Violence and termination also characterize the transition from a Puuc/Cehpech-influenced Yaxuna IVa to the Chichen/Sotuta-dominated Yaxuna IVb. We believe forces allied with or from Chichen Itza conquered Yaxuna sometime ca. 900, perhaps making Yaxuna one of the first casualties of the developing Itza empire. For at least the later part of the Terminal Classic period, Yaxuna’s people had been living with the presence of war and were engaged in activities to protect and defend the territory claimed by the local and/or distant lords of the city. Eventually, their sphere of power imploded and forced them to fortify areas of the site itself.
Defensive Works
We have identified defensive works dating to the end of Yaxuna IVa. At least a portion of the Yaxuna population enclosed themselves within the North Acropolis and the satellite site of Xkanha, located 1.75 kilometers north. We have also noted analogous surface features at the East Acropolis, located just south of the last one-half kilometer of the Yaxuna-Coba sacbe. Thus it is entirely possible that at the end of the Yaxuna IVa period occupation consisted of fortified acropoli, each defending itself against attacking forces.
The North Acropolis pyramids and superstructures were arranged on a raised platform roughly 100 by 100 meters and some eight meters high at the highest point. It was ringed in antiquity on the summit by 330 meters of crudely constructed walls and palisade foundation braces (Figure 20.10 [Ambrosino et al. 2001]). When existing structures and the established edge of the platform are included, the total defensive circumference can be calculated at 465 meters. The walls vary in thickness from.60 to three meters and are rarely over a meter tall; they are most likely the basal remains of a wooden or thorny palisade, such as proposed for the Petexbatun region (Demarest et al. 1997) and as known in the ethnohistorical literature on the Maya (Pagden 1971). In several places the walls run over earlier structures, as in the case of Structure 6F-88 on the southern perimeter of the North Acropolis wall system. This was a small, rectangular platform exhibiting the same type of Puuc veneer stone as seen at Structure 6F-68 and had been dismantled to facilitate placement of the wall, its stones built into the wall. This association dates the wall to the end of Yaxuna IVa. When combined with platform edge placement at the top of a steep slope two to four meters above the surrounding ground surface, a one-meter-high stone wall augmented with wooden palisades would present a formidable obstacle.
Although apparently built in haste (Ambrosino et al. 2001), the wall system nonetheless demonstrates application of a defensive theory and strategy. Access into the North Acropolis was controlled through four entranceways. In some cases the entrances are associated with small guard stations, low platforms of rough rock that could have served to support pole scaffolds and platforms as portrayed in Maya mural art and graffiti. This would have served to elevate and extend line of sight from each post. In other locations the entrances are baffled and thus further restricted. The plaza on the North Acropolis was partitioned by a number of internal walls, further augmenting the defensive measures provided by the perimeter walls. This partitioning of space on the acropolis allowed for separate defense of individual enclosed areas and provided the defenders with pull-back zones if the invaders were to breach the outer barriers in large numbers.
World History
