Page 4

of rubble; today they are restored and we know that, like the Temple of the Warriors-Chacmool Temple relationship, there was an earlier structure within the Big Tables. INAH work in these areas and in the Group of the Initial series adds greatly to knowledge of architecture, stratigraphy and iconography (Schmidt 2007). In the early 1970s, the inscriptions at Chichén Itzá were understood through the work of Morley, Thompson, Beyer, Proskouriakoff and others, but information beyond dating was limited and historical interpretation in its earliest stages; now, the inscriptions are interpreted within the context of the great advances in Maya epigraphy and both detailed studies at Chichén Itzá and more regional approaches (e.g. Grube and Krochock 2007). The inscriptions shed light, unavailable before, on individuals, descent, gods, ceremonies, political structure, regional affiliations, language, functions of buildings and sequencing. Interestingly, issues of regional chronology have not been completely resolved in the interim. The relationships of Chichén Itzá, both chronological and processual, with the Puuc sites and sites elsewhere on the peninsula, such as Coba, Yaxuna, Ek Balam and others, are insufficiently understood. Indeed, both ends of the chronology of Chichén Itzá remain fuzzy, both in absolute and relative chronology. Ceramic sequences are coming into better focus, but interpretation is fluid. Sotuta Ceramic Complex ceramics predominate at Chichén Itzá, but Cepech ceramics also occur, and the amount of overlap, chronologically or geographically, is not settled. Cobos recognizes earlier and later phases of Sotuta ceramics, the former associated with the area of the Monjas and the later with the architectural sequence on the Great Plaza (2007:326), underscoring the chronological separation suggested by the architecture. The roles of ethnohistory and ethnicity at Chichén Itzá and in its external relations remain elusively complex. The identity and roles of Maya, Itzá, and Toltec at Chichén Itzá, or mythic/ historical figures such as Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan, are still debated subjects (Gillespie 2007). A recent review of stratigraphic, ceramic, sculptural and architectural evidence may indicate that elements of the Toltec exchange were earlier at Chichén Itzá than at Tula (Bey III and Ringle 2007:414-420), which was earlier suggested by Kubler mostly on the basis of architecture (1961, 1962). The issue of influence to and from Chichén Itzá has broadened beyond focus on relationships with Tula to other areas of Mesoamerica. Political and governmental structure at Chichén Itzá has received robust discussion, whether the model is divine kingship following the Classic Maya example, dual rulership, governing council, or some mixture of these. Interpretation of iconography at Chichén Itzá has much advanced, such as at the Great Ball Court and the Chacmool/Warriors complex (Kowalski 2007). This monograph considers some of these issues, others not at all. This study analyzes the sequence of construction on the Great Plaza (compare Chapter II with Bey III and Ringle 2007:407-413) and then mainly focuses upon individual buildings and structures with similar iii

Profile for CityofMesa

Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán  

Architecture and Chronology at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán