Utatlán: The Constituted Community of the K'iche' Maya of Q'umarkaj

By Thomas F. Babcock

One of the most important Postclassic cities, Utatlán, in highland Guatemala, was excavated more than three decades ago. However, the data amassed by archaeologists have not been published until now. Details on architecture, pottery, burials, and artifacts, along with a focus on residential archaeology, make Utatlán: The Constituted Community of the K'iche' Maya of Q'umarkaj a significant contribution to Maya archaeology.

Most information available on Utatlán focuses on the ceremonial center and ignores the city of the commoners. Using the archaeological data, Utatlán attempts to determine the boundaries of the community and to characterize subdivisions within it. Evidence of indigenous nonelite houses, rich burials, and grave goods unlike those found in contemporary sites reveals information about the supporting residence zone. In addition, Babcock applies the concept of "constituted community," interpreting the archaeological data from a prehistoric context, and proposes a theoretical framework for interpreting prehistoric sites with respect to urbanism and political complexity.

Utatlán: The Constituted Community of the K'iche' Maya of Q'umarkaj will be of interest to students and scholars of Mesoamerican anthropology, archaeology, and ethnohistory.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University Press of Colorado
• Release date: Mar 15, 2012
• ISBN: 9781607321552

Book preview

Index

Figures

1.1.    Plan of the ruins of Utatlán from Maudslay’s Archaeologia, Biología Centrali-Americana, plate 52

3.1.    Plain orange ware rim sherd forms

3.2.    Plain orange ware bowl forms

3.3.    White-on-red ware forms and decorative elements

3.4.    Red-on-white ware forms and decorative elements

3.5.    Polychrome ware forms and decorative elements

3.6.    Chinautla polychrome burial urn

3.7.    Pedestal censer and effigy ladle censer forms

3.8.    Dorothy Hosler with local K’iche’ women, preparing tortilla to place on comal

3.9.    Unusual ceramic forms

4.1.    La Rochela 244 feature: Plan map of wall and north profile

4.2.    Crude ware candelero form from Resguardo area 320 midden

4.3.    La Rochela 300 showing pit feature and west profile

4.4.    La Rochela 265 cache of obsidian cores in situ

4.5.    Chisalin 286 complex of walls and floors: plan map and north and east profiles

4.6.    Y-Plateau 039 midden, carved pumice figure

5.1.    Resguardo 241 east profile

5.2.    Resguardo 222 midden, unslipped orange ware pitcher

5.3.    Resguardo 222 midden east profile, showing vertical step talpetate cut

5.4.    Resguardo 281 plan map of wall and floor with north profile

5.5.    Resguardo 301 plan map of terrace feature and east profile

5.6.    Resguardo 321 units 1 and 2: plan map of complex feature, east profiles units 1 and 2, and north profile unit 1

5.7.    Resguardo 320 unit 2: east profile of midden area outside talud platform

5.8.    Resguardo 320 units 5 and 7: north profiles inside talud platform

5.9.    Resguardo 320 plan map of exposed features

5.10.  Resguardo 320 feature with talud platform and adjoining platform

5.11.  Resguardo 320 burial 2 in midden adjacent to talud platform

5.12.  Resguardo 322 plan map of altar and adjacent platform and elevations a–a′ and b–b′

5.13.  Resguardo 320 altar and platform

5.14.  Resguardo 322 unit 21: west, north, and east profiles with platform wall (east profile) and partially exposed walls of adjacent structure (north profile) and earlier structures (north and east profiles)

5.15.  Resguardo 322 plan map of exposed construction phases of underlying structure

5.16.  Resguardo 322 with altar complex and phase 1, earliest construction phase of underlying structure

5.17.  Resguardo 322 with altar complex and phase 2, middle construction phase of earlier structure

5.18.  Resguardo 322 altar and phase 3, most recent construction phase of earlier structure

5.19.  Resguardo 322 platform mound feature: unit 17 south and west profiles within platform interior

5.20.  Resguardo 322 altar feature: unit 1 north profile interior of altar

5.21.  Resguardo 341 unit 1: drawing of wall running north-south and north profile showing strata within and exterior to wall

5.22.  Resguardo 341 plan map and elevation drawings of two platform mounds exposed

5.23.  Resguardo 341 platform mounds; unit 1 is in upper right

5.24.  Drawings of obsidian projectile points made on obsidian blades, from Resguardo 321 on slopes of Resguardo, and 322 altar feature

6.1.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 372 midden area (stratum 2), with black greasy lens (stratum 4)

6.2.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 223: plan drawing

6.3.    Resguardo-Pakaman house 223

6.4.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 223: detailed plan drawing of temascal, drainage, and burned areas

6.5.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 223 burial 2: drawing of green obsidian blade

6.6.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 223 burial 3

6.7.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 223: pumice slab with carved channels

6.8.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 288: plan drawing

6.9.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 288 showing later structure

6.10.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 307: plan drawing

6.11.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house showing linear arrangement of house and temascal

6.12.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 307 temascal

6.13.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 307 burial 5, showing orange slipped bowl in situ

6.14.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 350: plan drawing

6.15.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge house 350

7.1.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge areas 290 and 310: excavation unit placements

7.2.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 tomb/mound unit 5: south and east profiles

7.3.    Unidentified shaman burning incense at Pakaman temple

7.4.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 mound: excavation plan drawings for tomb feature and floor levels above

7.5.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 mound: middle-level floor with altar and intrusive pit

7.6.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 mound: circular rhyolite object found in intrusive burial pit, possible stone maul or weapon

7.7.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 mound: rectangular gap in mid-level floor

7.8.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 tomb feature: plan and elevation drawing at basal level of excavations

7.9.    Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 tomb with author cleaning surface of feature

7.10.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 2: miniature ceramics

7.11.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 2: drawing of ceremonial knife

7.12.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 tomb: burials 3 and 4 exposed

7.13.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burials 3 and 4: line drawings of selected gold artifacts

7.14.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 3: Chinautla polychrome urn and gold bowl in situ

7.15.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 3: two views of gold bowl

7.16.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burials 3 and 4: gold ear spools

7.17.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 4: exposure of gold bowl with gold pendant visible at left

7.18.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 4: pair of gold pendants, face views

7.19.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 burial 4: jade beads from around outside of jar

7.20.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 tomb and feature, exposed by Robert Wauchope at Q’umarkaj

7.21.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 unit 3: threshold feature plan and elevation drawings, and north and east profiles with schematic of elevation a–a′

7.22.  Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 unit 3: close-up of threshold and pilaster

8.1.    Map of Pakaman excavation unit placement overlain on Pakaman reconstruction drawing

8.2.    Pakaman plaza areas 336 unit 1, 336 unit 2, and 356 south profiles of each test pit

8.3.    Pakaman area 337 unit 2: east (behind) temple plan and a–a′ elevation drawings of feature levels

8.4.    Pakaman area 337 unit 2: east (behind) temple north profile, 3 by 3 m test pit

8.5.    Pakaman area 336: plan drawing of altar and terrace features with burial

8.6.    Pakaman area 336 unit 7: south and east profiles showing hole in talpetate at basal level of excavation

8.7.    Pakaman Area 336: altar and terrace features in hypothetical reconstruction sketch

8.8.    Pakaman Area 317 unit 1: burials 1 through 5

8.9.    Pakaman Area 317 unit 1 burial 3

8.10.  Pakaman Area 317 unit 1 burial 7

8.11.  Pakaman Area 317 unit 1 burial 8

9.1.    La Comunidad 393: east profile, near area of destroyed mounds

9.2.    La Comunidad 033 obsidian workshop: plan drawing of irregular talpetate basal level and east profile

9.3.    La Comunidad 073 Classic mound: north and west profiles; pyramidal mound feature identifiable between strata 2 and 4

9.4.    La Comunidad 033 obsidian workshop: drawing of obsidian projectile point on obsidian blade

10.1.    Scattergram plot of sherd distribution

10.2.    Cluster analysis dendrogram of dissimilarity among ceramic assemblages

10.3.    Hypothetical reconstruction of Utatlán houselot configuration: plan and elevation drawings

10.4.    Greater Utatlán from Pakaman, approximate location of houselots and major features, hypothetical location of sacbe and road/ditch across plateau

10.5.    K’iche’ radiocarbon dates, 1978 field season

11.1.    Maudslay map of Iximché

11.2.    Fuentes y Guzman’s drawing of city plan of Iximché

Maps

1.1.   Map of possible routes of Nahua influence on the K’iche’

1.2.   Map of Greater Utatlán, outer occupation areas hatched

1.3.   Hypothetical boundaries of Greater Utatlán

2.1.   Map of geographic setting of Q’umarkaj

2.2.   Map of general position of Q’umarkaj in the Mayan region

2.3.   Map of linguistic development and movement of K’iche’ into Quiche Valley

2.4.   Map of location of highland archaeological sites in vicinity of Q’umarkaj

3.1.   Map of region of Greater Utatlán residence zone

4.1.   Map of northern plateau excavation sectors

5.1.   Resguardo area excavation sectors

6.1.   Map of Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge excavation sectors

7.1.   Map of relation of Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge 290 features to Pakaman, Resguardo, and Q’umarkaj

8.1.   Map of Pakaman excavation sectors

9.1.   Map of La Comunidad excavation sectors

10.1. The constituted community of Utatlán, boundaries and estimated area in hectares

11.1. Map of highland Guatemala political centers, K’iche’ peripheral centers, and protohistoric towns

Tables

1.1. Chronological list of K’iche’ rulers

4.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at La Rochela, Utatlán residence zone

4.2. Obsidian count distribution at La Rochela, Utatlán residence zone

4.3. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at Chisalin, Utatlán residence zone

4.4. Obsidian count distribution at Chisalin, Utatlán residence zone

4.5. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at the Y-Plateau, Utatlán residence zone

4.6. Obsidian count distribution at the Y-Plateau, Utatlán residence zone

5.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at the Resguardo area, Utatlán residence zone

5.2. Obsidian count distribution at the Resguardo area, Utatlán residence zone

5.3. Prehistoric sherd counts for Resguardo area units used in average sherd density statistical comparisons

6.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge area, Utatlán residence zone

6.2. Obsidian count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge area, Utatlán residence zone

6.3. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge houselots, Utatlán residence zone

6.4. Obsidian count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge houselots, Utatlán residence zone

7.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman mound/burial area, Utatlán residence zone

7.2. Obsidian count distribution at Resguardo-Pakaman mound/burial area, Utatlán residence zone

8.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at Pakaman area, Utatlán residence zone

8.2. Obsidian count distribution at Pakaman area, Utatlán residence zone

9.1. Prehistoric sherd count distribution at La Comunidad area, Utatlán residence zone

9.2. Obsidian count distribution at La Comunidad area, Utatlán residence zone

10.1. Utatlán residence zone area average sherd densities (per 4 m²)

10.2. Sherd density per m² Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks

10.3. Pair-wise comparison between mean rank of paired groups

10.4. Analysis of variance sherd density per m²

10.5. Prehistoric ceramic classification distribution in Utatlán residence zone

10.6. X² of ceramic type distribution Resguardo-Pakaman Ridge houses

10.7. Houselot burials in Utatlán residence zone

10.8. Pakaman area burials in Utatlán residence zone

11.1. Structural elements at Q’umarkaj

11.2. Political centers in highland Guatemala

11.3. K’iche’ period peripheral centers and towns in highland Guatemala

Foreword

Dr. Babcock has provided a brilliant interpretation of the Utatlán archaeological site, located in the central highlands of Guatemala. Utatlán (also known in the Maya K’iche’ language as Q’umarkaj) is for diverse reasons one of the most important Late Postclassic sites in Mesoamerica. Perhaps most salient is the fact that the Popol Wuj, one of the foremost documents on Mayan history, was in the possession of the K’iche’ Maya elite residing at the site, who employed it as an expression of their legendary kingdom. Following the Spanish invasion of the territory that later became Guatemala, descendants of the Utatlán rulers retained possession of their sacred codex and eventually allowed a local Franciscan priest, Francisco Jimenez, to transcribe the K’iche’ text and translate it into Spanish.

The Popol Wuj as it has come down to us—there are currently many translations of it into diverse languages—provides the inside story of what took place at Utatlán prior to the coming of the Spanish invaders. From the Popol Wuj we learn of the origin and development of the K’iche’ state, the establishment of its capital at Q’umarkaj-Utatlán, and the construction of its many temples, palaces, ball courts, and ramparts. This K’iche’ national book includes a dynastic list, beginning with the first K’iche’ lords who came from the east (probably from southeast Mexico), down to the rulers at the time of the Spanish invasion in 1524. The sacred book also recounts the segmentation of the ruling lineages into twenty-four units, the construction of temples at which sacrificial rituals were carried out, wars against other native peoples throughout Guatemala, internal conflicts, and numerous other historical events that occurred during the final 300 years of independent K’iche’ history. Only rarely in the study of Mesoamerican history has it been possible to correlate historical events with archaeological remains to the degree as in the Popol Wuj–Utatlán case.

The Utatlán site has been known and described by visitors and descendants of its original inhabitants for over 500 years, and despite the site’s severe destruction through the centuries, it has been possible to correlate hundreds of site features with actual buildings and events described in the Popol Wuj and other K’iche’ documents. Utatlán remains one of the few archaeological sites in Mesoamerica where highly specific correlations between site remains and social and historical events can be credibly determined; the most notable parallel for the Late Postclassic Mesoamerican sites would be the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán. The Aztec capital was far more grandiose, and historical accounts of events there are far more copious. Nevertheless, the Utatlán site offers an exceptionally favorable setting in Mesoamerica for correlating documentary history with archaeological remains.

Despite early archaeological survey work at Utatlán by learned visitors during the centuries following the Spanish invasion, the first major archaeological investigations in modern times were carried out by the Institute for Mesoamerican Studies at the State University of New York, Albany, during the decade of the 1970s. The primary archaeologists in charge of the excavations were Dr. Dwight Wallace followed by Kenneth Brown. They were ably assisted by doctoral students John Weeks, John Fox, Russell Stewart, and Steve Marqusee and other graduate students. Among the archaeological graduate students was Thomas Babcock, who joined the project from the Department of Anthropology at Tulane University. The Utatlán project was conceptualized as being oriented by a conjunctive approach; that is to say, one of the principal goals was to seek correlations between the historical sources (especially the Popol Wuj) and the archaeological remains. Historical issues related to the languages spoken at Utatlán were also investigated by linguists Lyle Campbell and James Mondloch, among others.

Numerous publications and doctoral dissertations resulted from the Utatlán project, including conjunctive correlations between the archaeological remains and historical information in the Popol Wuj. Among these publications was my own conjunctive synthesis, The Quiche Mayas of Utatlan (and the Spanish version, Evolución del Reino Quiché). Of the many dissertations produced as part of the Utatlán project, one of the most instructive was Thomas Babcock’s Prehistoric Community Organization of a Quiche Center: Excavations into the Utatlan Residence Zone (PhD dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, 1980). Even though Babcock’s dissertation did not figure prominently in the initial publications on the Utatlán site, as the primary director of the project I was particularly excited by Dr. Babcock’s research and analytical contributions. This was not only because of the quality of Babcock’s investigations but also because they were focused on the periphery rather than on the centers of the Greater Utatlán sites.

Most of the Institute for Mesoamerican Research at Greater Utatlán was focused on the nuclear sites, especially Q’umarkaj and its neighboring sites of Pismachi and Chisalin (the three centers were separated only by narrow canyons). John Weeks conducted reconnaissance studies in the peripheral zone of Utatlán, where, among other findings, he uncovered evidence of metallurgical practices. Nevertheless, Weeks’s primary contribution to the archaeology of Greater Utatlán was his dissertation study of the northern nuclear site of Chisalin. Later, upon reading Babcock’s dissertation on the peripheral zones of Utatlán, I realized how important these zones were to a proper understanding of Utatlán and its associated sites.

Dr. Babcock’s recent reanalysis of his archaeological findings on the periphery of the Utatlán sites provides a much clearer and more detailed understanding of the nuclear sites and especially their peripheries. Of particular importance is his attempt to define the constituted community of Utatlán, that is, to reconstruct the nature of relationships between the nuclear centers (Pismachi, Q’umarkaaj, Chisalin) and their surrounding rural zones. Brief references to these urban-rural relationships are registered in the Popol Wuj and other K’iche’ chronicles, but the archaeological evidence recovered and analyzed in Babcock’s book provides crucial, previously unidentified features of these relationships.

A particularly prominent example of the relationships existing between the urban and rural zones concerns perhaps the most dramatic historical event in the history of Q’umarkaj. While the Popol Wuj ignores the event, a chronicle (Annals of the Caqchiquels), written by the primary political enemy of the K’iche’, records a dramatic internal revolt against the most famous and militant K’iche’ ruler. The rebels were led by two of the ruler’s sons, along with militarized commoners. The ruler fled the Utatlán center to a defensive site, where he maintained a highly elevated secondary residence located within the commoner zone east of the urban center. The ruler’s enemies pursued him to this external residence center and took him captive. Babcock’s excavations in the commoner zones make it possible to identify the king’s elevated place of refuge and to reconstruct the socioeconomic condition of the commoners residing in this peripheral area.

This kind of integration of archaeological with documentary information constitutes anthropology at its best. Accordingly, Babcock’s new synthesis, based especially on his interpretations of the archaeological findings in the rural zones surrounding Greater Utatlán, constitutes a major step forward in understanding the sociocultural characteristics of one of the leading Mesoamerican centers at the time of the Spanish invasion. In addition, Babcock’s interpretations are based on rich field data fully described and classified in tables and explicit prose. Undoubtedly, his thoughtful and highly documented treatise will be seen as a major contribution to Mesoamerican archaeology and ethnohistory.

ROBERT M. CARMACK

PROFESSOR EMERITUS, SUNY ALBANY

Preface

It is not unusual that reports on archaeological excavations appear in print several years after the actual fieldwork. This volume is no exception. The fieldwork was done in the late 1970s, and the results appeared as a doctoral dissertation in 1980, but life takes many unexpected turns. We make choices based on our perceptions at the time, and in 1980, with a wife and child, I decided that archaeological consulting and cultural resource preservation appeared to offer more stability than a postdoctoral position in Mesoamerican archaeological research. I only note this so that graduate students who read this might consider the role of a mentoring professor in providing advice or guidance on how to pursue an academic pathway—advice and guidance I did not seek. So off I went to work as a consultant in the US Southwest, until the oil bust of 1984. With work rapidly decreasing, my life course changed directions and I went to medical school and a career in medicine, and eventually in medical and scientific publications.

Three years ago an e-mail arrived from a friend, a colleague from graduate-school days. Helen Sorayya Carr asked about the faunal remains at Utatlán and mentioned a volume by Nance and colleagues on Iximché that she thought I might be interested in reading. To make a long story short, it was interesting and I realized that the materials from the Utatlán excavations should also be made more easily accessible. This necessitated an updated review of the literature and assessment of the work and publications relative to the Guatemala highlands since the 1980s. It soon became apparent that there were only limited publications related to the archaeological work undertaken in the Quiche Basin during the 1978 and 1979 field seasons. John Weeks and John Fox published their doctoral dissertations but there were no monographs concerning the work at Q’umarkaj, on the regional survey of the Quiche Basin by Kenneth Brown, or on the excavations at Jakawitz and Chujuyup by Livingston Suttro and Teresita Majewski.

A scholarly presentation of the archaeological data from the Quiche Basin is needed, and a starting point could be a comprehensive report on the excavations in the Utatlán residence zone. But this should not be merely a summary of the main findings from the periphery of Q’umarkaj, but rather should place these data in a more complete contextual framework. It is not possible to present the data from the excavations by Brown, Suttro, and Majewski in this volume, but I can provide the data from the residence zone in a scientifically sound manner and within the milieu of theoretical and methodological issues relevant to highland Mesoamerican archaeology. That is not to say that everything done during the 1978 field season was correctly executed or directly interpretable within this framework, but where this was not the case, a frank presentation of judgments made in the field may provide future researchers direction on how to better execute a research strategy.

It is not my purpose to criticize other published reports on archaeological research in Mesoamerica, but it has been my experience that published monographs often move quickly past the background information, which can provide a foundation for understanding and interpreting data because it is easier to go right into the findings. In contrast to this approach, Johnston and Gonlin (1998) provided a thorough presentation on the way archaeologists and anthropologists have interpreted the house in the context of an archaeological site and justified the reasons for the methodology they chose without skirting over alternate theories. As a reader, I appreciated the explanation because it gave context to what followed. Certainly not every archaeology monograph can be a primer on the previous work in the field, but a balanced presentation with this type of context may be especially useful in a geographic area where few published excavation reports exist.

I have attempted to present the materials in this volume in an organized manner. The first chapter presents the basic questions to be addressed by the Utatlán residence zone project; that is, it defines the characteristics of the population zone extending out from the Protohistoric ceremonial and political center of Q’umarkaj. The chapter attempts to provide an overview of some of the major issues concerning the K’iche’ Maya and the Protohistoric period; questions about who the K’iche’ were, where they come from, and how they arrived at Q’umarkaj; and what it meant to be a dominant force at the time of the Spanish conquest. These questions reach beyond the mere description of the cultural remains recovered from the residence zone excavations. Within this context it is also necessary to examine how archaeologists and anthropologists approach examination and interpretation of data. It is necessary to present a theoretical framework for discussion of urbanism, states, and the community.

Chapter 2 moves past the theoretical constructs to focus on the site of Q’umarkaj and its residence zone and on the previous archaeological, linguistic, and ethnohistoric research in the K’iche’an area. One might think of Chapter 1 as the anthropological foundation for the types of questions that might be considered when examining a residence zone associated with a Mayan ceremonial center, whereas Chapter 2 presents these issues in a manner more specific to this archaeological site. Together, these two chapters frame the research questions, and I have attempted to present these in such a way that the reader can appreciate the range of options faced and not solely the approach chosen.

Chapter 3 outlines the actual research design. The geographical setting is provided, and whereas Chapter 2 gives the strategic approach to answering research questions with the data from the Utatlán residence zone, Chapter 3 offers the tactical approach to data acquisition, providing the underlying assumptions and the statistical analysis plan.

Chapters 4 through 9 are detailed summaries of the excavations in the various subareas of the site. The chapters are coincidentally arranged to take the reader across the residence zone from the peripheral areas to the northwest, through the core of the zone, and to the peripheral areas to the southeast. These may be presented in more detail than may seem necessary, but the intent is to provide sufficient data for an independent judgment of the conclusions.

Not everyone will want to go through the detailed descriptions of the excavations. Chapter 10 summarizes the preceding chapters by briefly stating the objectives before presenting a detailed discussion of the statistical analyses. Following the statistical presentation, the residence zone is characterized from the ceremonial center of Q’umarkaj to the defensive perimeter at Pakaman. The basic data that support interpretation of the features encountered are provided again, arranged by geographical relationship to the epicenter, and then further discussed by topics such as architecture, burials, and radiocarbon dates.

In the final chapter, Chapter 11, the findings summarized in Chapter 10 are explained in terms of the constituted community of Utatlán. The description of the site is discussed as it relates to the many topics raised in Chapters 1 and 2 regarding the archaeological interpretation of complex societies and the issues deemed important to our understanding of highland Guatemala archaeology and prehistory. It is my hope that the reader will understand the model of the constituted community, an emic construct, as it is applied to the community of Q’umarkaj. The findings are further discussed within the context of the regional hierarchy of sites, with a preliminary statement about the position of Q’umarkaj in the milieu of highland Guatemala on the eve of the Spanish conquest.

Acknowledgments

No work of this magnitude can be undertaken without the contributions of a great number of persons in addition to the author. I ask forgiveness in advance should I inadvertently overlook some of those who have assisted in the process from the initiation of the fieldwork in 1978 to the preparation of this manuscript. It is with some embarrassment that I note the inspiration for finally making the effort to publish this material came about through an otherwise unrelated inquiry. In July 2008, thirty years after the fieldwork, Dr. Helen Sorayya Carr, a friend and classmate from Tulane, inquired if there were faunal remains recovered from the excavations that might be of value in some of her work. In the correspondence she directed me to the publication of the work at Iximché by Roger Nance, Stephen Whittington, and Barbara Borg. The realization struck that it was time to recognize the responsibility to present the Utatlán data in a venue that would make these data and interpretations available to a wider audience. It was also appropriate to take this opportunity to update the theoretical foundations of the research as well as to thoroughly review the materials for accuracy and clarity.

The work at Utatlán, however, began in the 1970s with the studies of Robert Carmack on the K’iche’ Maya of highland Guatemala. He directed the projects at the Quiche Basin, and his work, along with the archaeologists from the State University of New York at Albany, John Weeks, John Fox, and Dwight Wallace, laid the foundation for this project, which was pursued under the supervision of Kenneth Brown at the University of Houston. Together this team created an atmosphere for rigorous scientific inquiry and provided valuable comments and insights on the design of the project and the interpretation of the findings. In addition, I credit the dialogue with and assistance of Teresita Majewski and Livingston Suttro, my professional colleagues who were also doing fieldwork in the Quiche Basin. I also had the able assistance of Dorothy Hosler, Diane Graham, Donna Lucco, and Valerie Hill, who served as graduate student assistants and carried out excavations, recorded and documented field observations, prepared field drawings and maps, and analyzed materials. Kris Brown was a valuable resource in the laboratory analysis of materials following field collection. In addition, the work could not have been successfully completed without the efforts and dedication of the K’iche’ Maya field crew under the able guidance of Juan Rojas.

The original fieldwork and report were done in partial fulfillment of requirements for a doctoral degree at the Tulane University of New Orleans, and credit belongs to Dan M. Healan, the committee chair; E. Wyllys Andrews V; and Munro S. Edmonson. Advice was also sought from and provided by Robert Wauchope, who had done pioneering work at Utatlán. He was an inspirational force, and I dedicated my dissertation to his memory. Additional assistance was provided by John Morony, ornithologist at the museum of the Louisiana State University, for identification of bird skeletal remains, and Leroy Corbitt, geologist at Eastern New Mexico University, for identification of the material used for molding copper ingots.

More recent efforts have benefited from the support of Robert Carmack and his colleagues at Albany, including Marilyn Masson and Walter Little. I reside in Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology has granted me status as a consulting scholar, enabling me to make use of their facilities, which has greatly aided the preparation of this manuscript. John Weeks is also at the museum and provided guidance and insight during this process. I also recognize the contributions of Raquel Macario and Marie Fulbert, archaeologists currently working at the site of Q’umarkaj, whose work has furthered the interpretive framework for the Utatlán residence zone.

The fieldwork was carried out over three decades ago and my life has taken many twists and turns since then. I first established a career in medicine, and now I am with Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc. I am grateful to my colleagues in this current profession for their understanding and support as my attention is, at times, diverted from medicine and health to archaeology and anthropology. On the other hand, the rigors of scientific inquiry required for medical and pharmaceutical publications have served as a model as I prepared this manuscript. It was easy, as a graduate student in the 1970s, to speculate where the Utatlán data could take us, but in this present volume I am careful about how the data are presented and what conclusions they support. These experiences in medical scientific writing have provided me with a perspective I did not fully appreciate when first presenting these data in the form of a dissertation, and I hope they give added value to this manuscript.

My family, especially my wife, Phyllis, was supportive both of the original fieldwork in Guatemala and of the time commitment required for preparation of this manuscript. My daughter, Leslie, was with us during the original fieldwork, and her presence was instrumental in our full participation in the community of Santa Cruz del Quiché. More recently my son, Gregory, accompanied Phyllis and me as we returned to Guatemala, and we were able to introduce him to the Maya people. The times were different in 1978, and the people of Santa Cruz del Quiché suffered much during the decade that followed. We were able to show Gregory that this is still a vibrant community that has grown considerably in recent years, and a place that truly appreciates its history and its culture. It is my hope that this volume on K’iche’ Maya archaeology further contributes to our understanding of the K’iche’ Maya of Guatemala.

Finally, I acknowledge that any research of this type cannot be undertaken without financial support. The work at Utatlán was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF-320-0803A). The photographic work, including the photo graphs within this manuscript, was supported by a grant from the National Geographic Society (NGC 77-356). The National Geographic Society has acknowledged that photographs taken during this fieldwork may be used in this publication.

UTATLÁN

1

The Greater Utatlán Project

A Constituted Community of a Late Postclassic Maya Capital

Hernando Cortes with his small army and native Indian allies conquered the Aztec in AD 1521, after which he received delegations from the indigenous groups in the Mayan regions. Cortes wrote to inform Emperor Charles V that he had sent Spanish and native delegates to the Pacific coastal areas 200 leagues distant from Tenochtitlán to learn about the towns of which he had heard, towns called Uclaclan and Guatemala (Mackie 1924: 12). The representatives returned to Cortes with more than 100 inhabitants of those cities, who, Cortes reports, pledged loyalty to the emperor. Thereafter, however, word was received that the Mayan natives were molesting the towns of Soconusco on the Pacific coast (Mackie 1924: 13). Pedro Alvarado was dispatched to the area at the end of AD 1523, with 120 horsemen, 300 foot soldiers (including crossbowmen and musketeers), and four pieces of artillery, accompanied by native allies (Mackie 1924: 14). It is from Alvarado’s expedition that we receive our first descriptions of the city and environs of Uclaclan, which Alvarado called Utlatan and we now call Utatlán or Q’umarkaj.

And they agreed to send and tell us that they gave obedience to our Lord the Emperor, so that I should enter the city of Utlatan, where they afterwards brought me, thinking that they would lodge me there, and then when thus encamped, they would set fire to the town some night and burn us all in it, without the possibility of resistance. And in truth their evil plan would have come to pass but that God our Lord did not see good that these infidels should be victorious over us, and there are only two ways of entering it; one of over thirty steep stone steps and the other by a causeway made by hand, much of which was already cut away, so that that night they might finish cutting it, and no horse could then have escaped into the country. As the city is very closely built and the streets very narrow, we could not have stood it in any way without either suffocating or else falling headlong from the rocks when fleeing from the fire. And as we rode up and I could see how large the stronghold was, and that within it we could not avail ourselves of the horses because the streets were so narrow and walled in, I determined at once to clear out of it on to the plain, although the chiefs of the town asked me not to do so, and invited me to seat myself and eat before I departed, so as to gain time to carry our their plans. (Alvarado 1924: