Temples in the forest: the discovery of an early Maya community at Caobal, Petn, GuatemalaJessica Munson & Takeshi InomataIntroduction

The Middle Preclassic period (c. 900300 BC) in Maya prehistory has long been recognized as a time of intense interregional exchange throughout Mesoamerica from which the attributes of later Maya civilization developed. Archaeological research conducted at various sites in the Maya lowlands has significantly broadened our understanding of the social diversity characterizing this formative period. For example, the discovery of painted murals at San Bartolo (Saturnoet al. 2006) and monumental sculpture at Cival (Estrada-Belliet al. 2003a & b) represent early examples of dynastic ideology, indicating that notions of Maya kingship were well established by the end of the Preclassic period. Yet we still know very little about these positions of authority, how they developed, and their intersection with the rest of society during the earliest phase of Maya prehistory.

Figure 1.Location map with major sites mentioned in the text.

These questions are being addressed with recent research conducted by the Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun at the important site of Ceibal in western Guatemala (Figure 1; Inomata & Triadan 2008; Romnet al. 2009; Romn & Inomata 2010). The discovery of Caobal, a new site with monumental architecture located a few kilometers from Ceibal, is providing exciting new information on the formation and organization of early Maya communities.

Background

Archaeological investigations at Ceibal were initiated in the 1960s by A. Ledyard Smith and Gordon Willey of Harvard University. Although their research focused on Ceibal's revival at the end of the Classic period (c. AD 800930), they discovered some of the earliest Maya ceramics in the Pasin region, indicating that Ceibal was first settled around 900 BC. Gair Tourtellot also conducted a survey of the Ceibal periphery and identified dozens of house mounds and 13 minor ceremonial centres, including the small ceremonial-administrative centre named Anonal. Harvard archaeologists supervised excavations at several of these sites and recovered ceramics from a small test pit at Anonal suggesting substantial Middle Preclassic occupation there.

A reconnaissance project was undertaken in 2006 to document the condition of these minor temples. While attempting to record the site of Anonal, whose location was not indicated on Tourtellot's (1988) settlement map, a previously undocumented site was discovered. Initial field reports identified this site as Anonal (Munson 2006 & 2009; Munsonet al. 2008), but this must now be revised. The recent rediscovery of the site of Anonal (i.e. the one identified by Harvard archaeologists in 1968) confirms that the site found in 2006 is actually a different and previously unrecorded minor ceremonial centre. This new site is called Caobal. The proximity and similarity of these two minor temple groups raise interesting questions about community organization and ritual practice in the Middle Preclassic.

Minor temples near Ceibal

The minor temple centre of Caobal is located 3.2km west of Ceibal's ceremonial centre (Group A) and 1.4km north of its twin centre Anonal (Figure 2). Like many other minor temple groups identified by Tourtellot, the mounds that comprise this settlement are located on high ground, on top of a natural rise overlooking the Pasin River. Standing 9m tall, Structure 1 dominates the compact temple precinct whose plaza is enclosed by low platforms and divided into two sectors by a long low range structure (Figure 3). Three small residential groups were also recorded and appear to have been occupied during the Late Classic period (Figure 3, Structures 920).

Minor temple groups are common architectural features found throughout the residential areas of Ceibal (Figure 2). These monumental buildings range in height from 4 to 10m and are commonly located on the eastern side of a formal plaza. Several also resemble the triadic form of Caobal's Structure 1 (Figure 4). Earlier excavations carried out at several of these loci indicate that all of them were constructed during the Preclassic (Tourtellot 1988) and continued to be important nodes of residential organization during the Late Classic period (Munson 2005). Caobal follows a similar pattern of occupation: recent investigations there focused on its foundation and examined how this ritual site was used by communities throughout its long occupation.

Figure 2.Location of the Ceibal area surveyed in the 1960s (marked 'Extent of Harvard Survey') and of minor temple sites located near Ceibal (Tourtellot 1988 and current Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun [Caobal]). DEM base layer generated from AIRSAR data.

Figure 3.Settlement map of Caobal with location of excavation units.

Figure 4.Triadic temple complexes located near Ceibal (modified from Tourtellot 1988).

Public buildings at Caobal

Excavations concentrated on uncovering the architectural sequence of three public buildings at Caobal (see Figure 3). Preliminary results indicate that the site was used continuously from about 900 BC to AD 850, with the most intensive building activity in the Middle Preclassic. Unlike the extensive sequence of Real-Xe platforms documented at Ceibal, the earliest occupants of Caobal constructed pole-and-thatch style structures on the exposed marl bedrock. A nearby deposit of Real-Xe ceramics from the same level dates the foundation of this site to the eighth or ninth century BC.

Low boulder-walled platforms were preferred habitation surfaces in the following Escoba-Mamom phase and mark the first major investment in permanent architecture at Caobal. The construction fill of these low earthen platforms included dense deposits of Real-Xe and Escoba-Mamom style ceramics. Charcoal from the inside of a vessel fragment dates the construction of Str. 1-Sub 8 to the early Mamom period (Table 1). A shallow pit filled with ash and several hundred fragmented and whole specimens ofPomaceashell suggests that this platform was used for communal consumption purposes.

A large circular pit dug into the soft marl bedrock near the southern edge of the plaza provides supporting evidence for feasting events at Caobal. This pit (Str. 2-Sub 7) is 1.6m in diameter, 0.5m deep, and filled with fire-cracked cobbles, charcoal, various riverine shells, burned mammal bone and numerous large fragments of Real-Xe and Escoba-Mamom style serving vessels (Figure 5). If this interpretation is correct, communal feasting may have provided the impetus to create a formal public space for such gatherings.

Figure 5.Examples of Middle Preclassic ceramics recovered from pit at Caobal (Str. 2-Sub 7). The fine line incision and resist decoration of these red and black-slipped serving vessels are diagnostic attributes of the early Mamom period. a) Tierra Mojada Resist; b) Chunhinta Black; c) Timax Incised; d) Pico de Oro Incised; 3) Guitarra Incised.

The construction of pyramid structures atop wide raised platforms marks the beginning of a long tradition of monumental building at Caobal and the transformation of this ceremonial site. Temple construction started during the seventh century BC with another earthen and stone-lined platform (Str. 1-Sub 7) which provided the foundation for a stepped earthen mound (Bldg. A) standing about 6m above the plaza level (Figure 6). The superposition of additional platforms (Str. 1-Sub 6) and temple buildings (Bldg. B) constructed with plaster between 600 and 400 BC represents a major shift in architecture, ritual practice and community organization at the end of the Middle Preclassic.

Figure 6.North profile of Structure 1.

Community formation at Caobal

Although there is no clear evidence for an elite population at Caobal, it is possible local leaders from this community established administrative ties with emerging Ceibal elites during the Middle Preclassic period. Changes in architectural and ritual practices during this period reflect increasing centralisation of political authority and economic control (Aoyama & Munson n.d.), but the replication of local centres like Caobal, Anonal and other minor temple sites around Ceibal suggests that these communities retained independent ritual traditions even as they were incorporated into an expanding Maya society.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Instituto de Antropolgia e Historia for their permission to work in Guatemala. This project was supported by an NSF doctoral dissertation improvement grant (BCS-0837536), Dumbarton Oaks, and the School of Anthropology at the University of Arizona.

References

AOYAMA, K. & J. MUNSON. n.d. Ancient Maya obsidian exchange and chipped stone production at Caobal, Guatemala. Submitted toMexicon. ESTRADA-BELLI, F., J. BAUER, M. MORGAN & A. CHAVEZ. 2003a. Symbols of early Maya kingship at Cival, Petn, Guatemala.Antiquity77. Available athttp://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/estrada_belli298/ ESTRADA-BELLI, F., N. GRUBE, M. WOLF, K. GARDELLA & C.L. GUERRA-LIBRERO. 2003b. Preclassic Maya monuments and temples at Cival, Petn, Guatemala.Antiquity77. Available athttp://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/belli296/ INOMATA, T. & D. TRIADAN (ed.). 2008.Informe del Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada de 2008. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia. MUNSON, J. 2005. House mounds, temples, and landscapes: domestic land use and sociopolitical changes between Late and Terminal Classic Seibal. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Arizona.- 2006. Informe sobre los grupos de templo menor en Ceibal, in E.M. Ponciano, D. Triadan & T. Inomata (ed.)Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada de campo 2006. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.- 2009. Investigaciones en Anonal, in O. Romn de Leon, T. Inomata, D. Triadan & K. Aoyama (ed.)Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada 2009: 98126. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia. MUNSON, J., M.A. DE LEN & M. CORTAVE. 2008. Registro y excavaciones en Anonal: operaciones AN1A, AN1B, y AN2A, in T. Inomata & D. Triadan (ed.)Informe del Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada de 2008: 3743. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia. ROMN, O. & T. INOMATA (ed.). 2010.Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada 2010. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia. ROMN, O., T. INOMATA & D. TRIADAN (ed.). 2009.Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun, La Temporada 2009, Guatemala: Instituto de Antropolgia e Historia. SABLOFF, J.A. 1975. Ceramics (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology 13/2). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. SATURNO, W.A., D. STUART & B. BELTRN. 2006. Early Maya writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala.Science311: 12813. SMITH, A.L. 1982.Major architecture and caches(Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 15/1). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. TOURTELLOT, G., III. 1988.Peripheral survey and excavation settlement and community patterns(Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 16/2). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. WILLEY, G.R., A.L. SMITH, G. TOURTELLOT III & I. GRAHAM. 1975.Introduction: the site and its setting(Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 13/1). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.

Authors* Author for correspondence Jessica Munson*School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson USA 85721 (Email:jlmunson@email.arizona.edu) Takeshi InomataSchool of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA (Email:inomata@email.arizona.edu)