REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS · PDF fileREGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS IN THE MIDDLE PRECLASSIC MAYA LOWLANDS James A. Doyle

Discussions of ancient Maya politicalauthority have largely focused on Classicperiod (ca. A.D. 250–900) royal courts and

the extent of their control over the landscape bymeans of alliances, diplomacy, and warfare (seeGarrison and Dunning 2009; Lucero 1999; Martinand Grube 2008). Yet it is important to emphasizethat some of the greatest Classic Maya cities owetheir eventual geographic locations to decisionsmade by settlers as early as the Middle Preclassicperiod (ca. 1000–300 B.C.). Recent finds have

emerged from the Preclassic period that indicate ahigh degree of sociopolitical complexity, alongwith expressive resources that include mural paint-ing and hieroglyphic writing (Estrada-Belli 2006,2011; Hurst 2009; Saturno et al. 2005; Taube et al.2010), elaborate architectural sculpture (Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1998; Laporte and Fialko1995), and dedicatory caches of greenstone axes(Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011; Inomata et al. 2009).Despite renewed archaeological attention to Pre-classic contexts, however, the nature of Preclassic

REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS IN THE MIDDLE PRECLASSIC MAYA LOWLANDS

James A. Doyle

For nearly a century, scholars have used astronomical evidence to explain the Lowland Maya architectural type known as“E-Groups” as solar observatories and, by extension, as locations for rituals related to solar and agricultural cycles. Thisarticle departs from the usual focus on the observational properties of E-Groups and places them in the context of earlyMaya monumentality during the Middle Preclassic period. Specifically, E-Groups are seen as the earliest monumental socialspaces in the Maya Lowlands, with multifaceted functions and placements that indicate a shared social map of the land-scape. Geographic information systems viewshed analysis of Middle Preclassic E-Group sites demonstrates that popula-tions constructed E-Groups in places that maximized visibility of the nearby landscape. Viewsheds conducted at sites withMiddle Preclassic E-Groups in the central Maya Lowlands suggest that the large plazas and similar monumental archi-tecture represent the centers of comparable, mutually visible communities. Settlers founding these communities consciouslycreated distance from neighboring monumental centers, perhaps as means of defining and buttressing group identity andundergirding spatial claims to political authority. Recent archaeological evidence affords clues that such spaces were civic,allowing architectural settings for social gatherings and access to resources.

Por casi cien años, diversos estudios se han basado en evidencia arqueoastronómica para tratar los complejos arquitectóni-cos del “Grupo Tipo E,” propio de las Tierras Bajas Mayas, como observatorios solares y, por consiguiente, como centrosrituales relacionados con los ciclos solares y agrícolas. El presente artículo parte de las características observacionales delos Grupos Tipo E y los ubica en un contexto de desarrollo temprano de la monumentalidad en el mundo maya, durante elperíodo Preclásico Medio. Específicamente, el artículo ubica a los Grupos Tipo E como los primeros espacios sociales-mon-umentales con funciones polifacéticas en las Tierras Bajas Mayas. Esto lo realiza tras presentar la localización de los gruposcomo evidencia de un mapa social del paisaje compartido entre los colonos mayas tempranos. El autor usa sistemas de infor-mación geográfica de sitios con Grupos Tipo E del Preclásico Medio para demostrar que las poblaciones construyeron losGrupos Tipo E en lugares que maximizaron la visibilidad sobre los terrenos aledaños. El análisis del campo visual llevado acabo en sitios con Grupos Tipo E del Preclásico Medio en las Tierras Bajas Mayas centrales sugiere que las plazas monu-mentales con la arquitectura similar representan los centros de communidades comparables. Los fundadores de estas comu-nidades habrían creado conscientemente distancia de los centros monumentales vecinos, quizás con el fin de definir o reforzaruna identidad grupal o de sustentar autoridad política sobre reclamos territoriales. El artículo presenta evidencia arque-ológica reciente sobre el uso cívico de dichos espacios monumentales tempranos, espacios que proveían de un marco arqui-tectónico para concurrencias sociales y a la vez facilitaban el acceso a distintos recursos.

James A. Doyle � Box 1921, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 ([email protected])

Latin American Antiquity 23(4), 2012, pp. 355–379Copyright ©2012 by the Society for American Archaeology

355

356 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Maya political authority and the emergence of mon-umental centers remains opaque.

During the Middle Preclassic, the Maya built thefirst monumental architecture, which implies large-scale mobilization of labor. The current article con-siders this period of incipient monumentality as afoundation for concepts of landscape and author-ity broadly shared and linked to later, known Mayagroups. Specifically, the article traces significantshifts in Maya monumentality throughout the Mid-dle Preclassic period that culminated in the con-struction of wide plazas and pyramidal platformsthat characterize posterior Lowland Maya settle-ments. A geographic information systems (GIS)examination of a hallmark architectural type, theso-called E-Groups, shows that a regular distribu-tion of settlements, and thus a shared spatial con-sideration of the landscape, may have existed asearly as 500 B.C. In such settlements, monumen-tal plaza groups with similar architectural plansformed the civic centers of comparable communi-ties. The discussion explores archaeological datato account for such a social map of the landscape,in relation to the development of political author-ity in the Middle Preclassic Lowlands.

Building BigArchaeologists have long recognized the correla-tion of early complex societies and large settle-ments with monumental architecture (e.g., Childe1950:12). Monumental architecture, a cross-cul-tural phenomenon, consists of facilities built withscale and architectural elaboration that “exceed therequirements of any practical functions that a build-ing is intended to perform” (Trigger 1990:119).Still, the nature of the relationship among theancient landscape, aggregations of populations, andmonumental architecture remains unclear (seeJoyce 2004; McAnany 2010:141–157). Materialsthat archaeologists interpret as monumental aretypically located in culturally important places andconstructed with significant human energy, byeither a practiced specialist or a large amount ofpeople (Trigger 1990:121; Willey 1962:1–2). Butwhy did people settle densely and undertake mas-sive building projects in certain places, and at cer-tain points in history, but not in others? What makesarchitecture “monumental” is hard to pinpoint, but“the immense scale of these constructions bespeaks

a desire to transform the landscape, to engineer acultural topography that radically altered livingspace” (McAnany 2010:145). Thus monumental-ity, or the social impulse to build big things, isdefined both by the intent and by the perception ofelevated scale and durability.Early Maya Monumentality, ca. 1000–700 B.C.Maya Lowland communities did not constructmonumental structures as defined above until after700 B.C. (Awe et al. 1990; Garber et al. 2004; Ham-mond 1991; Joyce 2004; Lohse 2010; McAnanyand López Varela 1999; Potter et al. 1984). Beforethis time, there is little evidence of archaic, prece-ramic populations in the Lowlands (see Iceland2005; Lohse 2010). Current palynological datashow that maize cultivation (and possibly associ-ated forest clearing) may have occurred between5100 and 4600 cal B.P. (Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl2005; Wahl et al. 2006, 2007). Maize pollen intru-sion and disturbance taxa indicating forest clear-ance do not appear widely in the geological recorduntil after 1500–1000 B.C. and sharply increaseafter 400 B.C. (Dunning et al. 2002; Estrada-Belliand Wahl 2010). The early settlers’ use of perish-able construction material would explain the intru-sion of maize pollen and the lack of cleararchaeological evidence of agriculturalists. Thestrongest evidence of preceramic occupationscomes from northern Belize, namely, near Colha(Iceland 2005; Lohse et al. 2006; Rosenswig andMasson 2001). The data show that there was a sub-stantial population engaged in lithic production andintensive agriculture, with evidence of occupationalcontinuity into the Middle Preclassic (Iceland2005:16).

Although the timing is unclear and variablebetween regions, the first evidence of sedentary vil-lages in the Maya Lowlands with concomitantceramics comes from the time between 1000 and700 B.C. (Cheetham 2005; Clark and Cheetham2003; Forsyth 1999). Settlement pattern studieshave concluded that people at this time lived insmall house clusters, often close to permanent watersources, and did not engage in major landscapemodification for construction purposes (Fialko2000; Puleston 1973:311; Rice 1976:435; Ringle1999:189; Rosenswig and Masson 2001). EarlyMiddle Preclassic villagers also engaged in sharedritual practice and craft specialization, perhaps

reflecting social inequality through the presence ofimported items, such as jade, shells, or obsidian(Hammond 1991; Hansen 1998, 2000; Hendon1999; McAnany and López Varela 1999:155). Theintroduction of ceramic production and long-dis-tance trade items signals that the Early Middle Pre-classic settlers began to invest more heavily inplaces on the landscape. Perhaps several kin groupscooperated as communities, centered on a specificgeographic area. Presumably, the communitiesbegan cooperating with neighbors through tradenetworks to obtain long-distance commodities.Such cooperation could be the mechanism toexplain shared customs and architectural conven-tions visible in the archaeological record. Most sig-nificantly, the material changes that occur inpersonal items seem to correspond to a major shiftin residential constructions by 700 B.C., “mostnotabl[y] the partial replacement of small perish-able structures by permanent raised masonry orearthen house platforms” (Ringle 1999:190).

Although few settlements from this time havebeen extensively excavated, the earliest detectablebuildings in the Maya Lowlands were built on theground surface with a perishable superstructure(Gerhardt and Hammond 1991:99). Subsequentbuildings took the form of apsidal, keyhole-shaped,or circular low platforms with or without super-structures (Aimers et al. 2000; Awe et al. 1990; Ger-hardt 1988; Hammond 1991; Hansen 1998;Inomata et al. 2009; Ricketson and Ricketson1937). As Gerhardt and Hammond (1991:101–102)describe at Cuello, the low platforms included a lowretaining wall of limestone cobble and a core ofsmall stones, sealed with a layer of limestone plas-ter. The introduction of stone-lined platforms andplaster floors is the earliest evidence of an emerg-ing Maya Lowland monumentality.

Buildings of this type exist at several sites innorthern Belize (Garber et al. 2004; McAnany andLópez Varela 1999; Potter et al. 1984). The residentsperiodically renewed the platforms by coveringthem with new layers of plaster and building newsuperstructures. This activity often included the bur-ial of deceased family members below the floor.Over time, both the platforms and the outdoor patioswere repaved with plaster, thus sealing the previ-ous occupation levels and raising the relative ele-vation of the building area. In subsequent phases,people invested more labor including steps, mold-

ings, and interior thresholds, which eventually ledto solid retaining walls (Gerhardt and Hammond1991:102). This shift to elaborate entrances anddurable stone walls of residential platforms signalsthe gradual development of Middle Preclassic Low-land monumental architecture in the context of liv-ing space. The monumentality of living space, ratherthan large ceremonial earthen platforms (see Joyce2004:10), signifies intent to construct larger, morepermanent structures, although the perceivedmanipulation of scale would have only affectedimmediate inhabitants or visitors.The Rise of Cardinal Rectangularity, ca.700–500 B.C.As settlements grew, populations constructed largeplazas and monumental buildings over the circu-lar or apsidal platforms, especially noted at Uax-actún, Guatemala, and Cahal Pech, Belize. Aimerset al. (2000) provide a synthesis of work on roundstructures from the Middle Preclassic at CahalPech, which often show signs of dismantling andsuperimposition of rectilinear structures in latertime periods. The authors argue that round struc-tures were important platforms for performanceand ancestor veneration and touch upon the impli-cations of the architectural transition from roundto rectangular building forms, which at Cuello alsoincluded the first superstructures with limestonewalls (Aimers et al. 2000:80–81; Gerhardt andHammond 1991:104; Hendon 2000). At some pointthereafter during the Middle Preclassic, roundstructures were rendered “obsolete” (Aimers et al.2000:83). Aimers et al. argue (2000:81) that it “doesnot appear to be the transformation of the formalqualities of a dwelling, but the complete abandon-ment of one building type (the exposed circularplatforms) and its replacement with another (therectilinear building with superstructure).” Theappearance of rectangular platforms and pyrami-dal structures perhaps reflects social changes as aresult of population growth at a local level. KentFlannery (1972:39–40, 2002:431) has argued thatrectangular houses allow space for entire nuclearfamilies and the easy addition or subtraction ofrooms, perhaps related to changes in residentialstrategies that cut across kinship ties in earlyMesoamerica.

The earliest monumental plazas and buildingsin the Middle Preclassic that mimicked the forms

Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 357

of earlier domestic architecture signal a second dis-tinct shift in the social importance of monumen-tality in the built environment. Lowland Mayaarchitecture developed as a discrete style withstrong evidence of planning related to the cardinaldirections, with similar building groups and con-struction techniques (Hansen 1998). The direc-tionality of architecture, and possible generalpatterns of Maya cosmology, is also reflected indedicatory offerings at Ceibal and Cival (Bauer2005; Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011; Willey 1978). Thepoint to emphasize here is that after about 700 B.C.,buildings and preexisting social spaces becametruly monumental in intent and perception in theLowlands for the first time. Large plazas and plat-forms, requiring a sizable labor force to construct,signal to archaeologists that populations in theLowlands aggregated or cooperated at this time.Recent evidence from the central Lowlands showsthat Middle Preclassic population nucleation andmonumental building very often included the con-struction of a distinct architectural pattern, labeledand now reified as the E-Group type. The follow-ing discussion explores the sociopolitical implica-tions of the distribution of the E-Group pattern,itself an expression of Lowland Maya monumen-tality that transcended residential buildings.

To “E” or Not to “E”“E-Groups” are named after Group E at Uaxactún,excavated by the Carnegie Institution of Washing-ton in the early twentieth century (Blom 1924;Chase and Chase 1995; Ricketson 1928; Ricket-son and Ricketson 1937; Ruppert 1940). Thesegroups most often contain the earliest cultural mate-rial at their respective sites (Clark and Hansen 2001;Fialko 1988; Hansen 1992; Laporte and Fialko1995; Laporte and Valdés 1993). Various E-Groupsexhibit similar features and orientation, all arrangedaround a rectangular plaza that served as a definedlevel space. The primary buildings include a largesquare-based pyramid on the western side of theplaza, usually “radial,” or with staircases on eachface (see Coggins 1980; Cohodas 1980). East ofthe pyramid lies a long, narrow platform with thelonger axis running north to south, sometimes con-taining three structures. These three structures, usu-ally dating to the Classic period, generally lined upwith the locations of the sunrise on the solstices and

equinoxes when viewed from the western pyra-mid. Thus, scholars consider that the original con-figuration of E-Groups facilitated observation ofsolar movement, albeit with some reservationsabout their accuracy as actual observatories (Aveniand Hartung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003). The precisesocial function or meaning of E-Groups eludesarchaeologists, although most concur that they arenot residential spaces. The main argument aboutthe meaning of E-Groups is that they were used forrituals commemorating agricultural cycles (Aimers1993:46; Aimers and Rice 2006; Aveni and Har-tung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003; Aylesworth 2004;Chase and Chase 1995; Stanton and Freidel 2003).OriginsThe origins of E-Groups are poorly understood.Some scholars propose E-Groups as part of alarger construction pattern, dubbed the “MiddleFormative Chiapas” (MFC) pattern, with archi-tectural groups on a north–south axis found atmany different sites (Clark and Hansen 2001:4).The MFC pattern also contains residential plat-forms or “compounds” of approximately 80 x 80m (Clark and Hansen 2001:2; Hendon 1999).Some have also posited that the earliest MFCgroups exist in the Grijalva Basin of Chiapas ormay be similar to a group at the Olmec site of LaVenta, Tabasco, Mexico (Clark and Hansen 2001;Lowe 1989:61, Figure 4.1a). Unfortunately, a lackof precise comparative chronology between theMaya Lowlands and western Mesoamericaimpedes an understanding of where and when E-Groups first appeared. The available data from theMaya Lowlands show consistency in constructiontechniques and dimensions of buildings that dif-fers greatly from similar groups, such as at Chi-apa de Corzo and Mirador, Chiapas (cf. Clark andHansen 2001:Figures 1.3–1.4). The hypotheticalexistence of a distinct regional pattern in the cen-tral Maya Lowlands suggests an independent, par-allel development from similar groups in Chiapasand Tabasco, although more data are needed(Hansen 2000:56). Regardless of origin, the fre-quency and distribution of E-Groups at majorLowland population centers during the Preclas-sic imply that the structures and wide plaza formedan integral part of community life (Aimers andRice 2006:82; Chase and Chase 1995:100; Clarkand Hansen 2001).


CategorizationWhereas E-Groups in the past have been treated asa unitary phenomenon, new data necessitate a cleardefinition of the formal and chronological criteriaused here. First, architectural form and scale are ofthe utmost importance when defining the heuristiccategory of E-Groups. In the present work, E-Groups have wide rectangular plazas of approxi-mately 50 x 100 m, as bounded by a large westernpyramid of approximately 30–60 m at the base anda long eastern platform ranging from approximately50 to 100 m north–south (Laporte 2001). The cur-rent sample consists of E-Group sites that exhibitsimilar architectural forms, most importantly thedefined level plaza space. Most of the E-Groupsthat fit these criteria are located in the central MayaLowlands, ranging from southern Campeche east-ward to the Holmul River Valley and south to thePetén lakes region, as noted by Ruppert (1940:224)and others.

One major obstacle to the application of the E-Group category is that the visible dimensions gen-erally reflect the Late Preclassic configurations ofsuch groups. Chronological history is crucial, as thearchitectural groups did not develop overnight; nordid they remain fixed in form for centuries. How-ever, as demonstrated through stratigraphic exca-vation, many E-Groups are clearly built uponsmaller forms in the same arrangement erected dur-ing the Middle Preclassic (e.g., Doyle et al. 2011;Estrada-Belli 2011; Laporte and Fialko 1995;Laporte and Valdés 1993). The limited evidence ofMiddle Preclassic E-Group architecture shows con-struction on natural bedrock, or masonry and plas-ter platforms, perhaps with superstructures (Doyleet al. 2011; Estrada-Belli 2006:58, 2011:77; Hansen1998; Laporte and Fialko 1995).

Another challenge with previous E-Groupresearch is a tendency to view the type synchron-ically over too long a time range. As Laporte(1993:303) and Fialko (1988; Laporte and Fialko1995) have noted, there is a clear disconnection inthe meanings and function of E-Groups betweenthe Preclassic and Classic periods. Although somehave argued that the “construction of E-groups ingeneral appears to have spanned most of Preclas-sic and Classic Maya history” (Aimers and Rice2006:80), the dearth of accurate and contempora-neous site plans impedes a conclusive understand-ing of E-Group chronology in many sites.

Subtypologies of E-Groups based on Late Pre-classic arrangements (see Chase and Chase 1995),and possible variant E-Group examples in the Clas-sic period (e.g., Guderjan 2006), are also notincluded in the current analysis.

The comparative data utilized here come fromthree groups of sites: (1) those with certain MiddlePreclassic E-Groups, (2) sites with unexcavated E-Groups but nearby evidence of Middle Preclassicoccupation, and (3) unexcavated sites with E-Groups that fit the formal criteria (Figure 1). Exam-ples with stratigraphic evidence of MiddlePreclassic E-Group construction include Cival(Estrada-Belli 2011), El Palmar (Doyle et al. 2011),Nakbé (Hansen 1992, 1998), Naranjo (Fialko2004:180; Gámez 2005:229; Quintana 2008; Quin-tana and Wurster 2004), San Bartolo (Urquizú andSaturno 2008), Tikal (Laporte and Fialko 1995),and Uaxactún (Laporte and Valdés 1993; Ricket-son and Ricketson 1937). Examples of E-Groupsas defined above that have not been fully excavatedbut exist at sites with firm archaeological evidencefor Middle Preclassic occupation are Calakmul(Carrasco Vargas 1999, 2003; Delvendahl 2008;Domínguez Carrasco 1994:301), Cenote (althoughas Chase [1983:149] notes, the E-Group may haveMiddle Preclassic construction), El Mirador(Forsyth 2006:499–500; Hansen 1990, 1998),Mucaancah (Šprajc 2012), Nakum (Quintana andWurster 2002; Źrałka 2008:31), Wakná (Hansen1994:19, 1998), Yaxhá (Quintana 2008; Quintanaet al. 2000:279), and Yaxnohcah (Šprajc 2012).Finally, many sites exhibit E-Groups with the for-mal criteria but have yet to be excavated thoroughly,such as Balakbal (Ruppert and Denison 1943;Šprajc 2012), El Cedro (Mejía 2009), El Pesquero(Mejía 2009), Las Torres (Mejía 2009), Naachtun(Ruppert and Denison 1943), Uxul (Paap et al.2010; Ruppert and Denison 1943), and Xulnal(Mejía 2008:654, Figure 12). The current E-Groupmodel, then, is based on sites with similar archi-tectural patterns, divided into three groups by build-ing chronology ranging from Middle Preclassiccertainty, to high probability, to a predicted Mid-dle Preclassic outcome (see Figure 1). Furtherarchaeological investigation in the E-Group plazasof the high-probability and predicted groups of sitescould recover similar evidence as found in the firstgroup of well-excavated examples. It is also prob-able that other E-Groups exist outside the known



Figure 1. Distribution of E-Group sites mentioned in the text with confirmed, probable, or unknown Middle Preclassicconstruction dates.

clusters in the study area (see Estrada-Belli2011:Figure 4.5; Laporte 2001:Figure 1).

E-Group Distribution, Landscape Visibility, and Community

The distribution of the current sample of knownMiddle Preclassic E-Groups combined with prob-able and predicted Middle Preclassic E-Groups canprovide clues to the earliest community organiza-tion in the Lowlands. The main premise in thisstudy is that the Middle Preclassic Maya con-structed settlements with monumental architecturein very specific locations on the landscape; in otherwords, although small villages probably existedacross the Lowland terrain, only certain placesbecame foci of monumental E-Group construction.Previous studies have concluded that Classic Mayasites generally lie in prominent areas of greater rel-ative height than the average terrain (Podobnikarand Šprajc 2007). Thus during the Middle Pre-classic, the distribution of E-Groups can provideinformation about the original choices made bysettlers when building monumental centers.

A comparison of two neighboring sites from thewell-excavated sample with very similar E-Groupconstruction sequences can perhaps suggest a widerpattern. The first case involves the Mundo Perdidogroup at Tikal, one of the most thoroughly inves-tigated E-Groups, and El Palmar, approximately 15km to the west of Tikal, which I recently investi-gated as part of the Proyecto Arqueológico El Zotz(Figure 2). The El Palmar E-Group contains verysimilar evidence of construction over the Preclas-sic period to the Mundo Perdido group at Tikal(Figure 3). The proximity of the two sites raises thequestion, What factors could have contributed totwo similar monumental plaza groups in these spe-cific locations?

The Mundo Perdido group demonstrates a con-tinual, episodic occupation from the Early MiddlePreclassic period to the Terminal Classic period (ca.1000 B.C.–A.D. 900 [Laporte and Fialko 1995]).The El Palmar E-Group exhibits a similar MiddlePreclassic beginning but seems to have been com-pletely abandoned during the transition from theLate Preclassic to the Early Classic (Doyle et al.2011). Tunnel excavations in the western pyramidsof each site (El Palmar Structure E4-1 and TikalStructure 5C-54) have revealed at least five to six

construction phases throughout the Preclassic, begin-ning with earthen platforms, transitioning to masonryarchitecture surfaced with stucco, and finally solidblock construction with modeled stucco facades (seeFigure 3). The architectural fill consists of bajomudand fine limestone blocks and soils (Doyle et al.2011:47–48; Laporte ca. 1983:1-08–1-25).

Radiocarbon dates from the fills at El Palmargenerally confirm the time line set out by Laporteand Fialko (1995) for the Mundo Perdido (Table 1).During the earliest phases of construction, ca.700–600 B.C., the residents of El Palmar excavatedthe nearby laguna for architectural fill, with sedi-ment originally deposited around 1800 B.C. (Beta-285473, Beta-285474). This act could also havebeen motivated by a need to modify the laguna, ahypothesis subject to future investigation. The sub-sequent generations constructed platforms between600 and 300 B.C., which culminated in a large tieredpyramid with stucco-covered-stone facades,approximately 18–20 m in height, dating to the earlyLate Preclassic, ca. 300 B.C.–A.D. 1 (Beta-265817,Beta-285472). The Early Classic population at ElPalmar seems to have ceased major constructionsby about A.D. 300 (Beta-265821), and the E-Groupwas completely in ruins by the Late Classic period(Beta-285471). On the other hand, the Mundo Per-dido shows intense construction episodes andceramic production in the Early Classic and LateClassic periods (see Laporte and Fialko 1995:Fig-ure 3), conspicuously absent from El Palmar. Pos-sible visitors in the Postclassic period (ca. A.D.950–1520) utilized the lakeside ruins at El Palmarfor hunting or to collect water from the laguna(Beta-285470). Dates from the nearby center of ElZotz demonstrate extensive occupation in the Post-classic (Arredondo Leiva and Houston 2008; Gar-rido López et al. 2010; Román and Houston 2009).

The monumental scale of the El Palmar andTikal groups during the Preclassic is also very sim-ilar (Figure 4). Most notably, the plazas are of com-parable width, a significant fact in light of theconstruction sequences mentioned above. Excava-tion data show that, as an initial step, the plazas wereleveled and paved with plaster, with concurrentconstruction of the eastern platform and westernpyramid. In both cases, the builders of subsequentphases went to great lengths to preserve the foot-print of the plaza: to maintain the size over time,by constructing the bulk of structures away from



Figure 2. El Palmar site map.

the center, sometimes even destroying earlier struc-tures (Doyle et al. 2011:48; Laporte ca. 1983;Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure 6). A key point tonote is that, despite the cessation of construction inmany E-Groups during the Early Classic, the res-idents of monumental centers maintained the plazaspace throughout generations of later settlement.This pattern of plaza preservation, also noted atmany other sites in the area (see Estrada-Belli2011:77), could possibly be a defining factor of E- Groups— that the absolute size of the plaza was cru-cial to those who built the group. One interpretationof the plaza size has been that it created sight linesthat allowed for viewing of the sunrise on certainpoints throughout the year (see Aimers and Rice

2006:Figure 6). Recent research on plazas through-out many time periods in Mesoamerica also pro-poses that these wide level spaces were more thanframes creating proper geometric conventions forastronomical alignments but actually gatheringspaces for ritual performances (e.g., Inomata 2006;Lucero 2003). Thus, the respective E-Group plazasat Tikal and El Palmar were likely the setting ofsimilar social activities for the inhabitants of eachcommunity.Spatial AnalysisEl Palmar and Tikal are located very close together(approximately 15 km), and GIS studies of line-of-sight show that the two centers were probably inter-


Figure 3. Above, cross section of El Palmar Structures E4-1 and E4-4 with profiles of excavated areas; below, recon-struction cross section of Tikal Structures 5C-54 and 5D-86 (after Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure 6). Asterisks denoteMiddle Preclassic construction phases.

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from El Palmar.

UncalibratedSample Number Type of Material Age (B.P.) 2σ Calibrated 1σ Calibrated 13C/12C RatioBeta-285474 Organic sediment 3410 ± 40 1870–1850 and 1750–1670 B.C. –22.3

1780–1620 B.C.Beta-285473 Organic sediment 3250 ± 40 1620–1440 B.C. 1590–1590 and –19.7

1530–1490 B.C.Beta-285472 Charcoal 2120 ± 40 350–300 and 200–90 B.C. –25.4

210–40 B.C.Beta-265817 Charcoal 2230 ± 40 390–190 B.C. 380–340 and –24.6

320–210 B.C.Beta-265821 Charcoal 1730 ± 40 A.D. 230–410 A.D. 250–380 –24.8Beta-285471 Charcoal 1280 ± 40 A.D. 660–810 A.D. 670–770 –26.2Beta-285470 Charcoal 720 ± 40 A.D. 1240–1300 A.D. 1270–1290 –26.4

and 1370–1380

visible, even in Preclassic times (Doyle et al. 2011).Remote sensing and settlement survey near El Pal-mar (Garrido López et al. 2010) and Tikal (Webster2007) have yet to reveal an E-Group as definedabove between or near the two sites. Thus, at leastin the area around these two Middle Preclassic mon-umental centers, only two specific places contain amajor plaza with a similar inventory of associatedmajor architectural constructions. Therefore, spa-

tial analysis of these two sites has the potential toaddress early geopolitical processes and motiva-tions to build at particular locations across the cen-tral Maya Lowlands. Prior distributional analysis ofE-Group sites in the area based on two-dimensionalmaps (e.g., Aimers 1993) has been inconclusive, inpart because it lacked a connection to the topogra-phy of particular local landscapes. For instance,many have noted that there seems to be a minimum


Figure 4. Above, plan of El Palmar E-Group; below, plan of Mundo Perdido, Tikal (after Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure12). Late Preclassic Period.

arbitrary radius around each E-Group, but the dis-tance is inconsistent within the study region andother Lowland areas (Figure 5).

Recent spatial analysis in archaeology has uti-lized GIS as a tool to provide alternative hypothe-

ses for site location, by considering visual percep-tion of the landscape through viewshed analysis(Arkush 2011; Doyle et al. 2012; Estrada Belli andKoch 2007:266; Kosiba and Bauer 2012; Podob-nikar and Šprajc 2007; see also Krist and Brown


Figure 5. E-Group sites with arbitrary 6 km buffer zones applied.

1994; Lock and Harris 1996:225; Madry and Rakos1996). Spatial research on Classic Maya cities hasproposed viewshed or direct line-of-sight observa-tion as a motivation for certain Classic period con-structions (Estrada-Belli 2008; Golden 2010;Podobnikar and Šprajc 2007; Quintana 2008:Fig-ure 10). This study builds on such research andseeks to use viewshed analysis as a method to eval-uate visibility as a possible factor in the Middle Pre-classic Maya spatial consideration of the landscape.Several limitations affect the utility of viewshedanalysis in the Maya Lowlands, mainly the consid-eration of what a human viewer could have seen inthe past or whether visibility was meaningful toinhabitants. (For further critiques of viewshed analy-sis in general, see Conolly and Lake 2006:228–231;Wheatley and Gillings 2000:2.)

Between Tikal and El Palmar, at a distance of15 km, probably only the largest structures, smoke,and fire would have been visible to the naked eye.Regarding vegetation, viewshed analysis assumesa degree of deforestation, some evidence of whichexists in paleoenvironmental investigations(Estrada-Belli and Wahl 2010; Wahl et al. 2006,2007). Nevertheless, monumental buildings wouldnot have supported vegetation during their use; fur-thermore, despite full forest cover today at sitessuch as El Palmar, Tikal, and Yaxhá, ground-truthedobservations still show extensive viewsheds. Thecurrent study, which utilized both AIRSAR 5-m

resolution and ASTER 30-m resolution digital ele-vation models, obtained results using the standardViewshed feature in the Spatial Analyst Toolbox inthe commercially available software ArcGIS 10 byESRI. In the current analysis, cumulative view-sheds, or the sum of multiple generated viewsheds,display the visible topography from five viewerpoints on the approximate location of E-Groups atthe sample sites, using the standard correction forthe earth’s curvature.

From the approximate location of the El Pal-mar and Tikal E-Groups, it is clear that a large ter-ritory around each site is visible, with the majorityof the visible areas mutually exclusive andnonoverlapping (Figure 6). The viewshed patternhints that early E-Groups were constructed to existon higher ground relative to nearby terrain to allowfor a clear view of the nearby geographic area, notsolely to view the sun rising on the solstices andequinoxes. Such distribution could perhaps be aconsequence of the hydrological processes in thetropical environment, as communities avoidedlow-lying areas that flood during the intense rainyseason. The fact that the viewsheds appear to beat intervals based on visibility of the landscape rel-ative to each other may also speak to the originaldecisions of the settlers who built the E-Groups atTikal and El Palmar. In other words, settlers of onearea were conscious of how far away they were,or how visible the intervening territory was, from


Figure 6. Viewsheds from El Palmar (white) and Tikal (dark grey). Cumulative viewsheds generated from E-Group loca-tions based on 5-m resolution AIRSAR Digital Elevation Model.


Figure 7. Viewsheds (dark gray) from Middle Preclassic E-Group sites. Dotted lines represent approximate area ofviewshed extent. See Supplemental Figure 1 for color image.


Figure 8. Viewsheds (dark gray) from all E-Group sites. Dotted lines represent approximate areas of viewshed extent.See Supplemental Figure 2 for color image.

prior settlements when they began monumentalconstructions.

The El Palmar–Tikal pattern holds up whenexamining ASTER viewsheds of other Middle Pre-classic E-Group sites in the region, and the land-scape seems to contain communities withcomplementary areas of visible topography (Figure7, Supplemental Figure 1). For example, Uaxactúnand San Bartolo have expansive views, but asidefrom the elevated ridges, their areas of visible ter-ritory do not overlap. The same holds true for Civaland Naranjo, as their viewsheds are divergent exceptfor the prominent ridge to the west of the sites. TheNakbé viewshed extends radially more than 10 km,supporting claims for its Middle Preclassic impor-tance in the Mirador region (Hansen 1992, 2000).Expanding the viewshed pattern analysis to otherE-Group sites suggests that although centers wereintervisible, they did not share large views of thesurrounding landscape (Figure 8, Supplemental Fig-ure 2). For example, the views from Calakmul,Yaxnohcah, Naachtun, and Balakbal seem to covera continuous large area, but closer examinationreveals little overlap among the four viewsheds,despite their geographic proximity. The same pat-tern holds up for Uxul, El Mirador, Nakbé, Wakná,and Xulnal, some of the largest settlements in theMirador region. Another cluster of close sites in thesouthern Mirador area, El Cedro, El Pesquero, andLas Torres, demonstrates that even the sites with theleast intersite distance do not have significant over-lapping viewsheds. Another notable characteristicof sites such as El Palmar, Cenote, and Yaxhá is thatthe viewsheds cover most, if not all, of the nearbywater sources. The viewshed analysis supports theinterpretation that the distribution of early monu-mental site cores, possibly as early as the MiddlePreclassic, could have been based on sight lines andvistas.Sociopolitical Implications of Early Maya E-GroupsJuan Pedro Laporte (1993:314) has argued that E-Groups are clues to understanding the extents ofEarly Classic sociopolitical units. The GIS researchhere supports that assertion, proposing the existenceof distinct communities with similar monumentalspaces as far back as the Middle Preclassic period.The architectural similarity and geographic distanceof the E-Group communities could imply that each

asserted a conceptual autonomy relative to its neigh-bors. But what was the sociopolitical impulse forpopulations to construct new monumental centersrather than migrate to existing communities?

E-Groups could perhaps be the earliest exam-ples of a Maya civic requirement for sociopoliticalunits, a space and monumental architectural for-mation necessary for settlers to interact with oneanother. Adam Smith elaborates on “civic” valuesembedded in the political landscape: “The politi-cal landscape is constituted in the places that drawtogether the imagined civil community, a percep-tual dimension of space in which built forms elicitaffective responses that galvanize memories andemotions central to the experience of politicalbelonging” (2003:8). The fact that many monu-mental settlements in the Middle Preclassic MayaLowlands seem to contain an E-Group speaks toits centrality to the daily lives of settlers, perhapseven a widespread belief that these spaces garnereda sense of belonging to a group identity. A sense ofbelonging forms a major part of the recently pro-posed model for a Classic Maya “moral commu-nity” (Houston and Inomata 2009:28–42).According to Houston and Inomata (2009:36):

There was not one moral community withinthe Classic Maya world but many, most more-or-less coterminous with individual kingdoms.. . . The conceptual origins of Classic Mayacovenants lay deep in the past and, indeed,were not devised anew in each generation butbuilt on the very premise of great antiquity.

Although little evidence exists regarding thedynamics of Middle Preclassic Maya moral com-munities or shared group identities, one could arguethat the distribution of E-Groups represents the ear-liest archaeological evidence of many individualsadopting a shared covenant beyond the kin group.The covenant became manifest in the monumen-tal gathering spaces and architecture.

In addition to group identity, many have stressedthe importance of elite legitimation and the expres-sion of political authority as motivations for build-ing early monumental centers (see McAnany2010:155–156). Though, as Ringle (1999:187) suc-cinctly notes, “it seems improbable that Formativeelites could somehow hoodwink an entire populaceinto building massive reminders of their humblestation in life . . . monumental construction


expressed aspects of communal life that were ofdeepest importance.” Early E-Groups could repre-sent the earliest large-scale places of communitycohesion and political belonging in the Maya Low-lands. Viewshed analysis suggests that from E-Groups, one could visually perceive the limits ofone’s community in relation to neighboring settle-ments. More broadly, it seems that Middle Preclas-sic monumentality coincided with the settlers’distinct desire to create and maintain distance fromothers over the landscape, another nod to the con-fluence of group identity and possibly politicalauthority. Future excavations in Middle Preclassicmonumental civic centers will illuminate thesociopolitical relationship between these distinct,but architecturally similar, communities and theactivities they engaged in during their daily lives.

Discussion: Constructing MeaningMost prior research on the function of E-Groupsoperates on the assumption that “it is sufficient torepeat the generality that this special arrangementof mounds served ritual purposes, perhaps con-nected with observations of the sun’s passage andwith calendrical rites” (Clark and Hansen2001:23). The current discussion attempts to departfrom this assumption. Recent archaeological evi-dence has opened new channels for research intothe social meaning of the monumental plazas andassociated buildings of the Middle Preclassic Mayacivic spaces.

It is important to mention the implications ofMiddle Preclassic communities that did not con-struct E-Groups. The distribution of E-Groupsdescribed above applies to the central Lowlands,where known groups exhibit the most similar mor-phological and chronological similarities. E-Groupsas defined are conspicuously absent at the same fre-quency in certain areas, including the Usumacintadrainage, the eastern (coastal) Lowlands of Belize,and the northern Lowlands, all regions that demon-strate ample evidence of Middle Preclassic occu-pations. Some E-Groups have been identified inthese areas, but they are generally of differing scalesand architectural forms than those in the centralarea, such as at La Técnica along the Usumacinta(Scherer et al. 2007) and Dzibilchaltún and Yaxunáin northern Yucatán (Andrews and Andrews 1980;Stanton and Freidel 2003, 2005), among others. A

clear example of a Middle Preclassic site that lacksan E-Group civic space but shows evidence ofshared Middle Preclassic Maya ritual practice isCuello, Belize (see map in Hammond 1991:10–11;cf. Aimers 1993, cited in Aimers and Rice 2006:81).Why, then, would certain Preclassic centers notice-ably lack monumental civic spaces and buildingsthat seem so prominent and necessary in other com-munities? If the construction of E-Groups indeedrepresents communities consciously positioningthemselves on the landscape, what implicationsdoes this have for communities without such mon-umental civic spaces?

As mentioned, evidence for the chronologicaldevelopment of ritual activity that contributed tothe monumental growth of E-Groups in the Mid-dle Preclassic is largely inaccessible to currentarchaeological research methods. Therefore, it isimpossible to distinguish between the dynamic his-torical trajectory of a site like Cuello and that ofsites with E-Groups, such as Tikal and Uaxactún.Regardless, recent excavations and comparativeevidence from across the Maya Lowlands bring tolight new possibilities for central Lowland E-Groups. Specifically, evidence exists that E-Groups, and their common inventory of civicarchitecture, may have formed early centers ofemerging political authority, as elite groups andindividuals engaged with the spaces in which peo-ple gathered for various activities. The fact thatmany sites with Middle Preclassic E-Groups laterdeveloped into dynastic kingdoms invites furtherexploration of the relationship among E-Groups,population aggregation, and early Maya politicalauthority.Lithic Production EvidenceE-Group locations with a commanding view of thesurrounding landscape could possibly relate to theappearance of “radial” pyramids, with staircases onall four sides, implicative of cosmic centrality andfour-part movement and ritual (see Coggins 1980;Cohodas 1980). Unfortunately, due to overburdenfrom Late Preclassic and Classic constructions,radial pyramids in the Middle Preclassic are diffi-cult to identify, and such cosmological interpreta-tions “may take as cause what may beconsequences of the first monumental construc-tions” (Joyce 2004:8). Although excavations wereunable to conclusively determine if the earlier


phases of the El Palmar E-Group pyramid, Struc-ture E4-1 (Figures 2–4; Doyle et al. 2011), wereradial, a striking feature of Middle Preclassic build-ing practices became evident in building fills. Whenconstructing the Middle Preclassic (ca. 500 B.C.)pyramid of the E-Group, the residents of El Pal-mar used distinct layers of dark mud from low-lyingwetlands and a layer almost entirely composed ofrock and chipped-stone tool production debitage

(Figure 9). Excavators at Mundo Perdido Tikalreport similar layers with large quantities of lithicmaterials (Laporte ca. 1983:1-19). Other MiddlePreclassic sites with E-Groups have yielded largequantities of worked chert in architectural fills (e.g.,San Bartolo [see Saturno 2003:321]).

It stands to reason that stone tools were a vitalprerequisite for successful Middle Preclassic vil-lage life— from hunting to building shelter to agri-


Figure 9. Fill of El Palmar E-Group pyramid, Structure E4-1-4; inset, chert flakes recovered.

cultural production. The debitage recovered at ElPalmar consists of a large quantity of mid- andearly-stage chert biface reduction flakes, suggest-ing that residents of El Palmar worked raw chertinto biface preforms locally (Hruby and Lang2009:310). This chert debitage may imply that ElPalmar was located close to a large source of chert(see Hester and Shafer 1984). The possible prox-imity to chert sources has also been noted byarchaeologists at other major Preclassic sites, suchas Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 1997:296), San Bartolo(Garrison and Dunning 2009:535), and many sitesin Belize (Cackler et al. 1999). The lack of a soilmatrix in the lithic layer could signify that the debriswas collected directly in the immediate area anddeposited in one event when constructing the ElPalmar pyramid. It remains unclear who was pro-ducing such quantities of stone tools at El Palmaror what prompted the seemingly simultaneousdeposit of the debitage in the construction fill.

Although more lithic analysis is necessary, thepossibility exists that the E-Group plaza served asa locus for early-stage stone tool production, thatis, obtaining and reducing nodules into biface pre-forms. Thus the spatial distribution of Middle Pre-classic E-Groups perhaps provides a window intothe earliest civic centers of early “moral commu-nities” engaging in daily tasks, such as stone toolproduction, in addition to ritual activities. Thedeposit of stone tools and debitage in architecturalfills might have symbolic significance as well, con-sidering that working stone was at the “center ofcraft production from the Early Preclassic onward”(Stuart 2010:297). Stuart (2010:286) notes that forthe Classic Maya, stone was “an inherently pow-erful and timeless substance, a permanent mater-ial both of the earth and transcendent, evoking otherspatial realms and categories.” Therefore layers ofstoneworking by-products could be considered adeliberate offering, given as part of the buildingprocess. But currently it is unclear whether thelithic production was part of the motivation for cre-ating these monumental buildings or a consequenceof preexisting E-Group activities that were incor-porated into subsequent renewal efforts.Evidence for Gathering and Exchange?As discussed above, scholarship on monumentalcivic spaces highlights a tension regarding the moti-vations to build: between expressions of group

identity and statements of political authority— or acombination of both. A key fact remains certainabout Middle Preclassic E-Groups: the initial actof construction always involved the building of alarge, level plaza. These plazas would have accom-modated many people, almost certainly more thanthe residents in the immediate vicinity, accordingto current archaeological evidence. The scale ofthese plazas could mean that people would havebeen traveling to the E-Groups from a distance, asproposed by Estrada-Belli for the site of Cival,where “the first inhabitants of the Cival commu-nity lived on hilltop farmsteads widely dispersedin a 3.7 km radius around the main hill. Construc-tion of the first ceremonial plaza was contempo-rary with the first farming occupation and is not aresult of gradual population increase” (Estrada-Belli and Wahl 2010:25). The likelihood that peo-ple from distant areas constructed, and periodicallygathered in, these plazas has important implicationswhen considering material culture evidence, specif-ically the distribution and homogeneity of certainceramics from the Middle Preclassic period.

The innovation of Mamom-sphere ceramictechnology happened in the Maya Lowlandsaround the same time as the appearance of E-Groups. Smith (1955) initially identified Mamom-type ceramics at Uaxactún, characterized by waxyslips and forms including everted-rim bowls andlarge, unslipped utilitarian jars. Many have notedthat the widespread similarities in the form and sur-face treatment of Mamom ceramics may signal aconsistent production process throughout a largearea (Ringle 1999:198). However, no causal expla-nation or proposed social mechanism exists forsuch a wide distribution of similar householdgoods. One possibility is that the construction ofmonumental plazas and subsequent aggregation oflarge numbers of settlers could have contributed tosuch a reduction in the diversity and quality of claysources used by potters, as argued by Fowles et al.(2007) for precolumbian New Mexico.

Stark and Garraty (2010; see also Feinman andGarraty 2010:176–178) recently proposed anotherpossibility for the regional distribution of similarhousehold goods, like the Mamom pottery exam-ple here. They argue that the large-scale distribu-tion of household goods very likely suggests theexistence of a market system, relative to the pos-sibilities of nonmarket mechanisms such as redis-


tribution. Several lines of evidence in recentresearch point to the existence of Maya market-places, in large open plazas, throughout many dif-ferent time periods (Carrasco Vargas et al. 2009;Dahlin 2009; Dahlin et al. 2007; for a central Mex-ican comparison, see Hirth 2009). Relevant to thehousehold ceramic example are the early Late Clas-sic market murals at Calakmul, Mexico, where a“clay-vessel person” displays a basket full of ves-sels, presumably for exchange (Carrasco Vargas etal. 2009:Figure 7). Although it is highly specula-tive, perhaps E-Group plazas could have been a spa-tial medium through which necessary or desiredmaterials flowed. In other words, as populationsgathered in E-Groups, perhaps visiting more thanone near their home communities, technical knowl-edge of Mamom-type ceramics spread among com-munities of potters within a few generations.

Thus, it is possible that groups of settlers con-structed E-Groups as a central place to gather andfacilitate access to and exchange of goods such asstone, foodstuffs, or ceramic vessels. To be clear,this is not to argue that the E-Groups during thePreclassic period are equivalent to the proposedmarkets of the Classic Maya or Postclassic Maya.Nor is the economic association proposed for E-Groups here a first; Rathje et al. (1978) have pro-posed E-Groups as a complex specifically built tomark calendrical cycles in order to schedule long-distance trade. Rathje’s analysis focused on Clas-sic period processes, when in fact, E-Groupsemerged as primary social spaces at many sitesmuch earlier. Considering that the earliest E-Groupplatforms do not seem to have explicitly markedthe solstices and equinoxes as observatories (Aveniand Hartung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003), it is plausi-ble that the platforms and buildings formed abounded, cleared public space, within which earlysettlers exchanged goods (cf. Stanton and Freidel2003:8). The reality of the E-Group plazas is thatthey were probably multiuse spaces, with rituals,exchanges, celebrations, and social interactionsoccurring throughout time.Under Whose Authority?Although suggestive, a functional or economicexplanation of E-Group community distributioncoupled with previous interpretations of ritualbehavior does not explain fully the radical increasein the scale and durability of construction materi-

als in the Middle Preclassic E-Groups. As men-tioned before, the construction of such large build-ings for the first time in the Lowlands implies botha sophisticated labor organization and monumen-tal intent— but which groups or individuals couldhave been supervising authorities?

Unfortunately, very little evidence of MiddlePreclassic political authority exists. It is clear thatClassic Maya divine kingship— as attested to byepigraphic, archaeological, and ethnohistoric scholarship— has its roots in the Preclassic period(e.g., Freidel and Schele 1988). With the discoveryof the San Bartolo murals, dated at around 100 B.C.,came further evidence of accession, sophisticatedrituals relating to autosacrifice and the cardinaldirections, and possibly kingship (Taube et al. 2010).The artistic skill and iconographic content of thesemurals are extraordinary and imply an even moreancient cultural tradition yet to be discovered forMiddle Preclassic times. San Bartolo, a modestlysized site, also hints that the Classic period prac-tices of hereditary kingship were present at manymore Late Preclassic centers than previouslythought (Saturno et al. 2006). In 2008, excavationsuncovered a Middle Preclassic E-Group, albeit ofa smaller scale than found in other study sites, com-posed of the Hunahpu and Ixbalanque structures(Hurst 2009; Urquizú and Saturno 2008).

The San Bartolo E-Group shows similar formalcharacteristics to contemporary groups, but thegroup at San Bartolo contains what seems to be aball court alley on the eastern face of the radial pyra-mid (Hurst 2009; Urquizú and Saturno 2008). Theradial pyramid itself serves as the western ball courtwall, with the eastern wall built inside the plaza,complete with a ball court marker actually paintedin the center of the ball court alley. Others havenoted the association of ball courts with E-Groups,but never has one this early been found associateddirectly within the E-Group plaza itself (see Aimersand Rice 2006:89–90).

The San Bartolo ball court E-Group harkensback to the proposed interpretations of gatheringand possible production and exchange: perhapsafter some generations of use for various daily orceremonial activities, the E-Groups became localesfor performance, gaming, and other forms of eliteinteraction known from later periods. The ball courtcould have been the scene of public spectacles per-formed by the ancestors of the very rulers shown


in the accession scenes on the western wall of themurals (Taube et al. 2010). Even in the non–ballcourt E-Groups, large amounts of people wouldhave had a clear view of what occurred on top ofthe masonry platforms or later pyramids. In short,these plazas were giant performance spaces foremerging dynastic rulers, possibly the first of theirkind in the Maya Lowlands (see Inomata 2006;Lucero 2003).

ConclusionsThe E-Group architectural configuration, the sub-ject of much debate within archaeoastronomy,deserves renewed attention as the earliest monu-mental, multifaceted social space in the Maya Low-lands. The distribution of early E-Groups impliesthat the Middle Preclassic Maya had imposed orderon the landscape, an order expressed through acommon monumentality of civic centers. GISviewshed analysis supports the hypothesis that siteswith Middle Preclassic E-Groups represent centersof early communities with complementary visibleaccess to the landscape, although the precise socialmeaning of distance or perceived boundariesremains unknown. The plazas of confirmed Mid-dle Preclassic E-Groups, and perhaps those of othersites that await stratigraphic excavation, could havebeen hubs of activity for distinct “moral commu-nities” or even early polities. The pyramids andplatforms might represent the earliest requirementto achieve civic belonging, or express politicalauthority, among communities in the Maya Low-lands. Clearly more research is needed to investi-gate the relationship among E-Groupmonumentality, group identity, and political powerduring the Middle Preclassic.

Research in E-Groups from the Late Preclassicperiod supports the claim that over many genera-tions, one group or individual came to exert powerover ritual, production, or exchange activities at theE-Group civic center. Elite ritual caches and buri-als appear widely in Late Preclassic E-Groups, espe-cially noted at Calakmul, Mexico; Caracol, Belize;and Tikal, Guatemala (Carrasco Vargas 1999; Chaseand Chase 1995:95; Laporte and Fialko 1995). Fur-thermore, Late Preclassic residential platforms,including at least four at El Palmar, exhibit the sameform as alleged elite “compounds” at many other

Middle and Late Preclassic sites (Clark and Hansen2001; Hendon 1999).

Finally, Late Preclassic sites with E-Groupsexhibit extensive evidence of comprehensive urbanplanning, including major spatial axes, consistentbuilding orientations, and standards for architec-tural measurements (see Doyle 2012; Šprajc et al.2009; for a discussion of ancient urban planning,see Smith 2009). Buildings in the Late PreclassicE-Groups, as well as the massive “Triadic Groups,”became larger and were full of rich iconographicprograms of architectural sculpture, the meaningof which is still only partially understood by schol-ars (see Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1998). Sothrough associating themselves with E-Groups ata specific geographic place, a hub of ritual and per-haps economic activity, elite groups used the prox-imity and interaction of the surrounding settlers togain authority over the Maya sociopolitical land-scape, for the first time.Acknowledgments. I am grateful to the editors of LatinAmerican Antiquity and three anonymous reviewers forinsightful comments that helped improve the clarity of thisarticle. Many individuals provided helpful feedback on ear-lier drafts of this article, especially Stephen Houston, AndrewScherer, Takeshi Inomata, and Thomas Garrison. Digital ele-vation model data were generously provided by NASA JetPropulsion Laboratory. The Institute of Anthropology andHistory of Guatemala graciously granted permission to inves-tigate the site of El Palmar within the El Zotz ArchaeologicalProject, directed by Dr. Stephen Houston and Lic. EdwinRomán. Work at El Palmar was only possible with the dedi-cation of Varinia Matute, Rony Piedrasanta, and excavationassistants from Cruce Dos Aguadas and Dolores, Petén. Workat El Palmar was supported generously by the U.S. NationalScience Foundation (BCS #1023274—Doctoral DissertationImprovement Grant, Houston and Doyle PIs; BCS#0840930—Landscape Succession in Lowland MayaArchaeology, Houston and Garrison PIs), the U.S. NationalEndowment for the Humanities (grant #RZ-50680-07—Archaeology of El Zotz, Guatemala, Houston PI), theWenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research(Dissertation Fieldwork Grant, Doyle PI), Brown UniversityGraduate School and Department of Anthropology, theBrown University Dupee Family Professorship of SocialSciences (Houston, chair), and the Tinker Foundation alongwith the Brown University Center for Latin American andCaribbean Studies. Other organizations that provided mewith research and practical support include the DumbartonOaks Library and Research Collection (Short-Term Pre-Doctoral Residency, 2010; Junior Fellowship 2011–2012)and the Mesoamerica Center at the University of Texas atAustin Casa Herrera (Visiting Scholar Residency). Specialthanks also go to the Doyle family and Pablo Suárez Becerra.


Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linkedto the online version of the paper, which is accessible via theSAA member logon at www.saa.org/members-loginSupplemental Figure 1. Viewsheds (colors) from MiddlePreclassic E-Group sites. Supplemental Figure 2. Viewsheds(colors) from all E-Group sites.

References CitedAimers, James J.

1993 An Hermeneutic Analysis of the Maya E-Group Com-plex. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthro-pology, Trent University, Canada. National Library ofCanada, Ottawa.

Aimers, James J., Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe2000 Preclassic Round Structures of the Upper Belize River

Valley. Latin American Antiquity 11:71–86.Aimers, James J., and Prudence M. Rice

2006 Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of Maya“E-Group” Architectural Assemblages. AncientMesoamerica 17:79–96.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews, V1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan. Publication

48. Middle American Research Institute, New Orleans.Arkush, Elizabeth N.

2011 Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, Soci-ety, and Landscape. University Press of Florida,Gainesville.

Arredondo Leiva, Ernesto, and Stephen Houston (editors)2008 Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 1: Tem-porada de Campo 2008. Report submitted to the Instituteof Anthropology and History, Guatemala. Electronic doc-ument, http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessedFebruary 13, 2012.

Aveni, Anthony F., Anne S. Dowd, and Benjamin Vining2003 Maya Calendar Reform? Evidence from Orientations

of Specialized Architectural Assemblages. Latin AmericanAntiquity 14:159–178.

Aveni, Anthony F., and Horst Hartung1989 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E and Similar Assem-

blages: An Archaeoastronomical Reconsideration. InWorld Archaeoastronomy, edited by Anthony Aveni, pp.441–461. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Awe, Jaime J., Cassandra Bill, Mark Campbell, and DavidCheetham

1990 Early Middle Formative Occupation in the CentralMaya Lowlands: Recent Evidence from Cahal Pech,Belize. In Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, Vol.1:1–16. University of London Institute of Archaeology,London.

Aylesworth, Grant R.2004 Astronomical Interpretations of Ancient Maya E-

Group Architectural Complexes. Archaeoastronomy18:34–66.

Bauer, Jeremy R.2005 Between Heaven and Earth: The Cival Cache and the

Creation of the Mesoamerican Cosmos. In Lords of Cre-ation: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship, edited byVirginia Fields and Dorie Reents-Budet, pp. 28–29. Scala,Los Angeles.

Blom, Frans1924 Report on the Preliminary Work at Uaxactun,

Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook,Vol. 23:217–219. Carnegie Institution of Washington,Washington, D.C.

Cackler, Paul R., Michael D. Glascock, Hector Neff, Harry Ice-land, K. Anne Pyburn, Dale Hudler, Thomas R. Hester,and Beverly Mitchum Chiarulli

1999 Chipped Stone Artefacts Source Areas, and Prove-nance Studies of the Northern Belize Chert-Bearing Zone.Journal of Archaeological Science 26:389–397.

Carrasco Vargas, Ramón1999 Actividad ritual y objetos de poder en la Estructura

IV de Calakmul, Campeche. In Land of the Turkey and theDeer: Recent Research in Yucatan, edited by Ruth Gubler,pp. 69–84. Labyrinthos, Lancaster, California.

2003 Calakmul en el arte y la arquitectura del Formativo.In Calakmul: Antología, edited by Carlos Vidal Angles andMarilyn Domínguez Turriza, pp. 97–110. InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro INAHCampeche, Campeche.

Carrasco Vargas, Ramón, Verónica A. Vázquez López, andSimon Martin

2009 Daily Life of the Ancient Maya Recorded on Muralsat Calakmul, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Arts and Sciences 106:19245–19249.

Chase, Arlen F.1983 A Contextual Consideration of the Tayasal-Paxca-man Zone, El Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase1995 External Impetus, Internal Synthesis, and Stan-

dardization: E-Group Assemblages and the Crystal-lization of Classic Maya Society in the SouthernLowlands. In Emergence of Maya Civilization: TheTransition from the Preclassic to the Early Classic,edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 87–101. Saurwein, MarktSchwaben, Germany.

Cheetham, David2005 Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya

Lowlands. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamer-ican Cultures, edited by Terry Powis, pp. 1–14. BAR Inter-national Series 1377. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Childe, V. Gordon1950 The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review

21(1):3–17.Clark, John E., and David Cheetham

2003 Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In The Archaeol-ogy of Tribal Societies, edited by William Parkinson, pp.278–339. International Monographs in Prehistory, AnnArbor.

Clark, John E., and Richard D. Hansen2001 The Architecture of Early Kingship: Comparative Per-

spectives on the Origins of the Maya Royal Court. In RoyalCourts of the Ancient Maya, Vol. 2: Data and Case Stud-ies, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen Houston, pp.1–45. Westview Press, Boulder.

Coggins, Clemency1980 The Shape of Time: Some Political Implications of a

Four-Part Figure. American Antiquity 45:727–739.Cohodas, Marvin

1980 Radial Pyramids and Radial-Associated Assemblagesof the Central Maya Area. Journal of the Society of Archi-tectural Historians 39:208–223.

Conolly, James, and Mark Lake2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Dahlin, Bruce

2009 Ahead of Its Time? The Remarkable Early ClassicMaya Economy of Chunchucmil. Journal of SocialArchaeology 9:341–367.


Dahlin, Bruce H., Christopher T. Jensen, Richard E. Terry, DavidR. Wright, and Timothy Beach

2007 In Search of an Ancient Maya Market. Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 18:363–384.

Delvendahl, Kai2008 Calakmul in Sight: History and Archaeology of anAncient Maya City. Unas letras, Mérida.

Domínguez Carrasco, María del Rosario1994 Calakmul, Campeche: Analisis de la cerámica. Uni-

versidad Autónoma de Campeche, Campeche.Doyle, James A., Thomas Garrison, and Stephen Houston

2012 Watchful Realms: Integrating GIS Analysis and Polit-ical History in the Southern Maya Lowlands. Antiquity86:792–807.

Doyle, James A., Stephen D. Houston, Thomas G. Garrison,and Edwin Román

2011 ¿Al alcance de la vista de Mundo Perdido? La plani-ficación urbana y el abandono abrupto de El Palmar, Petén,Guatemala. In XXIV Simposio de Investigaciones Arque-ológicas de Guatemala, 2010, edited by Bárbara Arroyo,Lorena Piaz Aragón, Adriana Linares Palma, and AnaLucía Arroyave, pp. 45–56. Ministerio de Cultura yDeportes, Guatemala.

Doyle, James A. 2012 Early Maya Geometric Planning Conventions at El

Palmar, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science.DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.006.

Dunning, Nicholas P., Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach, Timothy Beach,John G. Jones, Vernon Scarborough, and T. Patrick Cul-bert

2002 Arising from the Bajos: The Evolution of a Neotrop-ical Landscape and the Rise of Maya Civilization. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 92:267–283.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco2006 Lightning Sky, Rain, and the Maize God: The Ideol-

ogy of Preclassic Maya Rulers at Cival, Peten, Guatemala.Ancient Mesoamerica 17:57–78.

2008 Investigaciones arqueológicas en la región de Hol-mul, Peten: Cival, y K’o. Informe preliminar de la tem-porada 2008. Report submitted to the Institute ofAnthropology and History, Guatemala. Electronic docu-ment, http://www.bu.edu/holmul/reports/informe_08_lay-out.pdf, accessed February 13, 2012.

2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power Beforethe Classic Period. Routledge, New York.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and Magaly Koch2007 Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of a Maya City and

Its Landscape: Holmul Guatemala. In Remote Sensing inArchaeology, edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 263–282. Springer, New York.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and David Wahl2010 Human–Environment Interactions in the SouthernMaya Lowlands: The Holmul Region Case. Final reportsubmitted to the National Science Foundation. Electronicdocument,http://www.bu.edu/holmul/reports/Holmul_NSF_human_environment_interactions.pdf, accessed February 13,2012.

Feinman, Gary M., and Christopher P. Garraty2010 Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological

Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology39:167–191.Fialko, Vilma

1988 Mundo Perdido, Tikal: Un ejemplo de complejos deconmemoración astronómica. Mayab 4:13–21.

2000 Distribución de los asentamientos preclásicos mayasentre Tikal, Nakum, Yaxha y Naranjo. In XIII Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1999, edited

by Juan Pedro Laporte, Héctor Escobedo, Bárbara Arroyo,and Ana Claudia de Suasnávar, pp. 501–513. MuseoNacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

2004 Investigaciones arqueológicas en Naranjo: primerasobservaciones sobre el desarrolo cultural del centro urbano.Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäolo-gie 24:179–194.

Flannery, Kent V.1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in

Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. InMan, Settlement and Urbanism, edited by Peter Ucko,Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 23–53. Duck-worth, London.

2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclearto Extended Households. American Antiquity67:417–433.

Forsyth, Donald W.1999 La cerámica preclásica y el desarrollo de la comple-

jidad cultural durante el Preclásico. En XII Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1998, editedby Juan Pedro Laporte and Héctor Escobedo, pp. 50–62.Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

2006 El desarrollo cultural de la Cuenca Mirador a travésde la cerámica. In XIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arque-ológicas en Guatemala, 2005, edited by Juan PedroLaporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 498–506.Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Fowles, Severin M., Leah Minc, Samual Duwe, and David V.Hill

2007 Clay, Conflict, and Village Aggregation: Composi-tional Analyses of Pre-Classic Pottery from Taos, NewMexico. American Antiquity 72:125–152.

Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The

Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthro-pologist 90:547–567.

Gámez, Laura L.2005 Investigaciones en los Templos B-19 y B-24 de

Naranjo, Petén: la evolución del eje norte-sur de la PlazaCentral. In XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arque-ológicas en Guatemala, 2004, edited by Juan PedroLaporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 226–233.Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, Jaime Awe, and Christo-pher J. Hartman

2004 Middle Formative Prehistory of the Central BelizeValley. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half aCentury of Archaeological Research, edited by James F.Garber, pp. 25–47. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Garrido López, Jose, Stephen Houston, and Edwin Román2010 Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 5 Tem-porada 2010. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthro-pology and History, Guatemala. Electronic document,http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed Feb-ruary 13, 2012.

Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas P. Dunning2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bar-

tolo–Xultun Territory, El Peten, Guatemala. Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 20:525–552.

Gerhardt, Juliette Cartwright1988 Preclassic Maya Architecture at Cuello, Belize. BAR

International Series 454. British Archaeological Reports,Oxford.

Gerhardt, Juliette Cartwright, and Norman Hammond1991 The Community of Cuello: The Ceremonial Core. InCuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited byNorman Hammond, pp. 98–117. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.


Golden, Charles2010 Dynamic Landscapes and Political Developments in

the Maya Kingdoms of Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan: NewPerspectives Provided by Remote Sensing, Archaeology,and Epigraphy. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.

Guderjan, Thomas H.2006 E-Groups, Pseudo-E-Groups, and the Development

of the Classic Maya Identity in the Eastern Peten. AncientMesoamerica 17:97–104.

Hammond, Norman (editor)1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cam-

bridge University Press, New York.Hansen, Richard D.

1990 Excavations in the Tigre Complex El Mirador, Petén,Guatemala. Papers of the New World ArchaeologicalFoundation 62. New World Archaeological Foundation,Brigham Young University, Provo.

1992 The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Pre-classic Architectural Sculpture at Nakbe, Peten,Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeol-ogy, University of California, Los Angeles. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

1994 Investigaciones arqueológicas en el norte del Petén,Guatemala: una mirada diacrónica de los orígenes mayas.In Campeche Maya Colonial, edited by William J. Folan,pp. 14–54. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Campeche,Campeche.

1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-ClassicAntecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. In Function andMeaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by StephenHouston, pp. 49–122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

2000 The First Cities— The Beginnings of Urbanizationand State Formation in the Maya Lowlands. In Maya:Divine Kings of the Rain Forest, edited by Nikolai Grube,pp. 51–66. Könemann, Cologne.

Hendon, Julia A.1999 The Pre-Classic Maya Compound as the Focus of

Social Identity. In Social Patterns in Pre-ClassicMesoamerica, edited by David Grove and RosemaryJoyce, pp. 97–126. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

2000 Round Structures, Household Identity, and Public Per-formance in Preclassic Maya Society. Latin AmericanAntiquity 11:299–301.

Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer1984 Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya

of Northern Belize, Central America. World Archaeology16:157–173.

Hirth, Kenneth G.2009 Craft Production in a Central Mexican Marketplace.Ancient Mesoamerica 20:80–102.

Houston, Stephen D., and Takeshi Inomata2009 The Classic Maya. Cambridge University Press, New

York.Hruby, Zachary, and Katrina Lang

2009 La lítica del Proyecto Arqueológico El Zotz. InProyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 4 Tempo-rada 2009, edited by E. Román and S. Houston, pp.307–320. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthropol-ogy and History, Guatemala. Electronic document,http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed Feb-ruary 13, 2012.

Hurst, Heather2009 Murals and the Ancient Maya Artist: A Study of ArtProduction in the Guatemalan Lowlands. Ph.D. disserta-tion, Department of Anthropology, Yale University. Uni-versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Iceland, Harry B.2005 The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition

in Northern Belize: Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of thePreceramic Inhabitants. In New Perspectives on Forma-tive Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry Powis, pp.15–26. BAR International Series 1377. Archaeopress,Oxford.

Inomata, Takeshi2006 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters

of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47:805–842.Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, and Otto Román

2009 Desarrollo de las comunidades preclásicas e interac-ciones entre las Tierras Bajas y el área olmeca. In XXIIISimposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala,2009, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, Adriana Linares Palma,and Lorena Paiz Aragón, pp. 53–67. Museo Nacional deArqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Joyce, Rosemary A.2004 Unintended Consequences? Monumentality as a

Novel Experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 11:5–29.

Kosiba, Steve, and Andrew M. Bauer2012 Mapping the Political Landscape: Toward a GIS

Analysis of Environmental and Social Difference. Jour-nal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI:10.1007/s10816-011-9126-z.

Krist, Frank J., and Daniel G. Brown1994 GIS Modeling of Paleo-Indian Period Caribou Migra-

tions and Viewsheds in Northeastern Lower Michigan.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing60:1129–1137.

Laporte, Juan Pedroca. 1983 Informe de Mundo Perdido, Tikal. On file in the

library of the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales enMesoamerica, Antigua Guatemala.

1993 Architecture and Social Change in Late Classic MayaSociety: The Evidence from Mundo Perdido, Tikal. InLowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.,edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp.299–320. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

2001 Dispersión y estructura de las ciudades del sureste dePetén, Guatemala. In Reconstruyendo la ciudad maya: Elurbanismo en las sociedades antiguas, edited by AndrésCiudad Ruiz, Maria Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León, andMaria del Carmen Martínez Martínez, pp. 137–161. Pu -blicaciones de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas6. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Vilma Fialko1995 Un reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal. AncientMesoamerica 6:41–94.

Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Juan Antonio Valdés (editors)1993 Tikal y Uaxactún en el Preclásico. Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.Lock, Gary R., and Trevor M. Harris

1996 Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort ina Digital Landscape. In Anthropology, Space and Geo-graphic Information Systems, edited by Mark Aldender-fer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 214–240. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Lohse, Jon C.2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 21:312–352.

Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M.Rosenswig, and Fred Valdez, Jr.

2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating the Pale-oindian and Archaic Record. Latin American Antiquity17:209–226.


Lowe, Gareth1989 The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture.

In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by RobertJ. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp. 33–67. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.

Lucero, Lisa J.1999 Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization: A

Review. Journal of World Prehistory 13:211–263.2003 The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic

Maya Rulers. Current Anthropology 44:523–558.Madry, Scott L. H., and Lynn Rakos

1996 Line-of-Sight and Cost-Surface Techniques forRegional Research in the Arroux River Valley. In NewMethods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systemsin Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner, pp. 104–126. Southern Illinois UniversityPress, Carbondale.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. 2nd ed.

Thames and Hudson, New York.McAnany, Patricia A.

2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Per-spective. Cambridge University Press, New York.

McAnany, Patricia A., and Sandra L. López Varela1999 Re-Creating the Formative Maya Village of K’axob.Ancient Mesoamerica 10:147–168.

Mejía, Héctor E.2008 Desarrollo y estructura de las ciudades al sur de El

Mirador, Petén. In XXI Simposio de Investigaciones Arque-ológicas en Guatemala, 2007, edited by Juan PedroLaporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 647–671.Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Mejía, Héctor E. (editor)2009 Informe final de investigaciones 2008, Proyecto

Arqueológico Cuenca Mirador. Report submitted to theInstitute of Anthropology and History. Copies availablefrom the Department of Prehispanic Monuments,Guatemala City.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula1997 Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence

for the Organization of Classic Period Craft Production atTikal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology24:293–313.

Paap, Iken, Antonio Benavides Castillo, and Nikolai Grube(editors)

2010 Informe técnico: temporada de levantamientotopográfico, excavación y consolidación arqueológicas,Uxul (Campeche). Report submitted to the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia. Electronic document,http://www.uni-bonn.de/~mayaarch/downloads/2010_InformeINAH.pdf,accessed February 13, 2012.

Podobnikar, Tomaš, and Ivan Šprajc2007 Spatial Analyses and Maya Cultural Landscape. Elec-

tronic document, http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/publica-tions/2007/podobnikar_cuba_2007.pdf, accessed February13, 2012.

Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob,Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. deFrance, David L Lentz,John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. KathrynJosserand

1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin Amer-ican Antiquity 7:355–372.

Potter, Daniel R., Thomas R. Hester, Stephen L. Black, and FredValdez, Jr.

1984 Relationships Between Early Preclassic and EarlyMiddle Preclassic Phases in Northern Belize: A Comment

on “Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads.” Amer-ican Antiquity 49:628–631.

Puleston, Dennis E.1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environmentat Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Mod-els. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.

Quintana, Oscar, and Wolfgang W. Wurster2002 Un nuevo plano del sitio Maya de Nakum, Petén,

Guatemala. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und VergleichendenArchäologie 22:243–275.

2004 Un nuevo plano del sitio Maya de Naranjo, Petén,Guatemala. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und VergleichendenArchäologie 24:149–178.

Quintana, Oscar, Wolfgang W. Wurster, and Bernard Hermes2000 El plano del sitio Maya de Yaxhá, Petén, Guatemala.Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäolo-gie 20:261–285.

Quintana Samayoa, Oscar Antonio2008 La composición arquitectónica y la conservación de

las edificaciones monumentales mayas del noreste dePetén. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmento deComposición Arquitectónica, Universitat Politécnica deValéncia. Electronic document, http://riunet.upv.es/han-dle/10251/3403, accessed February 13, 2012.

Rathje, William L., David A. Gregory, and Frederick M. Wise-man

1978 Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: Clas-sic Maya Examples. In Mesoamerican CommunicationRoutes and Cultural Contacts, edited by Thomas A. Lee,Jr., and Carlos Navarrete, pp. 147–175. Papers of theNew World Archaeological Foundation 40. New WorldArchaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University,Provo.

Rice, Don S.1976 Middle Preclassic Maya Settlement in the Central

Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology3:425–445.Ricketson, Oliver

1928 Notes on Two Maya Astronomic Observatories. Amer-ican Anthropologist 30:434–444.

Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926–1931. Pt. I:The Excavations; Pt. II: The Artifacts. Carnegie Institu-tion of Washington Publication 477. Washington, D.C.

Ringle, William M.1999 Pre-Classic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics Among the

Early Lowland Maya. In Social Patterns in Pre-ClassicMesoamerica, edited by David Grove and RosemaryJoyce, pp. 183–224. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Román, Edwin, and Stephen Houston (editors)2009 Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 4 Tem-porada 2009. Electronic document, http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed February 13, 2012.

Rosenswig, Robert M., and Marilyn A. Masson2001 Seven New Preceramic Sites Documented in North-

ern Belize. Mexicon 23:138–140.Ruppert, Karl J.

1940 A Special Assemblage of Maya Structures. In TheMaya and Their Neighbors: Essays on Middle AmericanAnthropology and Archaeology, edited by Ralph Linton,Samuel K. Lothrop, Harry Shapiro, and George Vaillant,pp. 222–231. Dover, New York.

Ruppert, Karl J., and John H. Denison, Jr.1943 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quin-tana Roo, and Peten. Carnegie Institution of WashingtonPublication 543. Washington, D.C.


Saturno, William2003 Proyecto Arqueológico Regional San Bartolo: Resul-

tados de la primera temporada de campo 2002. In XVI Sim-posio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala,2002, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, Héc-tor Escobedo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 320–324. MuseoNacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Saturno, William A., David Stuart, and Boris Beltrán2006 Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Sci-ence 311(5765):1281–1283.

Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube, and David Stuart2005 La identificación de las figuras del Muro Oeste de Pin-

turas Sub-1, San Bartolo, Petén. In XVIII Simposio deInvestigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2004, editedby Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía,pp. 626–635. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología,Guatemala.

Scherer, Andrew, Charles Golden, and Rosaura Vásquez (edi-tors)

2007 Proyecto Regional Arqueológico Sierra del Lacandón,2007. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthropologyand History, Guatemala. Electronic document,http://usumacinta-archaeology.blogspot.com/p/research-reports.html, accessed February 13, 2012.

Smith, Adam T.2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authorityin Early Complex Polities. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Smith, Michael E.2009 Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New

Approach to Ancient Urban Planning. Journal of PlanningHistory 6(3):3–47.

Smith, Robert E.1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle

American Research Institute, Tulane University, NewOrleans.

Šprajc, Ivan2012 El Preclásico en el sureste del estado de Campeche,

México. In XXV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueoló -gicas en Guatemala, 2011, edited by Bárbara Arroyo,Lorena Paiz, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 871–886. MuseoNacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala.

Šprajc, Ivan, Carlos Morales-Aguilar, and Richard D. Hansen2009 Early Maya Astronomy and Urban Planning at El

Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. Anthropological Notebooks15(3):79–101.

Stanton, Travis W., and David A. Freidel2003 Ideological Lock-In and the Dynamics of Formative

Religions in Mesoamerica. Mayab 16:5–14.2005 Placing the Centre, Centring the Place: The Influence

of Formative Sacbeob in Classic Site Design at Yaxuná,Yucatán. Cambridge Archaeological Journal15:225–249.

Stark, Barbara L., and Christopher P. Garraty2010 Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A

Methodological Review. In Archaeological Approaches toMarket Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christo-pher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, pp. 33–58. Univer-sity of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Stuart, David2010 Shining Stones: Observations on the Ritual Meaning

of Early Maya Stelae. In The Place of Stone Monuments:

Context, Use, and Meaning in Mesoamerica’s PreclassicTransition, edited by Julia Guernsey, John E. Clark, andBarbara Arroyo, pp. 283–298. Dumbarton Oaks, Wash-ington, D.C.

Taube, Karl A., William A. Saturno, David Stuart, and HeatherHurst

2010 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala, Pt.2: The West Wall. Ancient America 10.

Trigger, Bruce G.1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Expla-

nation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology22:119–132.

Urquizú, Mónica, and William Saturno (editors)2008 Proyecto Arqueológico Regional San Bartolo InformeAnual No. 7. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthro-pology and History, Guatemala. Copies available from theDepartment of Prehispanic Monuments, Guatemala City.

Wahl, David B.2005 Climate Change and Human Impacts in the SouthernMaya Lowlands: A Paleoenvironmental Perspective fromthe Northern Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Geography, University of California, Berke-ley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thomas Schreiner, and RichardHansen

2006 Holocene Vegetation Change in the Northern Petenand Its Implications for Maya Prehistory. QuaternaryResearch 65:380–389.

2007 Paleolimnological Evidence of Late-Holocene Set-tlement and Abandonment in the Mirador Basin, Peten,Guatemala. The Holocene 17:813–820.

Webster, David (editor)2007 Re-Evaluation of the Earthworks at Tikal, Guatemala:Phase 2. Report prepared for the National Science Foun-dation. Electronic document, http://www.anthro.psu.edu/faculty_staff/docs/Tikal%20final%20NSF.pdf, accessedFebruary 13, 2012.

Wheatley, David, and Mark Gillings2000 Vision, Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched

Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. InBeyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies,edited by Gary Lock, pp. 1–27. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Willey, Gordon R.1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-

Columbian Civilizations. American Anthropologist64:1–14.

1978 Excavations at Seibal. Department of Petén,Guatemala, Artifacts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 14, No. 1. Harvard Uni-versity, Cambridge.

Zrałka, Jarosław2008 Terminal Classic Occupation in the Maya Sites

Located in the Area of Triangulo Park, Peten, Guatemala.Prace Archeologiczne No. 62. Jagiellonian UniversityPress, Krakow.

Submitted: April 12, 2011; Revised: February 28, 2012;Accepted: September 18, 2012.


James A. Doyle Supplemental Figure 1

James A. Doyle Supplemental Figure 2

Documents

REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS · PDF fileREGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS IN THE MIDDLE PRECLASSIC MAYA LOWLANDS James A. Doyle