In an earlier paper, we noted buried destruction episodes at Chichen Itza. especially in the Temple of the Chac Mool (Suhler and Freidel 1995). We think this may have been related to a period of internal realignment at the site, with a portion of the population departing for unknown places, perhaps also suggested in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel, where there are references to unrest at Chichen Itza and new government (Roys 1967: 75-78). If we are correct, this episode of internal strife solved the Itzas’ complexities of cultural integration under the principles of multepal. As we have already noted (Suhler and Freidel 1995), the eventual return of these exiles’ descendants had grave consequences for Chichen Itza.
Itza territory at this time was marked on the northwest by the trading port of Isla Cerritos, extending along the coast for ca. sixty kilometers to the east (Gallareta and Andrews 1988; Andrews et al. 1988; Kepecs et al. 1994). On the eastern interior, the boundary seems to have been in the vicinity of Ichmul de Morley (Smith et al. 1998), while the western boundary was probably somewhere east of Izamal (a somewhat tenuous proposition, given that data from this area are somewhat scanty). The initial southern Itza boundary was some unknown distance to the north of Yaxuna, perhaps somewhere near the modem village of Popola, ten kilometers away (Krochock 1990). With their internal social integration complete and their core polity secure, the Itza set forth on the road to conquest and empire.
We think Yaxuna was probably one of the first sites to fall and that the Chilam Balam of Chumayel chronicled this event in the context of a Yaxuna-Chichen Itza standoff (Roys 1933: 72-75). Strategically, such a move would have closed off Coba’s access to the center of the peninsula, isolating them on the eastern edge of the peninsula. Archaeologically, we base our argument on ceramic data;
Yaxuna has no presence of the Piza complex, identified by Robles (1990) as Sotuta materials at Coba and dated to a. d. 1100-1200. Its presence in what we consider specialized proveniences at Coba (deposited with Stela B-1 and below the floor of Structure I’s temple [Robles 1990: 239]—both in apparently dedicatory deposits) leads us to identify Piza as a dedicatory complex, marking Itza presence (perhaps conquest) at Coba. Piza complex materials’ absence at Yaxuna informs us that Yaxuna fell prior to Coba, and as the following paragraph explains, also before the fall of the peninsula’s western cities.
With the potential Coba invasion route down the sacbe sealed by the conquest of Yaxuna, the Itza were free to concentrate on the western polities. As Stanton (1999) points out, Uxmal also seems to have fallen victim to Chichen Itza at the beginning of the tenth century. The Itza may have placed Lord Chak on the Uxmal throne and also absorbed Kabah into their hegemony. At Dzibilchaltun, the Zipche 1 ceramic complex containing Sotuta-phase deposits bracketed by earlier Cehpech and later Hocaba-Tases complexes has been identified (Bey et al. 1997: 116). In studying the Dzibilchaltun material, we have noted several features that bear some resemblance to the types of destruction features we have identified at Yaxuna and other sites. These include Structures 95, 95A, and 96 (all of which contained “floor middens’’—subtext in many cases for termination deposits [Andrews IV and Andrews V 1980: 207-232]) dating to the end of Copo. In this case they would have been terminated by Zipche 1 materials and would fit with our model of Itza peninsular conquest.
Once the western portion of the peninsula was under Itza rule, we think they turned their attention toward Coba. Ironically, here they may have used Coba’s own sacbe against them, using it as an assault avenue to quickly move troops and supplies east. During his survey. Villa Rojas (1934) noted earthen ramparts constructed across the sacbe, perhaps constructed by the forces of Yaxuna as they retreated east early in this period or by the forces of Coba as they attempted to stem the advancing Itza tide at the end of this period.
We agree with Stanton (1999) that prior to their actual occupation and/or conquest of Coba, the Itza had already surrounded and pressed upon the polity from the north, west, and probably south, while committing an end run in the trade war with their occupation of Cozumel. This provided them with a Caribbean base of operations. With the west under their control and access to east coast markets gained, Chichen Itza was now free to absorb or conquer the last impediment on the peninsula: the Coba polity. As noted above, we believe the Sotuta-Piza complex marks the Itza presence at, if not conquest and occupation of, Coba ca. a. d. 1100.
We think the consolidation of empire on the peninsula was commemorated by many of the Gran Nivelacion construction projects at Chichen Itza, including the Great Ballcourt, construction of El Castillo over the Sub-Castillo, as well as renovations to the Caracol, to name but a few (Suhler and Freidel 1995). The rows of individual Maya supporting the roof of the Court of a Thousand Columns vividly demonstrate the primacy of a new form of government on the peninsula. Nonetheless, as Freidel et al. (1993: 383-385) demonstrate, even the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza portrays an essential Mayaness.
World History
