Image - Cacao Pod Vessel - K6706 © Justin Kerr FAMSI © 2004:
Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos
 

Analysis of Archaeological Artifacts from Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala

The Cotzumalhuapa Causeways

Description

The map in Figure 2 summarizes our current knowledge of Cotzumalhuapa. The monumental compounds of El Baúl and Bilbao stood on the northern and southern parts of the city. Both are large acropolis-type platforms sustaining numerous buildings, with large concentrations of monumental sculpture. The enclosed and elevated layout of El Baúl suggests a defensive function, while Bilbao appears to be more open and accessible. El Castillo is a smaller but significant concentration of monumental architecture and sculpture, dominated by a ten-meter high mound that overlooks what appears to be an open plaza. Another important ceremonial compound was probably located at Golón, on the southeastern part of the city. No monumental architecture is visible today, but an important group of monumental sculptures appeared in this sector (Chinchilla 1996a: 269-272).

These compounds were linked together by a system of stone-paved causeways identified by project excavations between 1997 and 2002. The causeways were named after early pioneers of Cotzumalhuapa archaeology. The following causeways have been identified so far:

  1. Gavarrete Causeway, named after the Guatemalan historian and archivist Juan Gavarrete, who published the first report on Cotzumalhuapa archaeology (1929[1866]). This was the main avenue in the city, averaging 11-14 meters wide, and stretching along a distance of 2.5 km, to communicate the acropolises of Bilbao and El Baúl. Before entering El Baúl, the causeway ran across a large bridge over the Santiago river gorge. The foundation walls of the bridge, which most probably sustained a wooden structure, are still visible along a 30-meter span of the river course. An excavation carried out on the western side of the river gorge revealed two constructional stages for the causeway at this location, both of which date to the Late Classic period.
  1. Berendt Causeway, named after the German linguist and archaeologist Carl Hermann Berendt, who conducted research at Cotzumalhuapa for the Ethnographic Museum of Berlin, Germany, in 1876 (Bastian 1882; Chinchilla 1996b). This smaller, 8-10 meter wide causeway branched off from the Gavarrete Causeway to communicate Bilbao with El Castillo.
  1. Habel Causeway, named after Simeon Habel, Swedish traveler who made drawings of Cotzumalhuapa sculpture in 1863, and eventually published the first comprehensive report (1878). This is the second largest causeway in the city, extending an estimated 1.3 km between El Castillo and Golón, with an average width of 10 m.  The Habel and Berendt causeways apparently converged near El Castillo. However, modern urban developments prevented the detection of their northernmost sections.
  1. Eisen Causeway, named after Gustav Eisen, traveler and ethnologist who published an important report on Cotzumalhuapa sculptures, and first called attention to the style’s presence in Antigua Guatemala (1888). The causeway stretches about 180 meters from the El Baúl acropolis to the North Group, a group of prominent mounds that was thus fully integrated within the site’s ceremonial precincts. Excavations undertaken on the southern part of the causeway revealed its extraordinary width of about 40 meters. In fact, the causeway may give the appearance of an elongated plaza, except for the fact that it is not leveled, but rises sharply northward.
  1. Thompson Causeway, named after J. Eric S. Thompson, who conducted the first modern archaeological investigation at Cotzumalhuapa (1948), and reported a small bridge that still stands about one kilometer north of El Baúl. The presence of this bridge first provided a clue for the existence of causeways going northward from El Baúl. As it turned out, the Thompson causeway is a very narrow avenue, only 4-5 meters wide. It runs northeast from the El Baúl North Group in the direction of Thompson’s bridge. Presumably, the causeway continues past the bridge, reaching an important settlement area on the other side, whose presence was determined by surface reconnaissance.

The Thompson causeway suggests that there may be numerous other small causeways extending to outlying settlements, but their small size makes their detection difficult. Interestingly, there appears to be no direct avenue joining El Castillo with El Baúl, but its existence cannot be absolutely discarded.

Ceramic Analysis

Ceramics recovered from a large portion of the Gavarrete causeway were analyzed. The typological analysis was carried out using the typology of Pacific coastal ceramics developed by Frederick Bove, José Vicente Genovez, and Sonia Medrano (in preparation). This typology is partly based on Lee Parsons’ (1967) study of ceramics from his excavations at Bilbao, with significant modifications based on previous excavations at Cotzumalhuapa and elsewhere on the Pacific coast. Based on their analysis, Bove and his collaborators developed a new chronological sequence for Escuintla, supported by a series of radiocarbon dates (Figure 3; Chinchilla, Bove, and Genovez n.d.).

Causeway excavations were largely limited to the upper layers or recent soils and sediments above the causeway pavements. Therefore, the materials recovered do not necessarily provide dates for the construction of the causeways. They may include considerable amounts of materials that were transported by natural erosion and human agents from other locations, and redeposited above the causeway pavements. Yet, the composition of the sherd collections is largely consistent with patterns observed elsewhere at Cotzumalhuapa, and it seems probable that they reflect the composition of ceramic assemblages in the general area traversed by the causeways. Typically, they include small amounts of Postclassic sherds, which are restricted to the most superficial levels. Middle to Late Classic materials are overwhelmingly dominant in every assemblage. Diagnostic sherds from the Formative and Early Classic periods are also found occasionally.

An important problem in Cotzumalhuapa archaeology involves the discrimination of Middle and Late Classic materials. As first observed by Parsons (1967: 142-143), numerous Middle Classic types continue into the Late Classic period. These include numerically important types such as Tiquisate and Perdido. However, they are mostly found mixed with Late Classic diagnostics such as Diamantes, San Andrés, and San Juan Plumbate. Therefore, any particular context that includes Late Classic diagnostics is considered to be Late Classic in date. Only those rare contexts that include no Late Classic diagnostics are considered to be Middle Classic.

Operation VA11D (Figure 4) may serve as representative of the ceramic assemblages recovered from excavations in the Gavarrete causeway. This operation is located 110 meters south of the bridge on the Santiago River, on the side opposite to El Baúl. The operation included two trenches (respectively 2×8 m and 2×6 m), that revealed the eastern and western sides of the causeway. These trenches were divided in 2×2 m excavation units. At this point, the causeway rises from the river gorge to the reach level of the terrain above. The natural terrain was substantially leveled and the excavation trench revealed a retaining wall built on the western side of the causeway, which still rises 60 cm, with three courses of stones preserved on the outer (western) side. On the eastern side, the causeway adjoins a natural elevation that was probably cut to level the causeway, and provided with a rough stone facing.

Two additional 2×2 m pits (units S10 and V10) were excavated 8 m south of the previous trenches. They revealed the causeway pavement and its western edge. At this point, there was no further need for substantial leveling, and therefore, the causeway is delimited by a single line of roughly aligned stones.

Tables 1-3, shown below, summarize the ceramic contents of these excavations. As noted, these materials were found within the thick soil layers above the level of the causeway pavements, and therefore, do not necessarily coincide with the date of their construction. Nevertheless, they provide a general dating for the occupation of the area. Formative sherds were entirely absent, while Early Classic materials were minimally present. Diagnostic materials from the Middle Classic period are scarce, while the dominant component of every excavation level consisted of Middle to Late Classic materials. Late Classic diagnostics formed the second largest group, but their abundant presence suggests that these lots are largely of Late Classic origin. A small presence of Postclassic materials in the uppermost excavation levels most likely derives from thin settlements of that period in the surrounding area, whose presence postdates the abandonment of the causeway system and the city as a whole.

Table 1.  Operation VA11D, Suboperations A15-C15.
Summary of Ceramic Types by Period.
Unit A15 B15 C15 Total
Excavation levels 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1   2 3 4 5 6 7  
Formative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Early Classic 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Middle Classic 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 8
Middle/Late Classic 86 51 60 30 35 20 55 60 61 0 18 35 25 14 40 590
Late Classic 38 12 19 3 18 16 24 14 23 0 5 9 5 13 2 201
Postclassic 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

 

Table 2.  Operation VA11D, Suboperations S15-V15.
Summary of Ceramic Types by Period.
Unit S15 T15 U15 V15 Total
Excavation levels 1 2   3 4 5   1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3   4 5 1 2 3 4   5  
Formative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Early Classic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Middle Classic 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Middle/Late Classic 101 101 0 61 36 0 10 40 41 76 61 21 32 0 16 21 29 29 15 0 690
Late Classic 33 32 0 20 6 0 11 5 13 23 28 9 6 0 0 7 12 12 2 0 219
Postclassic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

Table 3.  Operation VA11D, Suboperations S10 and V10.
Summary of Ceramic Types by Period.
Unit S10 V10 Total
Excavation levels 1 2 1 2 3 4 5  
Formative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Early Classic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Middle Classic 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 7
Middle/Late Classic 82 47 44 91 74 63 15 416
Late Classic 16 20 14 35 19 16 1 121
Postclassic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Special Objects

Figure 5. San Juan Plumbate vessel deposited as a cache deposit inside the fill of the western parapet of the Gavarrete causeway, operation VA11D.

A particularly important find was a San Juan Plumbate jar (Figure 5, shown above) with globular, striated body, and incurving neck, that was deposited inside the fill of the retaining wall of the Gavarrete causeway. This cache vessel allows a secure dating of this construction to the Late Classic period. San Juan Plumbate is one of the major makers of the Late Classic period at Cotzumalhuapa and elsewhere on the Pacific coast (Thompson 1948; Parsons 1967).

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page