[Aztlan] Questions about vegetation on Mesoamerican ruins

[Miguel Covarrubias]

Hola a todos,
Probably the tallest structure known in Yucatan, entirely covered with
vegetation, is the Xcoch pyramid (over 90 ft high), but there are hundreds
of huge mounds scatered all over the Nothern Lowlands, many of them
extending above the canopy and completely covered. Depending on the region
where structures are located, species of trees and plants may vary. Most
frecuent are *chakah*, *chukum*, *jabin*, *ox* (ramon) and specially
*Kopo*(alamo or amate
*-Ficus cotinifolia*-*),* which can be considered as the most destructive,
because its roots can grow in the same proportion than the rest of the tree
and can virtually grow upon walls, with no soil al all. There are specimens
at monumental structures that certainly are not less healthy and, as Dave
states, sometimes soils are richer upon platforms than in the surrounding
land.
A species that usually grows near almost every architectural core is *chile
max -Capsicum frutescens*, which can be considered as residual plants of
ancient crops.
Concerning seashells, large ammounts of them have been found at sites at
Merida and many other places. At coastal sites they were used not only as
food, but also as constructive materials. At interior capitals, such as
Izamal, most materials were employed for sunctuary purposes, and were taken
there through many possible commercial routes.
Saludos
Miguel Covarrubias R.

2007/10/3, David Hixson <aztlandave at yahoo.com>:
>
> Jules Seigel brought up some very interesting
> questions that are at the heart of archaeological
> remote sensing studies.  If there is a correlation
> between certain vegetation and mounded architecture,
> multispectral or hyperspectral remote sensing would be
> the avenue to locate and analyze such signatures.
>
> Unfortunately, the correlation is not so clear-cut.
> As I found in my early studies of NW Yucatan, and Tom
> Sever (helping Bill Saturno) found a few years later
> in Guatemala, there ARE some differences between
> vegetation growing on the "natural" surface and that
> growing on the "anthropogenic" surface of mounded
> architecture.  However, the difference between the two
> is often qualitative rather than discrete.  By this I
> mean that mounded architecture does not always have
> different species of plants growing on their slopes
> and peaks, but rather more or less healthy specimens.
>
> [Side note - it has been suggested that certain
> species of trees, specifically Ramon, were planted in
> ancient Maya sites, therefore are more common in
> archaeological ruins]
>
> In my studies of NW Yucatan, using satellite remote
> sensing, pedestrian surveys and test excavations, I
> found that the mounds themselves are "soil traps".
> Following a previous study by Tim Beach (1998), I
> found that in the dry and rocky soils of NW Yucatan,
> the richest A/0 horizons are located ON the mounds
> themselves.  This means that lowland (off-mound) soils
> are highly leached and are much more likely to have
> high clay and iron contents, whereas those soils on
> the slopes and peaks of pyramidal architecture are
> more likely to have high organic components.
>
> This is due to three major factors -- one is that the
> mounds themselves are well-drained (much like putting
> rocks at the bottom of your potted plants to make sure
> they are not drowned by watering); Second, the highly
> soluble limestone of NW Yucatan is itself a medium for
> promoting A/O horizons, as the limestone (and stucco)
> decays and provides a different chemical composition
> to the soil than the surrounding terrain; and third,
> the decaying debris of an ancient city will often add
> nutrients to the soil, giving the soils "on-site" a
> more rich composition than those "off-site".
>
> Finally, I must address Jules' question about sea
> shells.  If sea shells are found at the top of a
> pyramid, the only explanation is human or animal
> agency (i.e., a human or animal dropped it there,
> during construction, during its use, or long
> thereafter).
>
> I have certainly found crabs 15 kms from the coast
> (pushed up through the underground aquifer) and I have
> seen birds flying overhead with both fish and
> shellfish in their talons over archaeological sites.
>
> But I promise that the sea was never high enough
> during the Holocene to allow seashells to naturally
> "wash up" on the top of a pyramid (I have conducted
> digital reconstructions of the Yucatan coast during
> Holocene high sea stands, and this would simply be
> impossible).
>
> -Dave
>
>
> > What is the tallest structure entirely covered in
> > vegetation growing on
> > it (as opposed to around it forming a canopy)?
> >
> > How did the vegetation get there?
> >
> > What kind of vegetation is typically found?
> >
> > How deep are the roots?
> >
> > The depth of the soil?
> >
> > Is it true that seashells have been found in the
> > soil on top of
> > Mesoamerican monuments? If so, how did they get
> > there? What kind? Age?
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user
> panel and lay it on us.
> http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>