lead to such a looking glass into the Maya Otherworld. Axis mundi’s

may be anywhere one cares to look, just as much as everyday inanimate objects were and

still are believed to be permeated with the living force of all things, ch’ulel (Schele and

Freidel 1998). Jade, obsidian, seashells, trees, mountains; everywhere ch’ ulel penetrates,

even the severed skull of one’s enemy.

One would expect then, that this animacy in nature would be reflected in Mayan

material culture that in turn would be a reflection of their cosmology. Furthermore, if the

Nature known to the Mayan eyes consists of a series of patterns, especially that

concerning the circle of existence, one might observe cultural patterns that mimic those

of the natural world. In other words, seemingly purely cultural events as interpreted by

investigators may in fact have had doppelgangers in the natural world.

One example of how Maya culture defines the cosmos is the built environment,

and the cultural practices that serve to demarcate sacred space. So far in the research

literature on this subject many attempts have been made to understand the significance of

the built environment in relation to its reflection of the Mayan worldview. It is an

accepted assertion that the Maya believed the built environment to be an animated

counterpart to their sacred mountains, but what does that mean for the significance of

those archaeological features contained within them?

At present, our understanding of Maya architecture is hindered due to our own

expectations. If we are to comprehend the cosmological significance of architecture we

must view it as the ancient Maya did; as inextricably linked to their surrounding

environment (Ashmore 1991). Therefore, if the Mayan built environment was believed to

be in fact charged with the same life force that penetrates all nature, it must, at least

conceptually, be subject to similar laws governing living things. As such, archaeological

features incorporated into Mayan architecture must serve some cultural function that

would enforce the link between inanimate object and a dynamic living entity. I would

like to suggest that when the built environment is viewed holistically within the

framework of nature and its cultural definition, a slightly different interpretation emerges.

The function of the seemingly disparate categories of archaeological features contained

within Mayan architecture, under a possible single category of “earth offerings”, becomes

more understandable within this framework of the built environment as a metaphorical

organism with a cyclical life-span and requiring regular “nourishment”. These living

“god houses” as Karl Taube has labeled them, thus reflect the same processes as seen in

nature, as will be discussed shortly (Taube 1998) .

First, a discussion of the existing controversy over the archaeological features

incorporated into Mayan architecture is needed in order for us to understand their cultural

significance and function with respect to the construction of said buildings and their

supposed animated properties.

A QUESTION OF CLASSIFICATION OR OF SEMANTICS?

The content of the floors of Maya buildings is highly variable and may include

previous constructions as well as human interments and deposits of artifacts in prepared

pits, labeled respectively, "burials" and so-called "cached offerings", or simply "caches".

Becker has defined a “burial” as a deposit containing a significant number of human

bones, while features containing much smaller quantities of bone he defined as being

“Problematic Deposits” (P.D’s). In situations where “ritual” deposits are found either

with or without low frequencies of human bone, the field classification used is generally

“cache” (Becker 1998).

Much ink has been spent investigating the nature of and caches and burials and

their relationship with each other. The ambiguity of their respective natures stems in part

from a fundamental bias imbedded in post-industrial Western thought. It is the fallacy of

Western bias that we must label every cultural feature discovered in the archeological

record as a distinct category, especially when dealing with the multi-vocality of Mayan

semantic language. The vocabulary used to identify these features itself is inadequate

because such terminology is embedded in modern Western thought, and hence the true

nature of such deposits will continue to elude us due to our inability to see beyond our

own cultural perspective.

A discussion of possible suggestions concerning a new terminology is beyond the

scope of this paper, unfortunately. However, if for the moment we can tentatively

propose a generalized category of “earth offerings” encompassing the sub-variants of

burial and cache, we may open the door to new interpretations of the built environment

that may in turn inform us about the nature of these “earth offerings”.

The basic question remains, did the ancient Maya conceive of these deposits of

caches and burials as two separate features serving different cultural functions or two

subsets of a single category? To begin with, the human burials that we are concerned with

are those that appear to have had intentional ritual significance; burials outside of the

context of the built environment have no precedence in this argument. Caches whose

spatial position and assorted grave goods indicate intentional interment and could be

viewed as some kind of ritual offering. Likewise, burials oftentimes maintain the same

cognitive element as caches in that the body itself, or parts of it, is an "offering" (Becker

1998).

In many situations, there appears to be distinct boundaries separating the two

categories. The pyramidal Structure B20-1, at Caracol, Belize, is adorned with a

significant architectural feature: a large witz mask, the representation of the witz monster

inhabiting the mythological sacred mountain of the Maya, forms a niche centered on axis

with the pyramid’s stairway. It has been suggested that the witz mask symbolically

“swallowed” the dead previously interred in tombs axially aligned with it. Strong

evidence to support this supposition comes in the form of a cache consisting of a

dismembered human skeleton deposited in the niche, effectively the monster’s open maw

(Chase and Chase 1998). No grave goods of any kind were recovered, and considering

the deposit’s highly symbolic provenance, it has been labeled as having a ritual

“dedicatory” function.

There are many instances when the human nature of the offering is unclear, such

as when a partial skeleton is deposited within a pottery vessel but is also associated with a

variety of “ritual” artifacts. Such an interment might be viewed as a cached offering, but

to what end? Surely the poor soul interred in this manner did not want to be remembered

as being buried in a clay pot, assuming he had no choice, so commemoration of the

individual is probably not an option in this case. But might not the same artifact

assemblage also possibly be considered so-called “burial furniture” (Garber, et al. 1998) ,

therefore qualifying the deposit as a human burial?

In many instances, the boundaries between these seemingly dichotomous

categories tend to merge, with neither the human remains nor the artifact assemblage

dominating one or the other. The difficulty is to determine whether the complete or

partial burial of an individual(s) is a “burial”, the main purpose of which is disposal,

followed by the subsequent commemoration of the individual, or if the human remains

represent a ritually interred “cache”, having a “dedicatory” function (Welsh 1998).

Thus far, archaeology alone has been unable to differentiate between two distinct

categories of function, and this being the case, one might infer that those that produced

the deposit may not have made that distinction to begin with. Indeed, the problem may lie

in semantic bias as we project our own cultural values onto a situation. To further

complicate matters, the accepted literature on the subject fractionates the “cache”

category into two subsets of “dedicatory” and “terminal” offerings. Dedicatory caches are

thought to be distinguished from a terminal offering in that they are either intentionally

penetrating into earlier phases of architectural construction, or are buried within the fill,

even though the latter may be buried by a new construction phase.

Dedicatory offerings include artifacts of a variety of types including jade,

obsidian, or chert “eccentric” artifacts or waste debitage leftover from the artifacts'

creation, a variety of pottery, worked and un-worked shells, and human bone, typically

the bones of the hand, but occasionally skulls and/or long bones of the extremities

(Kunen, et al. 2002). Dedicatory offerings may include any combination of the above

artifacts as well as some not mentioned but its worth noting that these caches often

contain lesser-quality artifacts. Such domestic deposits as found in common residences

maintain similar characteristics as those interred within pyramids, but to a less lavish

extent. Therefore, we can infer a universal ritual system for Mayan society the material

evidence of which is modified only by differential access to higher quality artifacts as

dictated by status (Becker 1998).

On the other hand, cached offerings are many times destroyed by breakage and/or

burning as opposed to being buried intact, earning such deposits the label of

“termination” events. In many cases, this type of deposit may be stratigraphically

correlated with ritual effacement of the building in which it was deposited, and also with

prolonged episodes of burning of its façade. Additionally, burnt materials often occur on

building surfaces in conjunction with the aforementioned façade defacement, to be later

concealed within later construction phases (Garber, et al. 1998).

As Chase and Chase note, the treatment of caches, burials within buildings is

remarkably similar in that contents of each may occur in varying conditions: whole,

broken, and/or burnt. Like caches within buildings, burials have considerable variation in

their context and position (Chase and Chase 1998). Contexts they are found in range from

refuse middens to elaborate tombs, and the bones themselves can be found in various

states of preservation and frequency. Human remains may consist of a few disarticulated

metacarpals, to entire skeletons, to mass skull pits such as those found at Colha, Belize,

to be discussed later (Mock 1998). A broadly diverse assemblage of artifact offerings

accompanies these skeletal combinations.

Despite the fact that it is often difficult to definitively prove a correlation between

a construction phase and a single tomb, several instances exist where this is clearly the

case. Construction of a temple platform began subsequent to and directly above Burial

160 at Tikal, Guatemala (Becker 1998). Construction of Structure B20 at Caracol was

similarly initiated by Tomb 4, what one might label a “foundation” tomb, which was

ritually sealed by that building phase (Chase and Chase 1998 ). Interments of this kind

might be interpreted as “dedicatory” either to the construction phase that sealed them, or

that phase of the structure might be considered commemorative to the burial beneath.

Other cases however, such as Structure B-4 at Altun Ha, Belize, complicate

matters of interpretation. In this instance, Tomb 7, which would appear to be the

internment initiating the subsequent renovation of the structure, had been preceded by

several subfloor caches below the crypt that had been intentionally intruded into the

foundation prior to the construction of the tomb (Pendergast 1969 ). While there is no

mistaking the sequence of events, the question remains, which was the dedicatory

offering, the subfloor caches or the tomb, or both? It would seem that the timing of a

cache or burial with respect to construction phases is also a determining factor of its

status as “dedicatory”, but the Altun Ha example is but one that calls into question the

notion that caches and burials are separate categories.

Termination deposits further complicate the already confusing array of

possibilities. Logically, one might expect that a termination deposit ought to be located in

between construction phases or at the very least would occur after several preceding

phases. Once again, using Structure B20 from Caracol as an example, evidence of

extensive burning occurs between the first two building phases (B20-4th-B20-3rd) and also

most heavily following the sealing of Tomb 2, B20-2nd. Both interior and exterior walls

of this phase including the tomb were completely charred ( Chase and Chase 1998).

Unfortunately, not every instance operates within the bounds of logic.

Maddeningly opposing all attempts to impose neat and tidy hypotheses on it, structure B-

4 at Altun Ha contains a subfloor cache containing a deep layer of charcoal extending

11cm below the tomb floor. The charcoal mass was roughly circular, covering an area

27x28 cm, and was aligned with the right hand of the individual entombed above in

Tomb 7. This must be significant considering that the famous sculpted jade head

identified as Kinich Ahau rested on the forearm of the individual, just above that hand

(Taube 1998).

There are several aspects of this cache that defy convention. First, the apparent

“termination” event, as characterized by the extensive burning, has been recorded as

having occurred prior to the primary tomb’s construction. Secondly, mixed with the

charcoal stratum were fragments of jade beads; broken items that commonly occur in

these types of deposits. However, all other artifacts among the pottery or eccentric flints

interred were left intact; what one would not expect of a “termination” cache.

Additionally, there were three other caches contemporaneous with the charcoal

layer that showed no signs of burning and contained only a few scattered broken artifacts.

All caches were excavated in situ so there was no chance of mixing later deposits in any

of them (Pendergast 1969).

So here we have a situation where an inadequately termed “termination” deposit

occurs in the basal level of a pyramid prior to the aforementioned primary burial that

supposedly “dedicated” the structure. Furthermore, the carbonized cache does not even

adhere to the definition of a “termination” event judging by the mixture of broken and

unbroken artifacts. How are we to mitigate these inconsistencies?

A likely explanation as to why an understanding of caches eludes us lies in

semantics. Our own limited vocabulary, rooted in Western cultural bias and life

experience in a modern industrial society, in turn puts limitations on the extent of our

understanding. Terminology such as “dedication”, “termination”, and so forth contain

embedded meanings suggestive of a linear mode of thinking. Modern Western thought

could be said as having a “goal-oriented” character, that is, a progression of events has a

definite outcome, and that outcome is fixed. This however is not congruent with what is

known about how the Maya viewed their world, which was anything but linearly

organized. Therefore our very vocabulary is flawed and inhibits further comprehension.

THE LIVING MOUNTAIN

It is widely accepted in the literature that pyramids were conceived by the Maya as

analogous to mountains, or witz in the Maya languages. David Stuart first recognized the

glyph for witz in its many permutations at Copan as a zoomorphic image complete with

mouth, eyes, muzzle, and ear ornaments (Schele and Freidel 1990). These mountain

monsters are identified by a combination of tun (stone) markings and a cleft in the

forehead, and occur on the corners of buildings, on terraces, around doorways, and in

some cases are the doors themselves (Schele and Matthews 1998). Such doors built in the

form of this monster are refered to as ti’ otot, or “mouth of the house”. Applied to the

context of Maya civic architecture and its metaphorical ties to the mythical cave of

creation it becomes the “mouth of the mountain” (Taube 1998). Maya mythology

identifies the road to the underworld, Xibalba, as going through a cave, and the insides of

temples were understood to be the cave portal or path to the Otherworld. So we are

dealing with structures that were regarded as having zoomorphic qualities, in effect

becoming living mountains to the people who created them. In principle, all Maya

pyramids were witz monsters, but there were also metaphors for the universe, as well as

the dwelling place of the ancestors and the gods (Taube 1998).

Pyramids are in fact a “reciprocal metaphor” for Mayan thatch houses (Houston

1998). Just as the pyramids may have either zoomorphic or anthropomorphic qualities as

a witz mountain monster, so are simple residences thought of as having similar

characteristics. A contemporary Mayan house is also a metaphor for the universe, as the

house roof mirrors the structure of the pyramid-mountain. In the Zinacantecan Maya

Tzotzil language referring to houses, yok, “its foot” refers to both the foot of the

mountain and the foundation of a house; sch’ ut, “its stomach”, is the midpoint of a

mountainside as well as the wall of a house; and shol, “its head”, can be a mountaintop or

a house top (Vogt 1998).

The layers of thatch that function as a modern Tzeltal Maya house’s roof is viewed

as the house’s “hair” or “clothing’. The facades of pyramids may also have once been

decorated with thatch and other vegetation in similar fashion (Stross 1998). Hence, the

connection between the basic Maya residence and the civic-ceremonial pyramids defines

the latter as a dwelling place albeit of gods rather than of mortals. In colonial Yucatec,

the common term for temple is k’ u na, or “god house” (Taube 1998). Before a structure,

either monumental or residential, is ready for use by the human and spiritual entities that

will inhabit them, ancient Maya conducted special rituals to, once again, “dedicate” these

structures in order to infuse them with life (Schele and Freidel 1990). The purpose of this

ritual was to infuse the ch’ ulel or “soul essence” into the built environment, and

"dedicatory" offerings consisting of precious materials such as jade, obsidian, human

skulls, etc., correspond to representations of ch’ ulel. These practices are seen as ritually

activating the built environment as a sacred space as well as metaphorically “giving

birth” to a structure (Houston 1998). Finally, a structure is bestowed with a proper name

in the final acts of dedication to complete its identity (Stuart 1998). This is usually

marked with inscriptions next the name of the “owner”, oftentimes the founding patron

interred at the base of the structure.

But like all living things in nature, the built environment, being a tropological

doppelganger of it, must adhere to the same set of characteristics and limitations as other

organisms. That is, they must similarly proceed through a series of stages and birth,

growth, death, but most importantly, they must acquire “nourishment”.

But prior to receiving sustenance, pyramids or houses must be ritually animated

with their own ch' ulel in order that it may function as a useful part of the world (Stross

1998). Vogt has noted that among Zinacantecos of Chiapas virtually everything that is

important and valuable to them possesses an inner soul: domesticated plants (such as

maize, beans, and squash), deer, lakes, trees, caves, the ancestral spirits of the mountains,

and even the sleeping Earth God of the underworld who occasionally requires

compensation. The C' ul Kantela house dedication ritual of the Zinacantecos serves to

satiate the Earth Lord and summon the ancestral gods of the mountains to provide the

house with an inner soul (Vogt 1998).

This ritual and others like it initiate a process that is analogous to birth, while

abandoning or destroying artifacts through ritual was akin to death (Stross 1998). Part of

the animation process of contemporary Tenejapa Maya houses involves the placing of

three hearthstones to represent the axis mundi of the structure, its metaphorical "heart"

(Taube 1998). Cached offerings as well are interred in this hearth, and the blood of a

sacrificial bird, typically a chicken, is allowed to drain into it. All aspects of this ritual are

intended not only to supply the built environment with a "heart and soul", but also to

"feed" it through sacrifice. Such a practice might once again be considered "dedicatory"

(Stross 1998).

The three-stone hearth has been described as a place of creation, as well as a

house's axis mundi, the cosmic pillar connecting this plane of existence with all other

layers of the universe. Its widespread appearance in Mayan inscriptions suggests that it

was a basic feature of Classic Maya households. Although little evidence of their

presence exists within Classic Maya pyramids, in has been proposed that three-prong

incense bowls, which were also a widespread artifact occurrence, served as the hearth.

Thus these censers also act as the vital heart of the structure they were placed in (Taube

1998).

In certain instances, hearthstones are represented in sculpture as tuns set in the

mouths of witz monsters, as occurs on Structure E5-5 at the site of Toniná, Chiapas,

Mexico. In this case, stucco analogues of the hearthstones occur as a triangularly

arranged hearth in a chamber constituting the witz monster's gullet, the chamber

containing evidence of extensive burning (Taube 1998). Once again we are faced with a

situation that defies appropriate classification. Features such as this are considered the

kitchen hearths of the gods and ancestors; places where offerings are made to the spirit

realm. But such intense burning is also associated with "termination" events as well, so

which interpretation are we to believe?

Structure A-3 at Seibal, Guatemala, epigraphically labeled as the "three stone

place", contains considerable evidence of burning on the interior temple floors,

particularly in association with Stela 21, which appears to be a dedicatory cache in the

very center of the building (Taube 1998). David Stuart has suggested that this stela

depicts a figure dressed as the Jaguar God of the Underworld who may be the Classic

Maya god of fire (1993). Another cache directly below this monument consisted of three

jade boulders weighing from 6.25 to 10 pounds; a cached hearth of green jade (Taube

1998). This is yet another example of a case where a "dedicatory" offering interred with

the purpose of animating a structure is found in the same context commonly associated

with "termination".

At Altun Ha, the situation is reversed. Karl Taube has noted that the carved jade

boulder of Kinich Ahau in Tomb 7, Structure B-4 most likely represents the pyramid's

sacred hearthstone although it is not clear where the other two stones may be (1998). In

any case, it is a significant cache due both to its position in the primary burial and its

sheer size. In this instance however, as was mentioned before, the burning episode

occurred prior to the caching of the jade head and the accompanying burial. Once again,

the so-called "termination" event occurred before the actual "dedication", so either we

need to manipulate the criteria of our cache definitions, or throw out the old categories

entirely.

But what of burials? Among the Quiche Maya, ancestors are strongly associated

with the residential abode as the first and foremost dwellers. During Pre-Colonial times, a

house or pyramid may not have been regarded as complete without the founding

ancestor's incorporation into the structure (McAnany, et al. 1999). Ancestor interments

could then be thought of as contributing to the soul of the structure, to "feed" it, and also

to protect it as well. Perhaps the young royal family member interred within the entrance

to the West Group Plaza of Piedras Negras, Guatemala, performed a similar function

(Fitzsimmons, et al. 2002).

Schele and Matthews have suggested that there is an agglutinative nature to the

residual energy accumulated within the built environment (1998). Thus, very old

structures with the oldest hearth-portals through continued ritual feeding via cached

offerings contained the most concentrated ch' ulel of all. Successive human interments

no doubt had a similar function, regardless of whether or not burial initiated a

construction phase. It may have been the case that re-entry into a tomb and the attendant

rituals may have had a hand in feeding the structure. The cases in which human

interments are often followed by structural renovation might be considered an indication

of rebirth, as well as the persistence of a family lineage's affluence (McAnany 1998).

Furthermore, the probable parallel function of both caches and burials is

corroborated by hieroglyphic texts where references to "sealing and closing" and to

"opening" refer alternately to both caches and tombs, further erasing any perceived

boundaries between the two (Stuart 1998). As just previously noted, the built

environment housed a life-force that accumulated residual energy composed of a singular

identity closely identified with both its proper name and the name of the founding

ancestor, but also a collective identity as well which was composed of the sum of all

ancestral interments.

But as a living being, the built environment must continually require nourishment

to remain vital, and with nutriment comes growth, metaphorically expressed as

successive building phases of construction, following an appropriate offering for

consumption in the form of a cache or a tomb, or a revisitation of either.

David Stuart has written at length about the regenerative properties of fire, and

how the entrance of fire into a tomb and the burning of incense had similar meanings

associated with the symbolic feeding of structures, or at least plays a role in "revivifying"

it (Stuart 1998). However, while much attention in the literature has been paid to

concepts of rebirth and nourishment of the god-house-mountain, little has been said about

the metaphorical "death". One might argue that termination rituals are analogous to

symbolic death of a structure, and this may indeed be the case. But again, terminology

such as "termination" and "death" are couched in the semantic hardwiring of the Western

mind. Nevertheless, death is a necessary ingredient for subsequent rebirth, thus

completing the cycle of existence. A thing must be destroyed so that it may continue to

live.

Which brings us to termination rituals. These types of events as conventionally

understood often contain evidence of burning, but as has been discussed, oftentimes

burning occurs in contexts where a "dedicatory" interpretation is more appropriate such

as at the Altun Ha and Seibal pyramids. Additionally, fire "entering the tomb" has been

described as having regenerative properties (Stuart 1998). Yet, in other cases such as at

the site of Colha, massive burning occurred in many of the buildings there just prior to

the site's abandonment (Mock 1998). It would seem that fire was used ritually for two

purposes: one to instill life, and another to destroy it to pave the way for future life.

THE FIRE AND THE SEED

In order to understand this sequence of events, it may be helpful to seek out other

parallels in the Maya cosmos that may endure a similar process of birth, growth, death,

and rebirth, of which fire is the critical catalyst. Shifting cultivation, also known as

swidden, or slash-and-burn agriculture is one such cultural manipulation of the natural

world, just as the creation of the built environment is.

Shifting, or slash-and-burn agriculture has been a major component of Maya

subsistence since the Formative Period at least and remains so to this day. Contemporary

Maya in Campeche refer to the fields as milpa, and is spoken about in nostalgic and

reverential tones, for it is sacred, and makes human life possible (Faust 1998). The

clearing and planting of fields is undertaken with as much pomp and ceremony as any

building dedication. Proper rituals must be observed involving offerings both to the Wind

Lords who control the rains and the sacred beings who inhabit the forest, the aluxes, in

order to gain permission to use the land (Faust 1998).

The process of this farming method involves the clearing of secondary-growth

forest that is allowed to dry for a brief period, and then the entire cleared area is put to the

flame. The intense heat loosens and enriches the soil, kills insects and their eggs, destroys

weeds and their seeds, and turns the cleared vegetation into a fine ash which the seasonal

rains wash from the soil. Much care is taken to time the burning just right, as an intense

burning is crucial for a successful harvest (Faust 1998).

Present-day slash-and-burn agriculture is in fact a technological analogy of ritual

symbolism. The orientation of fields with respect to astronomical cycles, the way that

they are laid out in a grid and so forth are congruent with the ancient Mayan system of

demarcating sacred space (Faust 1998). As mutual elements in the sacred landscape

possessing the same ch' ulel life force, it is therefore possible, even probable, that the

cultivation of swidden fields and the life cycle of a structure obey the same laws of nature

as they both exist under the same cosmological umbrella. The fires that destroy in order

to make way for new life in the fields are the same that bring new life into the built

environment, and allow for "growth" in the form of building renovations. Just as the field

must be cut and the foliage scattered to prepare for burning, an architectural phase may

be defaced and artifacts scattered across the facade, cache, or tomb prior to either the

burning of incense or a more prolonged, intense "areal" burning.

Evidence from archaeology, ethnography, and epigraphy support such a

correlation between shifting cultivation and the life span of a structure. Caches often

contain a layer of white limestone marl, a lime-rich mudstone, at the base of the deposit,

and is usually followed by burning of either artifacts or incense. Occasionally caches

might see intense burning above this lime matrix.

It is a well-known fact among contemporary Mayan farmers that lime is crucial to

the success of the harvest. Lime maintains the alkalinity of soil that is critical for their

crops' growth rate, their ability to compete with surrounding weeds, and their ability to

absorb nutrients from the soil (Faust 1998). The burning of the fields converts limestone

to quicklime, which washes into the soil, thus raising its alkaline level. Lime therefore is

a critical component of the growth of crops, and may have also had major significance in

caching rituals for the purpose of rebirth.

At Cerros, Belize, structures were rebuilt over a sterile paleosol, a layer of

fossilized soil preserved beneath layers of sedimentary soil deposits, but not before a

layer of limestone marl was spread over each house site prior to construction. In addition,

potsherds from the initial building phases were scattered and mixed with the prepared

marl surface (Walker 1998). Presumably, seeding the locus of each building with the

ch'ulel of the founding structures may have been analogous to the initial preparations of

swidden fields.

At Altun Ha, Structure B-4, a massive burning episode occurred after the primary

founding tomb, Tomb 7, was sealed, directly over a layer of lime-enriched soil covering

the roof slabs. Among the carbonized material were a few small bits of jade, a large

amount of as-yet-unidentified wood, and a single carbonized corn kernel (Pendergast

1969).

Furthermore, some sparse epigraphic evidence suggests a connection between

vegetal growth and architectural space. Copan cache censers often display cacao pods on

their sides as if they are growing trees laden with cacao. In Late Classic Maya

iconography, censers frequently depict volutes of smoke strikingly similar to vine-like

vegetal growth. (Taube 1998). Occasionally, architectural inscriptions make reference to

pyramids as having plantlike attributes. Karl Taube has identified the zoomorphic glyph

yax hal witz nal on the Tablet of the Cross at Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, as the "green

maize mountain", the three-stone place from which the Maize God emerges (1998).

It should be noted that much of this discussion on the subject of slash-and-burn

agriculture as a parallel cultural analog to the building phases of the built environment is

pure supposition, but I believe pending further investigation, these suggestions will

eventually be validated. Our expectations of what the various vectors of evidence are

informing us about Maya culture seriously hinder our progress in our understanding of it.

Only if we take a more holistic viewpoint of Maya cosmology as a whole, and utilizing a

conjunctive, multi-disciplinary approach to research will we have a better understanding

of the cultural landscape of the ancient Maya and their architectural practices.

CONCLUSION

What could be comfortably accepted based on the evidence presented is that the

Mayan built environment was, and remains to this day among extant Maya communities,

a sacred space believed to be the place where their ancestors dwelt, infused with

collective animistic essence. That these structures should also have been constructed and

reconstructed in a cyclical fashion in mimicry of observable natural living processes is a

logical conclusion based on the evidence. Researchers' need for implicit categorization of

archaeological features is, unfortunately, a by-product of the empirical demands of the

modern scientific method. Science tells us that if something cannot be clearly defined, it

cannot be understood.

The blurred characteristics of caches and burials, and whether they dedicate or

ritually terminate a building at the end of its useful life indicate a direct conflict with

what we expect to encounter in the archeological record with our Western thought

structures of "beginning" and "end". The fact that there is a definite pattern of interment

across categories implies strongly that there is less of a distinction than is currently

understood between what counts as a tomb, versus a cached offering serving an abstract

civic-ceremonial function. This evidence is at odds with what is assumed by the

incumbent research paradigm that monumental architecture bears no further significance

other than as status-signifying, self-aggrandizing structural displays of power; inert and

lifeless.

Instead, based on the evidence, I would assert that the "use-life" of a particular

structure and its building phases is intimately related to how the ancient Maya perceived

their world: animate, dynamic, and alive with essence. Archaeological, epigraphic,

iconographic, and ethnographic evidence all indicate the animistic ritual significance of

buildings ranging from the smallest hut to the grandest pyramid, and in fact demands that

researchers recognize their role as "living monuments" requiring spiritual nourishment

for the beings who dwelt within up until the structure is ceremonially "reborn". This

nourishment would come in the form of offerings made of potent artifacts and ceremonial

items, human remains, and sometimes the founding ruler himself whose tomb provided

the metaphorical seed from which the sacred mountain would grow. Additionally, the

significance of fire in ancient Maya culture and its use as both a farming method and a

ritual practice during a structure's "rebirth" cannot be overstated: it represents destruction

for the sake of new life, the very catalyst for growth and abundance.

As the built environment echoes the living world, so is the natural world reflected

in ancient Maya cultural practices, forming a more complete understanding of their

perspective of life.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ashmore, W., "Site Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the Ancient Maya", Latin American Antiquity, vol. 2, no. 3, 1991

Becker, M.J., "Burials as Caches: Caches as Burials: A New Interpretation of the Meaning of Ritual Deposits Among the Classic Period Lowland Maya", Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th of October, 1998, ed. by S. Houston, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C., 1998

Chase, D.Z., and Chase, A.F., "The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as reflected at Caracol, Belize)"

Faust, B.B., "Mexican Rural development and the Plumed Serpent", Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Conneticut, London, 1998

Fitzsimmons, J.L., Scherer, A., Houston, S.D., and Escobedo, H.L."The Guardian of the Acropolis: The Sacred Space of a Royal Burial at Piedras Negras, Guatemala", Latin American Antiquity, vol. 14, no. 4, 2003

Garber, J.F., Driver, W.D., Sullivan, L.A., Glassman, D.M., "Bloody Bowls and Broken Pots: The Life, Death, and Rebirth of a Maya House", The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica", ed. by Mock, S.B., University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998

Grube, N., and Schele, L., "Naranjo Altar 1 and Rituals of Death and Burials", The Texas Notes on the Pre-Columbian Art, writing, and Culture, no. 54, November, 1993

Houston, S.D., "Classic Maya Depictions of the Built Environment", Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C., 1998

Kunen, J.L., Galindo, M.J., Chase E., "Pits and Bones: Identifying Maya Ritual Behavior in the Archaeological Record", Ancient Mesoamerica, vol. 13, no. 2, 2002

Mcanany, P.A, "Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment", Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, Dumbarton Oaks research Library and Collection, Washington D.C., 1998

McAnany, P.A., Storey, R., Lockard, A.K., "The Mortuary Ritual and Family Politics at Formative and Early Classic K' axob, Belize", Ancient Mesoamerica, vol. 10, no. 2, 1999

Mock, S.B., "The Defaced and the Forgotten: Decapitation and Mutilation as a Termination Event at Colha, Belize", The Sowing and the Dawning, ed. by Mock, S.B., University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998

Pendergast, D.M., "Intercessions with the Gods: Caches and their Significance at Altun Ha and Lamanai, Belize", The Sowing and the Dawning, ed. by Mock S.B., University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998

Pendergast, D.M., "Altun Ha, British Honduras: The Sun God's Tomb", The Royal Ontario Museum Press, Ontario, 1969

Schele, L., Matthews, P., "The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs", Simon and Shuster, N.Y., 1998

Schele, L., Freidel, D, "A Forest of Kings", William Morrow and Co., Inc., N.Y., 1990

Stuart, D., "The Fire Enters His House: Architecture and Ritual in Classic Maya Texts", Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, ed. by Houston, S., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C., 1998

Taube, K., "The Jade Hearth: Centrality, Rulership, and the Classic Maya Temple", Function and Meaning in classic Maya Architecture, ed. by Houston, S., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C., 1998

Vogt, E. Z., "Zinacanteco Dedication and Termination Rituals", The Sowing and the Dawning, ed. by Mock, S.B., University of New Mexico Press, 1998

Walker, D.S., "Smashed Pots and Shattered Dreams: Material Evidence for an Early Classic Maya Site Termination at Cerros , Belize", The Sowing and the Dawning, ed. by Mock, S.B., University of New Mexico Press, 1998

Welsh, W.B.M., "An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials", BAR International Series 409, 1998