Page 148

first Modified Florescent occupation of the site and the construction of the High Priest’s Grave. Since the High Priest’s Grave is almost certainly later than the Castillo on architectural grounds, estimates of less than 80 years for the Early Modified Florescent period at Chichén Itzá seem justified. Alternatively, if one accepts a date of between 10.8.0.0.0 and 10.10.0.0.0 for the beginning of Modified Florescent Chichén Itzá, following Thompson’s original suggestion, my estimate of the length of the Modified Florescent period, and the Dzibilchaltún work, then the date on the High Priest’s Grave would have to be interpreted as historical (Thompson 1937, 1941, 1945, 1950; Ball and Andrews V 1975). Thompson’s original estimate of about 10.8.0.0.0 for the first Modified Florescent occupation of Chichén Itzá is very close to my estimate of 10.8.13.0.0 based on a short estimate of the length of occupation of the Modified Florescent period, and both are noticeably close to the date of 10.8.10.11.0 on the High Priest’s Grave. The possibility that the date on the High Priest’s Grave does not date the structure but commemorates an important event in the history of Chichén Itzá cannot be ignored. These issues remain unanswered for now. Unfortunately the radiocarbon dates from Chichén Itzá are difficult to interpret in light of other evidence, and they do little more than suggest the Pure Florescent is indeed earlier than the Modified Florescent. The following radiocarbon dates from Chichén Itzá and from a Modified Florescent censer at nearby

Balankanche Cave are from Andrews (1965b: Table 5):

Sample

Date

Red House, original beam (Lab. no. TBN-313-3)

610±70

La Iglesia, original beam (Lab. no. TBN-313-2)

600±70

La Iglesia, another original beam 780±70 (Lab. no. TBN-313-1) Monjas, East Patio (?) (Lab. no. LJ-87)

810±00

Castillo, zapote lintel (Lab. no. Y-626)

790±70

Castillo, re-run of Y-626 (Lab. no. Y626b)

810±100

Balankanche, twig charcoal (Lab. no. LJ-272)

860±90

Balankanche, twig charcoal (Lab. no. LJ-273)

860±100

These dates raise a number of questions. They apparently place the Pure Florescent architecture of Chichén Itzá squarely within the Late Classic of the south, but why the 180 year difference between the two beams from the Iglesia, a gap not even bridged by adding the variation to the earlier date and subtracting it from the later date? And if the Red House were built anywhere near 610, why are there hieroglyphic dates associated with the structure which have been interpreted by Thompson to be 10.2.0.11.3 and 10.2.0.15.3? The dates from

142

Profile for CityofMesa

Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán  

Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán