This paper has focused on Sotuta ceramics, the settlement patterns of Chichen Itza, and the contemporaneity of this site and its northern neighbors during the Late Classic and Terminal Classic periods. Chronological as well as spatial considerations of each one of these three aspects confirm that Chichen Itza arose as an important site at the end of the Classic period, and this process seems to have occurred in a period of approximately three centuries.
The data corroborate that Sotuta ceramics originated and were widely used in central and north-central Yucatan. Two interesting aspects of the data on Sotuta ceramics show that they were already in usage during the eighth century a. d., and in the particular case of Chichen Itza, they do not seem to have replaced the Cehpech ceramics of the site. Unlike the ceramic evidence of Isla Cerritos and Yula, whose Cehpech materials were replaced by Sotuta ceramics, the first important occupation of Chichen Itza associates with the Monjas Complex, and the ceramic forms and types date this occupation between a. d. 750/800 and 900.
The virtual absence of Cehpech ceramics in Chichen Itza, and the appearance and usage of the Sotuta materials in the site since the eighth century a. d., suggest that Chichen Itza was not occupied before a. d. 700. This settlement probably housed individuals that migrated from the Izamal region located to the north/northwest of Chichen Itza. These individuals brought with them their own pottery, which included the Dzitas and Sisal ceramic groups.
Sotuta ceramics can be associated with the early (the Monjas Complex) and late (Great Terrace) phases of occupation at Chichen Itza. Besides pottery, architecture and the internal arrangement of Chichen Itza corroborate that the settlement was organized around two different cores at the end of the Classic period. First, the center of the site was located in the Monjas Complex and, later on, in the Great Terrace with its enormous volume of construction and monumental architecture. The existence of two different chronological site cores at Chichen Itza seems to have been very similar to Coba, whose main occupations were centered at two distinct architectural complexes, the Coba and Nohoch Mul Groups.
The data also show that the interaction between Chichen Itza and other northern Yucatan settlements changed through time. Considering the different transformations that several regional capitals such as Chichen Itza underwent, the fact that they neither evolved at the same pace nor at the same time is confirmed. Therefore, the chronology of Chichen Itza has changed how it is perceived, from an isolated site to a settlement contemporaneous to other major regional capitals of northern Yucatan. Past and present interpretations of Chichen Itza mirror the way in which data have been examined over the last two decades. For instance, the linear succession model was favored in the past. Now, we know of at least two ways in which Cehpech and Sotuta ceramics overlapped; Cehpech ceramics were thought to represent one single component and now we acknowledge at least two regional spheres.
To conclude, the achievements made in ceramic studies over the last twenty years are contributing significantly to a better understanding of the events that took place in northern Yucatan during the Late Classic and Terminal Classic periods. In other words, the cultural-historical reconstruction of the northern Maya lowlands is more complicated than previously thought, especially when ceramics dating between a. d. 700/750 and 1050/1100 are considered. Therefore, as new settlements and ceramics are investigated, and as long as we continue reanalyzing old ceramic type collections, our view of the northern Maya lowlands will become more complex. If this is the case, we still have a long way to go in understanding the transformations, transitions, and collapse of the Classic Maya in the archaeology of northern Yucatan.
World History
