Archaeological Excavations of a Round Temple at Uxmal ... Lowlands, Uxmal, Kabah, and Sayil, located in the hilly Puuc region of northwestern Yucatan, ... Maya culture at Chichen Itza

IntroductionWhile the social disintegration of the

Classic Maya “collapse” was occurring in theSouthern Lowlands, Uxmal, Kabah, and Sayil,located in the hilly Puuc region of northwesternYucatan, grew in population during the ninth andearly tenth centuries. A local architectural flores-cence featured massive buildings blanketed withcomplex mosaic stone sculptures (Pollock 1980;Gendrop 1983; G. Andrews 1986; Kowalski 1987;Barrera Rubio y Huchim Herrera 1989, 1990). Apreeminent late center in Yucatan was the city ofChichen Itza, located on the northern plain of thepeninsula (Tozzer 1957). Chichen Itza displayssome architecture and art closely related to that ofthe “Puuc” cities such as Uxmal, while other struc-tures display a more eclectic style, many elementsof which stem from non-Maya sources. Becausesome Chichen Itza buildings and artworks are par-ticularly related to those of Tula, Hidalgo, identi-fied by Wigberto Jimenez Moreno (1941) as theToltec capital, Tollan Xicocotitlan, this eclecticstyle is often termed “Toltec-Maya.”

Earlier descriptions of the culture historyof northern Yucatan have emphasized the distinc-tiveness of the “Puuc” and “Toltec-Maya” styles,and have argued that they basically succeeded oneanother in time, with the “Puuc” style corre-sponding to the so-called Terminal Classic period(c. A.D. 800-1000), and the “Toltec-Maya” styledominating the Early Postclassic period (c. A.D.1000-1200) (Tozzer 1957; J. E. S. Thompson 1945;E. W. Andrews 11965; Diehl 1983). More recently,many scholars have suggested that there was agreater chronological and cultural overlap betweenthe Puuc centers such as Uxmal and the Toltec-Maya culture at Chichen Itza (Ball 1979a, 1979b).While some view the overlap as of relatively shortduration (c. 50-100 years) (Andrews 1979;

Andrews V and Sabloff 1986; Coggins and Shane1984; Kowalski 1987; Dunning 1991), others sug-gest that the Puuc sites and Chichen Itza werewholly contemporaneous (Lincoln 1986, n.d.;Ringle, Bey, and Peraza n.d.).

The discovery of a small, round structure(hereafter designated the Uxmal Round Structure)at the site of Uxmal offered an opportunity to testsome of these models archaeologically. Originallylocated by Ian Graham during a mapping project atUxmal in 1988, the structure was subsequentlycleared under the direction of Jeff Kowalski, whomade a more detailed preliminary plan and pub-lished a brief description and cultural-historicalinterpretation (Kowalski 1990). During the springsemester of 1992 Kowalski and Alfredo BarreraRubio, Director of the Centro Regional de Yucatandel INAH, co-directed archaeological excavationand consolidation of this round structure. A basicpurpose of the excavation was to obtain data thatwould help clarify our knowledge of culture histo-ry and processes of social change in northernYucatan during the Terminal Classic/EarlyPostclassic period.1 Because larger temples of cir-cular form generally have been interpreted as anon-Classic Maya architectural form introduced atChichen Itza (e.g., the Caracol) during theTerminal Classic/Early Postclassic period (c. A.D.770-1150), and since the Uxmal Round Structurerepresents the first major building of circular formdiscovered at a Puuc site, it was felt that the Uxmalstructure would shed light on the nature of thechronological overlap and cultural connectionsbetween Chichen Itza and Uxmal during this time.

Summary of ExcavationsThe Round Structure at Uxmal is locat-

ed about 20 meters west of the northwesternboundary platform of the Pigeons Group (fig.

1

Archaeological Excavations of a Round Temple at Uxmal:Summary Discussion and Implications forNorthern Maya Culture HistoryJEFF KARL KOWALSKINORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

ALFREDO BARRERA RUBIOCENTRO REGIONAL DE YUCATAN, INAH

HEBER OJEDA MÁSCENTRO REGIONAL DE CAMPECHE-INAHJOSE HUCHIM HERRERACENTRO REGIONAL DE YUCATAN-INAH

1). Excavations revealed that the RoundStructure is connected by a low wall to a smallbuilding of rectangular ground plan, locatedslightly to the northeast. The small buildingrests on a low basal platform, and has a singlelong room opening toward the west. The roomis apparently surrounded by walls on threesides, giving the structure a U- or C-shapedground plan. Structures of similar plan havebeen documented elsewhere at Uxmal (RuzLhuillier 1955:50-51, fig. 1; Ruppert andSmith 1957:580-582; Barrera Rubio 1991:50-51; Barrera Rubio et al. 1991:32-34), and havebeen considered late buildings of TerminalClassic or Early Postclassic date (Tourtellot,Sabloff, and Carmean 1992; D. Rice 1986; J.Fox 1987:84). Another low wall curves towardthe northwest of the Round Structure from itssouthwest side. Together, these two walls cre-

ated an enclosed precinct and effectivelyrestricted access to the Round Structure.During clearing of the area in the vicinity ofthe Round Structure, it was discovered thattwo parallel mounds located to the north formthe eastern and western boundary platforms ofa north-south oriented ballcourt (designatedUxmal Ballcourt 2).2

The court alley is 8 meters wide and 23meters long and is bounded by platforms with slop-ing inner “benches” and a higher, vertical-sidedwall supporting structures of the Puuc “colonnette”style, probably corresponding to the ninth century(Gendrop 1983; Andrews 1986).

Three 2 X 2 meter test pits were excavatedin front of the stairway, to the southwest rear side,and on the summit of the Round Structure (figs. 1,3). These excavations and related soundingsdefined three principal plaza plaster floors. The

2

Fig. 1 Map of the Uxmal Round Structure and associated structures, showing their location relative to the PigeonsGroup.

earliest of these (Plaza Floor 3) was located duringtest pit excavations in Test Pits 1 and 2, as well asin sounding pits excavated at points around thebasal platform (e.g., in quadrants C-6 and J-l0) (fig.2). This floor apparently precedes the constructionof the Round Structure, and apparently represents aplaza level on which a two-stage substructure ofrectangular form with rough masonry walls wasconstructed. This substructure was detected duringexplorations in the interior of the Round Structure.

Plaza Floor 2 was detected in Test Pits 1and 2, and in sounding pits, and wascontemporaneous with the construction of theRound Structure. It extends beneath the basal plat-form of the Round Structure and terminates at thewalls of the inner rectangular substructure.

Plaza Floor 1 refers to the floor level of araised area of the plaza, defining a kind of low plat-form surrounding east, west, and south sides of theRound Structure.

Excavations in Test Pit 3, on the summit ofthe Round Structure, revealed two plaster platformfloor levels. The latest of these is Platform Floor 1,which surfaces the interior room of the RoundBuilding and its surrounding terrace. The earlier ofthese, Platform Floor 2, is located about 75 cen-timeters below Floor 1 and is associated with thetwo-staged rectangular substructure mentionedabove.

The Round Structure consisted of a round

basal platform approximately 18.2 meters in di-ameter (E-W) and 17.5 meters in diameter (N-S)(fig. 3). This platform is faced with large, rectan-gular stone blocks tied into a nucleus of large andsmall unshaped stones and lime and sascab (brec-cia) mortar (fig. 4). The majority appear to havebeen quarried and cut for this project, but at leastone appears to be a reused facing block fromanother Late Puuc building at Uxmal. Several re-used Puuc style sculptured stones also were en-countered in the fill of the platform. Almost theentire basal platform had sections of the lowercourses of masonry well-preserved, with the ex-ception of a section 1.8 meters long in quadrants C-8, C-9, and D-9. The platform originally stoodabout 2.3 meters high and had slightly sloping,nearly vertical walls capped by an overhangingbeveled cornice. Large, wedge-shaped blocks ofthis cornice were encountered in debris around thebase of the platform.

A stairway some 8.4 meters wide and ori-ented approximately 10-12 degrees east of north,projects from the north side of the basal platform.This stairway was constructed over the roughmasonry walls of the rectangular substructurereferred to previously.

On the summit of the round basal platform,surrounded by a terrace, is a structure of circularground plan with a single doorway opening towardthe northeast (fig. 5). The doorway was defined by

3

Fig. 2 East-West and North-South section drawings of the Uxmal Round Structure.

large jamb stones (97 X 60 X 23 cm.) and there areconserved remains of a low plastered step up intothe interior. This round building is approximately10.1 meters in diameter N-S by 10 meters E-W.The outer walls were faced with well squared“veneer” type facing blocks, which rose to a heightof about a meter, with a minimum of three courses,

and more likely four courses, around the entirebuilding (fig. 6). Judging from the debris, the upperexterior course was capped by a projecting,beveled cornice. In most places in the interior, onlytwo courses of badly fire-crazed and spalledmasonry blocks remained standing, although oneblock of a third course remained in place. During

4

Fig. 3 Plan of the Uxmal Round Structure.

the excavation, no evidence of significant masonrydebris in the interior, nor of specially shaped vaultstones was encountered, indicating that the uppersection of the building may have been of plasteredwattle and daub, supporting a roof of perishablematerials (probably conical pole and thatch).3

Several offerings were encountered duringexcavations. The first of these, Offering 1, waslocated in Level III of Test Pit 1, directly in front ofand to the center of the stairway of the RoundStructure. It consisted of an olla of Yokat StriatedWare, accompanied by fragments of MunaSlateware and other ceramic types of the Cehpechcomplex (fig. 7). Although the offering was locatedat the level of Plaza Floor 3, corresponding to theearliest leveling of the plaza, it was clearly intru-sive, and appears to correspond to the constructionperiod of Plaza Floor 2, approximately contempo-raneous with construction of the Round Structure.Offering 1 thus is interpreted as a dedicatory offer-ing for the Round Structure.

The most significant finds were threeofferings of Tohil Plumbate ceramic vessels.Offering 2 consisted of two Tohil Plumbate ves-sels, an effigy armadillo and a pyriform vase,

placed on a shallow level of debris adjacent to thesoutheast base of the basal platform (quadrant L-5)(fig. 8). Offering 3 was composed of two TohilPlumbate vessels, a deer effigy and a vase withglobular body and tapering neck, located on a shal-low layer of debris (13-16 cm.) above the floor ofand adjacent to the rear interior wall of the roundbuilding (quadrant H-4) (fig. 9). Offering 4 con-

5

Fig. 4 View of the facing masonry of the basal plat-form of the Uxmal Round Structure.

Fig. 6 View of the masonry walls of the RoundBuilding of the Uxmal Round Structure.

Fig. 5 View of the doorway of the Round Building ofthe Uxmal Round Structure.

Fig. 7 View of Offering 1, showing Yokat StriatedWare olla located in front of and at base of stairwayof the Uxmal Round Structure.

sisted of two Tohil Plumbate vessels, a pyriformvase with composite silhouette and an anthro-pomorphic effigy depicting a man wearing a feath-ered headdress, located on a thick layer of debris(approximately surface level) near the inner wall ofthe round building (quadrant I-5) (figs. 10). Sincea layer of construction debris was found beneatheach of these offerings, it indicates that a consider-able span of time elapsed between the abandon-ment of the Round Structure and the deposition ofthe Plumbate offerings.

Two columnar altars with hieroglyphic in-scriptions also were found during excavations,located near the northeast corner of the stairway(quadrant J-13; Altar 15) and at the southwest baseof the Round Structure (quadrant D-2; Altar 16)

(cf. Morley 1970; Pollock 1980:274-275). Bothaltars apparently originally were located on theupper terrace encircling the Round Building prop-er. Unfortunately, neither bears well preservedCalendar Round dates, nor are there any personalname glyphs that correspond to those identifiedpreviously at Uxmal or Chichen Itza. A well-pre-served series of glyphs from an upper band onAltar 16 possibly refers to a noble woman with apersonal name containing an earplug sign (cf.Proskouriakoff 1961), and contains a passage pos-sibly reading u kit bolon pauahtun (cf. Stuart1988?; Taube 1992) (figs. 11 and 12). It is possiblethat this name is related to that of the Postclassicdeity known as cit bolon tun, who is described as agod of medicine (and by extension wind-borne dis-ease) by Landa (Tozzer 1941:154). A possibleearplug Ahau title (formerly identified as an em-blem glyph) is found on the hieroglyphic altar infront of the Codz Poop at Kabah (Kelley 1982:8;Grube 1986:Abb. 5), but its form does not closelyresemble that on Altar 16.

Comparative Architecture, Dating, and Impli-cations for Culture History

Buildings of circular plan have been docu-mented at various Mesoamerican sites (Pollock1936b). Many examples occur at sites in centralMexico, where they have generally been connectedwith the cult of Ehecatl, the wind-god manifesta-tion of Quetzalcoatl. Although it is difficult to becertain about the function of the Uxmal RoundStructure, its non-residential character and restrict-ed access, coupled with the fact that depictions ofQuetzalcoatl as the feathered serpent (Foncerrada

6

Fig. 8 View of Offering 2 in situ, showing two TohilPlumbate vessels located near the base of the basalplatform of the Uxmal Round Structure (Quadrant L-5).

Fig. 9 View of Offering 3 in situ, showing two TohilPlumbate vessels located near the base of the innerwall of the Round Building of the Uxmal RoundStructure (Quadrant H-4).

Fig. 10 View of Offering 4 in situ, showing two TohilPlumbate vessels located near the base of the innerwall of the Round Building of the Uxmal RoundStructure (Quadrant I-5).

de Molina 1965) and Ehecatl-like sculptures havebeen documented at the site (Cabello Carro 1980),supports the idea that the Uxmal building was atemple with cultic associations with Quetzalcoatl-Ehecatl.

In the Maya area major examples of roundbuildings generally date to the Terminal Classic/Postclassic periods, although there are reports ofearlier examples of Classic date, particularly at

sites in Belize (Haberland 1958; Sidrys andAndersen 1978; Hammond et al. 1979). Elsewhere,a Classic period circular structure (Str. DZ-12)identified as a vapor bath or oven later converted toritual use has been documented at Oxkintok,Yucatan (Gonzalez Arana 1990). In the CentralYucatan region a Late Classic cylindrical towerexists at Puerto Rico, Campeche (Andrews IV1968) and Structure 16 at Becan is a small circularstructure south of Structure IV (Pina Chan1985:62-63).

Better known and larger examples of suchcircular structures, however, are clearly of Ter-minal Classic or Postclassic date. This is the casefor the Caracol (Str. 3C15) at Chichen Itza(Ruppert 1935; Kelley 1982:13) (fig. 13), the CasaRedonda at the same site (Pollock 1936a; Ruppert1952), and the principal circular temple atMayapan and other related structures at that site(Stephens 1843; Pollock 1936b; Adams 1953;Shook 1953, 1954, 1955; Chowning 1956; Pollock,Roys, Thompson and Proskouriakoff 1962).

Other examples of round structures havebeen documented on the east coast of QuintanaRoo at sites such as Isla Mujeres, Xcaret, Yalku,Xelha, Paalmul, Tulum and San Gervasio(Cozumel) (Pollock 1936b; Lothrop 1924;Andrews V and Andrews 1975; Sierra Sosa 1991;Vargas de la Pena 1992). The majority of these arethought to be of Late Postclassic date, but roundstructures corresponding to an earlier period, per-haps the Terminal Classic, have been reported atother Quintana Roo sites, including Uolmuul(Harrison 1979, 1984), Coba (circular structure inthe San Pedro Group at the termination of Sacbe 3)(Benavides 1976; Navarrete, Uribe, and Martinez1979) and Oxtankah (Ramirez Acevedo 1991).

For many years the most common

7

Fig. 11 Photograph of Uxmal Altar 16.

Fig. 12 Drawing of a section of preserved text from the upper band of Uxmal Altar 16.

interpretation of Postclassic round structures suchas the Caracol or Casa Redonda at Chichen Itzawas that they represented a non-Classic architec-tural form introduced as the result of the Toltecinvasion of Chichen Itza (Tozzer 1957; AndrewsIV 1965). Excavations and mapping carried out atSeibal, Guatemala (A. L. Smith 1982) and atNohmul, Belize (Chase and Chase 1982), however,have documented new examples of round struc-tures which have forced a reassessment of theircultural associations. At Seibal a prominent roundplatform (Structure C-79) was constructed duringthe Terminal Classic Bayal phase (c. A.D. 879-930) (fig. 14). Its round form is related to that ofthe approximately contemporary Caracol atChichen, and corresponds to other significantarchitectural, sculptural, epigraphic, and ceramiclinks between these two centers (Sabloff 1973; A.L. Smith 1982:239-240; Kowalski 1989).

However, these similarities do not appear to havebeen the result of central Mexican Toltec incur-sions at Seibal, but rather apparently represent theoutcome of the political, economic, and militaryexpansion of related Chontal-speaking “Putun”Maya groups during the eighth and ninth centuries(Thompson 1970; Graham 1973; Ball 1974;Kowalski 1989).

At Nohmul the excavations of Chase andChase (1982) have revealed a round structure(Structure 5) of Terminal Classic date, whichseems to be a simplified analog of the Caracol atChichen Itza, (fig. 15) as well as a patio-quad(Structure 20), a variant of the gallery-patio typestructure otherwise known only at Chichen Itza.The presence of such Chichen Itza-related build-ings at Nohmul, which otherwise lacks “Toltec-Maya” architectural or sculptural elements, sup-ports the idea that the round structure form was dis-seminated by the Itza, a branch of the Chontal-speaking “Putun” Maya, rather than by the Toltecsof central Mexico.

The Uxmal Round Structure, like theSeibal or Nohmul structures, apparently was builtduring the Terminal Classic period in the late ninthor tenth century. The large, well-squared facingblocks of its round basal platform are comparableto the facing blocks of the platforms of other Ter-minal Classic “Late Uxmal” edifices such as theHouse of the Governor or Ballcourt 1(the mainballcourt), both of which are believed to have beenbuilt around A.D. 900-910 (Kowalski 1987; Kelley1982). In addition, the reuse of various “Classic”Puuc-style vault stones, facing blocks, or sculptur-al elements in the construction fill indicates that theRound Structure falls late in the Puuc sequence.Exactly how late is not entirely clear, since suchreuse could indicate that the Round Structure post-dates other better dated “Late Uxmal” structures

Analysis of ceramics is not yet concluded,

8

Fig. 13 Plans of construction stages of the Caracol atChichen Itza (after Pollock 1936b:fig. 31).

Fig. 14 Reconstruction drawing of Structure C-79 at Seibal, Guatemala (after A. L. Smith 1982:fig. 135)

but preliminary observation indicates that the vastmajority of pottery recovered pertains to theCehpech ceramic complex, traditionally dated toA.D. 800 to 1000 (R. E. Smith 1971). The findingof six Tohil Plumbate vessels in post-occupationalcontexts has important implications for the datingof the Round Structure. Tohil Plumbate pottery hasalso been reported in excavations at Uxmal carriedout at the Great Pyramid (Saenz 1975), and at thegreat platform of the House of the Governor (asso-ciated with Fine Orange ware and with sherds ofCehpech complex ceramic (Muna Slateware, leaboRedware, etc.) (Barrera Rubio 1991).

Tohil Plumbate was a widespreadMesoamerican tradeware, produced in southwestGuatemala, and traditionally it has been consideredone of the principal ceramic diagnostics of theEarly Postclassic period (Shepard 1948; Neff1989a, 1984b). Although there is some evidencethat Tohil Plumbate was used at sites such as Becanas early as the mid- to late ninth century (Ball1977:135-177), it does not seem to have been dis-seminated widely until the early tenth century.Evidence regarding the appearance of TohilPlumbate ware at Isla Cerritos, believed to be theport for Chichen Itza and whose major period ofoccupation brackets the Terminal Classic/EarlyPostclassic periods, seems particularly relevant tothe Uxmal data (A. Andrews, et al. 1988). At IslaCerritos there is evidence that during the Chacpelphase (c. A.D. 750-900) Puuc-related Cehpech

ceramics intermingled directly with those of theChichen Itza-related Sotuta complex (i.e., SilhoFine Orange, usually considered an EarlyPostclassic type). During the Jotuto phase (c. A.D.500-1200), however, the Puuc-related Cehpechceramics virtually disappear, and are replaced bylarge amounts of Peto Cream ware ceramics, aswell as by smaller quantities of Tohil Plumbatesherds.

The Isla Cerritos evidence indicates that aperiod of Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic or“Puuc” and “Toltec-Maya” overlap, during whichCehpech and certain Sotuta groups are found inmixed lots, is succeeded by a more purely EarlyPostclassic phase. This closely parallels the situ-ation at the Uxmal Round Structure, where themajor period of construction and use is associatedwith predominantly Cehpech ceramics and seemsto be contemporaneous with other “Late Uxmal”structures such as the House of the Governor,Nunnery Quadrangle, or Ballcourt 1, but whereTohil Plumbate vessels appeared in post-occupa-tional contexts.

Dating the Round Structure more precise-ly within the Terminal Classic period is difficult.Kowalski (1987,1990) has argued that these “LateUxmal” structures were constructed during a rela-tively short period of time during the late ninth andearly tenth century, and that substantial large-scaleconstruction at Uxmal ceased not long after the lat-est recorded date of A.D. 907 (cf. Andrews andSabloff 1986; Dunning 1990). He thus argues thatthe Uxmal Round Structure corresponds to a lateninth-early tenth century period when certainSotuta ceramics, such as the Silho Fine Orangegroup (Kilikan Composite) tripod bowl found inassociation with Uxmal Ballcourt 1 (associatedwith a date of A.D. 905) were available contempo-raneously with Cehpech ceramics (Malaonado1979, 1981; Kelley 1982). According to this inter-pretation, the Plumbate vessels were likely broughtto Uxmal and deposited as offerings sometime dur-ing the last half of the tenth century.

Barrera Rubio differs by accepting thestylistic analyses and architectural seriation ofGeorge Andrews (1986) and Paul Gendrop (1983),both of whom suggest that the “Late Uxmal” struc-tures were built and occupied from approximatelyA.D. 900 to 1050. He therefore suggests that theUxmal Round Structure was not constructed untilthe middle of or at the end of the tenth century, andthat the Plumbate offerings may have been deposit-ed as late as the early eleventh century.

Despite these discrepant interpretations,

9

Fig. 15 Plan of Structure 9 at Nohmul, Belize (afterChase and Chase 1982:fig. 2).

evidence discovered during the excavation of theUxmal Round Structure helps clarify the extent ofthe chronological overlap between Uxmal andChichen Itza during the Terminal Classic transitionperiod (c. AD. 800-1000), and aids in defining thenature of the cultural and political interactionsbetween these two sites. As noted, two different“non-linear” models for correlating the Puuc and“Toltec-Maya” cultural expressions have been pro-posed (Ball 1979a, 1979b). The “Total Overlap”model argues that the occupations of the Puuccities and that of Chichen Itza are wholly coeval,and that Chichen Itza’s “Toltec-Maya” culture andart style represents a regional variant rather than asequential development (Lincoln 1986, n.d.;Ringle, Bey, Peraza n.d.). We feel that the deposi-tion of Tohil Plumbate vessels in post-occupation-al levels of the Uxmal Round Structure does notsupport this interpretation. The evidence from theUxmal Round Structure best accords with the alter-native explanation of northern Maya culture histo-ry, the “Partial Overlap” model, which views thePuuc centers and “Toltec-Maya” Chichen Itza ascontemporaneous for a period of between 50 to 100years (or perhaps 150 years if Barrera Rubio is cor-rect about a late tenth century date for the RoundStructure). The presence of a round building thatcan be considered a Chichen Itza-like Caracolanalog at Uxmal, provides further evidence that asignificant chronological overlap existed betweenthe two sites, and that there were close contacts be-tween them at an elite level. Such elite contactshave been documented formerly in the areas ofepigraphy (probable references to the Chichen Itzapersonages Kakupacal and Lady Kayam K’uk inUxmal inscriptions), sculptural style and ico-nography (the presence of prominent feathered ser-pent sculptures at the Nunnery Quadrangle andBallcourt 1), and ceramics (the Silho FineOrangeware offering cache at Ballcourt 1) (Kelley1982; Krochock n.d.; Grube n.d.; Foncerrada 1965;Kowalski 1986, 1987; Maldonado C. 1979, 1981).4In addition to these evidences of contact, an im-portant iconographic indication of the close rela-tionship between Uxmal and Chichen Itza appearson Uxmal Stela 14, where the warrior standingbehind the ruler Lord Chac holds an atlatlspearthrower and holds a circular shield marked bycrescent-shaped motifs identical to those appearingon the shields adorning the frieze of the UpperTemple of the Jaguars at Chichen Itza(Proskouriakoff 1950:164; 1970) (fig. 16). Alter-nate explanations of such resemblances are pos-sible. For example, Ringle, Bey, and Peraza (n.d.)

recently have suggested that major northern Mayacenters such as Ek Balam and Uxmal were almostwholly coeval with Chichen Itza and that theyretained political autonomy, but that they adoptedsome Chichen Itza-related iconographic traits in aprocess of elite emulation. In Uxmal’s case, how-ever, the similarities are more extensive and specif-ic than in the case of Ek Balam. This could reflectthe creation of some sort of more formal military-political alliance between the Uxmal and ChichenItza elite, perhaps with Lord Chac collaboratingwith and utilizing Itza warriors to consolidateUxmal’s power in the Puuc region during the lateninth or tenth century. Given the fact that theUxmal Round Structure is known to be one of anumber of distinctive round platforms and/or tem-ples (e.g., the Caracol at Chichen Itza; Structure C-79 at Seibal, Guatemala; Structure 9 at Nohmul,Belize) built during the Terminal Classic period, itseems likely that the Uxmal circular counterpartwas constructed during the period of elite interac-tion and collaboration between Lord Chac ofUxmal and the Itza rulers of Chichen Itza. Coupledwith the evidence for Uxmal-Chichen Itza tiesmentioned above, the presence of a round templesuggests that, although remaining politicallyautonomous, Uxmal’s elite may have concluded apact with Chichen Itza, and sought to demonstratetheir close links with Chichen Itza’s rulers byadopting the same innovative, non-Classic reli-gious cults, and by emulating some of Chichenarchitectural forms. If we are correct in interpretingthe Round Structure and related architectural,sculptural, epigraphic, and iconographic evidenceas reflecting an Uxmal-Chichen Itza affiance, suchties apparently did not long survive the tenth cen-tury (Kowalski 1987; Dunning 1952; Pollock1980; but cf. G. Andrews 1986; Gendrop 1983).The finds of Tohil Plumbate vessels in post-occu-pational debris levels of the Uxmal RoundStructure seem to indicate that the dynastic or-ganization responsible for maintenance of suchbuildings had probably disintegrated either by themiddle of the tenth century according to Kowalski,or by the late tenth to early eleventh centuryaccording to Barrera Rubio. The post-occupationalplacement of Plumbate vessels as offerings sug-gests that a later elite group continued living atUxmal, perhaps during the late tenth through earlyeleventh centuries. This elite group apparently wasunable to maintain the major buildings, but seemsto have been associated with various of the smallerU- or C-shaped buildings or the small room com-plex northwest of the Pyramid of the Magician

10

(Konieczna and Mayer Guala 1976). Their abilityto obtain Plumbate ware argues that Chichen Itzawas still thriving and that they maintained contactwith that center. Perhaps they served as ChichenItza’s agents in the Puuc region.

The excavation of the Uxmal Round Struc-ture helps clarify the chronological and culturalrelationship between Uxmal and Chichen Itza, butalso indicates that the “overlap” question is com-plex and probably involved varying types ofregional interactions (cf. Ringle, Bey, and Peraza

n.d. on the Ek Balam-Chichen Itza relationship; A.Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985 and RoblesCastellanos and A. Andrews 1986 on the Coba-Chichen Itza relationship). In the sense that somesmall-scale construction probably continued atUxmal during the later tenth and possibly earlyeleventh centuries, one can speak of a prolongedchronological “overlap” between the two cities.However, in the sense that major Puuc-style edi-fices do not seem to have been constructed ormaintained at this time, the evidence best accordswith what traditionally has been called the “PartialOverlap Model.”

Finally, and with less certainty, we wouldspeculate that the eventual decline of monumentalarchitectural construction sometime after10.4.0.0.0 in the Maya Long Count (A.D. 909)might best be explained as the result of the dis-solution of the fairly short-lived Uxmal-ChichenItza alliance postulated above, perhaps resulting inthe ultimate conquest of Uxmal by a multi-ethnic,multiple ruler polity at Chichen Itza as has beensuggested by Schele and Freidel (1990; cf. Freidel1992). Uxmal’s elite seem to have used architec-ture and art to indicate that they considered them-selves the cultural brethren of the Itza rulers ofChichen Itza, but this apparently did not preventthe latter site from eventually deposing the Uxmallords, after which a small Chichen-related groupestablished an enclave living in the smaller, shod-dier late buildings scattered among graduallycrumbling monumental edifices such as theNunnery Quadrangle, or the recently excavatedRound Structure.

REFERENCESAdams Robert M., Jr.

1953 Some Small Ceremonial Structures ofMayapan. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Department ofArchaeology, Current Report Y.Cambridge.

Andrews, Anthony P., and Fernando RoblesCastellano1985 Chichen Itza and Coba: An Itza-Maya

Standoff in Early Postclassic Yucatan. InThe Lowland Maya Postclassic, editedby Arlen E Chase and Prudence M. Rice,pp. 62-72. Austin: University of TexasPress.

Andrews, Anthony P. Tomas Gallareta Negron,Fernando Robles Castellanos, Rafael CobosPalma, and Pura Cervera Rivero1988 Isla Cerritos: An Itza Trading Port on

11

Fig. 16 Drawing of Uxmal Stela 14 (courtesy of IanGraham).

the North Coast of Yucatan, Mexico.National Geographic Research 4(2):196-207.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, IV1965 Archaeology and Prehistory in the

Northern Maya Lowlands: AnIntroduction. Handbook of MiddleAmerican Indians 2, edited by Gordon R.Willey, pp. 288-330. Austin:University of Texas Press.

1968 Torre Cilindrica de las Ruinas dePuerto Rico, Campeche. INAH Boletin31:7-13. Mexico, D.F.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, V, and Anthony P. Andrews 1975 A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of

Xcaret, Ouintana Roo, Mexico. MiddleAmerican Research Institute,Publication 40. New Orleans: TulaneUniversity.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, V1975 Some Comments on Puuc Architecture

of the Northern Yucatan Peninsula. InThe Puuc: New Perspectives, edited byLawrence Mills, 1-17. Scholarly Studiesin the Liberal Arts No. 1. CentralCollege, Pella, Iowa.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, V and Jeremy A. Sabloff1986 Classic to Postclassic: A Summary

Discussion. In Late Lowland MayaCivilization: Classic to Postclassic, edit-ed by Jeremy A Sabloff and E. WyllysAndrews V. pp. 433-456. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

Andrews, George F.1986 Los Estilos Arquitectonicos del Puuc:

Una Nueva Apreciacion. InstitutoNacional de Antropologia e historia,Mexico, D.F.

Ball, Joseph A.1974 A Coordinate Approach to Northern

Maya Prehistory. American Antiquity 39:85-93.

1977 The Archaeological Ceramics ofBecan, Campeche, Mexico. MiddleAmerican Research Institute Publication43. New Orleans: Tulane University.

1979a Ceramics, Culture History, and thePuuc. In The Puuc: New Perspectives,edited by Lawrence Mills, pp. 18-35.Scholarly Studies in the Liberal Arts No.1. Central College, Pella, Iowa.

1979b The 1977 Central CollegeSymposium on Puuc Archaeology: ASummary View. In The Puuc: New

Perspectives, edited by Lawrence Mills,pp. 46-51. Scholarly Studies in theLiberal Arts No. 1. Central College,Pella, Iowa.

Barrera Rubio, Alfredo1991 La Gran Plataforma del Palacio del

Gobernador de Uxmal. Cuadernos deArquitectura Mesoamericana, no. 12:41-56.

Barrera Rubio, Alfredo, Tomas Gallareta Negron,Carlos Perez Alvarez, Lourdes ToscanoHernandez, and Jose G. Huchim Herrera1988 Restauracion e Investigacion

Arqueologica en Uxmal (1986-1987).Mexicon 10 (2):37- 40.

Barrera Rubio, Alfredo, and Jose Huchim Herrera 1989 Exploraciones Recientes en Uxmal

(1986-1987). Memorias del II Coloquiolnternacional de Mayistas 1.Universidad Nacional Autonoma deMexico, Mexico City.

1990 Architectural Restoration at Uxmal1986-1987. University of PittsburghLatin American Archaeology ReportsNo. 1. Pittsburgh.

Baudez, Claude, and Sydney Picasso1992 Lost Cities of the Maya. Harry N.

Abrams, Inc., New York.Cabello Carro, Paz

1980 Escultura Mexican Precolombina en elMuseo de America. Madrid: Ministeriode Cultura.

Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase1982 Yucatecan Influence in Terminal

Classic Belize. American Antiquity 47:596-609.

Chowning, A.1956 A Round Temple and its Shrine at

Mayapan. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Department ofArchaeology, Current Report 34,Cambridge.

Coggins, Clemency Chase, and Orrin C. Shane III,editors1984 Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures

from the Sacred Well at Chichen Itza.Austin: University of Texas Press.

Diehl, Richard A.1983 Tula: The Toltec Capital of Ancient

Mexico. New York: Thames and Hudson.Dunning, Nicholas P.

1990 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of thePuuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D.Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

12

University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Dunning, Nicholas P., and Jeff K. Kowalski

n.d. Lords of the Hills: Classic MayaSettlement Patterns and PoliticalIconography in the Puuc Region,Mexico. Manuscript accepted for publi-cation by Ancient Mesoamerica.

Foncerra de Molina, Marta1965 La escultura arquitectonica de Uxmal.

Mexico, D.F.: Universidad NacionalAutonoma de Mexico.

Freidel, David1992 Children of the First Father’s Skull:

Terminal Classic Warfare in the NorthernMaya Lowlands and the Transformationof Kingship and Elite Hierarchies. InMesoamerican Elites: AnArchaeological Assessment, edited byDiane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, pp.99-117. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Gendrop, Paul1983 Los estilos Rio Bec, Chenes y Puuc en

la arquitectura Maya. UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico,D.F.

Gonzalez Arana, Itziar1990 Excavaciones en la estructura DZ-12.

Oxkintok 3. Mision Arqueologica deEspaña en Mexico, Proyecto Oxkintok(Miguel Rivera Dorado, coordinator):61-72. Madrid.

Graham, John A.1973 Aspects of Non-Classic Presences in

the Inscriptions and Sculptural Art ofSeibal. In The Classic Maya Collapse,edited by T. Patrick Culbert, pp. 207-219. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

Grube, Nikolai1986 Die Hieroglyphentreppe von Kabah,

Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 8 (1):13-17.n.d. Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of

Northwest Yucatan. Paper presented atthe First Maler Conference on theArchaeology of Northwest Yucatan,Seminar fur Volkerkunde, UniversitatBonn, Bonn, West Germany, August 20-24, 1990.

Haberland, Wolfgang1958 An Early Mound at Louisville, British

Honduras. Man 172:128-129.Hammond, Norman, D. Pring, R. Wilk, S.

Donaghey, F P. Saul, E. S. Wing, A. V.

Miller, and L. H. Feldman1979 The Earliest Lowland Maya?

Definition of the Swasey Phase.American Antiquity 44:92-110.

Harrison, Peter D.1979 The Lobil Postclassic Phase in the

Southern Interior of the YucatanPeninsula. Mesoamerican Archaeologyand Ethnohistory, edited by NormanHammond and Gordon Willey, 189-207.Austin: University of Texas Press.

1984 Algunos Aspectos del AsentamientoPrehispanico del sur de Quintana Roo,Mexico. Boletin de la E.C.A.U.D.Y 64:14-36. Merida, Yucatan.

Jimenez Moreno, Wigberto1941 Tula y los Toltecas Segun las Fuentes

Historicas. Revista Mexicana deEstudios Antropologicos 5:79-83.

Kelley, David H.1982 Notes on Puuc Inscriptions and

History. In The Puuc: New Perspectives,edited by Lawrence Mills. ScholarlyStudies in the Liberal Arts No. 1,Supplement. Pella, Iowa: CentralCollege.

Konieczna, Barbara, and Pablo Mayer Guala1976 Uxmal, Yucatan. Informe de la

Temporada 1973-1974. InvestigacionesArqueologicas en el sureste 27:1-18.

Kowalski, Jeff Karl1986 Some Comments on Uxmal

Inscriptions. Mexicon 8:93-95.1987 The House of the Governor, a Maya

Palace at Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

1989 Who Am I Among the Itza?: LinksBetween Northern Yucatan and theWestern Maya Lowlands and Highlands.In Mesoamerica after the Decline ofTeotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited byRichard A. Diehl and Janet C. Berlo,Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pp.173-175.

1990 A Preliminary Report on the 1988 FieldSeason at the Nunnery Quadrangle,Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 12:27- 33.

n.d. The Puuc as Seen From Uxmal. Paperprepared for the First Maler Symposiumon the Archaeology of NorthwestYucatan (Puuc and Chenes Regions),Seminar fur Volkerkunde, UniversitatBonn, Bonn, West Germany, August 20-

13

25, 1990.Krochock, Ruth J.

n.d. The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions andIconography of the Temple of the FourLintels and Related Monuments,Chichen Itza, Yucatan. UnpublishedMaster’s Thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Texas,Austin.

Lincoln, Charles E.1986 The Chronology of Chichen Itza: A

Review of the Literature. In LateLowland Maya Civilization: Classic toPostclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloffand E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 141-156.Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

1990 Ethnicity and Social Organization atChichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D.Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Harvard University.

Lothrop, Samuel K.1924 Tulum, An Archaeological Study of the

East Coast of Yucatan. Washington,D.C.: Carnegie Institution of WashingtonPublication 335.

Maldonado Cardenas, Ruben1979 Ofrenda del Juego de Pelota en Uxmal.

Novedades de Yucatan, April 25, Merida.Morley, Sylvanus G.

1970 The Stela Platform at Uxmal, Yucatan.In Archaeological Studies in MiddleAmerica, edited with notes by H. E. D.Pollock, pp. 151-180. New Orleans:Middle American Research InstitutePublication 26. Tulane University.

Navarrete, Carlos, J. Con Uribe, and A. MartinezM.1979 Observaciones Arqueologicas en

Coba, Quintana Roo. Mexico, D.F.:Centro de Estudios Mayas, UNAM,.

Neff, Hector1989a Origins of Plumbate Pottery

Production. In Ancient Trade andTribute: Economies of the SoconuscoRegion of Mesoamerica, edited byBarbara Voorhies, 170-193. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

1989b The Effect of InterregionalDistribution on Plumbate PotteryProduction. In Ancient Trade andTribute: Economies of the SoconuscoRegion of Mesoamerica, edited BarbaraVoorhies, pp. 24-267. University of Utah

Press, Salt Lake City.Nuttall, Zelia

1930 The Round Temples of Mexico andYucatan. Art and Archaeology 30 (6):229-233. Washington, D.C.

Pina Chan, Roman1985 Cultura y Ciudades Mayas de

Campeche. Mexico City: Editorial delSureste S. de R.L.

Pollock, H. E. D.1936a The Casa Redonda at Chichen Itza,

Yucatan. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie In-stitution of Washington Publication 456,pp. 129-156.

1936. Round Structures of AboriginalMiddle America. Washington, D.C.:Carnegie Institution of WashingtonPublication 471.

1980 The Puuc: An Architectural Survey ofthe Hill Country of Yucatan andNorthern Campeche, Mexico. Memoirsof the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology, 19. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University.

Pollock, H. E. D., Ralph L. Roys, TatianaProskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith.1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico.

Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institutionof Washington Publication 615.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture.

Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institutionof Washington Publication 193.

1961 Portraits of Women in Maya Art. InEssays in Precolumbian Art andArchaeology, edited by Samuel K.Lothrop, pp. 81-99. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

1970 On Two Inscriptions at Chichen Itza. InMonographs and Papers in MayaArchaeology, edited by William R.Bullard, pp. 457-467. Cambridge, Mass.:Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity 1.

Ramirez Acevedo, Gilberto1991 Una estructura circular en Oxtantah,

Quintana Roo. Antropologia 34:90-92.Boletin del Instituto Nacional deAntropologia e Historia, Nueva Epoca,Mexico City.

Rice, Donald S.1986 The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement

Perspective. In Late Lowland Maya

14

Civilization: Classic to Postclassic,Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. WyllysAndrews V, eds., 301-344. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

Ringle, William, George Bey, and Carlos Peraza L.n.d. An Itza Empire in Northern Yucatan?: a

Neighboring View. Paper presented atthe 47th International Congress ofAmericanists, Tulane University, NewOrleans, July 7-11, 1991.

Ruppert, Karl1935 The Caracol at Chichen Itza, Yucatan,

Mexico. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publication454.

1952 Chichen Itza: Architectural Notes andPlans. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publication593.

Ruppert, Karl, and Augustus L. Smith1957 House Types in the Environs of

Mayapan and at Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil,Chichen Itza, and Chacchob. CarnegieInstitution of Washington CurrentReports, no. 39. Cambridge, Mass.

Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto1955 Uxmal: Temporada de Trabajos 1951-

1952. Anales del Instituto Nacional deAntropologia e Historia 6 (34): 49-67.Mexico, D.F.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.1973 Continuity and Disruption During

Terminal Late Classic times at Seibal:Ceramic and Other Evidence. In TheClassic Maya Collapse, T. PatrickCulbert, editor, pp. 107-131.Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

Saenz, Cesar A.1975 Exploraciones y restauraciones en

Uxmal (1970-1971). Boletin del InstitutoNacional de Antropologia e Historia,Epoca 11, 2: 31-40. Mexico, D.F.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of

the Ancient Maya. New York: WilliamMorrow Publishers.

Shepard, Anna O.1948 Plumbate—A Mesoamerican Trade

Ware. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publication573.

Shook, Edwin M.1953 The X-Coton Temples at Mayapan.

Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institutionof Washington Current Reports 1 (5):207-221.

1954 Three temples and their associatedstructures at Mayapan. Washington,D.C.: Carnegie Institution of WashingtonCurrent Reports 1 (14): 254-291.

1955 Another round temple at Mayapan.Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institutionof Washington Current Reports 2 (27):267-280.

Sidrys, Raymond V., and J. M. Andresen1978 A second round structure from

Northern Belize, Central America. Man[n.s.] 13:638-650.

Sierra Sosa, Thelma N.1991 Contribucion al estudio de los patrones

de asentamiento de San Gervasio, Isla deCozumel. Tesis de licenciatura, Facultadde Ciencias Antropologicas, UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.

Smith, Augustus L.1982 Major Architecture and Caches. In

Excavations at Seibal, Department ofPeten, Guatemala , edited by Gordon R.Willey. Cambridge, Mass.: Memoirs ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology, Harvard University, 15.

Smith, Robert E.1971 The Pottery of Mayapan, including

Studies of Ceramic Material fromUxmal, Kabah, and Chichen Itza. Papersof the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology, Harvard University, 66.Cambridge, Mass.

Stuart, David1987 Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research

Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 14.Washington, D.C.: Center for MayaResearch.

Taube, Karl A.1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan.

Studies in Pre-Columbian Art andArchaeology 32. Washington, D.C.:Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection.

Thompson, J. E. S.1945 A Survey of the Northern Maya Area.

American Antiquity 11: 2-24.1970 Maya History and Religion. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press.Tourtellot, Gair, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Kelli

Carmean1992 “Will the Real Elites Please Stand

15

Up?”: An Archaeological Assessment ofMaya Elite Behavior in the TerminalClassic Period. In Mesoamerican Elites:An Archaeological Assessment, edited byDiane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, pp.80-98. Norman: University of OklahomaPress.

Tozzer, Alfred M.1941 Landa’s Relacion de las cosas de

Yucatan. A translation edited with notesby A. M. Tozzer. Cambridge, Mass:Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity 33.

l957 Chichen Itza and its Cenote ofSacrifice: A Comparative Study ofContemporaneous Maya and Toltec.Cambridge, Mass: Memoirs of thePeabody Museum of Archaeology andEthnography, Harvard University, 11-12.

Vargas de la Pena, Leticia1992 Estudio de la arquitectura publica de

San Gervasio, Cozumel. Tesis de licen-ciatura, Facultad de CienciasAntropologicas, Universidad Autonomade Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.

Wren, Linnea, and Peter D. Schmidt1991 Elite Interaction During the Terminal

Classic Period: New Evidence fromChichen Itza. Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and ArchaeologicalEvidence, edited by T. Patrick Culbert,pp. 199-225. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

NOTES1 Financial support for this project was

made available by the Committee for Research andExploration of the National Geographic Society(Grant 4456-91), and by a CIES FulbrightResearch Award. Supplemental funding was sup-plied by the Centro Regional de Yucatan (C.R.Y.),Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia,Merida. Kowalski’s preliminary research wasaided by funds for a research leave granted by theCenter for Latino and Latin American Studies,Northern Illinois University

In addition to the authors, who served asproject co-directors, the staff also included HeberOjeda Mas as principal assistant archaeologist,Virginia Ochoa R. and David Salazar, graduate stu-dents in the School of Anthropological Sciences ofthe Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, as well asthe archaeologist Jose Huchim Herrera (C.R.Y.)

who provided invaluable assistance and collabora-tion.

The project utilized 5 masons/excavatorsfrom Oxkutzcab, Yucatan, under the direction ofWilber Castillo Cante, and laborers from the townof Santa Elena, Yucatan, under the direction ofEfrain Moreno Sansores.

The authors wish to acknowledge theirindebtedness to the above-mentioned institutionsand individuals and thank them for their support. Inaddition, Kowalski would like to thank JoanneAndrews for the permission to use the library in herhome, Quinta M.A.R.I., in Merida, and NicholasDunning, who has shared many insights aboutPuuc settlement patterns and political organization.

2 This is the second major ballcourt locat-ed in the central civic-ceremonial nucleus ofUxmal. In the northern sector of the habitationalzone of Uxmal, Barrera Rubio (field notes, 1978)located two parallel structures which also appear tobe the boundary platforms of a ballcourt (plans notyet published).

3 A few examples of broken Puuc taperedor “boot-shaped” vault stones were discovered onthe slopes of the platform, but these were judged tohave been used as platform fill rather than part ofthe roof of the Round Building. The lack of a vault-ed roof relates the Uxmal Round Structure to theCasa Colorada at Chichen Itza (cf. Pollock1936:10&, fig. 37), as well as to many circular plantemples in Central Mexico (Pollock 1936; Nuttall1930).

4 A glyphic monument of distinctive form(i.e., a broad cylindrical body with a sort of spigotor tenon at the end) closely related to Altar 16found at the southwest side of the Round Structurewas discovered in the courtyard of the CemeteryGroup, where the reference to Lady Kayam K’ukoccurs. This monument apparently was discoverednear the southwest corner of hieroglyphic Platform3 (northeastern) (viz., Pollock 1980:220-224, fig.402; Baudez and Picasso 1992:98).

16