The Eastern Riverine Corridor During the Late Classic Period

Conclusions

In conclusion, while the settlement survey of the New River Lagoon did not record the population densities expected, the confirmation of a water route from the New River drainage into the Belize River drainage did lead to insights into the political differences apparent between the Petén uplands and the New River drainage basin. Based upon the architectural similarities; the consistencies in site lay-out; and epigraphic and material evidence (such as the slate stelae) linking Calakmul and Caracol, the New River drainage basin seems to have been integrated into the Calakmul sphere for most of the Late Classic period.

In contrast, upon scaling the escarpments–the natural boundary between the coastal lowland and the Petén upland–one finds distinctions that are consistent with strong ties to Tikal. Public architecture is in the Petén style at sites such as La Milpa, Dos Hombres, and Ma’ax Na. Further site lay-outs do not replicate plans seen at Calakmul, nor were E-groups constructed (Houk 1996). Finally, no material correlates of a strong association with Caracol, such as slate stela, have been recovered.

These differences may have a long history, beginning in the Preclassic, if the E-groups are a diagnostic feature of the distinctions. If such is the case, then the Classic period struggles between Tikal and Calakmul are not enough to account for the contrasts. Epigraphers and archaeologists have recently suggested that ethnic differences may have existed between the populations of the northern Petén and southern Yucatán and those of the central Petén, with the more northerly group representing Yucatecan speakers and the more central group consisting of Ch’olti’an speakers (Schele and Freidel 1990; Guenter n.d.; Hansen, personal communication, 2002; Lacadena and Wichmann 2002; Mathews 2002; Reese-Taylor and Walker 2002a). Is it possible that ethnic differences might also underlie the differences in this region as well? Were the populations of the New River drainage ethnically Yucatecan and those of the Petén uplands Ch’olti’an, or do the differences reflect ethnic groups who speak distinct Ch’olti’an dialects as proposed by Wichmann (2002)? While it is unwise to base ethnic identification on linguistic affiliation alone, the combination of linguistic and archaeological evidence may enable scholars to determine if such ethnic differences did exist in the past and would prove a fruitful avenue for future study.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page