Final Report of the 2000 Yo’okop Field Season: Initial Mapping and Surface Collections
Justine M. Shaw, Dave Johnstone, and Ruth Krochock

Architecture

Terraces:  Given the high topographic relief between Group A and the aguada, level building spaces are at a premium. The area of selected flat spaces in Group A was expanded through the construction of terraces that could support residential construction. The north face of Group A is also terraced, possibly to formally denote space and to restrict access. Terraces range in height from 20 centimeters to over two meters. They are composed of dry core fill, surfaced in gravel and faced with roughly cut stone. The faces of most terraces are composed of small stones laid horizontally and set in mortar, though one is faced with larger stones up to a meter in size set vertically.

Sacbeob:  Sacbeob may be thought of as long two-sided terraces that connect architectural groups by artificially leveling the intervening topography with a regular grade. Of the three sacbeob currently known from Yo’okop, only Sacbe 1 and Sacbe 3 were examined this season. Both run relatively straight for 718 and 650 meters respectively, and terminate in major architectural groups. The height of sacbeob varies according to local terrain, from 10 to 170 cm.  The modern road from Sabán to Dzoyola cuts through Sacbe 1 and Sacbe 3, exposing the road cores in profile. Both sacbeob are faced with cut stone laid horizontally and set in mortar. The core is composed of dry laid stone grading from boulder-sized, through cobble- to pebble-sized rough stone near the upper surface. The road is then surfaced with crushed and compacted sascab. To build and maintain Sacbe 1, a number of sascaberos are located adjacent to and under the sacbe.

Platforms:  Platforms are freestanding terraces that provide level surfaces for public display and the construction of residential superstructures. Based on ceramic surface collections, the five platforms mapped in the 2000 season appear to date from the Late Formative through the Late Classic. The two tentative Late Formative platforms (Structures S1E1-3 & N2E1-1) are distinguished by facing stones composed of medium-to-large, roughly-shaped blocks set vertically. These stones act as a retaining wall for the platform fill that is capped by rough gravel. Two other platforms (Structures S3W1-2 & S4E3-1), apparently dating to the Early Classic, are faced with similarly-sized stones more carefully dressed and laid horizontally with the largest stones at the corners. The final platform (Structure N4E1-1) is faced with smaller stones laid horizontally. This construction style is also found on two additions to platform S4E3-1, confirming the relatively late date for this construction style.

Acropoli:  A single acropolis located in Group B was mapped this season. Acropoli differ from platforms in terms of scale and function. In addition to supporting a pyramid, this acropolis supports a number of range structures. No formal stairways are apparent to give access to this acropolis. Structure N5W1-1 measures 98 m × 66 m in area and 2.5 m in height.

Pyramids:  Pyramidal structures may be thought of as stacked platforms which support summit temples instead of residences. Four pyramids were mapped this season: three in Group A and one in Group B.  Three (Structures S5E1-1, S4W1-1, and N5W1-6) exhibit relatively steep sides and rears, with less steep fronts. The best preserved, Structure S4W1-1, displays two construction phases, a lower Classic Period construction surmounted by later Postclassic construction. The Classic Period pyramid rises in three terraces faced with small, well-dressed stones at an 80 degree angle, and is largely free of chinking. An outset stairway without balustrades is situated on the north side of the pyramid and runs two thirds of the way up the structure. Where erosion has exposed the construction fill of the terrace, uncut stones in a silt matrix may be seen. The fourth pyramid, Structure S4W2-1, is a Postclassic structure that differs from the others in general form and in construction techniques. While pyramidal terraces are typically solid constructions, Structure S4W2-1 contains two vaulted, descending passages with stairs that terminate in small rooms. The masonry of these walls is composed of small, roughly-quarried stone with abundant chinking and a thick coat of plaster. Apart from the passages, the three terraces of this structure are built of unshaped dry laid stone. No facing stones have been located in situ.

Summit temples:  Summit temples are small, vaulted-masonry structures that crown pyramidal bases. At present, no Classic period summit temples are known, and it assumed that these were constructed of perishable materials. Two Postclassic summit temples were mapped this season, one in each group. In Group B, Structure N5W1-4 is a one-room building constructed in East Coast style. The walls are composed of reused block and veneer stones on a concrete core. The narrow doorway is flanked by reused Puuc-style spindles, and a recessed lintel spans the opening. The vault is supported by roughly-shaped, load-bearing corbels with heavy use of chinking stones. The summit temple in Group A (Structure S4W1-6), capping Structure S4W1-1 is more complex, having two stories linked by internal ramps or stairs. The front lower façade was similar to that of Structure N5W1-4 (Stromsvik et al. 1955: figure 2l), having reused Puuc spindles supporting a recessed lintel. This front wall has subsequently collapsed. The internal masonry is considerably coarser than that of the exterior, resembling the internal passages of Structure S4W2-1.  These are covered with at least five coats of plaster, two of which were painted blue.

Range structures:  Range structures are linear, multi-room masonry superstructures. At least thirteen such structures were mapped this season. Humus accumulation and collapse material may conceal many other range structures within the portion of the site that was mapped. All range structures noted at present seem to date to the Early or Late Classic Periods on the basis of construction style. Examples of both tandem and transverse room plans are apparent. Where masonry walls are visible, the stonework consists of small moderately well cut to finely cut load-bearing stone. A portion of a vault is visible in Structure S4E1-4, and consists of coarsely dressed and heavily-chinked, corbeled, load-bearing stones.

Foundation braces:  Foundation braces are the stone foundations for perishable superstructures, usually residential in function. Both apsidal and rectangular examples are noted at Yo’okop, with some of the latter containing multiple rooms. A number of foundation braces also contain inner benches along rear walls. In some cases, new foundation braces are placed over existing ones, suggesting a long occupational history for several residential locales. While the majority of these are located around the perimeter of major architectural groups, the presence of some in the center of plazas may indicate late occupation or perhaps the remains of siege structures as have been reported at Dos Pilas (Demarest 1993:99) and Yaxuná (Shaw and Johnstone 1996:43).

Albarradas:  Albarradas are low, free-standing walls that serve to divide or enclose space. They consist of stones of varying size stacked up to one meter in height without mortar. The basal course is usually composed of larger stones set upright. Some albarradas are associated with the foundation braces of Group A.  Others, located northwest of the aguada, seem to be late constructions, as they pass over earlier constructions including Sacbe 1.

Fortifications:  Fortification walls are different from albarradas in terms of scale and function. They are designed to restrict access to certain areas by wholly or partially enclosing them. The fortification walls of Group B (Structure N5W2-2, Figure 19) are steep and the Group’s stepped rampart walls are consistent with other Northern Lowland fortifications (Webster 1979). Well-preserved sections have a height of two meters and a width of three meters. Unlike those found at several other Northern Maya sites, including Chunchucmil and Yaxuná (Dahlin 2000; Manahan et al. 1997), the Group B fortifications do not appear to have been hastily constructed, "last-ditch" efforts. The fortifications are composed of a thick rubble core enclosed by dry-laid, roughly-quarried stone walls. The fortification walls are not continuous, but incorporate existing structures into the defensive system. A fortification wall runs up to and partially over Structure N5W2-1.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page