Kulubá Archaeological Project 2001 Field Season

Project Research Questions and Goals

The central theoretical question of the Kulubá Archaeological Project involves delineating the nature of Chichén Itzá’s political control in the area. Previous research has established that there was some sort of connection between Chichén Itzá and Kulubá. Andrews IV and Andrews V noted architectural similarities and Barrera Rubio has added ceramics and obsidian sources. While the linkage between Chichén and Kulubá has been recognized, the exact nature of the connection has not been rigorously addressed. How did Chichén politically control Kulubá, if it did at all? Did Chichén Itzá conquer the Kulubá polity and install its own administrators in the region? Or perhaps political leaders at Kulubá advantageously appropriated symbols associated with Chichén Itzá to help legitimize their authority. In this scenario, Chichén did not control Kulubá at all and the similarities between the two sites were the result of elite emulation. Finally, how would different strategies of political control be reflected archaeologically?

Three models of political control help conceptualize the nature of Chichén Itzá’s strategy: territorial, hegemonic, and no control (autonomous). When a polity capital imposes direct control on lower-order centers, secondary elites from the capital are often sent to the provincial center to rule. This strategy is called territorial control since the power of the political leaders in the capital is evenly distributed throughout the territory of the polity (Earle and D’Altroy 1989; Hassig 1992:41-44). In the hegemonic control strategy, subordinate centers are not controlled directly but instead indirectly (Hassig 1985; Santley and Alexander 1992). Political leaders in the polity capitals often impose demands for tribute from subordinate centers but local elite are left in place. The final model, which can be referred to as the autonomous model, occurs when a capital doesn’t expend any effort in controlling a particular settlement. In this case, the settlement is left completely autonomous: the capital of its own polity.

One methodological advantage in trying to understand the nature of Chichén Itzá’s presence within the Kulubá polity is that Chichén has a distinct archaeological record that is relatively easy to identify. In terms of architecture, not only are elite buildings distinct from other Maya polities but so are commoner dwellings. While most houses in Yucatán have rooms that joined laterally ("row houses"), Chichén dwellings typically have one entrance and a front-back floor plan ("file houses") (Lincoln 1991; Ruppert and Smith 1957). As mentioned above, portable artifacts such as ceramics and obsidian are also distinct at Chichén Itzá. Thus there are several different classes of archaeological data that would indicate some sort of Chichén influence. Given the models of political control outlined above, several bridging arguments were constructed in the original FAMSI proposal:

1. If Chichén Itzá employed a strategy of territorial control in the Kulubá region, then:

1. Kulubá and its lower-order centers should have elite architecture built in the Chichén style such as colonnaded buildings and another type of Modified Florescent architecture known as a gallery-patio. Gallery-patio structures were almost certainly elite residences (Cobos Palma, personal communication; Freidel 1981) so their presence at Kulubá and lower-order centers would suggest the physical presence of Itzá elites.
2. Civic architecture in the Kulubá region should be associated with portable artifacts in the Chichén style such as Sotuta ceramics, green obsidian, or "Toltec" bas-relief sculptures.
3. Commoner residences should have floor plans like those found at Chichén and be associated with portable artifacts in the Chichén style. This would suggest the presence of Chichén commoners and would indicate that Kulubá may have functioned as a colonial outpost of Chichén.

2. If Chichén Itzá employed a strategy of hegemonic control at Kulubá, then:

1. There should be little evidence of Chichén architecture. The civic centers in the Kulubá region should have some evidence of Chichén prestige goods but an overall predominance of non-Itzá artifacts styles.
2. The colonnaded buildings documented by Andrews IV and Andrews V and any others discovered at lower-order centers should be associated with artifacts common across Yucatán but not at Chichén Itzá. These artifacts include Cehpech ceramics, non-green obsidian, and bas-relief sculptures in the "Classic" Maya style. This would suggest that the architectural styles were emulated by local elite but were otherwise not involved in the prestige good system of Chichén.
3. Commoner houses would not be in the Chichén style nor be associated with Chichén style artifacts since the hegemonic format operates at only the elite level: while Kulubá elite would have ties to Chichén, the commoners would not.

3. If Chichén Itzá exerted no control at Kulubá, leaving this site autonomous, then:

1. There should be a complete lack or very low frequencies of Chichén architecture and Chichén artifacts such as Sotuta pottery and Pachuca obsidian throughout the region.
2. The colonnaded buildings at Kulubá (and any found at lower-order centers) should date to the Early Classic Period. There are examples of Early Classic colonnaded structures, most notably at the site of Aké in northwestern Yucatán (G. Andrews 1995; Roys and Shook 1966).
3. Commoner settlement at Kulubá itself and at lower-order centers would lack Chichén style artifacts and houses built in the Chichén style.

With these theoretical constructs and bridging arguments in mind, we entered the field with the overall goal of achieving a better understanding of the Kulubá polity as a whole by shifting the focus of archaeological fieldwork from the capital and into its hinterlands.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page