As previously mentioned, during the late phase of the Sotuta ceramic complex (a. d. 900-1050), Chichen Itza became a powerful regional capital in central Yucatan. The site controlled small settlements located at its periphery, secured an area between the north coast and central Yucatan (Andrews et al. 1989), established and controlled its own trade port in the northern coast (Andrews et al. 1988; Braswell 1997b; Gallareta et al. 1989), and expanded its realm along the eastern and western coasts of the Yucatan peninsula (Andrews and Robles 1985; Robles and Andrews 1986).
After A. D. 900 the Great Terrace and associated buildings functioned as the site center of Chichen Itza. Several groups whose architectural pattern included a temple, altar, and gallery-patio were built surrounding the site center, and a concentric array characterized the internal structure of Chichen Itza. Lincoln (1990: 578) used his survey data and personal field observations to acknowledge a “rough concentricity and infer a logical structure to the site plan” at Chichen Itza. In fact, Lincoln recognized the Great Terrace as the site center, whereas the Initial Series Group, the Temples of the Three and Four Lintels, Platform Ho’Che, and the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs were located at the site periphery. These groups exhibit neither massive architecture nor large monumental constructions that surpass or equal the architecture at the Great Terrace.
According to Kurjack (1974: 81), in the concentric pattern more substantial and larger architecture “seems to have been surrounded by less substantial construction.” For instance, at Dzibilchaltun the concentric pattern is evident in the central group, the central aggregate, and the periphery. Most of the large and more substantial architecture is concentrated in the central group, which is 600 meters in diameter; the central aggregate is three square kilometers in area, and vaulted buildings as well as causeways are found in this area. Beyond the central aggregate, few vaulted buildings exist and they are “scattered in an almost random manner” (Kurjack 1974: 86, see also 89, 91-94; Andrews V 1981: 328330). Other Maya sites organized in a concentric pattern include Coba (Benavides 1981a: 190-197; Gallareta 1984: 114-119), Calakmul (Fletcher and Gann 1994: 87-116), and Caracol (Chase 1998).
My personal field observations and survey data collected at Chichen Itza support Kurjack’s definition as well as Lincoln’s inference regarding a concentric structure in the ancient community of Chichen Itza. This concentric structure is highly apparent when the site center and periphery are considered. In fact, the Great Terrace concentrates large and more substantial architecture, including architectural groups with vaulted buildings, while lesser architectural groups with fewer vaulted buildings have a more spaced geographical distribution at the periphery.
The best examples of large, substantial architecture at Chichen Itza are found in the buildings standing on the Great Terrace, several of which seem to be larger versions of buildings with prototypes just to the south. For instance, El Castillo (2D5) and the Venus Platform (2D4) find their precedent in Structures 3C1 (the High Priest’s Grave) and 3C3 (Venus Platform) of the Osario Group (Fernandez 1996, 1999; Grube 1994: 345, Note 7; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 356; cf. Coggins 1983: 57). El Mercado finds its precedent in Structures 5B17 and 5B19 of the Southwest Group, 5C11 of the Initial Series Group, and Structure 6E3, or Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs (Krochock 1997; also Ruppert 1943, 1950). The Great Ballcourt and its iconography can be related to the Monjas Ballcourt (4C14) and the Casa Colorada Ballcourt (3C10) (Bolles 1977: 73-81,220-229; Krochock and Freidel 1994; Ruppert 1952: 49, Figures 124a, b, c; Tozzer 1957).
Architecture, hieroglyphs, and ceramics substantiate the fact that Chichen Itza, a first-rank settlement, controlled some third-rank centers, such as Tikincacab and Chikche in the north, San Francisco in the east, Dzibiac in the west, Cumtiin in the northwest, and Yula in the south. Ten kilometers is the maximum distance separating these minor sites from the center of Chichen Itza (Anderson 1998; Andrews et al. 1989; Krochock 1988, 1997; Love 1987). The specific function of each of the third-rank settlements surrounding Chichen Itza is unknown; however, some probably functioned as quarries to obtain architectural and sculptural elements that were used at the regional capital (Winemiller 1996). For instance, a megalithic block of limestone was found at Cumtun, a site located six kilometers from Chichen Itza and the place where Causeway 3 ends (Morris et al. 1931: 215-218, Figure 132a, b; Ruppert 1928: 307; Winemiller 1996). Causeway 3 begins on the northwestern comer of the Great Terrace, a few meters to the west of Structure 2D1, or the Great Ballcourt (see Ruppert 1952: Figure 151, where Causeway 3 is shown as “Sacbe 2”).
Yula was another third-rank settlement contemporaneous with Chichen Itza. Excavations conducted at Yula show that 90 percent of the ceramics are Sotuta and the main wares are represented in the ceramic sample recovered by Anderson (1998: Table 1). Cehpech ceramics from Yula account for 10 percent of the sample and the ceramic types are similar to western and eastern Cehpech reported from Chichen Itza (see Anderson 1998: Table 1, and compare with Lincoln 1990: 220 and Smith 1971: 15-30, 134, 162-163). At Chichen Itza, Cehpech sherds represent less than 10 percent by frequency count of the ceramics uncovered at the site center and periphery, and western Cehpech outnumbers eastern Cehpech ceramics.
Results from investigations conducted between Chichen Itza and Isla Cerritos show a majority presence of Sotuta ceramics in that area (Andrews et al. 1989; Kepecs 1998; Kepecs et al. 1994). Dzibiac Red and Silho Orange were found in central and western portions of the Chikinchel area near the Chichen Itza-Isla Cerritos corridor (Kepecs 1998). At the inland sites of Loche and San Fernando, Dzibiac Red and Silho Orange “were collected in small quantities and were limited almost exclusively to central architecture,” whereas at the coastal site of Emal located forty kilometers east of Isla Cerritos, these two ceramic types were found in “over half of the site’s structures” (Kepecs 1998: 127-128).
Sites located in the Cupul area and west of the Chikinchel region probably functioned as way-stations in the transportation of objects (obsidian, turquoise.
Ceramics [Tohil Plumbate]) and natural resources (salt, marine resources) between the northern coast of Yucatan and Chichen Itza (Andrews et al. 1989; Braswell 1997b; Carr 1989; Cobos 1989, 1996, 1998a; Kepecs and Gallareta 1995; Kepecs et al. 1994). Several of those settlements probably became way-stations when Chichen Itza expanded its realm to the north and Isla Cerritos was transformed into a trade port of Chichen Itza. Recalibrated radiocarbon dates associated with stratigraphic and ceramic evidence uncovered at Isla Cerritos show that Sotuta ceramics totally replaced Cehpech ceramics by a. d. 900 (Andrews et al. 1988; Gallareta et al. 1989; Robles 1988).
While Chichen Itza successfully expanded into central and north-central Yucatan and along the coasts of the peninsula, its northern neighbors experienced different transformations, such as: a drastic reduction of the settlement at Dzibilchaltun and Ek’ Balam, a dramatic decrease of Coba’s territory in central and eastern Yucatan, and the apogee of Uxmal in the Puuc region. Ceramics are good evidence of these transformations that affected northwestern, northeastern, central, north-central, and eastern settlements as well as the Puuc region toward the end of the Terminal Classic period. After a. d. 900 the contemporaneity between western and eastern Cehpech and Sotuta varied according to the region. Some areas experienced partial overlap whereas other regions lived a total overlap.
For instance, at Dzibilchaltun, Zipche 1 Phase “is defined partly by ceramics characteristic of the Mexican period at Chichen Itza, such as Chichen Slate, Chichen Red, and Silho Orange” (Andrews V 1981: 334). The presence of Sotuta ceramics at Dzibilchaltun coincides with the use of Hunucma Slate (Puuc Slate), and these ceramics were found in buildings located at the center of Dzibilchaltun, whose construction dates to Copo 2 Phase. However, these buildings were reused by squatters during the Zipche 1 Phase.
The presence of Chichen Slate ware at Ek’ Balam dates to the late phase of the Yumcab ceramic complex and is associated with what appears to be Ek’ Balam architectural style III of the Terminal Classic period (Bey et al. 1998: 114116). Sotuta ceramics at Ek’ Balam account for.1 percent of the sample and it shows that the ceramic component of Ek’ Balam was basically Cehpech. At a regional level, it seems that Chichen Itza Sotuta ceramics and Ek’ Balam western Cehpech ceramics coexisted during the Sotuta early phase. However, sometime during the second half of the Terminal Classic period, the occupation at Ek’ Balam was significantly reduced and Cehpech ceramics continued into Hocaba, which corresponds with the Xtabay ceramic complex of the Postclassic period.
Suhler et al. (1998: 178) attributed the end of Yaxuna and Coba to the military conquest of both sites by Chichen Itza, which occurred during the Yaxuna IVb period (a. d. 950/1000-1100/1200). Previously in this article I argue that the presence of Chichen Itza Sotuta ceramics associated with Cehpech and Pure Flores-cent architecture in Yaxuna predate the Yaxuna IVb period. Moreover, the Yaxuna IVa period is contemporaneous with the early phase of the Sotuta occupation in
Chichen Itza, and I do not believe that the warrior forces of this site were responsible for the military conquest that ended Yaxuna and Coba.
It has already been pointed out that the presence of Chichen Itza in central Yucatan began by the eighth century a. d. However, the territorial expansion of the site, according to the ceramic and architectural evidence of Isla Cerritos, Yula, and Chichen Itza itself, suggests that by the tenth century a. d. Chichen Itza controlled an area with a radius of at least ten kilometers surrounding the settlement, a great portion of the terrain between central Yucatan and the northern coast, and a broad sector of the Yucatan northern coast. The archaeological evidence also suggests that the expansionist action of Chichen Itza focused on securing and consolidating its presence in the central, north-central, and the seacoast of Yucatan instead of revitalizing settlements that had initiated or were suffering a collapse, as was the case of Yaxuna and Coba.
Sometime in the tenth century a. d., Coba suffered a significant reduction in its territory, which extended from central to eastern Yucatan in the previous century. Coba and Yaxuna were contemporaneous between a. d. 800 and 900/950, as the Oro and Yaxund IVa ceramic complexes indicate. After a. d. 900 Coba withdrew from central Yucatan, and this might have left Yaxuna isolated from its former ally. The ties between Yaxuna and Coba were strong and the former depended on the latter. When Coba began its collapse Yaxuna was also affected. Yaxuna and Coba apparently underwent similar processes as Dzibilchaltun and Ek’ Balam, and by the second half of the Terminal Classic period, these two settlements experienced a decrease in population and construction activity and the loss of controlled territories.
The collapse of Coba and Yaxuna was probably happening when Chichen Itza began its territorial expansion, although the internal causes that triggered the collapse of Coba and Yaxuna are unknown. It is quite possible, however, that Chichen Itza might have contributed to accelerate the collapse of these two sites. One of the ways in which Chichen Itza could have indirectly participated in the collapse of Yaxuna and Coba was to neither conquer nor revitalize them. Without the material presence of Chichen Itza at Coba and Yaxuna, the former site did not have to maintain, feed, or control the local populations. If my interpretation of the archaeological record is correct, the lack of Sotuta ceramics in period IVb of Yaxuna and at the end of the Oro ceramic complex of Coba shows that the expansion program of Chichen Itza did not include the territory located to the south and southeast of its southern border.
Cehpech ceramics from Yaxuna and Coba continued into Hocaba Postclassic times. At Yaxuna the Postclassic occupation of the site is supported by the presence of burials, shrines, and Chen Mul Modeled incense burners (see Yaxuna V in Suhler et al. 1998: 179, Figure 14). At Coba the end of the Oro ceramic complex is associated with Sotuta ceramics of the Piza ceramic subcomplex represented by Espita Applique censers and hourglass Cumtun Composite censers (Robles 1990; 239-252). The Sotuta censers were found in an offering to Stela 11 and the offering was deposited at the beginning of Tases Seco ceramic complex, or around A. D. 1100/1200 (Robles 1990: 239).
Along the east coast of the Yucatan peninsula, Coba’s influence decreased in the tenth century a. d. Also tied to the downfall were El Meco (Hocaba-Sotuta ceramic complex; see Robles 1986) and Xelha (Xcacel ceramic complex; see Canche 1992), whose ceramic components were Cehpech (Muna Slate, Vista Alegre Striated, Ticul Thin Slate). Eventually, an intrusion of Sotuta ceramics (Dzitas Slate, Piste Striated, Silho Orange) occurred, and this indicates the territorial expansion of Chichen Itza to eastern Yucatan (Andrews and Robles 1985; Robles and Andrews 1986).
San Gervasio at Cozumel was not controlled by Coba. On the contrary, San Gervasio was an independent center that used its own Cehpech ceramics, including Sombra Coarse and Vista Alegre Striated (see the Ribera ceramic complex in Peraza 1993: 138-243). San Gervasio’s independent status changed when Sotuta ceramics (Piste Striated, Fine Orange, Tohil Plumbate) arrived at the site as a result of Chichen Itza’s expansion that overtook Cozumel (see the Arrecife-Sotuta ceramic complex in Peraza 1993: 244-306).
The rise of Uxmal as a regional capital in the Puuc region either occurred late in the ninth century a. d. or early in the tenth century. According to Kowalski (1998; see also Kowalski et al. 1996; Dunning and Kowalski 1994), if we accept that Uxmal reached its height between a. d. 850 and 950, this peak lasted until the middle of the tenth century a. d. which would place Uxmal as a site partially contemporaneous to Chichen Itza. However, considering the limited amount of research conducted with Uxmal ceramics and their association with architecture, it is still possible that Cehpech and Sotuta totally overlapped at the site. Therefore, it would be plausible to date the end of Uxmal early in the eleventh century.
World History
