Reprinted from

Interaction on the ~.

Southeast Mesoamerican " Frontier

Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador

edited byI.

~

Eugenia J. Robinson

" BAR International Series 327 1987

B.A.R. 5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

,.

..

GENERAL EDITORS

A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. n.R. Walker, M.A.

B.A.R. -S327. 1987: 'Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier' , Price £ 25. 00 post free throughout the world. Payments made in dollars must be calculated at the current rate of exchange and $8.00 added to cover exchange charges. Cheques should be made payable to B.A.R. and sent to the above address . .

•

~ The Individual Authors, 1987.

ISBN 0 86054 419 2

For details of all new B.A.R. publications in print please write to the above address. Information on new titles is sent regularly on request, with no obligation to purchase.

Volumes are distributed from the publisher. All B.A.R. prices are inclusive of postage by surface mail anywhere in the world.

Printed in Great Britain

"

..

• • 1

11 ..

COBBLE CROSSROADS: GUALJOQUITO ARCHITECTURE AND

EXTERNAL ELITE TIES

Wendy Ashmore

A guiding rationale behind forming the Santa Barbara Project was the study of the long-term effects of intercultural interactions. The Central Santa Barbara area was deemed an apt locale for such study since it straddles the junction of several maj or natural corridors that should logically have linked the culturally diverse prehispanic populations known from surrounding zones. Many portions of these surrounding zones have been subject to archaeological investigation in recent years, so the data base for comparisons has grown and is still expanding explosively. And our project's research has confirmed that interaction between Central Santa Barbara and these neighboring zones was continuous and pronounced.

Such interaction is most commonly examined through pottery and other artifacts, and Urban and Smith (this volume) have traced that record in the Central Santa Barbara ceramic assemblage. Elsewhere, Urban and Schortman (in press, n.d.) have examined a more inclusive array of cultural features to identify Central Santa Barbara's exter­nal cultural connections, particularly in Late Classic times, and the kinds of social interaction these may portend. In this paper, the focus narrows again, to the examination of architecture, and more specifically, elite architecture at the small center of Gua1joquito.

The Santa Barbara Project Focus

A specific goal of the project was to evaluate the contention that development of social complexity is stimulated in large part by stresses from increased information load and concomitant selection favoring development of specialists and institutions to handle that load (e.g., Flannery 1972; Wright and Johnson 1975; Johnson 1978, 1982; for fuller discussion of these ideas in relation to the design of the Santa Barbara Project, see Schortman et a1., 1986; Urban and Schortman 1984; Ashmore and Benyo 1984; Schortman, this volume). When the society under study occupies a communication crossroads, the critical increases in information flow derive most likely from height­ened trade, proliferation of alliances, and increases in volume of other kinds of materials and ideas passing along the corridors joined at the crossroads. The localized emergence of a crossroads elite, who managed the information flow, would be linked in time to the growth of the overall communication network, and in strength, to the composite florescence of the multiple neighboring polities involved in the network. To the extent that the crossroads managers derived their power from positive (i.e., noncompetitive) ties to stronger external groups, they would also look to the latter groups as sources for symbols in, for example, costuming, staffs of office. and/or public rituals for asserting their authority and potency. Certainly, not all such symbols would need be externally derived: legitimation of local authority might well depend on maintaining traditions (and kinship ties) with local roots. Still, symbolic claims to authority could be

28

•

,

..

,

IF-SOlInEAST MESOAMERICA N

MAG

o 100 100 KM III I! I I I

C~AllIU

Figure 1. Map of Southeast Mesoamerica.

most widely understood if expressed at least in part through recogniz­able styles and established customs identified with other, more

I. powerful groups. These styles and customs would outline successful models for how to be proper managers, provide trappings through which to increase local prestige, and serve as means of showing visiting, elite that locals knew the etiquette of rulership (cf., Helms 1979; Freidel 1979, 1983; Schortman 1980, 1984, 1986). Furthermore, more powerful source models should show up more strongly in the evolving symbol system of the crossroads elite.

In the case of Central Santa Barbara (Fig. 1), the crossroads involves the Ulua River as a north-south corridor, plus its major western tributary, the Jicatuyo River, plus an overland pass eastward from near the confluence of these two rivers to the northwest shore of Lake Yojoa. The societies potentially in contact via these routes would have included the culturally diverse populations of Copan (e.g., Baudez 1983; Fash 1983; Gerstle, this volume), the Sula Valley (e.g., Henderson 1983; Joyce 1985, this volume; Robinson this volume), Los Naranjos (Baudez and Becquelin 1973), and the Comayagua Valley, (e.g., Agurcia 1986), as well as farther-flung societies, such as those of the El Cajon region of the Sulaco and Humuya Rivers (e.g., Hirth 1982; Messenger 1984; Benyo 1986). Gualjoquito. the most elaborate site known in this portion of Central Santa Barbara, occupies 8 hectares of naturally circumscribed Ulua frontage that are about as close as one• can get simultaneously to all four arms of the crossroads. If the working model is correct, the evolution of the political and economic hierarchy at Gualjoquito should reflect the gross florescence and decline of the network as a whole. Furthermore, local elite culture should include influences from varied outside sources, but its symbols

29

of authority and identity should prominently include publicly visible reference to customs of its most highly developed neighbors, the Maya of Copan.

But where should one look for such references? There is a bur­geoning theoretical literature on the complex roles of "style ll as markers of social identity, focused especially on what these roles are (as deliberate expressions or otherwise; e.g •• Sackett 1973. 1982). and what media are appropriate for particular kinds of expression (Hodder 1982; Wobst 1977; Wiessner 1983, 1984). In the present con­text, it is style as the conscious and deliberate communication of group identity that we seek to recognize, to address the question: With whom did the Gualjoquito elite believe (or wish) thelnselves to be identified? While many important and stylistically specifiable symbols for communicating authority would have been intangible (e.g., gestures and postures), or represented materially by perishable items (e.g., clothing), other such symbols are preserved in the archaeological record. Architecture, in particular, provides a clear, durable, and very public medium for expression of identity.

In itself, "monumental architecture ll is usually taken to imply some degree of concentration of power (e.g., Price 1978), because it points to mobilization of labor as well as centralized planning and direction of construction work. But architecture also lends itself to explicit messaging (e.g., Douglas 1972; Fernandez 1979), and by being fixed, visible, and imposing, monumental architecture is particularly suited to conveying public messages. Insofar as it defines the arenas for particular, specified ac tivities, it becomes emblematic of and lends emphasis to those activities (Kuper 1972): holding a moot court in a real courtroom heightens the impact of the proceedings, while placing a television news correspondent on location in front of the Pentagon or the White House adds implicit credence to reporting about what goes on inside. Being performed in the appropriate space helps certify an action as correct.

More broadly, architecture by its very nature molds and humanizes the landscape (Andrews 1975; Rapoport 1982). It takes unordered natural space and redefines or channels its use. Indeed, the con­structed result is often interpretable as a microcosm, a statement of that culture's beliefs about the way the world is, or should be, properly arranged (Wheatley 1971; Benson 1981; Leach 1983; Fritz 1978, 1986). Whether the scale of the social group involved is a household ora whole community, its architecture usually underscores the "right­ness ll of the social order: for example, facilities pertaining to the leader (husband/father in a household; chief of a local society; etc.) are located in positions associated with strength and power (e.g., on the east; adjacent to access to deities; etc.), with other attributes (e. g., shape, orientation, decoration) that reinforce the message. These complex architectonic statements may be deciphered along politi ­calor religious lines, or perhaps more properly both at once.

The style of the statements can potentially inform further, about the self-proclaimed identity of those who directed the building projects. That is. given adequ~te characterization and interpretation of individual traditions of architectural style, specific forms of architecture, including constituent materials, construction tech­niques, three-dimensional style, individual plan templates, and

, ,

•

..

30

f

" II.

•

•

overall site layout, can indicate whose view of the world and of its proper structuring is being followed. Monumental and public architec­ture thus provides not the sole avenue, but a potentially productive one, for examining the affiliations of elite populations.

As a caveat, let me hasten to recognize that even in architec­ture, not all aspects of style represent self-conscious messages and the line between stylistic and other alternative factors (e.g., availability of particular materials) can sometimes be indistinct. Still, architecture has, to paraphrase Wobst (1977), lost its signal­ing innocence: not all aspects embody intentional messages, but we believe that some do, and that at Gualjoquito, some of the affiliative expressions can be deciphered.

Our specific propositions, then, are that (1) the rise and fall of elite society at the Gualjoquito crossroads was linked most closely to the developmental trajectory of its most expansively powerful and presumably most information-hungry neighbor, Copan; and (2) the development of elite architectural styles at Gualjoquito will reflect more options derived from Copan than from other neighbors. Examination of architectural stratigraphy and form at Gualjoquito can address both parts of the proposition.

Data Base

Before proceeding with a period-by-period discussion of Gualjo­quito's growth and elaboration, a few words are necessary to indicate the nature of the data sample. The site consists of 8 hectares of alluvial terrace, occupied by a total of 48 known prehispanic struc­tures. First mapped in 1982, under emergency salvage conditions, by George Hasemann and Russell Sheptak, the elite center was recleared and remapped in 1983 by Patricia Urban and Edward Schortman. At this time several new features were recognized, including the outsets of a potential ballcourt (Fig. 2).

In its final, Late Classic form, the site consists of a series of plaza groups. The organizational scheme is dominated in its north half by two (or perhaps three) large open plazas, to the north, west and southeast of Str. 12. The latter's 5.5 m height makes it the tallest structure as well as a clear visual focus (Fig. 3). To the south of these formalized open spaces there are a series of more enclosed patio groups, the least accessible one at the site being also the most architecturally elaborate complex, Group I (Fig. 4). Because of the layout, seclusion, and relative grandeur of Group I (Structures 1-5 and 13), it is presumed to have housed the local sovereign family. In its final form, it also boasts an apparent ballcourt along its west flank. Compounds adjacent to Group I are believed to have housed lesser elite living in the center. Residences of the larger support­ing populace cluster in four barrio-like divisions beyond the elite center proper, and are described separately in this volume by Schortman .

The data for the present analysis derive from the mapped informa­tion, plus excavation data acquired in the 1983-1985 seasons of the Santa Barbara Proj ect. Some remains in each group were tested. For reasons outlined more fully elsewhere (Schortman et al., 1983, 1985,

31

30 D (,)28

0 28 F.'.J GUALJOOUITO (sa 2)

DEPARTMENT OF SANTA BARBARA, HONDURAS 037 , 35 r

W" 34 \,.­11

~21 F.3

C 27 38 380

:2P ­31 10

c:::l F.14 \ ".ZI (:..33

32\l ~ 28 < 3 20

18 -U'Y1~ I F.1

~ 25 0 1

11i \fV ~~d un ~ ..~ \,\\\3/, •. '0'.U, \ . 24 7 "'" / I \ F.9 ---';~-.l1 ! :1 \ ...F.12 'I" \ 13

1\ \ \ ~ _--~ ~ 2!',.---- -­3·1l~41 \!...-___-=--~ 8 40 15 23

F.15 ItN r:: 42

43?-0 44 •o

45 0 48

F.18

o mOm47~ I I

Figure 2. Gualjoquito, Department of Santa Barbara, Honduras.

1986; Ashmore et a1., 1984), the excavations tended to emphasize concerns with chronology; clearing of terminal features was pursued when possible. The resulting sample has good spatial dispersal, and provides an outline of the sequence of growth within the site; but, as is often the case, the sample has a temporal bias in favor of later remains when it comes to architectural detail. ..

Chronology of occupation is expressed in terms of four periods: Late Preclassic, Early Classic, Late Classic and Early Postclassic. Th~se are identified and dated by gross ceramic associations, with corroboration from a small number of radiocarbon age assessments

32

• • .. •

U1 r'f rt

f"W I>

'i 0 2t

r""t ::5"". !(,

rt t-'~ r .~

l": r" rt -0 () IT It M

;:r I\)

tt) {P

",r-: t-J­r'):E:

;~)-.

...... C

f-1'-,

'i 0 ;:l rt

'i () r,b C'"'-' ~

(Table 1). There were partial or total interruptions of settlement in the center between each pair of periods. As the Early Postc1assic occupation seems to have comprised squatter groups, who erected little or no architecture, they will not be discussed here (for descriptions, see Ashmore et a1., 1984; Schortman et a1., 1986). Rather, I shall focus on periods of ascendance, when aspirations and positive thinking were high, and the wherewithal to make architectural expressions was present. Dates for all ages and transitions remain quite approximate, but the general outlines of growth are nonetheless tantalizing.

Late Preclassic

Despite an Olmec-style mask shown us in 1985 and said to have come from just south of our project's study area, the earliest firm evidence of occupation in Central Santa Barbara is identified with Late Preclassic ceramics, such as Izalco Usulutan. Although stylisti ­cally this occupation could be as early as 400 B.C., the three pertinent radiocarbon dates suggest an age in or near the first cen­tury A.D. (see Table 1 and Ashmore et a1., 1984; Schortman et a1., 1985). This makes it roughly contemporary with Rio Pelo in the Sula Valley, with which Gauljoquito at that time shared some mortuary practices, including footless corpses, that were extended supine, and sometimes were accompanied by human long bones as funerary offerings (Ashmore 1985:6; Schortman et a1 .• 1985:9; Wonderley 1985:6).

No architecture, as such. is known to survive from this period in the site's history, although one very large midden and several smaller features have been documented. As Schortman notes (this volume), only two other nearby sites are known to have been occupied at this time, and Gualjoquito may well have been the largest and most complex settlement h~ the immediate area. Still, it clearly paled in compari­son with the roughly contemporary Baide site in the Tencoa valley (Benyo and Melchionne, this volume), with its three imposing earthen platforms, each 4-6 m high. By this time, as well, neighboring lo­cales, such as Los Naranj os by Lake Yoj oa (Baudez and Becquelin 1973:75) or Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley (Healy 1984:135), could boast monumental constructions of two to three times that magnitude, and thus presumably markedly more complex societies. In light of our model, however, we believe it is significant that this was a time of .decline for the society resident in the Copan Valley (Fash 1983); presumably, then, at least the Jicatuyo arm of the crossroads saw relatively little traffic.

Early Classic

It is with the Early Classic, whose beginning is dated cerami­cally in Central Santa Barbara to as early as A.D. 200, that Gualjo­quito provides its first architectural data--and along with these, the first indices of elite-center status. Several structures that later served as components of presumed elite-residential groups (e.g., Strs. 1, 5, 16, 24, 38, and perhaps 6, 17 and 21) had their earliest version sometime in this period. Like virtually all Gua1joquito archi­tecture, these substructures were built of a combination of earth and stone (mostly the ubiquitously available river cobbles), and apparent­ly bore superstructures of perishable materials, watt1e-and-daub walls

~

, •

,

\

34

•

•

" •

•

•

TABLE 1. Chronological Framework for Gualjoquito

Period and Time Span Radiocarbon Dates from Gualjoquito Contexts* Estimated from Ceramic Crossties

Late Preclassic A.D. 0 + 50/60 (DIC-3275:charcoal, lot 9C/l) (400 B.C.-A.D. 200) A.D. 30 + 410/440 (DIC-28ll:charcoal, lot 4B/14)

A.D. 90 +100/110 (DIC-3l39:charcoal, lot 6A/9)

Early Classic A.D. 360 + 50 (DIC-28l3:charcoal, lot 5H/55) (A.D. 200-600) A.D. 560 ±80/70 (DIC-3046:charcoal, lot 6A/6)

Late Classic A.D. 530 + 70 (DIC-3274:charcoal, lot 3G/33) (A.D. 600-850) A.D. 600 + 50/60 (DIC-3272:charcoal, lot 3G/16)

A.D. 670 + 60/50 (DIC-3273:charcoal, lot 3G/32) A.D. 680 ±80/70 (DIC-3045:charcoal, loe 3C/9)

* All dates are uncorrected. Sample DIC-28ll was very small. Sam­ples DIC-28l3, DIC-3045, DIC-3272, DIC-3273, and DIC-3274 came from construction fill contexts (although DIC-3272 through DIC­3274 yielded overlapping age ranges, their central dates do ful­fill stratigraphic expectations, and represent a sequence of fill lots in Str. 5). Sample DIC-3275 came from near the top of a pit containing fire-altered stones but no ceramics or other debris. All other samples were from middens. Four additional dates, not reported here, involved shell samples; each was discrepant by about a millennium from ceramic-based expectations (see Ashmore et al., lS~4).

and thatched roofing. These constructional attributes are common in prehispanic Honduran sites; they presumably reflect not only wide­spread custom but also the nature of available building resources.

Orientations of the structures, insofar as they were evident, were approximately equivalent to the later versions' and at least the earliest form of Str. 16 already showed a central outset to the base of its front side (Fig. 5), a characteristic that was to persist in Central Santa Barbara's substructure plans. The suggestion is that at least part of the site plan, along with other elements of architectur­al tradition, was set in these Early Classic times. Most important for our consideration, however, are the indications that the two most imposing architectural features of the site, Str. 12 and Group I, also had their origins at this time, and had formal attributes that suggest specific external links.

Str. 12 and the platform appended to its north side both con­tained Early Classic versions; the platform takes on extra implicit importance from 2 attributes. First, it was never buried by later construction; only one other known Early Classic feature at the site (the tiny Str. 38) can demonstrably make the same claim. Moreover, in the case of the Str. 12 platform, its own size and the later continued elaboration of Str. 12 itself together suggest the platform took on some tradition of importance (ritual or other), that made its contin­

35

~

Figure 5. Early Classic Str. 16- Figure 6. Late Classic Str. 24­3rd, showing edge of basal out­ 2nd, showing edge of summit out­set in right foreground. set at right side of trench.

• •

Figure 7. Late Classic Str. 5-lst, Figure 8. Late Classic Str. 2­from Str. 3, showing outset basal 2nd, showing floor, bench, and

base of rear wall.

uing visibility and/or accessibility of value to local residents. ,In this regard, I would reiterate that Str. 12 and its platform defined the focus for two or even three probably public arenas. at least by the Late Classic, so that visibility/accessibility of the pair would have been and remained high. ...

Furthermore, the surface of the north platform, especially on the west or front, was nearly devoid of stone, as was its fill. These technological and formal characteristics differentiate the platform

36

?~

ill

•

, •

t

•

from other constructions at the site, but recall the larger and earlier earthen constructions at the Baide site in Tencoa, as well as Str. 1 at Los Naranjos (by then ca., 18.5 m high) or the main mound at Yarume1a.

While these architectonic models may well have been important for those directing the Gua1joquito builders, there are attributes of Group I (especially in combination with features of Str. 12 and its platform) that point more tantalizingly to models in Copan. Specifi ­cally, the earliest version of Group I was established in this period, and already it consisted of a formal and elaborate p1aster- or stucco­surfaced court flanked by Str. 1 (Fig. 9) on the west and Str. 5 (Fig. 10) on the north. (Excavations did not penetrate Group I' s east and south flanks to a degree sufficient to test for the presence of Early Classic structures there.) Early Classic Str. 1 could be cleared only over the eroded bottom steps of the court (east) side of the substruc­ture: they were exposed to a height of .58 m (total structure height remains unknown) and were constructed of a mix of cobbles and roughly cut blocks. Early Classic Str. 5, however, was partially cleared on its substructure summit: it rose 1.3 m above the plaster plaza, in cobble steps, and the superstructure featured walls whose lower reaches were built of cobbles, plus an interior floor of the same plaster as the plaza.

There are no known local precedents for these forms and tech­niques. The whole, however, does recall the earliest features of the South Sector of the Main Plaza at Copan. In the latter, as in Early Classic Group I at Gua1joquito, excavations revealed an elaborate plaster court surface (Feature 17) for an elite residential group incorporating cut-block construction. Cheek (1983a:203-234, Figs. C-3, C-6) places thjs Copan complex in his Stage VII, Phases 18-16, in the Main Plaza sequence, and attributes an age of ca., A.D. 300-375 for the stage as a whole. By Phase 17, the court was flanked by structures on all four sides, and by the final phase (16) of Stage VII, sometime after A.D. 350. there was another structure farther north (Str. 10L-sub-1; cf. Gua1joquito's north platform of Str. 12) mediating be­tween this group and earth-surfaced public plazas beyond. At Copan the complex also includes one of the earliest ba11courts (A-1) in the southern Maya area.

Except for the ba11court, this overall arrangement is assuredly reminiscent of the overall Early Classic Eden II layout of the much more imposing Main Group at Los Naranjos. But Baudez and Becque1in (1973: 76) infer stylistic influences from farther north and west in Mesoamerica for at least the patio-group layout of small structures crowning the mound of Str. IV there (let alone their inference of antecedent La Venta 01mec influence on the putatively "fluted" Str. 1). I would tentatively infer that the whole Main Group layout derives from a cosmologically based template for elite architecture already current in the Maya area, and which reached greater elaboration there and in adjoining regions as the Classic period progressed (cf., Ashmore 1983, 1986). .

Returning to Gua1joquito. we are thus left with two seemingly good models for deriving the forms and layout of known Early Classic elite architecture. Los Naranjos is plausible, but I would favor Copan, primarily for two specific stylistic attributes, both lacking

37

--_..t..I'>..:::..W

STU 165­

1"- --.------ __ --r-i163 ­

162 ­ f'I, '. --­...,ir~:;;r.---~--r. 161- ~ :: ~ 1:;---;:rr- CI:160- ~-. 159­M

o 5M

I I

Figure 9. Schematic section through Str. 1 and Group I plaza. Key: a = preconstruction colluvium; b = cobble pavement (or ballast for c?); c "" plaster plaza surface; d = Early Classic Str. 1; e = ruin mound over d; f, f' fIt = components of cobble fill of Late Classic plaza; h, i, k = Late Classic versions of Str. 1 (k eroded to 1980's mound contour); j = base of final construction on west side of Str. 1.

N..::::l -187p. -188""---1- ~- - -: -185SiR.S ~'"--:..: ....... f~~ -164

~~ _:...,.--:F-- .~. 1., ___ ) j-=~~="·-·=--"""-"··~:··-.i-"-·"-"· -183 h I f e '"w"ij7··,.'w.... f -182

-161 g-'" ...a-'" b·- -180o SM -159

I I I M

Figur'e 10. Schematic section through Str. 5 and Group I plaza. Key: a "" preconstruction alluvium; b = extrapolated position of preconstruction alluvium (based on plaza excavations as shown in Figure 9); c "" plaster plaza surface (extrapolated position); d = interior plaster floor of Early Classic Str. 5; e = back wall of Early Classic Str. 5; f = debris from burning and collapse of Early Classic Str. 5; g "" Late Classic ground level; h-j, k-l, m-n = components of sequent Late Classic versions' of Str. 5; p = looter's pit, ca., 1980; q = mound contour (summit portions include some looter spoil).

at Los Naranjos and present at Copan. The first is the use of cut­stone blocks (although mixed with cobbles in wall faces) and the second is the elaborate multi~layered plaster floor, whose construc­tion technique parallels that described by Cheek (1983a: 223; 1983b:324) for Early Classic Copan. Granted, Gualjoquito seems to lack a ballcourt; I am skeptical that further testing might discover one

38

,

• ..

,

-

I

~

e

there in this time period. But the two traits cited--cut blocks and brilliant plaster surfacing--are both at least potentially highly visible attributes, that could have been "shown off," if less to the local populace (who wouldn't likely have seen the original models either) than, perhaps more pertinently, to distinguished visitors from other elite capitals. This might have been a small center, but it had "style," in the colloquial sense.

Chronological evidence also supports the inferred Copan connec­tion, at least circumstantially. At Cualjoquito, excavations did not penetrate the cores 0f individual Early Classic structures of Group I, so whether they had mUltiple sequent versions or not we cannot now say. We are certain, however, that there was only one Early Classic plaster plaza. Evidence for abandonment of Group I and its subsequent erosion was recorded in excavations of both Strs. 1 and 5, and in-the latter case, this was associated with a fire and s'.1perstructura1 collapse. Apparently buried in the debris was a smashad a~cl uneroded polychrome vase, whose style suggests the building collepse took place early in the Late Classic (personal cOtmllunication I'etricia Urban, 1985). perhaps around A.D. 600. If we are correct in assuming that the Early Classic Group I was essentially unmodified by new construction during its use, an initial construction date later thad the 4th century A.D. would seem more plausible and would correlate better with the state of preservation of the buildings and plaza, Cheek argues that the Main Group at Copan was an important elite center by the 4th century, but Copan seems to have "taken off" in political and economic expansion sometime after A.D. 400, during the Acbi ceramic phase (e. g., Fash 1983). If Gua1joquito' s prosperity was as derivative of Copan as we believe it to have been, I would think, and there is nothing in the Gualjoquito data to negate this, their big boost and probably the onset of Group I construction took place in the 4th or even the 5th (:entury.

Late Classic

As already mentioned, Gua1joquito's Group I was abandoned for a period of unspecified length during the Classic. Early in this period, perhaps in the beginning of the 7th century, the plaster plaza was pierced by an excavation more than a meter across, adjacent to the base of the east side of Str. 1 (Fig. 9). Eugenia Robinson (personal cotmllunication 1986) suggests a stone monument could have been removed from this hole, and cites as potential comparison a surely-identified monument foundation in a similar position on the east side of Late Classic Str. 4D-2, Sitio Amaya, in the Sula Valley (Robinson 1985). Lacking other evidence of monuments at Gualjoquito, however, it is as probable the hole represents disinterment of a cache. Whatever the item removed, it left no trace beyond the hole. Str. 1 fell to ruin,a small mound formed over it, extending out onto the plaza surface (Fig. ge). Nor was any repair undertaken at burned and collapsed Str. 5 (Fig. 10d-f). Other structures at the site give some parallel sugges­tions of abandonment, but none are so unambiguous or dramatic. Schortman (this volume) notes only slight evidence of decline in the Gualjoquito hinterland at this time, and perhaps even within the elite center itself, only the paramounts suffered serious difficulties. At any rate, a marked Late Classic renaissance followed, its precise date of onset equiv0cal but the drama of refocusing power undeniable.

39

Copan, too, underwent a temporary decline, in the first three-quarters of the 7th century (i.e., A.D. 600-675; Cheek 1983b:336), after which it reached its greatest florescence, politically, economically and demographically (e.g., Fash 1983); we believe the two courses are causally related.

What are some of the characteristics of the Late Classic archi­tecture at Gualjoquito? Most visible construction there pertains to this period, and again construction involves primarily earth and cobbles in substructures, with perishable superstructures. Fill for the substructures combined earth and cobbles, too, in varying ratios, and the examination of this variation is of some interest. Schortman has noted that the highest stone-to-earth ratios are observed in the otherwise most impressive constructions, especially Group 1. Indeed, the most prominent component of Late Classic construction there was the raising of the 28 x 30 m plaza surface a total of 1. 75 m. Con­struction pens of solid cobble fill were used t'1 achieve this new elevation, incorporating a f ill volume of 1470 m • Str. 2, on the>

south side of the Group I court, was built virtually solidly of cobbles as well, in all four of its Late Classic versions. At Copan, a Late Classic temporal shift in stone-to-earth ratios to near absence of earth has been suggested to represent adoption of a more efficient construction technique (Cheek 1983b:326). At Gualjoquito, however, it looks more like conspicuous consumption of labor in a synchronic frame. In both locales, the use of self-contained pens as construction units may signal divisions keyed to work crews (ibid. :327) but at least at Gualjoquito, its use was one of a rather smaller number of means available to the local powerholders for emphasizing who was in charge.

Late Classic Gualjoquito elite did not use plaster or cut-blocks anymore, and in some ways the evidence for external stylistic links of any kind is more diffuse. There are no dramatically distinctive features like the ramp of Yojoa-phase Str. IV of Los Naranjos (Baudez and Becquelin 1973; cf., Andrews 1976 on ramps at Quelepa, El Salva­dor). Rather, access is by the more common means of projecting cen­tered stairs, lacking balustrades. Building plans, where documented, continue the central frontal substructure outset described for the Early Classic (Figs. 5, 6, 7). This is a characteristic found else­where' in Central Santa Barbara, but within the Gualjoquito area, occurs only in relatively elaborate sites and structures. Rear sub­structure facades are often markedly steeper than front ones (e.g., Strs. 6, 24), and ascent on both sides is in vertical rather than sloping increments.

What evidence for external influence is there, in or beyond these rather general descriptors? Although these attributes can be observed in Late Classic domestic architecture in, for example, the Sepulturas sector of Copan, they do not at present seem sufficiently distinctive criteria to serve as further evidence of linkage between that site and Gualjoquito. Indeed, citing an array of material cultur­al traits, Urban and Schortman (in press) argue that during the Late Classic, Gualjoquito and Central Santa Barbara generally fall within a highland-based interaction sph~re, which also included Copan. There are some attributes at Late Classic Gualjoquito, however, that are related to relatively public display by elite managers, that I believe

40

~

•

•

,

'J

&

•

do indicate self-conscious expressions of identity and assertions of self-importance.

These are, again, most pronounced in Group I and in the general layout of the site; they are consequently attributes quite likely to have been under control of the presumed paramounts resident in Group I. Those individuals, in turn, would have been the local residents most prone to seek external models for their symbolic expressions of power. While some of the Late Classic architectonic messages simply identify the holders of local supremacy, others were intended to place the local sovereigns in a larger, Copan-oriented hierarchy. If the following inferences are accepted, they will further suggest that the final forms of Group I and of Gualjoquito overall probably date to near the end of Copan's history, during the reign of its last named ruler, Madrugada. This accords with our previous assertion that the two centers collapsed at close to the same time, shortly after A.D. 800.

Wi th respect to Group I, we have already noted the prominent centralization of power involved in refurbishment of its central court. Each of the Late Classic structures flanking its sides is also quite substantial, in itself. and of the three that have been tested, each revealed multiple versions: Str. 1 had three Late Classic re­buildings; Str. 5, three, and Str. 2 (that built solidly of cobbles), four. Outside Group I, only Str. 12. the huge focal structure to the north, matched this frequency of renovation. If we posit that Gualjo­quito's Late Classic florescence coincided with that of Copan (i.e •• ca., A.D. 680-850), this implies reconstruction every 45-60 years; if the two spans were not equivalent, Gualjoquito's was more likely shorter, and thus the rates higher than those cited. Absolute expendi­tures for materials and labor for the renovations would certainly not have been outTageously high. Rather, the point is that neither fre­quency nor scale of remodeling is matched in other compounds, no were the superseded structures always in obvious need of repair when they were replaced. The bottom line here, as with the plaza raising at the outset of the Late Classic renaissance, is that the Group I renova­tions appear to represent conspicuous consumption of resources, and thereby served to reinforce the local political and economic pre­eminence of the residents of that group.

Furthermore, the overall form of Group I specifically resembles Late Classic elite residential units of Copan, such as Plaza A of Group 9N-8 (Webs ter and Abrams 1983: Figs. I, 2), and one detail of Group I architecture suggests affiliation with Madrugada's Copan in a tantalizing way. Of the three Group I structures probed, that with the clearest bench (Fig. 8) was Str. 2, on the south side of the court. It is certainly true that benches are features with fairly wide distribu­tion in southeast Classic-period Mesoamerica. Still I believe it may be significant that the most pronounced bench in Group I was found in the southern structure and that the latter likely represents the greatest labor and material expenditures in the group. That is, one is tempted to recall the southern position and bench endowment of several recently excavated elite residential compounds in the Sepulturas area of Copan (Willey, Leventhal and Fash 1978; Fash 1983; Webster and Abrams 1983). In the latter cases, glyphic inscriptions on the benches inqicate construction during the reign of Madrugada for one of his close affiliates. Furthermore, at least for Str. 9N-82 (Webster and

41

Abrams 1983), the exterior of the building was also adorned with elaborate sculpture. A similar situation is found at Quirigua, in the final arrangement of the Acropolis, or Group lB-l (Jones, Ashmore and Sharer 1983; Riese 1986), where the southern building bore elaborate facade sculptures, including a glyphic text, and the interior of the same building (Str. lB-l) had a glyphic bench. This building, too, pertained to Madrugada's reign and marked a period during which ties between Copan and Quirigua were positive and strong. While it is true that Gualjoquito has neither hieroglyphs nor sculpture, the pairing of the clearest bench and greatest construction investment in Late Classic Group I's southern structure invites comparisons with poten­tial counterparts at the larger Maya centers. Although the compari'pns must, for now, remain speculation, I believe they may be significant of continuing links between Gualjoquito and Copan.

Finally, there is Gualjoquito' s Late Classic site layout. The basics were probably set down in Early Classic times, and the focal elements in the overall plan were apparently preserved and elaborated (again, Group I and Str. 12, with its north platform). Other elements are demonstrably later in origin, such as the miniscule Str. 48 in the middle of the Group V plaza. But the overall plan remained visible, and I would argue again that this is most likely a reflection of a Maya template with Preclassic roots, pairing a residential/ secular south with a usually elevated public/ceremonial north, often with a ballcourt as the mediating point between the two (Ashmore 1983, 1986). This is a southern Mesoamerican cosmogram, mapping north as the heavens and south as the surface of the earth (or sometimes, the underworld), with the ballcourt as the entry to the underworld. The compound of the sovereign is thereby placed on the surface of the earth, immediately adjacent to and thereby controlling access to the door to the underworld, a position of consummate power, to be sure (cf., Gillespie 1985). At Copan, as at Tikal, the template was ex­pressed at multiple scales (Ashmore 1983), including not only the combined Main Plaza, Acropolis and Ballcourt A of the Main Group, but also a much larger version, some two kilometers across. In the latter, the northern apex of the arrangement is located in the foothills on the north side of the valley, and the east and west limits of the northern precinct are linked by a pair of causeways, each 1 km long, whose alignments meet at the pivotal Ballcourt A of the Main Group (cf., -Fash 1983: Fig. 7.6).

Gualjoquito's expression of the same template retained that north/south juxtaposition, although its Early Classic heritage skewed the expression in other ways. It also reinserted the ballcourt some­what belatedly, for the Gualjoquito "ballcourt" (defined by Strs. 1, 7 and 13) came into being only with the final version of Str. 1. The presence of ballcourts in other Late Classic non-Maya sites undermines exclusive attribution of Copan as inspiration for construction of one at Gualjoquito. Still, its incorporation there was nonetheless accom­modated into the proper Maya position within the whole, and it punctu­ated a powerful Maya-style statement about the clout of Group I' s occupants. It thus combines with other cited 'suggestions of Copan influence and, I believe, provides further support for the proposi­tions outlined at the beginning of this paper.

,.

•

,

42

'"

•

l.

~

•

Concluding Remarks

This has been a brief and necessarily superficial exploration of stylistic attributes of elite architecture at Gualjoquito. It is preliminary in many senses, but sets for the our working interpreta­tion of some ways in which those in control at Gualjoquito during its peak periods of growth expressed publicly and tangibly their affilia­tion with their more powerful neighbors. The last word on this matter is far from written.

A~knowledgements

The 1983-1985 seasons of the Santa Barbara Archaeological Project were conducted under contract with the Instituto Hondureno de Antropo­logia e Historia, then under direction of Lic. Ricardo Agurcia F. Financial support was generously provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities (RO-20544-83, RO-20753-84, RO-20862-85), the National Geographic Society (2596-83, 2818-84, 3013-85), Kenyon College and Rutgers University. I would personally like to thank the following individuals for support and encouragement in collection and interpretation of the data discussed in this paper: Edward M. Schortman, Patricia A. Urban, Julie C. Benyo, Sylvia M. Smith, Thomas L. Melchionne, Justine C. Staneko, Eugenia J. Robinson, and Robert J. Sharer. Any inaccuracies of reporting or inference are my own.

Bibliography

Agurcia F., R. 1986 Lat~ Classic Settlements in the Comayagua Valley. In:

The Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P. A. Urban and E. M. Schortman, pp. 262-274. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Andrews, E. W., V. 1976 The Archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador. Middle American

Research Institute, Publication 42. New Orleans: Tulane University.

Andrews, G. F. 1975 Maya Cities: Placemaking and Urbanization. Norman: Univer­

sity of Oklahoma Press.

Ashmore, W. 1983 Ideological Structure in Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns.

Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association, Chicago, Ill.

1985 Excavaciones en el Centro Selecto de Gualjoquito, Santa Barbara, Honduras, 1983-1985. Paper presented at the Tercero Seminario en Arqueologia Hondurena, Tela, Honduras.

1986 Peten Cosmology in the Maya Southeast: An Analysis of Architecture and Settlement Patterns at Classic Quirigua.

43

In: The Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P. A. Urban and E. M. Schortman, pp. 35-49. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ashmore, W. and J. C. Benyo 1984 Archaeological Research in West-central Honduras, 1983-84.

Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association, Denver. Colo.

Ashmore, W., P. A. Urban, E. M. Schortman and J. C. Benyo 1984 Santa Barbara Archaeological Project: 1984 Season. Report

submitted to the Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Baudez, C. F. (editor) 1983 Introduccion a la Arqueologia de Copan, Honduras. 3 vols.

Tegucigalpa: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo.

Baudez, C. F. and P. Becquelin 1973 Archeologie de Los Naranjos, Honduras. Collection Etudes

Mesoamericaines, 2. Mexico: Mission Archeologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique.

Benson, E. P. (editor) 1981 Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views. Washington D. C.: Dum­

barton Oaks.

Benyo, J. C. 1986 An Archaeological Investigation of Intra-Community Social

Organizations at La Ceiba, Department of Comayagua, Hondur­as Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Albany.

Cheek, C. D. 1983a Excavaciones en la Plaza Principal. In: Introduccion a 1a

Arqueologia de Copan, Honduras, edited by C. F. Baudez, pp. 191-289. Tegucigalpa: Secretaria de Estado en e1 Despacho de Cultura y Turismo.

1983b Las Excavaciones en la Plaza Principal, Resumen y Conclu­siones. In: Introduccion a la Arqueologia e Historia de Copan, Honduras, edited by C. F. Baudez, pp. 319-348. Tegucigalpa: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo.

Douglas, M. 1972 Symbolic Orders in the Use of Domestic Space. In: Man,

Settlement and Urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 513-521. London: Duckworth.

Fash, W. L •• Jr. 1983 Maya State Formation: A Case Study and its Implications.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

44

#

,

,

.,

I

,

II

Fernandez, J. W. 1979 Fang Architectonics. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study

of Human Issues.

Flannery, K. v. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426 •

Freidel, D. A. 1979 Culture Areas and Interaction Spheres: Contrasting Ap­

proaches to the Emergence of Civilization in the Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity 44:36-54.

1983 Political Systems in Lowland Yucatan: Dynamics and Struc­ture in Maya Settlement. In: Prehistoric Settlement Pat­terns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by E. Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 375-386. Albuquerque: Univer­sity of New Mexico Press.

Fritz, J. M. 1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Human Adapta­

tion in Prehistory. In: Social Archeology: Beyond Subsis­tence and Dating, edited by C. L. Redman, M. J. Berman, E. Curtin, W. Langhorne, Jr., N. Versaggi, and J. Wanser, pp. 37-59. New York: Academic Press.

1986 Vijayanagara: Authority and Meaning of a South Indian Imperial Capital. American Anthropologist 88:44-55.

Gillespie, S. D. 1985 Ballgames and Boundaries. Paper presented at the Interna­

tional Symposium on the Mesoamerican Ballgame and Ball ­courts, Tucson, Ariz.

Healy, P. F. 1984 The Archaeology of Honduras. In: The Archaeology of Lower

Central America, edited by F. W. Lange and D. Z. Stone, pp. 113-161. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Helms, M. 1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: Univer­

sity of Texas Press.

Henderson, J. S. (editor) 1983 Archaeology in Northwestern Honduras: Interim Reports of

the Proyecto Arqueologico Sula. vol 1. Ithaca: Inter­College Program in Archaeology, Cornell University.

Hirth, K. G. 1982 Excavaciones en Salitron Viejo: 1981. Yaxkin 5(1) :51-66.

Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, G. A. 1978 Information Sources and the Development of Decision-Making

Organizations. In: Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence

45

and Dating, edited by C. L. Redman~ M. J. Berman, E. Curtin, W. Langhorne, Jr., N. Versagg~, and J. Wanser, pp. 87-112. New York: Academic Press.

1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In: Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands, and B. Segreaves, pp. 389-421. London: Academic Press.

Jones, C. W., Ashmore, and R. J. Sharer 1983 The Quirigua Project: 1977 Season. In: Quirigua Reports,

Volume II, edited by E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban, pp. 1-38. Museum Monograph 49. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Joyce, R. A. 1985 Cerro Palenque. Valle del Ulua, Honduras:

Interaction on the Southern Mesoamerican dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Terminal Classic Periphery. Ph.D.

University of

Kuper, H. 1972 The Language of Sites in the

Anthropologist 74: 411-425. Politics of Space. American

Leach, E. R. 1983 The Gatekeepers of Heaven: Anthropological Aspects of

Grandiose Architecture. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:243-264.

Messenger, L. C. 1984 Excdvations at Guarabuqui, El Caj on, Honduras: Frontiers,

Culture Areas, and the Southern Mesoamerican Periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota.

Price, B. J. 1978 Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model. In:

Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolu­tion, edited by R. Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 161-186. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Rapoport, A. 1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communi­

cation Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Riese, B. 1986 Late Classic Relationship between Copan and Quirigua: Some

Epigraphic Evidence. In: The Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P. A. Urban and E. M. Schortman, pp. 94-101. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Robinson, E. J. 1985 Archaeological Investigations at Sitio Amaya, CR-356,

Choloma, Cortes, Sula Valley. Report submitted to the

r

~

""

46

I

'~

t

t

.4

II

i

• " 1

Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, Tegucigal­pa, Honduras.

Sackett, J. R. 1973 Style, Function, and Artifact Variability in Paleolithic

Assemblages. In: The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 317-325. London: Duckworth.

1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of An­thropological Archaeology 1:59-112.

Schortman, E. M. 1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Lower Motagua Valley.

Expedition 23 (1):23-34.

1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Lower Motagua Valley, Department of Izabal, Guatemala: A Study in Monumental Site Function and Interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

1986 Interaction between the Maya and Non-Maya along the Late Classic Southeast Maya Periphery: The View from the Lower Motagua Valley, Guatemala. In: The Southeast Maya Periph­ery, edited by P.A. Urban and E.M. Schortman, pp. 114-137. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schortman, E. M., P. A. Urban, and W. Ashmore 1983 Santa Barbara Archaeological Project: 1983 Season. Report

submitted to the Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, Tegucigalpa, Honduras .

Schortman, E. i1., P. A. Urban, W. Ashmore, and J. C. Benyo 1986 Interregional Interaction in the Southeast Maya Periphery:

The Santa Barbara Archaeological Project 1983-1984 Seasons. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:259-272.

Schortman, E. M. ,_ P. A. Urban, W. Ashmore, J. C. Benyo, J. M. Weeks, S. M. Smith, N. Black, J. S. Speaker, and T. L. Melchionne

1985 Santa Barbara Archaeological Project: 1985 Season. Report submitted to the Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Taladoire, E. 1981 Les Terrains de Jeu de Balle (Mesoamerique et Sud-ouest des

Etats-Unis). Collection Etudes Mesoamericanes, vol. 4. Mexico: Mission Archeologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique .

Urban, P. A., and E. M. Schortman 1984 The Development of Socio-Cultural Complexity in Central

Santa Barbara, Honduras: An Interregional Perspective. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting, American Anthropologial Association, Denver, Colo.

in press The Southeastern Zone Viewed from the East: Lower Motagua and Chamelecon. In: The Classic Maya Southeast, edited by

47

E. H. Boone and G. R. Willey. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

n.d. Copan and its Neighbors; Patterns of Interaction Reflected in Classic Period Western Honduran Pottery. Manuscript, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio.

Webster, D., and E. M. Abrams 1983 An Elite Compound at Copan, Honduras. Journal of Field

Archaeology 10:285-296.

Wheatley, P. 1971 The Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Preliminary Enquiry into

the Origins and Character of the Ancient Chinese City. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile

Points. American Antiquity 48:253-276.

1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archae­~ 3:190-234.

Willey, G. R., R. M. Leventhal, and W. 1978 Maya Settlement in

31(4):32-43.

L. Fash, Jr. the Copan Valley. Archaeology

Wobst, H. 1977

M. Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In: For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Anthropological Papers, 61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.

Wonderley, A. W. 1985 Late Preclassic Occupation at Rio Pelo, Yoro, Honduras.

Paper presented at the Tercero Seminario en Arqueologia Hondurena, Tela, Honduras.

Wright, H. T., and G. A. Johnson 1975 Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in South­

western Iran. American Anthropologist 77:267-289.

,

• ..

f

• ...,

"

48