Public Architecture: Navajas, Jalisco, México

Conclusions

We would like to discuss the conclusions from the work at Circle 5 and explicitly compare them to the ceramic models of the circles that are known from art collections and publications (e.g. Von Winning and Hammer 1972, Townsend 1998) around the world. As we have already noted, however, the artifacts found within the circles have not tended to include those items of value (except for ceramic figures) that are so well known from the shaft tombs in the region. Although people clearly had access to jade, marine shell, and other prestige goods, these objects found their way into the tombs and they have not been very common within the contemporaneous circles.

The proposal that lineages are the basic social components of the circles remains a very intriguing proposition. The proposal was first plausibly made on the basis of skeletal data (Pickering and Cabrero 1998) and later on the basis of the structure to structure variation around the circle at Llano Grande (Beekman n.d., see also Beekman 2000). While the ceramic models cannot be said to depict lineages per se, they do tend to represent the structures around the circle as having external roof decoration that differs from one to the next (Von Winning and Hammer 1972: Figures 39, 59, 86). Symbolic signaling of this nature suggests that the builders/occupants of the different structures were emphasizing their differences, so the identification of some social group with the different structures seems to be implicated.

Current models of the activities within the circular public architecture emphasize the importance of feasting and ritual drinking in contests of prestige (Butterwick 1998), competition among elites for status and followers (Beekman 2000), or the symbolic agricultural role of rulers (Beekman 2003a, b). The data from Navajas Circle 5 are relevant to each of these models. The analysis of the ceramics has tended to suggest that less competitive feasting was taking place at Circle 5 due to the homogeneity of the assemblages across structures. Communal feasting on the other hand seems quite likely, although we are somewhat surprised at the extremely high percentages of open thick-walled serving bowls. Such vessels are in fact represented in numerous ceramic models of the architecture showing group activities (e.g. Von Winning and Hammer 1972: Figures 20, 23, passim; Townsend 1998: 95, 133, passim; and collected in Butterwick 1998). The greater presence of macrobotanical remains (and perhaps very fragmentary faunal remains) inside the structures as opposed to the patios suggests either greater activity within the structures or else assiduous cleaning of the open spaces. The people associated with Structure 5-5 may have had a greater role in feasting activities as suggested by the greater quantities and diversity of macrobotanical remains, and by the presence of a metate in situ on the interior floor.

The evidence for both competition between social groups and the symbolic agricultural role of elites are interestingly absent in Circle 5. The designs on ceramic vessels are quite simple and imported ceramics are almost totally missing. The only exotic goods present are solid figurines and hollow figures, and burials are absent. Whatever role lineages played in Circle 5, the mortuary aspect had been removed to another location, and at least four cemeteries are known from the immediately surrounding region. The lack of a posthole in the center of the altar would seem to suggest that the agricultural ceremony so prominently depicted in the ceramic models (e.g. Von Winning and Hammer 1972: Figures 77-86; Townsend 1998: 144, 146, 147) was also absent at this circle. A circle similar to Circle 5 with a very large diameter altar was partly excavated at Guachimontón in 2002, and the excavators also could not identify a central posthole. This may be a chronological distinction, but this is hard to determine as yet since only the circle at Llano Grande (ca. A.D. 200-300) has been radiocarbon dated. Another possibility is that Circle 5 and its counterpart at Guachimontón were small and less formal examples of the Teuchitlán tradition architecture. This may well have impacted upon the activities carried out within them. This seems a very plausible explanation at present, and emphasizes that the circular architecture of the Teuchitlán tradition should not all be interpreted in the same way, and there may in fact be significant social differences between them. This may be especially true at smaller circles within a site that has several larger and more formal examples. A relatively simple circle like that excavated at Llano Grande was nevertheless the only one at that site, and it may have been correspondingly more generalized in the activities taking place there. This is an interesting question that has yet to be explored.

In sum, the project at Circle 5 has allowed us to evaluate the activities at a small circle of the Teuchitlán tradition, and compare those across different structures in a manner unexplored until this study. Support for this project has also aided in funding the training of graduate students in the region’s archaeology. I do not consider this a trivial by-product of the research. Unlike some areas of Mesoamerica, western México has very few active field projects to support the growing number of students who are choosing to focus their career on this region. One of the most valuable aspects of FAMSI support has been their contribution to encouraging and maintaining those young scholars whose attention has been drawn to the area.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page