Some Ancient Maya Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo: Defining the "Triad-Pill" Monument Type - in Shaw, Justine M. & Jennifer P. Matthews, pp. 214-227

14 Some Ancient Maya Monuments from

Southern Quintana Roo

Defining the "Tiiad-Pill" Monument Typ.

Peter D. Harrison

ln the course of an archaeological survey conducted in southern Quin-tana Roo during freld seasons ranging over the period 1972 through

l974,lhe Uaymil SurveyProject recorded a number of stone monuments

at several sites. The general paucity of such monuments in the areas ofsouthern Quintana Roo and Campeche has often been remarked upon

in the literature. The commentary presented here helps to filI this gap.

This chapter is concerned only with a specilic group of the new mon-

uments that are identified by a cluster of distinguishing characteristics.

Each monument is composed of four separate stones, three of which

served as supports for the fourth. Further, the three sLlpports are dis-

tinctively pill-shaped (see Iig. l4.l). The supported stone was found tooccur in a variety of shapes and sizes and is tentatively identified as an

altar, given that supported altars have already been identified in the Maya

lowlands.

To date, the known distribution of this type of monument is highly

restricted within the survey area. Evidence for the definition of the type

is drawn fiom the five most apparently similar examples at three sites.

These three sites lie almost in a straight line and are separated by a maxi-

mum distance of 32 km. lt is possible, therefore, that use of the supported

altar monument type in southern Quintana Roo was highly localized.

Because the three supports were not fixed in any tnilnner to the sup-

ported element, and in view of the ftrct that the altar stones are generally

small (dian-reter of I m*), it is not surprising that all but one example

occurred in secondary positions. Little effbrt is required to scatter the

component elements of such a monument. That the evidence presented

here represents a monument type is deduced from the preservation ofone complete in situ example and from a second example where the four

components remained in close association, although the presumably

supported stone lay at a distance of 3 m from its suspected supports. Allother examples represent incomplete monuments, with various num-

bers of missing elements. The sizes and shapes of those elements that

Triad-Pill Monur

Fig. 14.1 Chichmuul, MonumentPl,

by Peter Harrison)

were found allow a reconstruction

plete and near-complete examples

The three sites from which thes

Chancacab, and Las Panteras, Grc

largest of the sites and is the sour

basic monument type as well as or

figuration. The distinctively shapt

ment for identi{ication of the typt

support stones by thernselves has

ficient evidence to identify an exal

ported stone (or aitar) could not b

is that the larger supported stone

Postclassic times, and hence move

the supported stone had been can

could well have been removed bv I

Vlonuments from00

4onument Type

rrvey conducted in southern euin-ing over the period 1972 throughrded a number of stone monumentsrf such monuments in the areas ofche has often been remarked uponesented here helps to filI this gap.h a specific group of the new mon-:r of distinguishing characteristics.ur separate stones, three of whichurther, the three supports are dis-Ihe supported stone was found to; and is tentatively identified as analreadybeen identified in the Maya

f this type of monument is highlylence for the definition of the typetly similar examples at three sites.rt line and are separated by a maxi-lherefore, that use of the supportedintana Roo was highly localized.rt fixed in any manner to the sup-t that the altar stones are generallyLrprising that all but one examplele effort is required to scatter thenent. That the evidence presentedleduced from the preservation ofr a second example where the four:iation, although the presumablyn from its suspected supports. Allmonuments, with various num-nd shapes of those elements that

Triad-Pill Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo 215

Fig. 14.1 Chichmuul, Monument P1, showing typical pill shape. (Photograph

by Peter Harrison)

were found allow a reconstruction of the type by analogy with the com-plete and near-complete examples.

The three sites from which these examples are drawn are Chichmuul,Chancacab, and Las Panteras, Group C (see fig. I.1). Chichmuul is thelargest of the sites and is the source of the majority of examples of the

basic monument type as well as one carved monument in a related con-figuration. The distinctively shaped supports provide the uni$'ing ele-

ment for identification of the type. The presence of two or three of the

support stones by themselves has therefore been accepted here as suf-ficient evidence to identi$z an example of this type, even when the sup-

ported stone (or altar) could not be found. Justification for this positionis that the larger supported stone could easily have been reused in Late

Postclassic times, and hence moved to another location. Furthermore, ifthe supported stone had been carved as in the example at Chichmuul, itcould well have been removed by looters in modern times.

21 6 Harrison

The "Triad-Pill" Monument Type

Monument P4 at Chichmuul is the only complete and in situ example

of the basic type (see fi,gs.14.2,14.3, and 14.4). The fact that this monu-ment was both eroded and partially shattered by tree growth may ac-

count for its having been left intact. it is also the largest and heaviest ofall the examples. It is from Monument P4 that the relationship betweenthe supports and the supported stone can be determined. A schematicreconstruction of the arrangement of the four stones is illustrated infigure I4.4. Though the support stones of Monument P4 vary to some

degree in diameter and thickness, they are uniformly round to ovoid inshape, thick in proportion to height, and marked by a bluntly round-ed angle-edge between the side and top or bottom. The overall shape

is reminiscent of an old-fashioned vitamin pill, and because there are

three of these pill-shaped supports, I use the name triad-pill to charac-

terize the new monument type. The metric data for Monument P4 andall other reported examples are given in table 14.1.

Monument Descriptions

Of the eight monuments described here, five are considered to be repre-sentative of the type, whereas the remaining three appear to be relatedto the type in one or more respects. After their initial enumeration, plainmonuments are designated by a capital P before the monument num-ber.

Chichmuul Plain Monument 1

Chichmuul P1 is represented by the three supports only, of which twowere scattered to a distance of 5 m from the first. These were locatednear the northwest corner of Structure 3 at the north end of the site. Theelement called Support 1 was embedded in leaf mould, where it had ap-

parently remained undisturbed for a number of years. Supports 2 and 3

had been moved within the precedin gyear, according to reports by localinformants. There was no element in the immediate vicinity that couldbe identilied as the missing supported altar stone.

Triad-Pill Monut

Fig.14.2 Chichmuul, Monument I

Harrison)

Chichmuul Plain Monument 2

Chichmuul P2 included two Pil

size than those of Monument P1

1.14 m in diameter resPectivelY. 1

Compared to the other examPles

supported stones (altars) were it

identical shaPe and size. TheY ha'

were located on the central axis

the structure.

Chichmuul Plain Monument 4

Chichmuul P4 is the in situ exam

notable for the shaPe of the suP

pered trapezoidal form (Jones ar

Terminal Classic stelae such as t

e

re only complete and in situ example,3,and 14.4). The fact that this monu_rlly shattered by tree growth may ac_:t. It is also the largest and heaviest ofnent P4 that the relationship betweenlone can be determined. A schematicrt of the four stones is illustrated intones of Monument p4 vary to somethey are uniformly round to ovoid in;ht, and marked by a bluntly round-rd top or bottom. The overall shapeI vitamin pill, and because there arei, I use the name triad-pill to charac_re metric data for Monument p4 and:n in table 14.1.

here, five are considered to be repre_emaining three appear to be relatedAfter their initial enumeration, plainpital P before the monument num_

: three supports only, of which twofrom the first. These were located

re 3 at the north end of the site. Thelded in leaf mould, where it had ap-L number ofyears. Supports 2 and.3gyear, according to reports by localr the immediate vicinity that couldd altar stone.

Triad-Pill Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo 2i7

$f

Fig.1a.2 Chichmuul, Monument P4, as found. (Photograph by peter

Harrison)

Chichmuul Plain Monument 2

Chichmuul P2 included two pill-shaped stones of considerably largersize than those of Monument P1. The stones of P2 measured 1.0 m and1.14 m in diameter respectively. The two stones were in close association.Compared to the other exanples at the site, the large size would suggestsupported stones (altars) were it not for their close association and nearidentical shape and size. They had not been disturbed in recent years andwere located on the central axis of Structure 3, near the frontal base ofthe structure.

Chichmuul Plain Monument 4

chichmuul P4 is the in situ example illustrated in figure l4.2.ltis furthernotable for the shape of the supported altar, which is similar to the ta-pered trapezoidal form (]ones and Satterthwaite 1982, fig. 88) of certainTerminal Classic stelae such as the carved one found at limbal north of

sailt

t' ,$

&

&.1

N -<-

qffi

-_

Support 2

1,0 1.5 neter$

Fig. 14.3 Chichmuul, Monument P4, east elevation and plan. (lllustration

by Peter Harrison)

Eort Elevolion

0 0.5 1.0

F#

Fig.14.4 Chichmuul, Monument Pr

by Peter Harrison)

Supporl ?

I o:5 t.o r.5 norori

-east elevation and plan. (lllustration

Eosl Elevolion

0 0.5 ,|.0 1.5 meiersH

ACM

Fig. 14.4 Chichmuul, Monument P4, schematic reconstruction. (lllustration

by Peter Harrison)

220 Harrison

7

Table 14.1 Specific Metric Data for I

Support TyPe

Monument Number

and Location

Diameter

(in meters

0.5 t.o

Fig. 1a.5 Las Panteras, Group C, Monument P1, plan as found. (lllustration

by Peter Harrison)

Tikal. In the case of P4, the surface erosion and spalling are too severe toallow determination of whether the monument was carved. On the basis

of its shape, it is possible that the stone found in use as an altar mightonce have been a stela that was reworked to its present use and position.It is the only example of such a shape.

Chancacab Plain Monument'l

Chancacab P1 included three support stones of the characteristic shape

occurring in association with each other. The location was inside a quad-rangle of low platforms contained within the main p\aza of the smallceremonial center. A larger ovoid and pill-shaped stone was found out-side the quadrangle, on the surface of the plazaand close to the base ofthe site's tallest structure. This stone could have been dragged out of thequadrangle at a later date for reuse near the foot of the probable temple.

Las Panteras Group C, Plain Monument 1

Las Panteras Group C Pl is the second-best example of the type, afterMonument P4 of Chichmuul. The three support stones and the altarstone are all present (see fig. 14.5), the larger unit lying at 3 m distance

from the supports. The fact that all the stones are tilted and partiallyburied in the topsoil suggests that they have not been disturbed in recent

-<1---\\a

r{--\ .{

t.vChichmuul Monument P1

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Chichmuul Monument P2

Support 1

Support 2

Chichmuul Monument P3

AltarChichmuul Monument P4

Support I

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chichmuul Monument P5

AltarLas Panteras GrouP C

Monument P1

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chancacab Monument P1

Support'l

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chichmuul Monument 1

(carved)Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

0.42

0.42

')

1.24 x 0.8

0.60

0.61

0.52

1.50 x 0.95-

0.88

0.48 x 0.

0.48 x 0.

0.40 x

1.0

?

0.76 x 0

0.33

0.30

0.32

0.94 x (

1.00

1.t4

rThe two numbers represent maximum an(

b Because of fraqmentation, the minimum c

Table 14.1 Specific Metric Data for All Monuments Related to the Triad-Pill

Support Type

Monument Number

and Location Supports and Altar

Ratio of Altar to

Support

Diameters

Diameter

(in meters)

Height Ratio

(in

meters)

Chichmuul Monument P1

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Chichmuul Monument P2

Support 1

Support 2

Chichmuul Monument P3

AltarChichmuul Monument P4

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chichmuul Monument P5

AltarLas Panteras Group C

Monument P1

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chancacab Monument P1

Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

Chichmuul Monument 1

(carved)Support 1

Support 2

Support 3

Altar

0.42

0.42

?

0.24 1.75:1

0.24 1.75:1

?7

lument P1, plan as found. (lllustration

erosion and spalling are too severe tomonument was carved. On the basis

;tone found in use as an altar mightrrked to its present use and position.)e.

)rt stones of the characteristic shape

ther. The location was inside a quad-within the main plaza of the smallnd pill-shaped stone was found out-of the plaza and close to the base of: could have been dragged out of thenear the foot of the probable temple.

nent 1

:ond-best example of the type, afterthree support stones and the altar

the larger unit lying at 3 m distancell the stones are tilted and partially,ey have not been disturbed in recent

1.00

1.14

1.24 x0.86^

0.60

0.61

0.52

1.50 x 0.95-1.2b

0.88

0.48 x 0.38

0.48 x 0.38

0.40 x ?

1.0

?

0.76x0.66

0.33

0.30

0.32

0.94 x 0.90

0.32

o.32

0.28

0.60

0.3

o.22

0.22

?

0.34

?

?

7

0.27

0.28'l

0.44

1.88:1

1.90:1

1.86:1

2.50:1

2.93:1

2.18:1

2.18:1

?

2.94:1

2.50:1

2.08:1

1.72:1

?

?

7

1.22:1

1.O7:1

?-2.13:1 2.BB:1(approx.)

" The two numbers represent maximum and minimum diameters of an oval object.b Because of fragmentation, the minimum diameter was uncertain within the given range.

222 Harrison

times. The placement pattern of the support stones is similar to that ofMonument P4 of chichmuul, in that two of the supports are in closerproximity to each other than to the third. In this case the altar stone islarger but of the same distinctive pil shape as the support stones.

Related Forms

The foregoing list details those examples that are directly representativeof the monument type. The examples that do not comprise the completeassemblage of three support stones and one supported larger stone arei'cluded in the list by analogy with the as,found arrangement of Monu-ment P4 of chichmuul, considered to be the best example of the rype.

A number of other monuments at chichmuul are possibly related andare worth describing. The most important of these is carved Monument1 Located at the south end of the site, near the northeast corner of struc-ture 51, this monument is at a considerable remove from the examplesof the basic type at the site. The carved altar is of a more conventionalshape: a straight-sided drum (diameter 0.94 m) carved on the upper sur-face and sides. Althor-rgh badly eroded, the carved sides clearly bore fourglyph panels, contained in cartouches and separated by blank spaces. Asuggestion of a rope border remains on the upper surface, but no otherdetails are distinguishable. Although small, the altar was supported bythree plain cylindrical drums. The triad nature of the sr-rpport gives thismonument some resemblance to the basic type described in this chapter,even though the supports are not pill-shaped.

The drr-rm support can be compared to known examples of supportedcarved altars on the Usumacinta drainage and in the southern pet6n.Altar I at Piedras Negras, described by Maler ( I 90 1 , 45 ), is a carvecl discsupported by three oblong elements. The piedras Negras specimen dif-fers from the chichnruul carved altar in size (the former being 2.33 m indiameter) and in the fact that the sllpports are also carved. Altar 4 at pie-dras Negras is even larger in size and was supported by three grotesquecarved heads. Similar to this is the faguar Altar at Seibal (willey et al.1975, 43-44). Altar A at Machaquila (Grah am 1967, 92-95) was foundwith three plain cylindrical supports identical in concept, if not in size,with the supports of the carved altar at Chichmuu t .

These comparative examples differ from the chichmuul carved monurxent in several ways. TI're Pet6n examples are more than two timeslarger and, except at Machaquila, have carvecl supports. The altars from

Triad-Pill Mc

the west Pet6n are datable on t

Classic period. Both the Chich

eroded to permit rending of tiof the carved monument at C

on which the monument's suP

presumably earlier than the sur

were set. On this ground, and o

Pet6n altars, a Late Classic date

There remain two other mc

not be related to the triad-Pill t

plain stones identifiable on the

Each was located far enough fr'

possible to argue a sPecific rela

P3 was found tiPPed into a lc

foot of Structure 3. Monumen

this structure but at a lower stl

with P3. T'heir Position in the

cant, because the best examPle

situated exactlY at the junctur

face at right angles onto a smi

an altar or suPPorted sione br

eter). Prior to the digging of

must have been higher uP on 1

would argue against looters h

was found.Finally, Monun-rent 5 is a 1

port stone, 0.88 m in diamet

near the south end of the site

citrved m()numcnt but in ant

specimen bY several structure

been part of one of the alread

pclrt monuments cannot be r

Dating and Monument Dis

Datitrg of the triad-Pill tYPt

tion to thc vcrY rccent movir

examples, the surface situati

dates sPeculative at best' On

le support stones is similar to that of:hat two of the supports are in closer

re third. In this case the altar stone is

ill shape as the support stones.

Lmples that are directly representative

les that do not comprise the complete

s and one supported larger stone are

L the as-found arrangement of Monu-Ito be the best example of the type.

at Chichmuul are possibly related andportant of these is Carved Monumentte, near the northeast corner of Struc-

rsiderable remove from the examples

arved altar is of a more conyentionalreter 0.94 m) carved on the upper sur-

led, the carved sides clearly bore fourrhes and separated by blank spaces. Ars on the upper surface, but no othergh small, the altar was supported by

triad nature of the support gives thiste basic type described in this chapter,

rill-shaped.

ared to known examples of supporteddrainage and in the southern Pet6n.

lbyMaler (1901,45), is a carved disc

ts. The Piedras Negras specimen dif-:ar in size (the former being 2.33 m in.rpports are also carved. Altar 4 at Pie-

nd was supported by three grotesque

e laguar Altar at Seibal (Willey et al.

ila (Graham 1967,92*95) was foundrts identical in concept, if not in size,

ar at Chichmuul.fer from the Chichmuul carved mon-r examples are more than two times

rave carved supports. The altars from

Triad-Pill Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo 223

the west Pet6n are datable on the basis of their inscriptions to the Late

Classic period. Both the Chichmuul and Machaquila examples are too

eroded to permit reading of the inscriptions. The only clue to the age

of the carved monument at Chichmuul is in the depth of the surface

on which the monument's supports were set. It was much deeper and

presumably earlier than the surfaces on which the triad-pill monumentswere set. On this ground, and on the basis of general similarities with the

Pet6n altars, a Late Classic date seems likely.

There remain two other monuments at Chichmuul that may or may

not be related to the triad-pill type. These are Monuments 3 and 5, bothplain stones identifiable on the basis of size and shape as probable altars.

Each was located far enough from the nearest triad supports that it is notpossible to argue a specific relationship by direct association. MonumentP3 was found tipped into a looters' pit in a subsidiary platform at the

foot of Structure 3. Monuments P1 and P2 were located near the foot ofthis structure but at a lower structural level and hence not in association

with P3. Their position in the plaza fronting Structure 3 may be signifi-

cant, because the best example of the triad-pill type, Monument P4, was

situated exactly at the juncture of the axes of Structures 2 and 3, which

face at right angles onto a small plaza. Monument P3 is presumed to be

an altar or supported stone because of its size 0.2aby 0.86 m in diam-

eter). Prior to the digging of the looters' pit, the monument's location

must have been higher up on the structure, because its enormous weight

would argue against looters having hauled it uphill to the spot where itwas found.

Finally, Monument 5 is a plain round altar, or possibly a single sup-

port stone, 0.88 m in diameter, located between Structures 52 and 54,

near the south end of the site of Chichmuul. This location is close to the

carved monument but in another plaza and separated from the carved

specimen by several structures. The possibility that this stone could have

been part of one of the already numbered but incomplete triad-pill sup-

port monuments cannot be ruled out.

Dating and Monument Disturbance

Dating of the triad-pill type of monument is problematical. In addi-

tion to the very recent moving and scattering of elements of most of the

examples, the surface situation makes any estimate of the monuments'dates speculative at best. On the basis of the situation of Monument P4

224 Harrison

at Chichmuul, the most intact example, it is probable that all such mon-

uments were set on the surface of the latest construction and could even

postdate Classic abandonment. Purely as a guess, I suggest initial place-

ment in the Terminal Classic, with reuse that extended into the sixteenth

century. Further disturbance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

is indicated.

Evidence from the sites listed as well as others in southern QuintanaRoo indicates that the entire zone was extensively reoccupied by a Late

Postclassic group during what I have identified as the Lobil phase (Har-

rison 1979). The dates of the phase are uncertain, but it is possible that

they include periods during and following the mid-sixteenth-century

Spanish Conquest. If the triad-pill monuments are associated with this

occupation, they may have involved reworking of older monuments intothe shape and placement configuration we encountered. Their scattering

and reuse probably took place during the religious revival that occurred

in the immediate region during the Caste Wars of Yucat6n. Evidence ofreuse of ancient structures during this period is clear at Chichmuul and

at other sites in the district.Three subsequent periods of monument disturbance can be posited

on the basis of the available evidence. First, the disturbance of Classic

period monuments came during the Late Postclassic, when a revival and

reoccupation took place. Second, disturbance and reuse in the late nine-

teenth and early twentieth centuries could have resulted in the partial

burial by tilting into the leaf mould and topsoil that characterizes the

majority of scattered and incomplete examples of the triad-pill monu-

ment type. This type of deposition could date to no more than 70 years

ago.

The third kind of disturbance, obviously quite recent, has Ieft one or

more of the monuments'elements lying on the surface of the leaf mould.

Local informants, including one who participated in the work, confirmed

that several elements of the monuments had been moved in recent times.

In fact, several components of Monuments P1 and P2 at Chichmuul were

overturned and moved between two visits by the survey party in 1972.It

was quite clear that because the archaeologists were interested enough in

these plain stones to spend time drawing them, local residents thought itworthwhile to morre in soon after and check them out more thoroughly.

Fortunately, their curiosity did not affect our knowledge of ancient Maya

practice, but it does exemplify a local behavior pattern that is very likely

Triad-Pill Mon

to have existed over the Past

evidence as we see it todaY'

Monument Distribution in 5o

As noted, monuments are gener

lands. This scarcity has been c

the apparentlY accePted exPlana

southern peninsula did not sha

not to the extent that charactel

explanation may never be Prova

southern Quintana Roo sugges

suited to the data. These inclur

number of known monuments

the survey of southern Quintan

tion (Lobil phase) of this area r

appearance of the sites'

There are 25 or more exam

centers in southern Quintana R

\y razedan entire bodY ofhigh\buried the remains beneath sin

with which the Lobil Phase Peo

sic period structures suBgests t

energy to obliterating carved I

absence ol such monuments ir

may therefore be the result of I

as far as the Petdn, where a larg

served. Support for this interl

a number of monuments that

nature or other agencies. Their

was indeed Present in souther

quantity and Poor qualitY of tlA further factor, unrelated

part in our assessment of mo

Quintana Roo continued to bt

a long time and saw verY little

as the last 30, has there been

in the interior of the state. D

nple, it is probable that all such mon-he latest construction and could evenrely as a guess, I suggest initial place-reuse that extended into the sixteenth: nineteenth and twentieth centuries

well as others in southern euintanawas extensively reoccupied by a Latere identified as the Lobil phase (Har-r are uncertain, but it is possible thatbllowing the mid-sixteenth-centurymonuments are associated with thisreworking of older monuments intoion we encountered. Their scatteringrg the religious revival that occurredCaste Wars of Yucatdn. Evidence of

[is period is clear at Chichmuul and

nument disturbance can be positedLce. First, the disturbance of Classic:Late Postclassic, when a revival and;turbance and reuse in the late nine-s could have resulted in the partialI and topsoil that characterizes thele examples of the triad-pill monu-;ould date to no more than 70 years

,viously quite recent, has left one oring on the surface of the leaf mould.participated in the work, confirmednts had been moved in recent times.ments P1 andP2at Chichmuul werevisits by the survey parry in 1972.ItLeologists were interested enough indng them,local residents thought itC check them out more thoroughly.flect our knowledge of ancient MayaI behavior pattern that is very likely

Triad-Pill Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo 225

to have existed over the past 500 years and definitely has affected the

evidence as we see it today.

Monument Distribution in Southern Quintana Roo

As noted, monuments are generally scarce in this part of the Maya low-lands. This scarcity has been commented upon in the literature, and

the apparently accepted explanation is that the ancient populace of the

southern peninsula did not share in the stela and altar cult, or at least

not to the extent that characterized the Pet6n. The correctness of this

explanation may never be provable, but two types of new evidence fromsouthern Quintana Roo suggest that other explanations may be better

suited to the data. These include (1) an increased count of the actual

number of known monuments from the area, and (2) demonstration by

the survey of southern Quintana Roo that the Late Postclassic reoccupa-

tion (Lobil phase) of this area resulted in drastic changes in the surface

appearance of the sites.

There are 25 or more examples at middle- to large-size ceremonial

centers in southern Quintana Roo, where the Lobil phase people partial-

ly razed an entire body of highly complex Classic period architecture and

buried the remains beneath simple platforms (Harrison 1979). The zeal

with which the Lobil phase people destroyed decorated facades on Clas-

sic period structures suggests that they may well have applied the same

energy to obliterating carved monuments of that period. The relative

absence of such monuments in southern Quintana Roo and Campeche

may therefore be the result of a deliberate campaign that did not reach

as far as the Petdn, where a larger quantity of carved monuments is pre-

served. Support for this interpretation is provided by the presence ofa number of monuments that are either plain or have been eroded by

nature or other agencies. Their existence demonstrates that the stela cult

was indeed present in southern Quintana Roo, and that it is the small

quantity and poor quality of the survivors that is unusual.

A further factor, unrelated to Maya activity, may also have played a

part in our assessment of monument frequency in the area. Southern

Quintana Roo continued to be ignored by the scientific community for

a long time and saw rrery little exploration. Only in recent years, as few

as the last 30, has there been any notable archaeological investigation

in the interior of the state. During this period the activities of looters

-

226 Harrison

have accelerated dramatically. It is impossible to estimate just how manycarved monuments may have been encountered, removed, or destroyedby such activities. The Uaymil survey recorded two specific instances inwhich local informants recalled the presence of carved monuments thatare now gone. Such instances make it clear that some diminution of themonument count resulted from looting activity that was carried out inthe region before site protection became feasible. I feel, however, thatmodern removal has been a less significant factor in the overall paucityof monuments than were the activities of the Late Postclassic occupantsofthe area.

Summary of Research Results

The relative lack of monuments can be interpreted as the result of threefactors. It remains probable that fewer monuments were originally erect-ed in the southern Yucatdn Peninsula than farther south in the Pet6n.Though the monument count in southern Quintana Roo was less thanin the Pet6n a very large number unquestionably once existed in thezone. It is highly likely that a large portion were deliberately destroyedfor religious and other cultural reasons during the Late Postclassic. Ofthe survivors, undeterminable quantities of the carved specimens have

been removed by looters since 1960. All that remain today are a numberof plain monuments and a few carved examples that are badly eroded ordefaced.

The Uaymil Survey recorded several stelae and altars unrelated to themonument type discussed here, and the increase in overall monumentcount is therefore considerably greater than this chapter indicates. I haveconsidered here, as part of the broad question of monument distribu-tion in Southern Quintana Roo, only one unusual type of apparent sup-ported altar that has survived by virtue of being plain. It is a sad fact thatmany other aspects of monument use and reuse in the area cannot nowbe illuminated by the fragmentary data left to us.

AcknowledgmentsAn earlier version of this chapter was presented at the international Symposium on MayaArt, Archite cture, and Hieroglyphic Writing in Guatemala City, lune 1977 . The UayrnilSurvey Project was conducted under the auspices of the Royal Ontario Museum andwas funded by grants from the Canada Council, the Richard M. Ivey Foundation, andthe Royal ontario Museum. Maps of the sites mentioned will be publisl-red in the surveyreport currently in preparation. Hal 8a11, to whom the original paper was dedicated, ac-

Triad-Pill Monu

companied me on my first visit to the si'

monuments described here, and so share'

PostscriptAs noted this chapter was originally prel

lection. Later, in the 1980s it was reworkt

"intrepid aficionado of Maya archaeolol

into being. Since rhat time' lurlher wor

formatior-rs, which has significant bearing

collaboration volume, The Code of Kingr

of three hearth stones, or throne stones,

thology. These stones, the authors claim

ca11ed Orion's Be1t. The role ol this beli

cannot be ignored. Clearly, the use of th

soutirern Quintana Roo, is a reflection ol

at a late date. Not all examples of the ty

ever. Chichmuul Carved Monument t hi

example of many Classic period carved

Project in Quintana Roo and subsequen

; impossible to estimate just how many:n encountered, removed, or destroyedrvey recorded two specific instances inle presence of carved monuments that<e it clear that some diminution of theooting activity that was carried out inbecame feasible. I feel, however, thatignificant factor in the overall paucityi'ities of the Late Postclassic occupants

an be interpreted as the result of threewer monuments were originally erect-rsula than farther south in the Pet6n.southern Quintana Roo was less thanr unquestionably once existed in thee portion were deliberately destroyed:asons during the Late Postclassic. Ofmtities of the carved specimens have0. All that remain today are a numberved examples that are badly eroded or

reral stelae and altars unrelated to thend the increase in overall monumentater than this chapter indicates. I have:ad question of monument distribu-rly one unusual type of apparent sup-rtue of being plain. It is a sad fact thatuse and reuse in the area cannot nowdata left to us.

nted at the International Syrnposium on Mayarg in Guatemala City, lune ).977. The Uaymilauspices of the Royal Ontario Museum andouncil, the Richard M. Ivey Foundation, andtes mentioned will be published in the survey: whom the original paper was dedicated, ac-

Triad-Pill Monuments from Southern Quintana Roo 227

companied me on my first visit to the site of Chichmuul, the primary type site for themonuments described here, and so shared in their discovery.

PostscriptAs noted this chapter was originally prepared in 1977 soon after the period of data col-lection. Later, in the 1980s it was reworked for inclusion in a volume in homenaje Io Ihe"intrepid aficionado of Maya archaeology" Hal Ball-a volume that, alas, never came

into being. Since that time, further work has come to light with regard to triad stoneformations, which has significant bearing on the monuments reported here. In their fina1

collaboration volume, The Code of Kings (1998), Linda Schele and Peter Mathews wroteofthree hearth stones, or throne stones, that were an integral part ofMaya creation my-thology. These stones, the authors claim, are reflected in the heavens by the three stars

called Orion's Belt. The role of this beliei rooted deeply in the most ancient of timescannot be ignored. Clearly, the use of three stones to support a monument, as found insouthern Quintana Roo, is a reflection of the ancient creation myth resurfacing, possiblyat a late date. Not a1l examples of the type can be identilied as of Postclassic date, how-ever. Chichmuul Carved Monument I has clear Late Classic analogues and stands as oneexample of many Classic period carved monuments found during the Uaymil SurveyProject in Quintana Roo and subsequently by other investigators.