Читать книгу Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal--Group 7F-1 - William A. Haviland - Страница 9

I

Introduction

Group 7F-1 is located on a knoll at 7F: S207 E170, 1,250 m SE of the Great Plaza of Tikal, 340 m SW of Str. 6F-27 (Temple of the Inscriptions), and 195 m S of the Inscriptions Reservoir. Originally mapped as a collection of adjacent platforms and courts, with two templelike structures on the E, two very small structures on the W, and three more substantial ones on the N, S, and towards the center of the group (TR. 2:fig. 1), subsequent plane-table survey (TR. 11:Str. 7F-29 through 36) modified this only by adding one more structure (7F-34). Larger and more complex than any other group in Sq. 7F, this one is also noteworthy for the presence of a carved monument (since moved to the Tikal Museum). Discovery of this St. 23 (in December, 1956) prompted the first controlled excavations undertaken by the Tikal Project (TR. 1:16). Early in 1957, as part of efforts to record all carved surfaces (TR. 12:41), Vivian L. Broman and William R. Coe cleared debris from the lower part of the stela (TR. 1:16; TR. 2:27). Discovering that its base was missing, they continued digging in hopes of finding it, and perhaps an associated altar (TR. 2:fig. 3). Neither was discovered, but what did emerge from this early work (Op. 3A, reported in TR. 2) were glimpses of offertory and mortuary practices at Tikal, insights into monument mutilation and reuse, data on Terminal Classic activities, and hints of the complexities to come once investigation of the site center got underway. No problems were solved, but several were raised, not the least of which concerned the nature of each structure, and how the group functioned. No further work was undertaken, however, as by 1958 the focus of attention had shifted to the Great Plaza and North Acropolis.

When work resumed in Gp. 7F-1, it was as an off-shoot of the program of small structure investigation (TR. 12:26–31). In 1963, Marshall J. Becker sought to confirm that examples of what came to be called “Plaza Plan 2” could be found in all parts of the central 9 km² of Tikal (TR. 12:29), and Gp. 7F-1 was one of those selected for testing (as Op. 3B and C). Noting the large size of Str. 7F-30, Becker thought that it might be the product of a longer and more complex construction history than any other “Temple on the E” so far excavated (reported in TR. 21). This, and the possibility that adjacent 7F-31 might predate 30, made them good places to look for information on the early development of “Plaza Plan 2.”

The 1963 excavations, like those of 1957, raised more questions than answers. Although Gp. 7F-1 could be interpreted as the residence of people of wealth and high social standing, who maintained their own private “temples,” the presence of an impressive chamber burial (Bu. 160) so far from the center of Tikal suggested that it could also be interpreted as an example of what William R. Bullard called a “minor ceremonial center.” These he saw as elements in a regional political and religious hierarchy, responsible for the administrative and ceremonial affairs of particular zones, but answerable to a higher center of “church” and state. According to Bullard (1960:359–360), minor centers should be appreciably larger than house compounds but smaller than major centers, ordinarily including one or more pyramidal structures arranged in company with lower buildings around one, two, or three adjacent plazas. Vaulted range-type buildings may be present, but should not form extensive compounds. Group 7F-1 meets these criteria (cf. also TR. 2:fig. 1 with Bullard 1960:fig. 3), and its lavish “tomb” suggests some sort of link to the seat of government and religion at the heart of Tikal.

Paradoxically, it was curiosity as to what lay beyond the confines of the TR. 11 map that prompted further investigation of Gp. 7F-1, which seemed to resemble in size and complexity some of the small outlying sites that Tikal Project personnel were just then (1964) beginning to explore (TR. 13:xi). The presence of carved monuments at some of these—El Encanto, Jimbal, and Uolantun—focused attention anew on St. 23 and also on St. 25, from nearby Gp. 7F-3 (TR. 8 and 20A). At the time, the prevailing idea was that both had been dragged from somewhere on or near the Great Plaza, even though Linton Satterthwaite had suggested that there might have been two centers of early monument erection at Tikal (TR. 3:74–75). Building on his suggestion, I put forward the hypothesis that the original placement of both St. 23 and 25 was somewhere in Gp. 7F-1, which may have had a function analogous to that of an El Encanto or Uolantun. The precise nature of that function, of course, remained unknown.

In a final effort to solve the puzzle of Gp. 7F-1’s purpose, I carried out a third season of excavation in 1965. Since all previous work had been done in or near Str. 7F-30 and 31, most of this work was devoted to the others, especially 7F-29, 32, and 35 (Op. 3E, 3F, 3G). Three others (7F-33, 34, and 36) were only tested (Op. 3I, 3H, 3J); one of them (7F-34) proved not to be a structure at all. The two “temples” 7F-30 and 31 were not entirely neglected, however, as they were probed in front for plaza floors by which they might be linked to other construction, to learn more about the buried construction that Coe and Broman (in TR. 2) labeled “Feature 3,” and to seek evidence (which was never found) for the original setting of monuments in front of the building beneath which Becker had found the chamber burial, 160 (Op. 3B, 3C, 3D). I have since regretted not digging more here, for as will be seen in part II herein, there are still loose ends. On the other hand, project resources were limited, and further investigation of the two “temples” would have come at the expense of knowledge about other elements of the group. Moreover, it is now certain (for reasons given in part VI) that neither St. 23 nor 25 originally stood in Gp. 7F-1, but were moved there from epicentral Tikal later in the history of the group.

Preparation of this report, like the excavations on which it is based, was accomplished in three stages. A first draft was prepared and circulated to Becker and Coe in 1968 for their criticism and comments. At the same time, plans and sections were sent to John McGinn for drafting. All three individuals had important things to say and questions to raise that proved vital to completion of the report, although other commitments prevented further work until 1974. It was then that Clemency Coggins began asking questions about the group and its burials that she needed answered for her study of painting and drawing styles at Tikal. By then, too, there was a pressing need to straighten out various “messes” in the burials and caches that had been pointed out by Coe. Spurred on by the need to provide both individuals with reliable information, a thorough reconsideration and revision of the earlier effort was undertaken. This was encouraged by Coggins’s work, which opened up new interpretive leads; although not all of her hypotheses have been borne out, her questions of me, and her answers to my questions of her, have been as important to the completion of this report as have Becker’s, Coe’s and McGinn’s comments and criticisms.

Following this revision, a summary article on Gp. 7F-1 was published (Haviland 1981), but the full report was again set aside in favor of other priorities (including completion of TR. 20); contributing as well was my discomfort with reconstructions of Str. 7F-30 in its various forms. Not until 2011 was work resumed on TR. 22, by which time it was thought that a fresh look at 7F-30 would be beneficial. Unfortunately, numerous uncertainties remain, which are spelled out in its write-up. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that further extensive excavation of this evident temple should have been carried out.

This publication, which has as its central purpose the recording of all data from the Op. 3 excavations, is concerned as well with a series of hypotheses. In broad outline, these are that, from late Early Classic times until its abandonment, Gp. 7F-1 was an elite residential group that included houses, ceremonial structures, and perhaps servants’ quarters. It was founded, upon the death of one of Tikal’s Early Classic rulers, by his co-ruler, who moved here when he died and buried him in an elaborate tomb. (Although the formal definition of tomb must await completion of TR. 35. Throughout this report, the term is used to refer to a burial in which an individual was placed with his or her elite belongings, without earth covering the body or dirt in the face, in a chamber far larger than needed for mere containment of the corpse and associated materials; see Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:53.) The co-rulers’ descendants continued their residency well into Terminal Classic times, but over this period their fortunes waxed and waned, perhaps partially in response to political developments at Tikal. As this report proceeds, these hypotheses will be developed in greater detail. That said, care has been taken to avoid “stacking the deck” in their favor by being selective and omitting important data. As was done in TR. 19 (especially pp. 1–4), basic information is first presented, and then examined for its bearing on the hypotheses under consideration. Here, parts II, III, IV, and V correspond to II, V, VI, and VII of TR. 19, although there are some differences: all architectural data will be found in part II (instead of a separate section as in TR. 19), definition and discussion of lot groups are in part V (see also Appendix B), and group time spans are defined in part VII, prior to integrating insights from all preceding sections in a final assessment of the hypotheses noted above. Discussion of St. 23, 25, and several miscellaneous stones will be found in VI. The report concludes on a more speculative note (in Appendix A) with a trial reconstruction of kinship and residence in Gp. 7F-1. Although data from the 1957 excavations are fully integrated with those from more recent ones in this report, not all details reported in TR. 2 are presented anew here. Instead, aided by Table 1.1 (TR. 2 was written before terminology was standardized as per TR. 12), the reader is referred back to the earlier publication whenever appropriate.

TABLE 1.1 Revision of Architectural Designations Used in Tikal Report 2

New Designation	Old Designation
Str. 7F-30:U. 33	Feature 2
Str. 7F-30:U. 34	Feature 1
Str. 7F-Sub.1	Feature 3
Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1	Floor 1
Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1	Floor 2
Plat. 7F-1:U. 14	Floor 3
Plat. 7F-1:U. 5	Floor 5
Plat. 7F-1:U. 1	Floor 4

Terminology utilized in this report is that set forth in TR. 12 (esp. pp. 47–49 and 61–63), with emendations as described in TR. 19 (pp. 3–4) and 20A (p. 2), as well as above with respect to the word “tomb.” Establishment of time spans for each structure and platform follows the precedent TR. 19 sets by defining a single series for each in all its guises, rather than separate series for each 1st, 2nd, and so forth (as in TR. 14). This produces, for example, one set of seventeen time spans (Table 2.2 [see below] for Str. 7F-30 [1st through 5th]), instead of five separate series: TS. 1–7 for 1st, another TS. 1–2 for 2nd, TS. 1–2 for 3rd, TS. 1–2 for 4th, and TS. 1–4 for 5th. By adopting this approach, the logical connection between products of development is stressed, although time span content would be the same whichever procedure was used (e.g., content of TS. 11 of 7F-30 is no different than what content of a TS. 2 of 7F-30-3rd would be). Furthermore, whether one defines time spans as here, or as defined in TR. 14, the group time spans derived from them would be the same twenty-seven group time spans in Table 7.1 (see below).

One other departure from TR. 14 is definition herein of two distinct architectural developments (1st and 2nd) for Str. 7F-32. This is largely a matter of labeling, for certainly what is called 1st represents a major alteration of original 2nd; the whole structure in a very real sense was turned around to face N instead of S (although access to the now isolated Rm. 1 from the S was retained). Yet, because the Maya managed to do this without actually tearing down the structure and putting up a new one on the same spot, some might hesitate to label these 1st and 2nd, but would instead speak of a 7F-32-A and B. Whichever alternative one chooses, however, does not change the basic facts.

A word about the definition of Gp. 7F-1 itself is also necessary. Almost all of what is known about this group begins with construction of Str. 7F-30-5th, 7F-32-2nd-C, 7F-Sub.1, Plat. 7F-1-4th, and Plat. 7F-3-2nd, even though traces of earlier architecture (Str. 7F-Sub.2) exist. As will become apparent, there is reason to regard the nature of the oldest occupation as quite different from that of the later Gp. 7F-1. In the text, the oldest occupation will be referred to as “Old Gp. 7F-1,” the latest as “New Gp. 7F-1.”

Although basic chronological control in Gp. 7F-1 is based primarily on stratigraphy, dating of time spans relies heavily on established dates of late Manik, Ik, Imix, and Eznab Ceramic Complexes of Tikal. For convenient reference, these are given in Table 1.2, together with currently used period names appropriate to the era represented by occupation of Gp. 7F-1. Since two different dates have been published for the end of Late Classic and onset of Terminal Classic times (TR. 33A:table 1; TR. 25A:table 1), some explanation is required for the one used here. T. Patrick Culbert (in TR. 25A) bases his estimate on the close resemblance of Eznab pottery to Bayal ceramics, which appeared at Seibal about 10.0.0.0.0; he thinks it highly unlikely that as many as three katuns (60 years) would have passed before similar pottery appeared at Tikal (T. P. Culbert pers. comm., 1985). By contrast, Christopher Jones (TR. 33A:31 and 130), following Coe, argues that St. 11 with its altar and underlying cache are so within Classic traditions that continuity of Imix pottery is probable. Support for this view comes from Bu. 77, which contained Imix ceramics; Coe (in TR. 14:865–866) argues that this interment, beneath an unfinished Str. 5D-11, is that of the ruler portrayed on St. 11. Peter D. Harrison (pers. comm.) disagrees with Coe’s interpretation, citing (among other reasons) a likely female sex for the corpse in Bu. 77. Nevertheless, a date some time after 10.2.0.0.0 (recorded on St. 11) is possible for the appearance of Terminal Classic Eznab pottery. Furthermore, up to 60 years of coexistence of late Imix with Bayal ceramics is not out of line with the degree of overlap that seems to have existed between Postclassic complexes in the Maya lowlands (cf. Chase and Chase 1985:13; Freidel 1985:305–306).

The assistance of numerous individuals in writing this report needs acknowledgment. My great debt to Becker, Coe, Coggins, Jones, and McGinn should be clear from what has already been said, and I am most appreciative of their contributions of both data and ideas. Becker and Coe deserve added recognition for having called attention to the potential importance of Gp. 7F-1 at times when it might otherwise have been neglected in favor of investigations elsewhere at Tikal. Other important contributions were made by Henry Schwartz, Becker’s field assistant in 1963, Edward Crocker, who assisted him briefly in the same year, and Anthony Gahan, who joined these other two in offering aid when the “tomb” was discovered. In 1965, Francis P. Bowles helped map the excavations and rigged up lighting systems for tunnel excavation; Karen L. Mohr and Martha Schiek participated in the excavation of Bu. 190, 192, and 193. Invaluable assistance was furnished by Ismael Terceco, who drew the field plan of Str. 7F-32 and the supplementary sections and wall elevations that appear here in Fig. 19. Without his help, much less could have been accomplished in 1965.

TABLE 1.2

Chronological Divisions and the Long Count

1. After TR. 27A:xiv

2. After TR. 14

3. After Laporte 2003:290

Others who have contributed in one way or another to this report are Linda Schele, who provided assistance with inscriptions, Culbert, who was forthcoming with evaluations of the ceramics in the field and (later on) was responsive to my questions about burial pottery, and Hattula Moholy-Nagy, who most kindly provided me with extended comments on the artifacts and who also answered numerous questions. Jane Homiller did preliminary drafts of all the plans and sections except for the plan and wall elevation of Bu. 160, which were done by Virginia Greene. Homiller’s patience with the author’s directions and sometimes tardiness in returning things to her is appreciated. Jennifer Quick and after her Betty Christensen provided the valuable function of filling requests for information from the Tikal files in Philadelphia. Kathryn Greer and especially Barbara Hayden deserve special thanks for their word processing and editing of endless manuscript drafts, made no easier by having to decipher my writing. To Toni Rosencrantz goes my gratitude for much tedious proofreading.