Introduction to El Palmar
El Palmar is a large site, located 4 km east of El Zotz and about 17 km west of Tikal, situated on the southwestern edge of a very large cival. PAEZ members visited the site in 2007 and completed a sketch map of one of the main plazas. In 2008, the site was the focus of mapping and excavation by James Doyle and Varinia Matute.
Figure 1. Locations of El Zotz and El Palmar.
Preliminary mapping indicates that the core of El Palmar covers approximately half a square kilometer and includes at least three major plaza groups, several large platforms, and many platforms and structures approaching the edge of the cival. The map was produced with tape, compass, and more than 100 GPS points using a Garmin handheld unit.
Figure 2. Preliminary Map of El Palmar.
Group 1 in the northern area of the site consists of four structures arranged around a large plaza, with a large pyramid to the west and large range structure to the east. Structure 1, a pyramid with a height of 23m and a square base of approximately 60m, is likely a radial pyramid with large masks, typical of the architectural groups that have been categorized as “E-Groups,” after Group E at Uaxactun (Aimers and Rice 2006; Aveni et al. 2003; Estrada-Belli 2006; Guderjan 2006; Hansen 1998; Ricketson 1928).
Figure 3. El Palmar Group 1.
A preliminary contour map of Structure 1 with approximately 1-m resolution was produced from survey with a TopCon total station, resulting in a 3-dimensional view of the eastern and southern faces of the pyramid.
Figure 4. El Palmar Structure 1. Height = 23m.
Test pit excavations EP 6-B-1 and EP 6-B-2, located on the western and eastern edges of the Group 1 plaza, respectively, revealed 2 plaza floors above bedrock and a ceramic chronology suggesting a Late Preclassic occupation, with sherds from the Polvero, Sierra, Sibal and Flor groups. Although unexcavated at present, Structure 3, the range structure to the east of the plaza consists of three elevated structures organized around a sunken patio, to be closer mapped and investigated in 2009.
The significance of the E-Group at El Palmar is potentially great because if its proximity to Tikal and Uaxactun, those groups that have been identified as the earliest of this type of architectural complex (Aimers and Rice 2006). The similarity in dimensions between El Palmar Structure 1 and Structure 5D-54 in the Mundo Perdido complex also suggests similarities in chronology, a hypothesis to be tested in the next season (Laporte and Fialko 1995). Furthermore, the possible abandonment of a site in the Early Classic so close to El Zotz and Bejucal carries wider implications about the transition to the Early Classic in a politically active region of the Maya Lowlands.
Group 2 consists of an elevated platform containing at least five major structures arranged around a small courtyard. A large pyramid (Structure 5) lies on the western edge, with small structures erected on the northern, southern, and eastern edges. A fifth, small mound lies in the center of the platform (Structure 9) and a large staircase descends to the plaza below the northern edge.
Figure 5. El Palmar Group 2.
Test pit excavation EP 6-A-1 was placed in the Group 2 plaza near Structure 5 and Structure 9. The preliminary ceramic analysis from this excavation and from surface finds indicates a Late Preclassic date for the original occupation, including the presence of Usulutan red-over-orange, Polvero Black, and Sierra Red sherds. A Late Classic Chaquiste Impressed sherd and other possible later types may indicate that a Late Classic population may have occupied Group 2.
Test pit excavation EP 6-A-2, located to the north of the large stairway uncovered sherds that possibly indicate occupation in the transitional period between the Late Preclassic and Classic periods, including sherds of the Sierra and Polvero groups in the same levels as Dos Arroyos Polychrome, Aguila Orange, and Triunfo Striated. Furthermore, the presence of obsidian from the highland source of San Martin Jilotepeque is consistent with the Late Preclassic period (Zachary Hruby, personal communication). Architecture exposed by looters at the top of the staircase also contains red-panted stuccoed apron molding, typical of the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods (Hansen 1998).
A third major group at El Palmar, Group 3, lies to the south of the site and consists of at least 5 structures on a very tall platform rising from the edge of the cival. More investigation is necessary to determine the chronology of this group and its relation to the other public architecture at El Palmar. Preliminary survey indicates possible land modification for water management in the form of maintained arroyos near this group, also a focus of future investigations.
Figure 6. El Palmar Group 3.
A number of small platforms and structures are located in close proximity to the cival, including Structure 12, profiled in 2007 by Juan Carlos Meléndez and Fabiola Quiroa. More investigations into the structures close to the cival will hopefully reveal key information about agriculture or water management practices of the inhabitants of El Palmar.
Figure 7. El Palmar Structure 12. East and South profile of looters’ trench.
The cival itself merits attention in coming seasons because of potential information contained in the sediments of the seasonal swamp, including human activity during the Holocene era. El Palmar and its accompanying body of water are an ideal place to test hypotheses set forth on the role of water management and sedimentation in the Late Preclassic period, possibly leading to abandonment of many centers (e.g. Wahl et al. 2006).
Figure 8. View of Cival from El Palmar Structure 12.
Future seasons of archaeological, topographical, and environmental investigations at El Palmar will hopefully yield insights into a Late Preclassic community located very close to Tikal on a large seasonal swamp. More information from El Palmar and the early occupations of Bejucal and El Zotz will shed light on the transitional period from the Late Preclassic to Early Classic in a region that developed to be very important in the Early Classic sociopolitical milieu in the central Peten.
Aimers, James J. and Prudence M. Rice
2006 “Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of Maya ‘E-Group’ Architectural Assemblages.” Ancient Mesoamerica. 17. 79-96.
Aveni, Anthony F., Anne S. Dowd, and Benjamin Vining
2003 “Maya Calendar Reform? Evidence from Orientations of Specialized Architectural Assemblages.” Latin American Antiquity. 14 (2). 159-178
Estrada-Belli, Francisco
2006 “Lightning Sky, Rain, and the Maize God: The Ideology of Preclassic Maya Rulers at Cival, Peten, Guatemala.” Ancient Mesoamerica. 17. 57-78.
Guderjan, Thomas H.
2006 “E-Groups, Pseudo-E-Groups, and the Development of the Classic Maya Identity in the Eastern Peten.” Ancient Mesoamerica. 17. 97-104.
Hansen, Richard D.
1998 “Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. Ed. Stephen Houston. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks. 49-122.
Laporte, Juan Pedro and Vilma Fialko
1995 “Un reencuentro con undo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala.” Ancient Mesoamerica 6 (1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 41-94.
Ricketson, Oliver
1928 “Notes on Two Maya Astronomic Observatories.” American Anthropologist. 30 (3). 434-444.
Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thomas Schreiner, and Richard Hansen
2006 “Holocene vegetation change in the northern Peten and its implications for Maya prehistory.” Quaternary Research. 65. 380-389.
Please do not reproduce without author's permission.
3 comments:
But did you find any palanquins?
So brainy. I just watched the video from the field of you making the max face.
i have no idea what that is but it sounds very very um not brainy.
Post a Comment