 |
FAMSI © 2003: Francisco Estrada-Belli (Vanderbilt University) |
|
Archaeological Investigations at Holmul, Petén, Guatemala Investigations at Cival The site was first reported, named and mapped by Ian Graham in 1984, and since 2001, it undergoes investigation by the HAP (Estrada-Belli 2002). Its ceremonial core sits on the left bank of the Holmul river, on a high ridge-top area of 1000 × 500 m overlooking a small pond to the south and the Holmul river to the east. It is located at the edge of NE-SW trending upland plateau in an apparent strategic location for access to the river route from the north. The core area mapped by Marc Wolf and Kristen Gardella contains several monumental buildings arranged along an E-W axis in a sequence of plazas, courts on elevated platforms and six associated carved monuments (Figure 4). The tallest platform at the site, Group 1, located at the eastern extremity of the ridge, is a 27 m-high multi-temple platform measuring 70×40 m supporting five small temple-pyramids. These five buildings form a triadic layout which recalls a well-known pattern at a few Petén Preclassic sites such as El Mirador, Nakbé and others, but most closely that of Uaxactún’s Group H-5 (Valdez 1989): two smaller pyramids flank the tallest, eastern, temple and to the west is an inset stairway topped by two smaller stepped buildings (Strs. 4 and 5). A looters’ trench in the southeastern building (Str. 5) revealed a three-structure building sequence, the earliest of which is covered by well-preserved red-painted stucco.
The first building phase in the Str. 5 sequence was a 4 m-high three-terrace pyramid with an inset eastern stairway, flanked by sloping terrace walls decorated with apron moldings and inset corners (Figure 46). The second and third phase white-stuccoed buildings are decorated in a similar style and reach a height of 5 m (Figure 47, shown above). Associated ceramics date these construction phases to the Late Preclassic (400 B.C.-A.D. 200). The latest construction on Structure 5 and the façade of Group 1 employ a peculiar upright limestone block technique similar to Structure 5D-54-4 in Tikal’s Mundo Perdido, which dates to the 1st century A.D. (Laporte 1999: 18-19).
Group 1 faces a 130 m-long range structure (Str. 7) which, paired with a 20 m-high pyramid to the west, forms a layout similar to "E-Groups" at Preclassic sites such as Uaxactún, Tikal, Nakbé and several others found in east-central Petén. A test pit was placed on the southeastern end of this structure in connection with carved stone fragments (Stela 1). The excavation encountered two construction phases above bedrock and indicated a total height for the structure of 2.4 m. Both construction phases produced pure Late Preclassic ceramic materials (400 B.C.-200 A.D.). Stela 1 is broken into several eroded fragments, which are lying scattered on top of Structure 7. A chert chisel was found just below the humus next to the main carved fragment (Figure 49, shown above, and Figure 50, shown below). Of the little carving that is preserved, only a hand that holds a K’awiil sceptre can be recognized, a feature which leaves no doubt that Stela 1 is a Late Classic monument.
On the axis of Structure 7, at the east end of what might have been an "E-Group", Cival Stela 2 was located (Figure 51). This irregularly shaped limestone monument, had been photographed in 1911 by Raymond Merwin of Harvard University and only now relocated. It is carved only on the front. It measures 177 cm in height and 107 cm in width, with a maximal thickness of 21 cm. The top of the figure is missing.
The incised design shows a personage in stride in the fluid and dynamic style known only from the earliest sculptures of the Maya lowlands (Figure 52). Its features, feet pointing in the same direction and legs not overlapping at the knees, distinguish pre-Bak’tun 9 monuments from those of later periods after A.D. 435 (Proskouriakoff 1950: 19-21). The feet lack sandals, and the arms are adorned only with a slip-knot around the wrist, indicating that the sculpture antedates Early Classic and late Late Preclassic monuments, such as Nakbé Stela 1 (Hansen 1992). Sandals are similarly absent on Middle Preclassic and early Late Preclassic sculptures such as Kaminaljuyú Stelae 9 and 11, Abaj Takalik Stela 3, the Loltún relief and Uaxactún Stela 10. The figure wears a simple loincloth tied to a belt. The only adornment is a mask with three celts attached to it, covering the area of the chest and belly. The anthropomorphic mask has a square forehead and an elongated snout, resembling Olmec and Izapan deity masks (Norman 1976 Figs. 6.28-6.31) more so than images known from Maya iconography (see also Estrada-Belli et al. 2003). The carving style and absence of hieroglyphs strongly suggest that this sculpture is very early, antedating other Preclassic Maya carvings, such as the Dumbarton Oaks pectoral, the San Diego cliff carving and the problematic looted Hauberg Stela, but also monuments from Nakbé, which display a much more static style anticipating developments in Early Classic sculpture. The archaic features, including the use of incision, the olmecoid mask and the absence of text are secure indicators that Cival Stela 2 dates amongst the oldest known Maya lowland sculptures. Another noteworthy feature encountered by our explorations at Cival include a two-course stone wall running along the southern edge of the ridge-top for 300 m and continuing along the eastern edge of the site core (Figure 4). Along its path, this wall cuts across platforms and the back side of buildings in a manner consistent with rapidly-built defensive walls. Our current finds raise several intriguing questions regarding the nature of this site’s Preclassic occupation, as probably the largest settlement in the Holmul region. The nature of the Late Classic period occupation of the site is unclear. Finally, it will be important to establish the date and function of the wall enclosure. Our preliminary findings suggest that Cival was probably the largest site in the Holmul region during the Late Preclassic. We hypothesize that abrupt changes occurred at the end of the Preclassic period, and power and ceremonial focus shifted to the south, in the Holmul site center, where Early Classic and Late Classic dynastic activity has been already documented (Merwin and Vaillant 1932, Estrada-Belli 2002, Grube 2003, Tomasic and Estrada-Belli 2003). Judging from Stela 1’s carving style and apparent lack of major Late Classic architectural features at the site, Stela 1 may be the result of the action of dispersal of Late Classic monuments from Holmul out to peripheral centers at or after the time of their carving.
|
||
|
Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX |
||
