Economic Foundations of Mayapán Project: Results of the 2001 Season

Surface Survey

During the 2001 season, intensive surface survey, surface collection, and mapping of artifact concentrations, houselot boundary walls, structures, and other features took place in ten residential zones within the city wall and in one location outside of the city wall (Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1). Three of these residential zones within the city (Milpas #9, 10, 11) were surveyed and surface collections were taken from them, but they were not mapped this season (Figure 1, Figure 2). As a result of these efforts, new maps exist for eight areas of the city (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11), and 56 dog leash surface collections from activity areas provide an initial data set for evaluating domestic economic activities (Table 2, Table 3).

As the Carnegie datum is no longer present, Hare established a new one from the top of the Castillo in the INAH monumental zone. We quickly learned that the accuracy of the Carnegie map (Jones 1962) falls short of that now attainable with an EDM. Structures are actually located in different 500m grid squares than the ones they are shown in on the Carnegie map, according to Hare’s measurements (accurate to within a centimeter). These errors vary, and cannot be globally corrected. We retained all of the original Carnegie structure numbers, however, to avoid future confusion.

As Brown (1999) noted in his Mayapán houselot project, considerably more detail can be mapped in the surface of cleared areas than was possible on the Carnegie map, particularly additional structures, albarrada walls, and artifact concentrations (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11). Albarradas have varying configurations. Some seem to define houselot boundaries and others define enclosures or alleyways running through the city (Brown 1999, Bullard 1952, 1953). Some albarradas also define the upper parameters of hill platforms where house structures are located, especially outside of the city walls (Figure 13). Examples of enclosures can be seen on Figure 12. A photograph of an alleyway is shown in Figure 9 that connects two of Mayapán’s temples (S-33 and S-137) and Figure 14, below, shows an albarrada houselot wall. We hope to test stone enclosures to look for evidence of special function superstructures, and much effort will be devoted to mapping the city’s alleyways or streets.

Detailed variation in residential density of various milpas across the city was documented in our mapping efforts. Contending with this variation and finding appropriate ways to analyze it represents one of the project’s greatest challenges. Milpa #1, to the west of the monumental zone, was by far the most dense occupation zone, and the largest and most elaborate structures were located here. Other milpas to the south, southeast, and southwest of the center were of more moderate density (for example, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8). One, located adjacent to the wall (Milpa #7, Figure 10), had very few structures, as did another milpa located over half a kilometer outside of the wall (Milpa #8, Figure 11). In future testing and analysis, we will evaluate the function of these areas for the city. Were vacant areas used for farming or gardening as has been suggested for Sayil (Killion et al. 1989)? We have produced a preliminary ranking of the neighborhoods represented by these sampling areas, based on structure size and elaboration (Table 1). No clear correlation with distance from the center and structural complexity is observed, at least for areas that are not near the city walls. For example, Milpas #6, #9 have more dense, complex features than Milpas #3, #4, and #5.

Surface collection areas were in the form of 3m dog leashes (28.26 square meters), in which 100% of the materials within each circle were collected. Collections were made for all concentrations of artifacts (except metates or cuerns, Figure 15, shown above and Figure 16, shown below) identified in each milpa. Concentration density varies considerably, with Milpa #1 having far more material than other areas (Table 2). The types of material associated with different houselots and milpas also attests to occupational specialization at Mayapán, as Brown’s earlier work indicates (1999). Concentrations were most often along the slopes or bases of buildings or hill platforms on which buildings were placed, along albarrada walls, adjacent to building walls, atop small structures, and in sascabera depressions. These represent middens, activity areas, dumps, and workshops (Table 3). Stone tool manufacture, shell ornament manufacture, and activity areas involving stone tool concentrations were identified. Concentrations of metates and small pits into bedrock were also found.

Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page