Early (300−100 B.C.) temple precinct in the Valleyof Oaxaca, MexicoElsa M. Redmond1 and Charles S. Spencer1

Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192

Contributed by Charles S. Spencer, March 19, 2013 (sent for review March 12, 2013)

Archaeological investigations during the past two decades inMexico’s Valley of Oaxaca have documented the appearance ofkey public buildings, such as the royal palace andmultiroom temple,associated with the rise of an archaic state at ca. 300−100 B.C. Afuller picture is now emerging from the site of El Palenque, whererecent excavations have defined a temple precinct on the east sideof the site’s plaza. This precinct exhibits characteristics similar tothose of the temple precincts of laterMesoamerican states describedby Colonial period sources. The excavation data document a walledenclosure containing three multiroom temples, two special resi-dences identified as priests’ residences, and an array of ritual fea-tures and activity areas. The temple precinct’s components areinterpreted as comprising a hierarchy of temples staffed by a spe-cialized priesthood. A series of radiocarbon dates indicate thatthe precinct’s differentiated components were all in use duringthe 300−100 B.C. period of archaic state emergence. The El Palenquetemple precinct is the earliest temple precinct excavated thus farin the Valley of Oaxaca.

Zapotec religion | state institutions | Mesoamerican archaeology

When archaeologist V. Gordon Childe (1) proposed his de-fining criteria of urban civilization, he highlighted monu-

mental public buildings, especially temple precincts. Such precincts,consisting of one or more temples and their attached facilities,were considered an expression of occupational specialization withinsociety, which he saw as a hallmark of civilization. Building uponChilde’s perspective, Adams (2) and Flannery (3) focused on thesociopolitical institutions associated with the state as a form ofgovernment. These authors characterized the state as highly cen-tralized and hierarchical, managed by a professional ruling classwhose legitimacy was often reinforced through the tenets andpractices of a state religion maintained by full-time priests.Adams (2) traced the development of Mesopotamian temple

precincts in terms of the monumental scale of construction andincreasing differentiation in function. The temple precincts atUruk, the capital of a first-generation state, tended to be set apartfrom the community by an enclosure wall. The temples and templeprecincts were variable inmorphology and presumed function, andincluded attached living quarters for their attendant personnel.Flannery (4) examined the archaeological indicators of early

state institutions and proposed that a state religion was frequentlyassociated with standardized, multiroom temples and special res-idences for full-time priests. Such priestly living quarters were of-ten attached to the temples, or in close proximity behind or to oneside of the temples, which the priests accessed by entryways orstairways different from those used by the public. Access to themwas restricted and privacy achieved by narrow corridors and cur-tain walls. In some cases, priestly residences were similar in sizeand layout to each other, and shared the same astronomical ori-entation as the temple. Flannery (4) characterized the priestlyresidences of first-generation states as more modest in size anddegree of architectural elaboration than those of second- andthird-generation states. He pointed out that the full range of res-idences associated with high priests and minor priests remained tobe identified in any archaic state.

Here we discuss our recent (2009−2011) excavations at thesite of El Palenque, near San Martín Tilcajete in the Valley ofOaxaca, home of Zapotec speakers in southern Mexico (Fig. 1).We describe the temples and nearby residences that we excavatedon the east side of El Palenque’s plaza and report the associatedseries of 14C dates that span the Late Monte Albán I phase(300–100 B.C.). We propose that these standardized, multiroomtemples and associated residences make up a temple precinctstaffed by a hierarchy of full-time priests during the Late MonteAlbán I phase. The evidence of a specialized priesthood at theEl Palenque temple precinct is concurrent with other archaeo-logical indicators of a first-generation state in Oaxaca, currentlyrecognized as the earliest state in Mesoamerica (5).

Temple Precincts of Later Mesoamerican StatesEthnohistoric accounts of the temple precincts of later Meso-american states underscore the architectural association of tem-ples and the residences of the temple personnel within walledenclosures. For example, the major temple precinct in the Azteccapital of Tenochtitlán at the time of European contact consistedof eight or nine temples, close to one another within a large en-closure. Some temples were taller than others, some were morelavish than others; the grandest temple was dedicated to theprincipal deity (Huitzilopochtli). The neighboring multiroomtemple, dedicated to Huitzilopochtli’s sister (Cihuacoatl), had anouter hall with a large stone divine brazier set into the floor, wherepriests received petitioners who came to offer incense. Only priestscould enter the inner sanctum sanctorum, where stood a stonerepresentation of Cihuacoatl, to whom they made offerings of in-cense and performed autosacrificial bloodletting regularly. Eachtemple had its own staircase, its special courtyard, its chambers,and adjoining sleeping quarters for the priests of the temple (6).The priestly quarters comprised a range of accommodations

according to one’s rank in the priestly hierarchy. The high priestsand ordinary priests of the temple occupied adjoining palatial res-idences and apartments. Young priests in training were housed inmonasteries consisting of many chambers. Assigned manual duties

Significance

Recent excavations at the site of El Palenque have recoveredthe earliest-known temple precinct in the Valley of Oaxaca,Mexico, dating to the Late Monte Albán I phase (300–100 B.C.).This precinct exhibits characteristics similar to the temple pre-cincts of 16th century Mesoamerican states. A walled enclosurecontains differentiated temples, priests’ residences, and ritualfeatures. We propose that the precinct’s components representa hierarchy of temples staffed by a specialized full-timepriesthood. A series of radiocarbon dates indicate that the ElPalenque temple precinct was in use during the 300–100 B.C.period of archaic state emergence in Oaxaca.

Author contributions: E.M.R. and C.S.S. designed research, performed research, analyzeddata, and wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: eredmond@amnh.org or cspencer@amnh.org.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305294110 PNAS | Published online April 22, 2013 | E1707–E1715

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

PNASPL

US

by the priests they assisted, these youths collected the firewoodneeded to keep the temple’s brazier burning and prepared the smallblades used for autosacrificial bloodletting.Although prohibited fromentering the temple, young women who served the temple resided ina separate cloister behind the temple. These maidens performedmenial tasks, cooked the priests’ daily food, and spun and wove cloth.There were storerooms and granaries in the temple precinct for thefoodstuffs, incense, and other offerings received by the temple, as wellas the ritual paraphernalia used on ceremonial occasions (6, 7).Similar to their Aztec counterparts, 16th century Zapotec temple

precincts consisted of two-room temples elevated on platforms,sacrificial altars, courtyards, and residences for the priesthood(and for the ruler and his retinue on occasion). The same dis-tinction applied to the outer temple space, where many celebrantsentered, versus the more sacred inner sanctum where the highpriest (“great seer”) officiated (8). Only priests could enter thisinner room, where they placed offerings and performed sacrificesbefore stone statues of supernatural figures. Best known is thetemple precinct at Mitla, composed of two large courtyardsenclosed by rectangular structures raised on platforms. The prin-cipal temple was reached by a broad staircase leading from thecourtyard and through three entrances flanked by pillars. In themiddle of the rectangular temple stood a line of monolithic col-umns. Priests performed divinatory and sacrificial rituals beforea large stone altar on which sat the statues of supernatural figures.A narrow L-shaped corridor led from the rear of the temple to theadjoining high priest’s residence, made up of four rooms arrangedaround an interior courtyard. This palace of the high priest waswhere he lived and also held audiences with Zapotec lords whocame to seek his counsel, because he served as an intermediarywith the supernatural world. Ordinary priests resided in otherstructures bordering the courtyard, accessed by rear doors andsecret passageways. These priestly residences were characterizedby communal living conditions. The priests slept on mats and an-imal skins on the floor. The existence of monasteries adjacent tothe temple for the training of young priests is recorded, as are thecloisters of young women in the service of the temple (8–10).Zapotec temple precincts were staffed by a hierarchy of priests,

ritual specialists, and servants. The high priest presided over majorsacrificial rituals at the temple’s altar. Special sacrificers performedthe human sacrifices. Ordinary priests oversaw the temples, re-ceived offerings from petitioners, and performed divinatory andsacrificial rituals on a nightly basis that involved burning incense,taking tobacco, sacrificing quail, turkeys, dogs, and deer, and

performing autosacrifices by drawing blood from their earlobes,tongues, or other parts of their bodies. Special priests or divinersmanaged the ritual calendar that needed to be consulted beforemost decisions were reached. Young priests helped tomaintain thetemple and altar on a daily basis and kept the braziers burningduring their nighttime vigils (9, 11, 12).The ethnohistoric data on the temple precincts of later Meso-

american states reveal certain common architectural, functional,and organizational elements that can serve as guidelines for thearchaeological investigation of prehistoric temple precincts (4).First is the occurrence of multiple temples within a large walledenclosure, creating a separate precinct, access to which is re-stricted. A temple hierarchy may have existed, with a temple’s sizeand degree of architectural elaboration reflecting the relative im-portance of the supernatural to which the temple was dedicated.Temple space itself was dichotomized into an outer space, wherepriests could receive worshipers, and an inner space so sacred thatonly priests could enter. Second is the close architectural or spatialassociation between the temples and the special residences of thetemple staff that could be accessed from the temple by rear pas-sageways or side doors. Priestly accommodations were based onthe individual’s position in the priestly hierarchy; they ranged fromthe palatial residences of high priests to the more communalsleeping quarters of ordinary priests and novices. Third is a hier-archy of priests, ritual specialists, and servants, who performeddistinct duties within the temple precinct. The daily provisioning ofthe temples and priests, and their nightly ritual performances,might be detectable in the archaeological record (12).

Temple Precinct at El PalenqueEl Palenque was the first-tier center of a four-tiered settlementhierarchy associated with an independent state that emerged inthe Ocotlán-Zimatlán subregion of the Oaxaca Valley in the LateMonte Albán I phase (300−100 B.C.) (Fig. 1). Our investigationsat the site have been directed at exposing the building plans of thekey institutions of this independent state, which we have arguedresisted domination by the expansionistic Monte Albán state,centered in the Oaxaca Valley’s Etla-Central subregion, until thefirst century B.C. (5). In Area I, on the north side of El Palenque’splaza, we excavated (in 1997–2000) the well-preserved remains ofa palace complex on the highest ground overlooking the plaza(Figs. 2 and 3). Covering an area of 850 m2, the palace consistedof a spacious residential component of rooms arranged aroundan interior courtyard, as well as a ceremonial component of lowmasonry platforms and flagstone pavements that faced the plaza(13). The construction of the Area I palace is associated with aconventional radiocarbon date (β-147540) of 2,300 ± 80 B.P. or350 ± 80 B.C., at the interface between the Early Monte Albán Iphase (500−300 B.C.) and the Late Monte Albán I phase (300−100 B.C.), making it the earliest excavated Zapotec palace. Theabandonment of the palace occurred in a major conflagrationthat produced extensive deposits of burned adobes, carbonizedroof beams, charcoal, and ash. A conventional radiocarbon date(β-143355) of 1,970 ± 60 B.P. or 20 ± 60 B.C., obtained fromone of these carbonized deposits in the courtyard of the palatialresidence, is the latest radiocarbon date associated with thepalace, corresponding to the early years of the Monte Albán IIphase (100 B.C.−A.D. 200) in the first century B.C.Our excavations in 2009–2011 revealed the extent and layout of

a temple precinct that borders the entire east side of El Palenque’splaza. Three multiroom temples were arranged symmetrically andfaced west toward the plaza. The stone foundations of adobe-brickwalls (1.2−1.3m in width) spanned the intervening spaces betweenthe temples, effectively limiting access to the temple precinct,which occupied a modified natural promontory above the plazafloor. As shown in Fig. 3, the temple precinct extended over some5,000 m2. Although our analysis of the materials recovered fromthe temple precinct is ongoing, we can report that behind the

MONTE ALBAN

EL PALENQUE

N

10 KM MEXICO

Valley of Oaxaca

Etla

Tlacolula

Ocotlán-Zimatlán

Limits of valleydrainage

Edge of valley

floor

Valley of Oaxaca

Fig. 1. Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, withMonte Albán and El Palenque indicated.

E1708 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305294110 Redmond and Spencer

temples lay specialized activity areas, ritual features, and twostructures of a residential nature that we suspect were priests’residences. All of the buildings in the temple precinct were alignedto N 17° E (orientations are relative to magnetic north).The largest temple platform [Structure (St.) 20] stood at the

midpoint of the plaza’s eastern side. This platform was built ofadobe bricks in an initial construction event associated witha conventional radiocarbon date of 2,200 ± 50 B.P. or 250 ± 50B.C., and a 2-σ calibrated range of 390−110 B.C., obtained fromcharcoal in the construction fill (β-202178) (Table 1). On theplatform stood a multiroom temple, 38 × 10 m in its overalldimensions, with stone foundations of adobe walls that measuredup to 1.5−2.5 m in width. A broad staircase ascended from theplaza to a long and narrow (ca. 1-m-wide) landing. Entry to thetemple’s principal hall (Room 1) from the landing involved a30-cm-tall step through one of three doorways flanked by pillars (Fig.4). Room 1 was Structure 20’s largest interior space and also thelargest room within the temple precinct; it measured 34 × 6.7 mwith symmetrical wings (6.5× 4.5m) at either end. The lime-stuccofloor, although burned, was still present throughout the easternhalf of Room 1, at an elevation of some 2 m above the floor of theplaza. Abundant ritual paraphernalia were recovered on the floorof Room 1, especially around two shallow hearths [Feature (F.)68, F. 67]: ornaments of shell, mica, and alabaster, and ceramiceffigy whistles, effigy vessels, and incense braziers. The distributionof obsidian blades, an obsidian lancet fragment, and three chertperforators suggest that the officiating priests were performingautosacrificial bloodletting here and in the adjoining wings ofRoom 1. The remains of turkey, dove, and other fauna on the floorand in one of the hearths (F. 67) reflect other sacrificial offerings.A human premolar tooth and a tiny fragment of a possible humanlong bone at the northern end of Room 1 indicate that humansacrificemight have been practiced here. Another activity detectedat the northern end of Room 1 and in Room 2 was the reworking of

obsidian, in view of the unused obsidian flakes, angular fragments,and waste flakes recovered (14).The southeastern corner of the Structure 20 temple consisted of

a small landing (Room 3) at the top of a 2.4-m-wide staircase ofthree tiers that offered a separate entrance at the rear of thetemple. Alongside the staircase lay a large adobe-lined cookingfacility (F. 65) with a firebox on its eastern side and a circularchamber (1.5 × 1 m in area and 30-cm deep). Feature 65 was ev-idently used to prepare food for a group larger than the usualhousehold, considering its significantly larger size (by a factor of16.6) than a firebox hearth in the kitchen of a residence (St. 9) thatwe excavated in Area P at the site (Fig. 2). On the exterior flooraround the large hearth lay two grinding stones, fragments of ce-ramic griddles (comales), braziers, and used obsidian flakes. An-other activity performed by the kitchen staff may have been spinningcotton fiber, as suggested by the four ceramic disks, most havinga drilled hole 3.5−5 mm in diameter for use as spindle weights, re-covered in the kitchen area (15, 16). Several ceramic vessels char-acteristic of the Late Monte Albán I phase were recovered fromthe fill of Feature 65 (14), along with charcoal (β-171545) thatyielded a conventional radiocarbon date of 1,990 ± 60 B.P. or 40B.C.± 60 and a 2-σ calibrated range of 160 B.C.−A.D. 130 (Table 1).This date probably pertains to the final use of the hearth beforethe abandonment of the Structure 20 temple.Additional activity areas lay on either side of the Structure 20

temple, behind the walls demarcating the temple precinct. Twoor three rectangular cells (ca. 2.75 by 1.75 m) abutted the south-eastern corner of the temple (Fig. 4). A hearth (F. 82) lay nearbywith four masonry blocks that might have originally lined its sidesto form a firebox (ca. 70 × 45 cm). Charcoal (β-299210) fromthe hearth dated to 2,030 ± 30 B.P. or 80 ± 30 B.C. with a 2-σcalibrated range of 100 B.C.−A.D. 30 (Table 1), and probablycorresponds to its final use. The midden deposits exposed here(F. 59, F. 81, F. 83) were notable for the quantities of ash and

I

J B

G

D

K

L

M N

C

A

HPlaza

100 m0

wall

wall

wall

wall

low mound

stone foundations

59

100

501

011

511

12052113013514054

1

150

155

160

165170

P

MN

X

Fig. 2. Topographic map of the El Palenque site,indicating the plaza, lettered masonry buildings,and lettered excavation areas. Topographic ele-vations in meters above site datum.

Redmond and Spencer PNAS | Published online April 22, 2013 | E1709

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

PNASPL

US

ritual paraphernalia. The deposits featured shell ornaments,mica, fragments of ceramic incense-braziers and incense-burners,a ceramic figurine portraying a standing human figure wearingan opossum mask, and an incised polished-stone celt; they alsocontained food remains. On the northeast side of the Structure 20temple in Area B-NE, we exposed an inner adobe wall (0.81- to

0.95-m wide), parallel to the precinct’s outer wall and less than1 m inside (Fig. 3). Directly east of the inner adobe wall lay anoctagonal firebox lined by eight burned upright adobe bricks(F. 89), measuring 1 m in overall diameter and 20-cm deep. Its fillcontained bits of charcoal, burned stones, and lime. AlongsideF. 89 lay another less well-preserved burned adobe brick feature

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from El Palenque, San Martín Tilcajete, Oaxaca

Lab. No. Archaeological context 14C years B.P. 14C years B.C./A.D. Calibrated 2-σ range

β-202178 Mound B adobe construction, subfloor deposit beneathSt. 20

2,200 ± 50 250 ± 50 B.C. 390−110 B.C.

β-332860 Mound B adobe construction, subfloor deposit atwestern base of St. 20 (F. 92, above F. 77)

2,080 ± 30 130 ± 30 B.C. 180−40 B.C. and 10−1 B.C.

β-332859 Mound B adobe construction (above F.77), subfloor depositbeneath St. 20

1,990 ± 30 40 ± 30 B.C. 50 B.C.−A.D. 70

β-299210 Hearth (F. 82), Area B/D, SE of St. 20 2,030 ± 30 80 ± 30 B.C. 100 B.C.−A.D. 30β-171545 Hearth (F. 65) in St. 20, Rm. 3 1,990 ± 60 40 ± 60 B.C. 160 B.C.−A.D. 130β-299211 Mound G subfloor deposit beneath St.16, Rm. 1 2,120 ± 40 170 ± 40 B.C. 350−300 B.C. and 210−40 B.C.β-299212 Mound G subfloor deposit beneath St. 16, Rm. 1 2,120 ± 30 170 ± 30 B.C. 340−330 B.C. and 200−50 B.C.β-202179 Mound G subfloor deposit beneath St. 16, Rm. 1 2,050 ± 40 100 ± 40 B.C. 170 B.C.−A.D. 40β-143353 Carbonized deposit (F. 22) on NW surface of St. 16 1,980 ± 70 30 ± 70 B.C. 165 B.C.−A.D. 155β-332857 Directly east of rear wall of St. 29, Rm. 1 2,100 ± 30 150 ± 30 B.C. 200−40 B.C.β-299208 Directly south of southern wall St. 29, Rm. 4 2,080 ± 30 130 ± 30 B.C. 180−30 B.C.β-299213 Mound D subfloor deposit beneath St. 29, Rm. 1 2,060 ± 30 110 ± 30 B.C. 170 B.C.−A.D. 10β-332858 Directly south of southern wall of St. 29, Rm. 4 1,920 ± 30 A.D. 30 ± 30 A.D. 20−130β-288315 Mound A subfloor deposit beneath St.27, Rm. 2, F. 78 2,140 ± 40 190 ± 40 B.C. 360−290 B.C. and 240−50 B.C.β-288311 Mound A subfloor deposit beneath St. 27, Rm. 2 2,090 ± 40 140 ± 40 B.C. 200−10 B.C.β-288312 Mound C subfloor deposit beneath St. 28, Rm. 2 2,160 ± 40 210 ± 40 B.C. 360−90 B.C.β-288309 On floor of St. 28, Rm. 2 2,070 ± 40 120 ± 40 B.C. 190 B.C.−A.D. 10β-288314 Mound C subfloor deposit beneath St. 28, Rm. 2 2,060 ± 40 110 ± 40 B.C. 180 B.C.−A.D. 20β-288316 Mound C subfloor deposit beneath St. 28, Rm. 2 2,020 ± 40 70 ± 40 B.C. 150−140 B.C. and 110 B.C.−A.D. 60

low moundmasonrybuilding

G

St. 20B

J

K

N

H

M

I

MN50m

1642

1640

1634

1632

1630

1628

1626

1624

1622

1620

N 2200

N 2150

N 2100

N 2050

E 1350 E 1400 E 1450 E 1500 E 1550

outcrop

St. 16

St. 28C

St. 27A

St. 29D

Plaza

Fig. 3. The El Palenque plaza, showing all lettered masonry buildings, including the temple precinct and its component structures (St 20, St. 16, St. 29, St. 27,and St. 28). Topographic elevations in meters above sea level.

E1710 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305294110 Redmond and Spencer

(F. 91). The principal activity in Area B-NE seems to have centeredon these ritual fireboxes.Flanking the principal temple stood a pair of smaller multiroom

temples of similar size and layout. The Structure 16 temple in Area

G measured 22 × 8 m overall, with stone foundations of adobewalls that measured 1.5-m wide in places. A three-tiered staircaseled from the plaza to the first of two contiguous rectangular rooms(Fig. 5). This outer room (Room 2) measured 12.8 × 2.3 m, and

MNE 1476

E 1480

E 1482

E 1471

N 2121

N 2119

N 2117

N 2115E 1469

N 2108

N 2106

N 2104

N 2096

N 2092

E 1475

N 2094

N 2088

N 2086

N 2084

E 1472

E 1470

N 2078

N 2079

E 1474

N 2111

N 2109

N 2107

N 2105

N 2099

N 2097

N 2101

N 2093

E 1461

N 2095

E 1465

N 2090

N 2088

N 2086

N 2084

N 2082

N 2113

E 1459 E 1469

Room 1

Room3

Room 2

F. 67

F. 68

F. 65

F. 77

F. 83

F. 82

F. 81

1m

Structure 20Area B

E 1482

E 1482

N 2107

F. 77

E 1464

staircase

E 1460

N 2108E 1458

E 1455

Fig. 4. Plan of Structure 20 temple.

Redmond and Spencer PNAS | Published online April 22, 2013 | E1711

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

PNASPL

US

remnants of its lime-stucco floor were evident in its northeasterncorner. A step through a 1.65-m-wide doorway led to the smallerinner room [Room (Rm.) 1] of the temple.Room 1measured 9.8×2.2 m, and would have stood at an elevation of ca. 0.80-m abovethe plaza floor. Small rooms or cubicles were accessed from theinterior of Room 1; Room 3 on the north measured 3.4 × 2.2 m,and Room 4 on the south measured 2.7 by 2.2 m. Lime stucco wasstill present on portions of the temple’s exterior aprons, which welabeled the northwest and southwest surfaces. The 2009 excavationsin Area G directly behind Structure 16 exposed a rear staircase,leading from Room 1’s midpoint. This 4-m-wide staircase of fourtiers provided a separate entrance at the rear of the temple.The Structure 29 temple in Area Dmeasured 23 × 10m overall,

with stone foundations of thick adobe walls, most notably thosemeasuring 1.1- to 1.8-m wide that enclosed the inner Room 1. Astaircase composed of three steps led from the plaza into the firstof two contiguous rectangular rooms (Fig. 6). This outer hall (Rm.3) measured 12 × 3.29 m. Four adobe pilasters projected from thehall’s eastern wall: two on the north side of the single 2.8-m-wide

entrance into the temple’s inner room (Rm. 1) and two on thesouth side. A single step led up into Room 1, which measured 9 by3.45 m, and stood 0.80- to 0.85-m above the plaza floor. At eitherend of Structure 29 lay a small room. Room 2 at the northern endmeasured 4.2 × 4.1 m. Room 4 at the southern end was onlypartially excavated because of the extent of accumulated gravelfrom postabandonment slope wash, overlain by a dense rock pile,a by-product of recent farming in the adjacent plaza. It was pos-sible to expose an exterior apron fronting the plaza at Structure29’s southwestern corner, the dimensions of which were 4.4 ×1.5 m. Although the original floors of Structure 29 were poorlypreserved, the recovery of lime in practically every square meterof excavation unit of Room 1, Room 3, and the exterior south-western surface, together with the presence of white adobe frag-ments, allow us to propose that the Structure 29 temple roomshad whitewashed adobe walls and lime-stucco floors. A 2-m-widestaircase of three tiers, situated at the northeastern corner of thetemple’s inner Room 1, gave access from the rear of the templedirectly into its inner sanctum.We did not recover abundant artifacts in situ from the

Structure 16 temple and the Structure 29 temple, in part becauseof the poor preservation of the original floors; nor was thereevidence of any subfloor features. Along with grayware ceramicscharacteristic of the Late Monte Albán I phase (17), the ritualparaphernalia recovered here (shell ornaments, a deer bone awl,obsidian blades, chert perforators, fragments of ceramic incensebraziers and effigy vessels, especially from Structure 16) are ev-idence of the ritual activities performed in these temples (14).

Entrance

E 1481 E 1485

E 1488

E 1483E 1479

E 1475

E 1475

E 1476

E 1477

E 1478

N 2150

N 2148

N 2146

N 2144

N 2148

N 2146

N 2144

N 2152

N 2142

N 2128

N 2126

N 2128

N 2126

N 2130

N 2131

Room 1

Room 2

Room 4

SWSurfaceF.30

burnedadobewall fall

staircase

Room 3

NWSurface

F.39

F.22

F.35Structure 16

Area G

1m

MN

E 1487

N 2142

E 1480

Fig. 5. Plan of Structure 16 temple.

MN

1m

Structure 29Area D

N 2080

N 2062

N 2057

N 2078

N 2076

N 2074

N 2072

N 2070

N 2068

N 2066

N 2064

N 2060

E 1458

E 1452

E 1457

E 1464

E 1466

N 2062

E 1459

Room 1Room 3

Room 4SW S

urfa

ce

Room 2

Entrance

staircase

E 1466E 1463

E 1461

Fig. 6. Plan of Structure 29 temple.

E1712 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305294110 Redmond and Spencer

The fragment of the left humerus of an ungulate, possibly a ju-venile deer, may represent a sacrificial offering left in the outerroom (Rm. 3) of the Structure 29 temple.These two companion temples may have been constructed

a little after Structure 20 in the Late Monte Albán I phase (300−100 B.C.), based on the conventional 14C dates obtained fromcharcoal in subfloor deposits pertaining to their initial construction(Table 1). The three multiroom temples share a common locationon the plaza’s east side, a common position facing west, anda common orientation (N 17° E). The temples also share anelongated rectangular plan consisting of a pair of contiguousrectangular rooms flanked by additional smaller rooms accessedfrom their inner sancta. All three temples display exceptionallythick walls, up to 1.5−2.5 m in width. The temples were accessedfrom the plaza by means of stairways that led into their outer halls.The three temples were also equipped with a separate entrance atthe rear of the temple, with direct access into the innermost sancta.Despite their overall morphological similarities, Structure 16 and

Structure 29 are not smaller replicas of the prominent Structure 20temple. The artifactual remains associated with the Structure 20temple show evidence of a greater range of divinatory and sacrificialbloodletting rituals, performed by officiating priests in the centralhall, than do the ritual paraphernalia recovered from the smallertemples. The two companion temples exhibited no evidence ofreworking obsidian, spinning cotton fiber, and preparing food, aswas observed in the Structure 20 temple. The differences in size,architectural elaboration, and range of activities associatedwith thethree temples suggest to us that the El Palenque temple precinctdisplayed a temple hierarchy.We lack clear evidence bearing on thetemples’ dedication to specific supernatural forces or figures (e.g.,refs. 18 and 19), other than the fragments of modeled graywarebottles depicting the Zapotec supernatural Cociyo (Lightning) re-covered from Structure 20 and Structure 16 (11, 14).The three temples were probably abandoned at the same time, in

the early years of the Monte Albán II phase (100 B.C.−A.D. 200).Their destruction by fire is manifested by their burned surfaces,burned adobe wall fall, and carbonized deposits. Charcoal (β-143353) from one of the carbonized deposits and burned adobe wallfall (F. 22) resting on Structure 16’s exterior aprons yielded a con-

ventional radiocarbon date of 1,980 ± 70 B.P. or 30 ± 70 B.C. and a2-σ calibrated range of 165 B.C.−A.D. 155 (Table 1). The slightlyearlier 14C dates associated with the final uses of the two hearths(F. 65, F. 82) directly behind the Structure 20 temple (β-171545 andβ-299210) (Table 1) are also consistent with that abandonment date.At the eastern end of the temple precinct, in a direct line behind

the Structure 20 temple, stood a pair of structures on low moundsA and C, situated at a right angle to each other, and aligned to N17° E (Figs. 2 and 3). When we mapped and surface-collectedthem, we suspected they might be residences, yet the overall sizeand configuration of their wall foundations and internal surfacesdiffered from the surface characteristics of the many housemounds located across the site of El Palenque (cf. 20). Our ex-cavation Area A (Mound A) exposed Structure 27 (Fig. 7), a two-room structure that measured 14.6 by 12.7 m and faced west. Astairway of three tiers led across a flagstone-paved platform at thebuilding’s western front and up to a narrow rectangular vestibuledefined by adobe walls atop stone foundations and a hard-packedearthen floor (Rm. 1). From Room 1, a step onto a paved zigzagpassageway led through a massive wall (2.2- to 2.4-m wide) anddown a 34-cm step into the structure’s sunken back room (Rm. 2).Room 2’s hard-packed earthen floor measured 8 × 5 m, and wasdelimited by adobe walls on its northern, eastern, and southernsides of the same thickness as its western wall. A posthole on itsfloor (F. 76) and a fragment of multiple cane-impressed burneddaub recovered from its southeastern corner provided evidence ofposts and possible partitions within Room 2. At its center laya rectangular, burned adobe-lined firebox (F. 79), 1 × 0.74 m inexterior dimensions, and a maximum depth of 0.13 m below thefloor. Alongside the firebox lay a subfloor adobe-lined box (F. 78)(0.84 × 0.55-m wide and 0.35-m deep), which may have served asa subfloor cache. It had been looted in antiquity, when its stone-slab lid was displaced. Charcoal from beneath F. 78 (β-288315)yielded a conventional radiocarbon date of 2,140 ± 40 B.P. or190 ± 40 B.C., and a pair of 2-σ calibrated ranges of 360−290 B.C.and 240−50 B.C. (Table 1). Charcoal (β-288311) recovered fromthe subfloor deposit beneath Room 2 dated to 2,090 ± 40 B.P. or140± 40 B.C., with a 2-σ calibrated range of 200−10 B.C. (Table 1).In Area C we excavated Structure 28 (Fig. 8), which measured

10 × 10 m and faced south. The narrow rectangular vestibule(Rm. 1) at its southern entrance had a hard-packed earthen floor

Structure 27Area A

Room 2

Roo

m 1

MN

1m

F.79F.78

F.76

N 2092

N 2090

N 2088

N 2086

N 2084

N 2078

N 2080

N 2082

E 1530E 1528E 1526E 1524E 1522E 1520E 1518E 1516E 1514

N 2090

N 2088

N 2086

E 1530

E 1528

E 1524

E 1523E 1521E 1519E 1517

E 1516

N 2094 N 2094

Fig. 7. Plan of Structure 27 priests’ residence.

MNN 2112

N 2110

N 2106

N 2108

N 2104

N 2102

E 1511 E 1513 E 1515E 1509E 1507

E 1518

E 1518

F.74 Room 2

Room 1

Structure 28Area C

1m

E 1505

E 1511 E 1513 E 1515E 1509E 1507E 1505

E 1516

E 1516N 2100N 2100

N 2110

N 2106

N 2108

N 2104

N 2102

N 2112

Fig. 8. Plan of Structure 28 priests’ residence.

Redmond and Spencer PNAS | Published online April 22, 2013 | E1713

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

PNASPL

US

that measured 7.7 × 0.80 to 1-m wide. Room 1’s western wall wasindented some 0.60 m from the rest of Structure 28’s westernedge. The rear room (Rm. 2) was reached from Room 1 by a steponto a paved zigzag passageway through a thickset wall (1.6- to1.7-m wide) and then a 30-cm step down into the lower Room 2.The hard-packed earthen floor of Room 2 measured 7 × 5.6 m.Abutting Room 2’s western wall was a rectangular, adobe-linedfirebox (F. 74), reddened from use, measuring 0.92 × 0.65 m and0.35-m deep. Some fragments of Late Monte Albán I phasegrayware ceramics (17) lay on the floor. Charcoal (β-288309)from the floor dated to 2,070 ± 40 B.P. or 120 ± 40 B.C., and hada 2-σ calibrated range of 190 B.C.−A.D. 10 (Table 1); it probablypertains to Structure 28’s occupation during the Late MonteAlbán I phase (300−100 B.C.). Charcoal recovered from beneaththe floor of Room 2 (β-288312) yielded a date of 2,160 ± 40 B.P.or 210 ± 40 B.C., and a 2-σ calibrated range of 360−90 B.C.(Table 1). The 14C dates indicate that Structure 28 and Structure27 were constructed and occupied contemporaneously.We propose that Structure 27 and Structure 28 were priests’

residences, an interpretation that is based on several lines of evi-dence, beginning with their placement behind the prominentStructure 20 temple. The ground plans of Structure 27 and Struc-ture 28 display strong similarities to one another in: (i) layout, (ii)construction with thick walls, (iii) indirect access through narrowvestibules and blind passageways, and (iv) habitation rooms withsunken floors equipped with fireboxes, probably for light andwarmth. Although their thick walls and dichotomy between outerand inner spaces are reminiscent of temples, the resemblance to themultiroom temples reported here is limited to those two architec-tural elements. The presence of internal fireboxes is a feature thatStructure 27 and Structure 28 share with the unambiguous resi-dential structures at El Palenque, including the elaborate Area Ipalace as well as the ordinary residences excavated inArea P (St. 9)and Area X (St. 30) (Fig. 2). At the same time, the ground plans ofStructure 27 and Structure 28 clearly distinguish them from theother residences.The artifact assemblages recovered from Structure 27 and

Structure 28 further differentiate them from both ordinary housesand temples. Fig. 9 is a scatter plot of the relative frequency(percentage of total diagnostic potsherds) of plainware jars (ollas)plus griddles (comales) against fine grayware serving plates. Thesamples used in this plot were recovered through the completehorizontal excavation of ordinary houses (St. 9 and St. 30), mul-tiroom temples (St. 16 and St. 29), and priests’ residences (St. 27and St. 28). The Area I palace and Structure 20, in view of their

uniqueness, are not included in this analysis. The scatter plot dis-tinguishes among the assemblages associated with the ordinaryhouses, temples, and priests’ residences (Fig. 9). For example,there is relatively little evidence in the temples and priests’ resi-dences of the daily domestic activities performed in ordinaryhouses, which centered on the preparation of food with utilitarianceramics (the jars and griddles). Also, we note that the temples (St.16 and St. 29) and the priests’ residences (St. 27 and St. 28) lackedthe grinding stones (manos, metates) used for processing maize.The relatively high frequencies of fine gray serving plates re-covered in Structure 27 and Structure 28 imply that food wasprepared elsewhere and then consumed by the priests in theirliving quarters. In contrast to the temples, ritual paraphernaliawere not recovered in the priests’ residences, although one pos-sible exception is a small polished stone disk, incised on one side(2 cm in diameter), found on the floor of Room 2 in Structure 27,which may have been used for divination or games.Despite their similarities, Structure 27 and Structure 28 were

not mirror images of one another. Structure 27 was ∼85% largerthan Structure 28. In addition, the flagstone-paved platform atthe front of Structure 27 was not duplicated in Structure 28. Thisarchitectural elaboration of Structure 27 is reminiscent of theflagstone-paved platform (St. 8) in front of the palatial residence(St. 7) of El Palenque’s rulers in Area I (13). Both Structure 27and Structure 28 had rectangular fireboxes, but only Structure 27included a subfloor cache, whose stone-slab lid had evidentlybeen pried open in antiquity and the contents removed. Thesedifferences in size and architectural elaboration may reflecta status difference between the priestly occupants of Structure 27and those of Structure 28. In addition, we suspect that the cell-like rooms behind the southeast corner of the Structure 20temple could have served as sleeping quarters, probably moresuitable for young priests or initiates (Fig. 4).The abandonment of Structure 27 and Structure 28 was ac-

companied by a conflagration, which resulted in the burned sur-faces and burned adobe wall fall recorded during their excavation.An adult individual of indeterminate sex (Burial 6) was ratherhurriedly interred in Structure 27’s firebox, in a cramped positionthat resulted in the skull resting at the firebox’s southeast cornerand a knee poking above its northwest corner. The individual’slower legs overlay an incised gray bowl of the Late Monte AlbánI phase ceramic microtype G.12b (17).Evidence of a special ritual feature (F. 77) turned up in the

temple precinct, behind the Structure 20 temple. A masonry-lined rectangular entrance to a vaulted tunnel lay 4-m east of thetemple’s rear wall, at the building’s midpoint (Fig. 4). A series of16 steps descended a steep corbel-vaulted stairway to the base ofStructure 20’s rear masonry foundation, where a stone lintelcapped the entry into a vaulted, masonry-lined tunnel that passedunder Structure 20 and proceeded at an orientation of W 17° Ntoward the plaza. The narrow passageway under the temple was1.07-m tall and 0.45-m wide. The tunnel continued beyond thewestern base of the Structure 20 temple for nearly 5 m, where itexited onto the plaza floor, making a total length from entranceto exit of 27 m. Charcoal (β-332860) recovered in the adobeconstruction above the tunnel at the western base of the buildingdated to 2,080 ± 30 B.P. or 130 ± 30 B.C., with a pair of 2-σcalibrated ranges of 180−40 B.C. and 10−0 B.C. (Table 1). Basedon ethnohistoric analogy (6, 7), we propose that priests andcostumed impersonators used this facility to secretly access thepublic plaza on special ceremonial occasions. Issuing as it doesfrom the largest temple onto the public plaza, this elaboratestone-lined tunnel hints at the importance of such ritual per-formances practiced by the priests of the El Palenque templeprecinct (12, 21).

Grayware Plates (% of Diagnostics)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plai

nwar

e O

llas

+ Co

mal

es (%

of D

iagn

ostic

s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1430

29

1627

28

9 Houses

Priests’ResidencesTemples

Fig. 9. Scatter plot of plainware jars (ollas) plus griddles (comales) againstgrayware serving plates from excavated temples, houses, and priests’ resi-dences at El Palenque.

E1714 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305294110 Redmond and Spencer

ConclusionsSeveral lines of archaeological evidence support the proposedexistence of a specialized temple precinct at El Palenque in theLate Monte Albán phase (300−100 B.C). The temples and at-tached facilities making up the precinct were raised above thepublic plaza and demarcated by an enclosure wall, which effec-tively limited access from the plaza. The differences in the sizes,architectural elaboration, and attached facilities of the threemember temples probably reflect a temple hierarchy. The range ofactivities performed by the temple staff, as indicated by the asso-ciated features, activity areas, and artifacts, is also consistent withsuch a hierarchy. The priests and servants who staffed the principalStructure 20 temple were performing amore diverse array of ritualactivities and provisioning tasks than were the priests assigned tothe two smaller companion temples. These tasks included tendingbraziers and ritual fireboxes, performing ritual sacrifices, andprovisioning the temple and its officiating priests with obsidianblades and other ritual paraphernalia, food, and possibly cloth.Two special residences directly behind the Structure 20 temple

differed in nature and content from ordinary residences at El

Palenque. A hierarchy is also evident in the sizes and architec-tural elaboration of these priestly residences, which probablycorresponds to the accommodations of high priests versus ordi-nary priests. Young priests in training might have slept in cellsattached to the rear of the Structure 20 temple.The radiocarbon dates associated with the temples, priests’

residences and special ritual features and activity areas span theLate Monte Albán I phase (300−100 B.C.), for which there isconsiderable evidence of state organization (5). The contempo-raneity of the temple precinct’s differentiated components isconsistent with the existence of a full-time, specialized priest-hood in the service of a state religion by 300–100 B.C. As of thiswriting, the temple precinct at El Palenque is the earliest exca-vated temple precinct in the Valley of Oaxaca.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This research was funded by the National ScienceFoundation (SBR-9303129, BCS-0921133), the National Geographic SocietyCommittee for Research and Exploration, and the American Museum ofNatural History. Permission to conduct fieldwork in San Martín Tilcajete wasgranted by the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropologíae Historia. Jennifer Steffey helped to prepare the illustrations. All radiocar-bon dates were run by Beta Analytic, Inc.

1. Childe VG (1950) The urban revolution. Town Plan Rev 21(1):3–17.2. Adams RM (1966) The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic

Mexico (Aldine, Chicago).3. Flannery KV (1972) The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3:

399–426.4. Flannery KV (1998) Archaic States, eds Feinman GM, Marcus J (School of American

Research, Santa Fe, NM), pp 15–57.5. Spencer CS, Redmond EM (2004) Primary state formation in Mesoamerica. Annu Rev

Anthropol 33:173–199.6. Durán D (1971) Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar, translation eds

Horcasitas F, Heyden D (Univ of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK).7. Anderson AJO, Dibble CE (1951) Florentine Codex, Book 2-The Ceremonies (School of

American Research, Santa Fe, NM).8. de Córdova J (1942) Vocabulario Castellano-Zapoteco [Spanish-Zapotec Vocabulary]

[1578] (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, D.F., México).9. de Burgoa F (1934) Geográfica Descripción [Geographic Description] [1674] (Publicaciones

del Archivo General de la Nación, D.F., México), Vol 25–26.10. Flannery KV, Marcus J (1983) The Cloud People, eds Flannery KV, Marcus J (School of

American Research, Santa Fe, NM), pp 295–300.11. Marcus J (1983) The Cloud People, eds Flannery KV, Marcus J (School of American

Research, Santa Fe, NM), pp 345–351.

12. Marcus J, Flannery KV (1994) The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology,eds Renfrew C, Zubrow EBW (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 55–74.

13. Spencer CS, Redmond EM (2004) A Late Monte Albán I phase (300−100 B.C.) palace inthe Valley of Oaxaca. Lat Am Antiq 15(4):441–455.

14. Redmond EM, Spencer CS (2008) Rituals of sanctification and the development ofstandardized temples in Oaxaca, Mexico. Camb Arch J 18(2):239–266.

15. Parsons MH (1972) in Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory AnthropologicalPapers 45 (Museum of Anthropology, Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), pp. 45–79.

16. Stark BL, Heller L, Ohnersorgen MA (1998) People with cloth: Mesoamericaneconomic change from the perspective of cotton in south-central Veracruz. LatAm Antiq 9(1):7–36.

17. Spencer CS, Redmond EM, Elson CM (2008) Ceramic microtypology and the territorialexpansion of the early Monte Albán state in Oaxaca, Mexico. J Field Arch 33(3):321–341.

18. Kirch PV (2004) Temple sites in Kahikinui, Maui, Hawaiian islands: Their orientationsdecoded. Antiquity 78(299):102–114.

19. Kirch PV, Sharp WD (2005) Coral 230Th dating of the imposition of a ritual controlhierarchy in precontact Hawaii. Science 307(5706):102–104.

20. Kirch PV, Millerstrom S, Jones S, McCoy MD (2010) A late pre-contact priest’s house inKahikinui, Maui, Hawaiian islands. J Pac Arch 1(2):144–160.

21. Rappaport RA (1999) Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (CambridgeUniv Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 23–68.

Redmond and Spencer PNAS | Published online April 22, 2013 | E1715

ANTH

ROPO

LOGY

PNASPL

US