intermediate-scale patterns in the urban environment

INTERMEDIATE-SCALE PATTERNS IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT OF POSTCLASSIC MAYAPÁN Timothy S. Hare, Ph.D Morehead State University, Morehead, KY 40351 [email protected] Marilyn A. Masson, Ph.D. University at Albany, Albany, NY [email protected] Chapter submitted for an edited book entitled Neighborhoods in Mesoamerican Archaeology: The assessment of intermediate units of spatial and social analysis, edited by Charlotte Arnauld and Linda R. Manzanilla. The editors are deciding between publishers - either the University of Arizona Press, Tucson, or Leiden University Press in (for publication in 2010 or 2011). Introduction Identifying districts, neighborhoods, or smaller social subunits within the urban landscape of Mayapán represents one of the most important challenges for understanding the organization of the city and the relationship between its governors and supporting population. Although historical sources attest to planning principles and strategies, including conceptual quadripartition and resettlement of service populations to the political capital, prior archaeological assessments of settlement organization within Mayapán have failed to recognize functional and social variation. In this paper we explore archaeological data for intermediate-level patterns in Mayapán’s urban form. By intermediate-level patterns, we mean social or administrative subunits in the settlement zone that linked Mayapán’s residential population to polity administrators through the coordination of political, religious, social, or economic activities. As outlined in chapters by Smith and Okoshi in this volume (see also Marcus 1983), neighborhoods are one potential subunit along with larger, more formal districts, areas of special function, as well as smaller sub-neighborhood clusters of families (Bullard 1960:367, Brown 1999:78-79, Brown and Whitschey 2003:1625). We examine different data sets that may illuminate the location and diversity of spatial districts, neighborhoods, and feature clusters. These zones may be identified by residential density, social status of residential units, proximity to key nodal features such as cenotes or civic architecture, and city divisions implied by transportation network features such as stone-lined pedestrian pathways. Some of the evidence is ambiguous with respect to the actual size and distribution of neighborhoods or other units, but points nonetheless to a differentiated city landscape formed by dynamic social, political, economic, and historical forces. Mayapán’s settlement has been characterized as either concentrically organized, with elite, ritual, and administrative features concentrated around the central monumental core (Landa 1941:23-26), or alternatively, structured into distinct neighborhoods or barrios administered by outlying elites (Chase 1992:128-131). A third characterization argues that the city’s domestic groups developed organically according to fractal principles with

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

1

a high degree of replication among social/architectural units (Brown 1999:175-190, Brown and Whitschey 2003). Elements of all three of these principles are reflected in Mayapán’s settlement, as we discuss below, and we offer further support for the arguments presented by Diane Chase regarding the importance of dispersed, but strategically placed outlying elite residences and public buildings in neighborhood administration. As Marcus (1983:240) notes, Mesoamerican cities can display aspects of different formal models, including concentricity, sectors, and multiple nuclei. Previous archaeological investigations of ancient Mesoamerican political centers address key research questions relevant for studying intermediate-scale urban organization at Mayapán. The distribution of elite residences and architecture may reflect administrative or ritual nodes servicing city subdivisions such as neighborhoods or larger districts, as discussed for Teotihuacan (Cowgill et al. 1984) and Tula (Mastache et al. 2002:170-171). Concentrations of residences by social class or ethnicity may also provide archaeological indications of subunits as considered for Teotihuacan and Matacapan (Millon 1976, Cowgill et al. 1984, Santley et al. 1987, Cowgill 1997:138). A key analytical concept related to neighborhoods is that of the household cluster (Bullard 1960:367, Smith 1993:196, Brown 1999:78-79), a conglomeration of individual residences that likely represents meaningful social and economic subunits of neighborhoods. The identification of functionally distinct urban spaces of a residential or nonresidential nature can also provide clues to districting. For example, some Mesoamerican cities (including Mayapán) have crafts barrio residential zones (e.g. Millon 1981, Charlton 1994, Manzanilla 1996, Becker 2003, M. Smith 2007:12-16). Smaller clusters or dispersed patterns of distinctive types of production, consumption, or ritual can also help to distinguish neighborhoods (Shafer and Hester 1983:529, Charlton 1994, Manzanilla 1996, Smith 2007:12-16). Marketplaces are a key specific-function node within an urban setting (e.g., Dahlin et al. 2007). We argue that outlying elite residential, ritual, or administrative buildings (like Mayapán’s colonnaded halls) served as focal, integrative nodes for individuals living nearby (following Cowgill et al. 1984, Chase 1992, Mastache et al. 2002:170-171, Manzanilla 2004). Such conspicuous landmarks would have aided pedestrian navigation across town (Shaw 2001). Other features that split, define, or link spaces together within cities include roads (sacbeob) and open plazas (Shaw 2001, Chase and Chase 2004). Mayapán’s internal transportation network included three sacbes and a number pedestrian trails defined by stone lanes or houselot walls. Archaeology at Mayapán The development of Postclassic Maya society and the political capital of Mayapán emerged from a period of rapid societal change and widespread interregional interaction. During the Terminal (A.D. 850-1100) and Postclassic (A.D. 1100-1500) periods, city states across the Maya area rose and fell in dynamic cycles, amplified production and distribution networks transformed the landscape (Sabloff and Rathje 1975), and political interaction and market exchange integrated the Maya area and central Mexico into the Mesoamerican world system (Kepecs et al. 1994, Smith and Berdan 2003). Mayapán was the last major urban core of the Maya lowlands, and was the nucleus of a centralized polity just prior to European contact. The height of Mayapán’s power dates from A.D.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

2

1200-1400, and it fell during K’atun 8 Ahau between A.D. 1441-1461 (Landa 1941, Peraza et al. 2006). This city, located in the state of Yucatán, México (Figure 1), was a major political capital of the Late Postclassic Maya world, – larger than all other lowland Maya settlements by an order of magnitude (Smith 2005:411, 419). Its governing elites dominated the affairs of much of the western half of the modern Mexican state of Yucatán (Roys 1962) and stimulated emulation, religious revitalization, and trade in distant hinterlands (Masson 2000, Pugh 2002). Mayapán is an ideal location for studying ancient urban patterns due to its late date and abandonment between A.D. 1441-1461 (Peraza et al. 2006) and correlating corpus of historical accounts (Roys 1962). Preservation is excellent, and it is primarily a singlecomponent site (Peraza et al. 2006). These conditions facilitate easy mapping of features and roughly contemporary activity areas which are visible on the surface in cleared areas. Four prior research projects have been conducted, providing a wealth of data: 1. The Carnegie Institution (1951-1955), 2. The Instituto Nacional de Antropología (INAH)-Mayapán site center project (1986-present) 3. Clifford Brown’s houselot project and regional surveys (1993-present) 4. Our own Proyecto Económico de Mayapán (PEMY) research (2001-present) Mayapán is one of the best-mapped sites in Mesoamerica. The first map was created by Morris Jones and team (1952, 1962), who documented every structure within the 4.2square kilometer walled portion of the site. PEMY research initiated a revision of sections of the original map using modern survey technology. Since 1996, the Centro INAH – Yucatán has been investigating and restoring structures of the site’s monumental center (Peraza et al. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003); this work provides much new information on the city’s epicenter. Mayapán’s Great Wall encloses most of the settlement and has a circumference of 9.1 km (Shook 1952:8). Twelve gates were constructed in the wall, seven of which were labeled “major” gates by Jones (1962) (Figure 2). Some, like Gates D, T, H, and O are finely constructed, with porticos and/or columns (Shook 1952). One documentary account claimed an inflated population for Mayapán of 60,000 (Tozzer 1941:24, Note 131). The Carnegie map recorded approximately 4,100 buildings within or adjacent to the enclosure, leading A.L. Smith (1962) to suggest a population of 10-12000. The Carnegie tally is conservative and mapping efforts by Brown (1999:149-150) and our own team (Hare 2008) have uncovered more structures within groups mapped by Jones (1962) as well as expanded settlement outside of the city wall (Russell 2008). Russell’s (2008:487) transect surveys outside of the city wall now project a Postclassic Period population estimate for the city of around 17,000 people, which is close to Brown’s (1999:189) updated estimate of 15,000-16,000. Mapping Data Utilized in this Study We use three new kinds of mapping data from Mayapán in this assessment of the settlement zone. First, we use a digitized, GIS version of Jones’ 1962 Carnegie Mayapán site map which enables us to offer new observations on the distribution and location of

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

3

elite and commoner features (residences, halls, and temples) outside of the monumental center. Second, we use a series of 36 mapped fields from our own PEMY research created during the 2001-2003 seasons (Figure 3). These fields were cleared for agricultural production during our field seasons and are labeled Milpa Fields #1-#36. Twenty-one of these fields are from within the city wall and have the best detail and accuracy available for the site (Hare 2008). We supplement our mapped field data with additional information collected on features and stone-lined lanes from other forested areas. Third, we use unpublished maps created by William Bullard and housed in the archives of the Peabody Museum of Harvard. Bullard’s work on documenting houselot (albarrada) walls and searching for pedestrian pathways (lanes of parallel stones) through Mayapán is well known (Bullard 1952, 1954, A.L. Smith 1962:Figure 1). The only published maps of his efforts are from Squares I and H (A.L. Smith 1962:Figure 1), which had the longest segments of lanes found at Mayapán - these were viewed as atypical for the site (A.L. Smith 1962:210). As it turns out, Bullard also recorded all of the albarrada walls present in Squares D/K, AA/DD, and Z/EE (Bullard 1952:36), but he did not publish this information. Our team located his penciled recordings of these walled spaces on an early version of the Jones (1952) map at the Peabody Museum. Timothy Hare digitized these maps, and made adjustments necessary to transpose them on to the final Jones 1962 map. These Bullard maps provide excellent data for analyzing Mayapán’s settlement organization. Although we have twenty-one field localities with similarly-mapped walled features, the fields are small, irregular spaces that are less useful than Bullard’s fully-recorded 500 X 500 m squares. Most importantly, these data facilitate reconstruction of probable pedestrian pathways from major city gates toward destinations in the city’s interior. Ethnohistorical Accounts Mayapán remained important in the memories of Maya informants during the Colonial Period. It was conceptually divided into quadripartite sectors like some other Postclassic Maya communities (Coe 1965, Carmack 1981:169-171, Roys 1962:37, 78, Fox 1987:34), but this is not clearly reflected in settlement patterns (Brown 1999:67-73). Brown’s (1999:67, Figure 2) suggestion of four conceptual divisions based on axes drawn from the four major cardinal gates through the site’s epicentral pyramidal structure (Q-162) merits further investigation. Documentary sources refer to principal cardinal gates and their named lineage head guardians (Roys 1962:79). It is difficult to identify correlates of four corners of the city, however, as the city has twelve gates of differing size, elaboration and probable significance (Shook 1952, Brown 1999:66). Three outlying temples are associated with major northern and northeastern and southeastern Gates D, H, and T which may relate to cardinal divisions, however, a fourth, western gate temple is not present at the site. Other documentary evidence suggests that a council type government (multepal) of representatives from allied towns may have formed a confederation at Mayapán (Restall 2001:387, Note 25). Multepal is unlikely to reflect an acephalous institution of equal peers. A recent synthesis by Ringle and Bey (2001:273) suggest such councils were

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

4

headed by high-ranking paramounts and this organization may have earlier roots in Classic Period northern Yucatán. Similar political institutions involving councils of nobility from confederated territories, led by paramounts, are documented for Utalan/Q’umarkaj (Carmack 1981:12-13), a political center in highland Guatemala that was Mayapán’s contemporary and near equal in power and magnitude. Landa’s (1941:23-26) sixteenth century account of the founding of Mayapán describes the establishment of the city by resettling the “native lords of the country” at the political capital. Affiliated territories and towns were divided among these lords according to their rank. Other documentary sources give credence to Landa’s claim and name the families involved (Restall 2001). A further section of this passage from Landa relates the following information: “They ordered other houses should be constructed … where each one could keep some servants and to which people from their towns could repair when they came to the city on business. Each one (lord) thus established in these houses his majordomo… he kept account with the towns and with those who ruled them, and to them was sent notice of what was needed in the house of their lord” (Landa 1941:23-26). This statement implies that some settlement zones of Mayapán may have been established, governed and inhabited by members of Mayapán’s confederated townships, brought to the urban zone to engage in productive activities essential to the needs of the city and its governors. Some of Mayapán’s barrios may have originated through administered settlement, especially when the city was founded. Dynamic power shifts throughout its history (Masson 2000:259-263), may have prompted periodic resettlement efforts. Other forces likely attracted settlers to Mayapán to take advantage of entrepreneurial or employment opportunities beyond the mandates of town governors. Workers performing corvée service to the state, including the military, would have resided at the city on a periodic basis (Masson et al. 2006:205). Records also suggest that Mayapán was occupied by diverse social groups from the Gulf Coast, probably the Peten, and perhaps, the east coast of the peninsula (Edmonson 1982:9, Landa 1941:32, Tozzer 1941:34, Note 172, Masson and Peraza 2010). Piña Chan (1978:43) describes barrios established by Gulf Coast agents at Nito, Honduras. Mayapán’s neighborhoods probably originate from different planned or opportunistic processes that fluctuated through time as parts of the city prospered, grew, or suffered misfortunes. There is documentary evidence for wards, barrio-type units in early colonial Yucatán (Restall 2001, Roys 1957). The cuchteel (ward or barrio) was an economic and political unit headed by a ward leader (Ah Cuch Cab) (Roys 1957, Ringle and Bey 2001:271, Quezada 1993:39, 41-42, Note 60). The Ah Cuch Cab served as a cuchteel representative, and could have organized ceremonies, tribute collection, and military or corvée service. The cuchteel were a taxation unit that may have some parallels with central Mexican calpulli, a social unit linked to land holdings and productive responsibilities (Quezada 1993:41-42). The cah-cuchteel could have represented a town division or a larger unit of population (Okoshi, this volume). Okoshi’s term cah-cuchteel combines the units of cah – described by Restall (2001) as a town, its jurisdiction, and landholdings, and the

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

5

settlement subdivision of cuchteel outlined in Roys’ readings of documentary sources. While this conflation may be appropriate for specific cases in post-conquest Yucatan described in Okoshi’s chapter, our consideration of neighborhoods at Mayapán necessarily includes the possibility of Roys’ original definition of cuchteel, and this type of town division is one of the manifestations listed by Okoshi. It is unclear whether the term cuchteel at Mayapán sometimes corresponded to other smaller, more organicallyformed “face block” social neighborhood spaces described by Smith (this volume). Colonial political configurations in what Mathew Restall (2001) terms the “segmented century” were likely simpler and more decentralized than the political landscape during Mayapán’s dominion. Population losses due to epidemics shortly before Spanish conquest devasted indigenous societies across the Americas (including the Maya area) and impacted their social structure on an unprecedented scale (e.g. Mann 2005:59, 94-98, 106-108, 116-121). Okoshi (this volume) describes the dispersed, flexible, and relatively autonomous nature of batalibob polities and social/residential units within them during the 16th century. In contrast, Mayapán’s primary political charter endeavored to centralize government, tribute collection, and other exchanges among the dispersed towns of the northwest peninsula. To facilitate participation in negotiations and events, leaders of member communities likely maintained part-time residences in the urban center in addition to the home settlement, a pattern that lingered into the Contact era (Okoshi this volume). Town leaders during the Contact Period seem to have replicated Pre-Columbian functions of integration and management of external affairs as Okoshi describes (this volume), but on a smaller scale. Piña Chan (1978:37) argues that some neighborhoods at contact period Maya towns had a considerable degree of autonomy, which may have also been true for earlier Mesoamerican cities (Cowgill et al. 1984:175). It is safe to assume that they were uneven in their development, complexity, and social composition. At Tula and Teotihuacan, not all barrios were equally developed (Mastache et al. 2002:173) or had outlying public architecture that closely resembled the site center (Cowgill et al. 1984:175). This intriguing observation suggests that poorer neighborhoods or neighborhoods concerned primarily with local interests may have existed at Mesoamerican cities. Similarly, some squares (M, N, O, P, AA) to the west of Mayapán’s epicenter lack public architecture and elite residences. Some site divisions may have been larger than the barrio scale (Cowgill et al. 1984:174-175, Cowgill 1997:139), although these are hard to detect without clear boundary markers. Our analysis below focuses on nodes of differentiated activity and settlement clustering that may highlight portions of separate Mayapán barrios, if not their exact areal extent.

Features that Divide and Punctuate Mayapán’s Cityscape Major Pathways and Plazas Mayapán’s structure was defined by a variety of features including the interior epicenter, pedestrian pathways, cenotes and caves, and conspicuous outlying architectural nodes. The Main Plaza is defined by the quadrangular space extending north of the principal pyramidal structure (Q-162) and marks the administrative center of the city.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

6

Documentary sources describe an inner enclosure around the monumental center that is no longer present in a recognizable, pre-conquest form (Tozzer 1941:23-26). Pathways traced inward from Gate D enter into a large possible marketplace to the northeast of the Main Plaza (Figure 2). This area is defined by a rectangular plaza in Square K, approximately midway between Mayapán’s monumental center and Gate D in the northern city wall (Hare et al. 2006). This space lacks houselot walls or dwellings. Another open space just to the south in Square R lies roughly perpendicular and may represent a second marketplace or continuation of the Square K feature. A concentration of five elite houses, a colonnaded hall (K-79), and a temple (R-19b) is located just east of the Square K plaza and probably represents an elite neighborhood. This feature cluster, along with the Square K plaza, aligns with a major thoroughfare that connects Gate D with the city’s major raised pathway (sacbe) at its northern terminus, palace R-86-90. There are many other pedestrian lanes running throughout Mayapán, both large and small, some of which are defined by parallel alignments of stone walls. The longest complex of parallel albarrada lanes extend from inside Gate H near Itzmal Ch’en toward the site’s interior (Figure 4) as Bullard (1954:244) and Smith (1962:209-210) describe. The majority of the other lanes were simple trails through residential areas formed by spaces between sets of houselot walls (solar enclosures) (Figure 5). Sometimes, independent or between-houselot stone-lined trails followed opportunistic flat bedrock (road-like) pavements, as Bullard (1954:243) observed in Square H; we observed similar bedrock pavements in lanes of milpa Fields #19 and #12. Unfortunately, some bedrock pavements like the one found by Bullard are covered by soil and are only detectable with excavation. In focusing on the lanes defined by walls independent from houselots, A.L. Smith (1962:210) concluded that “There does not seem to be any organized system of paths or streets – just confusion”. In contrast, we perceive that some lanes defined by houselot walls fulfilled the same purpose as the more formally defined pathways. We further argue that open spaces and flat bedrock were used as pathways and were also important in defining site structure (Figure 6), such as four that we traced northward from Major and Minor Gates EE and Minor Gate AA which proceed without crossing into any domestic solares defined by albarrada houselot walls (Figure 7). Our survey team searched for additional lanes at Mayapán outside of mapped field areas (Hare 2008). These segments of parallel walled lanes formed by sets of houselotenclosing walls had an average length of 33.1 m (ranging from 5.9 to 96.8 m) and do not appear to cluster in particular areas of the city. Some of these may have simply served the needs of pedestrian traffic within the neighborhoods where they are found. However, further survey and subsurface probing is warranted to see if bedrock pavements or other pedestrian features might expand our recognition of these thoroughfares. We suggest that a network of streets at Mayapán existed that was not confusing to its residents or regular visitors and functioned to connect nodal structures within the city and guide movement. Trails through Mayapán crossed open spaces, wove between houselots and represented key routes for travelers heading inward from the city gates toward interior temples, cenotes, potential market spaces, and the site center (Figure 7). The

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

7

trajectory of some of the pathways we have identified implies that cenotes may have served as navigational points (as they are today), along with their other functional, social and symbolic roles (Brown 1999:541, 2005:385-387, 2006:184,). Easy access to waterbearing cenotes would have been critical for visitors and residents alike, and it makes sense that key pedestrian pathways from the gates to the interior pass by cenotes within a few hundred meters from the gates. At times, pedestrian trails seem to detour directly into cenote areas, as noted for Cenote Xot Zum in Square Z (Figure 7). Cenotes Yax-nab and X-te Toloc are within 80 meters of one another in an open area of Square Z between the site center and Gates EE and AA (Figures 6, 7). Several pathways cross through this important intersection. Focal Architectural Nodes Elite or administrative structures are potentially important nodal features for investigating intermediate-level aggregations at Mayapán. Such groups include arrangements of temples, halls, and oratories (Proskouriakoff 1962). We examine evidence for clustering and dispersal of elite residences, halls, and temples that are located outside of the monumental center, but within the city wall. Dispersed, replicated features reflect potential neighborhood focus points utilized for integration or administration. Clustered features can indicate potential high status neighborhoods or special function localities (marketplaces, production activities, ritual activities). Kevin Lynch describes nodes in modern cities as “strategic spots in a city into which an observer can enter, and which are intensive foci to and from which he is travelling” (1960:47), and they can be “the focus and epitome of a district, over which their influence radiates and of which they stand as a symbol” (1960:48). Mayapán’s focal architectural groups and cenotes may have been nodes for neighborhoods or districts. Monumental buildings outside of the epicenter would have been landmarks that helped individuals navigate through Mayapán, as Shaw (2001:267) suggests for other northern Maya sites. Outlying temples may have also been pilgrimage destinations on a periodic basis (e.g., Freidel 1981). Four outlying ceremonial complexes (Figure 8) were identified by Proskouriakoff (1962:127-131) and Smith (1962:204-205): 1. A temple (H-17), oratory (H-14), shrine, and colonnaded hall (H-15, H-16) complex near the far eastern Gate H by Cenote Itzmal Ch’en. 2. A twin-temple and oratory group by Cenote X-Coton (T-70, T-72, also at a far eastern gate (Gate T). 3. A three staircase temple group (E-11) with an adjoining sacbe near northern Gate D, and 4. The J-109-111 group, a shrine, colonnaded hall, and oratory complex in the eastcentral portion of the city. Halls outside the site center described by A.L. Smith (1962:203, 223) include those at Itzmal Ch’en and J-111 that were part of recognized outlying ceremonial groups, as well as K-79, Z-50c, J-122b, and 18-O-1; the latter has been newly located outside of the city wall near Gate G (Russell 2007). Temple R-19b is another outlying node that hasn’t been previously discussed. This temple is part of a cluster of elite features to the east of the Square K plaza and the site center (Figure 8). Additional undocumented elite residences

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

8

or halls may be located in forested areas of Mayapán, as Russell’s (2007) recent discovery implies. Our analysis thus represents a preliminary effort based on knowledge of the most conspicuous groups within the city’s wall. Identification of these architectural groups provides archaeological support for documentary descriptions of confederacy government at Mayapán as they represent facilities that were likely operated by representatives of ruling families. Following Lynch, we propose that these groups were important foci for subdivisions within the city. Ceremonies, feasts, and ritual congregations associated with these features were probably performed by secondary nobility (religious and secular officials) and would have integrated residents living nearby. The location of multiple focal architectural complexes in the city’s settlement zone may thus provide one indication of neighborhood-like zones. A key question remains. Was focal architecture centrally located among associated, surrounding residences or placed at edges or boundaries between residential subdivisions? We return to this question later in the chapter with a cluster analysis that considers the relationship of nodal buildings to residential density. Spatial Distribution of Residences and Architectural Focal Nodes A Crafts Barrio and Dispersed Neighborhood Craft Workshops A high level of variability in artifact assemblages between houselots indicates diversity in productive activities and the regular practice of multiple, part-time occupations at sampled houselots (Masson et al. n.d.). Our work has located one crafts barrio in Milpa Field #1 with a concentration of houselots engaged in surplus craft production of obsidian, shell, chert/chalcedony tools, and pottery (Figure 3), to the immediate west of the epicenter (Masson et al. n.d., Masson and Peraza 2007). This concentration is generally analogous to the crafts barrios identified at other Mesoamerican sites (Millon 1981, Cowgill 1997:138, 144, Mastache et al. 2002:167, Charlton et al. 2000). In contrast, other surplus lithic or shell production houselot workshops in our milpa field samples are dispersed. In fields other than Milpa Field #1, crafting houselots tend to be isolated single or paired houselots that are embedded in residential zones occupied by other families who were not engaged in surplus craft production (Masson and Peraza 2007, Masson et al. n.d.). We interpret this dispersed pattern as indirect evidence for the presence of neighborhoods. Dispersed houselot workshops Milpa Fields #4, #15, and #16 (Figure 3) may represent neighborhood facilities where nearby families could obtain chipped stone tools and shell ornaments; some surplus tools were also probably exchanged in the city’s markets. Analyses of dwelling architecture, artifacts and sculpture has yet to reveal strong evidence for ethnic barrios at Mayapán (Masson and Peraza 2010), despite the fact that non-Maya individuals were known to have resided at Mayapán and helped to intervene in the city’s affairs (Barrera and Morley 1949:Table 6, Roys 1962:59, Landa 1941:36). Atypical architecture, higher quantities of imported pottery and international-style artifacts do no regularly co-occur and isolated residences with one of these characteristics tend to be isolated. Structure Density

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

9

Variation in the density of occupation of Mayapán’s neighborhoods has been previously observed (e.g. Smith 1962:206, 210, Marcus 1983:Figure 10.19). Smith (1962:210-211) suggested that residential density was explained by the availability of water sources. There are many potential confounding factors in interpreting settlement density data at Mayapán: 1) variability in temporal length of occupation, 2) variation in activities and occupational intensity, 3) differences in number of members in domestic units, and 4) variation in cenote characteristics (Brown 2005, 2006). In addition, comparisons of settlement density with other features are restricted by the available data. For instance, incomplete mapping of lanes and the possibility of unidentified nodal structures may inhibit full recognition of key structuring components. The map of total architectural density highlights the broad nature of variability in settlement across the city (Figure 9). The area surrounding the main plaza stands out as the densest zone and the area adjacent to the south side of the epicenter is the largest zone of high architectural density. The area with the lowest density of architectural features is also near the main plaza to the northeast and clearly demarcates the areas that we identify as potential market plazas. The density in the greater part of the site beyond the monumental center varies widely, but generally is lower and decreases with increasing distance from the monumental center. The zone nearest to the wall exhibits low density in almost all cases. Four zones of higher density are evident in the area immediately outside the epicenter and market areas. It is difficult to determine whether these clusters correspond to meaningful neighborhoods or random variation in density. The map of residential architectural density (Figure 10) differs from the highly centralized pattern evident in total architectural features (Figure 9) with a more even distribution across the city. The area surrounding the main plaza ceases to stand out as the densest zone and a large halo of dense residential occupation is evident surrounding the epicenter. The potential market area to the northeast side of the main plaza is still the area of lowest density. The density of the majority of the site beyond the epicenter varies irregularly, but generally decreases near the defensive wall. Multiple zones of higher density are evident in the western three quarters of the city. Once again it is difficult to determine whether these clusters correspond to meaningful neighborhoods or random variation in density. The map of elite/administrative architectural density shows the prominence of administrative nodes across the city (Figure 11). All of the visually-identified nodes, except for the cluster of elite/ritual groups directly east of the marketplace and a single area near Gate X are evident as elite/administrative concentrations. Clusters of elite/administrative features are evenly spread out between the main plaza and marketplace and the Itzmal Chen Group. Three of the clusters are associated with gates. Residential Clusters Due to the density of Mayapán’s settlement, it is difficult to tease apart subzones within the city. Nonetheless, identifying the aggregation of structures into groups that are often defined by houselot walls has great potential for revealing middle-level settlement organization. Aggregates of residential groups may be defined by those sharing dividing

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

10

houselot walls (Figure 6), termed houselot clusters at Mayapán by Brown (1999:78-79). Unfortunately, no clear, city-wide boundary indicators demarcate larger aggregates. Bullard (1952:36-37, 1954:237) and Smith (1962:208-209) recognized the importance of houselot boundary walls for delineating residential settlement units at Mayapán, but Bullard (1954:238) and Brown (1999:174-177) concluded that houses were scattered over the terrain and organized according to no formal city plan. Brown (1999:148) argues that the residential features are fractal, chaotic, mathematically unpredictable, and nonlinear and concluded that evidence for wards or barrios is “weak” despite ethnohistorical accounts describing them. Patterns Evident in Bullard’s Mapped Areas It is also useful to examine the more detailed architectural distributions evident in the digitized data from Bullard’s mapped zones. The southwest zone encompasses the southern edge of the dense area on the south side of the main plaza and extends to gates AA and EE, as well as minor gate EE (Figure 12). Dense clusters are evident to either side of major pathways connecting gates AA and EE to the main plaza (Figure 12). The map of architectural features reinforces the impression of spatially distinct residential clusters separated by pathways between Gates AA and EE (Figure 12), which match the criteria for a social group, the “household cluster,” proposed by Clifford Brown (1999:78-79), whose work in the “Polbox Cluster” in this same vicinity helped to define this settlement category (1999:124, 133-147, Figure 5). The Polbox Cluster includes dwelling groups AA-46, 49/50-54, and is located just to the east of the Cenote Polbox by Gate AA (Figure 12). The size of most clusters (under around 20 houselots) shown in Figure 12 is generally comparable to the tallies of 6-10 houselots for three clusters reported by Brown (1999:144). In contrast, the northeast mapped zone covers a smaller area dominated by the open space around Gate H and the double-walled pathways that extend westward into Square I past the Itzmal Chen ceremonial group (Figure 4). The zone has much lower residential density and few houselot clusters (Figures 4, 9, 10). The architectural map shows large areas of open space, several individual houselots and some areas with 2-6 houselots grouped together into clusters (Figure 4). The largest cluster, along the southwest edge of the area, is irregularly shaped. The north mapped zone lies between the main plaza and Gate D (Figure 13). The Square K potential market plaza and a portion of the Square R plaza cover the largest zones of low architectural density except for areas along the outer wall. The western alternative path heading south from Gate D passes through a narrow area of low density. Unlike the small clusters observed in the northeast zone, houselots to the north of the Square K plaza rarely cluster into even small groups, except in the concentration of buildings to the east and southeast of the marketplace. This dense area contains a hall and elite residences that appear to form a district that we infer to represent an elite barrio along the edge of the marketplace. Tests of Clustering of Architectural Features Although spatial statistical techniques are limited in their applicability to the data available for Mayapán, they provide another view of the nature of settlement aggregation at the city. Nearest neighbor analysis provides a baseline measure of the spatial clustering

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

11

of features (Kaluzny et al. 1998:152-165; McGrew and Chapman 1993:215-222). Not surprisingly, architectural features at Mayapán are highly clustered. The nearest neighbor index for total architectural features is 0.62 (p < .01). The nearest neighbor index for residential architectural features is 0.67 (p < .01). The nearest neighbor index for elite/administrative architectural features is 0.37 (p < .01). In other words, there is a high degree of clustering throughout Mayapán for all categories of architecture. Application of Ripley’s K Statistic to the clustering of architectural features suggests a moderate size for the observed clusters (Ripley 1981; Venables and Ripley 1999:444447). For both total and residential (Figure 14) architectural features, Ripley’s K analysis indicates a high degree of clustering at all distances. The peak between zero and 30 meters probably reflects the dominance of houselots as the basic unit of spatial organization across Mayapán. The slope of the L value would peak and then fall-off if Ripley’s K was able to identify clearly spatially defined clusters dispersed from other clusters. For elite architectural features, Ripley’s K analysis indicates a situation of high clustering from 0-250 meters, with a fall-off at greater distances. Cluster maps based on Nearest Neighbor Hierarchical Clustering (Levine 1999:137-160) and K-Means Partitioning or pure spatial clustering (Kintigh and Ammerman 1982; Levine 1999) generate similar groupings of residential architectural features since both are based purely on the centroids of each architectural feature (Figures 15, 16). The nearest neighbor hierarchical clustering map defines 96 compact clusters, some of which match up well with observed density clusters. K-means clustering works by defining a predetermined number of clusters, but does not work as well with large numbers of clusters. Hence, we used K-means clustering as a tool to explore the potential for large residential aggregates. The 30 cluster solution finds several clusters that match observed high density areas (Figure 16). In particular, several of the high density patches along the southwestern outer wall match predicted clusters well by grouping together dense sets of houselot clusters that are separated by pedestrian paths. Similarly, the 10 cluster solution clearly lumps several observed high density patches into the same cluster (Figure 17). It is interesting that in the 30 and 10 cluster solutions, outlying nodal temples and halls are not centrally located within clusters. If these clusters reflect densities loosely related to neighborhoods, focal architecture location does not adhere to central place principles. Instead, placement of these nodes seems to correspond to proximity to other features such as pathways, plazas, and gates and may indicate aspects of city organization above the neighborhood level. Dispersed elite residences also show no clear pattern of central location within cluster solutions, but we would not expect rigid centrality for the homes of outlying neighborhood officials. While it is possible that there were multiple levels of administrative groups, it is difficult to perceive the predicted clusters as meaningful in this preliminary examination. The large number of data points and elongated city shape distort the results of the nearest neighbor, Ripley’s K and K-means approaches. Future exploration should focus on selected sub-regions within the wall and clustering of houselots rather than architectural features.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

12

Conclusions Patterns of urban settlement at Mayapán are more complex than previously recognized. These patterns resulted from a variety of processes including urban resettlement (permanent and temporary), religious or political oversight, occupational specialization, marketplace exchange, and the changing needs of residents and visitors. Here we have explored potential connections between social units and special function nodes. We identify at least two distinctive zones that are good candidates for neighborhoods or districts. One of these zones is downtown Mayapán, comprised of an epicentral ring of the city’s largest palaces surrounding the monumental center and an adjacent area of crafts production houselots (Milpa Field #1). A second high-status neighborhood is indicated by a cluster of less grand elite residents who lived next to the Square K plaza, a probable marketplace. The location of three outlying nodal architectural groups associated with three prominent city gates (D, H, and T) may identify three other barrios associated with these conspicuous features. Dispersed elite residences and halls, as well as more isolated sets of craft production houselots in the settlement zone to the east and south of the epicenter may have served neighborhoods in which they were embedded and may reflect general neighborhood vicinities. The distribution of atypical commoner architecture has yet to be helpful in identifying ethnic enclaves. Similarly, imported Matillas Fine Orange (Gulf Coast) pottery is widespread and does not cluster in an enclave pattern. Individual houses sometimes exhibit outlier proportions of rare or imported pottery, which suggests to us that merchants or non-Yucatecan families may have settled opportunistically across the city rather than in enclaves (Masson and Peraza 2005, 2010). More information is available for Aztec sites for important distinctions of houselot cluster (chinamitl/calpulli) and larger, neighborhood or ward-like units (calpulli), where archaeology and ethnohistory correspond well (Smith 1993, this volume). By the Contact Period, the Maya term cuchteel (or cah-cuchteel) was also broad and could refer to minor or major settlement units (Okoshi, this volume). Houselot clusters at Mayapán normally range from 2-20 groups, but isolated, individual house groups are also common at the city. Variation in settlement density, probably linked to different social and temporal factors affecting neighborhood growth, complicates the analysis of settlement units at Mayapán compared to smaller Aztec towns studied by Smith. Experiments with spatial clustering and residential densities presented here suggest that Mayapán housing was clustered, but Nearest Neighbor solutions identify many small zones that may correspond to houselot clusters rather than larger neighborhoods. K-Means clustering at the 30cluster scale shows greater promise and corresponds well to visually-observed residential densities and focal architecture distribution. Pathways traced thus far through portions of the city seem to connect key features such as gates with zones and resources in the interior, including nodal architecture, cenotes, potential market plazas, and the site center. These connected features suggest the locations of major streets at Mayapán, used by residents and visitors alike. The elite neighborhood cluster east of the Square K plaza is strategically located along an intersection of paths that link the plaza to Major Gate D and the site center. Axial growth on thoroughfares leading to site centers is one pattern that can account for residential

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

13

district or sector development (Marcus 1983:200). Pathways are not uniform in their characteristics, and some were clearly more important than others. The interpretive value of pathways for defining neighborhoods is currently unknown; in some cases they separate residential clusters well, in others, they weave through tightly populated areas. Further work is needed to consider a hierarchy of pathways with public versus private orientations at Mayapán. We also note that, as expected, simple ideal models of neighborhood or barrio organization are not appropriate for describing the complex nature of multi-level site divisions and structures generated through messy reality. Infrastructural elements, such as marketplaces, roads, gates, and water sources are critical resources to populations of urban centers. Hence, it is difficult to believe that the intermediate-level structures were haphazardly constructed. Access to facilities would have been negotiated among different segments of the population in dynamic social, political, and economic contexts. Some of the diverse feature clusters at Mayapán would have primarily met residents’ daily needs; tight pathways, access to certain cenotes, and dispersed crafting locales fit this category. The distribution of focal architecture across the eastern three-quarters of the city suggests to us that these features defined key districts of Mayapán; they probably marked zones of the city at several organizational scales. Major outlying temples, halls, and elite residences probably facilitated the hierarchical administration and integration of the populace. These nodes are redundantly distributed, suggesting that neighborhood or district administration occurred in a coordinated, modular fashion. Smith (this volume) credits Bullard (1960:367-368) with the original suggestion that minor ceremonial centers helped to define and administer urban districts or zones at Maya sites. Similarly, Aztec calpulli contained temples, civic buildings, and noble compounds – this internal stratification facilitated economic interaction among bounded social units (Smith 1993:197, 199, 203). Focal architectural groups at Mayapán differ in size and elaboration and thus don’t fit the expectations for a “multiple nuclei” model at Mesoamerican sites, which requires equivalent units in a city (Marcus 1983:202). However, consideration of the function of unequal nuclei is merited. Administrative nodes and surrounding residential zones at Mayapán are further integrated within the urban landscape through connections with other major features facilitated by a complex network of pathways, landmarks, facilities, and resources. The importance of outlying monuments on a symbolic and integrative level should not be underestimated and we think it likely that these features helped define neighborhoods. Our study of the orientation of domestic patios provides a bit of evidence that residents near the Itzmal Ch’en group regarded it as a focal point (Hare et al. 2006). A majority of patios with two or more dwellings near Itzmal Ch’en face this ceremonial complex. An enduring question raised by Cowgill et al. (1984:175) is the degree to which barrios functioned autonomously or were heavily administered. We suspect these conditions varied across the urban zone and that actual patterns lie between these extremes. The location of the crafts barrio immediately west of the site’s epicenter implies an elite role in promoting production in at least one area. In contrast, dispersed workshops in Squares S, H, and Z indicate smaller scale production perhaps geared toward neighborhood needs.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

14

The lack of monumental buildings in the western squares of M, N, O, P, and AA suggests a looser organization in these neighborhoods. Further analysis of Mayapán’s settlement organization would be enhanced by the expansion of detailed maps across larger portions of the city, as well as a larger sample of fully-excavated houselots. Based on the current data, we conclude that while the physical parameters of Mayapán’s neighborhoods remain elusive, a patchwork pattern of characteristics emerges that differentiates city spaces by activity, social status, or focal architecture. We have suggested that some of these characteristics mark ancient neighborhoods that were spatially and politically integrated within the urban landscape. It is difficult to objectively assess the relative importance of forces of random agglomeration and administrative planning, but Mayapán’s settlement did not result solely from either process. Acknowledgements

The authors thank of the Peabody Museum of Harvard for giving us access to Bullard’s unpublished maps of albarrada walls in Squares D, K, AA, and EE, and permission to use those data in this publication. Thanks are due to Patricia Kervick of the Peabody who initially showed us this important resource. Research at Mayapán has been supported by grants from the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., the National Science Foundation (#1018919, #1069128), National Geographic’s Committee for Research and Exploration (#8598-08), and the Department of Anthropology at the University at Albany – SUNY. This work was performed with the gracious permission of the Consejo de Arqueología, INAH, México, D.F. We are grateful to William Salazar and Charlotte Arnauld for editing and feedback on this manuscript; any errors are ours alone.

Table of Figures Figure 1. Mayapán in regional context. Figure 2. Gates, potential marketplace and major pathways. Figure 3. Thirty-six mapped milpa fields from the Proyecto Económico de Mayapan (PEMY). Figure 4. Major double-walled pathway in Square I. Figure 5. Double-walled pathway defined by the walls of two houselots in Square I. Figure 6. Open-space pathway. Figure 7. Cenotes, major pathways, and other paths detected in PEMY survey. Figure 8. Elite/administrative structures. Figure 9. Total architectural density. Figure 10. Density of residential architecture. Figure 11. Density of elite architecture and locations of identified administrative nodes. Figure 12. Architectural density, features and pathways in the southwest zone mapped by Bullard. Figure 13. Density, features, and pathways in the north zone mapped by Bullard. Figure 14. Ripley's K Statistic for residential architecture. Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

15

Figure 15. Nearest neighbor hierarchical clustering for residential architectural features. Figure 16. 30 K-means clusters for residential architectural features. Figure 17. 10 K-means clusters for residential architectural features.

References

Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo and Sylvanus G. Morley 1949

The Maya Chronicles. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 585, Contribution 48. Washington, D.C.

Becker, Marshall Joseph 2003

A Classic Period Barrio Producing Fine Polychrome Ceramics at Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 14:95-112.

Brown, Clifford T. 1999

Mayapán Society and Ancient Maya Social Organization. Tesis doctoral, Dept. of Anthropology, Tulane University.

2005

Caves, Karst, and Settlement at Mayapán, Yucatán. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, pp. 373-401. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2006

Water Sources at Mayapan, Yucatán, Mexico. In Precolumbian Water Management: Ideology, Ritual, and Power, edited by Lisa J. Lucero and Barbara W. Fash, pp. 171-185. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Brown, Clifford T. and Walter R. Whitschey 2003

The Fractal Geometry of Ancient Maya Settlement. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1619-1632.

Bullard, William R., Jr. 1952

Residential Property Walls at Mayapán. Current Reports No. 3:36-44. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

1954

Boundary Walls and House Lots at Mayapán. Current Reports No. 13:234-253. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

1960

Maya Settlement Pattern in Northeast Peten, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:355-372.

Carmack, Robert 1981

The Quiche Mayas of Utatlán. University of Oklahoma Press.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

16

Charlton, Thomas H. 1994

Economic Heterogeneity and State Expansion. En Economies and Politics in the Aztec Realm, editado por Mary G. Hodge y Michael E. Smith pp. 221-256. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Albany, New York.

Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols and Cynthia Otis Charlton 2000

Otumba and Its Neighbors: Ex Oriente Lux. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:247-265.

Chase, Diane Z. 1992

Postclassic Maya Elites: Ethnohistory and Archaeology. En Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, editado por Diane Z. Chase y Arlen F. Chase, pp.118-134. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase 2004

Exploring Ancient Economic Relationships at Caracol, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 1:115-127.

Coe, Michael D. 1965

A Model of Ancient Community Structure in the Maya Lowlands. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:97-114.

Cowgill, George L. 1997

State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:129-161.

Cowgill, George L., Jeffery H. Altschul y Rebecca S. Sload 1984

Spatial analysis of Teotihuacan: A Mesoamerican Metropolis, En Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, editado por Harold J. Hietala, pp. 154-195. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dahlin, Bruce H., Christopher T. Jensen, Richard E. Terry, Wright, David R., and Timothy Beach 2007

In Search of an Ancient Maya Market. Latin American Antiquity 18:363-384.

Edmonson, Munro S. 1982

The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Freidel, David A. 1981

The Political Economics of Residential Dispersion among the Lowland Maya. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 371-382. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fox, John W.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

17

1987

Late Postclassic State Formation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hare, Timothy S. 2008

Reconocimiento y Cartografiado en Mayapán. In Proyecto Los Fundamentos del Poder Económico de Mayapán, Temporadas 2001-2004: Informe Final para el Consejo Nacional de Arqueología de México, edited by Marilyn A. Masson, Carlos Peraza Lope, and Timothy S. Hare, pp. 7-128. Department of Anthropology, University at Albany – SUNY and INAH-Yucatan, Albany, New York and Mérida, Yucatan, Mexico.

Hare, Timothy S., Marilyn A. Masson y Carlos Peraza Lope 2006

The Spatial and Social Organization of Mayapán. Society for American Archaeology Meetings, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Jones, Morris R. 1952

Map of the Ruins of Mayapán, Yucatán, México. Current Reports No. 1:2-5. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

1962

Map of the Ruins of Mayapá. In Mayapán, Yucatán, México, by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, and A.L. Smith, rear inset. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication No. 619, Washington, D.C.

Kaluzny, Stephen P., Silvia C. Vega, Tamre P. Cardoso, and Alice A. Shelly 1998

S+ SpatialStats: User's Manual for Windows and Unix. Springer, New York.

Kepecs, Susan, Gary M. Feinman, and Sylviane Boucher 1994

Chichen Itza and Its Hinterland: A World Systems Perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:141-158.

Kintigh, Keith W., and Albert J. Ammerman 1982

Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 47:31-63.

Landa, Diego de 1941

Relaciones de las Cosas de Yucatan. Traducido por Alfred Tozzer. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 18. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Levine, Ned 1999

CrimeStat: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations. Ned Levine and Associates, Annandale, VA.

Lynch, Kevin 1960 The Image of the City. The Technology Press and Harvard University Press.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

18

McGrew, J. Chapman Jr., and Charles B. Monroe 1993

An Introduction to Statistical Problem Solving in Geography. Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc., Dubuque, IA.

Mann, Charles C. 2005 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Manzanilla, Linda 1996

Corporate Groups and Domestic Activities at Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 7:228-246.

2004

Social Identity and Daily Life at Classic Teotihuacan. Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by J. Hendon and R. Joyce, pp. 124-147. Blackwell, Oxford.

Marcus, Joyce 1983 On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt and Richard M. Leventhal, pp. 195-242. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Masson, Marilyn 2000

In the Realm of Nachan Kan: Postclassic Maya archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Masson, Marilyn A., Timothy S. Hare, Carlos Peraza Lope 2006

Postclassic Maya Society Regenerated at Mayapán. In After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, edited by Glenn M. Schwartz and John J. Nichols, pp. 188-207. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Masson, Marilyn A. and Carlos Peraza Lope 2005

Nuevas Investigaciones en Tres Unidades Residenciales Fuera del Área Monumental de Mayapán. In Investigadores de la Cultura Maya, Tomo II, pp. 411-424. Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Campeche, México.

2007

Craft Production, Social Identity, and the Economy of Mayapan. Presented at the Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Austin Texas, April 27.

2010 Evidence for Maya-Mexican Interaction in the Archaeological Record of Mayapán In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period, edited by Gabrielle Vail and Christine Hernandez. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Masson, Marilyn A., Carlos Peraza Lope, and Timothy S. Hare

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

19

n.d.

Postclassic Maya Economic Heterogeneity at Mayapan. In El Urbanismo en Mesoamérica/Urbanism in Mesoamerica, Volume 3, edited by William T. Sanders and Robert H. Cobean. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and The Pennsylvania State University, Mexico, D.F. and University Park, Pennsylvania (In Press).

Mastache, Alba Guadalupe, Robert H. Cobean y Dan M. Healan 2002

Ancient Tollan: Tula and the Toltec Heartland. University Press of Colorado. Boulder.

Millon, René 1976

Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacan. In The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 205-248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1981

Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198-243. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Peraza Lope, Carlos, Pedro Delgado Kú, y Bárbara Escamilla Ojeda 1997

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservación Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan: Informe de la Temporada 1996. Informe de Actividades al Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Centro INAH – Yucatan, Mérida.

1998

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservación Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan: Informe de la Temporada 1997. Informe de Actividades al Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Centro INAH – Yucatan, Mérida.

2000

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservación Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan: Informe de la Temporada 1999. Informe de Actividades al Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Centro INAH – Yucatan, Mérida.

2002

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservacíon Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan, Informe de la Tercera Temporada 2001. Informe de Actividades al Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Centro INAH – Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.

2003

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservación Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan, Informe de la Cuarta Temporada: 1999-2000. Centro INAH Yucatan, Mérida, Yucatan, México.

Peraza Lope, Carlos, Pedro Delgado Kú, Bárbara Escamilla Ojeda, y Mario Garrido Euán 1999

Trabajos de Mantenimiento y Conservación Arquitectónica en Mayapan, Yucatan: Informe de la Temporada 1998. Informe de Actividades al Consejo de

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

20

Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Centro INAH – Yucatan, Mérida. Peraza Lope, Carlos, Marilyn A. Masson, Timothy S. Hare, and Pedro Delgado Kú 2006

The Late Postclassic Chronology of Mayapán: New Radiocarbon Evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:153-176.

Piña Chan, Roman 1978

Commerce in the Yucatec Peninsula: The Conquest and Colonial Period. En Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture Contacts, edited by T.A. Lee y C. Navarrete, p. 37-48. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 40. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1962

Civic and Religious Structures of Mayapán. In Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 87-164. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication No. 619. Washington, D.C.

Pugh, Timothy W. 2002

Remembering Mayapán: Petén Kowoj Architecture as Social Metaphor and Power. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by Maria O’Donovan, pp. 301-323. Occasional Paper No. 30, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, Illinois.

Quezada, Sergio 1993

Pueblos y caciques yucatecos, 1550-1580. El Colegio de México, México, D.F.

Sabloff, Jeremy A. and William L. Rathje 1975 The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class, Scientific American 233:72-82. Restall, Matthew 2001

The People of the Patio: Ethnohistoric Evidence of Yucatec Maya Royal Courts. In Royal Courts of the Maya, Volume II, edited by Takeshi Inomata y Stephen D. Houston, pp. 335-390. Westview Press, Boulder.

Ringle, William M. and George J. Bey III 2001

Post-Classic and Terminal Classic Courts of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Royal Courts of the Maya, Volume Two: Data and Case Studies, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 266-307. Westview Press, Boulder.

Ripley, Brian 1981

Spatial Statistics. Wiley, New York.

Roys, Ralph L.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

21

1957

The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 613. Washington, D.C.

1962

Literary Sources for the History of Mayapán. En Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico, by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff y A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 25-86. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication No. 619, Washington, D.C.

Russell, Bradley 2007

"Colonnaded Hall Group Discovered Outside Mayapan City Walls" Mexicon Vol. XXIX, August 2007, pp. 93-94.

2008

Postclassic Maya Settlement on the Rural-Urban Fringe of Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University at AlbanySUNY, Albany, New York.

Santley, Robert, Clare Yarborough and Barbara Hall 1987

Enclaves, Ethnicity, and the Archaeological Record at Matacapan. En Ethnicity and Culture: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by Réginald Auger, Margaret F. Glass, Scott MacEachern, pp. 85-100. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, Canada.

Shafer, Harry J. and Thomas R. Hester 1983

Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519-543.

Shaw, Justine M. 2001

Maya Sacbeob: Form and Function. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:261-272.

Shook, Edwin W. 1952

The Great Wall of Mayapán. Current Reports No. 2:7-35. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

1955

Another Round Temple at Mayapán. Current Reports 27:267-280. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Smith, A. Ledyard 1962

Residential and Associated Structures at Mayapán. In Mayapán, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff y A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 165-320. Occasional Publication 619. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C.

Smith, Michael E. 1993

Houses and the Settlement Hierarchy in Late Postclassic Morelos: A Comparison of Archaeology and Ethnohistory. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

22

Mesoamerica: Studies of Household, Compound, and Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 191-206. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2005

City Size in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Journal of Urban History 31, no. 4 (May): 403-434.

2007

Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Urban Planning. Journal of Planning History 6:3-47.

Smith, Michael E. and Frances F. Berdan, editors 2003

The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Tozzer, A. M., editor and translator 1941

Notes to Landa’s Relaciones de las Cosas de Yucatan, edited and translated by A.M. Tozzer. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Venables, William N. and Brian D. Ripley 1999

Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. Springer, New York.

Hare, T. S., and M. Masson.

23

Table of Figures

Figure 1.

Mayapán in regional context.

Figure 2.

Gates, Potential Marketplace and Major Pathways.

Figure 3.

36 Mapped Fields from Proyecto Económico de Mayapan (PEMY).

Figure 4.

Major Double-Walled Pathway in Square I.

Figure 5.

Double-Walled Pathway Defined by the Walls of Two Houselots in Square I.

Figure 6.

Open-space pathway.

Figure 7.

Cenotes, major pathways and other paths detected in PEMY survey.

Figure 8.

Elite/administrative structures.

Figure 9.

Total architectural density.

Figure 10.

Density of residential architecture.

Figure 11.

Density of elite architecture and locations of identified administrative nodes.

Figure 12.

Architectural density, features and pathways in the southwest zone mapped by Bullard.

Figure 13.

Density, features, and pathways in the north zone mapped by Bullard.

Figure 14.

Ripley's K Statistic for residential architecture.

Figure 15.

Nearest neighbor hierarchical clustering for residential architectural features.

Figure 16.

30 K-means clusters for residential architectural features.

Figure 17.

10 K-means clusters for residential architectural features.