Version classiqueVersion mobile

Arquitectura y Arqueología

 | 
Paul Gendrop

Chenes - Puuc architecture: chronology and cultural interaction

George F. Andrews

Texte intégral

1. Map showing sites with classic Puuc, Chenes-Puuc, and Chenes architecture.

1La presencia, en once sitios diferentes localizados en una zona “fronteriza” comprendida entre las regiones del Puuc y de los Chenes, de un cierto número de edificios ejecutados en un estilo arquitectónico “híbrido”, plantea varias preguntas importantes en lo referente a las relaciones temporales y culturales que existieron entre estas dos regiones. Estas preguntas conciernen la dirección del flujo de influencias así como la posición cronológica de estos edificios en relación con las cronologías propuestas para las regiones Río Bec, Chenes y Puuc. Para fines de discusión, el término Chenes-Puuc se utiliza aquí para describir este estilo híbrido, que combina ciertos rasgos arquitectónicos, constructivos y decorativos de los dos estilos clásicos tanto del Puuc como de los Chenes.

2Los edificios en cuestión se describen aquí con cierto detalle, seguidos por una revisión de las evidencias actualmente disponibles con respecto a la cronología para las regiones Río Bec, Chenes y Puuc, y de la dirección del flujo de influencias entre aquellas regiones. Estas evidencias, que se basan esencialmente en arquitectura y estilos arquitectónicos, sugiere que previamente a los inicios del siglo IX, el flujo de influencias era de sur a norte y que la arquitectura Chenes-Puuc representa una fase transicional entre los anteriores estilos Río Bec y Chenes y los ulteriores estilos del clásico terminal en la región Puuc. En fechas más tardías el flujo de influencias invirtió su curso en una dirección norte-sur como resulta evidente de la relativa cantidad de arquitectura Puuc clásica en la región de los Chenes y de las influencias cerámicas del Puuc hasta la propia región Río Bec más al sur.

INTRODUCTION

3During the past four decades, a number of writers have described and compared various aspects of what are commonly called the Rio Bec, Chenes, and Puuc architectural styles. Included in this group are Ruppert and Denison (1943), Ruz (1945), Foncerrada de Molina (1962), Kubler (1962), Pollock (1970, 1980), Potter (1977), Andrews V (1979), Gendrop (1982, 1983, 1984), and G.F. Andrews (1982, 1984). While there is some general agreement among these individuals regarding the basic diagnostic features of each of these styles, there is considerably less agreement as to the extent to which they succeeded or overlapped one another in time and the extent to which the three styles derived onefrom the other. The disagreement in regard to temporal questions arises for the most part from the lack of any secure chronological data from the Chenes and Puuc regions which in turn has lead to lack of agreement in regard to cultural interactions among the same regions. To further confuse the issue, reference has also been made by several writers to the architecture at several particular sites which seems to combine aspects of both the Chenes and Puuc styles and this has generally been interpreted as representing a “border” situation, where sites near the borders of major regions are subject to influences from both sides. The sites most frequently mentioned in this latter connection are Xkichmook, Dzehkabtún, Tohcok, and Dzibiltún. My own investigations in the Puuc, Chenes and Río Bec regions over the past ten years suggests that there are at least eleven sites with architecture showing a combination of Chenes and Puuc features and for purposes of this paper I have adapted the term “Chenes-Puuc” architecture as a way of describing this hybrid style.

4The eleven sites in questions are shown in figure 1 and it should be noted that all are located in an “intermediate” or border zone, between the Chenes region to the south, the Puuc region to the north and northwest and the Edzná region to the west. The relatively large number of sites with Chenes-Puuc architecture, together with their geographical distribution, have important implications in regard to the temporal and cultural relationships between the Chenes region and its neighbors to the south, north, and west and it seems worthwhile to examine the architecture at these sites in some detail as a basis for further evaluating these relationships.

ICHPICH

5For a complete description of the architecture at Ichpich, see G.F. Andrews (1983).

STRUCTURE 1

6Structure 1 is a medium sized, four room building which face east-southeast. My notes say that it is situated near the edge of a long terrace or platform which also supports Structure 2 and that there are remnants of 8-10 other buildings nearby. Case (1911) included a Maler photograph of this building, but Maler himself failed to include the photograph in this own description of the ruins.

7Plan. See figure 2

8Section. See figure 3

9Elevation. See figure 5

10Comments: Like many of the buildings at Xkichmook, which is only 12-15 km. to the north, the architectural style of Structure 1 at Ichpich shows a combination of Puuc and Chenes features. The most prominant Chenes features include the lack of stone moldings below the capstones of the vault, the lack of offsets in the end walls of rooms at the vault springline, and the large projecting stones tenoned into the upper wall zone, which presumably supported stucco sculptures. These particular features are characteristic of the classic Chenes architectural style but are not found in any of the classic Puuc styles. In addition, the use of groups of inset colonnettes in the lower members of the medial and cornice mouldings is essentially a Chenes feature since the vast majority of classic Puuc buildings include continuous rows of colonnettes in these mouldings. In contrast, the base moulding of Structure 1, with continuous rows of colonnettes in the central member, is essentially Puuc in character. The construction technology employed could be called either Puuc or Chenes although the facing stones used in the interior walls are somewhat smaller than is typical for classic Puuc buildings.

2. Ichpich, Structure 1. Plan.

4. View showing rear (west) façade.

5. East elevation (restored).

6. Ichpich, Structure 2. Plan.

STRUCTURE 2 (Ichpich)

11Structure 2 is a three room building, about the same size as Structure 3, which faces east. The building is now mostly collapsed and only a small portion of the rear (west) wall and vault is still standing. My notes say that Structure 2 is situated about 150-200 meters west of Structure 1 and stands on the same low platfom, or terrace, which supports the latter structure. I noted a number of low mounds of debris between Structures 1 and 2 but none of these seemed large enough to represent the remains of fallen masonry buildings. Maler (1902) said he photographed the rear of this building but did not include this photograph with his description.

12Plan. See figure 6

13Section. See figure 7

14Comments: In contrast to Structures 1 and 3, both of which include a combination of Puuc and Chenes features, Structure 2 seems essentially classic Puuc in conception and execution. While the vaults and front walls have mostly collapsed, that portion of the rear wall which is still standing shows architectural, decorative, and construction features which are typical of the classic Puuc Colonnette style. These features include multimember base, medial and cornice mouldings decorated with plain colonnettes, a plain lower wall zone, groups of inset, banded colonnettes in the upper wall zone, and vault capstones supported on a projecting stone moulding (fig. 7). The construction technology employed in this building cannot be distinguished from the technology found in typical classic Puuc buildings and is essentially the same as that found in Structures 1 and 3.

8. Portion of rear (west) façade.

STRUCTURE 3 (Ichpich) (Palace near the water work)

15Structure 3 is a medium sized, three room building which faces west. My notes say that Structure 3 is situated about 150-200 meters west of Structure 2 on a higher elevation than the terrace, or platform, which supports Structures 1 and 2. Maler (1902) says that there are fragments of many small buildings to the rear of Structure 3, including a small temple on a low substructure. I did not see this latter structure since this portion of the site was completely overgrown at the time of my visit in 1983. Maler (ibid) also said that the “water work” described earlier was only 18 meters from Structure 3 but I was unable to verify this.

16Plan. See figure 9

17Section. See figure 10

18Elevation. See figure 11

19Comments: As in Structure 1, the stylistic attributes of Structure 3 include a combination of both Chenes and classic Puuc features. The most prominent Chenes features are represented by the numerous rectangular stones tenoned into the upper wall zone, which presumably supported stucco sculptures, vault capstones with no stone moulding below, and no offsets in the end walls of rooms at the vault springline. The Puuc-like features include a three member base moulding with continuous rows of plain colonnettes in the central members as well as medial and cornice mouldings with a zigzag dentate design in the next to lowest member. This latter feature is particulary noteworthy since this motif is not found in classic Chenes style buildings but is fairly prominent in Chenes-Puuc buildings and in classic Puuc Mosaic style buildings, including the Codz Poop at Kabáh, which has been tentatively dated at A.D. 879 (Pollock, 1980).

9. Ichpich, Structure 3. Plan.

11. West Elevation (restored).

12. a-b. View of west façade.

13. Detail of west façade.

14. Xkichmook, Structure 1. Plan.

XKICHMOOK

20For a complete description and analysis of the architecture at Xkichmook, see G.F. Andrews (1984).

STRUCTURE 1 (Edifice 1 or Palace)

21Structure 1 is a large, L-shaped building with twelve rooms (fig. 14). While Thompson’s plan is generally correct (fig. 3), he omitted room 12 and erroneously assumed that the rooms numbered 14-18 on his plan were part of an East Wing of Structure 1 which was connected to rooms 10-12. This is clearly not the case, however, as there is a separate buildings just south of rooms 10-12 which I have called Structure 11. The rooms numbered 14-18 by Thompson represent an additional, separate building which I have numbered Structure 12. My plan of Structure 1 (fig. 14), made from measurements taken in 1978 and 1983, shows a corrected and amended version of this complex building wich is the largest, and most important structure in the main center. For purposes of discussion, I am treating rooms 1-7 as a unit (West Wing), rooms 8 and 9, together whith their supporting substructure, as a second unit (Central Section) and rooms 10-12 (East Wing) as a third unit.

22Plan. See figure 14

23Elevation. See figure 15

24Comments: While Pollock (1980) considered Structure 1 essentially Puuc in style, with a few Chenes traits, the combined architectural, decorative, and construction features of the several parts of this complex building suggest that it is almost purely Chenes in conception and execution. The profiles and details of base, medial, and cornice moldings in all parts of Structure 1 are nearly identical to similar moldings on Chenes buildings elsewhere, and the articulated, four-part east façade of the West Wing is a basic diagnostic feature of both the Chenes and Río Bec architectural styles. In addition, the basic form of the northern portion of Structure 1 (rooms 6-12), which is represented by a two-room temple-type building on a steep-sided pyramidal podium with lower one-story wings on both sides is virtually identical to the basic forms of Structure 3 and 5 at Hochob, Structure 1 at Tabasqueño, and Structure Al at Dzibilnocac, all of which are recognized as typical Chenes style structures. The only purely Puuc architectural features present in Structure 1 are offsets in the end walls of all rooms at the height of the vault springline, a feature which is missing in most Chenes style building elsewhere.

25The monster masks over the doorways to rooms 2 and 3 (and‘presumably rooms 6 and 12 as well), with their large curved teeth just above the doorways, are very similar to those found in the east and west wings of Structure 2 at Hochob, a building which all writers agree exemplifies the Chenes architectural style. The smaller masks over the doorways to rooms 1 and 4 are also Chenes in character as are the adjacent corner masks with their downturned noses.

26The construction technology and stonework employed in Structure 1 could be considered as either Puuc or Chenes in character as there is little difference between the two. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the stones used in wall facings here are somewhat smaller than is typical for classic Puuc buildings (23 cm. vs. 30-40 cm.) and are more deeply tenoned into the hearting, suggesting a Chenes rather than Puuc origin. The stones used in vault facings, which are carefully dressed on the exposed face, have a rough wedge shape in section which is characteristic of both the Chenes and classic Puuc styles. Finally, the exterior walls of Structure 1, which average about.88 m. in thickness, are heavier than the exterior walls of most classic Puuc buildings, which average only.56-.60. m in thickness.

15. West wing, East elevation (restored).

16. Portion of east façade, west wing.

17. Portion of east façade of rooms 10 and 11.

18. View showing remains of mask on south façade of room 6 and corner masks on proyecting podium of Central Wing.

19. View from northwest showing podium, upper level temple, and rear of East Wing.

20. Xkichmook, Structure 4. Plan.

21. Portion of north façade.

22. North elevation (restored).

STRUCTURE 4 (Xkichmook)

27Structure 4 is an eight room building which is located about 1.2 m. east of Structure 3. Thompson’s plan (1898, fig. 1) is in error since he shows a building with nine rooms. I have used new room numbers since room 1 as shown in Thompson’s plan does not actually exist.

28Plan. See figure 20

29Elevation. See figure 22

30Comments: It is extremely difficult to classify Structure 4 in terms of architectural style since the stylistic attributes of rooms 1-3 differ considerably from those of rooms 4-8. Rooms 1-3 could be considered as either Puuc or Chenes in character while rooms 4-8 conform most closely to the Early Puuc style. The north elevation of rooms 1-3 (fig. 22) shows that the decorative treatment of the upper wall zone includes both plain colonnettes and small sets of triangles divided into two sections by a horizontal moulding. Groups of inset colonnettes are an essential decorative feature of the classic Puuc Colonnette style but are also found in numerous Chenes and Rio Bec style buildings. Small geometric motifs, such as the triangles used here, are commonly found on Early Puuc style buildings although they are occasionally used in both the Puuc Colonnette and Mosaic style. While both Puuc and Chenes style buildings feature short colonnettes in medial and cornice mouldings, the Puuc examples generally show continuous rows of these elements between two separate mouldings in contrast to the groups of 3 or 4 set into the lower member as found here and in other Chenes style buildings.

31The combination of a plain upper wall zone with no cornice, marked off by a single-member medial molding, is a essential feature of the Early Puuc style but there are no examples of Chenes buildings elsewhere with a similar treatment. Given the ambivalent character of its architectural and decorative features, I believe Structure 4 can best be described as Chenes-Puuc in style.

23. Xkichmook, Structure 5. Plan.

STRUCTURE 5 (Edifice 5)

32As shown on Thompson’s map (1898, fig. 1) Structure 5 is one of a group of several structures which are situated on a series of adjacent terraces in the southeast corner of the Main Center. Structure 5 is a five room building which stands on a low platform with stairways on the north side. The building is now mostly collapsed and only the lower portion of the north walls of rooms 2-5, which were exposed by Thompson nearly a hundred years ago, as well as the west wall of room 5 which is still intact to the height of the medial moulding, are still standing. I did not see the eastern wing of this building which is shown on Thompson’s map, as this portion of the site is still completely overgrown.

33Plan. See figure 23

34Elevation. See figure 24

35Comments: At first glance, the stylistic features of Structure 5 suggest a Puuc origin since the classic Puuc Mosaic style is represented by numerous buildings showing combinations of frets and banded colonnettes as found here (Andrews, 1982). While these decorative motifs are generally confined to the upper wall zones of Puuc Mosaic style buildings, there are several instances where they are found in lower wall zones. The most notable examples of the latter category include the Chanchimez at Uxmal, Structure 1 at Kakab, and the south wall of room 25 in the two-story Palace at Labná. Similar designs are found at several Rio Bec sites, including Xaxbil, west side, East Range (Ruppert and Denison 1943). This latter example is particulary noteworthy since the specific arrangement of the colonnettes and stepped frets most closely resembles the arrangement in the west wall of Structure 5 at Xkichmook.

36All of the above suggests that Structure 5 can best be described as another example of a “transitional” style which represents a blend of Puuc and Chenes and Rio Bec features.

24. Xkichmook, Structure 5. West elevation (restored).

STRUCTURE 6

37Thompson’s map (1898, fig. 1) indicates that Structure 6 consists of two sets of rooms, separated by a solid platform with a stairway on the west side. Rooms 2 and 3 (north wing) are still fairly well preserved but the central platform and room 1 (south wing) are now only piles of debris.

38Plan. See figure 25

39Section. See figure 26

40Elevation. See figure 27

41Comments: In an earlier study (Andrews 1982), I considered Structure 6 as a fairly typical example of the classic Puuc Mosaic style. A more careful examination of the architectural and decorative features, however, suggests that the masks, as well as the mouldings and colonnettes, are actually more Chenes in character. The masks in both the lower and upper wall zones are very similar in design and execution to the masks in the upper wall zones of rooms 1 and 4 in Structure 1, a building which I now consider to be purely Chenes in style. These masks have most of the fine details executed in stucco over roughly carved stone armatures, while the longnosed masks on Puuc Mosaic style buildings show all details carefully carved in stone even though they were later covered with a paper-thin coating of stucco (fig. 27). The details of teeth, noses, eyebrows, and ears of the Puuc style masks also differ considerably from their Chenes (and Río Bec) counterparts. Finally, stacked masks in the lower wall zone are unknown in classic Puuc buildings while they are found in the Cuartel at Santa Rosa Xtampak, which is generally considered to be a pure Chenes style building.

25. Xkichmook, Structure 6. Plan.

27. West elevation (restored).

42The mat-symbol motif, which is used as a decorative form in both the medial and cornice moldings of Structure 6, is used somewhat sparingly in both Puuc and Chenes style buildings. It is noteworthy, however, that the border adjacent to the stacked masks in the lower wall zone of the Cuartel at Santa Rosa Xtampak carries the same mat design as the medial and cornice mouldings of Structure 6. The colonnettes in both the lower and upper wall zones of Structure 6 are much like those found in other buildings at Xkichmook, all of which have flattened profiles compared with the full half round profiles found in typical Puuc buildings. Given all of the above, Structure 6 can best be added to the growing inventory of Chenes-Puuc buildings, which dominate the scene at Xkichmook.

STRUCTURE 12 (Xkichmook)

43Structure 12 is an L-shaped building with nine rooms which is situated just south of Structure 11 (fig. 29). Thompson’s map (1898, fig. 1) shows five rooms of this building, numbered 14-18 but there was an additional room north of room 14, which I have numbered room 13, and three additional rooms south of rooms 16-18 which I have numbered 19-21. Pollock (1980) followed Thompson’s lead in his brief discussion of the “East Wing” of Edifice 1, adding to the confusion about its relationship to Structure 1. I will continue to insist that rooms 10-12 represent the only legitimate “East Wing” of Structure 1 since Structure 12 is obviously entirely independent of Structure 1.

44Plan. See figure 29. Note that rooms numbered 14-18 are the same as those shown by Thompson (fig. 3)

45Elevation. See figure 30

46Comments: While the architectural and decorative features of Structure 12 differ considerably from those found in other buildings at Xkichmook, they still represent a blend of Puuc and Chenes traits. The base mouldings with groups of inset colonnettes, the three member medial mouldings with sloped apron-type members above and below a rectangular central member, and the cornice all have typical classic Puuc profiles although the proportions differ from most Puuc examples. Rooms 13-15 have offsets in the end walls which is also a typical Puuc feature. The construction technology and stonework could be called either Puuc or Chenes in character and execution and it has already been emphasized that there is little difference between the two.

47The use of large rosettes as decorative forms in the upper wall zone is unique and there are no similar examples in either the Puuc or Chenes regions. Small rosettes of similar design are used as decorative forms in the cornice mouldings of some classic Puuc buildings, particularly in the Late Uxmal style buildings at Uxmal (Andrews 1982) but are not found in the Chenes region.

48The most prominent Chenes feature of Structure 12 is the articulated west façade of rooms 13-15 where small, vertical recesses divide the façade into four separate units (fig. 30). This articulation is further emphasized by the slight projection of room 15 beyond the outer face of the walls on either side. Articulated façades of this kind have not been found in classic Puuc buildings but are an important diagnostic feature of both the Chenes and Río Bec architectural styles. In summary, Structure 12 cannot be considered as predominantly Puuc or Chenes in style since it combines important diagnostic features of both styles.

28. Portion of West elevation.

29. Xkichmook, Structure 12. Plan.

30. Portion of West elevation (restored).

31. Benito Juárez, Structure i. Portion of rear (north) elevation.

32. a. Section of rear wall. b. Portion of rear façade (restored).

BENITO JUÁREZ

49The ruins of Benito Juárez are located about 20 km. south of the town of Xul (fig. 1). The Main Group is situated on a low hill about 100 m. west of the highway at the south end of the ejido of Benito Juárez. The hill has been extensively terraced on top and the principal structure, which appears to have been a long range type building with two rows of rooms stands on the upper terrace. The rooms open to the south and there appears to have been a stairway to the roof on the south side. Only a small portion of the rear wall is still standing which offers some architectural details (fig. 31).

50What little of the architecture that is still preserved seems mostly Chenes in character. The two-member medial moulding has a large, apron-type lower member with groups of inset, slightly flattened colonnettes at regular intervals. It should be noted that the lower member of this moulding is formed with two pieces of stone, as is characteristic for all Chenes mouldings of this type. The upper wall zone is decorated with single, inset plain colonnettes which are set at intervals of about 1.5 m. with plain section between (figs. 32a and 32b). The cornice moulding is now fallen but I have assumed that is was similar to the lower moulding, with the addition of an apron-type member above (fig. 32). The facing stones used in both the lower and upper walls are small, squarish blocks similar to those used in other Chenes-Puuc buildings (Ichpich, Xkichmook), and classic Chenes buildings (Santa Rosa Xtampak, Hochob, Tabasqueño).

51Comment: While there is little architectural evidence to go on, the standing rear wall here has much in common with the north and east façades of the west wing of Structure 1 at Xkichmook (G.F. Andrews 1984, fig. 35) and stylistically seems to best fit the Chenes-Puuc category.

RANCHO PÉREZ

52The ruins of Rancho Pérez are located about 14 km. south of the modern town of Xul (fig. 1). The main group is situated on top of a low, steep-sided hill which has been extensively leveled and terraced on top. In addition to the principal standing structure, which I have called Structure 1, there are several other mounds and terraces near the top of the hill, together with a high retaining wall along one edge of the upper terrace which is faced with small, squarish blocks, similar to those used as wall facings in buildings. I also noted a chultún in the terrace immediately below the upper terrace supporting Structure 1.

33. Rancho Pérez, Structure 1. Plan.

STRUCTURE 1

53Structure 1 is a medium sized range-type building with eight rooms which is now near the point of total collapse. As can be seen in the sketch plan (fig. 33), the rooms are arranged in two wings which are separated by a stairway in the center, leading to a platform (or other rooms?) at an upper level. Only the front room immediately to the left of the stairway is now sufficiently well preserved to offer any substantial architectural data. My notes indicate that both the wall and vault stones in this room are fairly crudely cut-and-dressed and could be called either Chenes or Puuc in character. The main point of interest in this building is the small section of the façade in front of the standing room wich shows a number of unusual decorative details.

54The most striking aspect of this façade is the fact that both the lower and upper wall zones are completely filled with an extraordinary assortment of mosaic-type sculptural forms which sets it apart from nearly all known examples of both classic Chenes and Puuc buildings. The decorative motifs include plain colonnettes, spools, stepped-frets, T-frets, triangles, mat symbols, mouldings with decorated faces, two forms of crosses and two variations on “checkerboards” (figs. 35 and 36). The three-member base, medial and cornice mouldings include continuous rows of colonnettes in the central member (figs. 35 and 36). Most of the decorative motifs are essential elements of the classic Puuc Mosaic style but the checkerboard panel in the upper wall zone and the adjacent “cross” are diagnostic features of the classic Río Bec architectural style (fig. 36). Variations on the checkerboard theme can also be found in Structure 1 at Xkichmook and in Structure 5 at Sabacché.

55Comments: 1 have hesitated to include Structure 1 at Rancho Pérez as an example of Chenes-Puuc architecture since the decorative motifs and mosaic technology employed in executing these motifs seem essentially Puuc in character but the presence of the “Río Bec” checkerboard motifs points to contact with regions to the south and the question here is whether that contact was early or late.

34. Elevation (restored).

35. View showing standing façade.

36. Detail showing “checkerboard” design.

TZEKELHALTÚN

56The ruins of Tzekelhaltún'are located about 10 km. northwest of the ejido Benito Juárez and about 5 km. from Xcuncat, the southernmost site in the eastern Puuc region with “pure” classic Puuc architecture (fig. 1). As presently known, the site consists of two groups of structures. The first group, which I have called Group

37. Tzekelhaltún, Group A, upper level. Plan of standing rooms.

38. Detail of main façade.

57A, includes the remains of a large, two-story structure, now mostly collapsed. Group B, which is situated about 200 m. to the northwest, includes a large platform, about 3 meters high, which has corners formed with large, rounded stones. Just east of this platform is the sarteneja which gives the site its name.

STRUCTURE 1. Group A

58Structure 1 is represented by the remains of a large Lshaped, two-story building with an additional one-story wing extending to the west. Most of this building has entirely collapsed and its overall plan is unknown. The only portion still standing consists of a façade of a room on the upper level, with the remains of a small projecting room on the west side (fig. 37). The main façade, which faces west, includes a three-member medial moulding with apron-type members top and bottom. The upper wall zone includes groups of inset plain colonnettes, alternating with plain sections, and the cornice moulding above is similar to the medial moulding (fig. 38). The façade of the projecting room shows different details and the medial moulding consists of only two members: a high apron-type lower member formed with two pieces of stone with a small rectangular member above. Groups of four short colonnettes are set into the lower member of this moulding and the upper wall zone included inset, plain colonnettes although only one of these is still in place (fig. 40). It can also be noted that the medial moulding of the projecting room is set about four centimeters lower than the moulding on the main façade.

59Of special interest are several sculptured stones in the debris on the east side of the room described above. These include several pieces of typical Puuc “Chac” masks as well as a round stone, about 30 cm. in diameter, with a series of cog-like protrusions on the face, and another stone with a rounded face and a series of deeply cut diagonal lines (fig. 41). The latter two motifs are not characteristic of either classic Puuc or classic Chenes masks and their presence raises a serious question regarding the actual sculptural treatment of the façade on this side.

60Comments: While the standing façade on the west side of this building, with apron-type medial and cornice mouldings, seems mostly Puuc in character, the façade of the proyecting room shows typical Chenes details, including a classic Chenes moulding with groups of inset, slightly flattened colonnettes. Nothing much can be said about the sculptural elements in the debris on the east side except that the “unusual” sculptured stones suggest an upper or lower wall treatment which differs from typical classic Puuc designs.

39. Portion of main façade and projecting room.

40. Detail of medial molding, projecting room.

41. Sculptured stones, east side of standing rooms.

42. Pixoy, Structure 22. Plan.

PIXOY

61The ruins of Pixoy are located about 19.5 km. south-east of the town of Bolonchén de Rejón. Von Euw (1977) was the first person to report on this site although his report was mostly concerned with the sculptured monuments he found there rather than the architecture. As shown in Von Euw’s map (1977, 4:33), Pixoy is a small site, situated on a low hill, with a series of structures arranged around several adjacent courtyards or plazas. Most of these structures are now nothing more than piles of debris although Von Euw mentions several partially standing rooms in Structure 4 and makes reference to a mask over a doorway in Structure 22. I visited the site in 1974 and my notes pertain mostly to Structure 22, as well as a second building which I cannot locate for sure on Von Euw’s map although I believe it is Structure 14.

STRUCTURE 22

62Structure 22 stands on a low platform near the south-west corner of the site. My notes indicate that this building had three rooms although only the central rooms is still standing (fig. 42). The most noteworthy feature of Structure 22 is a large mask over the central doorway, which is still relatively well preserved (fig. 43). While this mask should probably be considered as a typical Puuc-type mask, it differs from other classic Puuc masks in several respects. First, the lower jaw and mouth, which project well beyond the face of the medial moulding, are set into the upper portion of this moulding, in contrast to most Puuc masks which are confined to the space between the medial and cornice mouldings (fig. 43). Second, additional mask or other decorative elements continue up into the space normally occupied by the cornice moulding (fig. 44). Finally, projecting serpent heads are tenoned into the upper member of the medial moulding on both sides of the mask (fig. 45). The mask had been painted red as evident from several portions of the mask still covered with red paint.

43. Pixoy, Structure 22. Façade of central room.

44. Mask over doorway to central room.

45. Detail of mask showing projecting serpent head.

46. Pixoy, Structure 14 (?) Portion of standing façade.

47. Yakal Chuc, Palace. Front elevation (restored).

STRUCTURE 14 (?)

63As noted above, I am not sure as to the location of this building in relation to Structure 22 but my notes indicate it is not far from the fallen stelae. I have no data on this building other than a photograph (fig. 46) which shows a small portion of a standing façade including a corner. As shown in the photo, the corner of the lower wall zone is marked by a large, three-quarter round column with plain rounded bands top and bottom. The upper wall zone includes projecting stones at the corners, set at 45 degrees to the main façade, together with two rows of projecting stones set midway between the medial and cornice mouldings (fig. 46). The threemember medial moulding carries continuous rows of colonnettes in the central member and I believe this same detail was repeated in the cornice moulding. My notes also indicate that several pieces of stucco sculpture, painted red and green, can be found in the debris below the standing façade.

64Comments: All of the architectural, decorative, and construction features of Structure 22 as presently exposed indicate that it can best be considered as a fairly typical example of the classic Puuc Mosaic style. In contrast, Structure 14 seem purely Chenes in design and execution. The large corner column, which is formed with small stones, is much like those found at wellknown classic Chenes sites such as Santa Rosa Xtampak and Dzibilnocac. In a like manner, the upper wall zone, which includes two rows of projecting stones used to support stucco sculpture, has numerous counterparts at well known Chenes sites including Hochob, Tabasqueño and Dzibilnocac. Only the medial moulding, with continuous rows of colonnettes in the central member, can be considered as a Puuc feature.

YAKAL CHUC

65The ruins of Yakal Chuc are located about 13 km. southeast of the town of Bolonchén de Rejón (fig. 1). To date, the only published data on this site comes from Maler (1902) who visited the site in 1887. He describes the ruins as situated on a slight eminence near the aguada Chuc and noted a small number of mounds in addition to a small, two-room building which he described in some detail. Pollock (1980) included a brief description of this site based entirely on Maler’s earlier notes. I visited the site in April of 1984 but was unable to find the building described by Maler, although I did see the “pyramid” which he regarded as the principal temple.

48. Rear elevation (copy of Maler photo).

66The building described by Maler had two rooms and measured 12.70 m. in length. Maler’s photograph (fig. 48) shows the rear or north façade while my restored elevation, based on Maler’s notes, shows the south or principal façade (fig. 47). Maler stated that there was once a roofcomb above the south façade which I did not show due to lack of sufficient data. The principal architectural and decorative features of this building include a three-member base moulding with continuous colonnettes in the central member, a plain lower wall zone except for single, banded colonnettes at the corners, a threemember medial moulding with a zig-zag motif in the central member, an upper wall zone with inset groups of banded colonnettes, alternating with plain areas, and large projecting stones resting on top of the medial moulding. The four-member cornice moulding also carried a zig-zag motif alternating with plain areas in the next to lowest member.

67Comment: Pollock (1980) considered this building as typically classic Puuc and, to some extent, I am inclined to agree with this assessment. I have included it as an example of the Chenes-Puuc style largely on the grounds of its similarity to Structure 3 at Ichpich (figs. 11, 12, 13) which I have earlier identified as a ChenesPuuc building. Both buildings have large projecting stones resting on the top of the medial moulding which is a typical classic Chenes feature and this particular feature is never found in classic Puuc buildings. Structure 3, Ichpich, also included other Chenes features such as vault capstones with no stone moulding below and no offsets at the vault springline at the ends of rooms but Maler’s notes do not indicate if this was also true of the building at Yakal Chuc.

49. Tohcok, Structure 1. Plan.

TOHCOK

68The ruins of Tohcok are located about 4 km. west of the town of Hopelchén (fig. 1). To date, the only published reference to the architecture at this site is a very brief description of a building close to the Campeche-Mérida highway (Shook and Proskouriakoff 1951). Pollock (1980, fig. 933) included a photograph of this building which was mislabeled Tantáh. 1 visited the site on two different occasions and my notes refer to the building described by Shook and Proskouriakoff.

STRUCTURE 1

69As noted earlier by Shook and Proskouriakoff, this building is situated just a few meters north of Campeche-Mérida highway and was partially destroyed at the time the present highway was being constructed. My sketch plan (fig. 49) shows the arrangement of the rooms presently exposed although my notes indicate there are additional rooms extending to the north, which then turn and run for a short distance to the east. Shook and Proskouriakoff noted that the lower level rooms on the west side had been filled in at a later date, probably to provide support for additional rooms on the upper level. They also recorded a painted jambstone and painted capstone in room 5 but these have now been removed.

70Comments: The most noteworthy Chenes features in this building include vaults in the lower level rooms with no offsets in the end walls at the vault springline, a three-part façade on the east side where the room with the doorway columns projects out beyond the adjacent rooms, and Chenes-like stonework in walls and vaults. At the same time, classic Puuc details can be found in the upper level rooms on the west side which do have offsets in the end walls (fig. 50) and at the corners of the platforms which show groups of three colonnettes, a typical classic Puuc arrangement. The round doorway columns and painted jambs and capstone could be called either Chenes or Puuc.

XCACABCUTZ

71The ruins of Xcacabcutz are located about 10-12 km. east-southeast of Edzná (fig. 1). To date, there are no published references to this site and to the best of my knowledge, it does no appear on any recent maps of the lowland Maya area. I visited the site in 1978 and my notes refer to two groups of structures, one of which includes a fairly well preserved temple-type building.

STRUCTURE 1, GROUP A

72Group A includes the remains of several structures arranged around a small plaza or courtyard. One side of this plaza is occupied by a medium high platform which supports the remains of a small, one-room building with a high roofcomb which I have called Structure 1 (figure 51). As shown in figures 51 and 52, the most prominent features of this building include a single member rectangular base moulding, a plain lower wall zone, a threemember medial moulding, a four member cornice moulding, and a high, slotted roofcomb over the front wall. The upper wall zone includes projecting stones resting on top of the medial moulding, together with similar projecting stones in the cornice moulding above. Other projecting stones are set a 45 degrees to the corners, which include raised panels at the ends. The roofcomb, now mostly fallen, also had numerous projecting stones tenoned into the outer face. The interior walls are faced with very roughly dressed blocks set in uneven courses and the vaults are faced with wedge-shaped stones with roughly beleved faces. Exterior walls were faced with squarish blocks, fairly deeply tenoned into the wall hearting, while the roofcomb was constructed of roughly dressed slabs (fig. 52).

GROUP B

73My notes say that Group B is situated about 350-400 meters from Group A and that it includes a large number of mounds, many of which are low platforms with no superstructures. I noted the remains of two vaulted buildings in this group, both of which were almost entirely collapsed. One of these, which stands on a low platform, included well-cut veneer type wall stones and semi-boot shaped vault stones, sections of round doorway columns, and a small stone sculptured with a fret design. Nearby are the remains of a larger vaulted building but only a small portion of an upper wall and four courses of the vault are still standing. The exposed wall and vault could be considered as typically classic Puuc in terms of the character of the stonework which is quite different from the stonework found in the small temple building.

51. Xcacabcutz, Structure 1. Elevation of main façade (restored).

52. View of main façade.

74Comments: As at Pixoy, what little can be seen of the architecture at Xcacabcutz includes individual buildings in both the classic Chenes and Puuc styles rather than a mixture of styles in the same buildings as noted elsewhere. The presence of two architectural styles at the same site raises the question as to whether this is evidence of an in-situ transition from one style to the other or if, as Pollock (1970) has suggested, the Puuc architecture here is a late classic Puuc superimposition, erected at a time when the Chenes culture had already collapsed.

53. Dzibiltún, Temple. Front elevation (restored).

54. Dzibiltún, Palace. End elevation (restored).

DZIBILTÚN

75The ruins of Dzibiltún are located about 22 km. south of the town of Hopelchén and 8 km. southwest of Komchén, a village between Hopelchén and Dzibalchén (fig. 1). I have not visited this site myself and the discussion which follows is based on data provided by Maler (1895, 1902) and Pollock (1970).

76Both Maler and Pollock described two buildings at this site. One of these, called the Temple, is a small, one-room building about 7.50 m. by 5.2 m. overall (fig. 53). The other building, called the Palace, appears to have been a larger U-shaped structure with a stairway leading to the roof of the central section. My restoration drawings of these buildings (figs. 53 and 54) are based on the Maler and Pollock descriptions.

TEMPLE

77As shown in fig. 53, the main façade of this building included a high, five-member base moulding, stepped-fret designs in the lower wall zone on both sides of the central doorway, a two-member medial moulding, and a five-member cornice moulding. The upper wall zone was plain, except for groups of inset colonnettes at the corners (fig. 53). Of special interest is the fact that the corners of the upper wall zone, including the medial and cornice mouldings, were recessed on both sides and all of the corner stones were rounded.

PALACE

78Maler’s photograph (1895, fig. 6) shows one of the rooms adjacent to the central stairway together with a projecting wing. My restoration drawing (fig. 54) shows the end wall of the projecting wing, which features a three-member base moulding and a plain, sloping upper wall zone with a complex five-member cornice moulding above. The lower wall zone is decorated with two large stepped fret designs. The base moulding appears to have carried large, flattened colonnettes in the central member, while the cornice moulding included both colonnettes and X shapes in the central member. Maler’s photograph also shows that the lower walls of the room adjacent to the stairway were decorated with groups of plain inset colonnettes.

79Comments: Pollock (1970) included Dzibiltún in his review of Chenes architecture mostly on the grounds that the site was on the edge of, or in Chenes territory but believed that the buildings could well be late examples of classic Puuc architecture.

80In contrast, I believe that the two buildings shown here could better be considered as examples of Chenes-Puuc architecture since both include architectural and decorative features that could be considered as either Chenes or Puuc. For example, the cornice mouldings of both buildings have lower apron-type members formed with two pieces of stone and seem essentially Chenes in character, even though the X-shapes in the cornice moulding of the Palace are found mostly in classic Puuc latticework. The stepped-fret designs in the lower wall zone of both buildings are one of the primary decorative motifs of the classic Puuc Mosaic style but they are also found in other Chenes-Puuc buildings as well as in several buildings in the Río Bec region. In addition, Pollock (1970, fig. 26a) noted a inset panel with stepped vaulting over a doorway to an inner room of the Palace which is also a Chenes and Rio Bec trait. All of the above ambiguities in regard to style are the hallmark of Chenes-Puuc architecture.

DZEHKABTÚN

81The ruins of Dzehkabtún are located about 8 km. south-southwest of the town of Hopelchén (fig. 1). Maler (1902) was the first person to describe the architecture at this site although Ruz (1945) and Pollock (1970) have added some additional details to Maler’s earlier notes, which deal mostly with the Northern Quadrangle (Maler’s Principal Palace with its adjoining edifices) and the Building with the Roofcomb. I visited the site in 1974 and 1981 and my notes include data on both ot these groups, as well as some additional data on a building in the South Group wich was not reported on by any of the earlier writers. My notes and photos indicate that the ruins cover a considerable area and there are numerous mounds and medium sized pyramids surrounding the main center which includes the North Quadrangle and the Building with the Roofcomb (fig. 55).

NORTH QUADRANGLE (Principal Palace and surrounding edifices)

82As shown in my sketch plan (fig. 56), the North Quadrangle consists of a large courtyard surrounded by ranges of rooms on the north, south, and west sides while the east side is occupied by a medium sized pyramid which stands on a low platform. A portal vault through the north range divides this building into two sections. Architecturally, the quadrangle is fairly complex and seems to represent at least three phases of construction. The first phase is represented by the West Wing, South Range and the South Wing, West Range. These rooms have now almost entirely collapsed but were largely intact at the time of Maler’s visit in 1887 (fig. 58). As shown in Maler photograph (fig. 57), both of these wings included façades with a plain lower wall zone and masks set into a sloping wall above. While it does not show clearly in Maler’s photograph, there was a two-member Chenes type medial moulding at the bottom of the upper wall and a small section of the upper wall on the rear of the South Wing, West range, shows the profile of this moulding with groups of inset colonnettes immediately below the slightly projecting upper member (fig. 59).

55. Dzehkabtún, View of Main Center from south.

83Other Chenes-like details include rooms with end walls lacking an offset at the vault springline, doorjambs faced with small stones, and stonework featuring small, squarish blocks set in regular courses. The masks, which are relatively simple in design, could be called either Chenes or Puuc in character.

84The East Wing, South Range and North Wing, West range, represent the second phase of construction and differ from the wings described above in several respects. Both have three-member medial mouldings with a vertical wall above (figs. 60 and 61). The central member of the North Wing, West Range, included a diamond motif which is not found in the East Wing of the South Range (fig. 61). The profiles of these mouldings are almost identical to medial mouldings found at classic Chenes sites such as Santa Rosa Xtampak and Tabasqueño. In contrast, the rooms in both of the wings noted above do have offsets in end walls and doorjambs formed with large stones, both of which are typical classic Puuc features.

56. Dzehkabtún, North Quadrangle. Sketch plan.

57. Dzehkabtún, North Quadrangle. South Range West Wing and West Range, South Wing (Maler Photo).

85The North Range, now badly fallen, is noteworthy because of the portal vault wich divides this building into two sections (fig. 62). This architectural form is strictly confined to classic Puuc buildings elsewhere. The exposed remains of these rooms also show typical classic Puuc stonework and vault construction, as well as Puuc-type jamb stones which are the full thickness of the wall.

BUILDING WITH THE ROOFCOMB

86The Building with the Roofcomb is a six-room structure with a high roofcomb over the central dividing wall (figs. 64 and 65) which is situated about 125 m. southeast of the North Quadrangle (fig. 63). Both Maler (1902) and Pollock (1970) have described various features of this building to which I want to add a few notes of my own. The south façade of this building which was largely intact at the time of Maler’s visit, has now almost entirely collapsed (fig. 67) and I am dependent on Maler’s notes for some of the details shown in my restored elevation of this façade (fig. 66).

87The basic architectural and decorative features of this building have been adequately described by both Maler and Pollock and need not be repeated here. I am convinced, however, that Pollock’s section of the upper wall (1970, fig. 50) is in error since the complex mouldings are at odds with my photographs and notes wich indicate clearly that the south façade carried a single-member rectangular medial moulding and that the vertical wall above this moulding was set back several centimeters from the face of the lower wall (figs. 67 and 68). I believe that Pollock misinterpreted Maler’s photo (1902, fig. 21) and that the additional mouldings he shows were in fact projecting stones used to support stucco sculptures. According to Maler,

“The frieze (upper wall zone) belongs to the vertical kind and has lower and upper moldings; numerous jutting stones served to hold the stucco-work ornaments, which must have been most elaborate over the middle entrance. Traces of vermillion paint are still distinctly visible on the frieze.”

58. View showing stairway of South Range and collapsed rooms of East and West Wings.

59. West Range, South Wing. Detail of rear façade.

60. Detail of medial moulding. South Range, East Wing.

61. Detail of medial moulding. West Range, North Wing.

62. North Range, showing portal vault.

88Maler then goes on to say:

“The south side of the roofcomb was of especially elaborate work, relieved in the middle by figurework; this is to be seen in all its details in my photograph.”

89I have stressed the character of the decorative elements in the south façade of this building since it bears heavily of the question of Chenes vs. Puuc architecture. In most respects, classic Puuc features seem to dominate this building (banded colonnettes in the lower wall zone, vaults with very rounded shape, roofcomb faced with well-dressed blocks) but the use of stucco sculpture supported on projecting stones in the upper wall zone is a typical classic Chenes feature, since classic Puuc buildings consistently show mosaic type sculptures, executed in stone. Given the above, I am inclined to see the Building with the Roofcomb as an outstanding example of Chenes-Puuc architecture.

SOUTH GROUP

90The South Group, which is situated several hundred meters south of the North Quadrangle, is represented by a fairly large complex of structures and platforms which seems to mark the southern edge of the site. The north side of this group is bounded by a long, range-type building (Structure 1) while the south side is terminated by a medium sized pyramid.

63. Dzehkabtún, Building with Roofcomb. View from North Quadrangle.

64. Dzehkabtún, Building with Roofcomb. Plan.

STRUCTURE 1, SOUTH GROUP

91Structure 1 is represented by the badly fallen remains of a long five-room building (fig. 69). A portion of the rear wall is still standing to the height of the medial moulding but the vaults and other walls have now almost entirely collapsed. The base moulding below the rear wall has three members and the central member is filled with continuous short colonnettes. The wall above is faced with small, squarish blocks fairly deeply tenoned into the hearting (fig. 70). The base moulding below the front wall shows the same details as the moulding in the rear. The most interesting detail now visible in this building occurs at a point where the crosswall between the two rooms at the right end joins the front wall. At this point, there are two three-quarter round columns with a recess between (fig. 71). The columns include a simple moulding at the bottom and the base moulding below is rounded and recessed to match the shape of the columns above. It can also be noted (fig. 71) that there are spools in the central member of the base moulding just below the columns, with half-round colonnettes adjacent.

66. South elevation (restored).

92Comment: With the exception of the base moulding, all of the details of Structure I as presently exposed seem purely Chenes in character. The “corner” columns in the main façade, which are formed with small stones, are virtually identical to a pair of similar columns in the main façade of Structure A1 at Dzibilnocac (fig. 71 and 72). In both cases, the pair of columns, with a deep recess between, would have the effect of creating a threepart façade even though the adjacent wall surfaces are on the same plane. Three-part, articulated façades are frequently found in both the Chenes and Río Bec regions but I know of no example of a similar three-part façade at any classic Puuc site. The masonry also seems more Chenes than Puuc since the walls of classic Chenes building employ rather small square blocks deeply tenoned into the hearting while the facing stones in typical classic Puuc buildings are generally larger, more irregular in size and shape, and somewhat thinner.

93General comments: Both Ruz (1945) and Pollock (1970) believed that the architecture at Dzehkabtún was essentially Puuc in character, with some minor Chenes influences, and Pollock included this site in his discussion of Chenes architecture mostly on the grounds of its geographical position. I disagree with this interpretation since much of the architecture strikes me as essentially Chenes in design and execution, with the exception of the north range of the North Quadrangle, which shows only classic Puuc stonework and details, and the Building with the Roofcomb which shows combined Puuc and Chenes features. Because of its size and location, Dzehkabtún is obviously a key site in terms of any question involving chronological and cultural relationships between the Chenes and Puuc regions and I earnestly hope that some comprehensive archaeological work will be undertaken there in the near future before what little architecture remains is also reduced to rubble.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

94At the beginning of this paper I pointed out that in spite of the fact that there appears to be no serious disagreement among Maya scholars regarding the essential diagnostic features of what are commonly called the classic Rio Bec, Chenes, and Puuc architectural styles (Potter as the lone dissenter), there continues to be serious disagreement regarding the origins and relative chronology of these styles, as well as the cultural relationships among the adjacent regions where these styles are found. As a way of shedding a little light (or perhaps adding greater confusion) on these questions, I have reviewed in some details what is currently known about the architecture at eleven archaeological sites which are located in a kind of “gray area” situated between the Puuc, Chenes, and Edzná regions. The eleven sites in question have been shown to contain a number of buildings in a hybrid architectural style and I have used the term “Chenes-Puuc” in describing this blend of styles. The question now is how to interpret the existence of a considerable amount of Chenes-Puuc architecture in relation to the proposed chronologies for the Río Bec, Chenes, and Puuc regions and in regard to the flow of influences between these adjacent regions.

67. View from southeast.

68. Detail of medial moulding.

69. Dzehkabtún, Structure 1, South Group. Plan.

70. View of rear wall.

71. “Corner” columns and recess.

72. Dzibilnocac, Structure A1. “Corner” columns and recess.

95The comparative chart (fig. 73) shows four different chronological and inter-cultural models which are based on varying proposals made by a number of different individuals. In all cases, the shaded areas show the time periods during which the various classic architectural styles are assumed to have been in vogue and the arrows show the direction of the flow in influences. Figure 73a which follows a scheme proposed by Pollock and several others is based on the assumption that Chenes-Puuc architecture represents a true border condition. In this case, the Chenes-Puuc buildings in the border zone are seen as resulting from simultaneous influences emanating from both the Chenes and Puuc regions and assumes a considerable overlap in time of the classic Chenes and Puuc architectural styles. Any Puuc architecture in the Chenes region itself would be the result of the southward spread of Puuc culture at a later date. Figure 73b which is based on a suggestion by Pollock (1970), assumes that the Chenes-Puuc buildings are actually late examples of classic Puuc architecture, erected at a time when the Chenes culture had essentially collapsed. Here also, any Puuc architecture found at Chenes sites (Area K, Dzibilnocac for example) would be the result of Puuc influences moving southward through Chenes-Puuc border zone. Figure 73c which is based on proposals made by Potter, Gendrop and myself, assumes that Chenes-Puuc architecture is the precursor of classic Puuc architecture and that the classic Puuc architectural styles are largely derived from the Chenes and ChenesPuuc styles. The flow of influences is from south to north, except for a later southward incursion of the classic Puuc styles into the Chenes region. Figure 73d which is based on a proposal by Ball, with some support from Andrews V, assumes that the classic Puuc styles resulted from a late eighth century invasion of the Puuc region by outsiders (Gulf coastal Putún Maya) who first entered the Puuc region by way of the west coast and later moved southward into the Chenes and Río Bec regions. In this case, the flow of influences is from north to south and the Chenes-Puuc buildings would have to postdate the earliest classic Puuc buildings.

96While there are basic and important differences among the interpretations outlined above, two constants are worth noting. The most important of these is the generally accepted premise that up till the latter part of the eighth century, the Rio Bec and Chenes regions were restricted to a regional developmental stage which did not include significant contact with the Puuc region. The architectural record seems very clear on this point and it is generally agreed that the fully developed classic Rio Bec and Chenes styles are contemporary with the Early Puuc and Proto-Puuc styles and that the former styles show no real similarities with the latter. It should also be noted here that there is no preclassic architecture in the Rio Bec and Chenes regions which is similar to any of the early Puuc styles. These differences are further emphasized by Ball’s (1977) belief that the ceramics of the Bejuco phase in the Río Bec region are strictly regional in character when compared with ceramics from the same period from either the north or south. In a like manner, the diagrams also point up the fact that while there may have been some overlap in the chronology of the classic Río Bec, Chenes, and Puuc styles near the beginning of the ninth century, the vast majority of classic Puuc buildings must surely postdate most classic Rio Bec and Chenes buildings.

97The differences between the four diagrams are mostly confined to a 100-120 year period falling roughly between A.D. 750-850, a period which is marked by the decline and ultimate eclipse of the Rio Bec and Chenes cultures and the beginning of the classic Puuc florescence. In assessing any of the positions outlined in these diagrams, I believe two crucial questions must be answered: 1) to what extent do the classic Puuc, Chenes, and Río Bec styles overlap in time?, and 2) how can we best account for the origins of the classic Puuc architectural styles?

98In regard to the first question, the positions outlined in figures 73a, 73b, and 73d assume a considerable overlap in time between the three styles but the combined weight of the architectural and chronological evidence available at the present time does not support this premise. As shown in figure 73c, both Gendrop and I tend to agree with Potter (1977) who states:

“The oft-postulated overlap between construction in the (classic) Puuc style(s) and that in the Central Yucatan (Chenes and Río Bec) style is not in fact significant, according to evidence from Becan and Chicanná: no construction except probably Structure XX, Chicanná, is known to have taken place there during the Xcocom ceramic phase, contemporaneous with, and related to, the Cehpech phase upon which some of the discussion of overlap has been based.”

99Both Gendrop and I also believe that Structure XX at Chicanná, which does not in fact show any Puuc influence as suggested by others, could well be dated to the Chintok ceramic phase since a radio-carbon reading from a vault beam produced a date of 720 ± 95.

100In regard to the second question, the problem I see with the positions outlined in figures 73a and 736 is that while they appear to explain the presence of the ChenesPuuc buildings as Puuc intrusions into erstwhile Chenes territory, they offer no insights into the origins of the classic Puuc styles. As far as I can tell, Pollock did not really take a position on this question which is so crucial to our understanding of both the temporal and cultural relationships under discussion. As shown in figure 73d the position taken by Ball (1974, 1977) and Andrews V (1979) is based on the premise that the classic Puuc styles are the result of influences originating in the western Puuc area. Andrews V says:

“It seems clear that the main source of the eastern and northern Puuc style (classic Puuc styles) was the earlier and simpler Puuc style of western Yucatán and northern Campeche, which would have overlapped in time almost entirely with the Chenes and Río Bec Styles to the south. As the precursors of developed Puuc architecture these two styles (Rio Bec and Chenes) influenced it but did not give birth to it.”

101As noted earlier, Ball also postulates a western to eastern Puuc development but assigns this to an invasion by outsiders who brought with them the basic elements of the classic Puuc styles. He also sees the spread of “Puuc” culture into the Chenes and Río Bec regions as the result of the same outsiders moving southward at a slightly later date. I believe that the architectural evidence as presently available does not support either of the theses outlined above since I have already pointed out in an earlier paper (Andrews 1982) that the earliest Puuc architectural styles (Early Oxkintok, Proto-Puuc, Early Puuc) as found in both western or eastern Puuc zones do not contain the seeds of the classic Puuc Colonnette and Mosaic styles and we must look outside the Puuc region itself for the source of the classic Puuc styles. By the same token, there is no evidence at present that classic Puuc architecture originated in the western Puuc zone or that classic Puuc architecture in the western zone is any earlier than classic Puuc architecture in the eastern Puuc heartland, which would have to be the case if Ball’s thesis is correct. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the western Puuc sites were already in a state of decline at the time the eastern Puuc sites were flourishing (Andrews 1982).

102In conclusion, my own position (and Gendrop’s as well) is that the present weight of evidence, particularly from architecture and architectural styles, favors the relationships as outlined in figure 73c. As Gendrop, Potter, and myself have shown in numerous papers, there is every reason to believe that the classic Puuc Colonnette and Mosaic styles are derived almost entirely from influences emanating from the Chenes and Río Bec regions to the south since all of the diagnostic architectural and decorative features which are the hallmarks of classic Puuc architecture are found in the classic Chenes and Río Bec styles which are now known to antedate the classic Puuc styles. I also believe this position is further strengthened by the presence of some amount of Chenes-Puuc architecture in the border zone between Chenes and Puuc regions which served as kind of “stepping-stone” between the south and north. In this case, the Chenes-Puuc style buildings can be viewed as prototypes for the fully developed classic Puuc architectural styles.

103What seems most urgently needed in the very near future is some hard-nosed “dirt archaeology” at carefully selected sites in the Puuc, Chenes-Puuc and Chenes areas with the object of producing stratified ceramic sequences clearly tied to both early and late architectural styles, as well as additional supporting data from radiocarbon dates, lithics, hieroglyphics, and other lines of inquiry. Until this has been accomplished, all of us here will continue to fight a losing battle in really solving the Río Bec-Chenes-Puuc jigsaw puzzle since some of the key pieces are still missing.

Eugene, Oregon, June 1984

Eugene, Oregon, June 1984

Opposite page: Chuncanob. Detail of partially destroyed mask. Drawing Paul Gendrop. 73. Comparative charts showing temporal and inter-cultural relationships between Puuc, Chenes-Puuc, Chenes and Río Bec regions. a. Chart showing Chenes-Puue architecture as a “border” condition. b. Chart showing Chenes-Puuc architecture as examples of late classic Puuc architecture. c. Chart showing ChenesPuuc architecture as precursor of classic Puuc architecture. d. Chart showing Chenes-Puuc architecture as result of invasion of Puuc, Chenes-Puuc and Chenes regions by "foreigners”. See revised chart in Joseph W. Ball’s "Summary view”, p. 87.

1. Análisis de los principales elementos que figuran en la portada del edificio II de Chicanná, Campeche, y que constituyen uno de los ejemplos mejor conseivados —a la vez que más depurados— de una “portada zoomorfa integral” que consta esencialmente de un ancho mascarón frontal superior complementado,a ambos lados de la puerta, por gigantescas fauces serpentinas estilizadas de perfil y, al nivel de la plataforma de acceso, por una mandíbula abatida erizada de col-millos en ambos costados (o, mis probablemente, según demuestran trabajos recientes de Ramón Carrasco, hacia d frente del edificio: véase fig. 15 p. 65). Otros elementos iconográficos que pueden enriquecer este tipo de portada es, en cada uno de los extremos de la misma, una cascada de mascarones de perfil, de ángulo o frontales.

2. Análisis de los elementos que suelen figurar en mascarones (tanto de ángulo como de perfil) como complemento eventual de portadas zoomorfas, tal como subsisten en los edificios 6 de Péchal, Campeche, y VI de Chicanná.

Bibliographie

REFERENCES

ANDREWS V, E. Wyllys
1979
Some Comments on Puuc architecture of the northern Yucatan Peninsula; in: The Puuc: New Perspectives, ed. Lawrence Mills. Central College, Pella, Iowa.

ANDREWS, George F.
1982
Puuc architectural styles: a reassessment. Paper presented at symposium on Northern Maya Lowlands. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM, México. (In press)
1983
The ruins of Ichpich. Unpublished manuscript. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
1984
Xkichmook revisited: Puuc vs. Chenes architecture; Cuadernos de arquitectura mesoamericana 1, UNAM, México.

BALL, Joseph W.
1974
A coordinate approach to northern Maya prehistory: A.D. 700-1200; American Antiquity 39 (1): 85-93.
1977
The archaeological ceramics of Becan, Campeche, Mexico; Middle American Research Institute Pub. 43, Tulane University.

FONCERRADA DE MOLINA, Marta
1962
La arquitectura Puuc dentro de los estilos de Yucatán; Estudios de Cultura Maya 2: 225-238.

GENDROP, Paul
1982
Interacciones Río Bec-Chenes-Puuc durante el periodo Clásico Tardío. Paper presented at symposium on Northern Maya Lowlands. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM, México. (In press)
1983
Los estilos Río Bec, Chenes y Puuc en la arquitectura maya. UNAM, México.

KUBLER, George
1962
The art and architecture of ancient America: The Mexican, Maya and Andean peoples. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England.

MALER, Teobert
1895
Yukatekische Forschungen; Globus 68 (16): 247-260; (18): 277-292.
1902
Yukatekische Forschungen; Ibid. 82 (13-14): 197-230.

NELSON, Jr., Fred W.
1973
Archaeological Investigations at Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico; Papers New World Archaeological Foundation 33, Provo.

POLLOCK, Harry E.D.
1970
Architectural Notes on some Chenes ruins; in: Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, ed. W.E. Bullard. Papers Peabody Museum 61: 1:87, Harvard University.

POTTER, David F.
1977
Maya architecture of the central Yucatán Peninsula, México; Middle American Research Institute Pub. 44, Tulane University.

RUPPERT, Karl and John H. DENISON, Jr.
1943
Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Peten; Carnegie Institution of Washington Pub. 543, Washington, D.C.

RUZ LHUILLIER, Alberto
1945
Campeche en la arqueología maya; Acta Anthropologica 1 (2, 3).

THOMPSON, Edward H.
1898
The Ruins of Xkichmook, Yucatán; Anthropological Series 2 (3), Field Columbian Museum, Chicago.

VON EUW, Eric
1977
Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Vol. 4, part 1. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Table des illustrations

Légende 1. Map showing sites with classic Puuc, Chenes-Puuc, and Chenes architecture.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 40k
Légende 2. Ichpich, Structure 1. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 98k
Légende 3. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 168k
Légende 4. View showing rear (west) façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 152k
Légende 5. East elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 54k
Légende 6. Ichpich, Structure 2. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Légende 7. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 316k
Légende 8. Portion of rear (west) façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Légende 9. Ichpich, Structure 3. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 164k
Légende 10. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 180k
Légende 11. West Elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 480k
Légende 12. a-b. View of west façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 249k
Légende 13. Detail of west façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 88k
Légende 14. Xkichmook, Structure 1. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 173k
Légende 15. West wing, East elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 165k
Légende 16. Portion of east façade, west wing.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 153k
Légende 17. Portion of east façade of rooms 10 and 11.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 270k
Légende 18. View showing remains of mask on south façade of room 6 and corner masks on proyecting podium of Central Wing.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 257k
Légende 19. View from northwest showing podium, upper level temple, and rear of East Wing.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 69k
Légende 20. Xkichmook, Structure 4. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 175k
Légende 21. Portion of north façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 117k
Légende 22. North elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Légende 23. Xkichmook, Structure 5. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 125k
Légende 24. Xkichmook, Structure 5. West elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 63k
Légende 25. Xkichmook, Structure 6. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 137k
Légende 26. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 231k
Légende 27. West elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Légende 28. Portion of West elevation.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 62k
Légende 29. Xkichmook, Structure 12. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Légende 30. Portion of West elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 320k
Légende 31. Benito Juárez, Structure i. Portion of rear (north) elevation.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 80k
Légende 32. a. Section of rear wall. b. Portion of rear façade (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-32.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 64k
Légende 33. Rancho Pérez, Structure 1. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-33.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 187k
Légende 34. Elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-34.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 211k
Légende 35. View showing standing façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-35.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 158k
Légende 36. Detail showing “checkerboard” design.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-36.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 39k
Légende 37. Tzekelhaltún, Group A, upper level. Plan of standing rooms.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-37.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 333k
Légende 38. Detail of main façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-38.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 225k
Légende 39. Portion of main façade and projecting room.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-39.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 223k
Légende 40. Detail of medial molding, projecting room.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-40.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 243k
Légende 41. Sculptured stones, east side of standing rooms.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-41.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Légende 42. Pixoy, Structure 22. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-42.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 595k
Légende 43. Pixoy, Structure 22. Façade of central room.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-43.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 234k
Légende 44. Mask over doorway to central room.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-44.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 162k
Légende 45. Detail of mask showing projecting serpent head.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-45.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 103k
Légende 46. Pixoy, Structure 14 (?) Portion of standing façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-46.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 143k
Légende 47. Yakal Chuc, Palace. Front elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-47.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 283k
Légende 48. Rear elevation (copy of Maler photo).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-48.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Légende 49. Tohcok, Structure 1. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-49.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 94k
Légende 50. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-50.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 89k
Légende 51. Xcacabcutz, Structure 1. Elevation of main façade (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-51.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 298k
Légende 52. View of main façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-52.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 105k
Légende 53. Dzibiltún, Temple. Front elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-53.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 99k
Légende 54. Dzibiltún, Palace. End elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-54.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 115k
Légende 55. Dzehkabtún, View of Main Center from south.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-55.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 79k
Légende 56. Dzehkabtún, North Quadrangle. Sketch plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-56.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 720k
Légende 57. Dzehkabtún, North Quadrangle. South Range West Wing and West Range, South Wing (Maler Photo).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-57.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 121k
Légende 58. View showing stairway of South Range and collapsed rooms of East and West Wings.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-58.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 161k
Légende 59. West Range, South Wing. Detail of rear façade.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-59.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 157k
Légende 60. Detail of medial moulding. South Range, East Wing.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-60.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 101k
Légende 61. Detail of medial moulding. West Range, North Wing.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-61.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 147k
Légende 62. North Range, showing portal vault.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-62.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 140k
Légende 63. Dzehkabtún, Building with Roofcomb. View from North Quadrangle.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-63.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 91k
Légende 64. Dzehkabtún, Building with Roofcomb. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-64.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Légende 65. Section.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-65.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 247k
Légende 66. South elevation (restored).
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-66.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 278k
Légende 67. View from southeast.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-67.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 178k
Légende 68. Detail of medial moulding.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-68.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 43k
Légende 69. Dzehkabtún, Structure 1, South Group. Plan.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-69.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 174k
Légende 70. View of rear wall.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-70.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 155k
Légende 71. “Corner” columns and recess.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-71.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 165k
Légende 72. Dzibilnocac, Structure A1. “Corner” columns and recess.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-72.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 71k
Titre Eugene, Oregon, June 1984
Légende Opposite page: Chuncanob. Detail of partially destroyed mask. Drawing Paul Gendrop. 73. Comparative charts showing temporal and inter-cultural relationships between Puuc, Chenes-Puuc, Chenes and Río Bec regions. a. Chart showing Chenes-Puue architecture as a “border” condition. b. Chart showing Chenes-Puuc architecture as examples of late classic Puuc architecture. c. Chart showing ChenesPuuc architecture as precursor of classic Puuc architecture. d. Chart showing Chenes-Puuc architecture as result of invasion of Puuc, Chenes-Puuc and Chenes regions by "foreigners”. See revised chart in Joseph W. Ball’s "Summary view”, p. 87.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-73.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 467k
Légende 1. Análisis de los principales elementos que figuran en la portada del edificio II de Chicanná, Campeche, y que constituyen uno de los ejemplos mejor conseivados —a la vez que más depurados— de una “portada zoomorfa integral” que consta esencialmente de un ancho mascarón frontal superior complementado,a ambos lados de la puerta, por gigantescas fauces serpentinas estilizadas de perfil y, al nivel de la plataforma de acceso, por una mandíbula abatida erizada de col-millos en ambos costados (o, mis probablemente, según demuestran trabajos recientes de Ramón Carrasco, hacia d frente del edificio: véase fig. 15 p. 65). Otros elementos iconográficos que pueden enriquecer este tipo de portada es, en cada uno de los extremos de la misma, una cascada de mascarones de perfil, de ángulo o frontales.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-74.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 352k
Légende 2. Análisis de los elementos que suelen figurar en mascarones (tanto de ángulo como de perfil) como complemento eventual de portadas zoomorfas, tal como subsisten en los edificios 6 de Péchal, Campeche, y VI de Chicanná.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cemca/docannexe/image/6060/img-75.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 398k

© Centro de estudios mexicanos y centroamericanos, 1985

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search