A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE TERMINAL CLASSIC PUUC REGION
Kelli Carmean, Nicholas Dunning, and Jeff Karl Kowalski
Ere we present our current understanding of Puuc archaeology as part of a broader effort to assemble comparative regional material for the Terminal Classic Maya lowlands. In working toward this goal, we first review recent archaeological projects in the Puuc region, presenting a summary of new architectural, ceramic, settlement pattern, iconographic, and epigraphic evidence and interpretations, emphasizing the Terminal Classic period. This summary is meant to present a sample of recent work, rather than an exhaustive review. We then present our vision of the sociopolitical dynamics of the Puuc polities during the Terminal Classic. Finally, we close this chapter by identifying future directions in which fruitful new work in Puuc archaeology could be directed.
We define the Terminal Classic as that period between a. d. 770 and 950 (see Pollock 1980 for traditional Terminal Classic dates of a. d. 800 to 1000). These were high times in the hill country of Yucatan and Campeche: the major Puuc cities were at their height, their inhabitants constructing architecture in Classic Puuc styles (see Pollock [1980] and Andrews [1995] for discussion of the evolution of Puuc architectural styles) and making and using western Cehpech ceramics. This ceramic tradition stretches back at least into the Late Classic period in association with Early Puuc-style architecture, with some Cehpech ceramics extending even earlier in association with Proto-Puuc and Early Oxkintok architecture (Boucher 1990; Rivera Dorado 1996; Smyth 1998)—a situation that has been a chronological headache for archaeologists working in the northern low-
Lands. Bey et al. (1997) have suggested a terminological revision for the Epiclassic northern lowlands, naming it the Late Classic, with dates of a. d. 600 to 925. Although we acknowledge the reasoning behind Bey et al.’s argument, we prefer to revise the calendrical dates and retain the Terminal Classic nomenclature so that Puuc chronology remains terminologically comparable with the rest of the Maya lowlands. Furthermore, we point out the obvious correlation between such Terminal Classic hallmarks as the Seibal stelae in the southern lowlands and the eastern Puuc florescence. It is also clear that the appearance of Sotuta-related materials in the Puuc marks a notable regional decline and a significant break with the Terminal Classic Puuc florescence.
The rulers of the Terminal Classic Puuc cities were clearly utilizing southern lowland Classic Maya concepts of kingship, as well as experimenting with variations of shared rulership and integrating “Mexican” elements into their sculpture and architecture (Kowalski 1987; Grube 1994b; Kowalski and Dunning 1999). This blending suggests significant external cultural contacts overlying a basic Maya origin and heritage, mixed with local innovations. Within this varied cultural framework, the Puuc rulers and nobility were able to establish small-scale states that held dominion first over their own hill region and eventually possibly expanding out into limited areas of the northern peninsula. Faced with environmental challenges from an increasingly overpopulated homeland, and military challenges due to the increasing stature of Chichen Itza, many Puuc centers appear to have largely ceased monumental construction by around a. d. 950, with abandonment following either rapidly or slowly thereafter. However, a few Puuc centers were not abandoned in the Terminal Classic and continued to be occupied and construct monumental architecture into the Postclassic.
World History
