Kulubá Archaeological Project 2001 Field Season

Chronology

The attempt to sketch out a preliminary chronological framework for the Kulubá region is based on the collected surface ceramics and stylistic attributes of the intact architecture we mapped. Surface potsherds were rare and, when found, small and eroded. Nevertheless, we were able to make some preliminary observations on the sherds we found using the standard set of references for northern lowland pottery (Brainerd 1958; Robles C. 1990; Smith 1971). Time did not allow for a full analysis of the ceramics and we must wait until they are fully analyzed before more elaborate discussions of chronology can be made.

The few diagnostic pieces of pottery we found at San Pedro point to a Late Formative/Early Classic date for this site. Even when eroded, Slateware from the Late/Terminal Classic Period is easily identified. No Eroded Slateware was found in any of our surface collections. A cursory examination of the material led to the identification of Sierra Red, a common Late Formative type. Architectural evidence also points to an early dating of the site. No cut stone, good evidence of Late/Terminal Classic construction and/or Postclassic reutilization, was found associated with any of the 47 structures we mapped at San Pedro.

It appears that Santa Monica dates primarily to the Late Formative/Early Classic period. At Structure 3, large pieces of pottery were collected from the 3m high profile created by extensive quarrying activity. Diagnostic sherds included Huachinango Bichromes and Sierra Red, two types common during the Late Formative/Early Classic. The few examples of standing architecture point to the same period as no Florescent blocks were found. Some megalithic retaining walls suggest a Late Formative/Early Classic occupation as Mathews (1998) has demonstrated that this style of architecture generally dates to this period.

The chronology of Yun Ak is far from clear. The ceramics we collected here were very small and eroded. The collection has yet to be fully analyzed but some slateware and Postclassic sherds were identified. The only structure that had any kind of intact architecture that might provide stylistic clues was Structure 6.  This platform had a megalithic superstructure on it. Two other superstructures lacked both megaliths and cut blocks. The megaliths present hint at a possible Early Classic date but this is certainly not conclusive. Based on the ceramic and architectural evidence, Yun Ak’s occupation might span from the Late Formative through the Postclassic.

Like Yun Ak, the chronology for Yokat is uncertain. The ceramics here were even scarcer than at the other sites we mapped. Structure 4 features some cut stone, suggestive of a Late/Terminal Classic date. That one superstructure is [-shaped lends further weight to this chronological placement since Bey et al. (1997) have demonstrated that these structures are generally late. On the other hand, the west side of Structure 9 has some of the largest megaliths we saw during the field season. If the megalithic style can be confidently placed in the Late Formative/Early Classic, then perhaps Yun Ak dates to both this period and the Late/Terminal Classic.

Both ceramics and architecture point to a Late/Terminal Classic date for Ichmul de San Jose. Numerous sherds of slateware were noted in the ceramic assemblage. Several structures have finely cut stone blocks incorporated in them, indicating the Late/Terminal Classic date. Structure 11 has several colonnetes, an architectural ornament common on Puuc style buildings. There is some evidence of an earlier occupation. Structure 12 has a largely intact megalithic retaining wall. Structure 27 is so out of sync with the rest of the Late/Terminal Classic site center that it is tempting to suggest this monumental building was built earlier.

All of the sites mapped in 2001 were at least partially contemporaneous with Kulubá. While Kulubá’s main period of occupation was during the Late/Terminal Classic, Barrera Rubio et al. (2001) have documented a ceramic sequence beginning in the Late Formative/Early Classic through the Postclassic period. The available evidence makes it clear that at least some of the sites were probably past their prime when Kulubá rose to regional prominence in the Late/Terminal Classic. If Santa Monica and San Pedro were both primarily Late Formative/Early Classic sites, it appears that Kulubá was able to out-compete these centers as the Late/Terminal Classic began. This left Yokat, Yun Ak, and Ichmul de San Jose as Kulubá’s lower-order centers during the Late/Terminal Classic. Overall, we were left with the impression that Kulubá has a lower density of small satellite sites than other polities in northern Yucatán such as Chichén Itzá and Ek Balam (Smith 2000) and those in the Puuc region (Dunning 1992).

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page