Introduction to the Archaeology of Tikal, Guatemala: Tikal Report 12 9781934536346

Citation preview

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL, GUATEMALA

Frontispiece. Polychrome vase from the tomb of Temple I (Burial 116 in Fig. 16) Height: 29 cm

ii

UNIVERSITY MUSEUM MONOGRAPH 46

TIKAL REPORT NO. 12

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL, GUATEMALA

William R. Coe William A. Haviland

Published by THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM University of Pennsylvania 1982

Copyright © 1982 THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Coe, William R. Introduction to the archaeology of Tikal, Guatemala. (Tikal report; no. 12) (University Museum monograph; 46) Bibliography: p. 1. Tikal (City) 2. Excavations (Archaeology)— Guatemala—Tikal (City) I. Haviland, William A. II. Title. III. Series: Tikal reports; no. 12, IV. Series: University Museum monography; 46. F1465.1T5T5 no. 12 [F1435.1.T5] 972.817 82-21799 ISBN 0-934718-43-1

DEDICATION To the Peteneros upon whose labors—be they in disinterring Tikal's vast substance, in guiding us through the forests, in bringing to pass great architectural restorations—the Tikal Project was collaboratively founded, dependently grew, and then closed with so much felicitously accomplished. Muchisimas Gracias.

v

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Page Frontispiece

ii

Table of Contents

vii

List of Illustrations

ix

Acknowledgements

xi

I

Background

1

II

Personnel Table 1. Staff Members, Years 1956-1969

7 7

III

Funding

11

IV

Site Restoration

13

V

Field Investigations

23

VI

Procedures in Field and Laboratory Control of excavational loci and stratigraphic entities Field records and standards past and current Nomenclature Laboratory

42 42 44 47 49

VII Publication Table 2. Standard Abbreviations Employed in Text and in Line Illustrations References

55 62 63

Appendix A: Operations and Their Suboperations: Brief Field Definitions and Years of, and Assignments within the Series of Tikal Reports

67

Appendix B: Bibliography of the Tikal Project, 1956-82

94

vii

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page Frontispiece. Polychrome vase from the tomb of Temple I (Burial 116 in Fig. 16) Height: 29 cm Figure 1. View eastwards from Temple IV

ii xii

Figure 2. The heart of Tikal, with Temple I in right background. (Courtesy: George Holton)

2

Figure 3. Above, unloading supplies and equipment, January 1957. Below, road building in 1956, the first season

4

Figure 4. Camp Reservoir, with Project houses on distant embankment

6

Figure 5. Resetting Stela 9 in front of the North Terrace

12

Figure 6. Extraction of limestone blocks for reduction and use in the restorations

14

Figure 7. Scaffolding being erected before the fallen entrance of Temple III

16

Figure 8. Temple II today, a product of combined stabilization and restoration

18

Figure 9. Central Acropolis, Structure 5D-66, an example of rebuilding and consolidated hearting

19

Figure 10. Central Acropolis, masons at work in the midst of massive backdirt from prior excavation

20

Figure 11. North Acropolis, Structure 5D-22, with an earlier substructure partially exposed and selected for preservation

21

Figure 12. The central sixteen-square kilometers of Tikal, an overall map published in 1961 as part of Tikal Report No. 11

24

Figure 13. Typical scenes of small structures under excavation

27

ix

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL Figure 14. A map of the Tikal region depicting, in part, radial brechas and the locations of so-called satellites in relation to central Tikal shown in detail in Fig. 12

Page 30

Figure 15. Bedrock beneath the North Acropolis was reached in 1963, after years of trenching

34

Figure 16. Set in bedrock below Temple I, the chambered grave known as Burial 116, which proved to be that of a documented ruler of early 8th century Tikal. (See Frontispiece.)

36

Figure 17. Above, setting accurate points required for the architectural recording of Structure 5D-96 Below, night photography of monuments, hereof Stela 4

38

Figure 18. A detail of the inscription borne by Stela 26. Such photographs provided the means by which to create drawings of all Tikal sculpture

40

Figure 19. Laboratory repair and cataloging, in this case of imported stingray spines that were part of a cached offering

48

Figure 20. The project's bodega where all collections underwent photography, intensive review and permanent storage

50

Figure 21. Erected and installed through the efforts of the Tikal Association, the Museum displays treasures and household materials alike

54

Figure 22. Unique lidded jars made of perfectly cut and fitted pieces of jade. 8th century A.D. Height of largest container: about 25 cm

56

Figure 23. The "Old God" in polychrome pottery, from a tomb belonging to the 5th century A.D. Height: 36cm

58

Figure 24. An elaborate pottery two-part censer fashioned in the 7th century A.D. Height: 63cm

60

Figure 25. Two of four identical gessoed wooden figures of a rain-sky deity placed in a tomb dating to the 7th century A.D. Height of largest: 37 cm

65

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are indeed grateful to Jennifer B, Quick for carrying the editorial burden of this volume and, furthermore, to Barbara J. Hayden who, at a prodigious pace at the keyboard of a word processor, kept the text flowing to its final form. We also extend our thanks to Karen Brown for its coding and transmission to the University's phototypesetting equipment.

xi

Figure I. View eastwards from Temple IV

xii

I BACKGROUND

blurred a sense of Project continuity. Yet, considered in retrospect, it did advance to a generally sensible conclusion via fairly reasoned steps even though few were clearly envisaged at the beginning. To revert to the mid-fifties, what encouraged The University Museum to enter into this program? While incentives admittedly appear somewhat diffuse today, worth recognition is that prior Museum-sponsored excavations at Piedras Negras, and later at Caracol, had decidedly focused the American Section's research inclinations on the Lowland Maya. Of course, Tikal had the incontestable allure of fabled size, structural preservation and an outstanding "romanticism,"a combination that in part had brought the institution to seriously consider a long and heavily financed undertaking there as early as 1948 (Madeira 1964:66). (Political conditions in Guatemala were to force postponement of real moves.) A promotional brochure of a later decade optimistically underscored the Project's public aims: a Tikal architecturally restored and preserved; its rise and fall analyzed by the techniques of modern archaeology; Tikal a permanent laboratory for social and natural scientists; and the site a symbol of New World antiquity and, moreover, hemispheric unity. Any trepidation concerning a big dig at such a vast and implicitly complex entity was largely nullified by the fact of the Carnegie Institution's pioneering work at close by Uaxactun and, most importantly, by the advantage of having at hand published major data and conclusions. Of equal significance was the availability of E. M. Shook for the post of Field Director of the

A quarter-century indeed lies between Tikal's initial confrontation and today, when large segments of all that a program there came to see and learn now move forcefully towards publication. An interlude of perhaps astonishing length, it could scarcely have been foretold in January 1956 upon a Guatemalan Air Force plane halting on a rudimentary strip to unload material and personnel of an incipient Tikal Project. An explanation of the circumstances of the passing years alone might justify this report, the twelfth in a series principally serving to divulge Tikal's archaeological makeup. But more germane are one, the fabric of the Project— motivations, staffing, methodology, financing, annual studies—and otherwise, its ultimate academic resolution in the form of Tikal Reports. Writing so long after the Project's active inception, it is difficult to identify adequately the interests and goals, whether original or unfolding, that fused to prompt and sustain the program during arduous years from early 1956 through 1969. Scheduled originally in two five-year terms and to end during 1965, the task happened to continue an additional four years. (Data gathering technically ceased January 1970.) At no point was the course of research fastidiously plotted over much more than a two-season span. With the unfolding of years, interests naturally shifted and broadened diversely as experience accumulated, concerns deepened and sophistication grew. On the other hand, numerous excavations ran beyond their first scheduled times and dimensions, and the seasonality of many staff members, as well as administrative changes, often 1

Figure 2. The heart ofTikal, with Temple I in right background. (Courtesy: George Holton)

2

BACKGROUND monthly Project financial accountability fell under the agency, Fomento y Desarollo de El Peten (FYDEP), actively stationed in Santa Elena south of Tikal. By informal agreement, the Project's legal presence at the site after 1965 depended on the continuance of IDEAH approval. Importantly, these remarkable arrangements guarded the Project's decisive role both archaeologically and with respect to physical exposure and restorative procedures. Any ambiguity centered on the recipient of an ultimate transfer of responsibility, material and camp installations. (The issue would be in the hands of IDEAH and FYDEP.) Having covered the fundamental motives and conditions of a Tikal Project, we turn back to 1956 and, briefly, to the interpretive framework of Maya studies and, narrowly, to those studies relevant to the regional milieu of Tikal. From a half-century's accumulation of far-flung records of diverse sorts, students had consolidated a set of ideas that formed a compatible alloy of viewpoints concerning the southern Lowland Maya. The scheme had at its very core the ceremonial center, an entity tangibly manifested by so-called temples, palaces, chultuns, ball courts and, if importance permitted, stelae, altars and perhaps internal causeways as well. Such centers were construed to have been tenanted by theocrats supplemented by corps of artisans and administrative and other specialists. Through recondite dealings with a multifarious pantheon and by implementing traditional calendric and prognosticative abilities, the sacerdotal component manipulated a peripheral, broadly distributed population of maize farmers laboring in a precariously endowed environment. As a premise, priest and peasant operated reciprocally. With the true supportive population believed to be more or less uniformly arrayed over the countryside, the site constituted a structurally exuberant prominence in a field of placid milperos, and, moreover, the arrangement was subject both to the centrifugal dynamics of slash-and-burn agriculture and to the centralized, periodic demands of constructional labor. Myriad monuments erected at these sites celebrated deities cycling amid all but infinite time, the latter interpreted to have been their "burden." (It had yet to be convincingly proposed that eminent human portrayal and personalized data were the main thrusts of sculpted media.) As to historical drama, such resided in the recognition of a hiatus inscriptionally evident between temporal spans or periods that had come to be known as Early Classic and Late Clas-

Tikal investigations. His years of Uaxactun experience, when coupled with the epigraphic and architectural expertise of Linton Satterthwaite, did much to promote confidence in the imminent work. At the time, however, understandably there were critics of the opinion that a Tikal program promised hardly more than a grandiose duplication or elaboration of the results already yielded by Uaxactun. As to general archaeological goals, outstanding were the rescue of Tikal from the forest (yet minimizing ecological damage), the selective restoration of its monumental fixtures and, it followed, its ambitious touristic development. An institutional inclination, together with the Guatemalan Government's recognition of the site's extraordinary potentials, firmly established these priorities and led, in 1955, to the signing of the first of two five-year contracts with the Ministry of Education and its dependency, the Institute of Anthropology and History (IDEAH). The more important stipulations dealt with the Project's duty-free status, minimum annual field expenditure and, upon its conclusion, a term of exclusive research rights to accumulated collections. A crucial feature was utilization of the national airline, Aviateca, for local transport of Project personnel, supplies and equipment, with all costs to be borne by the government. Significant to procedural policy was the Project's option either to restore what excavation uncovered ("repair," "consolidate," "stabilize" variably convey intent) or to backfill cuttings (in effect, to reestablish pre-excavational conditions). The creation of a Tikal National Park of 576 square kilometers became an ancillary subject, its objective the permanent preservation of an ambience then disposed to exploitation in numerous forms. In a practical sense an inexhaustible entity, Tikal demanded a vigorously conducted study over at least a decade, an arbitrarily chosen period due to close upon the end of the 1965 season but allowing for laboratory-based studies to be subsequently pursued. The schedule adopted was to undergo heavy revision because of a sudden presidential decision in the late summer of 1964 to underwrite the basic costs of a greatly expanded program, one that finally terminated on the eve of the year 1970. In essence this proposal, dedicated to architectural restoration, brought the Project into a contractual agreement with the Ministry of the Interior (Hacienda). Dispersal of annual appropriations (see Funding) and 3

Figure 3. Above, unloading supplies and equipment, January 1957. Below, road building in 1956, the first season

4

BACKGROUND of compatible interpretations and a problem-bias which largely derived from the work and cogitations of Cambridge-based archaeologists, specifically those of the Peabody Museum and the local office of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. With all this as background, perhaps the most explicit early statement of objectives at Tikal is that by Shook (see Appendix B; 1958:5-7) written in late 1957 after two seasons had been completed.

sic. Even though Uaxactun had divulged an unprecedented record of change in both ceramics and architecture—an implicit process of secularization as temples gave way to palaces—the most profound question remained regarding what had caused the near simultaneous fall of lowland centers when gauged by built-in inscriptions and their cessation. Only unfulfilled construction projects and sparse signs of putative depredation impinged on this overriding issue; otherwise speculation prevailed as to an ecological frailty ultimately ruined by what had been culturally demanded of it. On the other end of time, Preclassic origins and sequential detailing reckoned as particularly crucial concerns in 1956. And, relatedly, chronology overall was dictated by preserved Classic era inscriptions, although the few radiocarbon results then available had revived argument concerning proper Christian-Maya correlation. Notably at Uaxactun, stratigraphy had been carried back into a Preclassic, or Developmental framework; it was still timing which remained imponderable except for the assumption that those well-nigh nascent remains antedated the earliest surviving local inscriptions. Nevertheless, the Classic Period stood firmly fixed by epigraphic data as approximately five to six centuries long. Ceramically, the Maya of this region had been shown to have evolved a series of typologically distinct phases for which a rough concordance definably existed vis-a-vis architectural modes and sculptural styles. In sum, the Tikal Project had the initial benefit of a multi-sequence established by nearby Uaxactun; mere site proximity augured its essential presence at Tikal. The Project was imbued, moreover, by a set

One primary aim...is the investigation of the relationship of site size to change—resistance or receptivity to innovation—and to strength as a source of diffusion.

If in its infancy the undertaking was characterized by theoretical sparseness, even vagueness (and most would agree this to have been the case), there did exist from 1956 onwards a keen interest in systematizing concepts, procedures and terminology in both field and laboratory studies, themselves to be maximally unified. What phenomena were to be called, how data might be efficiently stored, recovered and processed, the manner of research integration—these were the pressing concerns arising from the simple ideal of significantly improving archaeological investigation within this region. On pages that follow abbreviated formal terms and others are employed. With the possible exception of "TR." for Tikal Reports past and future, all are reasonably familiar. Readers are nonetheless referred to a list of such (Table 2) to be found in a final section devoted to Project publication. Works cited that do not appear under References will be found in Appendix B.

5

Figure 4. Camp Reservoir, with Project houses on distant embankment

6

II PERSONNEL

Principal duties are indicated, at least approximately so, in terms of an elementary classification of Project tasks; note key following listing. Additionally stipulated is the field number each person bore for purposes of identifying the assorted records his own work developed annually (see Procedures, ahead). An alert reader will detect a few instances in which the same number applies to different persons; however, their years did differ, thus precluding confusion in coded records.

Collectively multinational and diverse in backgrounds and incentives, to say nothing of goals, the Project's staff members properly merit recognition. We can do no less here than to list alphabetically their names and to specify the year or years in which the field participation of each occurred. Omitted, however, is a seasonal breakdown such as winter or summer, the major periods of Tikal activity. (Also suppressed is change in surname after initial appointment.)

TABLE I PROJECT STAFF, 1956-1969 NO. NAME 11 10 78 21 8 54 46 30 41 99 93 80 7 84 106 109 105 92 9

Adams, Jane Adams, Richard Anderson, Judith Auerbach, Philip Barr, Walwin Bates, Sally Becker, Kathleen Becker, Marshall Bendiner, Alfred Bergs, Lilita Blanton, Richard Bowles, Francis Broman, Vivian Bronson, Bennet Brown, Emily Brown, Richard Brown, Will Callender, Donald Carr, Robert

ROLE L Ex, L, A L EX P L L EX,L AR EX, L EX, M M L, EX EX AR AR AR M, EX M

7

YEAR 1958 1958 1965 1959 1957 1963, 1964 1962, 1963 1960, 1962-64 1960 1967 1966, 1967 1965 1957-60 1966 1967 1968 1967 1966, 1967 1959, 1960

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL NO. 20 38 4 53 60 36 69 24 101 42 50 81 62 91 86 77 95 110 96 65 59 28 25 56 97 71 66 6 58 14 3a 22 34 18 6 31 87 79 107 70 3 112 67 103 22a 43 9 35 57 74 51 12 100 40 75

NAME Chowning, Ann Clevidence, Gary Coe, William Cooper, Robert Crocker, Edward Culbert, Patrick Day, Kent Dixon, Keith Douglas, George Dyson, Robert Echigoyen, Juan-Luis Echols, Gordon Ehrich, Judith Ekholm, Erik Ekholm, Susanna Ferree, Lisa Friedman, Max Fry, Christine Fry, Robert Gahan, Anthony Garcia, Norma Gifford, James Golden, Bernard Gonzalez, Marcelino Green, Ernestene Greene, Merle Greene, Virginia Gregersen, Hans Guerra, Dora Guillemin, George Hairs, Joya Harrison, Peter Haviland, Anita Haviland, William Hazard, James Heider, Carl Heinze, Walter Hellmuth, Nicholas Higgins, Daniel Hinderliter, Edward Holton, George Houston, Margaret Hug, Hans-Ruedi Inglis, Richard Johnston, Norman Jones, Christopher Jones, Morris Kidder II, Alfred LaPorte, Jean-Pierre Larios, Rudi Leiva, Jose-Luis Levine, Newton Levkovich, Natasha Linnington, Richard Loten, Stanley

ROLE EX AR EX, P, L, A AR EX L, EX, A EX EX, L AR A, EX EX AR, P L M L L M L EX,L S L L EX EX EX AR L M,AR L A, R, EX P,A EX, A L EX M EX P EX S AR P L AR EX AR EX, E, A M EX, A EX EX, AR, A, R EX M L S AR,EX

8

YEAR 1959 1961 1957-69 1963 1963 1961-65, 1967, 1968 1964 1959,1960 1967 1962 1962 1965 1963 1966 1966

1965, 1966, 1968 1966 1968 1966-68 1963 1963 1960 1960 1963 1967 1964 1964-68 1960 1963 1958, 1959,1965-69 1960-64 1959, 1964-67 1961 1959-61, 1963, 1965, 1967 1957, 1958 1960 1966 1965-67 1968 1964 1956, 1957, 1959 1968 1964 1967 1959 1962-65, 1969 1957 1961 1963 1965-69 1962, 1963 1958 1967 1961 1965-69

PERSONNEL NO. 15 44 52 2a 85 11 27 82 39 la 68 55 32 108 76 72 15a 90 73 104 29 37 88 89 33 26 19 2 83 63 17 113 1 49 61 111 48 16 47 45 94 102 98 13

NAME Lujan, Luis McGinn, John McGinn, Karen Mack, Peter Madeira, Alexandra Martinez, Eduardo Moholy-Nagy, Hattula Mohr, Karen Mora, Alfonso Muller, Erhart Nagy, Andras Newsom, Walter Nottebohm, Carlos Olsen, George Ordonez, Amilcar Orrego, Miguel Ortiz, Antonio Parsons, Jeffrey Pearson, Wilbur Praeger, Emily Probst, Peter Puleston, Dennis Puleston, Olga Puleston, Peter Rick, Anne Rick, John Ricketson, Mary Satterthwaite, Linton Schiek, Martha Schwartz, Henry Scott, Stuart Sheets, Payson Shook, Edwin Siebold, Alfredo Sisson, Edward Stavrakis, Peter Tercero, Ismael Trik, Aubrey Trik, Helen Walder, Bernard Weld, Catherine Westphal, Wilfried Witter, Michael Wurman, Richard

ROLE EX EX L O L M,AR ;, R L EX AR, R, A EX AR EX EX S EX EX, AR, R A M AR L EX EX, M, S L M,S L EX L E, EX L EX EX, A AR EX, A EX EX L EX EX, A, R S AR L M, EX M M

Role key: A Administration AR Architectural records E Epigraphy EX Excavation

L M R S O

9

YEAR

1960 1962, 1963 1963 1956 1966 1960 1960-64

1965 1961, 1962 1960 1964, 1965 1963 1960 1968 1965 1965-68 1957-59

1966 1965,1966

1967 1961 1961, 1963-68 1966-68

1966, 1967 1961 1960, 1961 1959, 1960 1956-57, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965

1965 1963 1959 1969 1956-61

1962 1963 1968 1962-63, 1965-66 1959-64, 1966 1962-64, 1966, 1969

1962 1966 1967 1967 1958

Laboratory Mapping Restoration Special projects Other

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL order, see nos. 7, 27, 66, 88). Those same individuals, by and large, were responsible during offseasons for the processing of records accumulated earlier. A topic inevitably to arise is that of field direction. Full candor in this regard would nevertheless yield little of edification for today. Still widely known is that the Project, from its birth and then through numerous years, was eminently directed by Edwin Shook. By virtue of Tikal's complexity and the Project's ambitions, the post of Field Director was demanding and one to which obtained specific responsibilities for contracts, provisioning, funding, labor, staffing, research thrust and conduct, site restoration and overall camp management. Understandably, as the Project burgeoned, the need to delegate arose, with the result that Aubrey Trik took charge of day-to-day basics like labor and restorative work. By many thought to be the Project's raison d'etre, it became research in all its aspects that was soon to become colored by controversy and, most distressingly, by divisive squabble of rather broad notoriety. Suffice it to say that no satisfactory resolution was ever to be devised. Regardless, the Project went on productively to achieve a sensible conclusion. It might otherwise be noted that many entries of "A" in the staff list signify pro tem or acting roles in times (often summers) of administrative absence.

One hundred eighteen individuals are accordingly registered, yet there come to mind others who significantly labored in the field on behalf of Project interests and did so unblessed by numbers. Especially due recognition are Ursula Cowgill, Andy Seuffert, Edwin Littmann and Charles Goff. Apart from its somewhat astonishing tally, the staff list carries a number of implications of some interest. First of all, a perusal of annual entries suggests an enormous turn-over or transiency and a corresponding frailty in what might be taken to be directorial continuity. The impression of unusual brevity of participation is to some degree skewed by the years 1966 and 1967 when, for its accomplishment, a sustaining area program demanded a multitude of personnel (see Field Investigations, ahead). Otherwise, all factors prompting volunteered labor tended to promote impermanency; transportation and room-and-board were generally the sole recompense. But where evidence of substantial continuity occurs, we can invoke any of the following as causal: then current faculty positions (applicable to nos. 2, 4 and 36), internally funded salaries (most prominently nos. 1, 14, 16) and infrequent seasonal stipends, as well as lengthy in situ research for purposes of doctoral dissertations (see Publication). To one extent or another, a usually built-in salary promoted administrative continuity in laboratory operations, although only so by the fortunate circumstance of personnel overlap (in time-

10

Ill FUNDING

Two million dollars reasonably approximates the Project's income and expenditure, exclusive of academic salaries, over the fourteen years of its active being. Close to one-half of this amount represents direct subvention by the Government of Guatemala and, additionally, its calculated cost of underwriting the aerial transport of personnel, laborers and material within the country. The other half resulted from private donations, grants by national and private foundations, and supplementary support provided by endowed funds of The University Museum. Crucial to the entire operation were the efforts and effectiveness of individuals dedicated to raising funds and to stimulating contribution whether the needs of such were continuous or were to arise at critical moments. All would agree that the most prominent role was that played by John Dimick to whom so many distinctive doors opened to the advantage of the Tikal Project. Also of great importance to these ends were Edwin M. Shook, Percy C. Madeira, Froelich G. Rainey and Alfred Kidder II. And special acknowledgment is due the initiative of the Reverend Carlos Sanchez. The Project's indebtedness to private contributors needs no elucidation here. There were scores of donors through the years whom at this late date it is

indeed questionable whether near-archival records accurately notate in full. In attending to amount or longevity of their individual gifts, it is necessary to cite Mr. Frank Smithe, Mrs. John Dimick, Miss Alice Tully, Mrs. Francis Boyer, Col. Truman Smith, Mrs. K. A. Swanstrom, Mr. Philip Sharpies, Mr. Brandon Barringer and Mrs. Charles Snowdon. Mentioned or not, all have the Project's gratitude, which is to say, that of The University Museum and the other institutions that formed its substance. The grants that foundations made on behalf of the Project amounted to an enormous sum. Of commensurate importance was their collective faith in the Project's worthiness. Here to be noted are the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Avalon Foundation, The April Fund, The American Philosophical Society and the Rockefeller Foundation. In all, the National Science Foundation made grants that are documented as G-10790 (1960, University Museum), G-16443 (1961, University Museum), GS-361 (1964, University Museum), GS-815(1966, University of Arizona), and GS-1409 (1967, University of Vermont); in aggregate these awards amounted to nearly seven percent of the grand total.

11

Figure 5. Resetting Stela 9 in front of the North Terrace

12

IV

SITE RESTORATION

beyond, on stone monuments like stelae. Furthermore, crews of masons, riggers and other specialists went to work only after a maximal archaeological record of any selected entity had been achieved. (That the fullest grasp of fabric and context precedes the cement mixer seems self-evident, yet it may not hold true throughout Mesoamerica.) But, in truth, this was an ideal not always met in practice under the spasmodic stresses of timing and funding. Within forthcoming Tikal Reports specific to excavations (see Publication), there are bound to be references to informational drawbacks and shortfalls that most usually resulted because the scope of one's digging was automatically limited by practical consideration of the masons'task due to follow and the costs thereof. Quest of data and responsible physical destruction went hand in hand to clash inevitably with the interests of conservation. Additionally, on more than one occasion an excavator would state a job done to his intellectual satisfaction, only later to hear of masons coming upon important things during their preparatory scouring and probing. Or masons themselves would be digging for solid underpinnings where the excavator had never dared for fear of the consequences. Notice also has to be made of excavation primarily done because of the subject's worthiness for exhibition. This is not to claim that efforts towards understanding it were necessarily to be superficial or trivialized. Nevertheless, the danger of such existed, and it was to come to pass in rushed, terminal work undertaken entirely for reasons of aesthetic balance as well as improved access for visitors. In the matter of monuments, procedures became

As already noted, the Project from its start had actually but one binding contractual stipulation aimed at Tikal's physical appearance. In effect, either the Project preserved to the eye what its excavations were to uncover of a non-portable nature (i.e., constructed features), or the responsible cuttings were to be backfilled. Implicitly these alternatives insured that the site's future state would not resemble a well-detonated minefield. (A reasonable restraint and a minimal one at that, it was to have unforseen consequences mentioned ahead.) In any case, the Project decidedly had among its aims the site's touristic development since, basically, anything less was unthinkable in light of Tikal's blatant grandeur of setting and visual makeup. If this, however, was to be achieved in a major way, most urgently needed was an infrastructure of essentials like accommodation, internal roadways, a year-round airfield and a reliable water supply. (Vehicular access to Tikal was still far in the future.) True as well today, the last of these proved to be elusive during 1957 when a huge investment by the Project in drilling equipment and operators yielded nothing. While a profound setback, that failure retreated amid substituted efforts to improve and supplement an ancient system of catchment. In spite of inherent risks, the solution sufficed and permitted selective site restoration to remain a dominant Project interest. Except for one lately published article of pertinency (Guillemin 1970c), nothing in writing exists of cogent bearing on policies and procedures of the program that came to pass. One simple fact stands out, namely, that its focus was on architecture and, 13

Figure 6. Extraction of limestone blocks for reduction and use in the restorations

14

SITE RESTORATION consistent after the development of techniques in 1957 in the course of resurrecting stelae and altars arrayed in front of Str. 4E-36 (depicted on the TR. 11 map). A sturdy metal tripod and chain hoist sufficed in most cases. But shattered monuments, and there were many in the Great Plaza area with which to contend, would have presented a severe problem of repair had not epoxy adhesives become available. Never was there the intention to attend to all the Tikal monuments. Even in areas selected for public development, a pile of fragments (albeit plain ones) might be left untouched to testify to what the forest could do. Irrespective of location, carved monuments, however, did undergo resetting and, when required, repair. Exceptions to this were incomplete ones that had been anciently discarded under various circumstances. These the Project removed for safe-keeping in camp or, later, for direct delivery to the nearby museum erected and, in 1964, opened through the dedicated efforts of the Asociacion Tikal, The subject of architectural preservation is a far more complicated one since, in the first case, it involves differing technical options and contrasting points of view. Also it has to take into account native materials and the unforgettable presence of a medium tropical rain forest. Nevertheless, if a Project policy did develop in these respects, assuredly it never took written form. Beyond our observation that its keynote must have been flexibility, we find it difficult today to identify policy in full. Since neither one of us helped in its formulation (nor really ever in its implementation), any clues to its ingredients lie back in 1959 when an active program first took shape. What then transpired seems legitimately to have presaged the subsequent decade of work. Importantly, a pragmatic approach seems forever to have prevailed as the program came under the charge of Aubrey Trik from 1960 to 1964 and, thereafter, George Guillemin. (It is dubious whether their respective reconstructions of Highland Zaculeu and Iximche led to any profound changes in procedures at Tikal.) To return to 1959, an aggregate of structures termed "Complex Q" on the Project's map became the program's first target. Discovered only three years earlier, it was an impressively scaled example of a Twin Pyramid Group and, from varied standpoints, an expeditiously located one. (Presumably its eventual preservation was much in mind upon the beginning of excavations there in 1957.) From the start, the unrecorded choice was either (1) to

consolidate (synonymously, to stabilize and to solidify) stretches of excavationally exposed original masonry and, where gaps occurred, intact hearting or (2) simply to go further and attempt authentic restoration. Yet, if the latter were to go beyond some subtle point, the results might well violate an impressionistic sense of "ruins," Dilapidated naturalness and Maya form re-created had contrary aspects in what amounted to an ethical dilemma. In the case of drastically deteriorated Str, 4E-36, the solution was to restore totally two of its adjacent sides and attached stairs, then to retain the other two in their authentic state of collapse. (It was left to the visitor to figure out the radial symmetry of the whole.) Modern cement capped the flat, unencumbered summit, but elsewhere its use was avoided. While cost-paring ostensibly entered then current thinking, the decision to leave the repaired flanks naked is perhaps properly to be credited to memory of wide criticism years earlier of cementclad, glaringly white Zaculeu. Following on that decision, there must have been another, namely, that there would be no visual delineation of original and copy, which otherwise might have been achieved by scoring or by chinking the interstices of modern block-work (as done in so many sites of Mexico). Though masonry was replicated, weathering was still certain to erase initial distinctions. It was probably thought that anyone in the future interested in separating old from new would have to have in hand the excavational record, especially the architectural elevations (a matter of using solid line for old, broken for what was gone and thus open to replacement). By recollection, Str. 4E-36 was also subjected to some amount of work commonly spoken of as caly canto, in effect, a rough facing of cemented stones installed to adhere to firm Maya hearting. A problem not immediately to arise concerned the propriety, if not educational value as well, of showing formal anterior construction in the midst of the final entity. Nevertheless, not far beneath the ruined finished one, excavation had disclosed a solidly built stairway erected only to facilitate the structure's assembly. It is conceivable that thought was given momentarily to its expedient salvage as a substitute access. In regard to southerly-set Str. 4E-37, procedures differed. Once a vaulted palace, with a facade broken by nine doorways, the principle applied to its residue was one of essentially pure consolidation of still basically intact parts. What emerged to indicate the building proper were merely knee-high 15

Figure 7. Scaffolding being erected before the fallen entrance of Temple III

16

SITE RESTORATION later that year when the government began a truly substantial, long-term subvention that was to assure all—and even more—that the Project had hoped for in regard to TikaFs public development. Over the five years that remained, crews of masons and swarms of aides and quarrymen succeeded in handling the following entities via a familiar procedural mix described earlier for Temple I (i.e., Str. 5D-1). Great Plaza locale: Str. 5D-2 (Temple II), 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32-34, 35 (summit), 74 and extensive segments of North Acropolis and Terrace. Central Acropolis: Str. 5D-44, 46, 48, 4954, 60-63, 65, 66, 120 (below 62 and 64) and the N facades of 71 and 72. Others: Str, 5D-43 (an East Plaza component), Str. 5D-3 (Temple III), Str. 5C-4 (Temple IV) and Str. 6F-27 (Temple VI). Work on the last three to be inventoried was restricted to the summit-set buildings and their directly supportive components (e.g., building platforms). The southern and rear substructural flanks of Temple II were left in their ruined states. Paragraphs back, mention was made that during the 1959 Complex Q repairs no immediate need arose to confront the possibility of simultaneously presenting ultimate and prior components together in the same setting. In 1965, however, the intricately stratified North Acropolis ("structure atop structure," "box within box" generally convey a common reality) did demand three decisions regarding the future of final Maya products occupying the loci of Str. 5D-22, 5D-23 and 5D-33. As to the first of these, the substructural facades exposed selectively by excavation appeared deeply eroded and their backing fills highly unstable. Nevertheless, immediately behind stood far more elaborately designed facings in essentially perfect condition; these pertained to a predecessor of what excavation in its course had otherwise preserved (i.e., final staircase and, above, the building proper). We had to consider and comparatively weigh, on the one hand, a puristic principle of temporally homogenous exhibition and, on the other, the display of a splendid example of complex architecture and the achievement of a significant economy to the benefit of other undertakings, such as Temple IV, but without giving priority to either one of the advantages foreseen. The latter option came to be chosen, and, in its implementation, the surviving basal remnants of the final substructure underwent consolidation as a guide to the architectural sequence present in that particular zone of 5D-22. In the case of nearby 5D-23, the original substructure along its sides and

stubs of walls along with gaps to signal its entries. Since in the debris there existed fairly reliable clues to former vault-work, it is of interest that at least at some point walls were not built up minimally to support a suggestion of vaulting, if not an unequivocal stretch of such. With this in mind, Str. 4E-39 to the N was known through excavation to have a portal vault, an unexpected type of entry. Its uniqueness perhaps explains the doorway's later full reconstruction. In regard to the final member of the group, Str. 4E-38 had completely escaped serious investigation because to any eye its mounded conformation promised it to be a duplicate, a twin, of 4E-36 across the plaza. Even had excavation been done (with hindsight, perhaps wisely so), one doubts that masons would have attended to it. After all, were two of the same really needed? Whether then implemented or not, the points just made were eventually to apply throughout the program. On completing Complex Q early in 1960, the crew of masons tackled towering Temple I, a job that was to last some years. To summarize procedures: a zonal mixture of reconstruction, consolidation, cal y canto treatment, major substructural portions left untouched (naturalism) and, to reach the summit, a so-called masons' stair in lieu of the true finish flight that, alternatively, would have demanded the latter's near total restoration. By 1961 crews were also at work on the immensely broad stairway at the back of the Great Plaza. Concurrent and then later planned excavations here were predicated on the programs'future. This emphatically was to be devoted, and understandably so, to the contiguous Great Plaza and Central Acropolis sectors, the one vertically dominated by temples, the other linearly by court-arranged palaces. Nevertheless, and no later than 1962, we knew that the program's schedule was falling further and further behind. Some structures, their excavations long ago completed, were deteriorating in the midst of neglect. And the diggers were still unearthing more! A serious imbalance between excavators and masons had developed. In a sense this worsened in 1963 and 1964 when available resources were preponderantly devoted to the completion of Temple I and mandatory attention to the standing upper components of Temple II across the way. With so much elsewhere exposed, it is fair to say that the entire Project had become decidedly imperiled by mid-1964. As mentioned in the Introduction and again under Funding, an extraordinary solution arose 17

Figure 8, Temple II today, a product of combined stabilization and restoration

18

Figure 9. Central Acropolis, Structure 5 D-66, an example of rebuilding and consolidated hearting

19

Figure 10. Central Acropolis, masons at work in the midst of massive backdirt from prior excavation

20

Figure II. North Acropolis, Structure 5D-22, with an earlier substructure partially exposed and selected for preservation

21

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL rear had been buried behind a new one. Test cuts showed the original to stand in superb condition; the secondary one, after its complete exposure, posed a major job of restoration ahead. Here a final choice favoring the original version had in its somewhat subtle support the primary intention of Maya architects. However, to convey once again to the searching visitor the reality of concrete sequence, a secluded portion of the later substructure was kept and solidified while its balance underwent removal. Concerning Str. 5D-33, only a matter of degree distinguishes its case from that of 5D-22. Although both entities once shared an almost equivalent absolute height, 5D-33 in relative terms was about a third the taller. After seasons of superficial clearing, it finally stood in 1960 in a state of such severe decay (except in talus-protected lowermost parts) as to worry many concerned with its future disposition. Steeply inclined 5D-33, which remained in saddening view, was composed largely of rustically faced nuclear components and, if not these, their internal fills. Meticulously tunneled over years, the structure proved to overlie a splendidly decorated building and associated substructure, both in essentially fair condition. A conscientious review of all factors then involved led to the decision to dismantle 5D-33 to its comparatively solid, originally clad lower parts; by level these coincided with the directly antecedent structure. Then, as today, what was preserved visibly enwraps or engages the earlier building and, hopefully, does so in a clear-cut, jointly constructional and temporal way. It was no simple failure of eventual effect here that was soon to become controversial in print (Rainey et al. 1967). Nor was it the ever lurking issue of presenting old and new together in situ. Instead, the charge was initially destruction, then the crassness of such, and these together reckoned against an unstated scale of architectonic magnitude. Were it not for the latter, the other two structures cited could also have been included in the charge. Aside from supposed wanton demolition, to have actually designed an architectonic exhibit juxtaposing diachronic disparities happens today to remain an anathema in some quarters. Nevertheless, both parties, purists and pragmatists alike, would seem to share a premise, namely, that the aim of restoration is a pedagogical one. If this be true, the general public is the obvious audience. Yet tourism and

national economics so patently combine as to make one question education as the aim. Rather, Tikal "sells" only to the extent that its restorations (and ambience) provoke awe and fascination and beguilement. As if the program's tribulations were not sufficient, in their aftermath new problems emerged. Despite the past blocking-up of tunnels and compact backfilling of trenches, certain restored sectors have developed slumps and fissures because of subterranean saturation effected by periodically horrendous rains. The answer: either never widely, deeply dig in the first place, or, in closing cuttings, sturdily replicate the crucial vertical and horizontal features that anciently and in a cumulative, incidental fashion had contributed an inherent stabilty to the whole. Perhaps of equal trial is a steady disintegration— pulverization in fact—of exposed sheer faces of masonry. Unlike in the Maya past, today many naked expanses suffer perhaps less from outright weathering than the persistent nibblings of bees and wasps in search of moisture within the blocks of locally soft, deliquescent limestone. Still in theory remedial is chemical stabilization in lieu of (shades of Zaculeu!) cladding all such surfaces in tough cement. (That the harmless black bee was speck by speck both defacing and undercutting Tikal had always been evident to some of us, but that the restorations would be its future target seems oddly never to have been predicted.) Perhaps the best solution would be to avoid permanent vertical exposure from the start. All things considered, this restraint in practice would likely mean an end to serious excavation in complex settings. Similarly, to rebuild substantially what had been penetrated and excised might thoroughly discourage further major investigatory "digs" at Tikal, In closing this review of site restoration under the Project's auspices, there deserves mention of the large-scaled, additional fieldworks which the government has promoted and sponsored at Tikal over the last decade and more. According to Guatemalan colleagues, the primary intent throughout is to open up new, strategically chosen central sectors so as to better accommodate today's volume of visitors as well as a far larger one anticipated for the future. Congestion and the wear-and-tear of by now old facilities are matters current policy trenchantly addresses.

22

V

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS

of internal roadways, it became mapping that received absolute priority. Detailed delineation of the site's natural and archaeological conformation came to be centered on the Great Plaza, obtrusively bounded by the densest monumental remains, to judge by eye and all accounts. Without debate, this was axiomatically Tikal's very pivot, core, focus, visual climax, epicenter, nucleus or what you will. By late 1960, what had issued was a "map of the ruins of Tikal" (Fig. 12), its format squared and covering 16 km2 of territory largely surveyed at a scale of 1:1000, with 1:2000 in mind for publication. Oddly enough, neither introductory TR. 1 nor TR. 11 specify why mapping efforts happened to be confined to this area. In fact, coverage via plane table was originally restricted to 9 km2. Seemingly an afterthought in the summer of 1960, what contributed to the map's striking dimension was a rapid reconnaissance of half-kilometer-wide strips bounding the primary portions. Run over the course of three strenuous years, the entire survey basically served to establish the Project's physical context amid a still sketchily charted Peten. In such forested isolation, the map most comfortingly provided a "universe.** Then of no great concern, the map in its rendering implemented points of view not entirely consistent. For example: artificial prominences usually (but not always) underwent rectification contrary to contoured depiction of their planar, visually artificial underpinnings; although it conveys by policy a pre-excavational view, the map does indicate a few monuments and structures exposed entirely by

While scarcely a startling claim, research at Tikal was conducted in the guise of programs conditioned by topical and thematic concerns. Their formulation came about according to all sorts of circumstances rather than by prescient, homogenous plotting early on. Programs implemented by excavation especially resist scrupulous definition today. In general, however, promptings were of a conventional nature, not only responding as they did to the obvious constituent realities of Tikal, but bolstered by a foreknowledge of its elementary cultural setting. Much of analytic value was available simply by inspection—art and architecture notably so— yet a sophisticated appreciation of Tikal had to be contingent on comprehensive compilation, let alone a horrendous amount of digging. When and how programs unfolded and with what inaugural rationales, these are matters jointly deserving identification, thus this portion of the report. There is no attempt to present annual synopses of field study or conclusions achieved unless the latter happen to have stimulated new investigations. (For those wishing year-by-year summaries, Appendix B provides Shook 1958b, 1964; Coe 1959, 1963a, 1963b, 1964,1965a;Lowe 1966-1969; Hayilandetal. 1967; sequentially framed summaries appear in Coe 1962c, 1965c; relatively broad conclusive recapitulations are to be found in Coe 1971 and Jones, Coe and Haviland 1981.) Citations of scheduled Tikal Reports relate to a full listing of them under Publication, ahead. Once such vital needs as housing and provisioning had been secured in league with a rustic system 23

Figure 12. The central sixteen-square kilometers of Tikal, an overall map published in 1961 as part of Tikal Report No. 11

24

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS had been issued, it became (as one would expect) the principal vehicle for the selection of subjects to be excavationally investigated. Its scrutiny served particularly to reveal provocative patterns and anomalies thereafter dug, and it certainly promoted intelligent spotting of so-called test pits. It is true, however, that many digs came to pass, often major ones, that had no real reference to the map or a crucial dependence on it. To move ahead, it was years later and for fairly specific reasons that the Project returned to mapping. Curiosity as to "what really lay out there1* had slowly led to an awareness that our putative "universe " might spread way out within the limits of the 576 km 2 National Park, then an abstract entity so planned that the Great Plaza fell essentially at its very center. After having demonstrated the likelihood of a once large residential, diversely composed population within the Park's already recorded portion (see ahead), many of us felt it mandatory to break out in order to seek a realistic definition of Tikal in space and, needless to say, demographically as well. Unquestionably the concept of dispersed settlement still held strong, as did the intertwined conviction of milpa-based agriculture as the exclusive foundation of existence. But some had begun to think that renewed mapping might detect the limits of a circumferential supportive zone exclusively bound to Tikal. By no means antithetical to dispersed settlement, there were also discussions in 1964 of whether, with considerable innovative surveying, there might after all exist the potential for drawing a boundary of Tikal in the terminal state of its development. Anticipated was a perimeter by analysis falling within the Park's remote limits though well outside those arbitrarily conveyed by the TR. 11 sheets. (A matter hard to assess today is how compelling the knowledge was of distant Teotihuacan and the impressive conclusions that Rene Millon and colleagues had reached as to its planar configuration over time.) Another incentive to renewed mapping was an awareness that, beyond the pivotal area originally surveyed, the National Park encompassed undiscovered cases of dense, conspicuous ruins quite irrespective of presence or absence of associated stone monuments. Then exemplary was Chikin Tikal, already cited, and nearby Uolantun and El Encanto that Morley long ago had nominated as "sites" in order to register the stone monuments encountered. Not until 1964 did serious worry about such variably composed entities (coupled with the Project's

our digging. Perhaps jarring as well was the decision to include Project facilities and others that had arisen in those early years. But these ancillary remarks in no way lessen the map's enormous exposure of the distribution of entities by custom termed structures, stelae, chultuns and so forth. Upon its completion and prompt publication, it is of interest that the map—a graphic representation thought to cover phenomena comprising "Greater Tikal" (TR. 11:1)—failed to stimulate immediately a more expansive cartographic endeavor. Most assuredly it was not a matter of either deficient funds or unavailable manpower. Rather, one has the impression that what had been surveyed to date sufficed, for it had veritably captured Tikal's terminal, time-ruined configuration made up of centrally compacted remains and, about it, a zone of diffusely structured occupation. Much in the manner of confirmation, the map incorporated Tikal as a ceremonial center surrounded by scattered housemounds. To undertake extended mapping would in theory prove to be an endless venture since, beyond the territory already mapped, dispersed settlement was thought to prevail almost endlessly through the non-bajo terrain of Peten. Nonetheless, such commonplace expectations were accompanied by nagging skepticism if only for the presence of an impressive build-up, hardly 3 km westwards of Temple IV, which the Project named Chikin Tikal upon its discovery in 1957. Even though these notions influenced site definition and, to most minds, Tikal's topical isolation, today we must stumble in pondering the meaning of what was called "Greater Tikal." Possibly it was intended to convey the architectonically climactic corpus and a directly surrounding, wholly affiliated "sustaining zone" or breadbasket. If so, it is unclear whether "Greater Tikal" ever specifically guided investigations in the Project's early term. What did prevail was the singular attitude (and one, as said, quite comforting) that, intellectually and situationally, both ourselves and Tikal resided within the map completed by the summer of 1960. A pause here to make a point: the map published in TR. 11 faciliated other investigations by virtue of its locational benefits. But excavations were not entirely dependent on its availability; indeed, many had been completed and others were well under way prior to its being finished, replete with myriad features formally designated. What allowed such was an independent operational system later spoken of under Procedures. On the other hand, once the map 25

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL mound, an entity set alone or in aggregates and marked by subjectively appraised smallness yet presenting enough lift to catch the eyes of surveyors often working amid truly obfuscating vegetation. A program dedicated to their investigation did come about, and to it we now turn. Mapping had hardly begun in 1957 before features of this vague sort started to populate what emerged as the Camp Sheet contained in TR. 11. By custom they were spoken of as housemounds, but mostly so with unease because of the presumptions involved. By recollection, what discussion they received in the earliest seasons usually concerned little more than their ubiquity and, in light of such, the probability of their being domestic in function. Where memory fails is how this talk conformed to unabashed reference to Tikal as a ceremonial center. After all, casual weekend exploring had come upon comparable minor mounds truly close to architecturally paramount parts of the site. Available records do not reveal plans for their eventual study by excavation. Additionally, an unexploited opportunity did arise in 1957 to recoup remains brought to light by expansive earth-moving along the airfield, a government-run operation that left strewn incredible quantities of flint (debitage, etc.) conceivably derived from housemound activities. It was in the summer of 1959 that the Project inaugurated a program of excavation of small mounds, an undertaking faithfully positing them to be the residues of prehistoric dwellings. This was to develop into a long-term endeavor explicitly designed to gain a reasonably balanced view of Tikal's composition, growth and development (given the fact of an existing huge commitment to its ceremonial precincts to which we will turn). It began, however, more as an exercise in salvage archaeology. The area selected for the first excavations of small structures had been surveyed in 1957 while still under heavy growth. Being on a rise and close to the Project camp and water, it lent itself to development as a village to house workmen with families, among other pressing needs. Where a first survey had disclosed four mounds—one markedly large (Str. 4E-31), the others barely discernable—a drawn-out process of clearing came to reveal many more, although often the irregular ground surface when coupled with their slight height made them difficult to identify with confidence. Excavations in 1959 concentrated on the easterly mounds (e.g., Str. 4F-15). Digging revealed three additional structures as well as platforms separable from the other

then scheduled certain close a year hence), lead to formulation of a program to record those outlying components and to explore for new ones. These came to be referred to as "satellites," a working term in no great favor and perhaps less so when the subsidiary possessive, "of Tikal,"came to be used in conversation. But, whatever their intrinsic significance might be, their sheer existence alone presented a baffling factor in pondering Tikal in spatial terms once freed of the primary map's constrictive black margins. Nevertheless, in the rush of matters, about all that was accomplished in 1964 was a detailed record of some visible construction at Chikin Tikal. In the following year, peripheral concerns solidified because of two fortunate events, both unexpected. One we have spoken of, namely, the Project's sudden revivification by the government the prior fall. Concurrently, government surveyors had been directed to demarcate the National Park. This independent undertaking took the form of cardinally headed, medially staked-out cuts, or brechas, each extending a distance of 12 km from the Great Plaza. The job was completed by clearing to mark the Park's boundaries measuring 24 km per side. Overnight, so to speak, the means for controlled, linear access to the forested hinterlands were opportunely presented to us. During the summer of 1965, the S central brecha underwent a traverse, its product a continuous record of archaeological features found over a distance of 250 m from each side of its staked-out midline. Matters of procedure, scope, scale and the like once solved (to be detailed in TR. 13), discussions began as to the likelihood of financing and staffing a major push to develop identical strip-like maps along the three other brechas. Additionally contemplated was proper recording of satellites. Indeed, in 1965 new ones had come to our attention, by chance Navajuelal southwards and by rumor Jimbal to the N. The objectives foreseen were ambitious: overall site definition via extrapolation from all strip plots and, moreover, demographic assessment provided the techniques could be devised to evaluate when all features recorded as habitational were in use. What eventuated came to be called the Sustaining Area Project (SAP). An enterprise founded on mapping, its activities nevertheless came to be so prolific that discussion of SAP appears at a later point here. By far the most frequent feature caught by past and renewed mapping was the so-called house26

Figure 13. Typical scenes of small structures under excavation

27

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL components. Despite first intentions to carry digging to bedrock throughout, plans soon had to be changed in the face not only of emerging new structures but of an unexpected complexity in the group's physical evolution. Also unanticipated was a huge outpouring of artifacts and pottery requiring arduous laboratory processing. These experiences were profitably taken into account when the Project moved on the next summer to the westerly mounds, by then also endangered by the burgeoning village. Even with the presence of substantial Str. 4E-31 with which to contend, the 1960 excavations proved to be less troublesome if only because of the fact that components on the whole appeared to be less complex than the eastern ones. What collectively emerged, however, had a greater architectural diversity than one would expect from their initial surface inspection. As in the year before, tremendous quantities and varietal arrays of artifacts were unearthed. Similarly, human interments abounded. Those two proximate sites, if you will, were to become under analysis Gp. 4F-1 and Gp. 4F-2 (W and E, respectively). While TR. 19 will be devoted to their description and resulting conclusions, a few comments are in order here. For one, as work proceeded each year, it became evident that the excavations had importance far beyond mere obligatory salvage. In spite of the mounds' modest appearances, their innards often turned out to have intricate configurations not the least disposed to simple unraveling. Digging, in fact, elicited considerable variation in architectural design and composition, and among burials and localized inventories of artifacts. Since such diversity could not be explained by time differences, several questions had to arise: What was the meaning of this departure from expectation? Given such variation, could all those structures have been houses? If so, how was this to be proven? Alternatively, if not, how might one decide which were domestic and which were not? But, beyond the nagging question of function, one had to face the fact that visible mounds simply were not a reliable index to numbers of structures which lay buried below. Conversely, as we had come to learn, not all mound-like prominences marked ancient structures. Following these ground-breaking digs among small structures, a "sense of problem" intensified to a level which demanded a long-range program. Basic to future work was the continuing belief that most, if not all, such entities were domestic in pur-

pose from the sheer facts of their abundance and the Project's inability to ascribe more reasonable or credible functions to them. It followed that one role of a major program would be to provide a baseline by which to gauge local population size and density (at least within the Late Classic Tikal that TR. 11 represented). This had a critical urgency if we were ever to test the traditional assumption that the past failed to witness large concentrated populations because of an inadequate form of subsistence. Furthermore, an expanded investigation was necessary in order to provide sounder grounds for inferences as to day-to-day living than was possible through the proliferating investigations of grandly built precincts with their implications of specialized usages. And small structure study clearly had to grow in order to yield proper data from which reliable insights might be made independently in regard to Maya social organization. For instance, differences in house construction and in the quality and quantity of associated remains might suggest diversified social classes. Features of house distribution might even indicate the existence of extended families and perhaps other kinds of kin groups as well. Finally, and related to the last point, an analysis of artifacts, ceramics and so forth from such contexts was undeniably requisite to establishing the degree to which house occupants participated in a hierarchic culture. In sum, a lot of hard work was called for in order to develop a plausible picture of people with defined status vis-a-vis TikaFs total population, a corpus elsewhere partly represented by the sumptuous interments broadcast throughout its grandiose sectors. A detailing of Tikal settlement, ideally so through time, became a goal engendered by small structure interests. But amid these well-nigh astral concerns, there persisted other questions of a more nose-to-the-ground quality. For instance, really how typical were the structures examined in 1959 and 1960? Were mundane entities like houses subject to temporal change? Instead of depending on a crude syllogism, could we not encounter in situ evidence construable in no other direction but a domestic one? (This was to ask what such would be.) Moreover, was the concept of "group" valid elsewhere? (Two functional architectural assemblages of coeval structures seemed evident from the prior work.) And from this question came another, namely, could it be assumed that all structures qualifying as small on the Tikal map represented a true picture of Tikal at one gross moment in time, or was it possible that many other 28

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS temple-like design, associated interments and other exotic features. A revelation of sorts, it immediately added a complicating factor to the developing picture of residence at Tikal. In fact, it triggered a second phase of excavations carried out in the summer of 1963. Throughout the site, mapped examples underwent testing; as a result, the pattern was substantiated in terms of its broad, unrestricted, yet far from universal distribution. Only years later did this particular arrangement come to be designated Plaza Plan 2 in the course of formalizing all local recurrent configurations in an architectural medium. (A fascinating matter, it is one due full statement in TR. 34.) The summer months of 1963 were also devoted to investigations of generalized small structures in areas outside the northeastern strip selectively dissected two years before. Utilizing Op. 67 and Op. 68 (Appendix A), the immediate objective was to examine how really representative the 1961 results had been. Moreover, the latter did have various important gaps requiring closure, and, additionally, compelling leads begging to be followed. Seven widely located groups were chosen, and eventually the small structure program's roster took on eighteen more excavated entities. What developed was a much firmer grasp of architectural constants and variables through time. Data also came to light of help in demonstrating the high probability of those entities' residential role. Suffice it to say, consistently elusive throughout the entire program was incontrovertible evidence of domestic status, though taken as a whole its weight clearly pointed to such. In that same summer, research interests also focused on chultuns, for those bedrock chambers had long been recognized to occur frequently near small structures as if they had been integral to the groups the latter formed. Others depicted on the site map seemed to lack any such attachment. In fact, back in 1961, the superficially vacant area in which two chultuns existed underwent excavation. Unearthed was a platform-like feature. Another case arose in 1962 involving two mapped, proximate chultuns (Ch. 5C-4 and 5) and two totally invisible small structures—one of them deduced from patterned postholes—which digging happen to expose. Altogether these discoveries suggested a correlation between apparently isolated chultuns and, to the eye, completely hidden construction. Implied as well was that the Tikal map then at hand represented a structural density predicated on visual

contemporary units could only be discovered by chance excavation? At last we can now make the point that in 1961 the program was to be continued via an investigation of twenty-five structures arrayed in nine wellspaced groups on the map. Differing in their distance from the Great Plaza as well as in superficially appraised plans and topography, all fell within a half-kilometer-wide strip extending 2 km NE from the Plaza taken as a hub. The choice of this vector also took into account that the earlier digs fell within it. Moreover, all groups it traversed fell sufficiently near enough to others (comprising both small and large entities) to preclude doubt that they formed a part of Tikal proper. The work that came about entered a doctoral dissertation (Haviland 1963), but with revisions and additions from later fieldwork it forms the core of readied TR. 20. (Also see Op. 24 in Appendix A.) While excavations and their analysis did suggest tentative answers to many fundamental questions previously posed, they still left unresolved the serious issue of temporal change in domestic architecture. This shortcoming aside, the overall results served forcefully to alleviate, even to eliminate, long lingering doubts that a permanently resident multitude typified Tikal. But who were they relative to those so enshrined by modifiers like "theocratic" and "sacerdotal" (by accounts, all at the top of the ladder, with their attached squads of subservient specialists)? In the following year (1962), attention actively turned to clusters of small structures arranged in a specifically patterned way. Recognition dated back to 1958 when one of the surveyors found himself repeatedly confronted by a cardinally fixed quadrangular layout—hardly unusual—though in this instance distinguished by an easterly positioned mound, relatively square in apparent plan, and with a drift of talus suggesting its inward, or westerly, orientation. Guided by thematic considerations, minds turned to a nearby, short spur jutting NE along the Bajo Santa Fe upon which were numerous examples of that repetitive plan. Largely the subject of TR. 21, a complement of thirty-three structures falling in nine spatially distinct groups accordingly underwent excavation. (A preliminary account appears in Becker 1971.) Apart from the enormous amounts of sundry data the work contributed to the Project's inventory, what emerged was that the eastern components of such groups— otherwise seemingly habitational—were tantamount to shrines or memorials by reason of their 29

Figure 14. A map of the Tikal region depicting, in part, radial brechas and the locations of so-called satellites in relation to central Tikal shown in detail in Fig. 12

30

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS beyond the limits of the TR. 11 map (Fig. 12), this outgrowth received adequate financing for a scheduled run of two years, 1966 and 1967. Much of the program's field strategy had been designed during the summer of 1965 in an earlier mentioned preliminary survey of the southbound brecha. As to the concept of "sustaining area," it was adopted from Satterthwaite (1951:21) who applied it to an area occupied by a population that provisioned a center (in this case Tikal, as then cartographically defined), itself inhabited by a largely nonfarming component. While a purely economic definition, it did not preclude other possibilities that he had anticipated: that a peripheral farming population had their primary religious and political ties, in this case, to Tikal; further, that they may have provided various services for the centralists, perhaps even construction labor. Still, one had to allow a possible system of free trade and, consequently, political boundaries need not have coincided with those of the sustaining area. This fusion of concerns with subsistence and demography took full account of certain basic conclusions suggested by all small structure studies then completed. Vital was the estimate that Tikal (as mapped to date) had a population of minimally 10,000 to 11,000 persons at about A.D. 800; indicated was a mean density of 1,000 to 1,100 people per km 2 of usable land. Furthermore, Tikal must by then have lacked sufficient space for heavy, internal agricultural activity. Occupational specialization also typified its population; the majority had not been concerned with the production of food. Together these points had to be contrasted with Cowgill's then current proposal (1962:273) that the Peten's present carrying capacity is merely on the order of thirty-eight to seventy-seven individuals per km2. If this were true anciently as well, and in view of the Tikal picture, it followed that a sizeable number of farmers must have resided beyond the site with its provisioning their primary role. Such reasoning became the nucleus of a sustaining area hypothesis. But, without moving a foot into such not too distant territory, one could, in arm chair fashion, concoct fascinating predictions based, as one might expect, on a manipulation of all sorts of tentative calculations. Indeed a "Greater Tikal," to revive an old term found in TR. 11, might thereby be envisaged to have had a respective radius of 13 km and, within, a late population of some 20,000 persons at the very least. Five interrelated concerns or, better, problems

prominence or mounding; much otherwise remained obscured and could only be captured by exploration. Reserving chultuns for later discussion, we would note here that, from 1962 onwards, a program of test pitting for ceramic interests frequently impinged on groups untouched in the course of small structure studies. Akin to data gained within chultuns, the products of such squared tests often bore on the persistent issue of whether small structures shown on the map truly reflected Tikal domestically at one point in time? (The majority of data from both pertinently located ceramic tests and chultuns is incorporated in TR. 20 and 21.) During succeeding seasons, a fascination with the site's residential makeup hardly lessened although work took on a sporadic quality. In 1964, for instance, curiosity led to the excavation of what became Gp. 5D-1, an assemblage of authentic small structures epicentrally located just to the N of Temple III (i.e., Str. 5D-7, etc.). Knowledge of exceptionally early settlement developed that same year amid ongoing ceramic testing at a spot defined in Appendix A as Op. 71F, L and M. Furthermore, a climax of sorts took place in 1965 when intensive excavation occurred in what came to be known as Gp. 7F-1. In truth, it was a third campaign there, for this was the scene of the first of the Project's digs (the subject of TR. 2), and, due to its Plaza Plan 2 semblance, it had received considerable attention in 1963. An elaborate and extremely informative locus, the entire group forms the subject of forthcoming TR. 22. (The topic therein is emphatically elite residence, and lest the reader believe this the only such information available, we refer to the Central Acropolis studies, ahead.) To close this account, noteworthy is a return to vacant terrain work in 1966 in a final intensive effort to illustrate that not all contemporaneous living required foundations and superstructures of enough substance to catch surveyors' eyes. From the generally large exposures then made, the results can only be evaluated as mixed (TR. 20 treats them under Op. 118, 119AandB, 121,124, 125). A discussion of mapping many pages ago ended with note of the extraordinary opportunities presented to the Project by the brechas systematically cut by government surveyors in late 1964 (Fig. 14). These literally dispelled our sense of confinement. Both their existence and peripheral potentials suddenly combined with internal small structure interests and issues. What came to pass was the Sustaining Area Project. Fully dedicated to investigations 31

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL architectural makeup alerted one and all to the likelihood of their having formed Tikal-linked foci of population, religion and administration; a "proconsular" role was not unthinkable among an openended gamut of possibilities. To expose their componential fabrics, such sites would obviously require much mapping, detailed architectural recording and serious excavation. A judgment of these nucleated entities' affinity with Tikal patently depended on a comparative treatment of the data so assembled. How much congruence might result could not be objectively guessed beforehand. Among rare clues were, for example, the late stylistic attributes of sculpture shared by Tikal and Jimbal, a 1965 discovery made way N of Tikal. Furthermore, the implicit ties were thoroughly complicated by the perplexing fact that at Uaxactun, not much more distant, the entire series of monuments quite profoundly differed from that belonging to Tikal. The field program which transpired can be described as a heavy-duty one principally implemented by mandatory foot work. Via strip-like surveys, mapping alone contributed almost 26 km 2 of topographic archaeological records to the Project's files. Results were voluminous. Well considered conclusions had great relevancy to the concerns just enunciated. And many unexpected matters came to the fore. We can only here selectively limn what came about, leaving to numerous Tikal Reports the full task. (The most revelant ones are listed under Publication as TR. 13, 24 and 26.) While much can be variably construed, when translated in terms of coordinated people, time and space considerable data indicate a late Tikal of immense size, indeed on the order of 120 km 2 , with a population of Tikalenos possibly amounting to some 80,000 or at least half that amount if conservative computation were to reign. While their deployment was subject to change over time, and areas available for milpa cultivation quantitatively altered, the latter appears inarguably to have been absent within the confines of Late Classic Tikal. It can be calculated that the amount of well-drained land then available per residence lay between 0.59 and 0.82 ha. Because this range suffices for kitchen gardening, the hypothesis arose that an outstanding role in Tikal subsistence was played by ramon, a local tree-borne breadnut grown in such backyard plots. A statistically significant correlation of those trees and house ruins joined experimental evidence that chultuns could have served for the storage of ramon nuts. Together these insights seemed to lend strong support to the idea of breadnut as a major

formed the heart of the investigation. One was the matter of defining Tikal itself when, on the one hand, its only obvious geographical constraint lay in the easterly extensive Bajo Santa Fe; on the other, among most Mayanists the belief still stood firm in an outward, indefinite distribution of remains, that is, the influential factor of dispersed settlement earlier noted in our discussion of mapping. A second problem involved comparative population densities centrally as opposed to peripherally arrayed, the one thought to be reflective of largely nonfarming pursuits, the other, by contrast, given over to food production. In short, could one confirm a theorized dense versus, respectively, a sparse distribution? Moreover, what had been the effects on settlement of known topographical variation in this region? For example, it could be all but taken for granted that settlement had been precluded in great areas of logwood-dominated bajos; nevertheless, others today covered by corozo palm might conceivably have been highly favored by farmers. (Note that nothing had ever emerged to suggest that past and current environments significantly differed.) Under the conditions of scanty rural settlement, as just proposed, a preference for certain types of land over others lurked as an significant variable. Its control presented serious practical difficulties. Another severe problem was how in the world to determine the relative numbers of structures (read "houses") in use at any one, even loosely, reckoned time? Employing temporal controls developed at Tikal, one might be able to conclude that virtually all surface remains of peripheral living once again represent usage dating around A.D. 800. Should this be the case, an analyst would still have to contend with such offstage possibilities as a prior population explosion, or a terminal Classic recourse to the hinterlands by refugees in droves. Besides this issue, any one concerned had to ponder the possibility of considerable numbers of peripherally sited houses having undergone much earlier abandonment, only to stand in ruins by reason that no huge building projects occurred locally to draw upon them for fill. (Such consumption appears to have been much the case centrally and, in terms of interpretation, a severely disruptive factor.) Where an immense amount of reconnaissance was called for, only extensive test excavations could serve to control these sorts of variables. And, finally, our fifth problem concerned the so-called satellites spoken of in connection with the Project's mapping efforts. Despite being comparatively modest in size, outstanding signs of their sophisticated 32

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS cuttings. Flying the flag of flexibility, an excavator could only hope that initially passable procedures, and, with experience gained, greatly improved ones, would do justice to those splendid remains to which the Project was primarily impelled from its start. The real Tikal was not to undergo excavation until early 1958. It was then that probing began among the middle north-set stelae and altars in the Great Plaza in an attempt to establish their installation timing vis-a-vis a series of plaster floors belonging to the Plaza. Less than a meter downward bedrock appeared. Found caught between it and the primary pavement was a dirt-and-marl fill laden with sherds belonging to a late Preclassic era ceramically typified at nearby Uaxactun. Multiple lines of evidence indicated the monuments to have originated during both Early and Late Classic times. In surprisingly short order, an elementary sequence of variegated data had emerged, and, irrespective of its vertical compression, it could be reasoned to span seven or eight centuries. Within a few months, those first probings had been expanded continuously to reach the near corners of Temples I and II. The Plaza floors, with a behavior referred to by terms like run-under and abutment, were found rationally to articulate with those corners. The majestic entities to which they belonged thereupon entered the steadily burgeoning time-run of tangibles. The Plaza's immediate backdrop, a lofty terrace-like mass, inevitably came into the picture. Thereafter, a perpendicular trench founded on the Plaza pavements daily brought to light a series of rebuilt stairs, then walls, one behind the other. Many stood in a remnant state due to demolition. Though some were easily achieved, hookups of receding facades and the floors below (some new to the inventory) caused frequent reconstructive headaches. Just as disconcerting was the fact that certain old facings lacked pavements above, as if the respective summits had been once stripped away. In any event, excavation of that season's trench was halted after having penetrated what was appreciably the horizontally stratified lowest stage of the huge, still tree-shrouded North Acropolis. By then enough had concretely come to hand to gauge that behemoth's innards not only as authentically complex but as possessing foundations dating at least as far back as the Plaza's own. So it all turned out to be. Upon at long last laying down pick and pencil twelve years later, one might have reflected that those first efforts had presaged everything to follow

Tikal staple. Whether it ever became the local dietary backbone, as was once thought (Puleston 1973:299-311), might be contested in light of a subsequent report on a raised field in the Santa Fe Bajo just E of Tikal (Adams, Brown and Culbert 1981:1461). Implicit is the chinampa-likt, intensive cultivation of maize. Granted the possibility of a meaningful amount of kitchen gardening here, what of the postulated sustaining area? It was this, after all, that rationalized the whole undertaking. We start with the fact that the 120 km 2 constituting Late Classic Tikal are clearly confined by bajos on the E and W and, moreover, by artificial earthworks connecting them both northwards and southwards. There is a direct and interpretively substantial correlation between boundaries and settlement density: approximately 112 Late Classic houses per km 2 within; in the countryside beyond, merely one-third the number. Thus, in the region about Tikal as defined, more land was available for agricultural pursuits. That it may have been inhabited by farmers largely uninvolved in other economic pursuits is suggested by the fact that not a single site suggestive of occupational specialization has ever been found in the terrain about Tikal; all such known ones occur well inside it. We now turn from these often subtle considerations in order to review the largely parallel, ultimately complementary studies undertaken in an area that can be considered to be an epicentral zone. No more or less than Tikal's heart, objectively it results from the implosive construction so graphically depicted on the TR. 11 map. With its developed focus markedly the Great Plaza, the zone itself can be construed to fall within a one-kilometer radius. Within that colossal setting, an excavation program had at best only the hope of intersecting and capturing a bit (perhaps a big piece) of the whole. This, we anticipated, would be representative of all components through time and, at least roughly so, at any gross point within time. Hope, in fact, always colored what transpired since coherent sampling never became policy. Inimical to such (indeed to sophisticated systematics in general) is the sheer intricacy of local composition. The reality happens to be densely stratified construction permeated by missing links due to recurrent rip-outs. (Uaxactun in its reporting provided lessons enough in these regards.) Within this part of Tikal, even to deal with surface-level remains was awesome to begin with; by expectation enormously more so amid profound 33

Figure 15. Bedrock beneath the North Acropolis was reached in 1963, after years of trenching

34

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS

in the sense of having to piece together on paper myriad vertical and horizontal solids more often than not bereft of junctures. What a person might also have cogently guessed in 1958 is that, in these precincts, the Maya might have destroyed in sum about as much as they ever architecturally wrought. Be that as it may, the pages and line illustrations of TR. 14 are requisite to an appreciation of this site nucleus, both in its stupendous compositional richness and for the enduring perplexity of those of us assigned to its dissection. Core oriented studies could not neglect the Central Acropolis by reason of its glaring superficial makeup. Called "palaces" to begin with, eventually "range-type structures" to be objective, the all too visible aggregate of these and the courts they formed (plus linearity) were entirely in contrast to the verticality characteristic of the adjacent Great Plaza, an impression imparted by so-called temples, single and clustered. While Central Acropolis investigations began in 1958 with the methodical clearing of debris from Str. 5D-65 (evidence of its historic usage was a highlight to be described in TR. 37), not until 1962 did anything of a substantial program develop. True in the case of the Plaza and its environs, its authenticity again depended on activity, not on any manifesto of explicitly put problems. This is not to say that function escaped consideration, but once more the initial overriding concern was internal composition over time. Probably assumed to have been temporally constant, usage was first conceived of in terms of administrative needs and others of a nonresidential sort. For the era, this was conventional. Soon, however, second thoughts were to arise. Hardly daring ones, they took the form of a Tikal residential continuum first reckoned by volumetric criteria, then by attributes of design and elaboration. This shift in thinking, as might be expected, owed much to what was happening excavationally in the small structure program earlier described. Discounting the reasons deployed in print against such, why after all would Tikal's paramount peoples not have chosen to live opulently and, in this location, to do so adjacent to the Great Plaza, the supreme ritual focus to say nothing of it being their graveyard over centuries? Continued into 1967, the excavations conducted throughout the Acropolis were specifically stimulated by this query. (Scope and intensity of work multiplied almost immeasurably after 1964 because of previously noted government funding of undertakings of ultimately touristic value; the Central

Acropolis stood as a primary target in this respect.) Stretching some 250 m from W to E, this aggregate awaits TR. 15 for exposure of its architectural and developmental constituency. Like so many in the series treating Tikal domestically, the intrinsic issue of that report is how credibly to make the case for implicit habitation in the rawest terms of victualing, sanitation and sleeping, among assorted household needs, and regardless of the occupants' societal ranking. Unless the capricious Maya were even for one moment cooperative here, functional ambiguities will predictably lie at every turn in a course of analysis aimed at accounting for that marvelously congested entity. While certain of its features had earlier received attention in a program of monument studies (see ahead), the West Plaza became still another scene of excavation in 1962. On the TR. 11 map, this sector patently appears to be a third appropriate area for investigation within an overall strategy of understanding Tikal's absolute center. Neither did such planning exist, as said, nor can all motivations in this instance be satisfactorily identified today. The West Plaza, joined by the intriguing, all but structureless area northwards, becomes the subject of TR. 17. Accordingly, the reader need only scan Appendix A here (Op. 19,22,23, etc.) to sense, and rightly so, the absence of a master plan behind what transpired there over a period of at least five years. Seemingly the subject of disparately motivated studies—monuments, test pits for pottery, resistivity experiments, chultun investigations—it was not until 1962 that the West Plaza became a target for significant structure oriented work. Even so, vagaries were at work; we recall a visitor's curiosity regarding diminutive Str. 5D-19 and consequently its specially financed excavation. While assuredly an unusual case, inquisitiveness still best explains the Project's move to undertake heavy excavations in and about Str. 5D-11 and 5D-15. The latter exemplified, respectively, a temple and a palace. It was the former that yielded a provocative issue: a chambered interment set below its foundations, erection of Str. 5D-11 either came to a halt well short of full assembly, or, at sometime following its completion, both its flanks and summit underwent an incredibly thorough robbery. In sum no less a topic of argument, the West Plaza's role as a core component evades even simplistic definition, although, in the opinion of some, it suggests an annex of and an expansion from the Great Plaza and its directly affilitated constructions. 35

Figure 16. Set in bedrock below Temple /, (he chambered grave known as Burial 116, which proved to be that of a documented ruler of early 8th century Tikal. (See Frontispiece.)

36

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS ahead), a reconsideration of certain finds well S of Temple IV (St. P41, etc.) produced a convincing case for a probably once typical assemblage erected there but eventually demolished (perhaps for Temple IV fill). And, even though it appeared most aberrant, one could not exempt from the inventory another group marked on the map by St. P77 and St. P78. Moreover, in the East Plaza work there came to light a sealed pair of opposed, radially symmetrical pyramids which significantly antedated others confidently fixed in time. In any event, the map became the resource in pinpointing other examples of patterning (recalling as well the one pursued amid small structure interests in 1962). For example, during 1964 a numerically scarce assemblage received a few months of exploration through digging. The type site comprised a comparatively small plaza-centered structure (e.g., 6E-144)and, to the E and W, two inwardlooking edifices; our working term, appropriately, became Big-Little-Big. Scheduled for inclusion in multi-part TR. 23 (see Publication), the excavations unearthed an extraordinary range of diverse features prominent among which were the Central Mexican formal and decorative attributes belonging to the "little" one. In this vein, instances of parallel, closely set, elongate mounds were also investigated in 1964, but of course one could reasonably predict these to have been ballcourts. A triple one emerged in the case of Str. 5D-78 through 5D-81 (TR, 23, along with other nearby investigations), and a single one was fully verified just to the side of Temple I (TR. 14). The opportunity also arose in 1964 to satisfy a perennial inclination to test structural peculiarities that, to our minds, the map presented. Curiosity, never absent in other epicentral undertakings, took control. One minute, oddly situated structure, 5E22, turned out unequivocally to be a sweathouse; this predictably prompted another dig (of Str. 6D10), although one with a far from convincing outcome. Similarly due treatment in TR. 23 were other such curiosity-led digs: shrine-like Str. 5D-75, a possible bridge based upon Str. 5D-6 through 8, also a large conical eminence just S of the Madeira Reservoir suspected to be artificial (so it was but not without intrinsically fascinating unknowns). Still, in all ways the major attraction was towering Str. 5C-54. With four stairways and an easterly bearing, it might well be the lone survivor of a huge Preclassic ritual development of the immediate area, one that was finally eclipsed as the North

With nuclear interests consciously at work, the low-lying East Plaza was the fourth and final sector to be researched by reason of its engagement by both the Central Acropolis and the Great PlazaNorth Acropolis conglomeration, Not only did it stand as a nexus of two great causeways, but over its stretches stood ruins expressive of an unusual variety of architectural forms. Among all, the most pronounced attraction was the easterly colossal, somewhat amorphous mass which fully matched the North Acropolis in area. A comprehensive grasp of the East Plaza required a major investment in money and expertise. With so much going on elsewhere, not until 1964 could serious excavations begin. Much of that and the following year passed in satisfying most objectives, yet more frequently in contending with completely unexpected disclosures. Tikal Report No. 16 is devoted to these confines. Since prior text has spoken at length of the map and of potential structures not captured by it, noteworthy is the existence of three hidden or invisible ones in the Plaza's western portion. In summary, a four-part program did manage, albeit in often fitful, helter-skelter fashion, to distribute manifold excavations throughout close to 10 ha of totally developed territory representing Tikal's multifarious centrum. This is not to claim that all sectors grew to what they became in a coordinated manner. Nor would one want to leave the impression that the Great Plaza-North Acropolis corpus, as a center, lacked contestants early on. (Pages ahead, a likely one is indeed cited.) The epicentral investigations were, however, to go further afield. A guide to such is Appendix A, when coupled with the TR. 11 map sheets. More simply, we turn first to excavations prompted by recurrent layouts, the most marked example of which was the so-called Twin Pyramid pattern. Only with the discovery in 1956 of a group labeled Complex Q (now Gp. 4E-4, as in TR. 18) did this repetitive phenomenon become evident. That same assemblage was to receive considerable though sporadic excavation from 1957 until early in 1960, although throughout promptings were principally aimed towards its mixed repair and restoration. On the advent of 1963, it became feasible to launch a major search of the other outstanding examples. Sampled in all important regards over a period of about six months, the groups, so obvious then, were only later realized to be not alone on the scene. Where earlier monument investigations had treated them with narrow regard (see monument program, 37

Figure 17, A hove, setting accurate points required for the architectural recording of Structure 5D-96 Below, night photography of monuments, here of Stela 4

38

FIELD

INVESTIGATIONS apparent. What over years was spasmodically discovered and fortuitously learned deserves to be put together (the outlet, once more, our multipart TR. 23). Again with excavation the mode, we finally come to a cumulatively great number of, as parlance has it, ceramic test pits. Always their explicit purpose was the intersection of middens illustrative of real production (even imports) at specific points in time but ideally over many. That the Maya customarily left undisturbed short-term accumulations of garbage, let alone allowed theorized long-term ones to remain in situ, must have been the model which motivated many cuttings in the winter of 1960 (Appendix A, Op. 22 and 23). Understandably, the starting objective was to gain the means to work out a Tikal pottery sequence entirely representative of qualitative change and, throughout, to identify the numerical preferences anciently in effect. Over the many following years, an annual inclusion in the excavation program was a swarm of test pits scattered, by various criteria, within central Tikal. (In Appendix A, the relevant operations have "test pits" in their headings.) Deferring to TR. 25 for the fullest consideration of their worth, there is still speculation whether the Maya ever left their trash for long. Instead, normally derived garbage was usually prone to retrieval in a seemingly never ending search for bulk required in building enterprises, both small and large. In fact, such perennial testing encountered construction (intact and deteriorated) perhaps more commonly than sherd-rich deposits of credible service to analytic ends. In retrospect, the resident vagaries of manufacture, use, breakage and discard surely coalesced to make this portion of Tikal's investigation a most problematic undertaking. But, all too obviously, it had to be done regardless. Perhaps Tikal's most alluring feature, the amount and extent of still visible architecture—linear and vertical, inside and out—presented the Project a singular challenge. On the one hand, excavators were most often working in constructional contexts, their standard record being the section but, additionally, plans and even elevations if sufficient expanse of this and that buried entity could be achieved. The eye and pencil were sensitive to all sorts of nuances and minutiae of masonry, hearting, plaster, joints, processual stages and so on and so forth. Yet the potential of equivalent records, with the most superficial poking, scratching and the like, was so great that there had to come about a ground-

Acropolis took command. Lastly, nearby Str. 5C53 was explored for inquisitive reasons. Although standing as a low, square mound set in the middle of a plaza, it might have been ventured to be the little member of the just cited pattern. As excavation disclosed, 5C-53 did display every sign of ultimate Central Mexican inspiration. Concerning the conspicuous causeways of Tikal, it is remarkable how little pertinent excavation was undertaken when we realize the prodigious investment the Maya made in them. Of the Tozzer Causeway, almost nothing is known (an all but forgotten test in its eastern extremity in 1958 and, far later, some exposure behind Str. 5C-17), and our knowledge of the roadway commemorating Maudslay is equally scant. On the other hand, important southern terminal sectioning of the Maler Causeway occurred in 1965 in attempts to work out the juncture of both the East Plaza and components belonging to the Great Plaza's northern reaches. Five years earlier, various cuts had been made along the causeway's sides in search of trash heaps (see Appendix A, Op. 22), While little of the latter appeared, some data useful to an understanding of the roadway's makeup felicitously did result. That same limited objective, however, happened to produce considerable information for the broadly built Mendez Causeway. Hopefully future teams will correct for the Project's inexcusable neglect of components of such obvious relevancy. (The intention remains to piece together extant records and comments for contribution to TR. 23.) Reservoirs did far better, principally because of their fairly intensive testing in 1968 when particular attention was given to the Camp Reservoir embankments. Yet, apart from what those late efforts produced, the subject of general local hydraulics (again, a TR. 23 topic) depends on odds and ends of information cumulatively gained over prior years and, usually so, in various incidental ways. Of course, the TR. 11 map alone is a rich source of insight into the natural and, so frequently, constructionally altered drainage routes that together dramatically characterize this complexly elevated portion of Tikal. In the matter of their excavation, or at least surface perusal, quarries hardly received their due by the Project. Despite frequent indications of them on the TR. 11 map, few were conscientiously studied. Yet, in so many instances, when excavations otherwise directed came upon bedrock, the scars and stubs from ancient quarrying were all too 39

Figure 18. A detail of the inscription borne by Stela 26. Such photographs provided the means by which to create drawings of all Tikal sculpture

40

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS level program of architectural study. Of no surprise, its goal was simply to draft everything in sight falling outside the Project's excavation schedule. Unless this could be done quickly and at no significant cost, digging, by definition, was to be avoided. (This admittedly became at times difficult to selfenforce.) In regard to the program's scope, everything visible locally and afar was due attention, with the distant material exemplified by appreciable standing architecture within a satellite like Chikin Tikal. From 1960 onwards, seasonal staffs included specialists whose principal if not sole duty was to carry out such recording. And, when time permitted, excavators often joined them. Authentically voluminous, the records that resulted are designed for inclusion in TR. 23 and 24, depending on their source. When set beside everything the excavation reports present of constructional relevancy, such material forms the foundation of a comprehensive study of Tikal architecture in time and space. As TR. 34, it reflects a hoary Project attitude, namely, that the subject can be profitably reduced to the level of the artifact for scrutiny in terms of substance, fabrication, morphology, modification and use. Precise definition of constants and variables in all dimensions would emphatically depend on the deeply stratified collections provided by digging. In this manner seriational control of surface ones could be reasonably achieved, however aided here and there by extant chronological clues provided, say, by radiocarbon tests of artifactualized context. Of all Tikal collections, the architectural one is by far and away the most numerous. How best to exploit it has been, and remains, of supreme concern. The topic of architecture leads to another, graffiti, usually incised and a profuse feature of many local buildings, both final and buried by ongoing construction. Arrayed on walls and vaults and other surfaces, graffiti basically required rubbing for their recording, a procedure discouragingly impeded by their frequent obscurement under thick, gummy moss, to say nothing of debris. And graffiti, of fascinating importance to many, tended in early years to be officially denigrated. In the early

sixties, however, a specially financed program for their recording did correctively develop. Over many seasons a trove of material resulted to which have been added numerous other examples that excavators came upon, often under deeply buried circumstances. The entire corpus is to be illustrated in TR. 31. In concluding this review of the Project's diverse investigations, we turn to a final program which dealt with monuments. Unabashed "stela dusters" to be sure, our primary interest from 1956 onwards lay in documenting all carved surfaces whether of stone or wood; in doing so, we employed highly controlled photography at night as the principal medium. An epigraphic or, more pointedly, a chronologic bias existed, but obviously the largely figural sculpted balance of each piece was not be be neglected. Before long, studies broadened to take into account dimensional, formal and lithic properties of stone monuments irrespective of their plain or carved status. Much of what was achieved took place in the context of ongoing excavations in locales incidentally populated by stelae and altars. Many other monuments were situated in spots not otherwise due to be dug, and consequently excavations specific to them occurred. (Only a tiny number failed to be treated in this manner.) While a few hundred entities formed the surface count, a substantial number of carved ones were to be additionally unearthed under constructionally sealed conditions. From an ounce to a ton and all fragments, they testify to a transitory factor analogous to the one responsible for the evident susceptibility of all construction to fitful demolishment and overbuilding. Considerable numbers of surface-sited monuments present an equally perplexing factor, namely, formal relocation. A topic of TR. 33 along with chronology, the subjects of local Maya standards through time and their inferred attitudes towards monuments are also to be treated. Yet, for purposes of understanding ultrasocial structure here, the carvings have shown their worth by contributing crucial historical data exquisitely revealing of Tikal's rulers over centuries. What they have to say becomes one more concern of that study.

41

VI

PROCEDURES FIELD

AND

IN

LABORATORY

By and large, field reports neglect an explicit statement of the underlying principles of datagathering whether under the conditions of excavation or a processing facility, be this called a "laboratory," a "finds hut" or whatever. Although much can usually be pieced together in a field report with relevancy to system—which is to say, comprehensive procedural coherency—its choice among others and, then, its own origins altogether form matters rarely assessable. With respect to the controls imposed at Tikal, they were born early from prediction of (1) its complicated accretive constructional makeup and, moreover, its stratigraphic realities heavily conditioned by such; (2) a patently protuberant site configuration, the masses of which were to be primary investigatory targets; (3) in terms of portables, an enormous resident volume with which to contend on a day-to-day conclusive basis; (4) numerous far-flung, simultaneously conducted excavations by a staff that over years would probably be characterized by a largely changing constituency. A correlate of this final point was the strong likelihood, if not desirability, of fieldwork conducted by individuals personally responsible for all aspects of methodical digging and recording. The term democratic, or egalitarian, may apply here, but more importantly a combination of custom and Tikal's anticipated conditions simply chilled any inclinations to formalize field personnel along the line of specialists (for all photography, all sections, all architectural recording, etc.) and even supervisors on roving duty handing out numbers, defining and logging features, and other like tasks.

While TR. 5, long in print, covers topics crucially pertinent to our immediate interests, it falls far short of explaining what apparently has come to be known as the "Tikal system." A key issue is, was the latter the most adequate available, in fact, devisable? After all, a profoundly contrasting strategy would have been expectably employed had the Project's roots lain, say, in a Wheeler-Kenyon tradition. CONTROL OF EXCAVATIONAL LOCI AND STRATIGRAPHIC ENTITIES Spatially construed, an excavation was flexibly defined as a numbered operation serially registered for the whole of Tikal, a site dimensionally limited by the eventual scope of its study. The operation (Op. 1, Op. 2, etc.) pertained to a subsite, the nature and amplitude of which depended on the definitive inclinations of the primary excavator. Once implemented, an operation could be broadened to include previously overlooked contiguous subjects. Proximate operations might, through enlargement, collide and thus become an event requiring either arbitrary respective divisions or ones responsive to emergent ancient realities of distinct sorts. Mandatory in undertaking excavation, an operation nonetheless remained open to liberal interpretation and pragmatic application. One principal intention was to isolate a given excavation from all others conducted concurrently and in the future, whether nearby or distant. By doing so, the operation number became hierarchically the grossest spatial code in the alpha-numeric control of material 42

PROCEDURES IN FIELD AND LABORATORY operations also required definition on a standard 5 by 8 card for the Project's files. To use familiar Temple I once more, a first move in Op. 4 was to distinguish between external debris removal from its flanks and room-bound excavations above; consequently Op. 4B and Op. 4A were respectively registered for these joint undertakings. Like operations, suboperations depended on the investigators' judgments since no precise criteria overtly existed beyond a sotto voce insistence on logically pragmatic, even cautious, discrimination. Listed in Appendix A along with all others, the fifteen suboperations utilized in Temple I work may fairly exemplify the elementary separations believed appropriate in many other cases. (Note somewhat typical suppression of a suboperation O so as to avoid a numerical interpretation.) Definition of at least one dependent lot was necessary to activate a suboperation. Short of socalled piece-plotting of material within it, the lot served as the finest (or third-order) recovery device at hand and, simultaneously, as the medium by which to define the smallest, most significant provenience according to the excavators' perception of such. Each suboperation potentially generated a numbered series of lots. Almost every one of the near 11,000 lots the Project came to employ represents a segregational decision reached in response to realities, either observed or suspected, wrought by stratigraphy in general. Due to the awesome artificiality of Tikal, stratified realities tended to equal both fills and enveloping construction stages, as well as modifications and, so frequently, the special deposits (burials, caches, etc.) that imbued such contexts. Bag change and under what circumstances to do so via lotting were of course utterly crucial operationally, yet lacking in guidelines. Although, ideally, one lot closed and a new one came about in absolute accord with, say, detectable soil changes or matrical shifts in fact practicalities often dictated a lumping. This had the effect of expanding the temporal dimension of the depositional phenomena under excavation (but, perhaps in most instances, not beyond acceptable limits). By nature a diffuse term, lot per se originally highlighted artifacts and their "X/ Y" contexts, that is, final resting places, irrespective of their origins and their interpreted depositional circumstances. In this first sense, the lot comprised material selected for laboratory delivery from such-and-such provenance. Early on, the practice was to redefine a lot should the pertinent matrix fail to provide collectibles, a rare

engendered by excavation (otherwise surface collection) for laboratory processing, this a later topic. Taking the next available number, an operation was described on a standard 5 by 8 inch printed form spoken of as an Operation Card. This the excavator subsequently filed in a reserved section of laboratory records. On its conclusion, the Project had employed a total of 150 operations. Their sequence of initial definition directly corresponds to the course of ongoing field studies throughout fourteen years (see Appendix A). Most operations were based on generally obvious features like those designated as structures on the site map. A prominent case in point would be traditionally termed Temple I (finally, Str. 5D-1), the investigation of which began in 1958 in an exclusively applicable Op. 4. Contrastingly, Op. 11 served to isolate the open Great Plaza on which Temple I appeared to stand, while Op. 13 came to be used for Temple II work on its opposite side. With the expansion of interests northwards, the entirety of the so-called Acropolis and associated Terrace were to be segregated as Op. 12 and were thus inclusive of not only the tiered bulky masses but their structural population. Obviously operational segregation was variable; on the one hand, separables, as seen, were to be numerically isolated while, on the other, a seemingly integrated entity like the Acropolis deserved to be kept together numerically. The latter became much the criterion in dealing with clusters of housemounds wherein, by inspection, their spatial aggregate was reinforced by use of a single operation number. (See discussion of Group, ahead.) The same would be true, say, in the case of a Twin Pyramid Complex. Furthermore, an operation might halt for a few seasons, then work would be renewed, but in principle the operation number did not change. Within and outside artificial sectors, ceramically oriented test-pitting endeavors were usually individualized by separate operation numbers applicable to a given season's work; such far-ranging efforts in a later season tended to be conducted under a fresh number. For an operation to proceed, at least one intrinsic suboperation had to be defined, to which a capital letter applied. This second-order device allowed for concurrent and sequent segregates of the whole, as both a practical convenience and a finer statement of provenience or "target" throughout laboratory processing and thereafter among all material operationally provided. Beginning with the letter A, sub43

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL which it was alpha-numerically filed in the laboratory where all pertinent portables arrived for treatment. What then ensued there is a later topic. From gross to fine, the three-part code just examined specified provenience, and it did so ultimately to promote the sorting of excavated material in space, let alone time. The lot number would forever hold together material spatially associated in situ. That an object would finally bear a labeled index graduated as to its source was a basic decision reached in 1956 amid devising a system adequate to Tikal. And the latter should also provide not only thorough documentary autonomy among concurrent excavations, but allow them to be conducted with procedural flexibility and without recourse to formal designations of features under study. The system's derivation may be of interest. Its raw principles hark back to Piedras Negras where object recovery was conditioned first of all by the site's cardinal segmentation (N, S, etc.), then, within each zone, by what amounted to numbered operations (see captions in Coe 1959). In 1954 during preliminary work at dispersed Chalchuapa, El Salvador, first-order zones were dropped in favor of abbreviated subsite names (e.g., TR for El Trapiche) followed by individual series of numbered operations; greater flexibility was provided by numbered suboperations (Sharer 1978:9). In the case of Tikal, the latter were thought better lettered, and a highest order "T" for the site was suppressed in favor of brevity. Regarding the device of lot, this stems directly from the Carnegie Institution of Washington (e.g., Proskouriakoff 1962:327); a series of numbered lots was subsumed by a lettered operation in a running series of such for the site under study. From this same source came the idea of fully sortable file cards in lieu of three-ring-notebook form sheets previously favored in University Museum work.

occurrence. A departure of sorts did come about as excavators, in working distantly from central Tikal, began to construe the lot as truly matrix and therefore legitimate apart from retrievable tangibles that may or may not have been directly resident. Thus the subject of lotting became implicitly controversial, yet to no serious degree since, in accordance with first definition, few lot sources failed to produce something for basket or bag. The probability remains, however, that a lot might best be understood as an excavational unit, with its subsequent artifactual issue (or charcoal, etc.) altogether an incidental factor. Hardly a conceptual breakthrough, this point nevertheless exposes a complicated interplay of conventional stratigraphic emphases, Maya-imposed matrices and their usually prolific artifactual output. To move on, when in an excavator's judgment a fresh lot became warranted, the face of a Lot Card was made out regarding Op. and Subop. codes, lot number, excavator's name, date of lot definition and, under the heading of Provenience, a description of source and topic. How thorough the latter might be and the extent of its cross-reference to field notes and other records were matters left to the excavator's discretion. With hindsight, this may appear deplorable. Perhaps equally so was the failure to require him to evaluate, at least provisionally so, the factor(s) responsible for the lot's specific context when such was clearly of a nonspecialized nature depositionally (e.g., fill and oft-used "surface debris"). In any event, formal lot definition was usually accompanied by a fresh receptacle—variably a cloth or paper bag or basket—bearing the entire provenience code in abbreviated fashion. For Temple I, the first lot created in its Op. 4, Subop. A was expressed as 4A/1, the slash signifying Lot, or, alternatively, 4A-Lot 1 (see Table 2). The lot card, furthermore, had reserved space on its front side for the excavator to record his observation of lot constituency, for instance, "many sherds, few metate fragments, some charcoal." Here the purpose was a clue useful for identification should what came to be known as a "bag mixup" ever develop. The number of bags a lot might require was irrelevant to its maintenance. Also, a lot could be closed then later reopened as digging came upon a context judged to be equivalent or identical to that which had first prompted its discrimination. Finally, the lot card face allowed entry of photographic notations relevant to provenience. Customarily, the excavator retained a card until its closure, upon

FIELD RECORDS AND STANDARDS PAST AND CURRENT The often extraordinary complexity at Tikal due to lateral and vertical accretive construction, deductive demolition, intrusions and renovations, all favored the clean-cut archaeological section as the most illustrative record, yet one to be supplemented by detailed plans and elevations in architectural contexts. At the outset of excavations in 1957, the Project understandably valued Uaxactun as a basic guide. Nevertheless, at issue even then was how 44

PROCEDURES IN FIELD AND LABORATOR Y standably difficult to define and mutualize from one excavator to another. One person's "dark brown" matrix in the context of construction might be seen by a colleague as "medium brown" matrix, even pencil-rendered on the section. Some perceived and drew with great sensitivity, while others could only approximate. A correction in this case would have meant a single individual employed throughout all years in the recording of all sections—a total impossibility at Tikal, so broadcast were its investigations. Many rules and conventions were needed to coordinate inking and labeling of sections. This, happily, was made easier by having all field sectioning funneled through a relatively small group of draftsmen in Philadelphia. Also, at this stage it was occasionally possible through photographs to correct serious qualitative lapses in sectional field records. Regarding making plans in the field, and since work largely centered on structures, these came to be done, somewhat unaccountably, at both 1:40 and 1:50, with a 1:100 standard in their eventual printing settled upon probably by 1960. Behind the 1:40 scale was a rational proportional contrast with 1:20 in field sectioning. Beginning in the summer of 1960, it was this scale which became de rigueur for all so-called small structure work done by W. Haviland, M. Becker and others within central Tikal. Yet, personnel working on big entities employed 1:50 in their plans. More significant was the frequent need to extend realism to plans in small structure work: basal or lowlying masonry in building walls—all that survived—was necessarily delineated, and such vital remnant detail has been usefully preserved in the inking process. Contrastingly, a structure in the North Acropolis, to take a case, was linearly drawn in the field with the suppression, in plan, of all detail of masonry even if visible at the time. As a result, we have modified a long standing tradition—that of blackening building walls—and instead employ, in print, a tone so as to reveal the specifics of wall masonry where it forms crucial evidence. (We also feel, in any case, that black overemphasizes the building proper.) Regarding plans of groups, that is, amalgams usually of structures and platforms basal to them, these have been generally assembled during the inking process at a scale of 1:100 for uniform publication at 1:400. After photo-reducing the plans of structures for presswork to 1:100 (as mentioned), the resultant images have, in normal procedure,

finely in scale and detail did one record sectionally. Moreover, what was worthy of recorded observation, and how was it to be put lineally on paper in the field, let alone later rendered for eventual publication? Candidly, this plagued us for years. One of us, for instance, found himself doing sections in 1957 at 1:25, double the scale at which, say, the landmark, great sections of Uaxactun A-V appear to have been done (Smith 1950:Figs. 73,79). In the following early years, sections were slightly amplified to 1:20, yet various Project members still chose to work at 1:50, others even at 1:10. (This curious discrepancy frankly only gave way to full consistency, 1:20, in 1961.) At no point did differential magnitude of sectional detail lead to a choice among scales. It seems to have been governed by purely personal preference, and, in some cases, this was guided by prior experience elsewhere. The final choice of 1:20 was dictated by its proven scope to accommodate, meticulously and graphically, what our trenches and tunnels and pits were intersecting in all sorts of daily situations. We came to learn that 1:10 was excessive (except to provide supplementary detailing of minute, especially intricate stratigraphy). On the other hand, to work sectionally at 1:50 too often precluded realistic fidelity; we also ran the risk of simplifying, mentally and graphically, tightly set detail. Furthermore, we finally came to recognize that, in print, a standardized scale for all sections was desirable, but a normal scale smaller than 1:50 would, in many cases, compress inked detail to a point of illegibility. In short, Maya constructional complexities seemed to demand less than a 500% reduction by us, their witnesses. Concerning the orientation of sections, by 1958 we had settled on N and W to the left side of the section. This standard is preserved in print. As noted, field sectioning was done in a maximally realistic style; the only serious convention was a diagonally ticked line to indicate plaster, especially in the feature of floors. Realism, however, clearly faltered in much sectioning, particularly among the collapsed debris strata of final or ultimate structures and other architectural features. Some excavators detailed the mound, others did not. Also noteworthy is that in the inking of sections for publication, plasters have been intensified by stipplework, a convention met in Uaxactun records (Smith 1950), even those of Zaculeu (Woodbury andTrik!953:Fig. 6). As a field requisite, sectional realism was under45

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL one hand a destroyed segment of, or between, established entities and, on the other, extrapolation from an exposed feature to an area uncleared. As to a dash-dot-dash excavational line, it has proven itself even though it has been unevenly implemented in section and plan. There is no doubt that an exact depiction of such boundaries in plan can at times obfuscate the layout of a particularly intricate structure. We frankly consider this a contest between those archaeologically predisposed and those architecturally inclined. In many sections, the mere termination of detail, vertically and horizontally, suffices to indicate the limits of our work. Beyond the records discussed above, it is useful to mention others. Previously described lot cards daily formed a crucial, elementary record, with, ideally, their cross-references under "provenience" to other controls. Fieldnotes and a record of photographs taken were marshalled in a 15 by 23 cm bound notebook, with each page gridded in halfcentimeter squares and paired with a detachable undersheet on which a carbon copy was made for separate filing. Pages were referenced by year and personnel code number, thus p.59-7-6, p.66-4-2 and so forth. Personnel found these specialized books (utilized by Carnegie archaeologists) increasingly complemented by sheets of variably sized graph paper on which sections were done and notes directly entered. But, as a result, a chronicle of an individual's season and his daily work was often diffused. For example, one of us in later Project years reacted to exigencies in excavation by working almost entirely on graph sheets, using the field notebook almost solely for photographic notes. Of course, practically every excavation required that rendering in section, etc., take place outside the restrictive notebook. Such records were referentially controlled by year, personnel code and drawing number, in this order (D61-1-6, D65-75-16, etc.). Perhaps exceptional faith was put in photographs as a field record, though obviously emphasis varied from individual to individual. Proof was uppermost in our minds. Furthermore, photographs could and frequently did record, both rapidly and with an accuracy beyond other in-thefield means, a great range of data that at some later date could be converted to inked line-work from scaled prints. Tens of thousands of negatives over the years were, nevertheless, taken simply to corroborate what our pencils were simultaneously conveying on paper. Photographs were also controlled by year and

been ink-traced onto a 1:100 group plan with varying degrees of simplification; then, data relevant to supportive platforms and so forth have been directly included on the group plan. To anticipate readers curious as to the selection of 1:50 (or 1:40!) for field plans and 1:20 for sections, we can only point to differential graphic complexity. To be consistent, in the case of structures such as 5D-1 and 5D-23-lst—these only modestly sectioned relative to their masses—we have prepared for print 1:100 overall profiles matching, in scale, paired respective plans (and elevations). Printed 1:50 sectional data supplement views of this kind. What has been said here in respect to plans applies equally to elevations, again developed at 1:50 for 1:100 publication. In general, these have been made for substantial structures, and they normally require front and rear views plus a single lateral one. In most cases, the detailing of masonry and ornamentation in elevation has been simplified, and relies instead on specific, 1:50 printed sample views of these significant components. By 1960 and thereafter, burials and other special deposits were rendered in plan in the field at 1:10, rarely at 1:20, and then inked for uniform presentation at 1:20. Realism, an ideal most applicable to sections, is again utilized. In other words, skeletons appear as such, not as stick figures. Orientation of interments, a matter that becomes urgent in labeling their plans, has been solved by simply fixing the head of the "principal" towards the top of the printed page, irrespective of where indicated magnetic N might fall. Mortuary content has been conscientiously stipple-shaded, with highlight coming from the NE (a completely arbitrary convention and one we know we have sometimes erred in executing). Other entities, such as caches, have posed in their inking peculiar problems often dealt with on an ad hoc basis. With these various subjects in mind, we wish to note the essentially universal application, in print, of the few linear standards given in TR. 5:12. As to the convention of dotted line, in retrospect a solid line (with or without "grass tufts") for debris line— more accurately, the actual surface encountered— would have been a better selection, especially in cases where immediate subsurface conditions have value in print. The choice of a dotted line was nonetheless adopted from both Piedras Negras and Uaxactun and is consistently used in forthcoming Tikal Reports. We have been well aware, however, that a broken line is ambiguous, indicating on the 46

PROCEDURES IN FIELD AND LABORATOR Y within a given square (thus, Str. 5D-1, Str. 3D-1, etc.). Accepting a loose application of "structure" (TR. 5:6), nonetheless we were soon faced by features basal to structures. These came to be visualized as "platforms," although without the usual connotation of elevation relative to adjacent entities or to topography. The horizontal surface of a platform may or may not have served as a "plaza," and, in any case, that portion of a platform upon which a structure was built could not have subsequently served as a walkway. A subject anticipated in TR. 5:7, this has led us to distinguish and designate platforms within the grid system (thus, for instance, Plat. 5D-4for the "North Acropolis" and "North Terrace," Plat. 5D-1 for the "Great Plaza"). Yet, contrary to TR. 5, we see nothing today to be gained by formalizing "terrace" or "plaza" and "court" at this level. When most particularly applied to superimposed structures, ordinal numeration in reverse order (TR. 5:8-9) has, in our opinion, proven basically convenient in handling a most common condition at Tikal. To isolate and designate a Str. 5D-26-lst and, immediately below it, a predecessor, 5D-262nd, is conceptually to emphasize the integrity of each. In many cases, however, we have found it difficult to apply consistently the principle of "logical continuity" (TR. 5:9). In part this problem results from the availability of the "Subseries" (TR. 5:6). The latter, as defined in 1961, came to be essential and unambiguously applicable in many cases of structures discovered in subsurface constructional stratigraphy. Other entities pose a dilemma, however, as functional considerations, perhaps prematurely, mix with spatial ones in deciding how to apply "logical continuity" or, indeed, a break in such. In field practice, none of these problems had to arise, for apart from mapped, surface entities (e.g., Str. 5D-26), anything encountered was terminologically handled by code, really nonsense names. Vast quantities of such names—all explicitly temporary and neutral—were generated to specify walls, floors, stairs, rip-outs, stages or divisions in construction, whole buried structures and platforms, and so forth. Short random names like "Cat" and "Dog" became references on lot cards, fieldnotes and drawings and within photo-notes. This not only encouraged particularization and description but, eventually, objective integration of parts to form sequentialized, unified entities. This field approach was really one of "wait and see." But due to a commitment to interim publica-

personnel number, followed by a running numbered or lettered series of rolls of film. Upon their development, negatives were in most cases ordered by their in-field sequence of shooting, then numbered continuously (thus negatives 65-4-1 through 3,170,60-25-1 through 530). Such methodical control applied to the prevailing format, 214inch square. Additional codes were necessary for 35 mm material, a format disfavored by reason of the difficulty of reading the resultant images when arrayed on contact sheets. The latter are considered a basic record in conjunction with the Negative Catalogue Cards produced annually, these arranged by personnel number and then by negative number. In summary, the Project's basic daily excavational records were fieldnotes, photo-negatives and notes, lot cards (following on operation and suboperation delineations), and graphed and other sheets to accommodate sections, profiles (considered potentially sectionable views), plans and elevations. Following on initial uncertainties in the field and early so in inking records, we repeat that printed scales have been standardized to 1:50 for sections and structural detailing; 1:100 for profile, plan and elevation; 1:400 for plan of a group; and 1:20 for special deposits viewed in plan. With respect to line-work illustration in press, a compelling point for us has been to avoid shrinking big subjects to fit a printed page and, conversely, amplifying little ones to fill it. Within the given limits, we insist visual consistency to be useful, if not essential, for understanding and sensitive comparison. NOMENCLATURE Commitments exist in TR. 5 that concern formal terminology at Tikal for both visible archaeological entities and those encountered in excavation. Most of what was then stated (1961) has withstood the fullest testing, but not without occasionally compromising systematics because of frequent pragmatic stresses. As might be expected, architectural, or generically constructional, features and particularized components at Tikal have been difficult to contend with in conceptual and terminological ways. The problem, of course, was initiated by the TR. 11 map upon which a 500 m square grid was imposed, followed by the designation of many but not all mapped prominences as "structures," then by referring to them by grid code and hyphenated number 47

Figure 19. Laboratory repair and cataloging, in this case of imported stingray spines that were part of a cached offering

48

PROCEDURES IN FIELD AND LABORATORY "Cache," two overtly special depositional entities for which TR. 5:10 provides definitions of sorts. Following its publication, we found ourselves purifying both categories in a sense, by excluding deliberate deposits then on hand that either compositionally or contextually appeared not to conform to one or the other categories. What occurred was an increasingly strict and functionally-tainted concept of cache and burial at Tikal. As a result, a fresh category emerged, "Problematical Deposit"—possibly a regrettable term inasmuch as it implies that patent clarity exists among caches and burials. (The material comprising any such deposit, however reckoned with categorically, was controlled in toto by a fixed lot number dependent on a suboperation and operation.) Obviously the Maya at Tikal did bury their dead, and they did draw upon a broad array of exotic material for caching. They also made deliberate deposits, both concealed and open, that materially, locationally, even behaviorally leave us exceptionally puzzled. Neither "burial" nor "cache" comfortably applies. Nevertheless, in retrospect it might have been better to adopt a single generalized category, for instance "Special Deposit," then number the entries serially and, as confidence grew, modify the appropriate entities with adjectives such as "offertory"and "mortuary." One alternative, namely, to relax the definitions of burial and cache, would not in our opinion accommodate the perplexing realities Tikal so often presented.

tion, it did at times become necessary to adopt dedicated, formal terminology in cases of sealed construction features. An example is Str. 5D-Sub. 1 deep within the North Acropolis, a major Preclassic entity long referenced in field records as simply "Suit." It would, we always thought, be ludicrous to carry nonsense names into print, and consequently a final, formal term became mandatory rather early on (Coe 1965b). To put the matter clearly: stratigraphically overhead was a most intricate sequence referable to Str. 5D-22 and probably to be dealt with terminologically as ordinally numbered, with 5D-22 the locus prefix. In the early sixties, however, we were unsure for good reasons of the number of structures actually involved in a "logical" architectural development dependent on mapped, surfacesituated Str. 5D-22. Was Suit, for instance, fifth or sixth back in time in that development? Not really confident but faced by publication, we expeditiously assigned Suit to the Subseries for Sq. 5D and it thereby became Str. 5D-Sub. 1 (as a first such therein). This sensitivity to system let alone meaning may, of course, fly in the face of a vulgar tendency to say, "Who cares, as long as we agree it to be." Many features temporarily tagged by nonsense names have been dealt with in final analysis and inked illustration as numbered "Units," be their respective locus a structure, a platform or whatever. In accord with TR. 7:8, the application of units has been most useful for a variety of purposes. Strict guidelines for usage in text and illustration, nevertheless, have been impossible to develop. In regard to "Construction Stages" (TR. 5:9-10), reports following this that concentrate on architecture will be seen to make productive use of them in description and analysis. A topic TR. 5 overlooks, and one somewhat slowly to be realized, concerns the "Group,"essentially a constructional aggregate the integrity of which depends largely on spatial isolation. Groups appear to be typical of Tikal settlement. Accordingly, as the need has arisen (principally in forthcoming reports), such isolates have been tagged by grid location; thus, Gp. 4F-1, Gp. 5D-1 and 5D-2, etc. We need hardly add that a group comprehends structures, usually sustaining platforms and, when present, other formalized entities such as monuments and burials. In analysis, the group subsumes all available localized data. Probably one of the most troublesome matters in the field was consistent application of "Burial" and

LABORATORY With some notice in print (Moholy-Nagy 1963a), this large facility was joined by a separate structure (the bodega) for storage of collections, except for those portions transferred to the site museum from 1964 onwards. Back in 1956, the future existence of a laboratory was founded on a few fundamental considerations. For one, true and fully descriptive cataloguing would be mandated by the likely high field production of material coupled with the improbability of its export en masse for leisurely concentrated study. Further, the basic record would be in the form of an easily manipulated 5 by 8 Object Catalogue Card, its filing governed primarily by classificatory criteria subject to refinement, secondarily by coded provenience; and each object should be inscribed minimally with the code formed of operation and suboperation data followed by a 49

Figure 20. The project 's bodega where ail collections underwent photography, intensive review and permanent storage

50

PROCEDURES INFIELD AND LABORATORY (i.e., material-form/function) and quantities appearing on the assembled object catalogue cards were transcribed in numerical order on the back of the "parental" lot card. This latter record comprised a summary of formal lot constituency and thereby a guide to the retrieval of catalogue cards after their filing. Subsequently, lot cards were fixed alphanumerically in their own file, while catalogue cards were arranged first in accord with classification and then again alpha-numerically within each category. Certain material, such as charcoal, bypassed strict cataloguing, and its presence was directly noted within the inventory on the lot card back. The control for such was the full Op.-Subop.-Lot code. Increasingly this became the case for architecturally derived material like stucco and fragments of paving. Parenthetic mention has been made of lots that pertained to burials and comparably significant deposits. Lots so founded received well-nigh immediate translation in terms of burials, caches and problematical deposits, with each category serially numbered for the site as a whole. The mechanism was a General Index Card. This served to crossreference the entity to field notebook page references, field drawings and photographs, and to the applicable alpha-numeric code. Filed by number within the appropriate categories, these index cards additionally alerted personnel to the next available number when, for example, another interment came to light. But their principal benefit lay in the retrieval of pertinent data, even guidance to the relevant object catalogue cards via the specific lot card to which the code referred. The General Index File provided for numerous other topics as well, for instance, monuments, structures and chultuns, which is to say eminent site features of conventional interest in Maya studies. Object photography was rigorously done each season as part of the recording procedure. In principle, everything catalogued underwent camera work, normally in a 2!/4-inch-square format. Here the objective was twofold: A basic record and an image suitable for reproduction or, alternatively, conversion to line-work at a later date. In theory, all catalogued data, photograph(s) and metric sheet laboratory renderings combined to supersede the physical object. That this sort of surrogate corpus could ever preclude analytic recourse to the object was to become most controversial. Indeed some students insisted on a manipulation of the collection itself; others emphatically believed its compre-

laboratory imposed catalogue number. For reasons to be given, the latter proviso proved to be logically frail. An absolute in laboratory functioning was the previously discussed lot card, the face of which the excavator completed, then submitted along with the relevant finds. If the lot derived from a general rather than specialized source, its content underwent rough sorting (sherds versus artifacts versus "fragiles,"etc.), then washing and drying on a mesh tray to which was attached the original field container or its tag bearing the crucial Op.-Subop.-Lot information. This task, usually performed by local children, was vulnerable to bag mixup, and to avoid such, numerous strategems emerged though none were foolproof. (Material from, say, a mortuary lot was attended to by laboratory personnel.) After initial faltering in the handling of vessel sherds, the procedure became one of simply bagging them by lot, but unsorted, and with a tag placed both inside and outside the sack(s) bearing principally source data. Weighing followed, the respective poundage being entered on the lot card to crudely indicate the volume or mass recovered. The lot sherds were then set aside for review by a ceramic specialist (see below). Turning to the balance of material within a particular lot, its cataloguing proceeded via segregation by substance (obsidian, shell, hematite, etc.) and then by formal and functional attributes, even by species among "ecofacts." Essentially a Uaxactun approach prevailed (Kidder 1947) with various modifications; our artifact report, TR. 27, will present details in full. Suffice it to say, within a given lot those objects considered to be alike were described on the same object catalogue card and on separate ones if dissimilar. An Object Catalogue Number was made up of the Op.-Subop. code (e.g., 12A) followed by a hyphen and a number in a running series subsumed by the suboperation (thus 12A-1, 12A-2, etc.). When applied to two or more like objects, a number was combined with subsidiary lower-case letters to identify individual pieces should distinctions at this level seem appropriate. The objects were directly numbered, or, if too small, the container carried the information. Cataloguing minimally required written data on dimensions and condition with, normally, a planar sketch and one or more sectional views where pertinent. Precise graphic records were done to fixed scales on metric sheets aside and were keyed to objects and cards via catalogue numbers. Following full lot processing, the basic headings 51

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL marily interested in the identification of the most recent material within a lot (or multiple, stratigraphically identical ones), registered either in Uaxactun terms or in ones specific to Tikal that soon emerged. Until proved otherwise, any lot from general constructional contexts—a commonplace origin—carried the presumption of it being mixed because of cautiously posited, strong redistributional factors spoken of as "recycling" and "upwelling." That sherds might travel in time consequently presented a complicating variable. But taken seriously as well was conjecture as to the probability of a given lot having captured, upon its deposition, material truly representative, in part or whole, of the ceramic production then current. In any case, the resultant readouts—and these were usually tersely phrased—were transcribed onto the front sides of the pertinent lot cards, where laboratory personnel had previously recorded raw poundages of the sherds present. An especially taxing duty of the laboratory staff was maintenance and duplication of the ever burgeoning card files. This was due to the fact that each season thousands of cards were being added from efforts within the facility and from the field. From the start, the creation of three identical files was planned, the original to be housed in The University Museum. Eventually the Project settled upon two of these, the copy to be kept in the Tikal laboratory. Soon installed locally was a most felicitously developed (for its time) duplicating outfit of simple requirements. Although this greatly expedited matters, there remained the need of a stupendous amount of manual entry to be done within the files. First of all, the Object Catalogue File received frequent revision as a result of fresh thoughts on nomenclature and taxonomy. Indeed, the file was first designed for innovative resorting and change as intellectually demanded over the years. Thousands of alterations came to be, and a change in one file set (Philadelphia or Tikal) necessitated the other's manual correction. The need for fresh entry centered on the written addition of negative registry numbers on all object catalogue cards belonging to specimens photographed the prior season. At Tikal, the job, often an enormous one, was achieved by transcription from a duplicate set of negative catalogue cards in a University Museum format and prepared there during the off-season following production of contact sheets of the past season's photography. An annually growing separate set of contacts devoted exclusively to objects was main-

hensive records to be sufficient to attain conclusions of a telling sort, although admittedly short of ones contingent on minute, precisely systematic observation. True, our camera work was never attuned to capturing, for instance, evidence of wear in the medium of obsidian. On the other hand, an utterly consistent eye in the basic cataloguing process was at first all but impossible to achieve, given the fact of a general transiency of laboratory personnel over years. (The same certainly applies to field workers in their contextual confrontations!) Earlier, a basic defect in the cataloguing system was alluded to. Originally it was assumed that suboperational lot content would arrive at the laboratory for handling in an utterly definitive and consecutive order. As said, the lot number pertinent to an object was not part of its direct label in original planning. It was naively believed that in picking up an object and being interested in identifying its precise source—in effect the lot—it was merely necessary to scan serially the backs of those lot cards belonging to the suboperation written on the object. The latter, after all, did carry thereon the fully stated catalogue number. For varied reasons, procedural disjunctions occurred, and, to facilitate source identification, it therefore became necessary to append to the inscribed code a slash, signifying lot, followed by the lot number. This correction nevertheless violated a hierarchical ordering of provenience. Rather than labeling an artifact with "12A-1/ l,"it ought to have been logically stated as "12A/1-1," the terminal number being the catalogue number imposed post-excavationally by the laboratory. That the suboperation alone must necessarily generate serial catalogue numbers is entirely arbitrary. Indeed each lot might well do so or, for that matter, the overall operation. By this point the reader senses, if not appreciates, the Project's concern with spatial provenance. What of time as a coordinate? An elemental index of relative chronology was to emerge from the methodical evaluation of the ceramic content of lots which, as said, were set aside in sacks for annual review by the Project ceramist. While the full procedures in so-called lot readouts will be discussed in TR. 25, prerequisite were plots by the excavators of lot depositional order within the suboperations or, for that matter, operations responsible for the assembled sacks. Their goals by no means incompatible, the specialist reviewed (and in some cases counted) the material for specific developmental data. The excavator, however, was pri52

PROCEDURES INFIELD AND LABORATORY tained in the laboratory. Consequently, it was possible on the spot to review past quality and to reshoot pieces as required. And via the now registered negative numbers, a move could conveniently be made from image to object catalogue card and vice versa, both at Tikal and in Philadelphia. Outlined on these many pages, the paper-andfilm system the Project employed by and large proved to be adequate. At any point within it, one could start and rather rapidly encounter elsewhere relevant direct data in addition to references of other pertinent sources. Its versatility and effectiveness in retrieval and collation did of course depend, as mentioned, on a colossal amount of cumbersome bookkeeping. But, despite such, informational "busts" occurred which were often due to overly terse description and deficient crossreferencing on the excavator's part. What grew finally to be a mass of hundreds of thousands of sheets, pages, negatives and cards (just the latter on file are fifty-five feet in length) understandably raises the issue of computerization. In 1956, this probably would have meant edge-punched cards and, in any case, necessarily rigid, consistent categorization of data. Even though not the slightest

thought seems to have been given to this procedure, either then or thereafter, it is interesting to speculate how well it really would have worked. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of sorting, assembly and sorting anew, the file card system that did develop was overtly considered to be a fairly efficient machine in its own right. As mentioned earlier, the bulk of the collections underwent organized storage in the Project's bodega. In the belief that this was to be maintained as a permanent installation, the Project ultimately transferred to it the complete, fully refined duplicate set of records in card form. Moreover, the intention was to deposit there the set of specially prepared negative contacts of objects, the majority of which lay stored on the premises. The objective was simply a well-provisioned facility for intensive studies by future students. In truth, we were only too aware that our own efforts would likely prove, in print and time, to have been cursory in one respect or another. The vast, varied collections housed in the bodega nevertheless seem to lie in limbo because an appropriate device for their formal transfer to the Institute of Anthropology and History has unaccountably failed to emerge.

53

Figure 21. Erected and installed through the efforts of the Tikal Association, the Museum displays treasures and household materials alike

54

VII

PUBLICATION

12, 13 and 14. All were soon to be suppressed to await the development of more sensible frameworks. The merits of that decision are admittedly debatable. Between seasons and once onerous bookkeeping was finished (as the system mandated), what time remained was devoted to writing articles and annual summaries. Pressures also took another form, one poorly anticipated from the start: doctoral dissertations by Project participants on subjects totally germane to Tikal. Because of the Project's institutional setting, it was appropriate that graduate students be welcomed and, further, upon one or more seasons of experience gained, that they individually carry out investigations compatible both with Project interests and the criteria of dissertations. Listed in this report (Appendix B), these were to become truly abundant, a fact which underscores an inescapable reality, viz., the impossibility of funneling to permanent staff all site data, however generated, for successful processing in the form of Tikal Reports. In short, everything conspired to promote multiple slicing of what we term the Tikal "research pie." All well and good, but a flaw was to emerge, one that with hindsight was fully predictable. For their expeditious accomplishment, most dissertations skimmed over or omitted data, both textually and graphically, in favor of conclusions or pursuits of theoretical matters; for whatever reason, the products were not directly convertible into Tikal Reports. That the latter would eventually materialize was pledged by authors. As might be expected, the Project, in a production sense, gradually dispersed geographically. In their faculty posts else-

In spite of its retrospectively diverse interests, this minor Tikal Report serves most intentionally to introduce those scheduled to follow it within a conscientiously designed series. By now, two decades have passed since the last one was issued, namely, the map of the site's central portion (TR. 11). Herewith the Project confidently begins again and does so not neglectful of the frequent inquiries in recent years concerning its lapse in substantive publication. One senses that such publication ought to be prompt and full in matters of data and conclusions, yet, where an undertaking of this kind is implicitly allowed a grace period, lacking is a standard by which to set its term. It also seems the case that so-called interim publications—both professionally and generally targeted—count for little when in need of exculpation. (In this regard, see Appendix B, a current Project bibliography.) The admittedly lengthy lapse spoken of deserves, we believe, some explanation if only to establish caveats in the event of future programs comparable in an overall way to the Tikal Project. Because of their interrelatedness, causes are not easily identified. Still a principal one is the fact, recognized in the early sixties, that scores of ongoing studies in laboratory and field inherently resisted topical segmentation; their coherency in print would ostensibly require their active completion. Consequently, a policy of postponement came to prevail over contrary intentions manifested by the well-nigh punctually produced original Reports (TR. 1 through 11). Indeed the inside cover of Nos. 5-10 (1961) advertises as "in preparation" (their completion was well in sight) three studies for release as Nos. 55

Figure 22. Unique lidded jars made of perfectly cut and fitted pieces of jade. 8th century A.D. Height of largest container: about 25 cm

56

PUBLICATION where, Tikal-graduated persons frequently found become the "frozen" property of another institution, a bizarre case of which recently occurred.) themselves engaged in unrelated, new research proLastly due mention is the innate corpulence of what jects beneath which original agreements subthe Tikal investigation wrought. Ineluctably the merged. At work as well were other stresses, some Project well-nigh doubled, then doubled again, its personal, others organizationally caused. Among data production and did so to the point where many the latter, most prominent were varying degrees of skepticism regarding the parent facility's wherefeel it actively went beyond the limits of sensible withal to fulfill its obligations re Tikal in accord size. In any event, and despite any and all drawwith conventional professional standards. If this backs, only the production and printing of the did adequately exist, the years were still passing by entire set of plotted Tikal Reports can verify these without sight of those Reports to which certain claims of exceptional magnitude and thereby Museum staff members had long been committed. proffer some explanation of their own seemingly To this inventory of cautiously stated woes must be predestined delay. Presented below is a full listing of the Project's added death and the resultant need of survivors to salvage and process often unfamiliar portions of final Tikal Reports due to follow on this one. Note Project research. (Usually not an insurmountable that the scope of any report devoted to or involving problem given time, it becomes so when essential, excavation is to some extent communicated by original records, previously on loan, posthumously Appendix A via the right-hand column. No. 13 Dennis E. Puleston. The Settlement Survey of Tikal, No. 14

William R, Coe. Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace, and North Acropolis of Tikal.

No, 15

Peter D. Harrison. Excavations in the Central Acropolis of Tikal.

No. 16

Christopher Jones. Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal.

No. 17

Peter D. Harrison. Excavations in the West Plaza of Tikal.

No. 18

Christopher Jones. Excavations in the Twin Pyramid Groups of Tikal.

No. 19

William A. Haviland. Excavations in Small Residential Groups of Tikal: Groups 4F-1 and4F-2.

No. 20

William A. Haviland. Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Non-elite Groups without Shrines.

No. 21

Marshall J. Becker. Excavations in Residential Groups with Shrines,

No. 22

William A. Haviland. Excavations in Group 7F-1: An Elite Residential Group of Tikal.

No. 23

H. Stanley Loten et al. Miscellaneous Investigations in Central Tikal. Part A: H. Stanley Loten. Investigations of Groups 3D-2, 4E-14, 5D-14, 5E-13 and 6B-2 in Addition to Structures 3D-38, 4D-14, 5C-9, 5C-13, 5E-51, 5D-105 and 6D-L Part B: H. Stanley Loten, William R. Coe and Christopher Jones. Investigations of Structure 5 C-4 (Temple IV), 5D-3 (Temple III), 5D-5 (Temple V) and 6F-27 (Temple VI). Part C: Christopher Jones and H. Stanley Loten. 57

Areas of Tikal:

Figure 23. The "Old God" in polychrome pottery, from a tomb belonging to the 5th century A.D. Height: 36 cm

58

PUBLICATION Investigations at Group 5C-1L Part D: Christopher Jones, H. Stanley Loten and William R. Coe. Investigations of Group 5D-9. Part E: Christopher Jones and William R. Coe. Investigations of Structures 5C-6 through 8, 5D-75, 6D-10 and Platform 6D-L Part F: William R. Coe. Investigations of Area of Stela 29. Part G. Dennis E. Puleston and William R. Coe. Investigations of Group 6E-2 in Addition to Structures 6D-59and6F-51. Part H: William R. Coe and Luis Lujan M. Investigations of Causeways. Part I: Bruce H. Dahlin Investigations of Reservoirs and Hydraulic Features. Part J^ William A. Haviland and William R. Coe. Residual Field Data. No. 24

Dennis E. Puleston et al. Excavations and Other Investigations in Peripheral Tikal. Part A: Robert E. Fry and Dennis E. Puleston. Excavations along the North and South Survey Strips. Part B; Ernestene L. Green. Excavations in Navajuelal Part C: Dennis E. Puleston, Excavations in Volantun. Part D: Robert E. Fry and Dennis E. Puleston. Miscellaneous Investigations in Additional Minor Centers. Par£ F: William A. Haviland. Residual Field Data,

No. 25

T. Patrick Culbert. The Ceramics of Tikal: Central Area.

No. 26

Robert E. Fry. The Ceramics of Tikal: Peripheral Area.

No. 27

Hattula Moholy-Nagy and William R. Coe. The Artifacts of Tikal.

No. 28

Virginia Greene. The Pottery Figurines of Tikal.

No. 29

Lisa Ferree. The Pottery Censers of Tikal.

No. 30

William A. Haviland. The Skeletal Series of Tikal.

No. 31

Helen W. Trik and Michael E. Kampen. The Graffiti of Tikal.

No. 32

Dennis E. Puleston and William A. Haviland. The Chultuns of Tikal.

No. 33

Christopher Jones et al. The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tikal. Part A: Christopher Jones and Linton Satterthwaite. The Carved Monuments. Part B: William R. Coe, Christopher Jones and John J. McGinn. The Morphology and Usage of Monuments. Part C; Christopher Jones. The Miscellaneous Texts. Part D; Christopher Jones. A Catalogue of Hieroglyphs.

No. 34

H. Stanley Loten. The Architecture of Tikal

No. 35

William R. Coe and William A. Haviland. The Burials, Caches and Problematical Deposits of Tikal.

No. 36

Arthur G. Miller, vol. ed. The Art of Tikal

No. 37

Hattula Moholy-Nagy and Ruben E. Reina. Postconquest Occupations at Tikal 59

Figure 24. An elaborate pottery two-part censer fashioned in the 7th century A. D. Height: 63 cm

60

PUBLICATION No. 38

Dennis E. Puleston and William A. Haviland. The Environment and Ecology of TikaL

No. 39

William R. Coe et al. Tikal: Synthesis and Conclusions.

In general, the Tikal Reports are arranged in a serially sensible fashion. Numerical priority is given to expanded mapping (TR. 13), then to all excavations and also to miscellaneous studies of various site features. Following these are the laboratorybased investigations (TR. 25-30) founded on collections originating from the preceding. The latter principle applies also to TR. 31-34, while TR. 35 is predicated on both source and content. Arrangement and titular commitments stem from long, sometimes argumentative discussions held in 1965 and 1967. The decisions reached among primary Project members were diversely stipulated, for instance, by traditional approach (as at Uaxactun, artifacts form a separable corpus rather than being subject to individual scrutiny within volumes emphasizing excavation), by personal preference (i.e., a spatial split in ceramic coverage represented by TR. 25 and TR. 26), and by already advanced segmentation of the "research pie" typified by separate treatments of censers, figurines and containers though all are of fired clay (i.e., TR. 29 and TR. 28 are unconventionally opposed to the subject matter of TR. 25 and TR. 26). To take another example: Tikal's abundant graffiti from exposed and stratified sources are all illustrated in TR. 31 instead of being distributed among contexts respectively treated in TR. 14-24, a decision conditioned by old agreements made upon the special funding of a program responsible for the majority's recording. Its apparent flaws aside, the series of reports envisaged always, in the scheme of things, accentuated those contributions devoted to excavation and architectural records. These, after all, contextually controlled everything else. Appendix A is appropriately reintroduced at this point so as to describe its intended key role in linking excavation reports and those conveniently termed laboratory ones. To take the artifact study, TR. 27 concerns truly enormous numbers of items. For each category dealt with, it is simply not feasible to spell out the specific provenience of each member, nor is this practical in captions of the items illustrated within TR. 27. Necessarily appended to that report will be a full inventory of catalogue numbers arranged by categories. Since the first two

entries in any number specify operation and suboperation (see Procedures), a given piece's source can be reestablished by consulting Appendix A here. It provides brief clues to generalized provenance, but, for refined ends, it importantly leads the reader to the excavation report in which the item's recovery lot (dependent on the suboperation) is spatially identified and normally appraised as to depositional circumstances. No intention exists to necessarily publish the indicated Tikal Reports in their stated numerical order. Because each is considered to be no more or less than a chapter of a whole work, the illustrations accompanying one will usually suffice for all by the use of extensive cross-referencing, even to works still not in print. Given this perspective, the full coherency of one depends on the availability of one or more other reports, a point made above in the case of TR. 27. The reader should also be aware that our series concerns work carried out essentially between 1956 and the close of 1969. Thus coverage stops short of trespassing significantly on material subsequently developed by the Proyecto Tikal and Proyecto Nacional Tikal sponsored by the Government of Guatemala. (To date, both programs have had fascinating results.) Nor for that matter do we take into account often important collections salvaged from recent intensive depredations at TikaL Reasonable uniformity throughout the excavation reports is provided by agreed-upon scales in graphic representation (e.g., sections; see prior discussion of Procedures), common formats for texts devoted to burials and the like, and the fashioning of time spans to periodize structures, platforms and chultuns, as well as groups when such form the collective subject matter. In regard to time spans, their usage was briefly explained in TR. 5:12-13. It would be well to elaborate on the matter of their formulation in forthcoming excavation reports. (Of minor note, the term no longer carries a hyphen, as in TR. 5.) Taking structures as an example, agreement exists that an endof-a-line or surface structure miminally generates three time spans, the earliest pertaining to its construction, the middle one to use or occupation, and 61

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL the latest to deterioration (i.e., the product, the mound). This is in contrast to a buried entity that, by accord, minimally yields two time spans, one for its construction, the other for occupation; any terminal demolition and the like are considered relevant to the earliest time span of the structure succeeding it, since activity of this sort can arbitrarily be considered preparatory to renewed building. We should also mention that some analysts prefer to reinforce the integrity of each structure in a run of such (e.g., 3rd, 2nd, 1st) by providing every one of them with its respective series of time spans. Others have opted to have a single series apply to the locus (from top to bottom); for instance, Str. 7F-30 is, in the first instance, a mapped mound, but through dissection it is known to comprehend a long sequence of superimposed individual structures. While by no means devoid of problems, architec-

tural terminology is, on the whole, conventionally composed, for it is principally derived from wellknown publications by A. L. Smith and by Satterthwaite. (Determined attempts to sharpen such vo'cabulary have had only a partial success; TR. 34 will probably have more to say on this matter.) For the most part, the conventions outlined by TR. 5 apply throughout, but one in particular is reemphasized here, namely, reverse numeration in sequential ordering. As to abbreviations, while we recognize that some find them objectionable, they have had to be numerously employed in text and illustration because of spatial stress. Although other reports such as TR. 33 may require and thus define additional ones, the following have had especially heavy usage within works devoted to excavation in markedly constructional contexts.

TABLE 2 STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN TEXT AND IN LINE ILLUSTRATIONS* ABBREVIATION

TERM

EXAMPLE/COMMENTS

Alt. Bu. Ca. Cat. Cswy. Chm. Ch. Col. Alt. CS. Dr. excv. FS. Fl. Frag. Gp. Li. (slash) MS. MT. Op. Or. Plat.

Altar(s) Burial(s) Cache(s) Catalogue Number(s) Causeway(s) Chamber(s) Chultun(s)(es) Column Altar(s) Construction Stage(s) Doorway(s) excavation Facade Sculpture(s) Floor(s) Fragment(s) Group(s) Lintel(s) Lot(s) Miscellaneous Stone(s) Miscellaneous Text(s) Operation(s) Orifice(s) Platform(s)

PD. Qu. RS. Rm. Sk. Sq.

Problematic Deposit(s) Quarry(ies) Recent Site(s) Room(s) Skeleton(s) Square(s)

Alt. 4 (in Tikal series of such) Bu. 10 (ibid.) Ca. 66 (ibid.) Cat. 12E-121/23 (see TR.5:7,8) Chm. 2 (as in roofcomb or in chultun) Ch. 5D-6 Col. Alt. 2 (in Tikal series of such) CS. 4 (as of a structure) Dr. 4 (ibid.) excv. 9a (optionally and informally used to reference trenches, etc.) Str. 5E-58:FS. 1 F1.3(e.g.,Str.5D-26-lst:F1.3) Frag. 1 (e.g., St. 1: Frag. 1) Gp. 5D-2 Li. 3 (dependent on structure) 12M/7 (i.e., Lot 7 of Op. 12 M) MS. 92 (in Tikal series of such) MT. 88 (ibid.) Op. 12 (see Suboperation) (Employed to distinguish multiple entries of a chultun) Plat. 5D-2 (a definable planar constructional entity principally in contrast to a structure) PD. 22 (in Tikal series of such) (Usage anticipated; numbered in Square series of such) RS. 5F-1 (loci of historic occupation) Rm. 1 (e.g., Str. 5D-26-lst: Rm. 1) Sk.B(e.g.,Bu. 10:Sk. B) Sq. 5D (as designated on TR. 11 site map)

62

PUBLICATION St.

Stela(s)(ae)

Str.

Structure(s)

Subop.

Suboperation(s)

TR.

Tikal Reports (by numbers) Time Span(s) Unit(s) Vault Beam Window(s)

TS. U. VB. Wd.

St. 1 (in Tikal series of such. Not to be confused with St. P1, i.e., plain St. 1; true also of altars; see TR. II) Str. 5D-26-lst-A (for usage of ordinal and letter suffixes, see TR. 5:8-9) (Subop. E; usually expressed in terms of Operation number, e.g., 12E; alternatively, Subop. 12E or, interchangeably, Op. 12E) TR. 33 (separate sections issued as lettered parts, e.g., TR. 33A, TR. 33B) TS. 6 (e.g., Str. 5D-26-lst: TS. 6; see TR. 5 for usage) Str.5D-26:U. 1 Str. 5D-26-lst:Rm. 1, VB. 2 Str. 5E-58:Wd. 1

* Metric units are conventionally abbreviated as km (kilometer), m (meter), ha (hectare), etcetera; the meter is fractionalized to the decimeter (0.10 m) with a lesser dimension given in centimeters (e.g., 9 cm). Directions are abbreviated, viz., N (north), W (west), SE (southeast), etcetera. Reports requiring special terminology and abbreviations thereof, it is expected, make special note of them (e.g., TR. 33A with its numerous chronological and epigraphic needs).

Among the balance of scheduled reports are many bound by a common confrontation with change in their subject matter, whether such be censers, architecture, pottery vessels, iconography or stone monuments manipulated as objects. How corporately to conceive of change, how independently to reckon its rate and timing from one study category to another— these are a few of the serious issues the data present. It would be less than honest to end this report without a candid appraisal of publishing prospects today. Surely the reader has surmised that the series' design and its realization from the start invoked commensurately dedicated efforts on the part of each and every author- participant. It was of course a naive premise. Potentially disastrous gaps persist today among the emphatically critical excavation reports. If a preparation stage is flawed, no less so is that of production. The needs of substantive and copy editing in addition to that of plate layout have yet to be efficiently handled. For years now, thousands of pages of manuscript have lain on shelves for lack of competent follow-up person-

nel and the salaries required. On the brighter side, an active commitment has now been made to optical character reading and word processing and, penultimately, to computerized photocomposition, all in an effort to accelerate and lessen the stupendous costs of basic production steps. Convinced that presswork remains the only adequate outlet, we face the necessity of financing such throughout a series of perhaps unprecedented length in archaeology (a field inherently swollen by massive amounts of mandatory illustration). Cumulative sums far along in six figures have to be calculated for today. An appropriately scaled "seed fund" appears to be justified, but little success has been had so far in securing it. We are only left to speculate that what is needed will eventuate once confidence in the Project is restored. No other credible way to do so exists apart from issuing— be it by hook or by crook—at least one major unit of research on or about the time our introduction appears. Assuredly this will be Tikal Report No. 33, Part A.

63

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL

REFERENCES Satterthwaite, Linton 1951 Reconnaissance in British Honduras. University Museum Bulletin 16:21-37.

Adams, Richard E. W., W. E. Brown and T. Patrick Culbert 1981 Radar Mapping, Archaeology and Ancient Maya Land Use. Science 213:1457-1463.

Sharer, Robert J. 1978 The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vol. 1. Museum Monographs, The University Museum, Philadelphia.

Coe, William R. 1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. Museum Monographs, The University Museum, Philadelphia.

Smith, A. Ledyard 1950 Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-1937. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 543.

Cowgill, Ursula M. 1962 An Agricultural Study of the Southern Maya Lowlands. American Anthropologist 64:273-86.

Woodbury, Richard B., and Aubrey S. Trik 1953 The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala. Richmond.

Kidder, Alfred V. 1947 The Artifacts of Uaxactun. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 576. Madeira, Percy C. 1964 Men in Search of Man: The First Seventy-Five Years of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.

TIKAL REPORTS (see Appendix B) TR. 1: Shook 1958a. TR. 2: Coe and Broman 1958

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619 (Part 4).

TR. 5: Shook and Coe 1961. TR. 11: Carrand Hazard 1961.

64

Figure 25. T\vo of four identical gessoed wooden figures of a rain-sky deity placed in a tomb dating to the 7th century A. D. Height of largest: 37 cm

65

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A OPERATIONS AND THEIR SUBOPERATIONS: BRIEF FIELD DEFINITIONS, YEARS OF, AND ASSIGNMENT WITHIN THE SERIES OF TIKAL REPORTS

While the primary aim of the following inventory is examined in text, here it may be noted briefly that it contributes the crucial means to reunite any laboratory processed object (it firstly carries its derivation in terms of operation and suboperation codes) and its in situ source (this treated at the third, or finer, level of its pertinent lot description) as specified and normally assessed within correspondingly indicated field report. This inventory may also serve as a neutral chronicle, albeit highly abbreviated, of the Project's course of field work as principally conducted on the basis of excavation. (Unexpressed here are numerous procedures of data-gathering which did not involve excavation or "surface collecting" efforts.) Since operations and the suboperations they generate were together activated in pace with the consecutive needs of excavation and recovery, the initial dates of their field definitions form a temporal key to the latter. Insofar as possible, the condensed definitions the inventory provides are written so as to relate directly to the Tikal maps, namely, those concerned with the "central" site (TR. 11; the complexity of the Central Acropolis for the moment is better conveyed in Coe 1967; for Sq. 4H entries, see Becker 1971:Figs. 229-236) and, otherwise, with "peripheral" Tikal (TR. 13, in preparation). The first set is indispensible to locations of all Operations through number 113; beyond this, most entries are contingent on the second set for coherency. In most instances, the definitions are linked to prominently mapped features such as structures and chultuns. However, there are cases among "central" listings where coordinates are alternatively employed (to wit, the map square, followed by a metric distance E of its vertical division, followed by a metric distance S from its horizontal one). The perhaps more abstruse notations occasionally evident among "peripheral" entries will be explained in TR. 13 (provisionally, see Puleston 1973). But, in regard to a ubiquitous entry like "Str. NE(N)-101" (see Op. 137J), the prefix communicates, first, a quadrant division of the Tikal National Park (beyond the TR. 11 mapped area central to it); second, "N" specifies the N brecha (see text and Fig. 14); and, third, "NE" serves to place the structure E of the brecha's midline and within a surveyed area 250 m out from such and thus part of the NE quadrant. A few other conventions used in the inventory require explanation. Though rarely needed, a year given in a single parenthesis applies to recovery date rather than to that of definition of the applicable operation or suboperation. A double parenthesis signifies activity and material plausibly beyond the range of the Project's plans for publication. Loci falling within outer squares of the TR. 11 map (specifically, the 1:6250 sheet) are accompanied by asterisks. 67

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR

REPORT

ASSIGNMENT

P Q R S T U V X Y Z AA

General site surface; "chance finds" due to modern construction; salvage; etc. (See Op. 142.) Tikal Reservoir embankments, site roads, etc. (1956) Airfield and area N and NE of Camp; 1957 Site in general; 1957 Historic settlement sites; 1956 AreaofStr.6F-17and 19 (see Op. 10B); 1958 Unfixed area shortly N of Remate road central W run (Sq. 7D,7C?); 1958 Str.6D-20; 1960 ' TR. 20 Str. 6C-2, etc. and Str. 6C-37; 1960 Various Sq. 6B loci; 1960 Str. 2D-7; 1959 Sq. 6E, unspecified loci; 1960 Brecha running S from Str. 5C-4 (see Op. 39F-H); 1962 Groups marked by Str. 2G-1, 28, 35; 1962 Area bounded by Str. 3E-41, 42, etc.; 1960 Tikal Reservoir investigation, NE embankment; 1968 (NB: Op. 2 should have been employed here and below.) Various loci in Sq. 2F and 2G; 1963 Ibid., Sq.6E; 1963 Tikal Reservoir investigation, SW embankment; 1968 Ibid., 1968 Ibid., central area; 1968 Ibid., SW embankment; 1968 Ibid., central area; 1968 Ibid., area ca. 9 m NE of Op. IT; 1968 Ibid., area intersecting Op. 1R; 1968 Ibid., area between Op. IS and 1U; 1968 Salvage among remains probably of Str. 7D-85; 1969

2 A B

Camp area, general subsurface loci Well site, ca. 20 m SE of Str. 4F-28; 1956 Tikal Reservoir, E portion of interior; 1957

3 A B C D E F G H I J

Gp. 7F-1 investigations St. 23 and broadly defined contexts; 1957 Str. 7F-30; 1963 Str. 7F-3 l a n d Ch. 7F-8; 1963 Plat. 7F-1; 1965 Str. 7F-29; 1965 Str. 7F-35; 1965 Str. 7F-32; 1965 Midden as "Str. 7F-34"; 1965 Str. 7F-36; 1965 Str. 7F-33; 1965

TR. 22, in full (continuing from TR. 2)

4 A B C D E F G

Str. 5D-1 (Temple I) investigations Room debris; 1957 Substructural debris; 1958 Rooms, post-constructional features; 1958 Various; 1959 Axial basal tunnel from W; 1959 Ibid., deep extension of; 1959 Ibid., from E to juncture; 1960

TR. 14 in full (continuing from TR. 7)

1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

68

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

20, 23 23J 23J 37 21 23J

TR.20 TR. 20 TR. 23J TR. 20 TR. 23J TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23J TR. 231 TR. 20, 23 TR. 20, 23 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 21 TR. 23X TR. 231

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION H I J K L M N P

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR Roofcomb Chm. 6; 1960 Ibid., Chm. 2; 1960 Ibid., Chm. 3; 1960 Axial tunnel from W in main stair's central sector; 1961 N-S tunnel intersecting Op. 4E Tunnel in S base of substructure; 1962 Transverse tunnel above Op. 4P; 1962 Bu. 116, content and context; 1962

REPORT

5 A B C

Str. 5C-4 (Temple IV) investigations Room debris; 1957 E substructural base and underlying platform; 1965 Axial tunnel, underlying platform, E base; 1965

TR. 23B in full

6

Gp. 7F-3 (Str. 7F-84, etc.) investigations

TR. 8 (in print), TR.20

A B

St. 25, surface and beneath; 1957 General surface; 1957

7 A B C D E F G

Gp. 4E-4 investigations Monuments fronting Str. 4E-36; 1957 Str. 4E-38 surface; 1957 Str. 4E-36; 1958 Str. 4E-39 and monuments within; 1958 Str. 4E-37; 1959 Excavation S of Str. 4E-39; 1959 NW corner of group platform; 1959

TR. 18 in full

8 A B C

Str. 5D-3 (Temple III) investigations Room debris; 1957 Monuments at base; 1957 Roofcomb base; 1968

TR. 23B in full

9 A B C D E

Gp. 3D-1 and Gp. 3D-2 investigations Str. 3D-47 and monuments within 1957 (see Op. 61C) Str. 3D-99 and monuments within; 1961 Str. 3D-98; 1963 Excavation S of St. P81 (i.e., causeway); 1963 Str. 3D-100; 1963

TR. 18 in full

10

B C D E F

Central miscellaneous investigations 1958 Access to scheduled backdirt dumping area between Str. 5D-9 and 11; 1958 Test pit in area between Str. 6F-17 and 19. St. 28; 1959 Bedrock steps near Str. 4D-19, etc.; 1959 Area of St. 29; 1959 Off SW corner of Str. 5D-12; 1965

11 A B C D

Gp. 5D-2 (Great Plaza) investigations Ch. 5D-1; 1958 Surface, including adjacent Terrace stair; 1958 Ch. 5D-4 (below St. 11 locus); 1958 N monument row to Str. 5D-1 and 2; 1958

A

69

ASSIGNMENT

TR. 23F TR. 21 TR. 8 (in print) TR. 18 TR. 23F TR. 17 TR. 14 in full

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION E F G H

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT Axial N-S trench; 1958 S monument row and area in front of Str. 5D-1; 1959 Monuments at base of Str. 5D-2; 1960 Area S and SE of St. P27; 1960

REPORT

ASSIGNMENT

w

Gp. 5D-2 (North Terrace and North Acropolis) investigations Terrace N-S axial trench to Str. 5D-33 base; 1958 Terrace general S part; 1958 Str. 5D-34; 1958 General debris between Acropolis structures; 1958 Str. 5D-25, and N-S trench to Str. 5D-34 rear; 1959 Debris principally against Str. 5D-33 W flank; 1959 Area between Str. 5D-26 and 22; 1960 Str. 5D-26 and area in front of; 1960 Str. 5D-20, and N-S trench to Acropolis edge; 1960 Lower stages in front of Str. 5D-26; 1960 Lower interior of Str. 5D-33; 1960 Summit building and upper interior of Str. 5D-33; 1960 Str. 5D-23; 1960 Str. 5D-35, rear debris; 1960 Acropolis summit trenches interrelating structures; 1960 Downward continuation of Op. 12G and S extension to juncture of Str. 5D-34 and 33; bedrock based; 1961 Str. 5D-4-Sub. 1 (Str. 5D-22 locus), axial trench; 1963 Str. 5D-22, axial tunnel at base; 1963 Str. 5D-28 and E side of Str. 5D-27; 1963 Str. 5D-22 building and subcomponents; 1963 Str. 5D-32; 1965 Gp. 5D-2 periphery; NW extremity of Gp. 5D-3 (East Plaza); 1965 N sector of Terrace, tunnel axial to Acropolis

13 A B C D F G H

Str. 5D-2 (Temple II) investigations Room debris; 1958 General upper debris; 1958 Ca. 118 with Li. 2; 1961 Roofcomb surface; 1961 Axial basal tunnel from E; 1963 Substructural basal corners, interiors of; 1965 Debris, substructural flanks and frontal base; 1969

TR. 14 in full

14 A

Investigations at locus of St. 17 and St. P34; 1958 Test excavations

TR. 8 (in print)

15 A B C D

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-65, frontal exterior debris; 1958 Ibid., room debris; 1958 Ibid., axial trench in front of; 1964 Ibid., second story; 1966

TR. 15 in full

16 A B

Investigations at locus of St. 27 Ch. 2F-5;1958 St. 27; 1959

17 A

Gp. 5D-3 (East Plaza) investigations; 1959 SW corner, trench from W

12 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Q R

s

T U V

70

TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR, 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14 TR. 14, 16 TR. 14

TR. 20 TR. 8 (in print) TR. 16 in full

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

B

Ibid., intersecting trench from N

18 A B

Miscellaneous quarry investigations Linear quarry 200 m SW of Str. 5C-13; 1958 Quarry ca. 50 m N of Str. 5C-4; 1960

TR. 23J in full

19 A B

TR. 17 in full

C-A

Gp. 5D-10 (West Plaza) investigations St. 15,P28;1959 E row of monuments (St. P31, etc.); 1960 Trenches dug in Plaza in connection with resistivity survey; Op. 19L intersected Str. 5D-4; certain others relevant to monuments and Str. 5D-11 and its N extension; 1961

20 A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA

Gp. 4F-1 and 4F-2 investigations Gp. 4F-2 (Str. 4F-13, etc.); 1959 Str. 4E-31; 1960 TestNWofStr.4E-31; 1960 Str. 4F-3; 1960 Str. 4F-4; 1960 Str. 4F-2; 1960 Str. 4F-5; 1960 Quarry (locus of "Str. 4F-8"); I960 Ch.4F-3; 1960 Str. 4F-10; 1960 Str. 4F-7; 1960 Str. 4F-6; 1960 Plat. 4F-3 trench; 1960 Plat. 4F-5 trench; 1960 "Str. 4F-11 "trench; 1962 "Str. 4F-12" trench; 1962 Series of test pits, Str. 4F-15 E side; 1964 Series of test pits N of Op. 20R; 1964 Test pit 10 m E of Op. 20S; 1964 Test pit 20 m W of Op. 20S; 1964 Test pit 20 m N of Op. 20R; 1964 Test pit 22 m W of Op. 20S; 1964 Test trench ca. 15 m N of Op. 20W; 1964 Test pit ca. 5 m N of Op. 20X; 1964 Test pit ca. 15 m W of Op. 20X; 1964 Local modern latrine; 1965

TR. 19 in full

21 A B C D E F G H

Gp. 4E-3 investigations Monuments fronting Str. 4E-40; 1960 St. P61 and axial line westwards; 1963 St. P63; 1963 St. P60; 1963 Str.4E-41; 1963 SU.4E-43; 1963 Str.4E-40; 1963 SU.4E-42; 1963

TR. 18 in full

22 A

Test pits; 1960 Terrace inside corner behind Str. 5D-35

B

Str. 5D-36, immediately N of, E sector

TR.16

C

Ibid., W sector

TR. 16

71

TR. 14

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Q R

s

T U V W X Y Z 23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 24 A B C D E F G H J K L

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR Maler Causeway, W parapet break 45 m N of Str. 5D-36 Ibid., off W parapet just N of Op. 22B Ibid., in zone of Op. 22D Shortly SW of Op. 22E NE corner of northern Great Plaza Ca. 70 m N of Str. 5D-18 (240 m cornered contour) Expansion of Op. 22E Ibid. Maler Causeway, off E side at Str. 5D-40 Ibid., 5 m S of Op. 22L Ibid., W inset, 30 m N of St. P30 Area of break between Str. 5E-29 and 30 Maler Causeway, ca. 5 m N of Str. 4E-38 NE corner Ca. 100 m N of Str. 5D-18 Ca. 90 m N of Str. 5D-15 center rear Ca. 50 m NNE of Str. 5D-14 Ca. 2 m E of Op. 22R Ca. 115m NNE of Str. 5D-18 Ca. 30m E of Op. 221 Ca. 60 m E of Op. 221 Maler Causeway near Str. 5D-40 Ibid., parapet adjacent to Op. 22L Ibid., ca. 160 m N of juncture of Str. 5D-40 and E parapet Test pits; 1960 Area between Str. 5D-42 and 5E-31 Area between Str. 5E-32 and Plat. 5E-1 (see Op. 78F) Str. 5E-37, W inside corner Off E side of Str. 5E-39 NE area of ridge between Palace and Hidden Reservoirs Mendez Causeway, area of exit (to Hidden Reservoir) just NW of Str. 5E-63 Ca. 60 m N of rear center of Str. 5D-15 Area 10 m N of rear center of Str. 5D-15 Area just below W side of Str. 5D-14 (see Op. 7IV) Mendez Causeway, center, 50 m N of Op. 23F Mendez Causeway, NW sector of exit at 220 m contour Mendez Causeway, SW exit at 215 m contour Mendez Causeway, opposite exit at 210 m contour Mendez Causeway, area of SW parapet 200 m SE of Op. 23L Small structure investigations; 1961 Gp.4F-3(Str. 4F-21,etc.) Str. 4F-26 Gp. 2G-l(Str. 2G-56,etc.) Ch. 2G-5 Gp.2G-2(Str.2G-13,etc.) Ch. 2G-10 Locus of Ch. 2G-2, 3 and Str. 2G-61 Ch. 2G-2 and 3 (interconnected) Gp. 4E-l(Str. 4E-14,etc.) Ibid. Ibid.

72

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 23 H TR. 23H TR. 23H TR. 23H TR. 14 TR. 17 TR. 23H TR. 23H TR. 16 TR. 16 TR. 23H TR. 16 TR. 23H TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 17 TR. 16 TR. 16 TR. 23H

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

16 16 16 16 16 23H

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

17 17 17 23H 23H 23H 23H 23H

TR. 20 in full

APPENDIX A

OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION M N P Q R S T V W X

DEFINITION AND YEAR Gp. 4E-1 platform, near NE corner Str. 4E-50 Str. 4E-52 Str. 4E-51, 53 and area E of 53 Str. 3F-24, 25 and platform edge near latter Ch. 3F-6 Str. 3F-26U Str. 3F-29 "Str. 3F-28" Str. 3F-27 Trench, E-W axis of Str. 3G-1

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

25 A B C

Gp. 5B-1 investigations Monument row (St. P39, etc.); I960 St. P41and Alt. P34; 1960 Search for demolished structures; 1963

TR. 18 in full

26

Ch. 5C-8 investigations (area of Ch. 5C-5); see Op. 49, 66A

TR. 20 in full

A B C D E F G H

Chm. 1; 1961 Chm. 2; 1961 Chm. 8; 1961 Chm. 7; 1961 Chm. 6; 1961 Chm. 10; 1961 Unrecorded; 1961 Chm. 2 (PD. 92); 1962

27 A B C D E F G H J K L M N

Gp. 5G-1 investigations; 1962 Str. 5G-8 Ch. 5G-15 (W of Str. 5G-8) Sustaining platform Ibid. Str. 5G-7 Ch. 5G-18 (Str. 5G-8, SW corner) Str. 5G-6 Str. 5G-5 Str. 5G-51 Str. 5G-52 Ch. 5G-19(WsideofStr. 5G-15) Ch. 5G-20 (NW corner of Str. 5G-5) Platform periphery, E of NW corner

TR. 21 in full

28 A B C D E

Gp. 5G-2 investigations; 1962 Str. 5G-12 Str. 5G-11 Str. 5G-10 Ch. 5G-3 Ch. 5G-21 (SWof Str. 5G-12)

TR. 21 in full

29 A B C

GP. 5G-2 investigations (con't.); 1962 Str. 5G-49 Str. 5G-50 Ch. 5G-2

TR. 21 in full

73

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL DEFINITION AND YEAR Gp. 4G-1 investigations; 1962 Str. 4G-9 Str. 4G-10 Str.4G-13 Str. 4G-12 Str.4G-ll

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 21 in full

31 A B C D E

Gp. 4H-4 investigations; 1962* Str. 4H-16 Str.4H-14 Ch. 4H-5 Str.4H-15 Str. 4 H-17

TR. 21 in full

32 A B

Gp. 4H-5 investigations; 1962* Str.4H-18 Str.4H-13

TR. 21 in full

33 A B C D E F G

Gp. 4H-1 investigations; 1962* Str. 4H-4 Str. 4H-3 Str. 4H-2 Str.4H-l Str. 4H-7 Str. 4H-Sub.l (under Str. 4H-2) Platform, central S side

TR. 21 in full

34 A

Recent Site 5F-1 investigations; 1963 House (see also Op. ID)

TR. 37

35 A B C D E F G H I J K L LL M N N O P R S T U V

Test pits, Sq. 6E; 1963 Summit of platform sustaining Str. 6E-29, 34 and 35 Ibid., Str. 6E-25 and 26 (see Op. 68) Ibid., Str. 6E-102, etc. Ibid., Str. 6E-98, etc. (see Op. 142H) Ibid., Str. 6E-119, etc. Between Str. 6E-144 and 146 (see Op. 73) Between Str. 6E-148 and 153 Between Str. 6E-81 and 83 Between Str. 6E-69 and 73 Central to Str. 6E-57 and 59 Between Str. 6E-143 and 144 (see Op. 73) Central to Str. 6E-152and 153 Remate trail to W of Str. 6E-86 Summit of platform sustaining Str. 6E-19, etc. Ibid., Str. 6E-110, 111, etc. Str. 6E-38, probably just SW of Remate trailjust N of Str. 6E-109 Area between Str. 6E-92 and 111 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 6E-38, etc. Summit of platform near SE corner of Str. 6E-68 Area just E of Str. 6E-73 Str. 6E-83, W side Between Str. 6E-147 and 148

OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION 30 A B C D E

74

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23G TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23G TR. 20 TR. 23J TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION W X Y Z 36 A B C D F G H N O P

Q

R S T U V W X 37 A

DEFINITION AND YEAR Str. 6E-152, E side Approximately midway between Str. 6E-122 and 83 Area probably 20 m E of SE corner of Str. 6E-I23 Area ca. 20 m NW of Str. 6E-143 NW corner Test pits, Sq. 7E; 1963 JustS of Str. 7E-4 Area just outside corners of Str. 7E-9 and 10 Area close to W side of Str. 7E-10 Area close to W side of Str. 7E-12 Area close to S W corner of Str. 7E-10 Off Wend of Str. 7E-9 OffSendofStr.7E-ll Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 7E-15, etc. Uprooted material just E of Str. 7E-13 and 14 Area justS of Str. 7E-44 Area just N of Str. 7E-42 Area justS of Str. 7E-47 Area just N of Str. 7E-50 Area 15 m N of Str. 7E-44 NW corner Str. 7E-11, S basal area Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Z

Test pits, largely Sq. 6D; 1963 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 6D-42, 43, etc. Ibid., Str. 6D-50, 51, etc. Uprooted material between Str. 6D-52 and 53 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 6D-63, 65, etc. Ibid., Str. 6D-58, 59, etc. Just S of Str. 6D-43 Between Str. 6D-45 and 46 Madeira Reservoir, SW interior corner Midway off E side of Str. 6D-12 Madeira Reservoir, near central low point Sq. 5D, 12 m E of ridge crest separating Palace and Hidden Reservoirs Str. 5D-91 S base Str. 5D-14Ebase Inside corner area of Str. 6D-13 and 14 Platform summit just E of Str. 6C-50 Area between Str. 6D-83 and 86 Area just E of Str. 6D-21 Area just S of Str. 6D-87 Area just E of Str. 6D-86 Platform summit just N of Str. 6C-48 Platform inset area E of Str. 6D-88 Area just W of SW corner of Str. 6D-24

38 A

Test pits, Sq. 6C; 1963 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 6C-16, etc.

B C D E F G H I J K P

Q

R S T U V W X Y

75

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 20 JR. 23J TR. 23J TR. 23G TR. 20 in full

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 231 TR. 23D TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 23D TR. 17 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 in full

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND DEFINITION REPORT SUBOPERATION AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT B C D E

DEFINITION AND YEAR

Ibid., Str. Ibid., Str. Ibid., Str. Ibid., Str.

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

6C-32, etc. 6C-44, etc. (see Op. 67A) 6C-48, etc. 6C-51, etc.

39 A B C D E F G H

Test pits, largely Sq. 7C; 1963 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 7C-25, etc. Ibid., Str. 7C-14, etc. Ibid., Str. 7C-9, etc. Ibid., Str. 7C-5, etc. (see Op. 67B) Area just NE of Str. 7B-1 and 2 Area N of Str. 7C-18 Area 45 m N of Str. 7C-18 Within Op. 39F area

TR. 20 in full

40 A B C D E F G

Test pits, Sq. 6B; 1963 Platform summit, between Str. 6B-30 and 33 Ibid., W central base of Str. 6B-30 Ibid., between Str. 6B-30 and 29 Area between Str. 6B-35 and 39 Platform summit, between Str. 6B-33 and 35 Area between Str. 6B-36 and 40 Area between Str. 6B-29 and 18

TR. 23A in full

41 A B C D E F G H I J K

Gp. 5D-10 (West Plaza) investigations; 1962 Str. 5D-11, axial E trench Ibid., summit Ibid., E side, S part Ibid., Op. 41A detail Ibid., rear axial trench Ibid.,Bu. 77 Ibid., S face and Str. 5D-4 Ibid., SW corner Ibid., NW corner Ibid., N base Ibid., area N of N base

TR. 17 in full

42 A B C D E F G H I J

Gp. 5D-10 (West Plaza) investigations Str. 5D-15, rear room; 1962 Ibid., E upper parts; 1962 Ibid., W base; 1962 Ibid., N central base; 1962 Ibid., W upper parts; 1962 Ibid., axial S trench; 1962 Ibid., between Op. 42E and F; 1962 Ibid., S substructure; 1962 Ibid., continuation of Op. 42H Ibid., miscellaneous investigations; 1968

TR. 17 in full

43 A B C D

Gp. 5C-1 investigations Monuments fronting Str. 5C-14; 1962 Str. 5C-18; 1963 Str. 5C-17 and monuments within; 1962 Str. 5C-14; 1962

TR. 18 in full

76

APPENDIX A

OPERATION AND DEFINITION REPORT DEFINITION AND YEAR SUBOPERATION AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT E Str. 5C-16and vicinity; 1962 F Str. 5C-15 and perpendicular components; 1963

REPORT

ASSIGNMENT

44 A B C D E F G

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-52, second story, exterior frontal debris; 1962 Ibid., room debris; 1962 Ibid., S exterior debris of W addition; 1962 Ibid., interior of W addition; 1964 Ibid., continuation of Op. 44D; 1964 Ibid., axial N-S trench, N side of building; 1964 Ibid., W extension debris shared with Str. 5D-65 and 58; 1964

TR. 15 in full

45 A

TR. 15 in full

B C D E F G H J

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-50, second story, Rm. 1 and exterior debris; 1962 Ibid., Rm. 2 debris; 1962 Ibid., first story, Rm. 1 debris; 1962 Ibid., Rm. 2 debris; 1962 Ibid., first story, general; 1962 Ibid., second story, W wing, room debris; 1962 Ibid., second story, basal N-S tunnel; 1964 Ibid., first story, N-S basal tunnel; 1964 Ibid., second story, E extension debris; 1965

46 A B

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1962 Debris below S edge of Str. 5D-50 Lowest terrace wall below Str, 5D-50

TR. 15 in full

47 A B

Gp. 5D-10 (West Plaza) investigations; 1962 Str. 5D-19, debris Ibid., E-W axial trench

TR. 17 in full

48 A

Test pit; 1962 Level area close to rear of Str. 5D-68 and 69

TR. 15

49 A

Investigations of Ch. 5C-5 area; 1962 (see Op. 26, 66A) Str. 5C-56 (overlying Ch. 5C-8)

TR. 20 in full

51 A B C

Miscellaneous monument investigations; 1963 Alt. P73 Alt, P30 St. P35

TR. 23H in full

52

TR. 18 in full

A B

Miscellaneous monument investigations, Gp. 4D-2; 1963 St. P77 St. P78

53 A B C D

Str. 6F-27 (Temple VI) investigations Associated monuments; 1962 Roofcomb debris; 1965 Ch. 6F-6 (below stair base); 1965 Basal platform probe; 1965

TR. 23B in full

77

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOG Y OF TIKAL OPERATION AND DEFINITION REPORT SUBOPERAT1ON 54 A B C D 55 A B C D E F G

DEFINITION

AND YEAR Test pits, Sq. 5C Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 5C-29, etc.; 1963 Ibid., Str. 5C-2, 3; 1963 Ibid., Str. 5C-25, etc.; 1963 Op, 54B conversion to trench; 1966(?)

H I J

Test pits, Sq. 4C; 1963 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 4C-49, etc. Ibid., Str. 4C-42,43 Ibid., Str. 4C-44, etc. Ibid., Str. 4C-35, etc. E base of Str. 4C-27 Probably N base of Str. 4C-13 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 4C-11, 12, etc. Ibid., Str. 4C-5, etc. Inside corner of Str. 4C-5 and 6 Between corners of Str. 4C-6 and 10

56 A B C D E F G

Gp. 4D-1 investigations Monuments fronting Str. 4D-32; 1963 Str. 4D-31; 1963 Str. 4D-33 and monuments within; 1963 Str. 4D-32; 1963 Str. 4D-34; 1963 Str. 4D-45 (just E of Str. 4D-32); 1963 Platform summit: 1965

57 A B C D E F G H I J K

Test pits, Sq. 3C; 1963 Inside corner of Str. 3C-13 and 14 (see Op. 70G) Ibid., Str. 3C-11 and 12 Off N W corner of Str. 3C-46 Between Str. 3C-45 and 46 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 3C-52, etc. Between corners of Str. 3C-53 and 54 East base of Str. 3C-9 Area just N of Str. 3C-8 East base of Str. 3C-58 East base of Str. 3C-62 Inside corner of Str. 3C-60 and 62

58 A B C D E F G H

Test pits, Sq. 2C; 1963 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. 2C-24, etc. Near inside corner of Str. 2C-24, 25 Area justS of Str. 2C-27 Area just W of Str. 2C-24 Area just E of Str. 2C-23 Area between corners of Str. 2C-15 and 21 Area just W of Str. 2C-15 S base of Str. 2C-16

59 A

Test pits, Sq. 3D; 1963 Off SE corner of Str. 3D-92

78

REPORT

ASSIGNMENT TR. 20 in full

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR.>* TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 18 in full

TR. 21 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 in full

TR. 20

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT

ASSIGNMENT

R S T

Area between corners of Str. 3D-94 and 95 Central area of Str. 3D-63, etc. Area just S of Str. 3D-63 Area between corners of Str. 3D-88 and 97 Area just W of Str. 3D-103 Area just N of Str. 3D-42 Ibid., Str. 3D-41 Area just off NW corner of Str. 3D-40 Platform base N of Str. 3D-43 Platform base E of Str. 3D-40 Area just W of Str. 3D-58 Ibid., Str. 3D-57 Central summit of platform of Str. 3D-57, 60, etc. Ibid., Str. 3D-113, etc. Area just to E of Str. 3D-118 Area between corners of Str. 3D-117 and 118 Area, W side, juncture of Str. 3D-118and 119 Off SE corner of Str. 3D-112 Area just N of Str. 3D-116

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23 A TR. 23A TR. 23 A TR. 23A TR. 23A TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20

60 A B

Test pits, Sq. 3E; 1963 Area just W of Str. 3E-49 Str. 3E-48,N base

TR. 23A in full

61 A B C D E

Gp. 3D-2 investigations; 1963 Monuments fronting Str. 3D-44 Str. 3D-45 Str. 3D-47 and monuments within (see Op. 9A) Str. 3D-44 Str. 3D-46

TR. 18

62 A B C D

Test pits, Sq. 4D; 1963 Area just S of juncture of Str. 4D-39 and 40 Area just W of Str. 4D-37 center Area just E of Str. 4D-41 center Area just W of Str. 4D-41, N of center

TR. 20 in full

63 A B C D E F

Test pits, Sq. 5E; 1963 Area just N of Str. 5E-1 Area just N of Str. 5E-13 center Central to Str. 5E-86, etc. Area between outside corners of Str. 5E-9 and 87 Area just W of Str. 5E-76 Area just E of Str. 5E-76

64 A-O P-T

TR. 23D in full

U

Gp. 5D-9 investigations; 1963 E-W line of test pits between St. P37 and Str. 5D-87 rear Subsequent test pits apparently S of and parallel to preceding Area just E of Str. 5D-93

65 A-E

Gp. 5C-11 investigations; 1963 E-W line of test pits between Str. 5D-87 and 5C-54

TR. 23C in full

Q

79

TR. 23 A TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION 66 A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT

REPORT ASSIGNINMENT

Y Z

Chultun investigations; 1963 Ch. 5C-5 (see Op. 26, 49) Ch. 7C-3 (see Op. 67C) Ch. 2G-1 (See Op. 24G,H) Ch. 6C-9 and sector between it and Ch. 6C-10 Ch. 6C-10 ( I I m N of Str. 6C-61) Ch. 6C-7 Ch. 6C-6 Ch. 6C-11 (100 m W of Ch. 6C-6) Ch.6B-2 Ch. 5B-10 Ch. 5C-6 Ch. 5A-1 Quarry as "Ch. 6B-I" Ch. 5B-11 (just N of Str. 5B-15 center) Ch.5C-l Ch.3D-7 Bedrock pit as "Ch. 3D-3" Ch. 5F-4 (just N of Str. 5F-27 center) Ch.5D-2 Ch. 6F-5 (5 m SSW of Str. 6F-20) Ch. 5G-8 Ch. 2B-15 (and Str. 2B-7) Ch. 5G-7 Ch. 7F-9 (20 m E of Ch. 7F-2) Ch. 7F-2

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR.21 TR. 18 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR.23H TR.20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 17 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20

67 A B C D E F G L

Small structure investigations; 1963 Gp. 6C-1 (Str. 6C-45, etc.) Gp. 7C-2 (Str. 7C-5, etc.) Gp. 7C-I (Str. 7C-3, 4) Area between Str. 6C-41 and E end of 43 (see Op. 70C) Gp. 3D-3 (Str. 3D-8, etc.) Gp.3F-3,Str.3F-12 Ibid., Str. 3F-13, 14 Gp. 5B-2 (Str. 5B-6, etc.)

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 21 TR. 20 TR.20 TR.20 TR. 20

68 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Z

Gp. 6E-1 investigation; 1963 Platform summit (supporting Str. 6E-25, 26) Ch. 6E-6 (center of platform) S base of platform E base of platform Area 10 m S of platform E-W trench, E side of platform Str. 6E-26 Str. 6E-25 Platform summit Ibid., coincident with Op. 68F N-S trench, S side of platform Ibid., N side of platform Area just off platform NE corner Area below platform behind Str. 6E-25 Ch. 6E-7(EofCh. 6E-6)

Q

R S T U V W X

80

TR. 20 in full

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

69 A B

Test pits, Sq. 2G; 1963 Area just N of Ch. 2G-1, 2, 3 Area 2m WofStr. 2G-48

70 A B C D E F G H

Small structure investigations; 1963 Str. 3H-3 Str. 3H-2 Str.6C-41 Str. 3G-20 Str. 6C-57 Str. 6B-9 Str. 3C-15 Str. NE-470, salvage (see Op. 112)

71 A B C D E

Test pits, various squares Area 4 m N of Str. 6E-18, 20 m E of Str. 6E-12; 1963 Area 3 m N of Str. 6E-18, 5 m W of Str. 6E-17; 1963 Area 20 m N of gap between Str. 6E-7 and 8; 1963 Area of NE gap between Str. 4G-1 and 2; 1963 Central summit of platform supporting Str. 5E-75, etc.; 1963 Ibid., Str. 5F-17 and 18; 1963 Str. 5E-75, close to NE corner 35 m E of Str. 4E-47; 1963 Area between Str. 5E-75 and 79; 1963 Summit of "Str. 5E-28"; 1963 Central summit of Plat. 5E-1, just W of "Str. 5E-25"; 1963 Str. 5F-18, S central base; 1963 Ibid., central summit; 1963 Area between Str. 5F-13, Hand 15; 1963 Central summit of platform supporting Str. 4F-19 and 20; 1963 Str. 5C-39, central summit, 5 m S of N edge; 1963 SE corner, platform summit E of Str. 7F-33; 1963 (see Op. 3) 20m WofStr. 4D-19 center; 1963 Central summit of platform supporting Str. 5E-5, etc.; 1963 12m SEE of Str. 5E-21 NE corner; 1963 Area of Op. 231; 1965

F G H I J K L M N P Q R S T U V 72 A B C D E F G H

J

Chultun investigations Ch. 3G-5 (concealed by Str. 3G-1); 1963 Ch. 5D-3; 1963 Ch. 7G-4,6; 1963 Ch. 6F-3; 1963 Ch.4F-l;1963 Bedrock cut as "Ch. 2E-2"; 1963 Ch. 4D-3 (Maudslay Causeway, 50 m E of benchmark; superficially probed) Unnumbered chultun in small group near NE end of airfield (as of 1965; see Op. 112)* Ch. 4F-2; 1965

81

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 20 in full

TR. 21 TR. 21 TR.21 TR.21 TR. 20 TR.21 TR.21 TR. 24E TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

23J 23J 23J 20 20

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23A TR. 20 TR. 16 TR. 16 TR. 16 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 23 J TR. 22 TR. 18 TR. 20 TR. 16 TR. 17 TR. 20 TR. 17 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 19 TR. 20 TR. 23 H TR. 24E

TR. 20

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION K L M N

DEFINITION AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT Ch. 4F-4 (10 m S of Str. 4F-22); 1965 Ch. 3F-4; 1965 Ch. 3F-5; 1965 Ch.4G-2;1965

REPORT ASSIGNINMENT

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20

73 A B C D E

Gp. 6E-2 investigations; 1964 Str.6E-144 Str. 6E-146 Str. 6E-145 SU.6E-143 Area just S of Str. 6E-136

TR. 23G in full

74 A

Gp. 6F-1 investigation; 1964 Str. 6F-51

TR. 23G

75 A

Gp. 6D-1 investigations; 1964 Str. 6D-59

TR. 23G

76 A B

Gp. 5D-1 investigations; 1964 Str. 5D-8 Str. 5D-7

TR. 20 in full

77 A B

Gp. 5D-1 investigations; 1964 Str. 5D-6 Area between Str. 5D-6 and 5C-10

TR. 20 in full

78 A B C D E

Gp. 5D-3 (East Plaza) investigations Str. 5E-32, central W part; 1964 Str. 5E-34; 1964 Str. 5E-32, SE part; 1964 Area between Str. 5E-32 and Str. 5E-29; 1964 Str. 5E-37; Str. 5E-89 off Central Acropolis NE corner; 1964 Plat. 5E-1 summit "structures" (5E-23, etc.) (see Op. 71J); 1964 Str. 5E-188 along W base of Plat. 5E-1 Continuation of Op. 78E; 1964 N-S trench below NE corner of Str. 5E-29; 1964 Str. 5E-22; 1964 Str. 5E-3I;1964 Plat. 5E-1 SW corner and Str. 5E-88 S end; 1965

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

16 16 16 16 16 16

Str. 5D-42; 1965 Str. 5D-41; 1965 Salvage work and miscellanea; 1965 Str. 5D-43; 1965 Str. 5D-40; 1965 Str. 5D-38;Str. 5D-39and 134 (E of Str. 5D-38); 1965 Str. 5D-37; 1965 Str. 5E-30; 1965 Str. 5E-32, NW part; 1965

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

16 16 16 16 16 14, 16 14 16 16

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-63, peripheral debris ("Str. 5D-64" voided); 1964

TR. 15

F G H I J K L M N O P

Q

R S T U

79 A

82

TR. TR. TR. TR. TR.

16 16 16 16 16

TR. 16

APPENDIX A DEFINITION AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT

OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

REPORT ASSIGNINMENT

Ibid., roof debris; 1965 Great Plaza and Str. 5D-119 (N of and below Str.5D-63); 1965 Str. 5D-118 (perpendicular to S W corner ofStr. 5D-63)(seeOp. 109)

TR. 15 TR. 14, 15

80 A B C D E F

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 Platform S area between Str. 5D-61 and 62 Ibid., N sector Area between Str. 5D-62 and 63 Str. 5D-140(EofStr. 5D-61) Area N along Str. 5D-61 and 62 Str. 5D-59 W side and N to Str. 5D-140

TR. 15 in full

81 A B C

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 Area of inside corner formed by Str. 5D-54 and 57 S side of Str. 5D-57 to corner with Str. 5D-54 Area between Str. 5D-54 S end and Str. 5D-52

TR. 15 in full

82 A

Str. 5D-75 investigations; 1964 Entirety of and context

TR. 23E

83 A B

Str. 5D-74 investigations; 1964 Str. 5D-74A (E component) and court Str. 5D-74B (W component)

TR. 14 in full

84 A B C

Str. Str. Str. Str.

TR. 23D in full

85 A B

Str. 5C-6, 7 and 8 investigations; 1964 Str. 5C-7 Str. 5C-6

TR. 23E in full

86 A B

Str. 5D-5 (Temple V) investigations Stairway base; 1964 Room debris; 1965

TR. 23B in full

87 A B C D

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 S area axial to Str. 5D-71 Ibid., W of Area below and W of Str. 5D-63 Str. 5D-71 Wend

TR. 15 in full

88

TR. 23E

A

Plat. 6D-1 investigations (conical feature based on 260 m contour SE of Madeira Reservoir) Nside

89 A

Str. 6D-10 investigations; 1964 Exterior and interior

TR. 23E

90 A

Str. 5C-53 and 54 investigations Str. 5C-54, flanks, summit and axial tunnel from W; 1964

TR. 23C in full

B C D

5D-78, 80 and 81 investigations; 1964 5D-80 5D-79 5D-81

83

TR. 15

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

B C

Str. 5C-53; 1964 Str. 5C-54 E side and axial tunnel from E; 1965

91 A B C D E F G

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 Str. 5D-58, W side, S base Ibid., N base Ibid., E side Ibid., area of S W corner Str. 5D-57and59 N face of E wing of Str. 5D-58 Continuation of Op. 91E

TR. 15 in full

92 A

Str. 5E-38 investigations; 1964 "Shrine" and central stair base

TR. 16

93 A B C

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Axial N-S trench, N side of Str. 5D-67; 1964 Area of inside corner of Str. 5D-69; 1967 Along S face of Str. 5D-67 E to Str. 5D-66; 1967

TR. 15 in full

94 A

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 Str. 5D-66, E side, E-W axial trench

TR. 15

95 A

Str. 5E-58 investigations; 1964 N wing E entrance and inside passageway

TR. 23A

96 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Area between Str. 5D-49 and 51; 1964 Str. 5D-53; 1964 Str. 5D-5I.N side; 1964 Str. 5D-5I; 1964 Str. 5D-122 and 123 (over roof of latter); 1964 Str. 5D-122; 1964 Str. 5D-49 W side; 1964 Ibid.,E side; 1964 Str. 5D-137; 1964 Str. 5D-124; 1964 Str. 5D-49, NE corner and E side; also Str. 5D-137; 1964 Stair at SE corner of Str. 5D-122; 1964 Str. 5D-49, N interior debris; 1964 Ibid., sealed features, etc.; 1964 Area of Str. 5D-129,etc.; 1964 Surface N of Str. 5D-122; 1965

TR. 15 in full

97 A B C D E F G H J

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-128; 1964 Ibid., 1964 Str. 5D-53, N portion; 1964 N juncture of Str. 5D-54 and 53; 1964 Str. 5D-128; 1964 Ibid.; 1964 Str. 5D-55, NE corner area; 1964 Ibid., E side, E-W axial trench; 1964 Ibid., wings; 1964

TR. 15 in full

84

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION K L M 98 A B C D E

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNINMENT

Ibid.; 1965 Area of junction of Str. 5D-55, 56 and 139; 1965 Upper junction of Str. 5D-57 and 54; 1967 TR. 15 in full

F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-46, open area N of; 1964 Ibid., W side, axial E-W trench; 1964 Ibid., trench connecting Op. 98B and 97E; 1964 Ibid., E side, axial E-W trench; 1964 Ibid., second story N room and upper interior stair; 1964 Ibid., SE corner of central building; 1964 Str. 5D-126; 1964 Str. 5D-46, continuation of Op. 98F; 1964 Ibid., SW corner; 1964 Ibid., W stair; 1964 Str. 5D-127; 1964 Ibid., area of SE additions and N of Str. 5D-47; 1964 Ibid., NW corner; 1964 Ibid., N transverse room; 1965 Ibid., W room of S addition; 1965 Ibid.,N room of N addition; 1965 Ibid., W room of N addition; 1965 Ibid., various rooms; 1965 Ibid., S W room of S addition; 1966 Ibid., NW room of S addition; 1966 Ibid., miscellaneous collection; (1966?) Platform just S of Str. 5D-46 complex; 1967

99 A B C

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 Below Str. 5D-129 and adjacent 48 Ibid. Ibid.

TR. 15 in full

100 A B C D E F G H J K L M N

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1964 N-S trench from Str. 5D-48 S center to Palace Reservoir Ibid., S extension of Str. 5D-48, axial trench from N Ibid., SW portion Str. 5D-131, general area of Ibid., delineation of Str. 5D-48, NE area Ibid., E and SE areas Ibid., NE area Str. 5D-125, interior Ibid.,S side Ibid., N side Continuation of Op. 100E

TR. 15 in full

101 A

Test pits, miscellaneous; 1964 Str. 5G-1, S center

TR. 20

102 A

Test pits, miscellaneous; 1964 Str. 5G-3, E summit

TR. 20

85

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

103 A B C

Test pits, miscellaneous; 1964 E-W trench intersecting Ch 7F-9 (see Op. 66Y) Area of Ch. 6F-3 Str. 4G-7, E summit

TR. 20 in full

104 A

Palace Reservoir investigations; 1964 Area of lowest point below E ridge

TR. 231

105 A B

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1965 Below central rear part of Str, 5D-65, terrace wall Ibid., tunnel from S on bedrock

TR. 15 in full

106 A B

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-130, general area; 1964 Ibid., interior, exterior; 1965

TR. 15 in full

107 A B C

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-47, E-W axial trench, W side; 1964 Ibid., E-W axial trench, E side; 1965 Between 5D-47 and 45, E-W trench to East Plaza; 1965

TR. 15 in full

108 A

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5E-41

TR. 15

109 A B

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-118 interior (see Op. 79D); 1966 Ibid.,sub-Rm. 2 fill

TR. 15 in full

111 A

Causeway Reservoir investigations; 1965 Area of lowest point below E ridge

TR. 231

112 A B C

Str. NE-470, etc,, salvage; (see Op. 70H) E structures; 1965 W structures; 1965 Bu. 216; (1970)

TR. 24E in full

113 A B C D E

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations Str. 5D-44,N side; 1965 Ibid., axial trench; 1965 Ibid., SE area including Str. 5D-127; 1965 Ibid., general interior; 1965 Ibid.,S exterior; 1966

TR. 15 in full

114 A B C D

Peripheral investigations of various sites El Descanso, surface; 1964 El Encanto, surface; 1964 Jimbal, test pit just N of St. 1; 1965 Chikin Tikal, central summit of platform sustaining Str. NE-339 through 343; 1965 Ibid., Str. NE-339, S of; 1965 Ibid., Str. NE-341, N of; 1965 Jimbal, St. 1 and Alt. 1; 1967 Ibid., St. 2; 1967 Ibid., Str. 1 summit; 1967 ((Nakum Temple U, exposed fill; 1965))

TR. 24D in full

E F G H I J

86

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION 115 A B

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 24A in full

E F G H J K L M N P

Peripheral investigations along S Brecha; 1965 Quarried bedrock near Str. SE(S)-218, etc. Area W of Str. S W(S)-220 and SE corner of Str. SW(S)-219 Area of Str. SW(S)-15, 16 and SE(S)-193, 194 Area of Str. SW(S)-20,21 Area of Str. SW(S)-16 Str. SW(S)-78, SW corner (see Op. 134K) Str. SW(S)-77,SW corner Str. SW(S)-106 Str. SW(S)-156, W side Currently unidentified structure Str. SW(S)-189, center of Str. SE(S)-391, tree-fall

116 A

Gp. 5D-9 investigations; 1965 Str. 5D-94, E base and stairway

TR. 23D

117 A B C D

Str. 5D-73 investigations; 1965 Basal axial tunnel from N Summit Flanks Basal with intrusion of Str. 5D-72

118 A B C D E

Superficially vacant terrain investigations, Sq. 2F; 1966 Tests along line between Ch. 2F-3 and 6 Area near Op. 118A Area of Ch. 2F-15 Area just NW of Ch. 2F-4 AreaSWofCh.2F-4

119 A B C D E F G

Superficially vacant terrain investigations, Sq. 5F; 1966 Area 10 m N of Str. 5F-2 and 4, systematic tests Ibid.; expanded feature exposure. Ibid.; suspected drainage feature Ibid., further investigation Ibid. Str. 5F-2, test on both N and S sides Continuation of Op. 119E

120 A

Str. 5C-49 investigations; 1966 Rooms

TR. 23C

121 A B

Superficially vacant terrain investigations, Sq. 5C; 1966 Area ca. 330 m S of Str. 5C-4 Ibid., structural details

TR. 20 in full

122 A

Gp. 4E-14 investigations; 1966 Str. 5E-1, interior

TR. 23A

123 A B C

Peripheral investigations along various brechas Str. NE(E)-252 Gp. 1D-7 (see Op. 136E) Str.SW(S)-16

87

TR. TR. TR. TR.

14 14 14 14, 15

TR. 20 in full

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 231 TR. 231 TR. 20 TR. 231

TR. 24D TR. 20 TR.24A

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

D E G H J K L M N

Str. SW(S)-17 Str. SW(S)-18 Str. SE(S)-193 Str. SE(S)-18 Platform sustaining Str. SW(S)-15, etc. Str. SW(S)-19 Str. SW(S)-17 Str. SW(S)-15 N earthworks, N-S trench across at 185 m E of Uaxactun trail Ibid., N-S and E-W trenches, ca. 480 m W of Uaxactun trail Ibid., N-S trench, 203 m W of Op. 123P Ibid., test N of Op. 123P

TR. 24A TR.24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24E

Superficially vacant terrain investigations, Sq. 3D; 1966 Area S of Str. 3D-3, 4, 14 and W of Ch. 3D-3, systematic tests Ibid., resultant Str. 3D-125 Testing N of Op. 124A

TR. 20 in full

TR. 20 in full

B C

Superficially vacant terrain investigations, Sq. 3D; 1966 Area N of Str. 3D-51, 52 and E of Str. 3D-19, 20, systematic tests Ibid., resultant Str. 3D-126 Limited testing near Str. 3D-19

126 A

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations, 1966 Str. 5D-118, Rm. 1

TR. 15

127 A B

Peripheral investigations: Navajuelal; 1967 Tests SW of Str. SE(S)-42I Ibid., S of

TR. 24B in full

128 A B C D E F G H J K L M P Q

Peripheral investigations: Navajuelal; 1967 Area betwen Str. SE(S)-423 and 422 Area S of Str. SE(S)-423 and 424 Str. SE(S)-423, S exterior Ibid., SE corner Ibid., NE corner Ibid., axial trench Ibid., NW corner Str. SE(S)-428, NW corner Ibid., S exterior Ibid., W exterior Ibid., N exterior Ibid., axial trench from W Ibid., S exterior Str. SE(S)-419,testof

TR. 24B in full

129 A B C

Peripheral investigations: Navajuelal; 1967 Str. SE(S)-430, axial trench Ibid., selected components Ibid.

TR. 24B in full

P Q R

124 A

B C 125 A

88

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

TR. 24E TR. 24E TR. 24E

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION D E F G H J K L M N P

DEFINITION AND YEAR

S T U V W X Y Z

Ibid., axial tunnel Ibid., S of stair Ibid., W of Ibid., S base Str. SE(S)-433, E base N of stair Ibid., E side of stair Ibid., N base Ibid., S base Ibid., axial trench Ibid., S base (continued) Ibid., W base Ibid. Ibid., substructural floors Ibid., SE corner Ibid., N and E bases of 2nd Ibid., SE segments Ibid., N portion of stair Ibid., area of S stair wall and E platform wall Ibid,, SE portion of structure (see Op. 129S,U) Ibid., SE portion of stair Ibid., NE portion of structure

130 A B C D E

Peripheral investigations: Navajuelal; 1967 Str. SE(S)-410, exterior Ibid., with inclusion of Str. SE(S)-409 Str. SE(S)-410, axial trench Ibid., N portion Ibid., S portion

131 A

Peripheral investigations: test pits along S brecha; 1967 Trial of post-hole digger conducted among Str. 4F-33 and 35 Str. SE(S)-228 Str. SE(S)-229 Str. SW(S)-43 (see Op. 134M) Ibid. Str. SW(S)-50 Str. SE(S)-251 Str. SW(S)-58 Str. SW(S)-69 Str. SW(S)-60 Bobal, Str. SE(S)-284 Ibid. Ibid., Str. SE(S)-277 Ibid. Ibid., Str. SE(S)-276 Str. SW(S)-100 Str. SW(S)-99 Str. SW(S)-83 Str. SE(S)-313 Str. SE(S)-308, 309 (see Op. 134L) Str.SE(S)-319 Str. SW(S)-114 Str. SW(S)-119

Q R

B C D E F G H J K L M N P

Q

R S T U V W X Y

89

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

TR. 24B in full

TR. 20 TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.24A TR.24A TR. 24D TR. 24D TR. 24D TR. 24D TR. 24D TR. 24A TR.24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.24A

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION Z

DEFINITION AND YEAR Central summit of platform sustaining Str. SE(S)-317, etc.

132 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Peripheral investigations: test pits along S brecha; 1967 Str. SW(S)-120, 121 Str, SE(S)-331,332,333 Str. SE(S)-330 Str. SE(S)-323 Str. SW(S)-131, 132, 133 Str. SE(S)-454 Str. SE(S)-356,357 Str. SE(S)-341,456,457,458 Str. SE(S)-331 Str. SE(S)-324 through 328 Str. SW(S)-67,337,338 Str. SW(S)-131, 132 Str. SE(S)-373 Str. SE(S)-382 and Str. SW(S)-157 Str. SE(S)-158 Str. SE(S)-388 Bobal, Str. SE(S)-277 through 280 Ibid., Str. SE(S)-281 through 284 Str. SW(S)-171, 172 Str. SW(S)-174 through 176 Str. SW(S)-177, 178 Str. SW(S)-185 through 188 Str. SE(S)-444 through 446 Str. SW(S)-167 through 169

TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24D TR. 24D TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A

133 A B

Gp. 5D-11 (Central Acropolis) investigations; 1967 Str. 5D-66, room Str. 5D-45 rooms; Str. 5D-89, rooms and frontal debris

TR. 15 TR. 15, 16

134 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V

Peripheral investigations: test pits along S brecha; 1967 Str. SE(S)-395,396 Str. SE(S)-1 through 4 Str. SE(S)-195 through 198 Str. SW(S)-20,21 Str. SE(S)-211 through 213 (see Op. 134N) Str. SE(S)-225,226,453 Ibid. Str. SW(S)-31 through 36 Str. SW(S)-61,62 Str. SW(S)-76 through 78 (see Op. 115J) Str. SE(S)-309 (see Op. 131V) Str. SW(S)-43 (see Op. 131D,E) Str. SE(S)-213 (see Op. 134E) Navajuelal, Str. SE(S)-411 Ibid., platform sustaining Str. SE(S)-410,411 Ibid., platform sustaining Str. SE(S)-415 Ibid., Str. SE(S)-439 Str. SE(S)-402 Str. SE(S)-403 Str. SE(S)-401

90

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 24A

TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24B TR. 24B TR. 24B TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A

APPENDIX A OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION REPORT AND YEAR ASSIGNMENT

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

W X Y

Str. SW(S)-164 Str. SW(S)-10, 11 Str. SW(S)-15 and SE(S)-193

TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A

135 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Peripheral investigations: Uolantun; 1967 Str. SE-486, S of stair Ibid., N of stair Ibid., S face Ibid., NE corner Str. SE-457, area off N corner Str. SE-461, area just N of Str. SE-464, area just W of Str. SE-485, area just S of Str. SE-483, area just N of Str. SE-487, area just W of Str. SE-488, area just W of Str. SE-477, area just S of Str. SE-463, area off N end of Str. SE-469, area off E side of

TR. 24C in full

136 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P

z

Peripheral investigations: test pits along N brecha; 1967 Gp. 1D-4* Gp. 1D-5 Gp. 1D-1 Gp. 1D-8 Gp. 1D-7 Gp. 1D-6 Str. NE(N)-385 through 388 Gp. 1D-7 Str. NW(N)-131 through 136 Str. NW(N)~137 through 139 Str. NE(N)-146 through 149 Str. NE(N)-22, 23 Str. NE(N)-29 through 33 Gp. 1D-1 Str. NW(N)-152 through 157 Str. NE(N)-41 Str. NE(N)-44 through 48 Str. NE(N)-56, 57 Str. NE(N)-69 Str. NE(N)-65 Str. NW(N)-167 Str. NW(N)-169, 170 Str. NW(N)-174 Str. NE(N)-70, 71

137 A B C D E F G

Peripheral investigations: test pits along N brecha; 1967 Str. NE(N)-74, 75 Str. NE(N)-76, 77 Str. NE(N)-72, 73 Str. NE(N)-182 through 190 Str. NW(N)-192 through 194 Str. NW(N)-196, 197 Str. NE(N)-84 through 86

Q

R S T U V W X

Y

91

TR. 20 TR. 20 TR. 20 TR.20 TR.20 TR.20 TR. 24A TR.20 TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.20 TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A

TR. 24A in full

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

DEFINITION AND YEAR

REPORT ASSIGNMENT

H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Str. NE(N)-90 through 100 Str. NE(N)-101 Str. NW(N)-205 Str. NW(N)-203 Str. NW(N)-2I6,2I7,271 Str. NE(N)-103 through 105 Str. NW(N)-241 Str. NW(N)-25I Str. NW(N)-262, 263 Str. NW(N)-266 Str.NE(N)-I09, 113 Str. NE(N)-115, 116 Str. NE(N)-178 Surface, final 150 m of N brecha Str. NW(N)-267 through 270 Str.NE(N)-151, 152 Str.NE(N)-147

138

TR. 24A in full

E F G H I J K L M N P Q R S

Peripheral investigations: small structures along S brecha; 1967 Str. SE(S)-213 Str. SE(S)-212 Str. SE(S)-211 Central summit of platform sustaining Str. SE(S)-21I, etc. Str. SE(S)-212, W portion Str. SE(S)-373 Ch. SE(S)-86, near Str. SE(S)-373 Str. SE(S)-452 Str. SW(S)-157 Str. SE(S)-382 Str. SW(S)-158, E-W axis Ibid., N and E exterior Ibid. Ibid., balance of E exterior Ibid., SW corner Ibid., SE corner Str. SE(S)-393 Str. SE(S)-394

140 A

Str. 4C-34 investigations; 1968 E of center (salvage)

TR. 20

141 A B

Gp. 5D-14 (South Acropolis) surface; 1968 Str. 5D-101 Str. 5D-104

TR. 23A in full

142 A B C D E F G

Miscellaneous site collections (see Op. 1) Str. 7D-90, surface, NE corner; 1967 Road surface 42 m S of Ch. 7D-3; 1967 Surface, 4F S400 E465 m (S of Tikal Reservoir) Str. 5D-5, test 45 m S of S W corner Str. 7D-88, SW corner, surface Str. 7D-60, surface 5 m NW of center of Str. 3C-13, SE corner, surface (see Op. 70G)

A B C D

92

TR. 20 TR. 23J TR. 23J TR. 23B TR. 21 TR. 20 TR. 21

APPENDIX A

1

DEFINITION AND YEAR Str. 6E-100, tree-fall 8 m S W of S W corner (see Op. 35D) Surface, 60 m E of Str. 6D-26, 27

143

(Collections from region of Lake Peten Itza; 1967)

144 A B C D

Peripheral investigations: miscellanea; 1967 Laguna Verde Reservoir embankments; S brecha Suspected special terracing; E brecha Santa Fe, Str. NE-456 (with St. 36) Str. NE(N)-165

145

Peripheral investigations: small structures along S brecha; 1967 Str. SW(S)-159 and 332, biaxial trenches

OPERATION AND SUBOPERATION

H

A 146

A B C D E F G H J K L M N

Peripheral investigations: test pits, etc., along N brecha and beyond;1967 Str. NE(N)-165 through 170 Str. NE(N)-164 Str. NE(N)-133 Str. NE(N)-I38, 139 Str. NE(N)-125 through 131 Str. NE(N)-141, 142 Gp. 1E-1* Ibid. Gp. 1D-2* Gp. 1D-3* Str. NE(N)-3 through 6 Uaxactun road construction, salvage Tree-fall 3.35 km W of N brecha intersection with Park N boundary

REPORT ASSIGNMENT TR. 20 TR.20

TR. 24E TR. 24E TR. 24D TR. 24A TR. 24A

TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR. 24A TR.20 TR.20 TR.20 TR.20 TR. 24A TR. 24E TR, 24E

147

(Collections from Uaxactun and vicinity; 1967)

148 A

Peripheral investigations; 1968 Ramonal

TR. 24D

150

TR. 24A in full

A B C D E G H

Peripheral investigations: posthole-digger tests of superficially vacant terrain along S brecha; 1968 At 6.600 to 6.775 km, 5 m W of brecha Ibid., 10 m W of brecha Ibid., 15 m W of brecha Ibid., 20 m W of brecha Vicinity of Str. SW(S)-157 Expansion of Op. 150A through D Feature at 7.380 km, 35-40 m W of brecha

151 A B C D E

Corriental Reservoir investigations; 1968 SW embankment, summit Ibid., interior base Reservoir interior S W embankment, exterior slope Between Op. 151A and B

TR. 231 in full

152 A

Gp. 4E-14 investigations; 1966 Str. 5E-1 interior (see Op. 122)

TR. 23A

93

APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE TIKAL PROJECT 1956-1982 Adams, Richard £. W., and Aubrey S. Trik 1961 Temple I (Str. 5D-1): Post-constructional Activities. No. 7 in Tikal Reports Nos. 5-10. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Bailey, Joyce W. 1972 A Preliminary Investigation of the Formal and Interpretive Histories of Monumental Relief Sculpture from Tikal, Guatemala: Pre-, Early and Middle Classic Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Becker, Marsha]! J. 1971 The Identification of a Second Plaza Plan at Tikal, Guatemala, and Its Implications for Ancient Maya Social Complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1973a Archaeological Evidence for Occupational Specialization among the Classic Period Maya at Tikal. American Antiquity 38:396-406. 1973b The Evidence for Complex Exchange Systems among the Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 38:222-223. Bronson, Bennet 1978 Angkor, Anuradhapura, Prambanan, Tikal: Maya Subsistence in an Asian Perspective. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by Peter D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 255-300. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Carr, Robert F., and James £. Hazard 1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Tikal Report No. 11. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Coe, William R. 1958 Two Carved Lintels from Tikal. Archaeology 11:75-80. 1959 Tikal 1959. Expedition 1(4):7-11. 1962a Maya Mystery in Tikal. Natural History 71(7): 10-12; 71(8):44-53. 1962b Priestly Power and Peasant Corn: Excavations and Reconstructions at Tikal. Illustrated London News 240:103-106, 135-137. I962c A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal, Guatemala: 1956-1961. American Antiquity 27:479-507. 1963a Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 28:417-419. 1963b A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal, Guatemala: 1962. Estudiosde Cultura Maya 3:41-64. 1964 Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 29:411-413. 1965a Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 30:379-383. 1965b Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Science 147:1401-1419. 1965c Tikal: Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala. Expedition $(\):5-56. 1967 Tikal: A Handbook of the Ancient Maya Ruins. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. (Spanish version, 1971, Asociacion Tikal, Guatemala). 1968 Tikal: In Search of the Maya Past. The World Book Year Book, pp. 160-176. Chicago.

94

APPENDIXB 1971 1972

1975

El Proyecto Tikal: 1956-1970. Anales de La Sociedadde Geografia e Historia de Guatemala 42:185-202. Cultural Contact between the Lowland Maya and Teotihuacan as Seen from Tikal, Peten, Guatemala. In Teotihuacan: XI Mesa Redonda 2:257-271. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Mexico City. Resurrecting the Grandeur of Tikal. National Geographic 148:792-795.

Coe, William R., and Vivian L. Broman 1958 Excavations in the Stela 23 Group. No. 2 in Tikal Reports Nos. 1-4. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Coe, William R., and J. J. McGinn 1963 Tikal: The North Acropolis and an Early Tomb. Expedition 5(2):24-32. Coe, William R., Edwin M. Shook, and Linton Satterthwaite 1961 The Carved Wooden Lintels of Tikal. No. 6 in Tikal Reports Nos. 5-10. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Coggins, Clemency C. 1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and Icongraphic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1976 Teotihuacan at Tikal in the Early Classic Period. Paper presented at the Fortysecond International Congress of Americanists, Paris. 1979 A New Order and the Role of the Calendar: Some Characteristics of the Middle Classic Period at Tikal. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory-, edited by Norman Hammond and Gordon R. Wiley, pp. 38-50. University of Austin Press, Austin. Culbert, T. Patrick 1963 Ceramic Research at Tikal, Guatemala. Ceramica de Cultura Maya l(2-3):34-42. 1967 Preliminary Report of the Conference on the Prehistoric Ceramics of the Maya Lowlands (1965). Estudios de Cultura Maya 6:81-109. 1973 The Maya Downfall at Tikal. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. Patrick Culbert, pp. 63-92. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1974 The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya. Harper and Row, New York. 1977 Early Maya Development at Tikal, Guatemala. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 27-43. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Dahlin, Bruce H. 1976 An Anthropologist Looks at the Pyramids: A Late Classic Revitalization Movement at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Dyson, Robert H., Jr. 1962 The Tikal Project: 1962. Archaeology 15:131-132. Ferree, Lisa 1970 The Pottery Censers of Tikal Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Fry, Robert E. 1969 Ceramics and Settlement in the Periphery of Tikal Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

95

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL 1972 1979

Manually Operated Post-Hole Diggers as Sampling Instruments. American Antiquity 37:259-261. The Economics of Pottery at Tikal, Guatemala: Models of Exchange for Serving Vessels. American Antiquity 44:494-512.

Fry, Robert E., and S. C. Cox 1973 Late Classic Pottery Manufacture and Distribution at Tikal, Guatemala. Working Paper, Number 70. Institute for the Study of Social Change, Purdue University. 1974 The Structure of Ceramic Exchange at Tikal, Guatemala. World Archaeology 6:209-225. Green, Ernestene L.

1970

The Archaeology of Navajuelal, Tikal, Guatemala, and a Test of Interpretative Method. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Greene, Virginia, and Hattula Moholy-Nagy 1966 A Teotihuacan-Style Vessel from Tikal: A Correction. American Antiquity 31:432-434. Guillemin, George F. 1967 Tikal: Formacion y evolucion del centro ceremonial. Anales de la Sociedal de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala 40(3,4):203-223. 1968a Development and Function of the Tikal Ceremonial Center. Ethnos 33:1-39. 1968b Un "yugo" de madera para el juego de pelota. Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala 20:25-33. 1970a Artefactos de madera en un entierro clasico tardio de Tikal. Thirty-eighth International Congress of Americanists (Stuttgart-Munich) 1:175-178. 1970b Some Aspects of Function and Symbolism at the Ceremonial Centers of Tikal and Copan. Thirty-eighth International Congress of Americanists (StuttgartMunich) 1:173-174. 1970c Notas sobre restauracion y reconstruccion en los sitios de Tikal e Iximche, Guatemala. Thirty-eighth International Congress of Americanists (StuttgartMunich) 2:119-123. Harrison, Peter D. 1963 A Jade Pendant from Tikal. Expedition 5(2): 12-13. 1970a The Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Preliminary Study of the Functions of Its Structural Components during the Late Classic Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1970b Form and Function in a Maya "Palace" Group. Thirty-eighth International Congress of Americanists (Stuttgart-Munich) 1:165-172. Haviland, William A. 1962 A "Miniature Stela" from Tikal. Expedition 4(3):2-3. 1963 Excavation of Small Structures in the Northeast Quadrant of Tikal Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1965 Prehistoric settlement at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 7(3): 14-23. 1966a Maya Settlement Patterns: A Critical Review. Middle American Research Institute, Julane University, Publication 26:21-47'. 1966b Social Integration and the Classic Maya. American Antiquity 31:625-631. 1967 Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Ancient Maya Demography and Social Organization. American Antiquity 32:316-325. 1969 A New Population Estimate for Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity

96

APPENDIXB 34:429-433. Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican Urbanism. World Archaeology 2:186-198. Estimates of Maya Population: Comments on Thompson's Comments. American Antiquity 37:261-262. 1972b Family Size, Prehistoric Population Estimates, and the Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 37:135-139. 1972c A New Look at Classic Maya Social Organization at Tikal. Ceramica de Cultura Maya S:\-\6. 1974 Occupational Specialization at Tikal, Guatemala: Stoneworking-Monument Carving. American Antiquity 39:494-49. 1977 Dynastic Genealogies from Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Descent and Political Organization. American Antiquity 42:61-67. 1978 On Price's Presentation of Data from Tikal. Current Anthropology 19:180-181. 1981 Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala: An Investigation into the Identification of Valid Units in Settlement Hierarchies. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 89-117. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1982 Where the Rich Folks Lived: Deranging Factors in the Statistical Analysis of Tikal Settlement. American Antiquity 47:427-429. 1970 1972a

Haviland, William A., Dennis £. Puleston, Robert £. Fry, and Ernestene L. Green 1967 The Tikal Sustaining Area: Preliminary Research of the 1967 Season. Manuscript on file, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Jones, Christopher 1969 The Twin Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya Architectural Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1977 Inauguration Dates of Three Late Classic Rulers of Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 42:28-60. 1979 Tikal as a Trading Center: Why It Rose and Fell. Paper presented at the Forty-third International Congress of Americanists, Vancouver. Jones, Christopher, William R. Coe, and William A. Haviland 1981 Tikal: An Outline of Its Field Study (1956-1970) and a Project Bibliography. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 296-312. University of Texas Press, Austin. Leone, Mark P. 1971 Late Classic Burial Ceramics from Tikal, Guatemala. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Arizona. Loten, H. Stanley 1970 The Maya Architecture of Tikal, Guatemala: A Preliminary Seriation of Vaulted Building Plans. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Lowe, Gareth W., Editor 1966 Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 1967 Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 1968 Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity 1969 Current Research (Tikal). American Antiquity

31:460-463. 32:137. 33:418-420. 34:354.

Miller, Arthur G. 1973 Architectural Sculpture at Tikal, Guatemala: The Roof-Comb Sculpture on Temple I and Temple IV. Twenty-second International Congress of Art History (Granada): 177-183.

97

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL 1978

A Brief Outline of the Artistic Evidence for Classic Period Cultural Contact between Maya Lowlands and Central Mexican Highlands. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700, edited by Esther Pasztory, pp. 63-70, Columbia University Press, New York. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 1962 A Tlaloc Stela from Tikal. Expedition 4(2):27. 1963a The Field Laboratory at Tikal. Expedition 5(3): 12-17. 1963b Shells and Other Marine Material from Tikal. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3:65-83. 1966 Mosaic Figures from Tikal. Archaeology 19(2):84-89. 1976 Spatial Distribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at Tikal, Guatemala. In Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Norman Hammond, pp. 91-108. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. 1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 43:65-73. Olson, Gerald W. 1969 Descriptions and Data on Soils of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala, Central America. Cornell Agronomy News 69(2). Puleston, Dennis £. 1965 The Chultuns of Tikal. Expedition 7(3):24-29. 1968 Brosimium Alicastrum as a Subsistence Alternative for Classic Maya of the Central Southern Lowlands. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 1971 An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic Maya Chultuns. American Antiquity 36:322-335. 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Models. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1974 Intersite Areas in the Vicinity of Tikal and Uaxactun. In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 303-311. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1978 Terracing, Raised Fields, and Tree Cropping in the Maya Lowlands: A New Perspective on the Geography of Power. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by Peter D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 225-245. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Puleston, Dennis £., and Donald W. Callender, Jr. 1967 Defensive Earthworks at Tikal. Expedition 9(3):40-48. Puleston, Dennis £., and Gerald W. Olson 1970 Examples of Ancient and Modern Use and Abuse of Soils. In New York's Food and Life Sciences, pp. 27-29. Puleston, Dennis £., and Olga S. Puleston 1971 An Ecological Approach to the Origins of Maya Civilization. Archaeology 24:330-337. Puleston, Olga S. 1969 Functional Analysis of a Workshop Tool Kit from Tikal. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Rainey, Froelich G. 1956 The Tikal Project. University Museum Bulletin 20(4):2-24. 1970 Tikal: A Fourteen Year Program Now Completed. Expedition 12(2):2-9.

98

APPENDIXB Rainey, Froelich G., Alfred Kidder II, Linton Satterthwaite, and William R. Coe 1967 Reply to Berlin. American Antiquity 32:242-244. Ralph, Elizabeth K. 1965 Review of Radiocarbon Dates from Tikal and the Maya Correlation Problem. American Antiquity 30:421-427. Satterthwaite, Linton 1956 Maya Dates on Stelae in Tikal "Enclosures." University Museum Bulletin 20(4):25-40. 1958a The Problem of Abnormal Stela Placements at Tikal and Elsewhere. No. 3 in Tikal Reports Nos. 1-4. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. 1958b Five Newly Discovered Carved Monuments at Tikal and New Data on Four Others. No. 4 in Tikal Reports Nos. 1-4. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. 1960 Maya "Long Count" Numbers. Expedition 2(2):36-37. 1963 Note on Hieroglyphs on Bone from the Tomb below Temple I, Tikal. Expedition 6(1):18-19. 1964 Dates in a New Tikal Hieroglyphic Text as Katun-Baktun Anniversaries. Estudios de Cultura Maya 4:203-222. 1967 Radiocarbon and Maya Long Count Dating of "Structure 10"(Str. 5D-52, First Story), Tikal. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 21:225-249. Satterthwaite, Linton, Vivian L. Broman, and William A. Haviland 1961 Miscellaneous Investigations: Excavation near Fragment 1 of Stela 17, with Observations on Stela P34 and Miscellaneous Stone 25; Excavation of Stela 25, Fragment 1; Excavation 27; Excavation of Stela 28, Fragment 1. No. 8 in Tikal Reports Nos. 5-10. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Satterthwaite, Linton, and William R. Coe 1968 The Maya-Christian Calendrical Correlation and the Archaeology of the Peten. Thirty-seventh International Congress of Americanists (Mar del Plata) 3:3-21. Satterthwaite, Linton, and Elizabeth K. Ralph 1960 New Radiocarbon Dates and the Maya Correlation Problems. American Antiquity 26:165-184. Shook, Edwin M. 1957 The Tikal Project. University Museum Bulletin 21(3):36-52. 1958a The Temple of the Red Stela. Expedition l(l):26-33. (Spanish translation, 1958, Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala 11:7-14.) 1958b Field Director's Report: The 1956 and 1957 Seasons. No. 1 in Tikal Reports Nos. 1-4. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. 1960 Tikal Stela 29. Expedition 2(2):28-35. 1962 Tikal: Problems of a Field Director. Expedition 4(2): \\-26. 1964 Archaeological Investigations in Tikal, Peten, Guatemala. Thirty-fifth International Congress of Americanists (Mexico) 1:379-386. Shook, Edwin M., and William R. Coe 1961 Tikal: Numeration, Terminology, and Objectives. No. 5 in Tikal Reports Nos. 5-10. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Shook, Edwin M., and Alfred Kidder II 1961 The Painted Tomb at Tikal. Expedition 4(l):2-7. (Spanish translation, 1962, Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala 14:5-10.)

99

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF TIKAL Stuckenrath, Robert, Jr., William R. Coe, and Elizabeth K. Ralph 1966 University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates IX: Tikal Series. Radiocarbon 8:371-385. Trik, Aubrey S. 1963 The Splendid Tomb of Temple I at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 6((f):2-18. Webster, Helen T. 1963 Tikal Graffiti. Expedition 6(l):36-47.

100