Interpreting an Early Classic Pecked
Cross in the Candelaria Caves,
Guatemala: Archaeological and
Indigenous Perspectives
Brent Woodfill
Institute for Advanced Study at the University of Minnesota
Pecked crosses, a variant of a common Prehispanic American symbol often
referred to as a ‘‘quartered’’ or ‘‘quadripartite’’ circle, are commonly found in
central and northern Mexico during the florescence of Teotihuacan (ca. A.D.
100–650) and often interpreted as astronomical devices. The subject of this
article is a pecked cross found in the Candelaria Caves, Guatemala, one of
four examples that have been found to date in the Maya world. The author
interprets the symbol through two distinct lenses—first as an archaeologist
and then through its cosmological significance according to contemporary
Q’eqchi’ Maya daykeepers. Although the methodologies and approaches
differ, there is common ground between them—both point to the symbol’s
associations with ritual events, directionality, and the passage of time.
keywords Maya, Mesoamerica, ritual, Q’eqchi’, Maya religion, archaeoastron-
omy
Introduction
Located at the highland–lowland frontier in central Guatemala, the Candelaria
Caves (Figure 1) form the second largest cave system in Central America. First
brought to international attention in the 1970s (Dreux 1974), they have been host
to two separate archaeological reconnaissances (Carot 1976, 1989; Pope and
Sibberenson 1981) and one multi-year investigation conducted by the author
between 2000 and 2006 (Woodfill 2010; Woodfill and Andrieu 2012; Woodfill
and Monterroso 2007; Woodfill et al. 2004). A variety of evidence was
recovered—walls, platforms, caches, and large quantities of broken vessels,
human bones, and obsidian blades—all related to Precolumbian ritual activity.
Most of this ritual occurred during the latter part of the Early Classic period (ca.
ethnoarchaeology, Vol. 6 No. 2, October, 2014, 103–120
� W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1944289014Z.00000000019
A.D. 460–550), although limited ritual activity dates to the Late Preclassic (ca. 250
B.C.–A.D. 250) and Late Classic (ca. A.D. 600–900) periods.
One of the most intriguing archaeological features documented by Patricia
Carot (1976, 1989) in her initial investigation of the Candelaria Caves was a cross-
and-circle motif that was pecked directly into the bedrock of one of the river caves
(Figure 2). While the meaning of this symbol has been long debated (e.g., Astor
Aguilera 2012; Aveni 1989, 2000; Aveni and Hartung 1986; Aveni et al. 1978;
Coggins 1980; Ruggles and Saunders 1984), most of the recorded examples are
found at and around Teotihuacan (at least 44 have been found within the site
borders alone) during the Early Classic period (A.D. 250–600), so Aveni et al.
(1978) posited a connection with this Mexican metropolis. They continue to be
rare outside of highland Mexico, with the total known corpus in the Maya world
consisting of this example (Carot 1976, 1989) and three from Uaxactun (Aveni
et al. 1978, Smith 1950).1
Unfortunately, Carot was never able to fully document the pecked cross,
although she did photograph it and note its approximate location on her map of
the Candelaria system. Park guards relocated it in late 2011 and the author
documented the cross in April 2012 with a team composed of an archaeology
student from Guatemala and seven cavers. Two Q’eqchi’ elders from the region
accompanied the team along with several local tour guides and park guards, all of
whom are active participants in village ritual. This article stems from a
conversation that occurred between the two parties while standing above the
pecked cross, in which it was discussed both for its importance as an
archaeological feature and as a central symbol for contemporary Maya religion.
Description of the Candelaria pecked cross
The pecked cross is located in the El Mico cave in the central part of the
Candelaria system, carved into the bedrock well above the flood line of the
Candelaria River in the twilight zone of the cave, between the river and a large
sinkhole. While ambient light does enter to the pecked cross and beyond, only a
1 Wanyerka (1999) identified a potential pecked cross in Stann Creek, Belize, although it might be more properly
called a ‘‘pecked asterisk.’’
figure 1 Map of the Candelaria Caves. The location of the pecked cross is indicated with an
arrow (drawing by Carlos Efraın Tox Tiul).
104 BRENT WOODFILL
cliff face on the opposite side of the sinkhole is visible, completely obscuring a view
of the sky. The cross is oriented 27u west of magnetic north and composed of 26
holes forming a cross inside a circle with a diameter of 46 cm.
The pecked cross is located in an area with ambient light that streams in from a
nearby sinkhole. The only two ways of accessing the part of the cave where the
pecked cross was found are by swimming through the cave or entering by foot
through a second, higher entrance and passing through the sinkhole and its dense
garden. The latter path was blocked by a series of walls at some point in the
history of use of the cave (Figure 3).
While pecked crosses have been traditionally dated to the Early Classic period,
the ceramics located nearby all date to the Late Classic period. Late Classic
ceramics are rare in the Candelaria Caves (Woodfill 2010), and the absence of
Early Classic material is unusual, although ample material from the earlier time
period was recovered closer to the cave entrance and the sinkhole. At present, it is
impossible to say with certainty that this cross was created in the Early Classic
period, but it is most likely for the following reasons.
figure 2 Photograph of the
pecked cross, with the
sinkhole entrance in the
background (photo by Matt
Oliphant).
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 105
1. The other known pecked crosses date to this period throughout
Mesoamerica, as does all of the ‘‘international’’ (Teotihuacan and central
Peten) symbolism in the Candelaria Caves (Woodfill 2010) and over 90% ofthe ritual evidence recovered there.
2. Late Classic ritual in caves throughout the region was mostly restricted to
high natural stages where status-reinforcing ritual could have been
conducted in front of an audience (Woodfill 2010), making this out-of-the-way location not only anachronistic but counter-productive to the
principal goals of ritual activity during this later period.
3. Finally, since the pecked cross was first identified in the 1970s, after the
region had been largely abandoned for over a millennium, it is unlikely to befrom a later time. As such, it will be assumed to be an Early Classic feature.
Other pecked crosses in Mesoamerica
Anthony Aveni et al. (1978:275–8), in their synthesis of pecked cross features inMesoamerica, note seven particular patterns, which I summarize and compare
with the present example below.
1. Form: Pecked crosses tend to consist of two concentric circles around a
simple cross form with a mean diameter of just under a meter. This pecked
cross is smaller than average, with a diameter of 46 cm. It also consists of a
single circle surrounding the cross.
2. Setting: Like the present example, most pecked crosses were inscribed
directly onto bedrock; the rest were on floors of buildings.
3. Execution: While three incised circle-and-cross shapes were catalogued byAveni (1978), each of the true pecked crosses was created with a percussive
device and consists of holes averaging 1 cm in diameter and separated by 2
cm spaces. The holes tend to be conical in shape, like the present example.
4. Orientation of the axes: Most of the pecked crosses seemed to have beenintentionally oriented towards important architecture or astronomical
events. Since the sky is not visible from this example, however, it is unlikely
figure 3 Caver Nancy Pistole
examines walls that blocked
access to the cave interior
near the entrance of this
section of Cueva El Mico
(photo by Matt Oliphant).
106 BRENT WOODFILL
to have been oriented towards any particular celestial body, and the team
could find no obvious correlation with any parts of the cave.
5. Relationship with other crosses: Many of the crosses at Teotihuacan seemed
to be oriented in relationship with each other, potentially serving to delimitsurveys or astronomical events. This example, in contrast, is located about
250 km away from its nearest known kin, making it highly improbable that
it was created in relation to any other examples.
6. Numerology: The number of dots seems to be significant in most cases.
Many are composed of approximately 260 dots, for example, which is theday count in the Mesoamerican divinatory calendar. The calendar is
composed of 20 nawales (spirits associated with specific days) who each
have 13 aspects. Since this example has 26 dots, it is possible to argue that itis tied to the number 13 (half of 26) or 260 (the number of days in the Maya
ceremonial calendar).
7. Skew: Previously recorded examples were often skewed clockwise from
north, apparently either correlated with the Teotihuacan grid (15–17
degrees) or the rising and setting points of the solstice suns in northernMexico (24–26 degrees), with the three examples from Uaxactun falling
just outside of the range of the former category (17.5 degrees). The presentexample, in contrast, is skewed 27 degrees counter-clockwise. It does not
seem to be oriented towards anything within the cave—the entrance would
have been located off-center in its northwest quadrant and the section of theriver accessible from this cave passage would have been contained within its
northeastern quadrant.
As is apparent, this pecked cross does differ from the norm in several respects, but
still fits comfortably within the existing paradigm.
The pecked cross and interregional exchange
Previous research in the Candelaria Caves and other nearby shrines (Woodfill2010; Woodfill and Andrieu 2012; Woodfill et al. 2012) has shown that much of
the ritual activity performed during the Early Classic period was related to
merchants and travelers along the Great Western Trade Route (Figure 4; Adams1978; Arnauld 1990; Demarest 2006; Demarest and Fahsen 2002; Hammond
1972; Seler 1993; Woodfill 2010; Woodfill and Andrieu 2012; Woodfill et al.2012) who moved between the highlands and lowlands to acquire and trade avariety of raw materials and finished products. The ritual paraphernalia left behind
was ‘‘international,’’ with styles that borrowed from the central Peten, the
Guatemalan highlands, and even central Mexico and were otherwise absent locally(Figure 5e, Woodfill 2010). The pecked cross is one such link to the Mexican
metropolis of Teotihuacan, along with a Tlaloc (highland Mexican rain god) face
from a broken bowl (Figure 5d), several Mexican style warriors on stelae in TresIslas (Figure 5f), and multiple slab-footed tripod cylindrical vessels (Figure 5a–c,
Woodfill 2010; Woodfill and Andrieu 2012).
As one of the principal trade routes connecting the Guatemalan highlands and
lowlands, the Pasion River and the land route immediately to its south would have
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 107
figure 4 Map of the Maya world showing the location of the Great Western Trade Route and
the sites discussed in this text (drawing modified by the author from the original by Luıs
Luin).
108 BRENT WOODFILL
been heavily trafficked by merchants and travelers throughout the Preclassic and
Classic periods. Since Teotihuacan-style material in the Maya world is typically
filtered through Tikal and its allies in the Early Classic (Braswell 2003), it is more
likely that this demonstrates links not with the distant Mexican city but with the
central Peten, where there was a high demand for goods such as jade, obsidian,
quetzal feathers, and iron pyrite that traveled through the Candelaria region
(Andrieu and Forne 2010; Arnauld 1990; Demarest 2006; Demarest et al. 2008;
Fahsen et al. 2004; Hammond 1972; Woodfill 2010; Woodfill and Andrieu 2012).
Any identifiable links with the central Peten stop around the end of the Early
Classic period (ca. A.D. 550) and ritual activity in the Candelaria Caves and other
shrines in the region became greatly diminished just as Cancuen was founded (ca.
figure 5 ‘‘International’’ styles present in the Candelaria Caves and the surrounding region.
a–c) central Peten-style slab-footed cylindrical tripod vessels (drawings by Luis Luin), d)
appliqued polychrome Tlaloc mask (drawing by Walter Burgos), e) Serpent Head X motif on a
Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome vessel (drawing by Walter Burgos), f) Tres Islas Stela 2
depicting a warrior in Teotihuacano garb (drawing by Luis Luin).
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 109
A.D. 630). Since this city was initially established to control trade along the route
and quickly began importing raw highland materials (Andrieu and Forne 2010;
Barrientos and Demarest 2000; Demarest 2006; Demarest et al. 2008), processing
them, and exporting them further into the lowlands, it appears that much of the
long-distance travel along this route was cut in half. As a result, the ritual
importance of the Candelaria Caves and other shrines diminished, and the limited
ritual activity in the region’s shrines would have been conducted principally by
locals for sporadic ceremonies more focused on reinforcing elite status (Woodfill
2010).
There are several areas throughout the region in which the Early Classic ritual
remains were so spectacular or special that they became the focus of Late Classic
ritual, however. The most dramatic of these is probably the nearby cave shrine of
Hun Nal Ye (Woodfill 2010; Woodfill et al. 2012), in which six whole vessels and
a carved stone coffer were left in a niche and on the floor below it. During the Late
Classic, at least one major ritual event occurred in front of them—two whole
vessels of a local style (one containing part of a juvenile pelvis) were cached in a
hole in front of the earlier offerings. They were then covered by a mixture of
smashed vessels and burnt organics. It is probable that the pecked cross similarly
‘‘marked’’ this cave section, since the ledge nearby is the only context where Late
Classic material has been recovered in this part of the system.
Caves and crosses
The location of the pecked cross is unique—it is one of just four examples that
have been identified in the Maya world and the only one found inside a cave. Aveni
et al. (1978:276) did posit a link between caves and pecked crosses, however,
noting that many of the Mexican examples were located close to caves.
The symbol of the cross itself has strong associations with caves throughout the
Maya world, most notably demonstrated through a cross-shaped artificial cave in
Esquipulas, Guatemala (Brady and Veni 1992), carved crosses on artificial cave
walls underneath the Postclassic city of Q’umarkaj, Guatemala (Woodfill 2014),
and crosses that have been erected in front of caves in the Yucatan (Astor Aguilera
2012) and Chiapas (Vogt 1969). Quatrefoils, ‘‘four-leafed’’ patterns similar to the
circle-and-cross motif, are often used in Classic period iconography to represent
portals to the underworld (Astor Aguilera 2012; Bassie-Sweet 1991; Stone 1995;
Stuart 1995) and are associated with the place of ‘‘emergence and submergence of
the sun’’ (Astor Aguilera 2012:229) into and out of caves. With all of this in mind,
it is surprising that this is the only identified example of a cross-and-circle motif
from caves in the Maya world.
Archaeological sites and caves as contemporary sacred space
While archaeological investigations by this and other projects in the region are
(and will continue to be) focused on recovering data on the ancient Maya who
lived and died here, life on-site is more complicated. Beginning in the 1960s,
Q’eqchi’ Maya from the Coban area began their second great migration down into
110 BRENT WOODFILL
the lowlands (Demarest and Woodfill 2011; Sapper 1985; Wilson 1995), and by
the 1990s much of the land had been converted to horticultural plots managed by
residents of hundreds of small villages. Although missionaries and, until recently,
the Guatemalan government have been trying to stamp down contemporary Maya
ritual (Demarest and Woodfill 2011), it lives on—villagers conduct rituals before
every planting, harvest, construction, or life-changing event such as marriage,
divorce, death, birth, or sickness. Like their ancestors, the villagers conduct these
rituals in the most sacred spaces—hills, caves, and archaeological sites (Adams and
Brady 2005; Demarest and Woodfill 2011; Garcıa 2003, 2007; Maxwell and
Garcıa Ixmata 2008; Scott 2009; Wilson 1995).
In 1998, the Guatemalan government created a Commission for the Definition
of Sacred Sites and the Guatemalan congress has passed several agreements
allowing indigenous populations to control places they deem ritually important.
As a result of this and similar developments throughout the Maya world, there is a
growing movement among Mayanists to establish partnerships and engage in
dialogue with the local communities (e.g., Ardren 2002; Demarest and Barrientos
2004; Fruhsorge 2007; Ishihara et al. 2008; McAnany and Parks 2012; Mortensen
2009; Parks et al. 2006; Pyburn and Wilk 1995; Woodfill 2013). This has led to
new challenges and opportunities for contemporary projects. Archaeological site
management is no longer simply based on concerns for the artifacts, features, and
ecology, but also often requires coming to an agreement over which areas are to be
set aside for local ritual activities. This has led to collaborations between
archaeologists and Maya spiritual leaders that would have been very difficult even
15 years ago.
A contemporary Q’eqchi’ ritual
One such situation that would have been unlikely in the past occurred within
several hours of having left the Candelaria Caves. The archaeological and
speleological team found themselves climbing a small mountain above the town of
Fray Bartolome de las Casas to engage in a mayejak (literally ‘‘offering’’) led by
Qawa’ (‘‘Don’’) Tomas Mez, a local Q’eqchi’ daykeeper. The mayejak is the
principal Q’eqchi’ ritual, performed before any major undertaking (planting,
harvesting, traveling, new construction, etc.) or during any life crisis (sickness,
divorce, personal attacks, a string of bad luck, etc.). What follows is a description
of that particular ceremony, although when necessary, references will be made to
other ceremonies observed by the author. The interpretations of and rationales for
specific parts of the ceremony are syntheses of conversations the author has had
with multiple Q’eqchi’ ritual specialists.
Maya religion—both ancient and modern—is based on the idea of a covenant
with the supernatural beings (saints, spirits, and divinities, including Qawa’ Dios,
the Christian god) upon whom we depend for sustenance, fortune, and continued
existence (Adams and Brady 2005; Demarest and Woodfill 2011; Fischer 2001;
McAnany 1995; Maxwell and Garcıa Ixmata 2008; Scott 2009; Vogt 1976;
Wilson 1995). A variety of offerings typically including sugar, incense, chocolate,
multi-colored candles, rosemary, alcohol, a chicken, cologne, and cigars, are
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 111
placed in a comal (clay pan for cooking tortillas and toasting spices) or, ideally,
directly upon the earth in a slight depression that serves as an altar. These are then
burnt, causing a sort of transubstantiation—the conversion of the offerings to
smoke allows them to be consumed by the supernaturals to whom they are being
offered. Each of the materials offered have all been previously smudged with a
chocolate drink, alcohol, incense smoke, and chicken blood in a separate ceremony
called a wa’atesink (Figure 6, which literally means ‘‘feeding’’) and prayed over
during several days leading up to the event.
As the sacred flame grows and gains strength, the daykeeper calls out to multiple
tzuultaqas (‘‘hill-valleys’’), supernatural owners of specific pieces of land in order
to honor them and ask for their protection. All of the participants in the ceremony
face each of the four cardinal directions in turn, praying and kissing the earth. As
the fire continues to burn, each of the 13 avatars of the 20 nawales (spirits
associated with specific days with specific powers and characteristics) are called
and petitions are made to each one, beginning with the nawal of the present day.
On the day Kan (snake), for example, the 13 avatars of Kan are chanted in order
(Jun [One] Kan, Wiib’ [Two] Kan, etc., up to Oxlaaju’ [Thirteen] Kan). Prayers
specifically dedicated to Kan are then made before moving on to the 13 avatars
associated with the following day, Keme’ (Death). Additional offerings are thrown
in when a new nawal is called in order to keep the flame burning and further
ingratiate the spirits to the petitioner.
The flame serves two functions according to the daykeepers—it is a vehicle to
bring the offerings to the spirits and a tool for prognostication and interpretation.
Daykeepers read it for positive or negative signs—an ideal flame signifying
acceptance by the nawal burns bright and tall, spins in a counter-clockwise manner
(following the perceived path of the sun [Astor Aguilera 2012]), and does not favor
any particular direction. Sometimes the daykeepers give the nawales a little
‘‘push,’’ spinning counter-clockwise around the fire, kicking up the flame with a
wooden pole, or adding dollops of highly flammable alcohol or cologne. If the
flame moves towards a specific direction, that is also taken into account—each of
figure 6 Wa’atesink
blessing of the offerings,
which include balls and
wrapped packages of
incense, bottles of hard
liquor, and candles wrapped
in paper to be used in a
mayejak (photo by the
author)
112 BRENT WOODFILL
the four cardinal points has a specific set of associations (money, guilt, etc.) andeach of the 20 nawales (also associated with specific traits) are visualized in a ring
around the altar. Once the ritual is over and the flame dies, the daykeeper can see
how much of the offering is left, which also speaks to the rite’s success. An idealceremony will leave nothing but ash and resin, while an offering that is not
completely accepted will still have large chunks of unbroken or unburnt materials.
The setup for the ceremony began when Qawa’ Tomas cut a cross-and-circleshape through the burnt remains from a previous ceremony with a sharpened stick
(one never uses metal on the altar), first making the cross pattern before carving a
counter-clockwise swirl around it. This same shape was then repeated on multipleoccasions throughout the preparations. The first offering to be deposited was sugar
(Figure 7), arranged in a circle-and-cross pattern with each spoke of the crossaimed towards one of the cardinal directions. Incense balls were placed atop the
sugar in the same pattern, as were the candles and sticks of ocote (resinous slivers
of pine), which were the last objects to be added. Near the conclusion of theceremony, Qawa’ Tomas cut the cross into the offering again in order to break up
some of the chunks that had been resistant to burning, and finally each of the
figure 7 The sugar at the
base of the mayejak offering
in the form of a circle-and-
cross with incense balls in the
center and the four cardinal
points. Elders in the upper
left are unwrapping other
offerings to be used in the
ceremony (photo by Matt
Oliphant)
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 113
principal participants in the ceremony circled the fire in a clockwise direction three
times, cutting circles through the remains in order to signify the completion of the
ceremony.
The repeated cross-and-circle pattern was intentionally likened to the four
cardinal directions and the center throughout the ceremony, both literally through
the orientation of the cross and the prayers to the cardinal directions, and
symbolically, as the candles that were placed in the offering were organized
according to the colors of each direction—white for north, black for west, yellow
for south, red for east, and blue and green for the sky above and earth below the
center. The cross-and-circle patterns in this and other contemporary Maya
ceremonies consist of a single circle, unlike the typical pecked crosses ringed by
concentric circles that were common to the Early Classic period.
The meaning of the pecked cross
The pecked cross from the Candelaria Caves represents one of only four that have
been discovered in the Maya world. It can be understood as having multivalent
importance, both through its relation to larger patterns of interregional trade and
through intergenerational patterns and symbolism that span at least 1500 years. It
does, in fact, appear to be a summarizing symbol as defined by Ortner
(1973:1344): ‘‘Summarizing symbols are primarily objects of attention and
cultural respect: they synthesize or ‘collapse’ complex experience, and relate the
respondent to the grounds of the system as a whole. They include most
importantly sacred symbols in the traditional sense.’’
As a central, key symbol, the cross has multiple meanings and readings, but
what stands out when engaging with both a typically scientific approach based on
interregional and ethnohistoric comparisons, and an ethnographically-informed
interpretive framework based on identification by ritual specialists and associa-
tions with contemporary symbols, is the overlap between the interpretations
reached by both methods.
Archaeological interpretations of the pecked crossIn various publications, Aveni and his collaborators have suggested multiple
meanings and functions for pecked crosses. Aveni et al. (1978) suggested that the
crosses served as a record of the 260-day ceremonial calendar (following Smith
[1950:21], who referred to them as ‘‘calendar circles’’), orientational devices
(either related to parts of the site or celestial bodies), or as games. Ruggles and
Saunders (1984) suggested that many of the pecked crosses served as ‘‘bench-
marks’’ or surveying markers at Teotihuacan and elsewhere. The game hypothesis
has been largely unexplored. Aveni and Hartung (1986:38) discounted it in the
1980s, although Aveni has picked it up again (Aveni 2005).2 Most of Aveni’s later
work, however, has focused on the symbol’s potential as a calendric device (Aveni
2 Barbara Voorhies (2013) recently documented game boards in Mesoamerica that consist of similar, cup-shaped holes
in the floor. The games were played with tokens and a simple die (neither of which were found in the cave), and they
were mostly restricted to oval- or arc-shaped patterns unlike the circle-and-cross present here.
114 BRENT WOODFILL
1989, 2000, 2005), although he does argue that ‘‘no single hypothesis fits all of the
data’’ (Aveni 2000:255).
The Candelaria example goes against the grain for the majority of Aveni’s
suggestions. The spokes of the cross do not seem to point to any natural feature in
the cave and there is no associated architecture. While it is found within the
twilight zone of the cave, there is no view of the sky, rendering it unlikely that
there was a celestial association, and due to the difficulty of access to the part of
the cave in which the pecked cross is found, it seems like a rather inconvenient
location to play a board game. The calendric function thus appears to be the most
likely of Aveni’s suggestions.
Contemporary Q’eqchi’ interpretations of the pecked crossThis potential calendric function was echoed by the Q’eqchi’ ritual specialists who
accompanied the archaeologists and cavers on the reconnaissance trip. For them,
the pecked cross serves both as a ceremonial calendar related to the observance of
an important ritual event and as a cosmogram representing the world and
emphasizing the cardinal directions and the center. Francisco Tiul suggested that
the 26 pecked holes that compose the cross represent the 13 days before and 13
days after performing a mayejak, which must be marked with prayer and penance
in order for the ceremony to be successful. A second, less likely calendric
interpretation proffered by the Q’eqchi’ elders was that the 26 dots stand for the
whole 260 day ritual calendar. However, since the Precolumbian Maya used a
base-20 system instead of the Western base-10, this might reflect modern bias and
not the intention of the original creator of the feature.
The second interpretation suggested by Q’eqchi’ elder Andres Cho was that the
cross is a representation of the world itself, depicting the four cardinal directions
and the center. The counter-clockwise motion used in drawing the circle echoes the
Maya belief that the sun rotates in a counter-clockwise motion (Astor Aguilera
2012). The sunwise motion is the fundamental significance of the repetition of the
cross-and-circle in the set-up of the modern ritual offerings observed by the author.
A number of archaeologists have noted that a quadripartite circle does represent
the world center in Maya iconography (e.g., Astor Aguilera 2012; Headrick 2004;
Reilly 1994) and that caves themselves can serve as cosmograms (Moyes 2000), so
it seems natural to find this symbol here. The ubiquity of the cross-and-circle in
Maya religion could also explain the Candelaria example’s variance from the
canonical double circle, making this a uniquely Maya variant of a Mexican
symbol.
As a symbol of the world and the four directions, it is largely irrelevant whether
or not the four spokes line up with cardinal points, although as Brady and Veni
(1992) have shown, the ancient Maya did have the ability to do rather complex
surveying. This move from the literal to the symbolic was seen in the mayejak
performed that night—Qawa’ Tomas, instead of bringing a compass or studying
the stars simply conferred with several other ritual practitioners in order to anchor
his cross-and-circle to what was determined by consensus to be north. Even with
large-scale public works, the ancient Maya sometimes abandoned actual function
and directionality in favor of symbolic function. E-Groups, for example, began as
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 115
ways of marking the solstices and equinoxes that defined the passage of the year.
By the Classic period, however, they were not actually linked to the astronomical
events but existed principally as monumental reminders of the importance of the
elites and their connections to broader forces in the universe (Doyle 2012).
Conclusions
While it is dangerous to assume that the meaning of symbols remains static from
person to person, much less over a time span of 1500 years (Anderson 1991;
Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), the concurrence of a calendric interpretation
reached through both hypothesis-driven and interpretive approaches makes such a
meaning tempting to assign. If this is indeed an Early Classic pecked cross and not
an imitation from a later date, it was obviously important to subsequent
generations of Maya, since people continued to be drawn to the part of the cave
where it was found over the next several hundred years. Such reuse of ‘‘marked’’
sacred space has been found in a variety of other ceremonial contexts in the region,
most notably at the aforementioned Cave of Hun Nal Ye (Woodfill 2010; Woodfill
et al. 2012).
While this pecked cross can be understood as a fundamentally Mexican symbol
representing some degree of ties with Teotihuacan, it can also be readily
understood in a specifically Maya cultural milieu, in that the cross was modified
from the original, concentric circles-and-cross form to represent a more Maya
cultural expression. This fits with other examples of foreign art and symbolism
adopted by the Maya world throughout history, from Early Classic Teotihuacan-
style atlatl and war-serpent headdresses (Schele and Freidel 1990; Taube 1992) to
the Terminal Classic Mexican rain god Tlaloc (Maldonado and Repetto Tio 1988)
and the fineware ceramics of the southern Gulf Coast (Bishop 2008). The
Hapsburg eagle still figures prominently on many Maya textiles, prompting one
Kaqchikel Maya academic (Otzoy 1996:144) to note: ‘‘it is probable that the motif
was adopted by the Maya precisely because it fit in with an already existing system
of Maya metaphors and that it is continually reinterpreted in a manner consistent
with Maya philosophy and experiences.’’ Even the standard offerings in the
ceremony described above included ladino-made liquor and perfumes as well
rosemary, a Mediterranean herb.
The Candelaria pecked cross is a powerful, enduring symbol that combines both
Maya and non-Maya traditions, and as a result can be used to understand a variety
of issues of interest to archaeologists, from interregional trade and Mexican–Maya
interaction to worldview and the ritual calendar. In this sense, then, the Candelaria
pecked cross is fundamentally another example of the flexibility of Maya
symbolism at the same time that it demonstrates the durability of the Maya
cosmovision.
Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken through grants provided by the Alphawood
Foundation and InHerit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill with
116 BRENT WOODFILL
permissions granted to the Cancuen and Salinas de los Nueve Cerrosarchaeological projects by the Guatemalan Ministry of Culture and Sports,
General Direction of Natural and Cultural Patrimony, and the Department of
Prehispanic and Colonial Monuments. I’d like to thank Patricia Carot, who sharedher knowledge and documentation of the pecked cross with me and the Candelaria
Caves National Park guards who rediscovered the pecked cross after two years ofsearching for it, Santiago Chub Ical, David Caal Rax, Mauricio Cu, and Miguel
Caal Quib. I was accompanied by a large group of people who helped document
the archaeological remains and their context: Karen Mansilla, Andres Choc,Francisco Tiul, Eduardo Asij Xol, Bonifacio Asij Choc, David Caal Rax, Miguel
Caal Quib, John Wyeth, David Marin Roma, Antonio Trapaga, Juan Ernesto
Vossberg, with special thanks to Matt Oliphant, Charley Savvas, and NancyPistole.
My understanding of the mayejak and aspects of Maya religion discussed in this
paper have come out of several years of conversations with Q’eqchi’ daykeepers,particularly Qawa’ Mario Caal and Qawa’ Tomas Mez, and the elders Qawa’
Francisco Tiul and Qawa’ Andres Choc. Qawa’ Tomas also served as fact-checker
for the description and interpretation of the rituals discussed. Glenn Skoy, ArthurDemarest, Carlos Rene Paniagua Morales, Kristin Landau, and Annabeth
Headrick helped me to obtain several of the publications I cite. Anthony Aveni,
Arthur Demarest, Patricia McAnany, Kristin Landau, the editors ofEthnoarchaeology, and anonymous reviewers all gave valuable critiques during
the writing process and guided me towards several works that I would never have
discovered on my own.
References cited
Adams, Abigail and James Brady. 2005. Ethnographic notes on Maya Q’eqchi’ cave rites: Implications for
archaeological interpretation. In In the maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican ritual cave use, ed. James
Brady and Keith Prufer, 301–327. Austin: University of Texas Press, Austin.
Adams, Richard. 1978. Routes of communication in Mesoamerica: The Northern Guatemalan Highlands and
the Peten. In Mesoamerican communication routes and cultural contacts, ed. Thomas Lee and Carlos
Navarette, 27–36. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 40. Provo: Brigham Young
University Press.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities. New York: Verso.
Andrieu, Chloe and Melanie Forne. 2010. Produccion y distribucion del jade en el Mundo Maya: talleres,
fuentes y rutas del intercambio en su contexto interregional: vista desde Cancuen. In XXIV Simposio
deiInvestigaciones arqueologicas en Guatemala, 2009, eds. Barbara Arroyo, Adriana Linares Palma, and
Lorena Paiz Aragon, 947–956. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueologia e Etnologıa.
Ardren, Traci. 2002. Conversations about the production of archaeological knowledge and community
museums at Chunchucmil and Kochol, Yucatan, Mexico. World Archaeology 34(2):379–400.
Arnauld, Marie Charlotte. 1990. El comercio clasico de obsidiana, rutas entre Tierras Altas y Tierras Bajas en
el area Maya. Latin American Antiquity 1(4):347–367.
Astor Aguilera, Miguel. 2012. The Maya world of communicating objects: Quadripartite crosses, trees, and
stones. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Aveni, Anthony. 1989. Pecked cross petroglyphs at Xihuingo. Archaeoastronomy 14:S74–S115.
——. 2000. Out of Teotihuacan: Origins of the celestial canon in Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerica’s classic
heritage, eds. David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, 253–268. Boulder: University of Colorado
Press.
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 117
——. 2005. Observations on the pecked designs and other figures carved on the south platform of the Pyramid
of the Sun at Teotihuacan. Journal for the History of Astronomy 36(1):31–48.
Aveni, Anthony and Horst Hartung. 1986. The cross petroglyph: an ancient Mesoamerican astronomical and
calendrical symbol. Indiana 6:37–54.
Aveni, Anthony, Horst Hartung, and Beth Buckingham. 1978. The pecked cross symbol in ancient
Mesoamerica. Science 202:267–279.
Barrientos, Tomas and Arthur Demarest. 2000. Resdescubriendo Cancuen: nuevos datos sobre un sitio
fronterizo entre las Tierras Bajas y el Altiplano maya. Paper presented at the XIV Simposio de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, Guatemala City.
Bassie-Sweet, Karen. 1991. From the mouth of the dark cave: Commemorative sculpture of the Late Classic
Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bishop, Ronald. 2008. Archaeological ceramics and scientific practice. In VII Congreso Iberico de
Arqueometrıa, eds. Salvador Rovira Llorens, Manuel Garcıa-Heras, Marc Gener Moret, and Ignacio
Montero Ruiz, 236–49. Madrid: Quadras.
Brady, James and George Veni. 1992. Man-made and pseudo-karst caves: The implications of subsurface
features within Maya centers. Geoarchaeology 7(2):149–167.
Braswell, George, ed. 2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan, reinterpreting Early Classic interaction. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Carot, Patricia. 1976. Etude comparee des grottes de Candelaria, Julik et Bombil Pec. Spelunca 3
(suplemento):25–31.
——. 1989. Arqueologıa de las cuevas del norte de Alta Verapaz. Cuadernos de Estudios Guatemaltecos I.
Mexico City: Centre d’Etudes Mexicaines et Centramericaines.
Coggins, Clemency. 1980. The shape of time: political implications of a four-part figure. American Antiquity
45(4):727–739.
Demarest, Arthur. 2006. The Petexbatun regional archaeological project: A multidisciplinary study of the
Maya collapse. Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology Vol. 1. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Demarest, Arthur and Tomas Barrientos. 2004. Los proyectos de arqueologıa y de desarrollo comunitario en
Cancuen: Metas, resultados y desafıos en 2003. In VII Simposio de investigaciones arqueologicas en
Guatemala, 2003, eds. Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, Hector Escobedo, and Hector Mejıa, 450–
464. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueologıa y Etnologıa.
Demarest, Arthur and Federico Fahsen. 2002. Nuevos datos e interpretaciones de los reinos occidentals del
Clasico Tardıo: Hacia una vision sintetica de la historia Pasion-Usumacinta. Paper presented at the XVI
Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, Guatemala City.
Demarest, Arthur and Brent Woodfill. 2011. Sympathetic ethnocentrism and the autorepression of Q’eqchi’
Maya culture. In The ethics of anthropology and Amerindian research: Reporting on environmental
degradation and warfare, eds. Richard Chacon and Ruben Mendoza, 117–146. Berlin: Springer Press.
Demarest, Arthur, Brent Woodfill, Marc Wolf, Tomas Barrientos, Ronald Bishop, Mirza Monterroso, Edy
Barrios, Claudia Quintanilla, and Matilde Ivec. 2008. De la selva hacia la sierra: Investigaciones a lo largo
de las rutas riberenas y terrestres del Occidente. In XXI Simposio de investigaciones arqueologicas en
Guatemala, eds. Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, Hector Mejıa, 179–194. Guatemala City Museo
Nacional de Arqueologıa y Etnologıa, Guatemala City.
Doyle, James. 2012. Las plazas preclasicas del registro del tiempo: Reconsiderando los complejos de
conmemoracion astronomica. Paper presented at the XXVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala. Guatemala City, July 20.
Dreux, Daniel, 1974. Recherches en Alta Verapaz (1968–1974). Paris: CERSMT.
Fahsen, Federico, Tomas Barrientos, and Arthur Demarest. 2004. Taj Chan Ahk y el apogee de Cancuen.
Paper presented at the XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, Guatemala City.
Fischer, Edward. 2001. Cultural logics and global economies: Maya identity in thought and practice. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Fruhsorge, Lars. 2007. Archaeological heritage in Guatemala: Indigenous perspectives on the ruins of Iximche.
Archaeologies 3:39–58.
118 BRENT WOODFILL
Garcıa, David. 2003. Vınculus espirituales y religion alrededor de Cancuen. In XVI Simposio de
investigaciones arqueologicas en Guatemala, 2002, eds. Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, Hector
Escobedo, and Hector Mejıa, 10–15. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueologıa y Etnologıa.
Garcıa, David. 2007. Territorio y espiritualidad: Lugares sagrados q’eqchi’es en Chisec. In Mayanizacion y
vida cotidiana: La ideologıa multicultural en la sociedad guatemalteca. Vol. 2, ed. Santiago Bastos and Aura
Cumes. Guatemala City: FLACSO/CIRMA.
Headrick, Annabeth. 2004. The quadripartite motif and the centralization of power. In K’axob: Ritual, work
and family in an ancient Maya village, ed. Patricia McAnany, 367–378. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ishihara, Reiko, Marvin Coc, Patricia McAnany, Shoshi Parks, and Satoru Murata. 2008. The Maya area
cultural heritage initiative (MACHI) in Belize: Bridging the past and the present through a public education
program in the Toledo District, Belize. In Archaeological investigations in the eastern Maya lowlands:
Papers of the 2007 Belize archaeology symposium, ed. John Michael Morris, 307–313. Belmopan: Institute
of Archaeology.
Hammond, Norman. 1972. Obsidian trade in the Mayan area. Science 178:1092–1093.
McAnany, Patricia. 1995. Living with the ancestors: Kinship and kingship in ancient Maya society. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
McAnany, Patricia, and Shoshaunna Parks. 2012. Casualties of heritage distancing: Children, Ch’orti’
indigeneity, and the Copan archaeoscape. Current Anthropology 53(1):80–107.
Maldonado, Ruben, and Beatriz Repetto Tio. 1988. Los ‘‘Tlalocs’’ de Uxmal, Yucatan. Revista Espanola de
Antropologıa Americana no. XVIII:9–19.
Maxwell, Judith, and Ajpub’ Pablo Garcıa Ixmata. 2008. Power in places: Investigating the sacred landscape
of Iximche’, Guatemala. Submitted to the the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies,
Inc. http://www.famsi.org/reports/06104/, accessed on December 12, 2013.
Mortensen, Lena. 2009. Copan past and present: Maya archaeological tourism and the Ch’orti’ in Honduras.
In: The Ch’orti’ Maya area: Past and present, eds. Brent Metz, Cameron McNeil, and Kerry Hull, 246–257.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Moyes, Holley. 2000. The cave as a cosmogram: Function and meaning of Maya speleothem use. In: The
sacred and the profane: Architecture and identity in the Maya lowlands, Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 10, eds.
Pierre R. Colas, Kai Delvendahl, Marcus Kuhnert, and Annette Schubart, 137–148. Gotingen, Germany:
Verlag Anton Saurwein.
Ortner, Sherry. 1973. On key symbols. American Anthropologist 75(5):1338–1346.
Otzoy, Irma. 1996. Maya clothing and identity. In: Maya cultural activism in Guatemala, eds. Edward Fischer
and R. McKenna Brown, 141–155. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Parks, Shoshaunna, Patricia McAnany, and Satoru Murata. 2006. The conservation of Maya cultural heritage:
Searching for solutions in a troubled region. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(4):435–432.
Pope, Keven and Malcolm Sibberenson. 1981. In search of Tzultacaj: cave explorations in the Maya lowlands
of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. Journal of New World Archaeology 4(3):16–54.
Pyburn, K. Anne, and Richard Wilk. 1995. Responsible archaeology is applied anthropology. In Ethics in
American archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, eds. Mark Lynott and Alison Wylie, 71–76. Lawrence,
Kansas: Allen Press.
Reilly, F. Kent. 1994. Visions to another world: Art, shamanism, and political power in Middle Formative
Mesoamerica. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.
Ruggles, Clive, and Nicholas Saunders. 1984. The interpretation of the pecked cross symbols at Teotihuacan:
A methodological note. Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy Supplement 15(7):101–
110.
Sapper, Karl. 1985. The Verapaz in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: A contribution to the historical
geography and ethnography of northeastern Guatemala., trans. T. Gutman. Occasional Paper 13. Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles Institute of Archaeology.
Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. 1990. A forest of kings: Untold stories of the ancient Maya. New York:
William Morrow.
CANDELARIA CAVES, GUATEMALA 119
Scott, Ann. 2009. Communicating with the sacred earthscape. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.
Seler, Eduard. 1993. On the origin of some forms of Quiche and Cakchiquel myths. In Collected works in
Mesoamerican linguistics and archaeology, Volume IV, eds. J. Eric S. Thompson and Francis Richardson,
323–325. Culver City, California: Labyrinthos, Culver City.
Smith, A. L. 1950. Uaxactun, Guatemala: excavations of 1931–37. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Publication 588. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Stone, Andrea. 1995. Images from the underworld: Naj Tunich and the tradition of Maya cave painting.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stuart, David. 1995. Kings of stone: A consideration of stelae in ancient Maya ritual and representation. Res:
Anthropology and Aesthetics 19/20:149–172.
Taube, Karl. 1992. The temple of Quetzalcoatl and the cult of sacred warfare at Teotihuacan. Res:
Anthropology and Aesthetics 21:53–87.
Vogt, Evon. 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya community in the highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
——. 1976. Tortillas for the gods: A symbolic analysis of Zinacantan ritual. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Voorhies, Barbara. 2013. The deep prehistory of Indian gaming: Possible late Archaic Period game boards at
the Tlacuachero Shellmound, Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 24(1):98–115.
Wanyerka, Phil. 1999. Pecked cross and patolli petroglyphs of the Lagarto Ruins, Stann Creek District, Belize.
Mexicon 21:108–111.
Wilson, Richard. 1995. Maya resurgence in Guatemala: Q’eqchi’ experiences. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Woodfill, Brent. 2010. Ritual and trade in the Pasion-Verapaz region, Guatemala. Vanderbilt Institute of
Mesoamerican Archaeology, vol. 6. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
——. 2013. Community development and collaboration at Salinas de los Nueve Cerros, Guatemala:
Accomplishments, failures, and lessons learned conducting publically-engaged archaeology. Advances in
Archaeological Practice 1(2):105–20.
——. 2014. Three newly-discovered cave features in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. Mexicon
36(4):114–120.
Woodfill, Brent, and Chloe Andrieu. 2012. Tikal’s Early Classic domination of the Great Western Trade
Route: Ceramic, lithic, and iconographic evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(2):189–209.
Woodfill, Brent, Stanley Guenter, and Mirza Monterroso. 2012. Changing patterns in ritual activity in an
unlooted cave in central Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 23(1):93–119.
Woodfill, Brent, and Mirza Monterroso. 2007. Investigaciones espeleologicas en las Cuevas de Candelaria,
Temporadas 2004 y 2005. In Proyectoa arqueologico Cancuen informe final no. 6, eds. Arthur Demarest,
Tomas Barrientos, Brent Woodfill, Claudia Quintanilla, and Luis Luin, 697–724. Nashville: Department of
Anthroplogy, Vanderbilt University.
Woodfill, Brent, Alvaro Ramırez, Emilia Gazzuolo, Mirza Monterroso, Adriana Segura, Carlos Giron, Jose
Hurtado, Nicolas Miller, and Paul Halacy. 2004. Descripcion y registro de cuevas, rasgos, y artefactos
culturales en las cuevas de Candelaria. In Proyecto arqueologico Cancuen informe final no. 5, eds. Arthur
Demarest, Tomas Barrientos, Brigitte Kovacevich, Michael Callaghan, Brent Woodfill, and Luis Luin, 633–
678. Nashville: Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Notes on contributor
Correspondence to: [email protected] z502.4919.0640 2716 Flag Ave N
New Hope, MN 55427
120 BRENT WOODFILL
Top Related