RITUAL CAVE USE AND LATE POSTCLASSIC MINIATURE MASONRY SHRINES OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA

Ritual Cave Use and Late Postclassic Miniature Masonry Shrines of the Yucatan Peninsula

Karl James Lorenzen, Ph.D.1

SUMMARY Research completed in 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2001 at the site of El Naranjal 2 in northern Quintana Roo, Mexico, documented 12 Late Postclassic (A.D. 1250 to 1520) miniature masonry shrine complexes associated with the ritual reuse and modification of Early Classic monumental architecture.

Material culture from these shrine/stairway/altar complexes set atop abandoned megalithic platforms at El Naranjal, reveal their use as religious loci for the performance of Postclassic water rites and related rituals. In particular, archaeological data indicates that Structure 21 at El Naranjal, in conjunction with Structure 2 (supporting 2 diminutive shrines), functioned as an important water-shrine complex during the Late Postclassic; linked together by Sakbeh 1, a raised stone-paved road. These data substantially enhance our knowledge of Late Postclassic (A.D. 1250 – 1520) miniature masonry shrines and interestingly, their connection to prominent water sources – a poorly understood and little recognized water-oriented pattern found at sites throughout the Maya region. Furthermore, this investigation underscores the relevance and applicability of ethnohistoric and modern ethnographic accounts in the interpretation of Late Postclassic Maya religion. Together, this information contributes to wider discussions of ancient Maya religious practice, addressing questions regarding the role of miniature masonry shrines in the physical and spiritual manipulation of Postclassic sacred landscapes; the connection of these diminutive structures to centrally placed monumental architecture; and the incorporation of sacred caves, evidenced by speleothems found in Late Postclassic shrine contexts.

1

Assistant Director, URC/CARE Programs, 2109-B Life Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1606.

Email: karll@lifesci.ucla.edu. Phone: 310-825-9277.

2

Various names are used in different reports to refer to the archaeological site and ejido of El Naranjal. In earlier reports, “TumbenNaranjal” is used to differentiate the contemporary village of El Naranjal from its archaeological component. However, for purposes here, “El Naranjal” indicates the archaeological site itself and where noted, the modern village as well.

1

MINIATURE MASONRY SHRINES

Research at El Naranjal2 began under the auspices of the Yalahau Regional Human Ecology Project in 1993, co-directed by Scott Fedick and Karl Taube, University of California, Riverside. Proyecto Tumben-Naranjal commenced in 1996, following two field seasons with the Yalahau Regional Human Ecology Project. Archaeological survey and documentation at El Naranjal identified 12 shrine complexes within a two square-kilometer core on Structures 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 18, and 21 (Lorenzen 1995, 2003; Figure 9). Data from four field seasons was used to address issues of shrine use, function, and evidence of ritual paraphernalia and other cultural remains incorporated in rites carried out at these shrine complexes.

Miniature shrines are diminutive structures less than two meters square in each dimension and too small to accommodate a person of the most modest stature. Commonly, these buildings are one-room constructions featuring single entrances made of masonry and mortar, and plastered with thick layers of limestone stucco. Shrine roofs are masonry vaulted or flat, and composed of wood-beams capped with limestone mortar, mixed with sand or another aggregate such as small fresh-water snail shell. Variations of the formal “all-masonry” shrine include those with walls and ceilings constructed of wood-pole and palm-thatch, depictions of which are seen in the Dresden, Madrid and Paris codices (Lorenzen 2003; Figure 3).3 Diminutive shrines were frequently founded on limestone bedrock, very low single-course footings, formal raised platforms, or atop abandoned architecture (Lorenzen 1995, 1999). Directly associated with miniature shrines are stone altars set at the foot of shrine stairways or on the summit of basal platforms, placed in front of shrines or immediately off to one side of these structures. Typically, Late Postclassic altars are made of four thin, vertically set skirt-stones that veneer each side of a squared plug-stone. Multi-tiered altars exhibit progressively smaller stone blocks stacked one on top of the other (documented at El Naranjal as part of several shrine complexes). Stacked altars at El Naranjal and other regional sites mirror altars depicted in the Dresden Codex, modeling stepped-pyramids in miniature 3

Though not treated in this discussion, a less common type of miniature shrine, termed “three-in-one” or composite shrines by Andrews and Andrews (1975), are larger structures which contain a series of progressively smaller shrines, one within the other (Figure 4). See Andrews (1993) for a detailed discussion of Late Postclassic lowland Maya archaeology and Andrews and Andrews (1975) for an extensive survey of Late Postclassic sites along the coast of Quintana Roo, focused on the documentation of miniature masonry shrines; their context, construction and architectural variation.

2

(Lorenzen 1995).

Although diminutive shrines occur widely in civic-ceremonial and residential contexts at sites throughout the Maya lowlands, relatively little is known regarding their function, role and significance in Late Postclassic Maya society. Smashed ceramic human-effigy censers, commonly known to as Chen Mul Modeled (Robles-Castellanos 1990), often litter shrine floors, doorways and areas surrounding associated altars.4 In addition, a number of shrine caches have been found to contain water and fertilityrelated offerings such as marine shell, nude figurines, jade beads and pendants, and stingray spines.

Moreover, stalactites and stalagmites (speleothems – the significance of which is discussed later) have also been discovered in shrine caches as well in associated altar midden (Lorenzen 1995, 1999, 2003; Martos-Lopez 1994, 1995, 1997). Archaeologists agree, at least for shrines in elite residential compounds, that these structures were ritual areas for the performance of private, lineage-based religious rites (A. Smith 1962; Smith 1971; Freidel and Sabloff 1984; Chase 1986, 1988; Masson 1997); however, identical structures in exclusively nonresidential public precincts have, for the most part, been ignored because of their diminutive size and supposed unimportance in the search for more substantial Classicperiod construction (Lothrop 1924; Proskouriakoff 1955, 1962; Andrews and Andrews 1975, 1980; Miller 1982; Andrews 1993). Although it is known that these shrines served a religious function, the exact sort and degree of their use remains elusive and thus, is addressed herein.

Structure 21 – A Late Postclassic Water Shrine Located at the northern tip of the civic-ceremonial center at El Naranjal, Structure 21 rests on a low rubble mound situated at the margin of a permanent wetland. Oriented along a northeast trajectory, the wetland and diminutive shrine are linked to the site center by Sakbeh 1, which ends at the base of a massive megalithic platform (Structure 2) supporting two Late Postclassic miniature masonry shrines.

Fronting Structure 21 are two altars set at plaza-level, between the shrine stairway and terminus of the causeway. Systematic basal excavations around the shrine platform of Structure 21, revealed the remains of ritual paraphernalia including ceramic sherds from shattered Chen-Mul Modeled human-effigy censers, 4

As I believe, in many instances, generic depictions of humans (composing the bulk of Chen-Mul Modeled censerware) represent deceased ancestors and were used in shrines rites that incorporated the veneration of prominent lineage figures who were likely considered semi-divine and served as intermediaries between living descendants and major Maya gods and lesser deities; particularly, those that controlled agricultural abundance and the availability of game. See Lorenzen (2003) for a detailed discussion of human-effigy censers and their significance in Late Postclassic Maya ritual and religion.

3

stone beads, marine shell, obsidian prismatic blade fragments, and most interestingly, speleothems (Lorenzen 1999, 2003). Numerous small speleothems were found in altar midden at the base of the shrine stairway, extending several meters beyond the two altars (Lorenzen 1999, 2003; Lorenzen and Rissolo 2001; Lorenzen and Wiewall 2001). Unexpectedly, this discovery adds to an earlier find in 1993 of a large speleothem documented among the structural collapse of a miniature masonry shrine on Structure 2 (Lorenzen 1995, 1999, 2003). At the time, this discovery was thought to be unique; however, data from Structure 21, in addition to the subsequent discovery of speleothems in shrine altar midden at Structures 7, 9 and 14, established the ritual use of speleothems in shrine contexts at El Naranjal. Augmenting this data is the discovery of a sub-floor speleothem cache (along with numerous pieces of jade, carved marine shell and seven female ceramic figurines) by Adam B. Pacheo (INAH-DF) in 2001, found at the Late Postclassic shrine atop Structure 14. Moreover, during Proyecto Tumben-Naranjal 2001, a large speleothem broken into four fragments was found strewn in front of the entrance of Shrine N-Sh.1 on Structure 2, the same location where the first speleothem was discovered in 1993 (Lorenzen 1995).

Extensive burn marks on the cortex of this speleothem and its ritual context indicate that it was directly subjected to fire and ritually spalled, likely in an act to replicate the splitting sound of thunder in the performance of a Late Postclassic rain ceremony (Lorenzen 2003). 5 Critical to understanding the function of these speleothems and particularly, their presence in non-cave ritual contexts, are survey data from two caves in the immediate vicinity of El Naranjal (Rissolo 2001). In this survey, Rissolo (1997, 1998, 2001) reported the intentional breakage and apparent systematic denuding of speleothems from these caves during the Late Postclassic (indicated by substantial speleothem regrowth following breakage). A similar instance of regular speleothem removal was reported in Belize by the Sibun-Manatee Cave Survey (Polly Peterson, personal communication 1999). As Brady et al. (1997) discuss, the archaeological context of speleothem use and their perception among modern Maya indicate that they were strongly associated with rain and fertility. Moreover, speleothems embody the creative force of sacred caves (Brady 1997: 360). In fact, Bassie-Sweet et al.

(2000) recently documented the ritual collection of speleothems from Jolja’ cave for use in annual rain rites by the Chol Maya, ritually removed from sacred caves and kept by community members as fetishes 5

Jade (symbolic of rain, preciousness and life) was ritually spalled during rain rituals at Copan and particularly at the Sacred Cenote of Chichen Itza (Proskouriakoff 1974: 4; Friedel et al. 1993: 240-246).

4

believed to produce rain. The association of speleothems with sacred water and rain is clearly substantiated by ethnohistoric source material (Barrera Vasquez 1995:121, 123, 946; Bassie-Sweet 1996:151).

Water-Specific Site Patterning The location and orientation of structures at ancient Maya sites did not occur by happenstance but instead, reveal a conscious attempt to integrate both the natural landscape and built environment into a cohesive, ritually significant and mutually informing cultural geography (Ashmore 1981, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992; Houston and Fowler 1994; Brady 1997; Houston 1998; McAnany 1998; Dunning et al. 1999).

As reflected in the precise placement of Structure 21 at El Naranjal, numerous Maya centers exhibit this same form of site patterning – an apparently widespread ritual practice of orientating architecture to significant onsite water sources. According to Ashmore (1992:173), it was commonplace for the ancient Maya to use site configuration, monumental architecture and residential proximity as a means of securing and reiterating political power and control.6 The ancient Maya deliberately connected monumental architecture to significant water sources such as springs, cenotes, lakes, lagoons, ocean inlets, wetlands, rivers and wet caves; via raised roads, causeways, avenues delineated by structures, and plaza extensions. In essence, this association made sacred the natural landscape and as a result, imbued prominent geographic features with ritual significance through their intimate relation to ceremonial centers.

Chichen Itza is the quintessential model of water-specific site patterning, reflected in the connection of the Castillo (a huge radial pyramid) to the Sacred Cenote, located at opposite ends of a broad stone-paved causeway divided by a flat radial platform. This avenue terminates at a miniature water shrine set at the precipice of the sacrificial cenote. Ethnohistoric accounts and archaeological evidence indicate that this shrine was used for the performance of rain rituals that involved a variety of sacrificial rites (Tozzer 1941; Rupert 1952; Miller 1998). A second cenote in "old" Chichen, Xtoloc, is likewise linked to a large radial structure by a short sakbeh, which features a flat radial platform set

6

It should be noted that this specific mode of water-based site patterning is not believed to be the expression of a highly developed cult of water in and of itself, although a belief system emphasizing the significance of water is certainly a constituent part; more likely, these patterns reference the integration of the built and natural environment as reflections of the natural concern for agricultural productivity, general fertility and ultimately, survival.

5

midway along its length. Unlike the Castillo and Sacred Cenote, which are oriented to the north, the radial pyramid, sakbeh, and Xtoloc cenote are aligned to the east (known as the celestial home of Chaak and the cardinal direction most associated with rain in Prehispanic and contemporary Maya belief – the place where rain storms develop and move across the Maya region). Intriguingly, the word Xtoloc may represent a Maya corruption of the Nahuatl term Tlaloc, the name of the Aztec god of rain and lightening.

This supposed transliteration is strengthened when one considers the well-documented interregional contact and exchange between Central Mexico (in particular, the site of Tula) and Chichen Itza.

Thompson (1904) states that local Maya living in Piste named the cenote toloc. However, since Thompson provides no definition of the term, toloc may actually be tolok, the Yucatec term for iguana.

Nevertheless, in support of this possible transliteration, Thompson (1904) states further that several hmen from Piste related that their ancestors called a certain part of the Xtoloc cenote, the “place of the rain gods.� Moreover, the presence of numerous Tlaloc-style effigy-censers documented in Cave Balankanche at Chichen Itza, further secures this interpretation (Andrews 1970: 9, 12, Figure 5; Bonor 1989: 110, Figure 28).

Another clear model of this specialized form of site patterning is evident at Dzibilchaltun. In the civic-ceremonial core, a long intra-site sakbeh connects Structure 1 (a radial pyramid) with a large cenote in the very center of the site (Andrews and Andrews 1980). As at Chichen Itza, a radial platform (Structure 12) is located on the sakbeh, near its center point. The direct connection of Structure 1 with a major water source, the fact that Structure 1 is oriented exactly east, the discovery of water-related cache deposits buried around the basal platform of Structure 1, and the depiction of God H (a deity associated with wind/water), incised in stucco on an exterior wall of the structure, all point to its use as a water temple for the performance of rain rituals (Andrews and Andrews 1980: 82-127; 101, Figure 110 [inadvertently published on its side]; Taube 1992:56-64).

These examples represent only several instances of many, replicated at site after site throughout the Maya region. Obviously, this specialized form of site patterning based on the incorporation of monumental structures located in the heart of Maya civic-ceremonial centers (representing the axis mundi or middle place), sakbehob radiating from centrally placed structures (frequently oriented east), and prominent sources of water, represent a ritually significant aspect and essential component of ancient

6

Maya site organization in the integration of the built and natural sacred landscape.

SPELEOTHEMS AND THE PERCEPTION OF SACRED WATER

Zuhuy ha or sacred water, also described as "virgin" for its purity, is thought by the Maya to be a potent liquid substance, drawn from pools of pristine cave water for use in various rites related to rainmaking, agricultural abundance and fertility (Redfield and Villa-Rojas 1934:138-143; Thompson 1960:27; Pohl and Pohl 1983; Love 1984; Bonor 1989; Freidel et al. 1993:29-58; Brady 1997; Brady et al.

1997). Evidence for the association of sacred caves with agricultural rites and rain ritual is documented at numerous caves in the Yucatan peninsula (Strömsvik 1956; Strömsvik et al. 1955; Thompson 1960: 27, 1975; Andrews 1970; Bonor 1989; Rissolo 1995, 1998, 2001; Rissolo and Heidelberg 1998). This connection is based on the extant presence of water jars, rain-god effigy censers, metates, manos and haltuns (stone-carved basins) recorded at numerous caves throughout the Yucatan peninsula. 7 The gradual formation process of stalactites, stalagmites and other cave features involves the accretion of minerals leached from the limestone by dripping and running cave water. Thus, the presence of speleothems in shrine contexts contributes to the premise presented here of their incorporation in Late Postclassic rain rituals and related agricultural fertility rites.

Several Colonial-period dictionaries provide striking evidence regarding this interpretation. The Cordemex defines stalactite (ch'ak xix for the Colonial Vienna dictionary) as “water distilled in a well or cave (stalactite), or “agua destilada en pozo o cueva [estalactita]," where as the Pio Perez glosses the term “water that trickles/drips, distilled in natural (stone) vaults/arched roofs or caverns that cover cenotes (petrification that forms where these drops fall) or "el agua que gotea destilándose en las bóvedas naturales or cavernas que cubren los cenotes [la petrificación que se va formando donde caen estas gotas]" (note that the verb destilar also means "to ooze, trickle, or drip," clearly the meaning intended here (Barrera Vasquez 1995 123). Other terms such as ch'ah, xix ha' tunich, and ob'ak xix (along with the Motul gloss for xix) define these words similarly, referencing forms of hardened water (Barrera Vasquez 7

7 Haltuns were used as containers for the collection of sacred water, set either under the drip-line or directly beneath stalactites to catch drip water – likely perceived as drops of sacred rain, as documented among the Mixtec by Monaghan (1995).

7

1995 121, 946). These definitions and other inferences not only identify speleothems as solid, concentrated forms of sacred water but also more importantly, reveal that they were considered its original source (Bassie-Sweet 1996 151).

The thought of speleothems as generators of zuhuy ha is corroborated by the ancient Maya use of haltunob (carved stone basins) and ollas recovered archaeologically from wet caves. Haltunob have been documented as ritual collection devices for sacred drip water, evidenced by stone basins and ollas found in situ directly beneath stalactites and other cave formations (Thompson 1897: 15; Pendergast 1971; Mercer 1975: 25-27, 101-102, 149; Stone 1995: 17-19, Figure 2-5; McNatt 1996; Rissolo 2001). In a particularly pertinent example, Mercer (1975:25-27) reports two haltunob carved from living stalagmites, in a clear demonstration of speleothems as the sacred source of zuhuy ha. Moreover, Rissolo (2001) recorded a number of haltunob and ollas positioned beneath the drip-line for the obvious collection of seep water, as well as found in Caves Xux and Maas near El Naranjal. Like Rissolo (2001), I am convinced that the presence of haltunob and ollas in conjunction with nearby cave pools exhibit incontrovertible evidence for the ritual collection of sacred water, opposed to the fulfillment of utilitarian concerns. In fact, these devices demonstrate that drip water from speleothems was actually preferred over standing water as a source of zuhuy ha, implying that the ancient Maya considered drip water “exceptional,” as if catching drops of sacred rain (see Monaghan 1995: 97-117). The suggestion that stone basins and water jars functioned as collectors of sacred rainwater is clearly confirmed by the etymology of haltun, as defined by the Pio Perez dictionary, “rock hollow or cavity were rain water is deposited” ["el hueco o concavidad de la peña en que se deposita el agua que llueve"] (Barrera Vasquez 1995: 177).

The recent discovery of a Late Classic vase from an elite burial at Copan further substantiates the idea that the ancient Maya thought of speleothems as generators of sacred water in petrified form.

Barbara Fash (personal communication 1999) identified two representations of stylized speleothems, shown as opposed stepped-symbols in a scene that appears to recreate the context of a sacred cave.

Inside these symbols are cauac (stone) markings, which Fash interprets as dripstone formations (see Fash and Davis, this volume). The tapered shape of these stepped motifs, the dripstone or cauac markings, and the fact that stepped symbols typically reference water as well as mountains in

8

Mesoamerican thought (the place most associated with caves and rainmaking), in this context, stylistically rendered speleothems are understood. In this scene, rivulets of water stream in droplets from the tip of the stylized stalactite and fall toward the opposed stalagmite below, suggesting the actual production or creation of zuhuy ha.

Similar repetitive stepped-motifs (apart from the well-known stacked water motif) are painted on the rim of a vase-sherd recovered from Cave C in the Rio Frio group near Benque Viejo, Belize, in a like representation of dripstone markings, (Mason 1927: 37, Figure 24). Additional stepped-motifs are also depicted on numerous water jars recovered from caves, cenotes, wells and other ritual contexts at Uxmal, Kabah, Chichen Itza, Mayapan and the Gruta de Chaak - described as tau or terrace and scroll motifs (Mercer 1975: xli; Smith 1971a: 59, 61; 1971b: 76, 78, Figures 52-h, 53-19; Smyth 1998). Given that ollas were frequently used to collect zuhuy ha from dripstone cave formations and pools of standing water for use in rain rites, water-related symbols painted on the exterior necks and bodies of these water vessels may reference this ritual act.

Additional evidence comes from Cave Balankanche near Chichen Itza, where Andrews (1970: 9, 12, Figure 5) reported the presence of 95 human-effigy censers depicting the Central Mexican rain deity Tlaloc, clustered in front of speleothem columns, beneath stalactites and set inside niches carved from living cave formations adjacent to pools of zuhuy ha (Bonor 1989: 110, Figure 28). Andrews (1970: 9) states that out of six areas in Cave Balankanche, each locus of rain-god censers were ...clearly offertory. All are directly associated with either underground bodies of water or striking stalagmitic formations (in which the cave is rich), which were apparently correctly interpreted by the ancients as phenomena attributable to the action of water. Scattered offertory material was similarly located beside or under prominent stalactitic formations.

The association of all objects of an offertory nature with water or its manifestations is obvious.

The arrangement of rain-god censers fronting cave formations near standing pools of water is replicated at Cave Balam Ku, in the immediate vicinity of Chichen Itza (Segovia Pinto 1966). Other wet caves and cenotes in the northern Maya lowlands feature interior shrines or platforms adjacent to pools of water such as those at Mayapan, Tancah and Xcaret. This arrangement indicates the Prehispanic performance of religious rites related to the ritual use of cave water (Lothrop 1924; Pollock et al. 1962; Andrews and Andrews 1975).

The Yalahau Regional Cave Survey completed by Rissolo (1995, 1998, 2001; Rissolo and

9

Heidelberg 1998), not only documents the ritual use of caves as reflected in the presence of platform shrines, propitiatory altars and ritual ceramic scatters at Caves Maas, Pak Chen and Toh (Rissolo 2001: 50, 197, 203), but also reports the deliberate modification of natural cave features related to water rites.

At Actun Tacbi Ha, near the site center of El Naranjal, ritual modifications to natural cave features are clearly reflected in a stairway constructed of large speleothem risers that lead to an ancient pool of zuhuy ha (Rissolo 1995, 1998, 2001: 1999; Rissolo and Heidelberg 1998: 174).

Relation of Stone Phalli, Fertility Metaphor, and Rain Ritual Given these inferences and the well-known Mesoamerican concept of mountain-caves as earth wombs where only men penetrate to collect “virgin” water for rain rites and other ceremonies, one may extend the symbolism of dripping speleothems to suggest that stalactites in their physical form were seen as tumescent members that ooze zuhuy ha as semen. In fact, during contemporary Maya ceremonial procession, priests consume a ritual drink made of ground maize called sa’ (also saka’ or sak-ha’ literally, white water), a watery corn-gruel. The connection of sak-ha’ to semen, apart from its obvious similarity in color and consistency, is reflected in the 16th Century San Francisco dictionary where sa’ as a component of sa’il mak’ means “semen” (Barrera Vasquez 1995: 707, 709) or “man’s atole” (Karl Taube, personal communication 2003). The Tzotzil Maya drink an identical hot corn-beverage during annual ceremonies for incoming mayordomo santos, equated with rain and particularly semen (Gossen 1984: 228-229). Referred to by the same word for semen, this maize-gruel is made in huge water jars and is thought of by the Tzotzil Maya as “hot heavenly-descending rain.” This ritual beverage is consumed by shaman-priests and other ceremony participants who receive spiritual energy or life force in return (Gossen 1984: 228-229).8 8

This concept is reflected in Teotihuacan mural art. During excavations at La Ventilla (Padilla Rodriguez and Ruiz Zuniga 1995: 173-189, Figures 40-43), a male figure was found painted on a plaza floor, depicted with an exaggerated penis from which white drops outlined in red, fall from the tip of his erect member in rivulets onto a flowering maguey below, in an obvious multiple reference to semen, atole and pulque (a fermented beverage made from the maguey or century plant – akin the Maya bark-beer balche’), metaphorically seen as fertilizing rain. According to Karl Taube (personal communication 2003) a similar scence at El Tajin depicts the act of plant fertilization involving drops of pulque in the form of semen. The relation of semen to rain is clearly present in modern Mixtec religious ideology, particularly in rites of rain and agricultural fertility (Monaghan 1989). As such, Monaghan (1995: 111) stated that the Mixtec . . . associate rain production with symbols of masculine sexuality. The machete, associated with lightning and the nu’un savi (rain god), is a powerful symbol of male potency [as is Chaak and his lightning axe] and the cigars smoked by the tenuvi to bring rain [as with the chaakob among the Tusik Maya; Villa Rojas 1945] are metaphors for the penis (Monaghan 1989). Given these associations, it is not surprising that people liken rain to semen.

This relation of rain to semen is represented archaeologically in graphic representations of rain drops as falling phalli incised in boulder outcrops at Chalcatzingo that in one example, descend from above, falling around a royal female personage depicted in

10

In regards to miniature masonry shrines, the presence of stone phalli set erect in front of shrines at Tulum and a number of other Late Postclassic Maya sites (concentrated in northern Yucatan), reinforces the association of shrines with fertility, particularly when one considers the connection of phalli to speleothems and potent zuhuy ha (Lothrup 1924; Amrhein 2000). In a related and telling instance, a sub-floor cache of seven clay male figurines, all exhibiting exaggerated erect phalli, were found in a cyst dug through the floor of a Late Postclassic shrine at Dzibilchaltun (Structure 1) (Andrews and Andrews 1980; Taschek 1994: 183, 204, Figure 49). In still other imagery, similar sexual allusions are made regarding rain deities, revealing their role as sources of agricultural fertility. Chaak is frequently shown holding his lightning axe, which is often represented metaphorically as a zigzagging serpent, itself suggesting a phallic association (Taube 1989). As discussed in the subsequent section, chaakob are referred to as ah-hoyaob or as Villa Rojas (1945: 102) modestly translated the term some sixty years ago as “sprinklers.” However, both the Motul and the Vienna dictionaries define hoya (the singular form) as proveer la orina, orinar o orina (to provide urine, to urinate or urine) (Barrera Vasquez ibid.: 236). This definition reveals that the ah-hoyaob were actually called “urinators” as opposed to “sprinklers.” This literal translation lends another sexual aspect to rain deities, insinuated by the equation of fertile rain to urine as sprinkling from the penis to water the land. Sexual referents to rain deities as distributors of rain and by extension, agricultural fertility, are also reflected in hoy, translated as “virile [particularly fertile] semen” (Barrera Vasquez 1995: 236). As a component of ah-hoyaob, this play on words is apparent, meant to explicitly relate rain [as urine] to semen. Moreover, this concept is referred to architecturally at Uxmal in the House of the Phalli, where stone penises are set into the cornice of the structure, serving as rain spouts that metaphorically transforming torrents of falling water into cascading streams of urine as the rainwater is channeled off the temple roof and funneled through phallic drains (Pollock 1980: 257-262; Ruz Lhuillier 1978: 50-51; Amrhein 2000).

Just as rain alludes to semen and male urine, other bodily fluids including human blood are also perceived as such, lending an additional fertile aspect to rainwater. Landa (Tozzer 1941: 113-114) recounts a group auto sacrificial rite involving the perforation of male foreskins and the running through of Olmec-style, seated inside a wet cave studded with sprouting vegetation (corn) at [cardinal] points on its exterior (Angulo Villaseñor 1987; Grove 1987; Karl Taube, personal communication 2003).

11

long thick ropes that linked all participants together. This rite is represented on page 19b of the Madrid Codex, where in the center of a courtyard, Itsamnaj is poignantly shown letting blood from the tip of his penis over a sacrificial turtle stone (exhibiting a phallus glyph on its back) in front of a miniature shrine. 9 A long red rope runs from the phallus of Itsamnaj, passing through the foreskin of Chaak (blue) and three other directionally-colored deities (red, black and white), each set at the four corners of the plaza. In other references by Landa, blood letted from the male foreskin is scattered on the ground (Tozzer 1941: 113114, Note 522) and particularly so, following the appearance of lightning – an undoubted reference to rain (Tozzer 1941: 113-114, Note 525). These accounts illustrate the intimate affiliation of penile blood to semen and by extension, infer the fertilizing force of rain as it penetrates the earth. 10

CH’A CHAAK AND TUPP-KAK CEREMONIES

Ch’a Chaak Much of Late Postclassic Maya ceremony is inferred from ethnohistoric and ethnographic source information and at times, even reconstructed from archaeological data corroborated by this evidence. This approach allows for a better understanding of ritual activities performed at Postclassic shrines and other religious contexts. One of the most important contemporary Maya ceremonies that may directly impact our discernment of ritual activities performed at miniature masonry shrines is the ch’a chaak rain ritual – ch’a signifying “the deification of” Chaak (Barrera-Vasquez 1995: 119). This ceremony is practiced throughout the northern Maya lowlands during the canícular – a short dry spell frequently associated with drought midway through the growing season, just prior to the final maturation of maize (Gann 1916: 4248; Gann and Thompson 1931: 251-253; Redfield and Villa-Rojas 1934: 138-143; Widsom 1940; Love 1984; Freidel et al. 1993: 29-58; Arzapalo Marin and Gubler 1997:87-96). The ritual collection of zuhuy ha

9

This architectural arrangement is reflected archaeologically at Mayapan, where turtle stone-altars (calendrical katun stones) are set in the middle of elite residential compound-courtyards associated directly associated with lineage shrines (Karl Taube, personal communication 2003). Taube (1989) has shown that these katun-stones served as sacrificial altars for the shedding and offering of penile blood to the gods (likely for revered ancestors as well during lineage-related rites).

10

Related examples of this practice extend well back into the Classic, where sculptured stelae, glyphs and other artistic media depict blood “scattering events” portrayed by droplets of blood streaming from the hands of Maya kings onto the earth below or sprinkled over bowls of rubber-spotted paper and burned with copal incense as a sweet-smelling offering during lineage-rituals to conjure ancestors (Schele and Miller 1986; Schele and Friedel 1989). Blood scattered on the ground likely portrays a demonstration of the power and fertilizing force of ruling elite, conveying the fecundity of a ruler and his authority to perpetuate the royal line.

12

is an essential component of this ritual, retrieved from sacred caves and brought to the village in ritual procession. Gourds full of sacred water, maize gruel or sak-ha (white water) and flat ritual tamales wrapped in banana leaves (wah) are placed on wood table altars set in the bush or in the center of milpas. These altars are adorned with lush vegetation arranged in an arc that bows over the table top, representing of the daily passage of the sun across the heavens. 11 The officiating priest called a h-men, along with four rain assistants or chaaks, mirror the sky positions of Chaak and the chaakob (lesser celestial rain gods) who control the dispersal of water over the land. During this ritual, amid white clouds of copal incense and supplication, the h-men sprinkle zuhuy ha toward the world quarters, invoking the name of Chaak in a petition to dispatch the chaakob (Gann 1916: 42-48; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934; Villa Rojas 1945; Love 1984; Freidel et al. 1993: 29-58; Faust 1998: 85-121; Arzapalo Marin and Gubler 1997: 87-96).12 Tupp-Kak As related by Landa (Tozzer 1941: 162-163), the tupp-kak was one of the most important ceremonies dedicated to the gods of sustenance and agricultural abundance (Chaak and Itsamnaj), and also worked to ensure a prosperous and plentiful year to come. Taking place in the Uayeb months of Keh and Mak, this rite focused on a fire ceremony that reenacted the quenching of the burning milpa in preparation for sowing maize. Four chaaks or ritual specialists were positioned at the corners of an open plaza, each in accordance with a different cardinal direction (recalling ethnographic accounts of the four chaakob in contemporary ch’a chaak rain ritual). A mound of dried brush (probably collected from the milpa) was set on fire in the center of the plaza. Hearts excised from game animals were offered to these deities amid the burning brush. Mock hearts fashioned from copal resin were made to represent larger game such as jaguar, puma and crocodile when in short supply. Following these sacrifices, each chaak moved toward the center of the plaza, holding an olla full of water (quite possibly zuhuy ha). This act likely reenacted the flight of chaakob as they soared across the sky distributing sacred water from rain gourds – 11

Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 131) note the involvement of four boys during a ch’a chaak ceremony at Chan Kom, Yucatan.

Each boy was seated beneath one of the four legs of the altar (according to the world directions), imitating the croaking sound of toads during rainstorms in an attempt to induce Chaak to send rain. Tozzer (1907: 162) notes a similar performance among the Lacandon that included the imitation of frog calls by all male participants in the ceremony. Moreover, the Chorti incorporate a wooden canoe in their rain ceremony, seen as a symbol of abundant water (many times stylistically referenced as a stepped watermotif in ancient Maya art).

12

13

a Prehispanic version of this ethnographic account, played out in ritual performance. When at the center, all together the priests communally extinguished the ceremonial fire.

Following this ceremony, a festival commenced (Tozzer 1941: 163). A small stone mound was constructed in the plaza center and adorned with fresh branches (akin to decorated table-altars used in modern ch’a chaak rain ceremonies) (Tozzer 1941: 164-165). This mound of stone signified the terrestrial plane as a sacred mountain in miniature, a potent symbol of creation, water and fertility. Mud drawn from a sacred well was spread over the first step of the stairway (the surface of the earth) and the upper risers were subsequently painted blue (as one would ascend a temple into the sky where the rain gods dwell).

The festival concluded with the petitioning of Chaak and Itsamnaj for a new-year of abundance. Given these similarities to the ch’a chaak, I suggest that the tupp-kak may represent the Prehispanic antecedent of this rite. As such, ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts such as these provide invaluable information for tracing the continuity of Late Postclassic religious practice from the ancient Maya past to the present day.

Prehispanic agricultural fertility was overseen, controlled and maintained by a host of supernaturals, mostly composed of creator gods and other deities tied to regeneration such as Chaak, Itsamnaj (the aged creator god), and God E (the maize god) (Taube 1992). In addition, a host of subsidiary spirits and ancestral deities, particularly those connected with the welfare of the milpa, continue to be propitiated today by modern Maya and in many instances as with Chaak, even retain their pre-contact names (Tozzer 1941: 134-135, 136-138, 139, 148). Yucatec ethnohistoric and ethnographic sources identify these spirits under the group name yumtzilob or "fathers/lords/gods - the dignified and worthy ones" (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934:127-137; Redfield 1941: 118; Villa Rojas 1945:101-110; Barrera Vasquez 1995: 983). Functioning much in the same way as chaakob, Villa Rojas (1945: 101) states that these guardians of daily Maya life continue in their Prehispanic function, having "...power over the forces of nature; who control the rain and the winds, maintain the fertility of the fields, protect settlements and milpas from malign influences, and, in short, help the native most directly in his daily struggle for existence."

Among the Tusik Maya of east central Quintana Roo, ah-hoyaob or chaakob ride clouds across the sky and pour out rain from special gourds called zayabchu or "underlying-current gourds," filled with

14

super-concentrated rainwater (Villa Rojas 1945: 102). So potent are these rain gourds that only a small amount of water may be sprinkled for fear of causing a worldwide deluge, should the entire contents spill (Villa Rojas 1945: 102). Inferred by their name, zayabchu are used by chaakob to tap the vast underground water source on which the Yucatan peninsula rests, collected from openings in the earth such as cenotes, wet caves, wetlands and lakes. The Maya of Chan Kom believe that chaakob are dispatched from Koba and fly west across the eastern sky, swooping over these water bodies to refill zayabchu’ob from which they pour zuhuy ha as sacred rain (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 115-116; Redfield 1941: 96). The Dresden, Madrid and Paris codices all show acts of water dispersal in the pouring of water from ollas (most commonly by Chaak and Ix Chel), in reference to watering the milpa and by extension the brining of rain by the chaakob. This concept can be inferred for the ancient Maya back to at least the Late Classic period, suggested in scenes painted on codex-style bi-chrome vessels that portray Chaak wearing an inverted olla (frequently shown in stylized form) strung about his neck. 13

DISCUSSION

The identification of Structure 21 at El Naranjal as a Late Postclassic water shrine is based on two major factors. First, the association of Structure 21 with an extensive permanent wetland and its direct connection to the largest monumental structure at very center of El Naranjal, reveals its function as the primary interface and point of integration between the built and natural environment and more importantly, tell of its importance in the overall plan of the site - the focal point of the sacred landscape.

This organizational “template” in structural placement, replicated at numerous Maya centers, is thought to be the expression of a highly developed belief system emphasizing the ritual significance of water, highlighting the natural concern for agricultural sustainability. Considering the need for agricultural fertility, this belief was undoubtedly woven into ideological frameworks of survival and thus, reflected the overriding concern for water and its procurement among the Yucatec Maya who were utterly dependent on rainfall.

13

As a common element in Classic and later depictions of Chaak (principally seen in stone sculpture, painted vase scenes, and screen-folding codices), this adornment is more commonly represented as a “flowering” jade necklace, composed of a large central bead capped with a flat “lip-like” piece (a stylized water jar), and three cylindrical beads that extend down, each tipped with a small bead representing falling drops of rain (as water is commonly expressed in ancient Mesoamerican art).

15

Second, given contact-period ethnohistoric sources that identify the spleothems as solid forms of sacred water and by extension, rain, and their use in contemporary Maya rain ritual, speleothems discovered in shrine altar debris at Structure 21 substantiate the identification of this structure as a water shrine. Research documenting the intentional breakage and regular removal of speleothems from caves surrounding El Naranjal further supports this identification. This fact along with the presence of speleothems in shrine midden, reveal the intimate connection of sacred caves to miniature masonry shrines and specifically, indicate the regular performance of rain rituals and likely other rites tied to agricultural fertility at Structure 21.

This data substantially enhances our knowledge of Late Postclassic (A.D. 1250 – 1520) miniature masonry shrine use. Furthermore, this research clearly demonstrates the relevance and applicability of ethnohistoric and ethnographic source material in the interpretation of Late Postclassic Maya religion.

When considered together, this information lends itself to the resolution of broader issues of ancient Maya religious practice, addressing questions regarding the function of miniature masonry shrines in Late Postclassic Maya society; the role of shrines as fixtures of the built and natural Postclassic landscape; the significance of these diminutive structures as part of a widespread water-oriented pattern of architectural placement seen throughout the Maya region; as well as the ritual importance of sacred caves during the Late Postclassic; particularly, their close affiliation with shrine complexes and the rites performed at these sacred places.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks are due Dominique Rissolo, University of California, Riverside, for sharing his expertise in cave archaeology, research data from the Yalahau Regional Cave Survey and valuable comments during the course of writing this paper. Moreover, I wish to express my personal gratitude to Karl Taube, Karen Bassie, James Brady, Barbara Fash, Patricia McAnany, and Polly Peterson for providing their professional insight as well as comments referenced herein. Generous funding for the 1999 field season of Proyecto Tumben-Naranjal was provided by a project grant awarded by The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI Grant No. 98047); a Dissertation Improvement Grant from The National Science Foundation (NSF SBR-9901369); a 1999 Dissertation Research Grant from the University of California, UC MEXUS program; and a Humanities Dissertation Research Grant from the University of California, Riverside. The 2001 field season of Proyecto TumbenNaranjal was completed through an expedition grant under the auspices of Unearthing Maya History, awarded by the Earthwatch Institute. Research presented here was originally conceived and written inpart as a 1999/2000 Junior Fellow in Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Trustees of Harvard University. Archaeological research for the 1999 and 2001 field seasons 16

of Proyecto Tumben-Naranjal was carried out under official permit issued to the author by the Consejo de Arqueologia, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City, Mexico (INAH).

REFERENCES

Amrhein, Laura M. 2000 An Iconographic and Historic Analysis of Terminal Classic Maya Phallic Imagery. Online FAMSI funding report (http://www.famsi.org).

Andrews, Anthony P. 1993 Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory 7(1): 35-67.

Andrews IV, E. Wyllys 1970 Balankanche:Throne of the Tiger Priest. Middle American Research Institute, publication 21. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Andrews IV, E. Wyllys, and Anthony P. Andrews 1975 A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of Xcaret, Quintana Roo, Mexico:With Notes on Other Archaeological Remains on the Central East Coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 40. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Andrews IV, E. Wyllys, and E. Wyllys Andrews V. 1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 48. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Angulo Villaseùor, Jorge 1987 Chalcatzingo reliefs: an iconographic analysis. In Ancient Chalcatzingo. David C. Grove, editor, pp. 132 – 158. University of Texas, Austin.

Arzapalo, Marin and Ruth Gubler (editors) 1987 Persistencia Cultural Entre Los Mayas Frente al Cambio y La Modernidad. Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan. Mexico.

Ashmore, Wendy 1981 Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 37-69. School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1986

Peten Cosmology in the Maya Southeast: An Analysis of Architecture and Settlement Patterns at Classic Qurigua. In The Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P. A. Urban and E. M. Schortman, pp. 35-49. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1989

Construction and Cosmology: Politics and Ideology in Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation, edited by W. F. Hanks and D. S. Rice, pp. 272-286. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

1991

Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2: 199-226.

1992

Deciphering Maya Architectural Plans. In New Theories on the Ancient Maya, edited by E. C. Danien and R. J. Sharer, pp. 173-184. University Museum Monograph 77,

17

University Museum Symposium Series Volume 3. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo 1995 Diccionario Maya. Editorial Porrua, S.A., Mexico.

Bassie-Sweet, Karen 1996 At the Edge of the World:Caves and Late Classic Maya World View. London and Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.

Bassie-Sweet, Karen, Jorge Perez de Lara, Marc Zender 2000 Jolja’ Cave. PARI Journal 1(1):5 – 10. San Francisco.

Bonor Villarejo, Juan Luis 1989 Las Cuevas Mayas:Simbolismo y Ritual. Universidad Compultense de Madrid, Madrid.

Brady, James E. 1997 Settlement Configuration and Cosmology: The Role of Caves at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist 99(3): 602-618.

Brady, James E., Ann Scott, Allan Cobb, Irma Rodas, John Fogarty, and Monica Urquizu Sanchez 1997 Glimpses of the Dark Side of the Petexbatun Project: The Petexbatun Regional Cave Survey. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:353-364.

Chase, Diane Z. 1986 Social and Political Organization in the Land of Cacao and Honey: Correlating the Archaeology and the Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland Maya. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, pp. 347-377, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. W. Andrews V. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1988

Caches and Censerwares: Meaning from Maya Pottery. In A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by Charles C. Kolb and Louana M. Lackey, with Muriel Kirkpatrick, general editor. Papers Dedicated to Frederick R. Matson, a special publication of Ceramica de Cultura Maya. Temple University, Philadelphia.

Dunning, Nicholas P., Vernon Scarborough, F. Valdez, S. Luzzadder-Beach,Timothy Beach, and J. Jones 1999 Temple Mountains, Sacred Lakes, and Fertile Fields: Ancient Maya Landscapes in Northwetern Belize. Antiquity 73 (281): 650 – 660. Cambridge, England.

Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus (editors) 1983 The Cloud People:Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Academic Press, New York.

Fedick, Scott L. and Karl A. Taube (editors) 1995 The View from Yalahau:1993 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico. Latin American Studies Program, Field Report Series, No. 2, University of California, Riverside.

Freidel, David A. , and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1984 Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos:Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. Morrow and Co., New York.

Gann, Thomas

18

1916

The Maya Indians of Southern Yucatan and Northern British Honduras. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 64, Washington.

Gann, Thomas, and J. Eric Thompson 1931 The History of the Maya: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Charles Scribner and Sons. New York.

Gossen, Gary 1974

Chamulas in the World of the Sun: Time and Space in a Maya Oral Tradition . Waveland Press, Illinois.

Grove, David C., Editor 1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. University of Texas Press. Austin.

Houston, Stephen D. 1998 Classic Maya Depictions of The Built Environment. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. S. D. Houston, editor, pp. 333 – 372. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, DC. Houston, Stephen D. and William R. Fowler 1994 Classic Maya Landscape Archaeology: Introduction. Ancient Mesoamerica 5(1): 61.

Cambridge, England.

Le Plongeon, Augustus 1879 Archaeological Communication on Yucatan. American Antiquarian Society Proceedings 72:55-67. Worcester.

Lorenzen, Karl James 1995 Late Postclassic Reuse of Early Classic Monumental Architecture at Naranjal. In The View from Yalahau:1993 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp.59-77, edited by Scott L. Fedick and Karl A. Taube. Latin American Studies Program, Field Report Series, No. 2, University of California, Riverside.

1997

Excavations in Sascabera Pits at Tumben-Naranjal. The Yalahau Project: Preliminary Technical Report – 1996 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 21-32, edited by Scott L. Fedick. Submitted to the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH), Mexico City, DF, and the INAH Regional Office, Merida, Yucatan.

1999

New Discoveries at El Naranjal:Late Postclassic Reuse and the Ritual Recycling of Cultural Geography. Mexicon XXI (5): 98-107.

2003

Miniature Masonry Shrines of the Yucatan Peninsula. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Lorenzen, Karl James and Dominique Rissolo 2001 Postclassic Yucatec Water Shrines and Ritual Cave Use. Paper presented in Symposium 86, Precolumbian Water Management:Ideology, Ritual and Power. 66th Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology (SAA), April 18-22, 2001.

Lorenzen, Karl James and Darcy Lynn Wiewall 2001 Miniature Masonry Shrines of the Yucatan Peninsula:Form, Function, and Meaning in Late Postclassic Shrine Complexes at Tumben-Naranjal. Paper presented in Symposium

19

176, The Yalahau Regional Human Ecology Project:1999-2000 Field Investigations in the Northern Maya Lowlands. 66th Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology (SAA), April 18-22, 2001.

Lothrup, Samuel K. 1924 Tulum:An Archaeological Study of the East Coast of Yucatan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 335. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Love, Bruce 1984

A Yucatec Maya Agricultural Ceremony. Estudios de Cultura Maya 15:251-300.

Martos-Lopez, Luis Alberto 1994 Investigaciones en la Costa Oriental: Punta Venado y La Rosita, Quintana Roo. Arqueologia 11(12): 71-93.

1995

Traweltlands Recientes en Rancho la Ina, Quintna Roo, Mexico. In Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, pp. 407-426. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

1997

El Kisim: una asociación templo-caverna, en la costa de Quintana Roo. In Homenaje al profesor César A. Sáenz. Angel García Cook, et al., eds. pp. 181 – 200. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Mexico.

Mason, Gregory 1927 Silver Cities of Yucatan. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

Masson, Marilyn A. 1995 Understanding the Stratigraphic Context of the Maya Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 10(5): 389-404.

1997

Postclassic

in

Belize.

Cultural Change at Laguna de On, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 8(4): 293-316.

Masson, Marilyn A. and Robert M. Rosenswig (editors) 1999 Belize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon. Report to the Department of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies, Occasional Publication No. 3. The University at Albany – SUNY, New York.

McAnany, Patricia A. 1998 Ancestors and The Classic Maya Built Environment. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. S. D. Houston, editor, pp. 271 – 298. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, DC. McNatt, Logan 1996 Cave Archaeology of Belize. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 58(2):81-99.

Mercer, Henry C. (Thompson, J. Eric S.) 1975 Introduction to the Reprint Edition. In The Hill-Caves of Yucatan, by Henry C. Mercer.

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Miller, Arthur G. 1982 On the Edge of the Sea:Mural Painting at Tancah - Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico .

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University. Washington, D.C. Miller, Mary Ellen 1998 A Fresh Look at the Cenote of Chichen Itza. Paper presented at the symposium Tollan as Political Currency:Myth and Image in Mesoamerica. XIVth Texas Symposium, The Maya

20

Meetings at Texas. University of Texas, Austin.

Monaghan, John 1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain:Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Pendergast, David M. 1971 Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave, British Honduras (Belize) Royal Ontario Museum.

Art and Archaeology. Occasional paper 219 (Toronto:Royal Ontario Museum).

Pohl, Mary and John Pohl 1983 Ancient Maya Cave Ritual. Archaeology 36(3):28-51.

Pollock, H. E. D, Ralph L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff and A. Ledyard Smith 1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619.

Washington, DC. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1955 The Death of a Civilization. Scientific American 192: 82-88.

1962

Civic and Religious Structures of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, pp. 87-164, edited by H. E. D. Pollock, R. L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. L. Smith. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 619. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C.

1974

Jades from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichén Itzá, Yucatán. Memoirs, 10(1). Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. 217 p.

Cambridge, MA.

Redfield, Robert 1941 The Folk Culture of Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Redfield, Robert and Alfonso Villa Rojas 1934 Chan Kom:A Maya Village. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pub. 448. Washington, D.C. Rissolo, Dominique 1995 An Archaeological Investigation of Tacbi Ha Cave, Naranjal. In The View from Yalahau:1993 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp.115120, edited by Scott L. Fedick and Karl A. Taube. Latin American Studies Program, Field Report Series, No. 2, University of California, Riverside.

1997

A Survey of Caves in the Southern Yalahau Region. In The Yalahau Project: Preliminary Technical Report on 1996 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp.10-19, edited by Scott L. Fedick. Prepared for the Consejo de Arqueologia de Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

1998

Reconocimiento de Cuevas en la Región Sureña Yalahau. In El Proyecto Yalahau Informe Técnico Final sobre las Investigaciones Arqueológicas de 1996-1997 en el Norte de Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 44-65, redactado by Scott L. Fedick. Preparado para El Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. México, DF.

2001

Ancient Maya Cave Use in the Yalahau Region, Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Manuscript on file.

21

Rissolo, Dominique, and Kurt R. Heidelberg 1998 The Yalahau Archaeological Cave Survey. NSS News June.

Robles-Castellanos, Fernando Jose 1990 La Secuencia Ceramica de la Region de Coba, Quintana Roo. Serie Arqueologia, Collecion Cientifica, Numero 184, Insituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH).

Padilla Rodríguez, Román, and Julio Ruiz Zúñiga 1995 Sector 2. In La Pintura mural prehispánica en México: Teotihuacán, 1. Beatriz de la Fuente, ed. pp. 173 – 189. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Mexico.

Ruppert, Karl 1952

Chichen Itza: Architectural Notes and Plans. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 595. Washington, D.C.

Schele, Linda, and David A. Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company New York.

Schele, Linda and Mary E. Miller 1986 Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum. Fort Worth.

Segovia Pinto, Victor 1966 Cueva de Balamkú, Yucatán. Report to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.

Smith, A. Ledyard 1962 Residential and Associated Structures at Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, pp.

165-320, edited by H. E. D. Pollock, R. L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. L. Smith.

Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 619. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C. Smith, Robert E. 1971 The Pottery of Mayapan (2 Volumes). Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 66. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Smyth, Michael P. 1997

A New Study of the Gruta de Chaak, Yucatán, Mexico. Funding report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI), Crystal Water, Florida. http://www.famsi.org/reports/97011/index.html

Stone, Andrea Joyce 1995 Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition of Maya Cave Painting.

University of Texas Press, Austin.

Stromsvik, Gustav 1956 Exporation of the Cave of Dzab-Na, Tecoh, Yucatan. Department of Archaeology, Current Reports 35:463-470. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington, D.C. Stromsvik, Gustav, H. E. D. Pollock and Heinrich Berlin 1955 Exploration in Quintana Roo. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Current Reports 2:169178. Washington, D.C. Taschek, Jennifer T.

22

1985

The Artifacts of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico: Shell, Polished Stone, Bone, Wood, and Ceramics. Middle American Research Institute Publication 50. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Taube, Karl A. 1988 A Prehispanic Maya Katun Wheel. Journal of Anthropological Research 44(2): 183 – 203.

Albuquerque.

1992

The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, Volume 32. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Thompson, Donald E. 1960 Maya Paganism and Christianity. In Nativism and Syncretism. Publication 19, M.A.R.I., Tulane University, New Orleans.

Thompson, Edward H. 1897 Cave of Loltun. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 1, Cambridge.

1904

Archaeological Researches in Yucatan: Reports of Explorations For the Museum Memoirs, 3(1). Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. 20 p. Cambridge, MA.

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941 Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachussets.

1957

Chichen Itza and its Cenote of Sacrifice: A Comparative Study of Contemporaneous Maya and Toltec.

Villa Rojas, Alfonso 1945 The Maya of East Central Quintana Roo. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 559. Washington, D.C. Wisdom, Charles 1940 Chorti Indians of Guatemala. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

23