out-5

INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and
reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any
type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there aie missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

O rder N um ber 9035613
E thnicity and social organization at Chiclien Itza, Yucatan,
M exico
Lincoln, Charles Edward, Ph.D.
Harvard University, 1990
C opyright © 1991 by Lincoln, C harles E dw ard. All rights reserved.
U M I300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

H A R V A R D U N IV E R S IT Y
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
THESIS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
{T o be placed in O riginal C o p y)
The undersigned, appointed by the
Division
Department A n t h r o p o l o g y
Committee
have examined a thesis entitled
E t h n i c i t y and S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n at
C h i c h e n Itza, Y u c a t a n , M e x i c o
presented by
C h a r l e s E d w a r d L i n c o l n
candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby
certify that it is worchy of acceptance.
Signature...............•.......................
Typed name R o s e m a r y A J o y c e ...........
Signature S
E d w a r d B. Kurj^aj^k
Typed narne ......... ............. .y..
Signature
Typed
C. C. Lamberg'HCarioVsTcy" 1 6 1 990
D ate .........} .... ’...

ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
AT
CHICKEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO
A thesis presented
by
Charles Edward Lincoln
to
The Department of Anthropology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
Anthropology
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 1990

ABSTRACT
Ethnicity and Social Organization
at Chichan Itza. Yucatan. Mexico
by
Charles Edvard Lincoln
The ancient Yucatec Maya city of Chichen Itza grew from
an isolated, provincial community to a cosmopolitan center
with ties throughout Mesoamerica between A.D. 800-1000. New
ceramic data show two facets in the construction and
occupation of the site— the first with none of the traits of
the Mayapan Postclassic, the second containing elements of
that supposedly much later complex.
The urban organization of Chichen Itza, manifested in
architecture and iconography, institutionalized the three
primary Dumezilian functions: priestly sovereignty, military
force, and the productive classes. Deductive reasoning
permits us to identify thepriestly and military functions
with remple and range type structures respectively, and
gallery-patio structures and colonnades with the third and
most populous aspect of government. Inductive cross-analysis
of iconography with ethnohistoricaland epigraphic texts
enables us to identify thepriestly and military functions
with the names Kukulcan and Kakupacal.
i

Kukulcan is specifically analyzed as a divine king in
the sense defined by James G, Frazer. The ancient Yucatec
identified Kukulcan as both chief priest and sacrificial
victim. Sacrificial blood in turn defined and sanctified
lineage blood (and the power of lineages), so Kukulcan
functioned also (and originally) as a vegetative motif— as a.
"genealogical tree" or kuk (growing node of tree) and can
(tangled bush or vine). The relationships between the mythic
connotations of the word Kukulcan and other Yucatec names,
including Xiu, Izamal, and Itza, are examined, as are the
implications of this model for ancient Maya society.
New field research, carried out at Chechen Itza from
1982 to 1987 in the part of the site known as "Old Chichen",
has provided fresh data relevant to all these subjects. The
maps from this new research are among the most detailed ever
prepared of a Maya site, and combine architectural and topo
graphic detail.
ii

CO^xjE/rtlb
Abstract.................................... , . . . . i
Contents.............................................. iii
List of F i g u r e s .............................. ix
Acknowledgements............... xi
Politics,Conservation,
and Chichen Itza Archaeology.............. xxv
INTRODUCTION .................................... xxxiii
I. BACKGROUND AND APPROACH .................. xxxiii
II. DEVELOPING A NEW T H E O R Y .................... xxxix
II. THE CHICHEN ITZA PROJECT.................... xlvii
Part One: Myth and Theory
CHAPTER ONE: PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNICITY ............... 1
I. ETHNICITY VS. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION ....... 1
II. THE MEXICANS OR NAHUA AND P U T U N ............ 8
III. THE TOLTEC PROBLEM......... 13
IV. SYLVANUS G. MORLEY, AND HIS MODERN HEIRS, ON
MEXICAN INFLUENCE: THE BALLGAME ........ 16
V. ALFRED M. TOZZER'S CHICHEN ITZA .............20
VI. THOMPSON, AND HIS MODERN HEIRS, ON
THE PUTUN OR C H O N T A L ........... 23
VII. PREDATORY SEGMENTARY LINEAGES................ 26
CHAPTER TWO: MYTH. METAPHOR. AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION . .32
I. CHICHEN ITZA AND THE CLASSIC MAYACOLLAPSE . . . 32
II. CHICHEN ITZA BETWEEN TWO W O R L D S ................34
III. THE PROPOSED POLITICAL ANALOGY ................ 36
IV. ETHNICITY OR FOREIGN IDENTITY AS A METAPHOR
OF POLITICAL DOMINATION ............... 38
V. AN ANECDOTE— MODERN SHAMANS
IN NORTH CENTRAL Y U C A T A N ................. 39
VI. SHAMANS, ANCIENT* RULERS, ARCHAIC KINGSHIP . . . 42
VII. THE STRANGER K I N G............................. 45
VIII. YUCATAN INVADED............................... 49
IX. MYTH AND H I S T O R Y ............................. 52
X. RECOGNIZING MYTH IN HISTORY................... 56
XI. PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION: MONARCHYVS.
DUAL OR TRIADIC KINGSHIP................. 63
XII. DUALISTIC AND TRIPARTITE IDEOLOGY
IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS.....................67
XIII. THE ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENTIATION AND
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
OF THE DUMEZILIAN FUNCTIONS......... 71

CHAPTER THREE; PHILOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL COSMOLOGY
AT CHICHEN I T Z A .....................77
I. STRUCTURAL THEORY AND ETHNOHISTORIC DATA. . . . 77
II. FROM SPANISH DOCUMENTS; KAKUPACAL AND KUKULCAN
T O G E T H E R ................................ 82
III. MAYA TESTS: KAKUPACAL AND TEC U I L O ............. 85
IV. IMPLICIT MEANINGS ............................ 90
V. LANDA: THE THREE BROTHERS ............... 97
VI. CHICHEN ITZA: THE CONNECTING LINK
BETWEEN LATE CLASSIC
AND COLONIAL MAYA T E X T S ...... 104
VII. KUKULCAN AND THE ITZA: MAYA TEXTS......... 106
VIII. KUKULCAN AND THE ITZA: LIZANA............. 113
IX. EXPLAINING THiS FEATHERED S E R P E N T ......... 117
X. THE XIU AND COCOM..................... . 121
XI. COCOMES AND XIU—
"JOINT GOVERNMENT AT MAYAPAN" . . . 126
XII. DUALILM AND TRIPARTISM............... . 132
XIII. DUALISM AND QUADRIPARTISM................. 134
XIV. SUN, SERPENT, PRIESTLY, AND WAR TITLES . . . 138
XV. KAKUPACAL IN THE INSCRIPTIONS............. 140
SUMMARY OF IDENTITIES.................. 145
CHAPTER FOUR: SCULPTURE. PAINTING. AND ICONOGRAPHY . . .147
I. THE GREAT CARVED TEXTS.................... 147
Art Associated with Inscriptions . . 151
II. THE ICONOGRAPHY OF ETHNICITY.............. 152
III. THE YUCATECAN DATA: ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CASTILLO
AND GREAT BALL COURT COMPLEX . . . . . . . 156
IV. THE ANTECEDENTS OF DUAL KINGSHIP
IN MAYA ICONOGRAPHY..................168
The Maya Yin and Y a n g ............ 170
Kukulcan and the M o o n ............ 171
T r i a d s ......................... 177
V. WARRIOR COLUMNS OR PILASTERS (SQUARE ROOF
SUPPORTS SCULPTED IN LOW RELIEF)...... 179
Warrior Columns ................... 179
Capital Sr Base of Columns:
Framing Elements........... . 182
The Central Panels: "Warrior"Figures 187
Lineage Glyphs & Headdresses . . ..189
The Tula "Warrior" C o l u m n s ...... 189
VI. THE TZOMPANTLI AND RITUAL VIOLENCE
AT CHICHEN I T Z A ............ 195
VII. J.G. FRAZER AMONG THE MAYA OR,
DIVINE KINGSHIP IN THE SCULPTURE OF
CHICKEN ITZA . . . . . ............ 197
The Chac M o o l ....................197
The Sacrifice of Kukulcan . . . . . . 202
iv

Part Two: Settlement and Stratigraphy
CHAPTER FIVE: CERAMICS AND STRATIGRAPHY 210
I. THE ROLE OF CERAMICS IN THIS STUDY . -210
Chronology............................. 210
Ethnicity and External Relations . . . . 213
Hierarchy and Specialization ......... 214
II. STRATIGRAPHIC TEST EXCAVATIONS, 1985 ....... 215
Stratigraphy and Typology................217
III. TYPOLOGY....................... 219
Synopsis of Ceramic Types ............. 220
(1) Striated Unslipped..................221
(2) Plain Unslipped................... 224
(3) Dzitas Cream....................... 229
(4) Balantun Black-on-Cream...... 242
(5) Redware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
(6) Muna Grey ..............258
(7) Silho Fine O r a n g e ..................268
(8) Mayapan R e d ....................... 286
(9) Balancanche Red-on-Cream............293
(10) Plumbate........................... 297
(11) Thin Slate......................... 301
(12) Holactun Cream..................... 307
(13) Red-with-Hematite ............313
(14) Sacalum Black-on-Grey..............317
(15) Kukula Cream....................... 323
(16) Chen Mul M o d e l l e d ..................328
(17) Xkanchakan Black-on-Cream.......... 331
(18) Panaba Unslipped: leansip Painted . 332
(19) Tekit I n c i s e d ..................... 334
(20) Early Period types ............... 335
(21) Unidentified Remainder ........... 341
IV. TABLES ONE THROUGH THIRTEEN ..............341
V. CHRONOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS ..................... 355
VI. ETHNICITY AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS..............360
Yucatan as its own Ceramic Sphere
and Culture A r e a ................... 360
Ceramic and other Evidence for a Long-lived
Gulf-Coast and Riverine
Interaction Sphere ......... 366
Non-Ceramic Artifacts ................. 370
Horizon T i e s ........................... 373
Origins and "Ethnicity” of Ceramic Types 376
VII. HIERARCHY AND SPECIALIZATION..................379
Peto Cream and Mayapan Red W a r e .......... 379
Social Classes and
the Pottery of Chichen Itza . . . . 383
v

CHAPTER SIX: THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF CHICHEN ITZA:
RESULTS OF THE PROJECT SURVEY 1983-1986. . . . 390
I. OLD CHICHEN ............. * ........... 390
II. THE NEW PROJECT M A P S ......................... 391
III. PLATFORMS AND STRUCTURES IN THE 1983-1986
STUDY AREA— THE FIVE "TRI-FUNCTIONAL11
ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEXES ........... 398
IV. PLATFORM HO7 CHE (MAP SHEET I) ...............401
Three Structure Types:
motivation for s t u d y ...............401
Structures 5D5, 5D22, 5D23, & 5D26 . . . . 403
Structure 5 D 2 .......................... 405
Sacbe 1 2 ................................ 406
Structure 5 D 3 .......................... 406
Structure 5 D 1 .......................... 408
Structure 5D6 410
Structure 5D2, again .................. 411
The 5D2 C h u l t u n ........................ 418
Structure 5D24 418
Other Structures........................ 420
Sascaberas or Quarries ................. 420
Stone Field Walls or Albarradas ........ 424
The Topography and Construction History of
Platform Ho7 C h e ............. 425
Typological Resume of Platform Ho7 Che . . 428
V. PLATFORM OF THE INITIAL SERIES (MAP SHEET VII) . 429
History of Research.................... 429
The House of the Phalli (5C14)...........434
Structure 5 C 2 .......................... 442
Structure 5C16, The "Portal Vault" . . . . 443
Structures 5C4 and 5C11:
complementing 5C14 on the east . . . 445
The Organization and Functions of
Other Structures . 448
VI. PLATFORMS CHULYA AND WECHOB (MAP SHEET IX). . . 452
VII. PLATFORMS EK7XUX AND CHAC BOLAY (MAP SHEET II). 457
A Dual Platform Compound with
Trifunctional Organization . . . . . 457
Structures 5D12 and 5D1 3.................458
Albarradas, again ..................... 461
Soil Pockets on Map Sheet II and Vicinity. 464
Structure 5D4 470
Structures 5D27, 5D28, and 5D29......... 475
The Northern Platform Sectors
and their Topography ............. 477
Test Pit 18 and the Chronology of Ek7Xux . 481
Zac Och and Kan Coh ......... 486
Artifacts and Summary ................. 489
Typological Resume of Sheet III. ........ 491
vi

VIII. PLATFORMS CULUB, UAYUC, CUC, PAY OCH, & CH.AB
(MAP SHEET I I I ) ......................492
Platform Culub........................492
Typological Summary of Platform Culub. . . 506
Platform Uayuc ......................... 507
Platform Cue ( C u u c ) .....................511
Platform Pay O c h ........................ 514
Platform C h a b ................... 516
Map Shet III Summary............. 517
IX. PLATFORM OF THE HIEROGLYPHIC JAMBS
AND ITS NEIGHBORS (MAP SHEE'V V ) ...... 518
Platform C e h ............................ 527
Platform Qncan.......................... 529
Platform Chiic . . . . . ............... 530
Platform Holioch ....................... 532
X. PLATFORMS ON MAP SHEETS IV, VI, AND VIII . . . 533
Map Sheet VI: Platform Xchayicaan . .. 533
Platform X o ' o n i ............ - .......... 538
Platform Kokob ............... . . . . . 540
Platform Zaiohool..................... 542
Map Sheet IV: Platform C h o m a c ..... .543
Platform Xkixpachoch ................... 544
Platform Mehen O c h ....................546
Platform B a ......................... 547
Platform Zabin......... 549
Map Sheet VII: Platform Babil-Pek . . . . 551
Platform T z u b ....................... 552
Platform Jaleb......... 553
Platforiu Bokoloch....................554
Platform Sac Xikin....................554
XI. STUDY AREA S U MM ARY ....................... 555
CHAPTER SEVEN: SETTLEMENT AND COMMUNITY PATTERNS . . . 560
I. CHICHEN ITZA AS AN INTEGRATED COMMUNITY. . . . 560
Accomodating Theory and D a t a .......... 560
Settlement Patterns ................... 562
II. SITE DEFINITION............. 564
Determinants of Site Location........ 564
Areal Extent......................... 569
Chronological Components . . ............ 575
III. THE GREAT TERRACE AND RELATED FEATURES . . . 579
CHAPTER EIGHT: ARCHITECTURE . . ....................... 584
I. CHICHEN ITZA IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT......... 584
II. T Y P O L O G Y .................................... 588
vii

III. SEVEN STRUCTURES OF CHICHEN I T Z A ............. 591
1: The Castillo (2D5) ......... 591
2: The Temple of the Warriors (2D8) . . . 593
3: The Great Ball Court ( 2 D 1 ) ........... 598
4: The Mercado (3D11) S The Court of the
Thousand Columns ............. 602
5. fit 6: The Akabtzib & Las Monjas . . . . 605
7: The Caracol.......................... 609
IV. MAYA INSCRIPTIONS IN TOLTEC ARCHITECTURE . . . 611
V. TEMPLE OF THE HIGH PRIEST'S GRAVE............. 612
VI. OTHER "TOLTEC" STRUCTURES WITH HIEROGLYPHS . . 615
Typological Resume of the Seven Principal Buildings. 619
VII. ARCHITECT!TRE AND ICONOGRAPHY................. 621
CHAPTER NINE: A NEW MODEL OF POLITICAL SOCIETY AND COSMOLOGY
AT CHICHEN I T Z A ............... 627
I. PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION ................. 627
Archaeological Correlates of Dualism in
Yucatan . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Tripartism in Settlment Pattern
and Architectural Typology . . . 633
Quadripartism .........................634
II. THE THREE FUNCTIONS, THREE SOCIAL CLASSES, AND
THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAYASOCIETY. . . . 635
III. SUPREME POWER AT CHICHEN I T Z A ............. 639
APPENDIX I: FOLDOUT M A P S ............................ 643
Adaptation of Kilmartin & O'Neill Showing
Soil Pockets and Major Platforms......... . 644
Master Map Showing Complete New Map of
Study Area in Quadrants 5C, 5D, and 6E . . . . 645
Simplified Map of Platforms Ho'Che, Ek'Xux, and
Chac Bolay Showing Albarradas ................ 646
Map Sheet I, Platform Ho'Che and Environs ........ 647
Map Sheet II, Platforms Ek'Xux and Chac Bolay . . . 648
Map Sheet III, Platforms Culub, Uayuc, et al. . . . 649
Map Sheet IV, Platforms Xkixpachoch, Zabin et al. . 650
Map Sheet V, Platform of the Hieroglyphic Jambs,
Ceh, Chiic, et al........................... 651
Map Sheet VI, Xchayicaan, Xo'oni, Kokob etal. . . . 652
Map Sheet VII, Platform of the Initial Series and
House of the Phalli (5C) . . ............... 653
Map Sheet VIII, Babil Pek, Sac Xikin, Jaleb et al. . 654
Map Sheet IX, Platforms Chulya and Wechob ........ 655
Large Foldout of Master M a p ..............Back Pocket
APPENDIX II: CATALOG OF CERAMIC LOTS, TESTPITS 1-21 . . 656
REFERENCES CITED ..................................... 702
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
(all figures listed contain a caption,
on the page number listed,
followed by the graphic illustration on a
page with the same number marked -a,
for example, 174a, 237a, etc.)
CHAPTER FOUR
Figure 1: Sun and Moon Disks.....................
CHAPTER FIVE
Figure 1: Dzitas Cream Rims
From Test Pit 8, Level 2 .........
Figure 2: Balantun Black-on-Cream Rims
Figure 3: Dzibiac Red Bowl Rims
Figure 4: Other Dzibiac Redware
From Test Pit 8 ............... . .
Figure 5: Hoitun Gouged-Incised Sherds
From Test Pit 8 ...................
Figure 6a; Warrior Fragment: Kilikan Composite or
Provincia Plano Relief Sherd Found on
Surface of Platform Xo'oni .......
Figure 6b-g: Silho Fine Orange and other types in
Surface Collection of
Platform Xo'oni . . , . .
Figure 7: Captain Sun Disk (Kakupacal)
with Smoke-Scroll Ear Plug ........
Figure 8: General Study Area Surface Collection
1982-1983 .........................
Figure 9: Mayapan Redware: Mama Red Type and
Peto Creamware: Kukula Cream Type . .
Figure 10: Chen Mul Modelled Bird Effigy Whistles
From Test Pit 8, Levels 2 and 3 . . .
Figure 11: Acansip Painted-on-Unslipped
From Test Pit 8 ...................
Figure 12: Presumptively Early Types
From Chichen Itza .................
Figure 13: Stone Vulture Head, Shell Spall
with Glyphs, and Carved Bone . . . .
174
237
246
252
253
257
273
274
278
283
292
330
333
340
372

CHAPTER SIX
Figure I: Test Pit 10 at East Foot of 5D2
on Platform Ho/C h e ................. 416
Figure 2: Test Pit 11 at West Foot of 5D2
on Platform H o ' C h e .............. 417
Figure 3: Test Pit 2 in Large Quarry
to the East of Platform Ho'Che . . . 422
Figure 4: The House of the Phalli (5C14) . ......437
Figure 5: Simplified Plan of Map Sheets I &II . . . 462
Figure 6: Test Pit 4, West Foot of 5D12
on Platform E k ' X u x .................465
Figure 7: Test Pit 3 in Kancab west of 5D12 . . . . 466
Figure e: Map of Major Soil Pockets at Chichen . . . 469
Figure 9: Test Pit 1 at West Foot of 5D4
on Platform Chac Bolay . . . . . . . 473
Figure 10: Test Pit 7 on Platform Chac Bolay . . . . 474
Figure 11: Plan View of Buried Wall
in Test Pit 18, Platform Ek'Xux . . . 483
Figure 12: Northern and Western Profiles
of Test Pit 18, Platform Ek'Xux . . . 484
Figure 13: The Sculpture of Platform Chac Bolay . . 488
Figure 14: Test Pit 5 in Central Plaza of Culub. . . 493
Figure 15: Test Pit 6 in Northwest Corner of
Platform Culub ................... 498
Figure 16: Plan of Architectural Features
in Test Pit 6 .......................499
Figure 17: Plan of the Culub Sascabera and
Passageways........................ 501
Figure 18: Western Profile of Test Pit 8 .502
Figure 19: Eastern Profile of Test Pit 8 .503
Figure 20: Test Pit 16 on Platform UayucEast. . ..509
Figure 21: Test Pit 17 on Platform UayucWest. . ..510
Figure 22: Test Pit 9 on Platform Cuuc,
Structure 5 D 4 8 .....................513
Figure 23: Test Fit 12 on Platform Pay O c h ........ 515
Figure 24: The East Jamb, Structure 6E3,
Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs. . . 521
Figure 25: Test Pit 21,
Platform of the HieroglyphicJambs. . 526
Figure 26: A New Structure Type“-5C21/5D72 ....... 535
Figure 27: Test Pit 13 on Platform Xkixpachoch . ..545
Figure 28: Test Pit 14 on Platform B a ... 548
Figure 29: Test Pit 15 on Platform Zabin.550
x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have benefitted from the assistance of so many good
friends, colleagues, and family members that I scarcely know
where or how to begin. I will certainly omit certain crucial
allies, and I can only hope they will forgive me for my
omissions. To adequately thank everyone almost requires
writing my autobiography from the summer of 1979— when I
first worked in Yucatan as a nineteen year old undergraduate
field archaeologist in and around Izamal— to the present in
May of 1990 as I am finally finishing my dissertation.
Thinking in terms of these eleven years, there is one
person I must single out for thanks covered by the phrase "it
could not have happened without him." This is Dr. Edward B.
Kurjack. He has advised and guided me in almost every phase
of my field and library study of Yucatan. I cannot list the
things he has taught me and, more importantly, helped me
learn for myself. He would have taught me much more had I
been able to absorb it all. Dr. Ktirjack is a great Mayanist,
archaeologist, and mentor.
AT HARVARD
My adviser, Dr. Gordon R. Willey, encouraged me and gave
me the freedom to follow my instincts, which I suspect he did
not always share or believe in, himself. Dr. Willey has
written that Alfred Tozzer
xi

was never one to insist on students
conforming to any pattern of his own. He didn't
want disciples made in his own image . . . He would
have been offended at the idea of such intellectual
cloning (1988: 283).
Dr. Willey has distinguished himself as a great teacher in
exactly the same way, and my own career is proof positive of
the fact. Dr. Willey provided, from his own discretionary
funds-, numerous small-tc-medium sized grants to me for the
Chichen Itza Project. He made these grants continually from
1982 to 1987, usually at my request, and at other times when
he considered that something needed to be done. I do not
know whether Dr. Willey has kept track of how much he gave me
over the years— I confess that in my carelessness I have not-
-but the total amounts to thousands of dollars.
Starting my first semester in graduate school, Fall of
1980, I learned a great deal from— and developed a cherished
friendship with— Peter L. Mathews. He taught me virtually
all I know about Maya hieroglyphs, iconography, and religion
although I know so little these thanks may embarrass him.
Peter Mathews, together with Edward Kurjack, helped me form
my views of Maya politics, political geography, and social
organization.
Later, Rosemary Joyce also became a fast friend.
Rosemary made pivotal contributions to my thinking— and to
this dissertation— first, by encouraging me to explore the
1 The Charles P. Bowditch and John Owens exploration
funds for Central American and Mexican Archaeology.
xii

structural implications of my research and second, by giving
me guidance and pointing me towards specific useful data ana
sources. Hy formal background in social anthropology is
somewhat weak, and I would never have become such an
enthusiast for structural theory had Rosemary not backed me
up in my intuitions and endorsed my thinking as it
progressed.
Dr. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, together with Drs. Willey
and Joyce, always guaranteed that the Chichen Itza project
had the full institutional backing of the Peabody Museum.
Dr. Lamberg-Karlovsky, as Museum Director, wrote countless
letters of introduction for me to I.N.A.H. in Mexico City and
Merida.
AT THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
Dr. George E. Stuart of the National Geographic Society
recommended that I apply for, and insured that I received, my
pivotal grant from the National Geographic Society in 1983.
Without this grant, the Chichen Itza Project might have been
stillborn. To Dr. Edwin W. Snider, director of the Committee
for Research and Exploration, my additional thanks for this
invaluable support. I hope that National Geographic will
accept this dissertation as part of my (long overdue) final
project report to them.
But more than the financial support from N.G.S., George
Stuart has been one of my greatest teachers— especially in
the subjects of bibliography and history. As a guest in the
xiii

Stuarts' house in Silver Spring, Maryland on several
occasions, and in George's office at National Geographic, I
learned more in less time than in hundreds of visits to the
Harvard libraries. George made available to me the J.O.
Kilmartin's diary, which proved invaluable in understanding
the Carnegie Project map of Chichen Itza. George Stuart also
gave me great encouragement and moral support.
IN MERIDA— I.N.A.H.. Centro Regional de Yucatan
My thanks go first and foremost to Aroueologos Ruben
Maldonado Cardenas and Beatriz Repetto Tio de Maldonado.
Their friendship and support, again dating back to that first
year in Yucatan— 1979, has been an unfailing resource— a
foundation and pillar of support for me personally and for
the Chichen Itza project. To Ruben Maldonado, first as
Director of the Izamal-Ake Project, second as Coordinator of
the Seccion de Arqueoloqia of the Centro Regional del Sureste
(afterwards, de Yucatan), and finally as the Director of the
Centro Regional de Yucatan, I owe immeasureable thanks for
support in seeking and obtaining permisos for the Chichen
Itza project, and for facilitating all ray interactions with
I.N.A.H. Beatriz and Ruben have helped me with the language
and presentation of every proposal and report I have ever
submitted to I.N.A.H. I know we will be friends for life.
Of others, back in Merida, without whose friendship and
assistance I could never have completed anything in Yucatan,
first is Fernando Robles Castellanos. Fernando was my co-
xiv

director for the first proposal and first season of the
Chichen Itza Project (1982-3). He resigned this post after
he left for Harvard in Fall of 1983. Fernando has helped me
understand everything from Yucatecan ceramics to the dual
political organization of the Aztec Empire and provincial
governments.
Also of the Merida archaeological circle, I must thank
Tomas Gallareta Negron, Alfredo Barrera Rubio, Peter J.
Schmidt, Sylvianne Boucher de Carrasco, Ramon Carrasco, Luis
Alberto C. Gonzalez, Oscar Liera Ramirez, and Rafael Cobos
Palma. Rafael Cobos ("Rach") in particular has worked
closely with the Chichen Itza Project from before its
inception. Rach helped prepare our first proposal (with
Sylvianne Sandoz). He participated in the survey during most
of our first hard and seemingly endless first (year-long)
field "season” (March 1983-February 1984). He most recently
(from 1986 on) has undertaken the analysis of the molluscan
shell remains from the 1985 excavations. Oscar Liera
Ramirez, who served together with Rach during 1983-1984, was
an excellent surveyor. Luis Alberto C. Gonzalez did the
field drafts of our 1985 excavation profiles and helped
extensively (through 1986) with the preliminary sorting,
counting, and weighing of the 1985 ceramic collections.
Alfredo Barrera Rubio, as editor of the Boletin de la
Escuela de Ciencias Antropoloqicas de la Universidad de
Yucatan, has published no fewer than five of my articles over
xv

the past decade. He, like Ruben Maldonado and Fernando
Robles, has helped me extensively with my writing, my under
standing of the Mexican archaeological bureaucracy, and in
all aspects of Yucatecan archaeology. Dr. Peter J. Schmidt
supported the Chichen Itza Project, even if he was sometimes
rightly critical; I learned a great deal from him about
Yucatecan and Mesoamerican prehistory.
And lastly, although I have not seen him since 1982, I
hcife not forgotten the kindness and encouragement offered me,
as an aspiring student of Yucatecan archaeology, by Norberto
Gonzalez Crespo when he was Director of the Centro Regional
del Sureste.
MEXICO. D.F.— I.N.A.H.
I must thank Arqueologo Joaquin Garcia Barcena for his
repeated help in obtaining permission to work at Chichen Itza
for both the 1983 and 1985 seasons. I also want to thank
Arqueologo Roberto Garcia Moil for his support and
encouragement in preparing for the 1985 season. During one
of the 1985 meetings of the Consejo de Arqueologia which I
was privileged to attend, Garcia Moll delivered to the
Chichen Itza project a most treasured complement, saying
"este trabajo no es bueno sino excellente."
xvi

YUCATAN— OUTSIDE THE ARCAHEOLOGICAL CIRCLE
In getting the Chichen Itza project started, and in
operating it while I had little experience in the affairs eind
ways of Yucatan, Joann M. Andrews of Merida helped with
hundreds of practical matters, and made available her
excellent library at Quinta MARI for my own and project use.
I cannot sufficiently thank Srta. Carmen Barbachano for
her hospitality over the years at the Hotel Mayaland,
Hacienda Chichen Itza, and the Casa del Balam. Srta.
Barbachano also made available to the Chichen Itza Project,
free of charge, the Casa Victoria on her property at Chichen
from December 1983 to April 1989. I only remain sad that she
did not permit us to keep our laboratory there forever, for
it was an ideal location for our research base.
The former manager of the Hotel Mayaland, Oscar Manzur,
was my good friend and confidant while living at Chichen
Itza. Gabriel Cen, manager of Hacienda Chichen Itza, has
himself been more than a friend, helpful in thousands of
ways. Jaime Lubcke of Europartes Lubcke in Merida kept our
cars running during rugged field seasons and also provided
much discounted rates at Cabanas Capitan Lafitte during
breaks from the field. Luis Bros of Libreria Burrel in
Merida provided not only books but drafting paper and field
supplies to the Chichen Itza Project. Simon Safar Vera of
Izamal, and his family, have provided excellent telephone and
messenger service for us in that city since my first archaeo-
xvii

logical fieldwork in Yucatan in 1979, but especially since we
moved our project laboratory to Izamal in 1989.
I greatly enjoyed the intellectual stimulation provided
by Lie. Rudolfo Ruz Menendes, librarian of the University of
Yucatan. Through him I met Dr. Michel Antonchiw. These two
distinguished scholars imparted to me invaluable knowledge
of— and inestimable enthusiasm for— Yucatecan history,
literature, and bibliography.
AT CHICHEN ITZA— SAN FELIPE NUEVO
Pedro Un Cen was my first guide at Chichen Itza in the
summer of 1982. He showed me every ancient platform at the
site, turned over tens of thousands of stones to check for
sculpture, and carried my camera and water in the sweltering
heat. Pedro also invited me to my first Cha-Chaac in August
of 1982, and to my first Loh Cah in September of 1982. Pedro
then, in March of 1983, took the job of Capitan of the native
Maya laborers once the Chichen Itza Project began. He
continued unfailingly in this capacity as long as the project
continued. His brothers, Luis Vicente and Marcelino Un Cen,
his cousins, Fidelio and Vicente Un Cen, his father Andres Un
Dzul, and his father-in-law, the h-men Joselino Noh Carnal,
formed the core of the project labor force.
I have learned so much— about ruins, trees, vines,
animals, snakes, and the Maya gods— from these good people,
that I cannot imagine what my experience in Yucatan would
have been without them. Pedro has acted as my informant
xviii

concerning virtually every aspect of modern Maya life,
thought, and belief. He has also served as Maya-Spanish
translator on numerous occasions, and as caretaker of project
collections and equipment.
AT CHICHEN ITZA— U.S. MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT
In 1983, Ruth J. Krochock of the University of Texas at
Austin and James M. Kules, a graduate of Rutgers, were the
only North American project participants other than Patricia
Anderson and myself. Dr. Virginia Miller stayed with the
project for a time, studying art and iconography, especially
of the 3E "Star-Warrior" group. In January of 1984, Anthony
Aveni shot in measurements which provided our 4.5° east of
north magnetic declination. In 1985, Maureen Carpenter and
M. Louise Sandy joined the project from California. Frank
Winchell from SMU and Karl A. Taube of Yale also volunteered
for six weeks each. Elena Kourembana from Michigan proved
the best surveyor the project ever had. During the summer of
1985, Merle Greene Robertson and Edward B. Kurjack also
shared our base camp as they undertook their sculpture
documentation project on the Gran Nivelacion. In September
of 1985, Bruce Love of U.C.L.A. joined the project and swift
ly surveyed a transect from our study area to the satellite
site of Yula, of which he prepared a provisional map (Love
1987, 1989).
In both 1983 and 1985, Thomas A. Anderson was
indispensible in all matters logistical. He built most of
xix

our archaeological screens for sifting excavated deposits and
designed frames for swinging these to make sifting faster.
Tom built the artifact shelves in the Casa Victoria as well
as a field light table and the project kitchen table. Tom
also made sure all our rooms had adequate ceiling fans.
In the summer of 1986, Elena Kourembana and Maureen
Carpenter returned. Helen Sorayya Carr came to study the
Test Pit 8 midden faunal remains. Daniel R. Potter came down
to study the lithics, and his interest in flint sources led
us to visit Xkichmook, where we carried out a brief
reconnaissance and test-pitted a flint workshop in 1987.
It should be noted that all North American members of
the Chichen Itza project volunteered their professional time
and skill, none receiving a dime in compensation for their
services. Their contributions made our little project a much
more significant enterprise than its level of institutional
funding would have otherwise permitted.
ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES
I am indebted to Patricia K. Anderson, Alexandra
Schwartz, and especially to Kathy and Erwin Roemer for their
artistry and graphic contributions to this thesis. Patricia
Anderson was my partner in all early stages of the Chichen
Itza Project. She drafted the original versions of map
sheets I-V and the architectural outlines of some of the
later maps as well. Pat also was the one to suggest that I
read Alfred M. Hocart's Kings and Councillors. which proved
xx

so basic to the structural theories propounded in this
thesis. Kathy Roemer prepared all ceramic illustrations and
the final versions of all the maps. Alexandra Schwartz drew
all final excavation profiles.
While I was living in Chicago, Drs. Charles Stanish and
Donald Collier of the Field Museum of Natural History
provided tremendous encouragement and enthusiasm, not to
mention access to the resources of the anthropology
collections, including E.H. Thompson's collections from
Yucatan. Dr. Collier in particular read several early drafts
of this dissertation aud offered extensive editorial advice
and commentary, from which I have benefitted immensely.
CORRESPONDENTS
There are several people who, although my-face-to-face
interaction with them has been minimal, have significantly
added to my knowledge and contributed to my thinking by mail
and occasional long-distance telephone calls. In the last
few years I have been less in touch than before, but their
importance in my education remains. First and foremost among
these is David H. Kelley, who, from the earliest days of my
research on Chichen Itza in 1981 has written incredibly long
letters— each with more substantive content and information
than one can expect in about half the articles published in
American Antiquity. David Stuart has written severally
equally long letters, filled with glyph drawings and T-
numbers, which I have had occasion to cite more than once in
xxi

my text. Finally, J.W. Ball, especially during the years
1981-83, shared his knowledge of Maya ceramics and his
observations on Yucatec ethnohistory in lengthy trans
continental contributions to the stockholders of A.T.& T.
MY TULANE YEARS
I have not forgetten the formative role in my develop
ment as a Yucatec specialist played by my undergraduate
advisor at Tulane, Dr. E. Wyllys Andrews V. I do not know
what Will thinks of "total overlap now," not to mention the
theories I have developed out of it in this thesis, but I
know he was less than enthusiastic at the beginning. His
criticisms were extremely valuable nonetheless, as were those
of Dr. Victoria R. Bricker, whose introductory class.
Cultural Anthropology 102, was the initial inspiration for my
career in Anthropology back in the Fall of 1975. Dr. Munro
Edmonson first drew my attention to Maya historical
documents, encouraging me to tackle the Ritual of the Bacabs
at age 16 as my project for the Yucatan Colloquium in 1976.
In that colloquium, I also made the acquaintance of Drs.
Arthur L. Welden, Leonard Thien, and Donald and Anne
Bradburn, who instilled in me a keen appreciation for the
Yucatecan flora, and for the importance of ecology to
archaeology. When I later worked with these four, in their
survey of the modern vegetation of Dzibilchaltun, it was my
introduction to field research in Yucatan.
xxii

MY FAMILY
Most profoundly of all, I must try to find words
adequate to thank my mother and grandmother. They provided
the basic financial support for me to live and study, at
Tulane, at Harvard, and in Yucatan. They also enabled me to
use the resources left by my late grandfather, the Alphonse
Bernhard Meyer Trust, in support of the Chichen Itza Project.
But their generosity with money is absolutely nothing
compared to their generosity of time, knowledge, and atten
tion. My grandmother, Helen, took an active interest in Maya
archaeology and my studies of Chichen Itza from the very
beginning. It was my grandmother who kindled my childhood
interest in history and travel, which ultimately led me to
archaeology.
My mother, Alice, has assisted me devotedly as editor
and rhetorical advisor during the past year (July 1989-May
1990) as I have written and finalized this thesis. Her help
has been invaluable. My mother has also encouraged me in my
theoretical interest in comparative mythology, and has
pointed out to me many substantive parallels with Christian
motifs in the New Testament. My mother sparked my interest
in mythology and maps when I was a child, giving me both my
first geographical atlas and compendium of Norse and Greek
myths before I had enrolled in the first grade.
xxiii

Finally, my dear Elena, has put up with an agonizing
separation made necessary by various inevitable forces over
the past year. Elena was a volunteer on the Chichen Itza
Project in 1985 and 1986— she did all of the field (transit)
survey for map sheets VIII and IX herself, as well as much of
the work on sheets I I I , VI, and VII. Despite her clear
superiority of talents in surveying, our relationship has
become much closer since. Elena's love and understanding are
like a beacon in my life.
To Elena, then, and to my mother Alice, and to my
grandmother Helen, I dedicate this dissertation.
xxiv

POLITICS. CONSERVATION. AND CHICH&M ARCHAEOLOGY
As an academic, I could have happily pursued my studies
without dirtying my hands or mind with worldly problems. But
instead, I became too emotionally involved with Chichen Itza
not to put at least some secular observations down for
posterity. During my years in Yucatan, I came to realize how
imperilled the ancient ruins of that and adjacent states in
Mexico really are. Unlike conditions in the Basin of Mexico,
where the natural expansion of the vast urban population are
destroying the ancient vestiges in the Federal District and
suburbs of Mexico City, the ruins of Yucatan are being need
lessly and foolishly destroyed by greed and commercial
exploitation of thr ruins themselves.
It is the government of the State of Yucatan, and some
of its social and commercial pillars, who threaten Chichen
Itza. Since I began working in Yucatan in 1979, the
following useless maneuvers have been carried out, to greater
or lesser destructive effect. The old Merida-to-Valladolid
highway passed through the center of Chichen Itza. This
narrow, tarmack road was constructed many years ago and cut
across the Gran Nivelacion just south of the Castillo and
Great Ball Court complex. This highway was built so long ago
that one can hardly blame it on modern greed. This old road
XXV

was also so narrow, and had such a thin roadbed foundation,
that the damage it did to the Gran Nivelacion and associated
ancient monuments was relatively minor.
The first "modern" step was to build a detour around the
Gran Nivelacion and north of the main structures and Sacred
Cenote. The detour highway was slightly wider them the old
one, and it cut through and destroyed numerous smaller
platforms to the north of the Kilmartin & O'Neill (Carnegie
Institution) map. The new highway moved the pollution and
vibration of passing cars and trucks from the immediate
vicinity of excavated and consolidated structures such as the
Castillo and Great Ball Court to within a few feet of
unmapped, unconsolidated, and essentially undocumented
complexes such as the East Group Palace ("Cinco Bovedas"
group), the Far East Ball Court, and the Casa Redonda group,
among others. Even so, the destructive effect of this detour
was de minimis compared to what was to come.
The old road remained open until 1982, when by
government order it was sealed off from traffic. I actually
believe that to seal off the road to all but pedestrians was
a good move. However, in .1983, I and other members of the
Chichen Itza Project were commanded by the then director of
I.N.A.H.'s Centro Regional de Yucatan— Jose Luis Sierra
Villareal, a sociologist by training— to set aside our
research and supervise the removal of the tarmack highway
from the heart of Chichen. I formally protested that it was
xxvi

a useless and dangerous operation needlessly to introduce
heavy equipment into an archaeological site.
Sierra brusquely advised me that my opinion was not
required, and that the removal of the tarmack highway was
part of a large agreement turning over control of tourism at
Chichen Itza to an office of the Department of Tourism of the
State of Yucatan (sometimes called the "Patronato")• All
members of the Chichen Itza Project participated, in December
of 1983, in supervising the tractor operations on the Gran
Nivelacion which not only lifted the petroleum surface of the
old highway but also razed the old I.N.A.H. ticket office and
storage "campamento" just southwest of the Castillo. I must
admit that, despite my fears, no significant new destruction
was done on this occasion, except that the surface of the
site core was once again subjected to seemingly avoidable
disturbances.
Having razed the old ticket office and refreshment
stands, the State then authorized the construction of about a
half dozen new and much larger and fancier— masonry and
concrete— concession buildings. The first of these, which
also now functioned (1983) as ticket office, stood to the
west of the Great Ball Court, the second near the Temple of
the High Priests Grave, and still another, almost
sacreligiously, at the edge of the Sacred Cenote. None of
these were built with any archaeological supervision at all,
to the best of my knowledge. Their foundations definitely
xxvii

pierced ancient terraces, although I still think that damage
was probably minimal.
Within only a year or two, these new structures proved
inadequate to the ever burgeoning masses of tourists, bussed
in (literally) by the thousands every day from Cancun— as
that Caribbean sandbar rapidly evolved into the most
congested, degenerate, and expensive resort in Mexico and the
Caribbean during the course of the 1950s. So, starting in
1984-5, a new and this time monstrous development was begun—
a museum and shopping center complex the size of a football
field was constructed just south of the Gran Nivelacion.
Since its completion and inauguration in 1986-7 this gigantic
chunk of modern cement architecture has radically disrupted
the ancient— and until now unspoiled— panorama of Chichen
Itza. The arch of the compound gateway now challenges the
Castillo for dominance of the "skyline" at Chichen. This
arch should be torn down or dynamited without delay.
The new museum complex (which is really a shopping
center with a vaguely archaeological theme orientation) was
entirely the brainchild of the State of Yucatan, its
Department of Tourism, and the Patronato (directed by Teresa
Borges of Merida). A similar complex has been built at
Uxmal, also. Some I.N.A.H. archaeologists protested in
horror, but their voices wt_re drowned out by the chorus of
those who sought to improve the foreign exchange status of
the local economy (i.e. increase the influx of dollars and
xxviii

capture for Yucatan some of that rich trade which has mainly
gone to Cancun and Quintana Roc). To build the museum and
its parking lot, entire archaeological platforms were
destroyed without spending a single peso on conservation or
even documentation. The parking lot is now being enlarged,
again without attention to the preservation of Chichen's
ancient remains.
Nonetheless, the highway work, the construction of new
ticket-cum-refreshment stands— and even the ghastly museum
compound— pale in comparison to the threat that now faces
Chichen Itza. During the summer of 1989, Fernando
Barbachano, who recently acquired the Hotel Mayaland from his
aunt Carmen (see acknowledgements) revealed to me his plans
for several new restaurants, bars, and dance floors at
Chichen Itza as well as an expansion of the Hotel Mayaland
(personal communication 1989). Sr. Barbachano further
indicated his desire and intent to develop Chichen "real
estate" to the extent that he could get past all authority to
do so. Fernando Barbachano even showed me his plans to
subdivide part of the archaeological zone which he considers
(in defiance of Mexican Federal Law) to be his own private
estate.
The part of the archaeological zone which Sr. Barbachano
wishes to subdivide (hacer fraccionamiento) lies to the south
of the Hotels Mayaland and Villas-Arqueologicas and to the
east of Hacienda Chichen. My understanding of Sr.
xxix

Barbachano's map is that he will subdivide, among other parts
of the site, that part of the Chichen Itza Project Study area
recorded on Hap Sheets II and III (see Chapter Six).
Fernando Barbachano assured me that he had inspected this
area personally and found "no evidence of any archaeological
remains'* (personal communication 1989).
I fear for Chichen Itza and its environs. Chichen has
not been subject to the depredations by artifact-seeking
looters that have plagued southern Lowland Maya sites.
Chichen Itza has also been spared the destruction by
expanding urban populations which has decimated not only the
suburbs of Mexico City, but also those of Merida, Progreso,
Motul and Izamal (among others) in Yucatan. In other words,
in the ten years since I began working in Yucatan, Chichen
Itza has gone from a virtually pristine and totally protected
archaeological zone— really untouched by any except American
and Mexican archaeologists— to a damaged and endangered zone
in desperate need of drastic preservative action.
I would emphasize that there are no inexorable forces at
work here: not urbanization, not an invisible black market in
stolen antiquities. Chichen Itza is threatened by the forces
of brazen commercial development within the sight and purview
of the state government, with I.N.A.H. (underfinanced and
understaffed) virtually helpless to carry out its mandate to
preserve Mexico/s patrimonio nacional. This is not to say
that I.N.A.H. has not, on occasion, tolerated uselessly
XXX

destructive treatment of the archaeological resources of
Chichen Itza, of which the sculptural documentation project
directed by Donald Patterson in the early 1980s is only one
example 2.
Long range planning and coordination of policy goals is
the answer. The only real hope is that archaeologists from
I.N.A.H.'s Centro Regional de Yucatan will very soon be given
a determinative role in planning and carrying out touristic
development at archaeological sites. A fainter hope might be
that international agencies— through financing agreements and
highly publicized "expert" advice— could have some impact on
the conservation of archaeological remains in Mexico. To
this latter end, it should be noted that the UNESCO has
2 Donald Patterson— who directed the best funded and
staffed (but certainly not the best conceived or executed)
project at Chichen Itza in recent decades— is an expatriate
American artist and amateur photographer. As of November
1989 no publication or notice of completed archive of this
project has been made available. The damage to structures at
Chichen Itza caused by Patterson's extensive operation was
enormous, removing loose sculptural elements from the struc
tures where they might have been near their original con
texts. This project was undertaken without the full-time
participation of even one archaeologist or surveyor to record
the original placement, even if found in surface rubble, of
the sculpted elements, formerly integrated architecturally
into the ancient buildings,, I will repeat here my previously
published comment that:
Vemos como una desgracia que fuera necesario sacar
elementos arquitectonicos de la superficie sin el
control arqueologico completo (Lincoln 1987: 17).
I would simply add now that, of course, Patterson's
project was in fact unnecessary and has, nine years after his
last field work, produced not one page of useful published
documentation. Patterson's project is but one in a series of
conservation disasters which has plagued Mesoamerican archae
ology in general, and Chichen archaeology in particular.
xxxi

declared Chichen Itza (among other ruins) a "world heritage"
site (patrimonio ds la humanidad), but it remains to be seen
whether this declaration will have any practical effect on
curbing the rapine development contemplated by those forces
who would like to turn Chichen Itza into an archaeological
Disneyland whose primary purpose is economic rather than
educational.
At the present time, when the dawn of the last decade of
the twentieth century sees the failure and demise of
communism, we must still remind ourselves that unbriddled
capitalism and capitalistic greed could easily destroy,
before the end of the second millenium, that which has
survived until now since the end of the first. I feel that I
am a witness to sad proceedings in a part of the world which
I love very deeply, and that I cannot realistically submit my
research into the arcane unaccompanied by my observations of
the mundane. Realism and research do not always go together
pleasantly, but I believe that anyone who could stand by
silently to watch the destruction of his subject would indeed
not only be less than a realist, but also less than a member
of the human race.
xxxii

INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
The subject: of this thesis is the archaeological site of
Chichen Itza in Yucatan, one of the most famous ruins left by
aboriginal Americans in the Western Hemisphere. Although it
is visited by thousands of tourists each year and has been
described and interpreted by dozens of scholars, the site
remains poorly understood and has never even been completely
described or mapped. In this thesis, I seek to apply the
principles of structural anthropology to the interpretation
of ancient society and culture at Chichen Itza. This
analysis will require looking at all patterns in the
evidence— artifacts, architecture, settlement, sculpture,
paintings, and hieroglyphs— in light of comparative ethno
logical and historical data from other parts of the nearer
and farther world. Guided by the expectations of structural
theory, I have attempted to see patterns here in the Chichen
Itza material which have been observed in societies else
where. Constrained by practical limitations, I have not
attempted to describe or summarize every scrap of evidence
relevant to the site.
I became int. crested in Chichen Itza nine years ago, in
Dr. Gordon R. Willey7s 1981-82 graduate seminar on Meso-
xxxiii

american archaeology. I found then that prior research had
failed to develop a coherent archaeological chronology built
on the clear stratigraph.ic superposition of different
ceramic, architectural or other kinds of material evidence at
this most famous of Yucatecan sites. Although the textbooks
summarized the "facts", events, and their sequence with a
great air of certainty, the literature yielded no satisfac
tory proof that the history of northern Yucatan conformed to
the oft-repeated canonical version.
The great scholars of Maya prehistory concurred that
Chichen Itza came later in time than any of the other ruined
cities of the northern Lowlands save Mayapan. They held that
Chichen Itza differed from all other Maya sites because it
was founded by "the Toltec”— invaders from Central Mexico, or
alternatively by "the Putun"— Mexicanized Maya from the
southwestern base of the Yucatan Peninsula (Tozzer 1957;
Brainerd 1S58; Andrews IV 1965; Thompson 1970; Sharer 1982;
Coe 1987; Fox 1987). Stated , most succinctly, the "classic”
interpretation of Postclassic Chichen Itza ran as follows:
In the Maya Lowlands at Chichen Itza, the Tula-
Toltec art and the new constructions at an old
Classic ceremonial center suggest that long
distance conquest was a feature of the early
Postclassic in that region ((Willey & Phillips
1958: 198)
This accepted culture history reflected a rather forced
attempt to reconcile native chronicles with the patchy and
somewhat unsystematic results of various research expeditions
xxxiv

to Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and other major sites north of the
20th parallel of latitude in Yucatan.
I concluded that the evidence as reported did not and
could not sustain the chronology and history accepted as
truth by all those greatest of the Mayanists, living and dead
(Lincoln 1982, 1983, 1986, 1987). I felt then and feel now
that Mayanists tend too quickly to see invasions, migrations,
and diffusions across the landscape of ancient Mexico, when
in-situ cultural evolution would explain the remains we can
document more simply and directly. I suggested then and
still believe that Mesoamerican prehistorians should, "just
as an experiment, take 'non-interaction7 as our null hypo
thesis and seriously try to disprove it, rather than assuming
[that] continuous interaction from site to site and region to
region (Lincoln 1982: 146)" constituted the prime moving
force in shaping culture history1. Archaeologists in general
seem inclined to assume that any differences within a site
assemblage must reflect either distinct moments in stylistic
history or distinct ethnic groups living side-by-side.
During the course of the following six years (1982-
1988), I undertook fieldwork of my own in Yucatan to produce
new evidence for what really happened at Chichen Itza. My
project included a general survey which consisted of walking
over the entire site, taking notes and photographing whatever
1 Compare William T. Sanders: "We see no need to
invoke periodic mass migrations as an explanation for socio
cultural change" (cited in Cobean 1978: xi).
XXXV

seemed interesting, mapping what I believed to be a small but
representative sample of the site, and test-excavating
selected features within that study-area sample of the site.
No further evidence emerged from this work to suggest that
Chichen Itza had more than one ethnic or chronological com
ponent (all traditional archaeologists and art historians
have spoken of an "Old" or "Maya" and a "New" or "Toltec"
Chichen) nor that there were; indeed any Toltec or Putun Maya
living anywhere at the site at any time. Chichen Itza
appeared culturally homogeneous and its infrastructural
elements integrated.
In my initial review of the literature for Gordon
Willey's seminar, I found the traditionally accepted chrono
logy and interpretation of Chichen Itza unsupported by hard
evidence (Lincoln 1982, 1983, 1986). I rejected as clearly
erroneous the idea that the site showed evidence of two
distinct, mrjor periods of occupation. Neither could I even
believe the less drastic proposal that the site had undergone
several significant reorganizations or phases of radical
stylistic remodeling through time. I also became completely
convinced that Chichen Itza was not shaped by, nor ever
witnessed, an invasion from any other city or region. I
found unacceptable the historical reconstruction of the
development of Chichen Itza which placed the florescence of
the site at a time when it appeared to stand alone in all the
Maya Lowlands: A.D. 1000-1200, as a unique and solitary
xxxvi

island of prosperity and civilization in a world which had
collapsed. I questioned the logic employed in sorting the
ceramics without stratigraphy and suggested that the accepted
classification of both the elite or minority wares and the
ordinary or majority wares failed to accurately describe the
pottery assemblage at Chichen, or differentiate it from that
at Uxmal, Coba, Dzibilchaltun, or any other major site.
Obviously then, my initial conclusions and suggestions based
on reviewing the literature were totally negative: the old
model of the history of Chichen Itza had to be discarded, but
I had no other proposal to put in its place.
With institutional funding from the National Geographic
Society and Harvard's Peabody Museum, private funding from
the family trust, and the permission and cooperation of
Mexico's I.N.A.H., I undertook a project at Chichen Itza
which surveyed new— more accurate and detailed— maps and
recovered fresh samples of ceramics and other artifacts from
stratigraphic test pits. These new data buttressed the
framework which I had intuitively suspected based on my
review of the literature (Lincoln 1985, 1987). More
importantly, the new data were the seeds— though they took
several years in germinating— which finally evolved into a
new model of history and social organization at this site
capable of totally replacing the old Tozzerian-Toltec model.
Chichen Itza, as a whole, is homogeneous, even though
the site exhibits a wide variety of forms and styles. These
xxxvii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission

forms and styles did not originate in distinct time-horizons
but in the synchronous division of labor and social roles
which organically constituted a more complex society than had
previously existed in the Maya Lowlands. Among the buildings
on each of the platform compounds which serve as the basic
units of community organization, for example, several dis
tinct structure types are clearly differentiated, but these
complement one another in a systematic pattern of formal and
functional association. On the other hand, it must be
admitted that our small test excavations yielded no
artifactual data or other evidence from which to describe or
infer specific functions for specific buildings.
xxxviii

II. DEVELOPING A NEW THEORY
Barbara Price (1382) reminded the somewhat scandalized
world of Mesoamerican archaeology that facts can never
replace a theory— only a new theory can truly displace an old
theory2. Mayanists in particular, described by Michael Coe
as "not exactly the most imaginative of the anthropological
profession (1978: 13)," normally assume that facts and direct
evidence take precedence over theory and can overpower any
inference taken from circumstantial evidence3. The truth of
Price's arguments came home to me when I realized that it was
unsatisfactory, indeed quite insufficient, merely to have
2 Although I might differ on a number of substantive
points in Barbara Price's 1982 article "Cultural
Materialism", I agree entirely with her stated approach to
evidence in her section "Background Considerations:
Metatheory and Epistemology":
"Fact" is not taken as independent of theory but as
in part determined by it; the significance of a
fact is modified by its theoretical context and
governed by rules of evidence that are theory-
dependent. . . . Most "facts" or data constitute
relatively low-level observations, potentially con
sonant with or explicable by a number of quite
different theories, if perhaps in different ways.
"The facts", accordingly, do not speak for
themselves, lack an independent power to falsify,
and constitute evidence only insofar as they are
acounted for by some theory. Testing of theory
against data represents only half of a more
complete testing procedure: a theory can be deposed
only by a more powerful theory, not by "facts"
alone (Price 1982: 711-712, citations omitted).
3 For an early critique of Maya archaeology as an
intellectual discipline, see W.W. Taylor's Study of Archaeo-
oloqy (1948). In my own research, I attempt to follow A. M.
Hocart's discussion of "rules of evidence" in anthropological
analysis and inference (1970: 11-27), although I do not sub
scribe to his diffusionist explanations for equivalences in
social structures.
xxxix

asserted, even "proven", that the old theory was wrong.
Whether or not the data available from the Carnegie Institu
tion research projects of the 1920s and 730s or my own of the
1980s could possibly sustain the view that Chichen Itza was a
creation of outsiders, and that Classic Maya culture had
vanished into a vacuum, these old theories would persist as
doctrine until I proposed a new hypothesis which matched the
data at least as well (I hope better) than the old.
The seminar for which I wrote my original paper on
Chichen Itza was designed to be a seminar on the archaeo
logical context of Maya hieroglyphic writing. My assignment
was to review the inscriptions of the northern Maya Lowlands
of Yucatan, in which area I had already developed an interest
as an undergraduate (Lincoln 1980). After completing that
first lengthy presentation, I failed to follow up ray intui
tions concerning the iconography and epigraphy (Lincoln 1982:
81-139).
At that time, I decided to focus exclusively on pottery,
which appeared to be the most certain and incontrovertible
element of the thesis I had elaborated. The ceramics of
Chichen Itza and the Puuc region of western Yucatan were
essentially indistinguishable on either stratigraphic or
typological grounds. Such differences as did exist between
the two regional assemblages certainly did not reflect
distinct periods, and were best treated as representative of
a single time and cultural horizon (Lincoln 1983, 1986).
xl

Seven years afterwards", the ceramic discussion in my
paper seemed to be only the groundwork, only a set of
necessary but insufficient preconditions. I now look back
and think that the best part of my original seminar paper was
the iconographic and glyphic review. I did not know it at
the time, or at least did not fully realize it, but I had
developed a predictive, structural, model of what the
hieroglyphic evidence ought to say based on my interpretation
of Chichen Itza's settlement pattern, and in fact, six years
later, my predictions were proven right. I wrote that:
I hope that it can somehow be glyphically
shown that the lintels at Chichen name siblings
and/or collateral relatives of Kakupacal, because
this would support the settlement pattern evidence.
. . . I...see the chance to fuse the ideas [of kin
ties and alliances] generated by the sacbe systecis
of the north with those [ideas] which have been
hypothesized [based on] the glyphic texts (Lincoln
1982: 135-6; 132-37).
David Stuart (pers.comm. 1988) finally produced the
hieroglyphic evidence for political organization (different
from that characteristic of the southern Lowland Maya) which
I had hoped for. Stuart phonetically transcribed the rela
tionship glyphic compound linking some of the various
personal names at Chichen Itza as yi-ta-hi. which Stuart
interprets as a term for sibling (see also Stuart 1988: 25-
28). The term is related to ihtan/atan. the term for sister
or female cross-cousin, alternatively translated "wife” or
"man's older sister” (Fox & Justeson 1986: 8-10). Reading
Hwife” or "cousin” between personal names among the
xli

architectural compounds at Chichen Itza would still be
consistent with the suggestion, in the settlement pattern
data, that various social units, e.g. noble lineages, were
united into one community by kinship ties. The distinction
between affinal and consanguineal bonds may be even more
elusive in the archaeological record than in the hieroglyphic
texts, but the reward seems sufficiently important to justify
the effort.
By the time epigraphic work suggested confirmation of
what 1 had predicted, I had already begun to develop a new
hypothetical reconstruction of prehistoric government at
Chichen Itza which I felt could replace the old theory of
invasion and diverse ethnicity as an acceptable explanation
for the archaeological manifestations of an apparently unique
cultural order at this site. This was the theory of Dual
Kingship, which I will elaborate in Chapters Two-Four.
This theory permits us to finally discard and replace
the old notions of Toltec Chichen Itza as a site-unit intru
sion into a multi-component occupational history. Adoption
of a dualistic or triadic model for its government and social
organization further permits us to see Chichen Itza as a
"normal" city of the ancient world (Hocart 1970: 250-261).
The old model of several successive occupations and construc
tional phases cast any interpretation of Chichen Itza in a
patchwork enigma of unique patterns of cultural and ethnic
xlii

interaction, opposition, partial amalgamation, and
replacement.
The theory of Dual Kingship depends jointly on archaeo
logical community pattern data and iconography, collaterally
supported by epigraphic and ethnohistoric research. Ironi
cally, the problems of ceramic sequence by which I was first
fascinated now play only a marginal role in my model— at the
periphery of explicating and explaining the uniqueness of
Chichen Itza. Nonetheless, Chapter Five on "Ceramics and
Stratigraphy" remains the longest division of the present
dissertation. When I first planned archaeological research
at the site, I had assumed that ceramic stratigraphy and
typology would have paramount importance.
Ceramics remain essential only to defining the basic
precondition for my analyses: that Chichen Itza is a single
component, ethnically homogeneous site. But once the project
was finally underway, and especially now that its initial
stage is complete, only the settlement pattern data turned
out to be conclusive with regard to the overall reinterpreta
tion of the City of the Sacred Well4 (Lincoln 1985, 1987).
In the future, with further excavations of whole structures,
platforms, and middens, ceramic distributional studies might
yet yield important data on occupational activities and
social organization.
This name for Chichen Itza from Willard 1926.
xliii

In. sum, Chichen Itza can be understood in terms of
indigenous cultural processes and social structures which
evolved in Yucatan. These processes and structures are
recognizable through comparative study from other primitive
civilizations. There is no need to hypothesize bizarre and
convoluted— particularistic— sequences of events to explain
the anthropological and historical uniqueness of this great
archaeological site.
Thus, I will attempt to outline the central processes
which I infer to be those which formed and shaped the ruins
of Chichen Itza as we can know them today. I will not try to
report or even summarize all the data I have collected over
the years, although I will draw on them heavily. I hope to
lay out sufficient facts to support my own interpretation of
these ruins, presenting a new and reasonable, historical and
social reconstruction.
In Part One, I present my perspective on the overarching
issues which dominate any discussion of Chichen Itza.
Chapter One reviews the problems of identifying ethnic groups
in the archaeological and documentary records of Yucatan.
Chapter Two discusses patterns of social organization and
introduces the three structural theories 5 on which I rest my
5 (1) Divine Kingship, following J.G. Frazer, (2) the
dualism and quadripartism of archaic kingship, following A.M.
Hocart, (3) the tripartite aspects or functions of
sovereignty, following Georges Dumezil.
Sahlins (1985) and Feely-Harnik (1985) have presented
syntheses based on the work of all three of these great
scholars. All too many Americans see structuralism rather
xliv

analysis of the political organization of the site. Chapter
Three philologically examines the original Maya and Spanish
texts and words which underlie all interpretations of Pre-
Hispanic Yucatecan history and social structure. The last
chapter in Part One considers the iconographic evidence, in
sculpture and painting, for the theories of organization
propounded here as well.
I must emphasize that, whereas my early papers focused
almost exclusively on chronology (e.g. Lincoln 1982, 1982a,
1983, 1986), I now consider the question of "overlap" essen
tially settled in favor of something like "total overlap" as
originally defined by Joseph W. Ball (1979). I would add
only that there is a closer relationship between Chichen Itza
and Mayapan— and a more even transition, than even my own
version of the "total overlap" model initially contemplated.
Having resolved the threshold question, of gross, overall
relative chronology, this thesis seeks to address questions
of fine-timed construction and occupation sequence, archi-
ectural typology, and social functions and dynamics.
Before concluding this introduction, I wish to note
optimistically that the views presented in this thesis may
belong to a growing trend in Mssoamerican studies. My
evidence in support of this optimism is based on Susan
Gillespie's new book, The Aztec Kings (1989). I was not able
simplistically, and thus fail to recognize its relevance to
archaeology— e.g. "Structuralism . . . is the set of ideas
put forward by Levi-Strauss (Leone 1982: 742)."
xlv

to use comparisons from this study of Nahuatl political and
mythological hermeneutics nearly as much as I would have
liked, simply because limitations of time and space prevented
me from exploring the Aztec parallels to my model extensive
ly. Gillespie's approach, and even her substantive results,
are strikingly similar to those found— especially in Chapter
3— in this dissertation— albeit they rest on a totally
different data base. Gillespie's work confirms to me the
basic unity of Mesoamerican religious thought and tradition,
and re-affirms the validity of the comparisons I have been
able to make between Aztec and Maya myth and society.
xlvi

III. THE CHICHEN ITZA PROJECT
In Part Two I will turn to a review of the specific data
from my own and earlier projects relevant to all of these
issues. The problems and some of the proposed solutions
presented in Part One emerged during the course of more
technical studies aimed at the descriptive study of ceramics,
architecture, and settlement pattern interpretation during
our four field seasons at Chichen Itza:
Julv-August, 1982
March 21, 1983-February 5, I9846
June 10-0ctober 5, 1985
August-September, 1986
The first and the last seasons were brief; the middle two
were both long and intensive.
Part of any responsible scholarly endeavor which has as
its background a long tradition of research is to identify
and distinguish those myths which may develop from time-to-
time within the academic community itself. For myths arise
in the sphere of academic interpretation as well as in the
primary sources which scholars seek to interpret. Many of
our most cherished and complex myths, in Mesoamerican
archaeology, concern Chichen Itza and the Toltec. These
derivative myths, of academic origin and nurture, have their
6 National Geographic support for the project was
granted in October 1983. Institutional support for our work
at Chichen Itza before that time came strictly from the Owens
and Bowditch Funds at Harvard University, courtesy of Dr.
Gordon R. Willey (see acknowledgements).
xlvii

foundations in outmoded ideologies of racial and ethnic
cultural determinism. It was to separate the mist from the
water and the land that I undertook the Chichen Itza project,
some of the results of which, and all of the conclusions from
which, follow in the next chapters.
xlviii

1
CHAPTER ONE:
PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNICITY
I. ETHNICITY VS. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
During the nineteenth century, anthropologists often
equated race and culture. They sustained an explicit
hypothesis that human physical characteristics could be
described in "typical" sets for any given population, then
consistently associated with corresponding sets of behavioral
norms and material or inventories technological or symbolic
artifacts. In the early twentieth century, researchers
modified this hypothesis to equate not race but "ethnicity"
with culture. But except for the lingering racial overtones
of ethnicity, to say that ethnicity determines culture is
something of a tautology, because scholars define ethnicity
in terms of cultural characteristics: language, norms, and
patterns of behavior. A consequence and corollary of the
equation of either race or ethnicity and culture was that
differing patterns or styles of cultural objects were held to
indicate the presence of distinct biological populations.
In archaeology, the equation of ethnicity and material
culture led to the identification of specific sets or assem
blages of prehistoric artifacts with extinct societies. As
illustrated by the controversy over the Mousterian facies

(cf. Binford 1983; 65-73, 131-153), archaeologists have on
occasion concluded that even differing percentages of arti
fact types can indicate the presence of distinct ethnic
groups. Archaeologists in turn often saw correspondences
between ethnic groups (represented by their artifacts) and
discrete strata or sectors of sites. The replacement of one
assemblage by another was (and often still is) regarded as
strong evidence for the advent of new biological populations.
The movement away from seeing ethnicity and chronology
as the primary generators of variation in the archaeological
record has led scholars to seek functional causes and
patterned or structured purposes for the different modes of
expression, types of utilitarian objects, and even the plans
or layouts of religious buildings and icons. The debate
between explanation based on chronology and ethnicity, on the
one hand, and pattern or structure and function on the other
is the intellectual ferment which inspired the writing of
this thesis 1.
1 I do not pretend that I have or could here review
the vast literature on the recognition of ethnicity in
archaeological contexts which has appeared in the past twenty
years. In a general way, my arguments for the social and
functional analysis of the three or four variant architec
tural types at Chichen Itza should be compared to Binford's
arguments (cf. 1983) regarding the four facies of the
Mousterian. At the same time, Tozzer's ideas concerning
revolving ethnic domination in Yucatan were strikingly like
Bordes' view that Middle Palaeolithic cave deposits in France
reflected sequential occupations by distinct Neanderthal
11tribes".

With reference to the ruins of Chichen Itza in Yucatan,
Alfred M. Tozzer (1957) best enunciated the theory that
ethnicity caused and shaped the most notable differences
between the documented architectural and ceramic types,
iconographic compositions, and artistic styles found at this
greatest of the northern Maya archaeological sites. Tozzer
also believed that even minute differences in modes of
portrayal, or of position within an overall composition,
could indicate a change in ethnic dominance at the site. He
thus proposed that power swung back and forth from Maya to
Toltec and back in several cycles (cf. esp. 1957: 180-183).
Tozzer's view of ethnicity had a distinct racial element
2— the belief that one can distinguish Maya from Mexican
physical types, especially in facial features, and that these
correlate with costume and roles performed in the scenes of
sculpture and painting 3. Tozzer likewise believed that Pure
2 J. Graham (1973: 213-217) echoed the equation of
race with cultural ethnicity in regard to the "Non-Classic
[Maya] Facies A" and "Non-Classic [non-Maya] Facies B" people
at Seibal in the Pasion drainage. Sabloff likewise correlat
ed Terminal Classic culture change with ethnic (=racial)
replacement when he wrote of "non-Classic Maya facial
features and facial expressions" as indicative of "the influx
of non-Classic Maya in the southern Lowlands" (1973: 126).
Of course, the theory of non-Classic Maya invasion of the
Usumacinta region is linked substantively and conceptually to
the idea of the Toltec invasion of Yucatan (id.).
3 Tozzer makes no inquiry concerning the probable
consciousness of native artists in representing distinct eth
nic groups. The differences in facial features which Tozzer
takes as indicative of racial or ethnic identity are subtle
and often combined in less than obvious or consistent ways
with costume or artifact styles. Nonetheless, Tozzer's hypo
thesis (or Sabloff's and Graham's for that matter), works

Maya buildings and artworks could be distinguished from true
Toltec, Maya-Toltec and Itza construction, pottery, and
sculpture.
George W. Brainerd, who followed Tozzer's interpretation
of Chichen Itza very closely, defined a later Mexican stage
as the successor of earlier Maya stages in his Yucatecan
sequence (1958: 94-95). Brainerd also saw archaeological
evidence of the Maya-Toltec "mix" in his ceramic analysis
(id.: 65) though he did not see the Itza as a distinct ethnic
group. Brainerd related some of Tozze.r's Itza traits to his
"Black-on-Cream" (chronologically transitional) phase (1958:
37-38, 57; cf. Tozzer 1957: 41). Brainerd, perhaps even more
than Tozzer, perpetuated the equation of ethnic replacements
in time and space with the evolutionary stages and substages
which he perceived in his analysis of northern Maya cultural
stratigraphy.
Later scholars have moved away, step-by-step, from this
outlook. Where the most profound divide in Brainerd's
Yucatecan ceramic sequence split his last "pure Maya" phase—
the Florescent— from the next, the "Early Mexican Substage",
Andrews IV (1965, 1973) proposed a regional sequence nomen
clature which made no reference to ethnicity. Andrews IV in
only if we assume that the Yucatec sculptors at Chichen Itza,
in essence, carved portraits of historical events from life.
A degree of historical accuracy and awareness is
presumed which approximates Howard Chandler Christy's
portrait "Scene at the Signing of the U.S. Constitution" more
than the incised murals of Ramesses Ill's Battle of Kadesh or
even the Bayeux Tapestry.

particular noted continuity between the architecture of the
Puuc cities and Chichen Itza by categorizing the former as
"Pure Florescent" and the latter as "Modified Florescent".
Andrews IV nonetheless continued to assume that the intro
duction of a new style and new elements at Chichen reflected
new ethnic strains in the population (e.g. 1965: 313-319;
1973: 254-255). R.E. Smith proposed a ceramic sequence which
was essentially neutral and indeed made no reference whatever
to ethnic replacement whatsoever (1971: 192). Still, with
regard to culture history Smith recited that--as dogma held—
"in the late twelfth century the Toltecs apparently took over
(id.: 253)"4.
Thus, the view that ethnicity, and the conflict between
ethnic groups was a, if not the, determinative factor in
Mesoamerican history remains alive and well. Most recently,
with the popularity of the Putun hypothesis, population
movements are said to involve mostly Maya speaking peoples,
4 Smith might have favored a non-invasion model of
the history of Chichen Itza had he felt it was academically
(or sociallyJ ) acceptable to do so:
Where many of the new traits found in the
Sotuta Ceramic Complex came from, other than those
possibly derived from the fine-orange Silho Group,
acquired in trade, is hard to say. It is quite
possible that they are normal, natural changes
uninfluenced by the Toltec people. At least I
cannot trace any definite connections with Tula
ceramics, except for shallow flat-based dishes with
rounded sides (1971: 192).
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

from one part of the lowlands to another 5. Of recent
scholars, Fox adheres most closely to the traditional argu
ment that ethnicity governs all other aspects of culture,
including socio-political and ideological beliefs and insti
tutions (see below). Clemency Coggins (1987, 1988), Linnea
Wren (1986ms.), Peter Schmidt (1981) and Patrick Culbert
(1988) have expressed different views, retaining in their
writings a distinct emphasis on the Mexican origin of the
Chichen Itza phenomenon.
I take the most radical position: that all the traits
attributed to distinct and successive ethnic groups are in
fact contemporaneous, as well as functionally allied and
complementary, during the Terminal Classic Period of A.D. 800
and after (Lincoln 1983, 1986, 1987). I believe that "Maya"
and "Toltec" at Chichen Itza are complete misnomers. For
me, the two "styles" do not reflect a mixture of two
contemporaneous, distinct ethnic groups living side by side;
in fact, the two "styles" are aspects of the same one— with
5 The list of those who have come to favor the model
of a "Yucatan-to-the-south movement" of ideas and populations
during the southern Lowland Terminal Classic has grown
extremely long (e.g.: Thompson 1970; Andrews IV 1973: 245;
Graham 1973: 207-211; Sabloff 1973: 125-129; Ball 1979; Chase
& Chase 1982; Robles & Andrews 1985; Fox 1987, 1989).
Yet it does not really matter whether one argues that
people moved a shorter or further distance within a region or
between regions separated by a thousand kilometers. The
basic assumption in either case is that an "ethnic" explana
tion of cultural change and variation is more probable than a
hypothesis which posits that social functions may have
changed and even diversified through dialectic evolution.
The point is that too many scholars continue to avoid in situ
or local causes and explanations for cultural development.

distinct icons reflecting functional social divisions within
a whole, single, polity. It is only archaeologists, and not
the archaeological data, which have created the division
within Chichen.
Tozzer always argued that there were indeed Maya living
at Chichen Itza during the period of Toltec domination. The
title of his (1957) book emphasizes "a study of contemporane
ous Maya and Toltec." Thus, it represents only very
gradually increasing consensus, for example, that Wren and
Schmidt have recently stated:
The Great Ball Court stone is the only Maya
inscription known from the North Terrace at Chichen
Itza. It demonstrates that Maya hieroglyphic writ
ing similar to that found on Pure Florescent, or
"Chichen-Maya," structures was used simultaneously
with pictographic name lyphs such as those found
on "Chichen-Toltec" structures. Furthermore, it
suggests that the construction of buildings in two
styles once considered chronologically discrete may
have been contemporaneous (Wren et al. 1989: 27).
Contemporaneity can now be considered all but a totally
settled issue. Most of the buildings at Chichen Itza were
constructed within the same archaeologically defined period
(see Lincoln 1982, 1933, 1986 and Chapter Five). Moreover,
the archaeological record at Chichen Itza yields no evidence
of population movements even between one part of Yucatan and
another. The site must be understood as an in-place develop
ment in which foreign trade, but not foreigners in signi
ficant numbers, played a role. Only a theory which analyzes
the functional interrelationship of structures, both

architectural and social, can hope to explain the Chichen
Itza phenomenon.
II. THE MEXICANS OR NAHUA AND PUTUN
Another recurring idea or perhaps "prejudice" in Meso-
american studies is that the nuclear ferment of this civili
zation has always taken place in the near vicinity of modern
Mexico City (Teotihuacan, Tula, Tenochtitlan) and that change
was regularly exported in various ways from that center to
the peripheries, particularly to the Maya Lowlands, but also
to other regions of Mexico. A corollary of the Mexico-
centrism is the belief, alluded to above, in Maya and Mexican
"racial" or physicallydistinctive types. We must, then,
review here the definitions of the more common terms
pronounced as decisive to an understanding of ancient Mexico.
Of course, I limit consideration here to concepts of
ethnicity directly related to Chichen Itza 6.
The theories proposed to account for the similarities
discerned in the material culture of Highland and Lowland
Mesoamerica fall into roughly two categories: diffusion &
invasion vs. parallel co-evolution from a common source. By
6 A polemic which almost exactly parallels that
expounded in this thesis exists among scholars concerned with
Highland Guatemala, where Robert M. Carmack (1968, 1973) has
taken a position parallel with and related to that of Tozzer
and Thompson, while Kenneth L. Brown has taken an opposite
view, emphasizing the indigenous origins of Postclassic
Guatemalan material culture and political myth (e.g. Brown
1985: 270-281).

"co-evolution" I simply mean that (1) the various regions of
Mesoamerica never existed in complete isolation from one
another, (2) they always recognized their common heritage and
shared level of cultural complexity, and (3) thus exchanged
ideas and so prevented regional cultures from developing
radically different cultural, political, or religious ideas.
While I favor parallel co-evolution, the preponderance of the
great twentieth century scholars followed the general
diffusion & invasion line of thinking incliaing Seler (1909),
Morley (1913), Tozzer (1930, 1941, 1957), Thompson (1945,
1970), Ruz L. (1964), Roys (1966), Sabloff & Willey (1967),
Fox (1987, 1989).
The invasion theories underline important recurring
themes in Hasoamerican cultural geography. The cultural
relationships perceived always link Chichen Itza to the
Highlands of Mexico, sometimes to the Basin of Mexico itself,
sometimes to Oaxaca or Tlaxcala or the Mixteca-Puebla region
in between. Starting in the 1940s, research began to suggest
that the southwestern base of the Yucatan Peninsula,
especially the coast of the Bahia de Campeche from around the
Candelaria River (which empties into the Laguna de los
Terminos) to the mouth of the Usumacinta-Grijalva-San Pedro
Rivers, played a particularly crucial role in linking Chichen
Itza with the highlands (e.g. Scholes and Adams 1948). To
the west, and along the coast, similarities and historical

ties are also seen along in the Chontalpa of Tabasco and
southern Veracruz.
As Tatiana Proskouriakoff wrote, however:
It is not always clear . . . what is meant by the
word "Maya" in reference to culture in pre-Columbi
an times. Individual cultural traits of the Maya
can sometimes be traced back to considerable
antiquity, but they cannot be used to draw the
cultural frontiers of the past, because they do not
correspond to the distinguishing features of
archaeological remains. ... an investigator would
do well to state as clearly as he can what he means
by the word in relation to his material (1950: 1).
Thus we may attempt, before proceeding, to define our
basic terms. That is, what constitutes "Mexican" and what
constitutes "Maya?" Is there a "territorial edge" between
these groups within which a culture of the "frontier would
manifest a unique cultural constellation that combines
traditions from its opposite sides (e.g. Fox 1987: 6-7)?" I,
and I think most Mesoamericanists, would answer "no."
The term "Mexican" is very precise, but the meaning of
this word in Kesoamerican archaeology is deliberately im
precise. "Mexican" as applied to prehistoric horizons cannot
be more than a construct 7. We only know with certainty what
name(s) the Mexica and a few of their prominent contempora
ries gave themselves. When referring to the pre-Aztec
cultural horizons of Highland Mexico, we must try to match
Nahuatl or other indigenous names with archaeologically
7 Clemency Coggins recognizes this problem, writing
of her own work: "/Mexican/ is used here, anachronistically,
to designate inhabitants of Central Mexico (1987: 483,n.2)."

identified complexes {see, e.g. Justeson et al. 1985). As
ordinarily used, "Mexican” refers precisely neither to a
specific set of archaeological nor linguistic data.
The Aztec culture shows profound stylistic and ideo
logical (i.e. iconographical) disjunctions from Teotihuacan,
and probably from most previously existing cultural groups of
the altiplano as well, as can be documented with regard to
ceramics, sculpture, and architecture. Considerable debate
surrounds this question of continuity— material and linguis
tic, or cultural and ethnic— between the Classic cultures of
Teotihuacan and contemporaries and that of the Postclassic
Aztec, but scholarship concerning all three lines of evidence
tends at present to support the idea of cultural discontinu
ity (cf. Millon 1988). In any event, Teotihuacan culture did
not extend as a monolithic unit from the Basin of Mexico to
Tabasco, and thus there was no Classic period "Mexican/Maya"
cultural frontier.
If, by Mexican, we mean the heirs of Teotihuacan, we are
referring to no one in particular and everyone in general,
but certainly no one culture or archaeological horizon which
dominated all or most of the Highlands at any one time. The
ancestors of the Nahuatl speakers of Tenochtitlan likely
became the dominant ethnic group of Highland Mexico after
Teotihuacan vanished as a major population center, but we do
not yet know exactly when or how this came about.

The inhabitants of the archaeological site at Tula,
Hidalgo left an archaeological culture which branches off
from the main trends of evolution in the Basin of Mexico. We
possess neither direct nor clear and convincing circumstan
tial evidence for their language or otherwise defined ethnic
ity. If, by Mexican, we mean the builders of Tula, then we
refer to a group with extremely limited geographical distri
bution, taking the Tollan Phase (Cobean 1978; Diehl 1981,
1983) as our guide to their sphere of influence. The
"Toltec" of Tula did not extend their influence on the
material culture of Mexico up to the border of Maya terri
tory, even if one insists on arguing that their ideological
culture penetrated far beyond that boundary.
If, by Mexican, we mean Mexica (the name the Aztec gave
themselves), then we are on solid ground, but we cannot refer
to a political boundary between the Mexica and the Maya until
after A.D. 1500, when Aztec expansion had begun to put
pressure on the southern Veracruz and Tabasco regions, with
hints of plans to ultimately absorb Yucatan (F. Robles, pers.
comm. 1987). On the other hand, it is not certain whether a
cultural frontier can be discerned in the archaeological
remains of this period, but no one, as far as I am aware, has
tried.
Although the Maya area may be described, at least by
contrast with "Mexico," as culturally and ethnically homo
geneous, the Maya area has no archaeologically identifiable

out-5

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to out-5

Similar to out-5 (15)

More from Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV, DDC

More from Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV, DDC (20)

out-5