Nicolas Hellmuth Yaxha

A REPORT FOR IDAEH
ON RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHED
AT THE MAYA RUINS OF
YAXHA, PETEN, GUATEMALA
FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

A REPORT FOR IDAEH
ON RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHED
AT THE MAYA RUINS OF
YAXHA, PETEN, GUATEMALA
Dr. Nicholas M. Hellmuth
Research Associate, Dept. of Anthropology, Washington University

Curatorial Affiliate, Peabody Museum of Natural History,
Yale University
and
Visiting Professor, Institute for Latin American Studies,

Brevard Community College
1519 Clearlake Road

Cocoa, FL 32922
USA
1993

Location. Introduction and History
Yaxha is a 1st to 10th century A.D. Classic Maya site of about 500 structures
situated on a long ridge overlooking eight-kilometer long Lake Yaxha, in the
Department of El Pet§n, northern Guatemala. This lake is approximately 290 miles
(straightline distance) northeast of Guatemala City and 45 miles east of Floras, the
capital of the department.
Yaxha was first brought to the attention of archaeologists by Teobert Maler in

1904, although Colonel Juan Galindo may have visited "Lake Yashaw" in 1 8 3 1 .
Morley discovered several stelae at Yaxha in 1914 and 1915.
During the 1950's William Bullard visited Yaxha several times during his settlement
pattern surveys and Topoxte Island excavations (Bullard 1960).
Merle Greene (Robertson) visited Yaxha prior to 1970 to do rubbings of the better
preserved stelae (Greene et ai. 1972:pl. 160, 1 6 1 , 162, 163, 164). Ian Graham
visited Yaxha during the 1960's and made the first complete record of the upper
portion of the unique full figure Teotihuacanoid TIaloc on Yaxha Stela 1 1 . Both
Graham and Robertson returned to Yaxha while the F.L.A.A.R. project had its
camp facilities available and both scholars assisted in recording the stelae. Graham
drew Stela *31 which had been discovered to be carved by Miguel Orrego;
Robertson made a rubbing of Stela 11 whose base had just been excavated under
the direction of Hellmuth.
Teobert Maler was never one to mince on words. His report in 1904, the first
scientific description of the ruins of Yaxha, sets the tone for an abandonment that
continued for half a century after his visit.
Since practically complete ignorance prevails in Europe and in the

United States, and even in Mexico and Guatemala, regarding Lake
Yaxha and its environment—for it is astonishing how few people of
education travel in these really extremely interesting countries—/ will
[open] this report with some explanatory remarks.
Indeed, Yaxha did not enter the mainstream of archaeological research until IDAEH
expanded the camp at Yaxha under the administration of recent IDAEH Directors.
Their foresight has left Yaxha with an impressive infrastructure. We dedicate this
report to all Guatemalan students, scholars, and government personnel who have
contributed to the maintenance of the site of Yaxha as well as to the concerned
Guatemalan citizens of the Asociacidn Tikal who paid for guards to protect Yaxha
during the off-seasons 1970-74 when it was too rainy for us to continue research.
Since most of the people now working at Yaxha were not there in the 1970's, and
as a considerable body of spurious folklore has developed about the studies during
those early years, perhaps it may be useful to make available the factual and
actual record of the development of Yaxha, from a site unknown and abandoned,
to its current role as one of the larger Maya ruins in Guatemala, a recognized part
of its patrimonia nacional.
The Site of Yaxha
- 1-
Yaxha Report for IDAEH
Yaxha's site center consists of approximately 500 structures covering several

square kilometers along a ridge facing Lake Yaxha, between Tikal and the Peten
border with Belize. The ruins include remains of several immense temple-pyramids.
At least ten major acropolis building complexes have been found so far. These
include one large group of palace buildings arranged around six courtyards, similar
in size and arrangement to the buildings on the Central Acropolis at Tikal. Yaxha
includes at least two ballcourts, the only Twin Pyramid Complex yet found outside
of Tikal, and at least one Astronomical Commemoration Complex—actually it is
possible that Yaxha may be the only Maya site that has two such solstice groups.
Of the forty stone stelae at Yaxha, about twenty were carved. One, number 5,
was considered as potentially pre-Classic in date. It is most likely at least Baktun 8
in style. Stela 11 is the largest portrait of TIaloc known in the entire Maya
lowlands.^ After we excavated and discovered the portion of the stela which
showed TIaloc's feet this monument became the first and still only complete full
figure portrait of TIaloc on any Early Classic Maya stela.
Yet up until 1970 the site was abandoned. There were no guards, no interest in
saving the stelae or protecting the mounds. Today, in 1992, our perspective is dif-
ferent since there are dozens of guards. But if we return to 1970 and realize that
the advent of the F.L.A.A.R. Project staff drove looters away who where working
the day we arrived, you can easily calculate that without this 5-year project that
Yaxha would have been gutted just as was later found to have taken place at Rio
Azul and El Zotz.
In the 1970's bands of chicleros marched through the ruins at will. Xateros
roamed the area.^ Milperos were invading the site as well, attempting to set up
homesteads among the ruins, indeed portions of the ruins were still in second-
growth from recent milpas when Yie arrived in the 1970s. We took it upon our-
selves to lobby for protection, and the day we were finished, five seasons later,
FYDEP had at least dumped^ a sign onto the ground, Parque Nacional Yaxha-
1. A complete r e p o r t has been p r e p a r e d on Yaxha S t e l a 11 a s a s e p a r a t e volume. T h i s i s the o n l y s t e l a a t the

s i t e w e l l enough p r e s e r v e d to f a c i l i t a t e a d e t a i l e d i c o n o g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s .
2. C h i c l e r o s c o l l e c t the sap of the c h i c o zapote t r e e f o r c h i c l e , chewing gum. X a t e r o s c o l l e c t the l e a v e s of

the x a t e palm f o r u s e i n f u n e r a l arrangements i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The x a t e palm fronds s t a y green f o r
months a f t e r b e i n g p i c k e d and a r e used a s a backdrop f o r c o l o r f u l f l o r a l d i s p l a y s . Xate i s a major export
from Guatemala and does not r e s u l t i n death or even damage to the p l a n t .
3. The complete a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system which now p r o t e c t s Yaxha has e v o l v e d from our lobbying d u r i n g the
1970's, but the c u r r e n t guard system i s e n t i r e l y a r e s u l t of i n i t i a t i v e of IDAEH d i r e c t o r s a f t e r 1974. Espe-
c i a l l y d u r i n g 1971 through 1973 we had lobbied f o r the i n c l u s i o n of Yaxha i n t o the master p l a n f o r the
development of t h e Parque Nacional T i k a l , as a r e s u l t of the v i s i t of c o n s u l t a n t s from the " N a t i o n a l Parks
S e r v i c e " of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h i s p r e s e r v a t i o n i n i t i a t i v e of F.L.A.A.R. was acknowledged by a diploma of
m e r i t awarded by INGUAT. By 1974 our e f f o r t s were s u c c e s s f u l i n p r o t e c t i n g the s i t e , at l e a s t on paper. The
f i r s t o f f i c i a l park s i g n , p a i n t e d and d e l i v e r e d by FYDEP, was simply l a i d by them on the ground a t the
remains of the " v i l l a g e " between Lake Yaxha and Lake Sacnab. Ue found t h i s s i g n abandoned on the ground as
we l e f t the s i t e a f t e r c l o s i n g down our r e s e a r c h program. Today Yaxha i s f o r m a l l y and c o m p l e t e l y guarded and
the s i g n s a r e n e a t l y d i s p l a y e d on a p p r o p r i a t e p o s t s .
Sacnab. Thus, in 1974, we turned over to IDAEH, a complete camp including a

storeroom with the sherds,'* complete access roads to ail parts of the site, and a
site that was registered in the classification as a park.
Subsequently research continued under the separate project of Don Rice and
Prudence Rice, who analyzed the sherds we had left locked in a bodega in the
main Yaxha camp building^ plus those sherds they themselves collected. The
settlement pattern project of Anabel Ford between Yaxha and Tikal several years
later was an additional academic advancement in knowledge that was able to
grow out of what we got started at a site abandoned for decades.
With the help of private and corporate donations, including from the Asociacion
Tikal, it was possible to protect Yaxha until IDAEH could place government guards
at the site. We had IDAEH archaeologists Carlos Rudy Larios and Miguel Orrego at
Yaxha the initial seasons and resident IDAEH personnel in following seasons. The
IDAEH supervisor/inspectors were responsible in 1973 and 1974 to issue reports.
We ourselves issued annual reports until the Guatemala highland earthquake
demolished parts of the Project's headquarters. What survived and could be
rescued is herein reported, in response to a request from IDAEH.^ Since Yaxha
was essentially a mapping project, the map is, in itself, the basic report on the
whole five seasons. The photographs of the stelae represent the basic report on
that aspect of the site research. Most of the monuments were too eroded to make
doing line drawings an easy task. Ian Graham drew the better preserved stelae; we
prepared a preliminary line drawing of Stela 1 1 .
In addition to the original inking at 1:500 scale, in 1992 we also found a single
surviving copy of the map, at reduced scale, with the structure numbers, since
one of the IDAEH archaeologists working at Yaxha, Lie. B. Hermes, stated that no
such map was available to them. We therefore include this map with structure
numbers in this report.
Whv Select Yaxha?
4. E a r l i e r finds had already been delivered to IDAEH in Guatemala City, acknowledged in an e a r l i e r report.
5. The half dozen reconstruted pots abandoned by looters at Yaxha prior to 197D were delivered by the Yaxha
Project to the IDAEH storage in Guatemala City. This deposition of Yaxha a r t i f a c t s to IDAEH i s cited in an
early published Yaxha report. At least one of these Yaxha bowls was on public exhibit in the Palacio
Nacional during the years that the Museo Nacional de Antropologia y Etnologia was closed for roof repairs.
Due to lack of IDAEH storage space additional sherds were stored at Yaxha, in a special bodega constructed
in the main camp building. This bodega was s t i l l f i l l e d with Yaxha sherds in the 198D's when I v i s i t e d Yaxha
with a group of tourists, indeed we have a photograph of the bodega. But by 1992, this bodega had been dis-
assembled by IDAEH personnel-we were informed i n order to obtain the a t t r a c t i v e wood paneling for other use.
Since IDAEH disassembled the sherd bodega i t i s obvious that a l l the Yaxha pottery was moved by IDAEH per-
sonnel within the last few years.
6. At least the loss was not as serious as that of the Piedras Negras Project, which lost their entire lab.
Fortunately the photographs and original map of Yaxha are s t i l l extant. The photographs survived the
earthquake because they were in metal boxes; the map was in storage at the Department of History of Art,
Yale University, where I had had an appointment under Dr. George Kubler.
- 3-
Since 1965, I had been interested in Teotihuacan influence on the Southern

Lowland Maya. While excavating at Tikal in 1967 I happened to be digging on the
west side of the East Plaza at the same time that the tablero-talud Structure 5D-43
was discovered just across the same plaza. By studying the nature and degree of
Teotihuacan influence on Maya art and architecture, it would be possible to
determine how closely the Maya were in contact with Teotihuacan (or its inter-
mediaries) and how Teotihuacan may have influenced Maya culture in other
aspects, such as city layout. I felt that if other large Maya sites near Tikal were
carefully studied it might be possible to learn more about Teotihuacan's impact on
the Maya way of life.
In the fall of 1969, Dr George Kubler, Yale University, asked me if I would be inter-
eted in undertaking research on the subject of Teotihuacan influence on the art of
Tikal. This work would be a part of his study for the Tikal Project on the meaning
of the art of Tikal. I felt that ! would like to have more new archaeological informa-
tion on Teotihuacan influence on the Peten Maya before I began writing, and so I
prepared a separate research proposal which was favorably received by the
National Science Foundation and granted $9,000 (Ph.D. dissertation enrichment
grant through Brown University).
Yaxha, a large Maya site of over 500 structures, was chosen because it seemed
the most promising of all sites within a 100-mile radius of Tikal to have the
information sought.
Three pecularities of the ruins suggested that limited excavations would yield the
data necessary to learn more about the nature and degree of 3rd to 7th century
Teotihuacan impact on Yaxha.
First, the full figure, armed TIaloc on Tzakol period Yaxha Stela 11 and
Teotihuacan-like strap bags carried by personages depicted on Yaxha Stelae 6, 8,
10, and 12 pointed to local interest in displaying ritual objects from non-Maya
sources.
Secondly, the pottery vessels already reported from Lake Yaxha by Bullard and
Enrique Salazar, the incensario from the lake at Chinkultic, and the Teotihuacan-
style incensarios uncovered by divers from Lake Amatitlan offered the hope that
whole vessels and possibly Teotihuacan incensarios could be found in shallow por-
tions of the several mile long Lake Yaxha. Unfortunately, when we formulated our
research proposal we had no idea that the mud on the bottom of Lake Yaxha was
so deep that there was no hope of finding whole vessels. And, once divers
actually entered the lake they noted that the lake had changed its shore line so
often in the last thousand years that we had no way of locating where was the
shore in the 5th century. Borhegyi had hypothesized that the Teotihuacanos were
particularly attracted to lakes for religious reasons. Thus we wondered whether
possibly that the Teotihuacanos might have been attracted to Yaxha's lake side
situation as a focal point of Teotihuacan activity in the Peten.
Third, several structures at Yaxha are in the centers of courtyards or plazas. Most
Peten Maya courtyards and plazas are open (empty of structures in the middle).
But many Central Mexican architectural complexes had structures In their center.
- 4 -
Two of the three tablero-talud style "non-Maya" structures at Tikal (Strs. 6E-144
and 5E-53) were in the rare position of plaza centers. The Yaxha project proposed
to undertake underwater exploration and excavate one potential Mexican-style
building complexes and to seek other artlfactual evidence In order to learn more
about the nature and extent of Mexican influence at Yaxha.
However once we had been at Yaxha several weeks we learned that our original
plan of action should be revised to take into account the fact that the original
Carnegie Institution of Washington map was virtually useless. After the second
season we decided to expend our limited resources to being sure that we had
done one thing thoroughly, namely mapping a major Maya city from one end to
the other, no small undertaking for a 26 year old student. Several hard seasons
later the map was finished, 1 0 0 % in two-dimensions, over half In three-
dimensions, the first Peten site to be mapped in three dimensions.
As is typical of any archaeology research program, once we actually got in the

field and had better local information, we found that some of the things we hoped
to find were not present but that other things we had not expected turned out to
replace the sought features with something equally educational.
The Seasons of Research
Although most of the first season. May to late September 1970, had to be
devoted to securing the necessary IDAEH and other government permits, to build-
ing a provisional field camp, clearing sight lines for mapping, and clearing the thick
jungle vegetation from buildings and monuments selected to be investigated,
Yaxha Project personnel were able to map half of the main ceremonial center and
initiate test excavation of several structures and stone monuments.
The second season of research was from January until mid-May, 1 9 7 1 . There was
an additional season in 1972 and 1973. By 1974 the basic site map was finished.
In February of that year the earthquake struck, destroying portions of the project's
office In Guatemala City, which was on the top floor of an office building. We sal-
vaged much of the material, such as the maps, but field notes and many drawings
are no longer extant. I present in this present report what is available.
The Situation that we found at Yaxha in 1970
Extensive preparation was made for our first visit to Yaxha, both initiating the
proper background studies as well as obtaining adequate funding and the neces-
sary IDAEH permits. Our supplies included xeroxs of all readily available previous
reports. William Bullard, who had also worked in the Lake Yaxha area in the
1950's, had been my thesis advisor at Harvard, so I had access to his first-hand
knowledge of Yaxha as well. By coincidence I subsequently found one of his for-
mer workers who provided additional information about Yaxha.
Naturally we had the Carnegie Institution of Washington map with us when we

arrived at Yaxha in 1970. Yet within a few days of our arrival in May 1970, we
found nine previously unnoticed stone monuments, plus extensive concentrations
of mounds not shown on the 1932 map. After additional exploration it soon
became apparent that the site was over twice the size as pictured on the Carnegie
- 5-
map, not only in terms of spread over the landscape but more in concentration of
previously undetected structures within the site core. The initial nine months of
mapping turned up 323 structures (counting those already located by the Carnegie
plus ones we found). In the same area at Tikal there were only 231 structures,
and that is the count for the most densely settled area of that site, a site mapped
by professional surveyors.
From Yaxha's Temple 216 on the east there is an unwavering concentration of

acropoleis, plazas, complexes, and buildings for a distance of about one kilometer
west to Str. 116 of Plaza G. This densely occupied area contains only one
undeveloped zone, in an area where the terrain was too rough, broken, and steep
for construction. Such extensive tightly grouped and contiguous construction is
not typical of most Peten sites. Tikal, Uaxactun, and other typical Peten sites were
built mainly on high ground, ridges, or hills with different parts of the same site
separated from one another by varying amounts of seasonal swamp or steep ter-
rain unsuited for building. Such widely spaced plazas and acropoleis tend to be
connected by elevated paved causeways, called sacbe in Mayan.
A second anomoly of Yaxha Is the high density of structures within any single
given locus, plaza, or acropolis limit. For example, over 18 visible platforms, struc-
tures, and vaulted buildings are crowded onto 2,167 square meters of the West
Group, and I am sure that excavation would reveal other building platforms hidden
below humus and collapsed debris of the larger structures. There are at least 35
structures of a quite diverse size, shape, and evident function on the elevated
11,025 sq meters of the Northeast Acropolis. In each corner of this acropolis Is a
grouping type I have dubbed "acropolis-open-corner-low-mound-groups." Similar
clusters of low mounds may be seen on some corners of the East and the North-
west Acropolises. I could find only one major Tikal acropolis (Structures 6B-26 to
37) which had similar low mounds.
It Is informative to return to what little information that was available about Yaxha
prior to our arrival in 1970. The archaeological site of Yaxha was discovered by
Teobert Maler in 1904. It Is always fascinating to read of what life was like explor-
ing the Peten a century ago.
The name Yaxhd, Green Water (Yas, green, and hd, water) Is here
applied In a threefold manner: 1. As the name of the lake. 2. As the
name of the ruined city on the northern shore. 3. As the name of the
collection of huts at the east end of the lake.
....In the midst of these trying conditions, with my men from San
Jos6 grown Impatient though otherwise perfectly tractable, but never
liking to be long absent from their village, and the Tenoslque loafers,
always discontented, hating all work and thinking only of guzzling, it
was imperative that the exploration of the north shore with Its hidden
ruined city should be set on foot without delay. Foreseeing that we
should frequently have to row up and down the lake, I hired a cayuco
of the alcalde, so that In this respect we should be quite independent.
On one of the following days, therefore, we rowed to that spot on the

north shore above which we thought we had observed one of the
- 6-
larger groups of cuyos. We fastened the cayuco and entered the

forest. Having reached the wooded plateaus, we suddenly found our-
selves In the midst of numerous mounds of ruins, which, as we soon
discovered, stretched in a long line from east to west, while the
extension of the city site from north to south was at no point con-
siderable.
During the week consumed in the examination of these mounds we

returned every afternoon to our hut in Yaxhd, where a modest meal
awaited us. When our laborious search was ended, this ruined
city—more than 3 km. in length—had been thoroughly explored, even
to Its obscurest corners. We found ten sculptured stelae; half of the
number, however, being wholly destroyed, while the others still
admitted of being photographed.
We will begin the description of the city with the main temple at the
east end, and conclude with the group of structures at the west end,
where we found Stelae 8, 9, and 10 and the large circular altar (plan.
Fig. 12).
The main archaeological description of Yaxha, after the first notice by Maler, was
by Sylvanus Morley:
The ruins of Yaxha are located at approximately latitude 17 degrees

5' N. and longitude 89 degrees 22' W.^ on the summit of the low
plateau or range of hills rising from the north shore of the western
and larger of two lakes. Lake Yaxha. This body of water has its long
axis lying east and west and together with the smaller and eastern
lake, Sacnab, has a combined length of about 8 km. The two lakes
are separated from each other by a narrow Isthmus through which
runs a natural canal so that small cavucos may sometimes pass from
one to the other. Lake Sacnab has Its long axis lying northeast and
southwest, making an obtruse angle with Lake Yaxha (Morley plates
211a and 212).
The first historical notice of Lake Yaxha Is from the pen of VII-
lagutlerre Soto-Mayor, who describes the journey of Fathers
Fuensallda and Orblta from Merida to Lake Pet6n Itzd by way of Tipu
and Lake Yaxha, In 1618:
'Passado el Rio, camlnaron como ocho, u dlez leguas, y dieron en

vna Gran Laguna, que ellos llamavan Yaxhad.... tener de largo dos
leguas.'
Maler seems to have been the first to visit the archaeological site on
the summit of the plateau rising from the northern shore of Lake
Yaxha. In December 1904 he spent a week there, during which time
7. This position i s only approximately correct, single neither the latitude nor the longitude of this s i t e
has been taken. The values given above have been scaled from the Claudio U r r i t i a map of Guatemala (1923).
- 7-
he secured the notes and photographs published In his report entitled

The Ruined Citv of Yaxh6 on the Northern Shore of Lake Yaxh^. He
also stopped for a few days at this site in May 1905 after his return
from Naranjo and Benque Viejo.
The writer has visited Yaxha on two different occasions: for half a
day on June 1, 1914, when he saw Stela 7 and probably discovered
Stela 12, as well as several plain stelae (perhaps AI, A2, A3 and A5),
and also visited the neighboring ruins of Topoxte at the southwest
corner of Lake Yaxha (black dot itinerary In plate 179); and again for
half a day at the end of May the following year (the First C.A. Expedi-
tion, red line Itinerary in plate 179), when the notes on Stelae 6, 8, 9,
and 10 were made^ and Stela 11 was discovered.
Blom, of the Eighth C.A. Expedition (blue dash and dot itinerary in
plate 179) was at Yaxha In 1924 and again In 1928 (the John Ged-
dlngs Gray Memorial Expedition of the Tulane University),^ but neither
he nor the writer on any of these occasions added much new material
to Maler's original contribution.
The personnel of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania-New

York Times-Philadelphia Evening Bulletin Aerial Expedition to Central
America landed on Lake Yaxha on December 9, 1930 In a Sikorsky
amphibian plane, and proceeded to the ruins of San Clemente as
already noted in the preceding section. Three days later (December
12) the party left Lake Yaxha by the same plane for Belize, without,
however, visiting the archaeological site on the north side of the lake.
W. L. Lincoln, of the Fifteenth C.A. Expedition (green dash Itinerary in

plate 179), visited the site for a fortnight from March 19 to April 3,
1932, when the survey for the map shown In plate 212 and the
sketch map in plate 211 a were made. Stela 13 and Stelae A4, AS, A7
and AS were discovered and Stelae 7,11 and 12 more accuratedly
located.'^^
Finally, the writer flew over this site on the morning of February 27,
1937 (the Twentieth C.A. Expedition).
The name Yaxha Is a contracted form of the Maya word yaaxha.

which Is translated literally as "green water"-yaax, "green," and ha,
"water"-and, as already noted, has been applied to the lake for more
than three centuries. Maler, however, seems to have been the first to
give this name to the ruins on the high ground above the north shore
of Lake Yaxha.
8. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year book 1915, p. 345.
9. Blom 1929, p. 17.
10. idem 1928, p. 95
- 8-
The site may be reached from the settlement of Benque VIejo, near
the western boundary of British Honduras, in one jornada of 8 and a
half hours along the principal trail to Floras. The details of this journey
have been described In section 2 of this chapter.... The best stopping
place Is the native hamlet of Yaxha, located at the southern edge of
the narrow neck of land separating the two lakes. Here It is possible
to secure accomodations of a sort, guides, and dugout cayucos for
the trip across the lake. From the village the ruins ar best reached by
cayuco to the northern shore and thence by foot; there Is also a mule
trail from the village to points north which traverses the ruins. The
time required by either route is approximately the same, about one
hour (plate 21 la).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The two lakes were apparently formed by a fault in the stratified lime-
stone which underlies the entire region. The northern shores rise
abruptly along the escarpment, then slope gradually away to the
north along the dip of the fault. The strike, above the western lake, is
occupied by the ruins of the ancient of Yaxha, the main body of
which extends In a line roughly parallel to the lake shore for about a
kilometer. There are scattered remains of minor significance for at
least two kilometers west of the main body of ruins. The top of the
slope has been artlflcally leveled and terraced in a series of courts and
plazas, arranged in gradually descending order from east to west. In
the entire site there Is not a single standing building, and very few
fragments of wall construction in situ. The persistent and destructive
jungle has reduced this once flourishing city to piles of debris. The
inferior grade of limestone prevalent in this region evidently played a
large part In the disintegration of buildings constructed of it.
The terrain west of Plaza B Is leveled off to form two lower terraces
which fade out Into the natural hillside on the north. The southwest
corner of the first of these is occupied by Structure XI, an
unimpressive mound of little apparent significance.
Southwest of Plaza G, on the far or west side of the arroyo. is a small

terraced platform bearing several mounds. There are many other con-
structions of various natures extending along the brow of the hill for a
considerable distance to the northwest, all seemingly of little impor-
tance, but the architectural center of the city may be said to lie
between Structure I on the east and Structure LXXIX on the west.
The terrain, between the ruins and the lake shore, contains no visible
remains, although it is quite possible that small ruins exist among the
tumbled stones and dense undergrowth. The location of such remains
would necessitate the bushing of the entire hillside and the making of
a detailed Investigation.
- 9 -
MaPDina Strategy
It is preferable to map outlying areas as well as the city core since the sustaining
area is an Important part of the overall settlement pattern. I agree with this
strategy but feel that it is also a reasonable goal to map city cores wholeheartedly
rather than doing a wishy washy job on the core in order to get time to do some
of the sustaining area as well. In other words, I decided I would rather have 1 0 0 %
of the site center rather than 8 0 % of the center and 2 0 % of the sustaining area.
There are plenty of other archaeologists who are interested in the sustaining area
and indeed Don Rice and Prudence Rice initiated test strips around both Lake
Yaxha and Lake Sacnab as part of a completely separate project during and after
the F.L.A.A.R. Project. Years later another project was initiated by Anabel Ford
that extended mapping test strips beyond the site center. In all cases they were
able to rely on the core map produced by F.L.A.A.R. Contour lines would be the
only feature which any future mapper would need to add.
During bushing and subsequent mapping operations, I concentrated on finding low

platforms wherever they occurred throughout the main area of ruins. So many low
mounds were found in plazas and even in acropolis courtyards, that either Yaxha
has a unique settlement layout, a late occupation imposing low mounds on a more
traditional open site, or such low mounds have been missed at mapping operations
at other Peten sites. I favor a little of each of these explanations, especially the lat-
ter, for even the excellent map of Tikal does not show all the low mounds found
later during clearing by park personnel or subsequent projects such as PRONAT.
I am fully aware of the additional problem of "Invisible mounds" and I realize these
need to be included in statistics, but such mounds require excavations to find
them, since you cannot count a mound if it is invisible, and, their addition to the
site statistics is invalid if the site core itself has not been thoroughly mapped. I felt
I would rather do one job completely rather than attempt to pretend to do some-
thing of everything. Supernatural vision is not possessed by any archaeologist and
therefore the map of Yaxha does not show any buried or hidden structures.
At Yaxha, in addition to the traditional Peten housemound groups which are found
all over the outskirts of the main center, there were a variety of groups of low
mounds, .2 to 1.5 m high, within the central areas as well. A potentially definable
pattern of these mounds could be noted in the otherwise open corner spaces of
major acropoleis. Intensive bushing by a large work crew revealed "acropolis open
corner low mound clusters" in the East Acropolis, the Northeast Acropolis, and the
Northwest Acropolis. The Northeast Acropolis has 5 low platform mounds in the
west half of its central interior plaza, as well as open corner low mound clusters in
each of its four corners. Each of these three acropolises was further distinguished
by an amazing diversity of structural types. Usually, 1 to 3 massive terraced
pyramids shared the acropolis edges with low, vaulted and unvaulted range-type
structures together with a variety of other building sizes, shapes, and probably
functions.
Problems in MaopinQ
Tikal, mapped largely by professional surveyors. Is one of the most accurately

mapped Maya sites to date. Yet Shook estimates that 2 5 % of the mounds were
- 10 -
overlooked (personal communication, 1970's). An example of this comes from

Tikal's East Plaza. Christopher Jones located four additional mounds after the
plaza was bushed in 1965. The lesson is simple, unless an area is cleared and
cleaned, and especially weeded, neither the most experienced surveyor nor the
best intentioned archaeologist can map what he cannot see.
Mapping by Miggel Orrego
Guatemalan archaeologist Miguel Orrego, from IDAEH's Projecto Tikal, spent QVi
weeks helping us map Yaxha. During this time he was able to plot the 51 struc-
tures of Plazas D, E, the Main Acropolis, Lincoln Causeway, an avenue, and
adjacent areas. While mapping he found on the surface several piles of carved
stelae fragments which seem to be the result of ancient Maya destruction. None of
the Yaxha stelae are well enough preserved to warrant being stolen. There is no
record of any Yaxha stela being stolen since Maler's visit since we found all the
stelae he photographed still at Yaxha.
General Considerations in Mappina Yaxha
In the time which could be spared from my duties of keeping the overall Project
functioning I spent several months mapping 66 structures alongside the streets
and avenues, making a 1:250 scale contour map of the complicated low mound
situation in Plaza B, and remapping some 40 structures by careful measurement
which in the '70 season had been mapped mostly by trained eyeball.
Neither of us two mappers (Crrego or the author) had ever been to surveying
school, indeed neither of us had any formal training in mapping whatsoever. Thus
the map of Yaxha is more an archaeological labor of love than an engineering
drawing by professional surveyors. For example, few contour intervals are shown,
because of a shortage of time the priority was in getting the structures down in
their correct relative position to each other. And, I did not have training in measur-
ing contour intervals. Cf course today all this would be done by computer and
mapping software, but none of that was available in the dark ages of the 1970's.
Two distinctly different mapping strategies were employed to meet two different
requirements: quick coverage of large areas and detailed, hence slower, coverage
of areas selected for special treatment. Orrego used a plane table and alidade in
order to map as much square meterage as possible in the limited time available to
him away from his duties with the IDAEH Projecto Tikal. He measured all dis-
tances, including those between stations, by stadia interval. He cleared only
enough of the enveloping jungle cover as was necessary for stadia shots. Except
when a student was available to hold the stadia rod, he usually employed only a
single Guatemalan workman, who held the rod when not frantically chopping sight
lines. As will be appreciated when seeing the new map and comparing it with the
map of Yaxha by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Orrego did an excellent
job mapping about three-fifths of the area shown during the portions of two sea-
sons that he kindly made his experienced services available to be with us at
Yaxha.
11. s t e l a 6 was taken from Yaxha sometime after we had finished, closed down our camp, and turned everything
over to IDAEH. Presumably Stela 6 was taken by IDAEH to Tikal or Floras for safekeeping.
- 11 -
I worked differently to get more detailed coverage of the low mound groups
aligned along the streets and avenues. I used a transit rather than an alidade and
moved from station to station not with stadia Intervals but with short movements
directly measured with a steel tape from specially set and tagged stakes. These
station stakes, a few set Into concrete, were (during our seasons) semi-permanent
reference points for grid location and elevation which can be and have been used
for rechecklng.
A portable drafting table was set up right next to the transit and all sightings and
building outlines were completely plotted directly In the field so that Immediate re-
slghtlngs could be made when uncertainties appeared. Often large trees were In
the way and needed elevation shots could not be made from the transit position,
so a dumpy level was employed to take elevation, for It could be moved around
quickly while the transit was left In place over a nail.
It Is normal for such mapping of large areas to take all the measurements Into a
notebook. The notebook Is taken back to camp, and often back to the home
university thousands of kilometers away. There the map Is actually drawn. Of
course what happens Is that when the mounds are no longer In front of you It Is all
to easy to get confused. And even the best surveyor either forgets some key
measurement, or writes down a wrong number. These factors are the cause of
problems with the typical 19th century maps of Maya sites and all the 20th
century maps by the Carnegie. Probably one of the first accurate maps of a Maya
site was that of Tikal and that by Ian Graham of Selbal.
A second reason for the successful mapping of Yaxha and the high degree of
coverage and accuracy was extensive bushing and clearing away of all brush and
fallen trees. There Is no need to cut down trees, actually It Is easier to leave the
trees standing (and the birds and animals are happier as well). Standing trees do
not normally bother surveying other than the few trees which are on the main
sighting lines. But fallen trees, knocked down by storms, lightening, or old-age and
rot, cover entire mounds. Most projects just Ignored fallen trees and mapped
around them. We found that the map was considerably more accurate If the fallen
trees were removed completely. This leaves the site looking like a national park,
pretty for visitors, yet with all the original living trees still standing to provide the
jungle atmosphere that Is Important to provide oxygen as well as a home for flora
and fauna.
Same with brush. It Is the low brush—not the tall trees—which obscure low
mounds. If the goal of mapping Is to get all the pyramids, you can see these over
the height of the brush. So In most projects the brush Is left as Is, cut down only
on the sighting lines so the mapper and crew can move through the forest. At
Tikal, the professionally trained surveyors for the Tikal Project map had missed at
least four low structures right In the middle of the site (In the East Plaza) because
not enough brush had been removed In the 1950's. We thus had statistics to aid
In our planning a strategy for clearing. Edwin Shook, director of the Tikal Project
during their mapping, admits that a percentage of low mounds were certainly
missed by the traditional methods employed at Tikal. Dennis Puleston showed how
many mounds were missed by Carnegie mappers at Uaxactun ( * ). The methods
employed at Yaxha demonstrated that an even higher percentage of low mounds
- 12 -
1 9 3 2 , c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 1 0 %
6 " s t r u c t u r e s " were p l o t t e d .
20 55 m
1970, c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 70%
1*4 v i s i b l e a n d 1 h y p o t h e t i c a l
s t r u c t u r e were p l o t t e d ( d e t a i l s
o f c e n t r a l mounds u n c o v e r e d by
excavation).
Fig. 2 Y a x h a , t h e West Group.
1 9 7 1 , c l e a r i n g an e s t i m a t e d 85%
of the brush; a l l l a r g e t r e e s
l e f t standing. I f a l l the brush
and w e e d s w e r e r e m o v e d a n d t h e
g r o u n d was r a k e d I s u s p e c t t h a t
both a d d i t i o n a l p l a t f o r m s , l e v e l s ,
and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e t a i l s c o u l d
be d i s c e r n e d w i t h o u t e x c a v a t i o n .
-K — Ak \,
YAXHA
. « E a ' .-: "--.l^TCLJiA-Tj 'k=>
k A K f S T A K N A
Fig. 3
The maps o f Yaxha and o f T i k a l
reduced t o approximately t h e
cnT-mple L'U J L. I
same s c a l e t o show t h e h i g h e r
d e n s i t y o f s t r u c t u r e s a t Yaxha.
L J ' ' y ' ' ' i ' - T = r 7 r r : The same number o f s q u a r e
k i l o m e t e r s i s shown o f e a c h
site.
— S C A L E : On t h e map o f T i k a l
0 "^Ql^^^j"^
Ax:zz
t h e g r i d l i n e s a r e 500 m e t e r s
apart.
at the top.
North on both maps i s
TIKAL
Fig. l,a 1 9 3 2 , Map o f Yaxha a f t e r m i n i m a l b u s h i n g ,
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 107 s t r u c t u r e s p l o t t e d .
.77' I
^5
.11 / WIVfAST
.ii:
g r i d /.:.-NTOi- . cv A', -ry. -=A- line
\nzv 1970, 1 9 7 1 , Map o f Y a x h a

a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e but
s t i l l incomplete bushing.
rig. 1, b a p p r o x i m a t e l y 37 3 s t r u c t u r e s p l o t t e d and 177 more s e e i
\:a-Ml _ d u r i n g e x p l o r a t i o n b u t not y e t mapped
were missed, even by Puleston's methods. But even we missed the "invisible
mounds" the structures that were built directly on ground level, with no mound to
stand up and be counted.
Yaxha workers and students were specially trained as mapping assistants. They
could go into the area to be mapped next in advance, find mounds, clear com-
pletely around them, then clear sight lines to the nearest survey station stake or
concrete bench mark. When the mapping team of Hellmuth and assistant arrived I
did not have to waste time waiting for clearing. Ideally the team consisted in a sur-
veyor, stadia rod holder, and at least two "heavies," healthly local workers for cut-
ting and pounding in stakes to mark the corners of structures and for felling brush
which at the last minute always seemed to leap into the line of sight, and for last
minute clearing of fallen trees or areas that I did not accept yet as fully cleaned.
After several months of learning the local situation on the ground I selected
specific portions of the site where it seemed that slow and expensive clearing of
vegetation would reveal low mounds or minute detail on larger mounds (such as
position of stairways, number of steps, position of insets and outsets, presence or
absence of collapsed vaults, masonry superstructures, different platform levels,
etc.) which would thus repay the extra investment. Some particularly important
zones such as Plaza B and certain parts of the avenues and vias were not only
cleared of brush and fallen trees but were also weeded by hand and then raked or
swept. After such clearing it was possible to detect mounds as low as 20 cm high.
Tests were run to see whether in fact the extra time and expense of complete
bushing was worth it.
One example of such testing was in the West Group which had been mapped by
alidade during the first season with the class of clearing that was typical in any
normal Maya project at a jungled site. Just with this partial clearing Miguel Orrego
had been able to find five new platforms and one small structure which were not
apparent prior to the clearing the brush, and which were thus not shown on Lin-
coln's 1932 map. Thus Orrego had been able to find an impressive percent of
additional structures.
The second season all fallen trees were chopped up and removed. Then the inte-
rior of the courtyard and facing structures were bushed, weeded by hand, and
raked or swept by students. After just 1 Vi days of this additional clearing it took
me about 20 minutes to make out the outlines of two additional low mounds that
had been hidden by weeds, high grass and low shrubs. I also noticed that one
single long low mound was in fact two distinct shorter mounds, and that one
mound plotted the previous season did not exist. Also, Orrego spotted a possible
front platform to the north structure.
The overall goals of the mapping operation were to make a basic record of the
main site center for the use of others in comparative studies of site planning
(settlement pattern). We also wished to see if there was any suggestion of
Teotihuacan influence on the site layout. When I blithely stated in my proposal to
N.S.F. that I would map the site I had no idea that the ruins were 3 0 0 % larger
than the portion shown in William Lincoln's 1932 map for the Carnegie. Nor did I
realize the trials and expenses involved in mapping a major Maya ceremonial cen-
ter. Fortunately my parents, grandmother, my great-uncle (Southern Comfort Cor-
- 13 -
poration, the liquor company) and several friends provided the necessary funds to
survive, though as with any other scientific research we always needed more than
we received.
Although we have not found specifically Mexican features other than in the West
Group (possible talud in the middle, actual remains of tablero and talud on the
edge) mapping did reveal a totally unexpected component of potential Teotihuacan
origin, namely a network of streets and avenues in an area of density of structures
atypical of the Peten Maya, and overall a surprising regularity in site layout. It
should be emphasized, though, that it would take excavation to document that
these features result from outside influence. Indeed, in most respects, such as the
stela-altar complex, acropoleis, vaulted buildings, tall terraced pyramid-temples,
etc. Yaxha is certainly a traditional Classic Maya site of Peten style.
Mapping in Three-Dimensional Persoective

I have always suspected that most people who look at a typical archaeological
map have no idea from the rectangles of Ink on the printed sheet what the site
actually looked like. But the archaeologist in the field sees these ruins in front of
him for months, and thereafter in his mind's eye for many years. Thus for our own
awareness we do not need anything more than symbols on the map. But if our
goal as scholars is to translate the mounds on the ground into a published drawing
that will aid students and colleages who have never set foot at the site to
understand the settlement pattern better then it might help to do the mapping in
three-dimensions. Since my training at Harvard was in architecture I was especially
interested in the three-dimensional vision of the site. Thus virtually all energy and
funds in the ' 7 2 season onward were devoted towards producing a 3-D view of
the site. For this reason we did virtually no excavation in later seasons.
Isometric drawing was easier for me to handle personally than perspective since
isometric drawing requires 5 minutes training and minimal intelligence. People who
do perspective drawings reassure me that I could also learn to produce such draw-
ings but I felt it was better to leave this to professional draftsmen. We were
fortunate to have a capable architect, Frank Ducote, take care of such drawings
for us.
Once I settled into a vision of producing all Yaxha in 3-dimensional view, my goal
was to produce sufficient measurements so that without excavation a draftsperson
could prepare a three-dimensional isometric reconstruction of each avenue and
street zone, then a view of Plaza B, and eventually of the entire site. From such
measured data it would be possible to create a perspective reconstruction drawing
of the entire site. Ultimately, it would be useful to have a three-dimensional plaster
or wooden scale model such as that made by Dr. MacKenney of Tikal, on exhibit
in Guatemala's Museo Nacional de Arqueologia e Ethnologia. Only such a three-
dimensional presentation would reveal Yaxha's true monumental size and propor-
tions, a site considerably larger than Copan, Naranjo, Nakum, and possibly even
larger than Palenque's main area, yet a site little known, certainly not in the litera-
ture. I suspect that Yaxha is potentially the third largest site in Guatemala, with
only Tikal and El MIrador as appreciably larger. At the time I was mapping Yaxha I
had not yet been to El Zotz but later when the road made access possible I saw
that this site has impressive pyramid-temples but I do not know the palace
- 14 -
acropoleis there. I have not been to Rio Azul but suspect that Yaxha is of com-
parable size and potentially larger in some respects, as I have never seen any pic-
tures of extensive vaulted palace areas at Rio Azul.
Lincoln's 1932 Mao of Yaxha
William Lincoln, an architect originally from St. Louis, mapped Yaxha during a few
weeks in 1932 for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Thinking that he was
long since dead, as were all the other early explorers of Yaxha, we named a sacbe
after him.
It turned out that William Lincoln was very much alive in 1970, for he was only in
his late 2 0 ' s when he mapped Yaxha. By a coincidence, Lincoln was a classmate
and friend of my father, also an architect. During lunch together in 1970, Lincoln
was surprised to hear that Yaxha was being mapped by his friend's son. When we
learned of this we invited Lincoln to came back to Yaxha in 1 9 7 1 , after 39 years.
He also kindly turned over his copious field notes and diary from 1932. This valu-
able record, never before published, was misplaced during the disaster of the
severe earthquake which killed over 25,000 people throughout Guatemala and
destroyed portions of the headquarters of the Foundation for Latin American
Anthropological Research. Although we had insurance, insurance cannot redraw
drawings or rewrite field notes. Besides, insurance companies do not place any
value on such notes.
Overall View of the Site
Among the approximately 500 ruined structures at Yaxha there are scores of
impressive monumental temples and palaces, including at least nine pyramids
larger than the pyramid supporting Tikal Temple II. At least half of these nine
Yaxha pyramids lack masonry temple buildings, but Temple 216 is of the Tikal
"Great Temple" size and proportion, with a two-room masonry temple still largely
preserved up to the base of the roof comb. There are over ten major acropolis
groups including a large acropolis of palace buildings arranged around six court-
yards much like the size and arrangement of the Central Acropolis at Tikal. The
ancient Maya had erected two ballcourts at Yaxha and raised about 4 0 stone
stelae. Several of these monuments were discovered on the first days of the
Yaxha Project explorations in May 1970 by Richard Waller and the author.
- 15 -
New Finds
Not shown on Lincoln's 1932 Carnegie Institution of Washington map of Yaxha is
a 300-meter long causeway (Blom Sacbe) running north from Plaza G to a building
complex with Early Classic Stelae 8, 9, and 10. This northern causeway, noted
previously only by Bullard, forms the northern extension of an axial causeway
system which ruins a total of over 1 km, through the heart of the site down to the
lake.
In line with Blom Sacbe, but starting on the opposite, south side of Plaza G and E,
there begins a 12 m wide feature which can really best be described as a street or
avenue. This remarkable discovery will be described in the section on "vias" at
Yaxha.
Extensive initial exploration and mapping by Nicholas Hellmuth and Miguel Orrego
revealed that Lincoln's fine mapping attempt of 1932 not only missed the north
stelae group and left out 1 0 % or more of the structures in the area he did cover,
but also showed mounds grossly out of position and proportion. Because one of
the post-arrival aims of the Project was to determine the density of structures and
the extent to which the site was laid out in a regular fashion, a decision was made
to make as accurate a map of as much of Yaxha as time permitted.
Richard Waller, Carlos Rudy Larios (May), William Alwin (June-August), and
Orrego and Hellmuth (September) laid out with a transit and tape measure four
master survey lines running east, west, north, and south from the top of a large
building-less pyramid in the approximate center of the site. From carefully taped
and tagged stakes and occasional concrete-and-steel rod bench marks on each of
the kilometer-long brechas it was possible to map from any stake knowing that all
measurements and sights started from a known and controlled position relative to
a single central point. Mapping from these control points, Hellmuth and Orrego dis-
covered that Yaxha had a density of formally arranged structures unparalleled for
known Peten sits. For almost a kilometer east-west, and about 400 m, north-south
there are continuous groupings of plazas, acropoleis, and other formal architectural
complexes. Within the central area there is only one tiny strip of steep, broken ter-
rain which was not filled in or transferred into a platform for some major architec-
tural group. Outside this central area, structures are more scattered about with
lots of open space in the more typical Peten pattern. One may speculate that
Teotihuacanoid influence had some hand in the urban concentration and layout of
Yaxha but considerable excavation would be necessary to uncover proof of this
assertion.
Discovery of Twin Pvramid Complex
Carlos Rudy Larios discovered that Lincoln's Carnegie map omitted two structures
of Plaza A and that in fact this group was a Twin Pyramid Complex, the only such
- 19 -
7-
T"
••PYRAMID I I
I I
0 o
^ A '•' ' •'• •: M , TTV-T TOyi:
. .• • .•• •.. ' : • ' ••:v;v:?.l" v ^ 7 V T O ^ : ^ :
[ ; ' ''• A'j'k 'L}- '-c^Ai00i
L j t — ^ \' Kk JJ^M
TO ^v, • A^-—>,TO
km
complex known outside of Tikal. This Yaxha complex is complete with east and
west side four-stairwayed, flat-topped, identical pyramids with no masonry super-
structure, a low mound on the south, and a stela enclosure on the north.
The single Yaxha complex differs from earlier and contemporaneous ones at Tikal
in that there is no (remaining) row of monuments in front of the east twin pyramid.
Instead there is a single carved stela, number 13, and a badly eroded altar in front
of the west pyramid. There was not enough left of the later to be able to
determine whether it had been carved or not. The stela has been dated by Ian
Graham as 9.18.0.0.0 in the Maya Long Count dating system. None of the known
Tikal Twin Pyramid Complexes have any monuments in front of the west pyramid.
The Yaxha stela enclosure is clearly copied from the prototypes at Tikal—a good
sized roof-less space entered through a formerly vaulted doorway (long ago col-
lapsed). This enclosure at Yaxha has only an altar now visible, but it is possible
that a stela lies buried beneath collapsed debris from the largely crumbled
enclosure wall. I suspect, though, that Stela 13 was originally inside the enclosure,
and was moved by later Maya to its present position in front of the west pyramid.
I feel this way because the single carved face of Stela 13 depicts the scattering or
divining posture associated with this class of stela. Both this theme and glyph T-
535, Decorated Ahau, are found on several of the stone stelae in Tikal enclosures.
From evidence elsewhere at Yaxha we know that stelae were frequently moved
and re-set in Late Classic and/or Post Classic (?) times.
Comparison between Carnegie Map and FLAAR Mao of Plaza A
Plaza A is shown clearly on Lincoln's map and he found Stela 13 with its altar but
he evidently never got any further east, due to thickness of the vegetation com-
bined with lack of time. Monumental ruins definitely drop off to the east rather
dramatically and he may have felt he had reached the limit. Rudy Larios persevered
and explored Yaxha until he found the actual limits, namely the other twin
pyramid. By the time he reached Plaza A Lincoln was probably mapping by eye,
since his Str. VIII is not the correct size or shape. The long low mound is on the
south side, not the north side.
Also, the long south mound has two levels, which I was able to detect and is
added to the FLAAR map. I do not know any Twin Pyramid Complex at Tikal that
has such an addition; it was probably a secondary construction at Yaxha though
the structure is symmetrical only with the addition. It would require excavation to
tell the difference.
William Coe of the Pennsylvania Tikal Project was not convinced that Plaza A was
a Twin Pyramid Complex (1970's personal communication). His main objection
was the lack of a row of stelae and the lack of a monument in the Stela Enclosure.
But none of this changes the actual configuration of Plaza A, which is a full scale
Twin Pyramid Complex with more than enough diagnostic traits. Besides, more
than a dozen Maya sites have plaza complexes that commemorate solstice obser-
vations so why should there not be several Maya sites that have Twin Pyramid
Complexes, especially a site as close to Tikal as Yaxha. Unfortunately this Yaxha
example was not known in time to be included in Christopher Jones' thorough
study of the Twin Pyramids at Tikal. Dennis Puleston visited Yaxha in 1972 and,
- 20 -
after studying the remains of Plaza A, accepted it as an example of a Twin

Pyramid Complex, taking into consideration the similarities and differences
between the Yaxha variant ad the Tikal prototypes. It is worth pointing out that
limited excavation in 1971 revealed specialized Late Classic style vault stones col-
lapsed into the door space of the stela enclosure. This documents that this struc-
ture followed the expected Tikal pattern.
The placement of the twin pyramids at Yaxha is precisely the pattern predicted by
the Late Classic examples at Tikal. These pyramids are square, are flat on top
(never had any masonry superstructure), and have the remains of stairways on ail
four sides. The latter feature alone is enough to make these structures comparable
to those at Tikal.
The stelae row should be in front of the east pyramid, with none in front of the
west pyramid. But Stela 13 was probably moved to the west pyramid in Post Clas-
sic times, indeed I suspect that Stela 13 was originally inside the stela enclosure.
And the plain stelae that were supposed to be in front of the east pyramid were
probably moved to adjacent Plaza B and elsewhere at the site in later times. This
could be tested by excavating to find the pits where a row of stelae might have
been removed from Plaza A.
In conclusion. Plaza A is currently the only full scale complete orthodox Twin
Pyramid Complex known outside Tikal. From time to time writers "find" other plaza
groupings as far away as Dzibalchaltun and claim they are Twin Pyramid Com-
plexes but that is entirely a personal theory not substantiated by the actual size,
shape, and placement of the structures. The concept of erecting structures to
mark the katuns may well have been widespread and it is likely that at other sites
a different arrangement of structure served a purpose similar to that of Tikal and
Yaxha, but until some other site is discovered elsewhere in Peten or Campeche,
Yaxha's Twin Pyramid Complex remains unique, one of the discoveries of the
Yaxha Project mapping program.
We were also able to find the main front stairway which led up into the complex
from the west and the matching stairway at the east.
We also located a probable chultun north of the west twin pyramid. If I remember
correctly it showed evidence of grave robbing.
Morley's observations of Plaza A are limited:
Immediately adjacent to the East Acropolis, and north of it, lies

another platform. Plaza A, on a somewhat lower level. In the approxi-
mate center of the western edge of this platform is Structure VII, a
terraced pyramid facing east with the remains of a stairay on the
eastern slope. At the base (east) of this stairway are Stela 13 and the
associated altar. Structure VIII, a low mound of nondescript
appearance, occupies the north edge of the plaza. This structure evi-
dently faced the north, as In addition to being set back slightly from
the edge of the platform, there is an Intermediate level jutting from
the north retaining wall of the platform.
• 21 -
The Giant Stone on the edge of Plaza A

Totally unrelated to any use that we know of or expect for a Twin Pyramid Com-
plex are three giant stones on the south edge of Plaza A. T w o of these stones are
up on the plaza floor; the third stone was abandoned by the Maya in an attempt to
raise it over the edge of the plaza. I have not calculated the weight of this latter
stone but suspect it is comparable to, and maybe even larger than, the zoomorphs
at Quirigua. It is potentially the largest single block of stone that the Maya
attempted to move. I estimate the largest of the Yaxha stones to be 80 cubic
yards in size. T w o short trenches excavated by Mario Arreaga and Alejandro
Montejo showed that this largest boulder rested at a slanted position on top of a
wall and floor. This position means that the stone had been moved to their present
position by the ancient Maya.
This is not natural bedrock since it is tilted at an angle against the masonry edge
of the plaza. The stone probably came from less than 50 meters to the east, but to
move a stone that large even one inch must have required virtually the entire man-
power of Yaxha. I know what it is like not to be able to move a large stone: we
once tried to re-erect Stela 6 and were not able to budge it.*^
Pseudo Twin Pvramid Complex in Plaza F
I mention this area out of order, since it is easier to describe the site from east to
west by Plaza letters. A, B, etc. Thus Plaza F will come later. But since it has an
arrangement that almost looks like a partial Twin Pyramid Complex I mention this
feature here. The complete description is under Plaza F, in due term.
PIgza B
16. About 1972 we lowered Stela 6 down onto i t s carved face to keep i t from being noticed by potential
looters, since we were never sure how well the s i t e would be guarded. Lowering the monument down was not
that d i f f i c u l t since we were aided by gravity. Two or three years later when i t was clear that the s i t e
would be guarded, we thought i t would be nice to re-erect the stelae so that v i s i t o r s could see i t . But even
with a winch from our truck we were not able to raise i t or even move i t , so we l e f t i t down, protected
under palm fronds. Quite a considerable "folklore" develops about every archaeological project claiming that
the archaeologists systematically loot the s i t e s . Most people evidently do not understand how archaeologists
are willing to work so hard and be rewarded only by s c i e n t i f i c results. Local people presume our interest i s
treasure. Ten years after finishing at Yaxha I was told by people who had just v i s i t e d Yaxha that the IDAEH
guardians at Yaxha were informing v i s i t o r s that "when Hellmuth left Yaxha he was pulling a stelae on a chain
behind h i s jeep." Of course the people guarding Yaxha in the 1980's would not have any way to know that I
never had a jeep, but a pickup truck, since none of the people there i n 1980 had actually been at Yaxha
while we were doing our research. I always wanted to ask the many people who actually believed t h i s tale how
they imagined that i t was possible to drag a s t e l a (which weighs many tons more than even a pickup truck)
along behind you along an unpaved road. I do not know any vehicle short of a bulldozer which could manage
t h i s . I suspect people got the impression we stole Stela 6 because they were aware we t r i e d to raise i t
erect dOring the last season. So my only reward for attempting to prepare the s t e l a was the accusation that
I was hauling stelae to Floras. At least we had been able to protect a l l the stelae and a l t a r s of Yaxha dur-
ing the entire time since our a r r i v a l until we turned the s i t e over to IDAEH. This five years of successful
protection ended i n 1974. When I returned to Yaxha several years later Stela 6 was no longer at Yaxha. I t
was either removed by IDAEH to storage in Floras or T i k a l , or was stolen.
- 22 -
Since the TIaloc stela was in Plaza B we spent considerable efforts mapping this
area. First let us turn to what Morley published. I would imagine most of this is
from Lincoln's field notes taken during his mapping, since Morley himself probably
spent most of his waking hours pouring over the weathered inscriptions at Yaxha.
At the base of the western slope of the East Acropolis, and about
opposite its center, on the east side of Plaza B, lies an altar across
which has fallen a carved monument (Stela 11} which was discovered
by Morley In 1915, and relocated by Blom In 1928, who thought It a
new monument. Extending westward from this point Is Plaza B,
roughly square In outline and terraced down to the ground line on the
north, west and south sides. On the west side of this plaza Is Struc-
ture X, now nothing more than a rectangular heap of debris. At the
base of the east slope of this mound are Stelae A6, A7 and AS, and
the altar associated with Stela A 7. Practically the entire north side of
Plaza B Is devoted to structure IX, which might possibly be con-
sidered as two buildings. The crest of the mound Is notched In two
places, dividing the profile Into three hummocks of nearly the same
size. The west notch is somewhat shallower than the one at the east
end, and probably indicates a collapsed passageway, while the deeper
east notch Is probably Indicative of the existence of an Interbuilding
space.
On the other end of Plaza B from the TIaloc stela is Str. 9 0 , a 3 m high 10 m wide,
29 m long north-south, two-terraced platform. On top of the 2nd platform is a
single range, non-vaulted building which turned out to have 6 round pillars forming
7 doorways. The remains of the pillars were just over 1 m in diameter, faced with
small stones averaging 4 x 12 x 7 cm in size. Pillared buildings are common at
Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, Tula, Toltec Chichen itza, and Post Classic Topoxte
Island, but have generally been considered rare in the Maya lowlands, though Early
Puuc structures frequently have pillars. Tom Lee reports a few Maya buildings with
pillars in Chiapas (1970: personal communication). Only one other pillared building
is known for Central Peten, Str. 50-31/42, at Tikal.
It was consequently of obvious importance to obtain ceramic dating for Yaxha Str.
90. It is presumed that most building will have more than enough ceramics in the
fill or in caches along the central axis. We were disappointed that an axial tunnel
failed to turn up a single cache, no burial, and not even enough sherds to help
date this enigmatic structure. We did find an earlier building phase but did not
wish to do any more excavation so do not know if it also had pillars.
As in most other structures at Yaxha where we did surface collections there were
numerous Tepeu 3 Modeled-carved sherds on the room floor, but I suspect that
here, as elsewhere at the site, these post-date the erection of the building.
The pillars were of interest to me as an architect because of their rarity in Maya

architecture, thus I devoted special attention to determining their precise size and
especially worked hard on figuring out their height. Catharine Cousland, assisted
for part of the season by Irene Russo, excavated three of the six round pillars of
Str. 9 0 .
- 23 -
I had worked out a clever scheme for determining from the amount and position of
the collapsed masonry and fill what the original size would have been. This
method was to take the base stump which was still In situ (a few centimeters
high) and place chicken wire mesh around this same circumference, and then to
place all the nearby collapsed debris inside this fence. In other words, we "rebuilt"
the pillar from the collapse. Since there was never a corbel vault and not even an
upper wall this meant that all the fallen stone was from the pillars. Our experiment
resulted in the conclusion that neither the pillars nor the rear wall probably ever
rose higher than 1.07 m. A complete absence of specialized vault stones made it
clear that the building had not been vaulted. We presume that the upper part of
the walls were of wood, topped by a wooden roof. The pillars, of rubble core
faced by small stretchers averaging 4 x 12 by 4 cm deep were about 1.4 m in
diameter. The two doorways which were cleared each measured approximately
1.9 m wide.
Buildings of masonry up to only a certain height and then wood above are typical
of most times and places in the Maya area.
Str. 90 itself was about 30 m long and 1 6 m wide and rose over 3 m high in two
terraces to a final building floor 3.6 m above Plaza B. There is a wide pyramid plat-
form on top extending eastward over 3 m out from the front of the pillars. In this
and certain features of the stairway outside, Yaxha Str. 90 is vaguely reminiscent
of the general ground plan of Chichen Itza Str. 5C2 (Ruppert 1952:fig. 83). With
only one specimen in Peten it is hard to ascertain whether this resemblance is
coincidental or not. The rear outside was only partially cleared but on the portion
exposed to date there was a strange diagonal drop to the terrace moldings which I
have not seen on any terrace before.
Four Mounds on North Side of Plaza B
The north side of Plaza B was occupied by four mounds of medium size, each
roughly 1 1 m long, 7 m wide, and a respectable 6 m high. Portions of the base of
the easternmost, Str. 3 4 , was partially excavated during the 1970 season and
recorded by Arlene Miller during the second season. An axial tunnel failed to find
any offerings but we did not excavate below floor level. Excavation showed that
there was no stairway on the "front" (south), back, or east sides. Although none
of the other three structures were excavated it appears that none of them have
stairways on their fronts or backs. The two central structures, 92 and 9 3 , show
evidence of a single vaulted room running east-west with doorways not on the
"front" or "back" but on the narrow east and west sides. Thus, it is likely that
there must have been some form of stairway running up the east and west in the
narrow space between each structure, I would like to find comparative data on
another similar situation of a lack of "front" stairway on other Maya structures at
some other Peten site. It seems that unusual structures were concentrated around
Plaza B, the area with the "foreign" stela, 1 1 .
Other Aspects of Plaza B
Plaza B, 80 m wide north-south, 90 m long east-west, has a 30 cm high, 2 x 2 m

sized mound on the east-west axis, and at least three other low mounds, else-
- 24-
where on the plaza surface. There are several 20 to 80 cm high changes in eleva-
tion in Plaza B, and a strange 1 m high elevated area about 40 x 40 m extending
westward from the base of the East Acropolis stairway. The Irregular outline and
faintly uneven surface hinted that parts of this space could have supported a
dense complex of small largely wooden buildings, but of course, considerable
excavation would be needed to test this hypothesis. I suspect that Plaza B may
have been an area of long term occupation by "outsiders," first those responsible
for the intrusion of the TIaloc portrait, the building with columns, and later for
Tepeu 3 squatters during the period of collapse.
Because of the presence of the TIaloc stela in Plaza B we continued to give this
area more overall attention. The entire plaza surface, 80 m wide north-south and
90 m long east-west was meticulously weeded by students and then carefully
raked clear of all fallen vegetation, even leaves, so that the contours of the plaza
surface could be discerned. We were thus able to detect the changes in surface
that went irregularly across the middle.
In 1971 emphasis was placed on trying to figure out the several ups and downs,
the low platforms and mounds in the 16 x 30 m space between the back of Str.
90 and the west edge of Plaza B. Without excavation it was not always possible
to determine which of the many changes in elevation and protrusions were natural
slopes and which were the weathered and up-rooted remains of terrace facings or
other architectural features. Jacqueline Day, Glynn Hoener, and Clemence Overall
excavated a small,portion of this space behind Str. 90. It was hoped that whoever
built or used this edifice, which is not in true Classic Maya architectural style,
might have dumped datable refuse over the back, but if the occupants did, it did
not land in the limited portion probed.
Additions to the C.I.W. Mao of Plaza B
Plaza B was initially pictured as a square area with three structures on the north
and one on the west. It turned out there were four structures on the north plus the
obvious one on the west. The only way Lincoln could have missed the fourth
structure is if he was mapping by the "call out" method, sending your mapping
assistant out through the jungle and asking him to call out how many buildings he
has found, and their approximate size. The forest at Yaxha could easily hide a
structure the size of the one he missed.
We also located a minimum of three low structures plus a square platform right in
the middle of the plaza. You can tell how much early mappers were missing when
you realize that they did not even see three complete stelae and an associated
altar in the middle of Plaza B. I suspect these plain monuments were moved from
nearby Plaza A Twin Pyramid Complex during Terminal Classic times. Most classi-
cal Maya monuments at central Peten sites tended to be set in front of structures,
not out in the middle of a plaza.
We found two stelae and an altar at the base of the stairs leading to Stela 1 1 . The
jungle must really have been thick to miss something just 2 meters away.
Another discovery was the Sacbe leading from Plaza C up to Plaza B. Actually, the
early mapping missed not only the street system but also all the causeways as
well.
- 25 -
East Acropolis
Teobert Maler took useful notes a century ago:
Upon the levelled top of a natural elevation rises the east, main
temple. Its pyramidal substructure consisting of three high steps or
terraces with the masonry in a partially ruined condition. On the west
side of the pyramid a flight of stairs leads to the platform on top,
where are the crumbled walls of the temple, consisting, as it seems,
of a single, small compartment with an entrance on the west. That
this temple Interior had a vaulted ceiling Is proved by still distinguish-
able fragments of vaulting. The mortar covering of the exterior still
shows traces of red.
Below, on the approach to the pyramidal structure, just in front of the

stairway, I found a much weather-worn and cracked circular altar,
with traces of sculpture In strong relief still visible on Its upper sur-
face.
To the north side of the first terrace Is joined a structure which may
have been a small outer temple, and there are also vestiges of other
minor edifices.
Southwest of the pyramid are the ruins of an oblong palace, which

once consisted of three chambers In a row, each probably with a cor-
responding compartment in the rear. One of these compartments
(with a triangular, vaulted celling) Is still partially preserved. (Maler
1908:62).
Morley seems to have recognized how to distinguish between "doorway collapse

gaps" and the gaps created by the actual space between two adjacent palaces,
yet does not correct Lincoln, who seems to have had trouble interpreting the col-
lapse pattern created by wide center doorways.
At the eastern end of the site [plate 212]'^^ lies the dominant
architectural feature of the city, the East Acropolis, an artificial plat-
form constructed on the highest ground of the entire site. This plat-
form, which Is roughly 100 meters above high water level of the lake,
supports a quadruple-terraced pyramid. Structure I, facing west. This
pyramid has the remains of a stairway on the west slope and Is
crowned by a sanctuary consisting of a single chamber, likewise
facing west. From this commanding position an Impressive view of
the city, stretching westward in a long series of gradually descending
courts and plazas, must have been obtained In ancient times, when
the Intervening terrain was kept cleared of jungle growth.
17. The map of Yaxha shown in plate 212 i s drawn from a plane-table survey executed in April 1932 (the F i f -
teenth C.A. Expedition) by W. L. Lincoln.
- 26 -
At the foot of the stairway on the west slope of Structure I Is a cir-

cular altar (Altar 1), so cracked and weathered as to render
Indistinguishable the traces of high relief sculpture mentioned by
Maler
Flanking this pyramid are two other constructions—Structure II on the

north and a low mound on the south, both connected with the central
edifice by low heaps of debris and both In an advanced state of ruin.
West of the low mound on the south Is a small freestanding heap of
stones, designated Structure VI. The west edge of the East Acropolis
Is occupied by Structure IV, completely ruined, which has been
Identified by Morley as a "six-chambered building of the domiciliary
type " and by Maler as an "oblong palace. " The East Acropolis is
terminated on the north by Structure III, a rectangular mound with a
notched crest. Indicative either of a central passageway long since
collapsed, or an original arrangement of two distinct buildings. From
each end of this construction a small wing projects a short distance
south toward the center of the East Acropolis. Structure V occupies
the corresponding position on the south side of the East Acropolis
and Is similar In size and conformation to Structure III except that it
lacks the wing-like additions of the latter. Structures III and V are set
back slightly from the edge of the platform, and Structure IV has an
even more pronounced offset. (Morley 1938,111:456-457).
Plaza C
Teobert Maler was mainly interested in finding and photographing stelae but none-
theless he provides a valuable record of the first scientific observations of the
overall ruins of Yaxha. Previous this was available only in German, or in English.
Starting from the east, main temple, and going west for nearly a kilo-
meter, one passes Insignificant heaps of debris here and there, but
eventually arrives at a square enclosed by structures on all four sides.
I call this square The Souare of the Six Stelae.
The north side of the square Is bounded by an oblong mound of ruins,

and all that can be said of it is that the facade of the original structure
must have faced the south, on which side a few steps led to the plat-
form of the substructure. We found no stelae on the south side of this
north structure.
Opposite the north structure is a similar mound of debris of what may

be called the south structure, whose facade must naturally have
faced north. Before this north side, just In front of the few steps of
the substructure, is a still upright stela with a circular altar before it. I
have called this Stela 6.
The west side of the square is closed by a large mound of ruins,

doubtless of the west structure, with a facade facing east. The sub-
18. Maler 1908a, p. 62.
- 27 -
structure of this ruin forms a preliminary, eastern terrace to which Is

joined the oblong, main terrace, which Is surmounted by a structure
with a little flight of stairs In the middle of the east side. No stela was
found In front of this structure.
The east side of the square Is closed by the east structure, a large
temple-palace with a complicated ground-plan; Its facade and stair-
way faced the west, as a matter of course. A now ruined stairway
leads high up to the top platform, upon which, both on the right hand
and on the left, there must have once have stood a little outer temple
/templete/, while Its further hack, occupying the whole length of the
platform, stood the main temple, probably consisting of three com-
partments In a row. There are still some remnants of masonry at the
southeast corner.
Half way up to the top platform, there was a lower structure forming
a right and a left wing and a passage around to the rear of the middle
structure. On the right wing, and also on the left wing of this terrace,
there Is a heap of debris, evidently of the flanking structures which
stood there.
On the open space along the west side of this group of structures are
five stelae, 1 and 5 standing a little back, while 2, 3, and 4 are set
forward, and a large circular altar stands In front of 3. The backs and
the narrow side-faces of all these five stelae are plain. (Maler
1908:62-63).
A test excavation into the main structure (157) of Plaza C sought to ascertain if an
earlier structure comparable to E-VII-sub might be present. But after a short dis-
tance we found no remains and the excavations were stopped since mapping
needed all our personnel and budget. Both pre-Classic and Tzakol sherds were
found in the fill, as was expected.
Lincoln did well mapping Plaza C. With the Carnegie interest in carved stelae he
most likely started work here first. He even located the structure sticking off to the
west off the edge of the plaza. He also noted the addition to the front of Str. 157.
We were able to add details such as an edging to the plaza at least on the south-
west corner. This is more likely a wall rather than a set of low mounds. Otherwise
we did not find any defensive walls at Yaxha such as Houston was able to detect
at Dos Pilas. I know of no wall or moat around Yaxha but such a construction
might easily have gone unnoticed if it were outside the area mapped.
I suspect that the structures on the west, south, and east side of Plaza C were all
once vaulted. All are totally collapsed today. After 12 months working at Tikal
(1966-1967) I had plenty of experience in learning what collapsed vaulted
masonry looks like without any need to excavate anything at all.
The main east structure had walls as suggested on the site map. I did not use the
symbol for vaulted remains since that would have obscured the probable floor
plan. It would take excavation to learn much about the tiny flanking buildings
attached to the middle structure on the east.
- 28 -
We noted that the middle stela In the row of five had two altars, one of which was
missed by earlier visitors. So let us review what the Carnegie Institution expedi-
tions did note:
A short distance due south of Plaza B and southwest of the East
Acropolis lies Maler's 'Square of the Six Stelae," renamed Plaza C.
This plaza Is cut from the hillside on the north and east sides and is
terraced down in a single drop to the natural slope of the hill on the
south and west sides. This plaza Is surrounded by Structures XII, XIII,
XIV and XV, all of which face the center of the rectilinear court thus
enclosed.
The principal building facing Plaza C is Structure XIII, on the east side
of the court, in front (west) of which on the court level are five sculp-
tured monuments—Stelae 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Immediately west of
Stela 3 Is an associated altar, so weathered that all trace of whatever
carving It may have presented in former times is now illegible. Struc-
ture XIII may he classed as a compound construction in that it con-
sists of several Interrelated parts. The basic element is a platform,
roughly T-shaped and terraced midway between the base and summit
to form an intermediate level. In the middle of the west side is a
barely discernible stairway which gives access from the court level to
the Intermediate and upper platform levels of the building. On the
upper level, at the hack. Is the principal architectural element, a three-
chambered building facing the court and having Its long axis north
and south. At the northwest and southwest corners of this building
are two much smaller remains, probably of semi-detached single-
chambered buildings.
On the Intermediate level, at the north and south extremities of the

mound, are the remains of two freestanding and probably single-
chambered buildings. There are indistinct traces of a passage, behind
the higher middle section, which evidently connects the flanking ter-
races/^ ^
Structure AlV, now little more than a heap of dihris, occupies the
south side of Plaza C. In front (north) of this mound are Stela 6 and
the associated altar.
On the west side of the plaza is Structure XV, a rectangular mound

having a low platform distributed about the edge of the platform in
such manner as to enclose a central court. Structure L, occupying the
middle of the east side. Is a small pyramid, to which is appended a
low, platform-like addition on the south. On the north edge of the
19. Structure X I I I i s undoubtedly one of the triple-unit architectural assemblages found on the eastern
sides of courts and plazas in many Old Empire c i t i e s . This type of construction was f i r s t identified by Blom
at Uaxactun in 1924 (Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year book 1924, pp. 218, 219) but has since been found at a dozen
other s i t e s . . . .
- 29 -
Northeast Acropolis are fourid Structures Ll and Lll, practically Identi-

cal In size and shape and occupying the approximate middle of that
(north) side of the platform. (Morley 1938,111:459-460).
The "Hlir that turned out to be a Mava Pvramid
What shows up on Lincoln's map as a large hill, or actually just as an elevation
northwest of Plaza A, turned out to be a huge pyramid, possibly one of the three
largest at the site. I was able to detect several Insets on the corners, though was
unable to ascertain how many terraces were present. No masonry temple was ever
Initiated on top.
If this Is a burial mound It would be an outstanding place to seek the last fully
Classical Maya pottery. No one would Imagine that Terminal Classic Inhabitants of
any central Peten site would be Involved In erecting pyramids of this size. Irrespec-
tive of the considerable achievements In architecture by Terminal Classic
Inhabitants at Selbal and the capability of erecting stelae demonstrated there and
at JImbal (outside Tikal) there Is no evidence that such monumental achievements
should be expected at Terminal Classic Yaxha. Actually, no matter whether the
last of Tepeu 2 pottery or the first of Tepeu 3 pottery, a grave-lot from such a
structure would be Invaluable to fine-tune the ceramic sequence.
One reason I suspect that this structure Is 9th century (whether Tepeu 2 or Tepeu
3 could only be decided by excavation, though I suspect It would be the last of
the Tepeu 2 times; we had no plans to excavate any structure this large) is
because It Is out In the middle of nowhere, far from the center of the site, far from
the Early Classic plazas. The pyramid Is virtually alone, not part of a larger building
complex (or at least we would not find anything substantial nearby). In other
words It Is In an area of last minute expansion at Yaxha, as though there was not
time for any other structures to be added around It to create a plaza grouping. This
area of Yaxha thus offers an opportunity to see how real estate expansion took
place at a Maya site.
East Acropoll?
Lincoln did a good job of mapping the East Acropolis. He had no way of knowing
that the depressions he showed In the middle of Structures III and V were actually
the collapsed center doorways. Central doorways are wide enough, that when the
structures collapse the vault masonry falls down Into the void of the former door-
way. The rest of the vault masonry plies up on either side, since there Is a wall on
both sides of any doorway. Thus you can actually count the doorways In most col-
lapsed Maya structures, from seeing how the debris has plied up, or fallen Into a
doorway space.
We had more time and after we manicured away obstructive weeds and brush
from the acropolis we could see the structures more easily. This enabled us to
place the secondary mounds In the correct position relative to the main mounds.
We also located three structures In the northeast corner, four mounds In the
southeast corner, plus one addition to the southwest corner of the main pyramid,
Str. 216. The main temple has masonry on top but the symbol for this was
Inadvertently omitted. First, to Maler's description:
- 30-
7
Upon the levelled top of a natural elevation rises the east, main
temple, its pyramidal substructure cons/sting of three high steps or
terraces with the masonry In a partially ruined condition. On the west
side of the pyramid a flight of stairs leads to the platform on top,
where are the crumbled walls of the temple, consisting, as it seems,
of a single, small compartment with an entrance on the west. That
this temple interior had a vaulted celling Is proved by still distinguish-
able fragments of vaulting. The mortar covering of the exterior still
shows traces of red.
Below, on the approach to the pyramidal structure, just In front of the

stairway, I found a much weather-worn and cracked circular altar,
with traces of sculpture in strong relief still vis/hie on Its upper sur-
face.
To the north side of the first terrace is Joined a structure which may
have been a small outer temple, and there are also vestiges of other
minor edifices.
Southwest of the pyramid are the ruins of an oblong palace, which

once consisted of three chambers in a row, each probably with a cor-
responding compartment in the rear. One of these compartments
(with a triangular, vaulted ceiling) is still partially preserved.
{1908:62).
On the front of the acropolis we were able to work out the precise number of bot-
tom steps since we cleared this area to find the butt of Stela 1 1 . Our map shows
the stairwall that forms a wall against which Stela 11 faced. It would be interest-
ing if there were a tomb in this stair block, as was the case at Altun Ha. But our
goal was not to dig tombs at Yaxha, so we left such a discovery in the East
Acropolis to future generations of archaeologists. Our main goal was to protect
such finds from the reach of grave robbers.
A small portion of Temple 216 collapsed as a result of the earthquake, according

to reports from the guards shortly thereafter. It has long been stated that the
palaces of Xunantunich collapsed as a result of an earthquake. This is as much a
question for a geologist as an archaeologist, since earthquakes are not usually a
problem in a karst area.
The East Acropolis is certainly an important sector of the city. Temple 216 is the
most imposing structure at the site. Its general size and shape is comparable to the
great temples at Tikal and Nakum. I suspect it is also Late Classic. The view from
the top of the temple is one of the great views in Maya archaeology, today, and
probably a thousand years ago as well.
The view from the west structure is equally impressive, since the surface of Plaza
B is a considerable distance below. To an observor in Plaza B the East Acropolis
must have loomed truly as a sacred witz mountain rearing up to the gods. Not only
are the buildings tall but they sit on the highest natural elevation at the site. To
anyone paddling across Lake Yaxha, or looking from anywhere to the southwest.
- 31 -
this acropolis must have looked impressive, which, was, after all, the intent of the
original architects.
It is fair to presume that a royal burial is inside Str. 216 as well as under the smal-
ler pyramid immediately adjacent. There was so much fallen vegetation and brush
on the small temple that I never spent much time on top of 207. There is no sym-
bol for masonry on the map but that is not always a sure indication of a flat
building-less top, as sometimes I simply forgot to add the Letraset symbol. Other
times I simply never had the time to climb to the top. I do not believe that I ever
climbed up Str. LXXI, for example. I had more than enough to keep me busy map-
ping the ground plans without climbing all over the fragile structures.
Main AcroDoiis
This acropolis at Yaxha combines the features of both the South Acropolis at Tikal
with the Central Acropolis. Tikal's South Acropolis features a temple in the middle
surrounded on all four sides by palaces. The north extension of the Yaxha
acropolis (Courtyards 5 and 6) has this general arrangement (the details, of
course, differ). Yaxha Courtyards 1 through 4 are a reduced version of Tikal's
Central Acropolis.
Courtvard 1
Several of the more important buildings in the acropolis are associated with this
space. Str. 387 is a major structure. Immediately alongside on the north Is an area
that was hit by looters prior to our arrival.
Strs. 384, 3 8 5 , and 386 supported no masonry structures, a typical feature

throughout Yaxha's acropoleis. This suggests a mixture of thatch-roofed wooden-
pole structures right next to masonry structures.
Courtvard 2
This space also seems "left over," since the main building in this area, Str. 387,
shows its back to Courtyard 2. And on the south there are no major structures at
all, as 382 is a low mound of no major importance.
Courtvard 3
Since Str. 376 faces away from Courtyard 3 , as does Str. 388 on the other side,
this is what suggests that this courtyard is left over from the division of a once
larger space. As presently constituted Courtyard 3 has only Str. 380 as a major
building facing onto It, since 368 seems oriented to Courtyard 6 (even though it
probably had at least a doorway onto the south).
20. Yaxha had been hit only by a few looters, who do not seem to have been many in number, since the holes
are a l l rather small. The looting at Nakum was more systematic since there was no one guarding that s i t e and
i t was so remote i t got no tourism. Fear of being surprised by v i s i t o r s i s a main reason for looters to
avoid a s i t e .
- 32-
420
• ^42
139
142
l46 148^
NORTH
TO h: ACROPi
A 5 1 -
t 1 30'
31
117
' TO.
r ^
\
126 |gl25
D 391
MAIN
307 j-ACfiOPOLIS^
309,^^H2nP
Courtvard 4
Lincoln saw the dip in the middle of our Str. 372 and interpreted that as two sepa-
rate structures. Nowadays we recognize that such a dip is just the collapse of the
vault masonry into a wide central doorway. Another interpretation of his map is
that he drew what we numbered as 372 and 373. He would have missed 374 and
371 since they were too low to be noticed in the 1930's. Carnegie era mappers
only charted remains of monumental buildings not mere platforms.
The shape of Courtyards 3 and 4 were woefully misinterpreted on the CIW map,
not wide enough.
Courtyards 3 and 4 were once possibly open, with Str. 376 being added as
needed. There seems to be a way to walk through Str. 3 7 5 .
Courtyards 5 and 6
An altar is in front of Str. 3 6 3 . A monument of this class up in an acropolis is not
very common; monuments are usually reserved for open plazas. No trace of a stela
was seen but with all the monument moving in the 9th-10th centuries nothing is
surprising.
An indentation from the street into the acropolis side suggests a probable stairway
at that point. Otherwise entry tends to be along grand staircases leading up to the
long axis of a palace, not the ends.
Peter Harrison learned from work in Tikal's Central Acropolis that over time the
Maya closed off the courtyards in the acropolis. The same thing seems to have
taken place at Yaxha. We did not have the results from extensive excavation to be
able to see every corner and every space between all the buildings but I could still
detect many such restrictions even without excavation. You can see one potential
"guardhouse" between Strs. 365 and 368 (there was no more space to stick in a
number on the map sheet).
The Maya seem to have begun to get rather crowded in this northern extension.
Str. 362 looks secondary, an attempt to cram another palace into Courtyard 5.
Virtually every square meter of available space was taken over by buildings.
Str. 363 is interesting in its own right, with the two enigmatic extensions into
Courtyard 6. I have no idea what type of construction this represents although
they were high enough to be shown on the map as being sizeable.
PIgzg F
The Carnegie map shows area F as a regular plaza size and shape but in actuality
the proportions are totally different. The space is all in one narrow direction north
and south. There was no attempt by the Maya to create an actual plaza. For exam-
ple, neither the northern nor southern sides have structures that are evenly
situated (both are a bit too far to the west).
-33-
Lincoln suggests that his LXXI faces east. The preservation is poor but it is pos-
sible that the structure had stairways on all four sides, or, these could be center
outsets mis-read as stairways.
It is worth pointing out that both Strs. 118 and 125 seem to have stairways on
two sides, facing in both directions, sort of a commentary on the fluid situation of
this part of the site, with no formal front or back to anything.
Morley observed:
Plaza E is bounded on the west by what may be termed the rear of
Structure LXIX. This construction consists of a iong mound, very nar-
row in proportion to its length, and with a small protuberance at the
midpoint of its east face. The major axis is north and south. As there
is a weii-defined shelf running the entire length of the mound on the
west side, about midway between the base and the summit, it may
be concluded that the original construction consisted of a building
resting on and set back some distance from the western edge of a
platform and faced west. The projecting wing at the medial point on
the east side indicates the probable former existence of a sanctuary
here.
In front (west) of the western base of Structure LXiX on the east side
of Plaza F on the plaza level are located Stelae 8, 9, and 10, discov-
ered and noted by Maler.
Approximately ICQ meters due west of Structure LXiX lies Structure

LXXI, a large rectangular mound with traces of a stairway on the east
slope. Between this mound and Structure LXIX lies Plaza F, which is
closed on the south by the platform supporting Structure XLIV. The
plaza proper contains three smaller oblong mounds. Structures LXX,
LXXil and LXXiii. (Morley 1938,111:461).
Certain features of the layout of Plaza F need closer scrutiny. Is Plaza F another
example of a "Uaxactun Group E" complex? Str. 117 fulfills all the conditions for
"E-VII," namely a four-stairwayed structure at the west of the complex. The long
east platform is what would be expected on the east side, as seen best in Plaza C,
And a second question, is it also possible that the single platform supporting
Structures 119-120-121-122-123-124 is secondary, and that the original Yaxha
version of a "Group E" complex consisted of Str. 117 facing the triple temples
129, 130, and 131. After all, the stelae here are carved. The placement, or
absence, of any particular monument is not at stake here due to the considerable
moving of stelae by Terminal Classic and possibly Post Classic peoples at Yaxha.
We did not notice this possibility in the 1970's so it is not incorporated in original
project season reports nor in my 1976 and 1978 summaries, in guides to Yaxha,
but in reviewing the map in preparation towards a final report the pattern stood
out quite clearly.
But I do not know of any other Maya site that has two solstice observatory
groups, and Yaxha already has a definite representative, namely Group C. The
- 34-
specific placement of the stelae {1 through 5) in front of the east platform of that
area are what certify Group C as Yaxha's example of a solstice commemoration
complex. Yet there are the beginnings (or the remnants) of a stelae row In front of
this east structure In Plaza F. And Str. LXXI possibly had stairways on all four of
its sides. Working Independently Flaiko also recognized the potential of Group F:^^
Ruppert (1940), asumt'd que el grupo "C" de Yaxh^ reum'a carac-

terfstlcas de observatorlo, y posteriormente Hellmuth (1978) le definid
como asociado al solsticio. Tomando en consideracidn los rasgos
diagndsticos que ya se ban menclonado, resulta evidente que el com-
plejo conmemorativo de Yaxhd mds bien podrfa estar configurado en
el grupo "F", integrando los componentes de pirdmide radial truncada,
plataforma longitudinal al este, ademds de monumentos en el eje este-
oeste, sacbd de acceso y un juego de pelota en las inmediaciones
(figs. 16 y 16). Cabe Indicar que el patrdn estrucrural de los grupos E,
F de Yaxhd presents un notable paralelo con las plazas de Mundo Per-
dido y Siete Templos de Tikal. (Fiaiko 1987:148).
I agree with Fialko's assessment of Group F but would maintain Plaza C within the
classification, as Plaza C was so accepted by Ruppert. Plaza C is close-enough to
the Uaxactun arrangement, and is actually more like Uaxactun than most of the
other examples that Ruppert lists. Plaza C has sacbes entering and leaving its area;
it lacks only a nearby ballcourt to fit Fialko's expanded list of characteristics. The
ballcourt (and sacbe) features were not in Ruppert's original list of traits.
As devil's advocate, another reason I would not stress the similarity too much for
Group F is that the east side lacks the rigidly grouped set of three temples. The
basal platform Is of an acceptable size and shape, the central temple is present,
but not what is expected for the proper flanking structures. There is too much
empty space, for example. Str. 123 looks rather independent, and seems to face
east, not west. Str. 119 is rather lonely at the far end of the platform.
Yet either Yaxha assemblage, Str. 117 facing 119-124, or Str. 117 facing Strs.
129-130-131, is perfectly within the allowable limits already set by complexes
elsewhere in the Maya area. Many of the ones on Ruppert's list are no where near
as orderly as the Yaxha Plaza F arrangement. There Is also the precedence of the
Lost World Pyramid arrangement at Tikal, People always asked why Tikal was the
only site In the central Peten with no "Group E" type of arrangement. Christopher
Jones and others suggested that the Lost World Pyramid was most likely the equi-
valent to Uaxactun's E-VII and that the row of three temples were buried by Late
Classic construction (personal communications 1965 and subsequently).
Guatemalan excavations proved this conclusively (Fiaiko 1987; Laporte 1989,
especially pp. 320ff). His observations are worth quoting:
21. I t appears that a third Hayanist independently recognized the role of Yaxha Group E/F as a potential
s o l s t i c e comneffloration group, namely A. Aveni and Hartung (1985:table 3 ) . 1985 i s several years before
Fialko's conments were available. Since Aveni's paper i s an unpublished manuscript i t would not have been
readily accessible to Fiaiko or to Laporte, and i s not in their bibliography. I did not find a copy of this
Aveni paper until packing my library in Graz in 1992. A l l c i t e the F.L.A.A.R. map.
- 35 -
Fiaiko (1987, 1988) llevd a cabo una revlsidn de su propuesta original

de 1985 sobre la condicidn de Mundo Perdido como el complejo con-
memorativo de Tikal....
Actualmente es posible especificar otros elementos integrativos que
pueden resultar utiles para el diagndstico e Identificacldn de los Com-
plejos de Conmemoracldn Astrondmlca, ademds de los conslderados
por Ruppert (1940):
a) La estructura piramidal que define la posicidn Oeste del complejo
suele ser truncada y de planta radial, aunque pueden haber variantes
a ello a medida que se conozcan otros casos. El ascenso a los tres
templos sustenados sobre una plataforma longitudinal comun suele
estar circunscrito a la escalinata del tempio central, asi como cada
cual puede tener Indiferentemente su propia escalinata.
b) Un aspecto de la importancia del patrdn simdtrico de estos com-

plejos, asi como el uso de ejes normativos es la ubicacidn de estelas
generalmente asociadas al eje Este-Oeste, es deck entre la pirdmide y
el tempio central; aslmismo la existencia de plataformas bajas de
planta radial d altares.
c) El acceso a los complejos usualmente se verified desde el sector

noreste mediante un Sacbd.
d) Es frecuente encontrar juegos de pelota junto a este tipo de com-
plejos, como en los casos de Nakum, Ixkun y Tikal, entre otros.
{Fiaiko 1987:148; Laporte 1989:322).
Str. 123 had an interesting ground plan, not presented on the map. Although the
map carries the symbol of a masonry superstructure there is. In fact, no vault. The
walls are too thin. The map does not distinguish between walls that supported
vaults and thinner walls, as here. It should be possible to map the actual rooms of
this palace but the vegetation was too thick in the 1970's.
It seems that the astronomical commemoration group at Santa Rosa Xtampak

(South Plaza) has not been spotted, In part because the site had not been mapped
in 1940, the publication date of his original report. The Xtampak map is by
Bralnerd, Roys and Ruppert (Pollock 1970:fig. 56), The first person that I know of
who recognized the Xtampak example is William Folan, reported by Hellmuth ( * ).
The Santa Rosa stelae are in the expected position In front of a row of three
temples on the east. The structure on the west, though, does not appear to be
square or to have stairways on all four sides. Such a variation from the Peten pat-
tern is hardly surprising considering that Santa Rosa Xtampak is all the way north
to the Chenes-Puuc border area. The major structures in the Xtampak complex are
actually on the north, though without excavation there is no way of knowing
whether these giant pyramids are a later revision. What counts is the set of three
structures on the east with stelae In front of them. It is worth pointing out that the
sole ballcourt at the site is just outside the complex, thus satisfying Fialko's
qualification "d." Santa Rosa Xtampak is not well enough mapped to know
-3fe-
whether there is a sacbe leading to the complex, as predicted by Fialko's qualifica-

tion " c . "
Pseudo Twin Pvramid Complex in Plaza F
Lincoln's Strs. LXXI! and LXXIII are actually part of a mini-group that has a few of
the characteristics of a Twin Pyramid Complex: there are two approximately
square structures facing each other; the east structure has a row of three stelae in
front of it, just as in a Twin Pyramid group (though there are more stelae in the lat-
ter, the layout is the same).
But here the similarity ends, since there is no stela enclosure, and the south palace
is here on the north. There is likewise no evidence that Strs. 126 and 127 have
stairways on all four sides.
Looting had occurred in these structures.
Plaza G
Plaza G is bordered by the West Acropolis on the north, by Str. 117 on the east,
Str. 116 on the left. There is no actual structure marking the south end. The site
sort of ends in this direction with a diagonal drop off. The area south of here was
never even entered, not cleared, not mapped—our teams and budget were more
than kept busy with the rest of this immense site. Yaxha is one of the five largest
Maya cities in all Guatemala, exceeded definitely only by Tikal and El Mirador.
I would need to see the maps of El Zotz and Nakbe to check on their relative size.
I have never been to Rio Azul but I doubt if that site has as many acropoleis and
extensive monumental structures as does Yaxha. Many sites dribble off endlessly
across the landscape, such as Caracol, Belize, but the index of measurement for
Yaxha is monumental concentration. Nakum is a tiny site but has one of the
highest indexes of construction concentration in the Maya area, equal to any major
Maya site ten times its size if measured by house mound spread. Selbal covers a
considerable extent but lacks the monumentality of central Peten sites. I doubt it
has the square-meterage of construction. Thus Yaxha has the potential of being
the third largest site in Peten; at least, the fifth largest.
Structure 116 is aligned askew to the rest of the site. The layout of the pyramid is
interesting. There seem to be two main terraces, then a flat space. The stair must
be inset at this stage (I am writing this entirely from memory since field notes and
other records were destroyed in the Guatemala earthquake 17 years ago—in other
words, from memory twenty years old! We salvaged the map since a copy was
sent to the USA). The next terrace may be considered a high building platform or
the third terrace to the pyramid, since one would expect a pyramid to have an odd
number of terraces (namely three, not two). The lack of a map symbol for masonry
suggests there was a building platform (shown) but no remains of walls or even
wall stubs.
Off to one side of the plaza is a long narrow diagonal depression. Another com-
parable depression runs from ballcourt Str. 396.
- 37 -
NOETH A C E O P O L I S
LIX • y\
LXII
X
LXIII
LXIV ^
I
|:=<l 1 ^
NOETHEAST ACEOPOLIS
LXVIII LXVII
1 ^ 1 ^
UI t.
ux
•I
PLAZA E
LXXII
PLAZA D
LXXIII XLVI
XLl
XXXVN
XLIV
MklH
sACttOPH
xxxm xxxw
T TO
We can compare notes with the Carnegie:

The west boundary of Plaza G is formed by Structure LXXIX, which Is
a fairly large mound, oblong in ground plan and oriented north and
south. West of this construction the terrain drops off sharply to form
an arroyo which extends southward to the lake shore. Plaza G Is ter-
raced down to the natural slope of the hillside on the south and west.
Structure LXXIX is half on the plaza level and half on the natural
ground level, which Is some distance below that of the plaza at the
back or west. This mound is connected with the West Acropolis on
the north by a steep, curved terrace. No monuments were found
associated with Plaza G. (Morley 1938,111:461).
Plaza E
Plazas E, F, and G are each so thin that from the map it appears that originally this
might have been one giant open space, probably with E and F one continuous
plaza, with Str. 124 being added later. This is only a hypothesis since no excava-
tion was initiated in this area.
Morley records for Plaza E:

A short distance southwest of the Northeast Acropolis, and due north
of Structure XLV, is Structure XLVI, a large, rectangular mound, the
major axis of which runs north and south. This construction, together
with Structure XL V, closes Plaza D on the west. Structure XL VI also
forms a part of the east boundary of the adjoining Plaza E.
North and slightly west of Structure XLVI lie the connected Structures
LXV and LXVI. These remains consist of a single mound, oriented
north and south, the crest of which is so deeply notched in the middle
as to indicate the probable existence in former times of two separate
buildings on a common platform. The size of the remains would
seemingly indicate single-chambered buildings. At the western base
and in front of these two buildings, on the east side of Plaza E are
Stelae Al, A2 and A3, arranged in a staggered formation. Stela A3 is
located in front of the approximate center of the mound and has a cir-
cular altar behind It (between the stela and Structures LXV and LXVI).
Stela A2 Is a short distance to the north and slightly east of Stela A3.
It has an altar in front (west) of it. Stela Al is also set back toward
the mound but has no corresponding altar. The fact that Stela A3 is
located approximately on the transverse axis of the mound, while the
other two stelae are found north of It, seems to indicate an original
Intention of flanking Stela A3 with two other monuments to the south
of It, thereby balancing Stelae A 1 and A2. However, no traces of
such stelae or altars, other than those mentioned above, were found
here.
Plaza E is bounded on the north by the North Acropolis, which,

except for a small notch in the southeast corner, is practically rec-
tangular. The major axis Is east and west. From the southeast corner
- 38 -
NORTH W E S T
ACROPOLIS
119 NORTHEAST
132 ACROPOLIS
30* 131 ^
•S6 !7 31- no
.1 . 67
. i J . . . -Q 183M
.CO
xn.7
12$
I'l'in
Mr p.
0.0
MAIN 3gr398
y\eFiopoLis?i
a low causeway, already mentioned, extends southward to Join the

Northeast Acropolis. {ibid.:460).
Northeagt Acropolig
Morley records:
From the northwest corner of the Northeast Acropolis a very low
causeway runs northward to Join the North Acropolis. On the west
side of the Northeast Acropolis are Structures LIU and LIV. The former
forms a right angle with the adjacent platform edge and projects
slightly Into the enclosed court. There is a somewhat lower mound
projecting from Structure LIU toward the north, the whole forming an
L'Shaped construction. Structure LIV, directly south of Structure LIU,
Is a rectangular mound with a well-marked notch in the middle of the
crest. This mound was possibly either a moderate size, single-
chambered building with a passageway through the middle, or two
separate and smaller buildings. The collapse of the masonry in either
case would account for the saddleback profile.
Structure LV dominates the south side of the Northeast Acropolis.

This structure is composed of three distinct units. The largest units
has its long axis north and south, and from it, parallel to the south
edge of the platform, a somewhat lower mound extends westward.
This addition in turn steps down to a still lower appendage on the
west side, which Is a continuation of the structure as a whole. Struc-
ture LVI, now little more than a low pile of debris more reminiscent of
a platform than of a building, occupies the remaining space on the
south side of the Northeast Acropolis. Structures LV and LVI are set
back a slight distance from the southern edge of the main platform.
No monuments were found connected with this complex, (ibid.: 460).
Actually the Northeast Acropolis offers the city planner a fascinating diversity of
structural types. First, here are two good examples of "open corner courtyard
groups," at the northeast and southeast corners. Another example would be in the
northeast corner of the Northwest Acropolis and the southeast corner of the East
Acropolis. Such groups consist of low mounds of which the majority do not sup-
port masonry superstructures or even masonry walls. Normally we associate an
acropolis with large vaulted structures, and housemounds with outlying sustaining
areas. This settlement pattern is a result of modern mapping tradition rather than
actual living patterns of the ancient Maya. Quite simply, few mappers have dedi-
cated their projects to finding such low mounds.
The NE Acropolis is dominated by Str. 50, the lone pyramidal temple type struc-
ture (with no evidence of a masonry superstructure noted). Str, 55 is possibly a
multi-story palace. Str. 54 must have been a fascinating building. Without excava-
tion I could not tell whether it had a giant center doorway or was two smaller
vaulted structures. One reason the plan of the NE Acropolis is so thorough is that I
spent more time here than in any other acropolis. I had the ground weeded and
raked so it was possible to see every rise and fall of the elevation—and hence
-39-
NORTH W E S T
ACROPOLIS
300 'r;-
307
&Lml MAIN
,,V\CFidp6LIS?l
NORTH E A S T
ACROPOLIS
every visible house mound was spotted and placed on the map. If you compare
the F.L.A.A.R. map of the NE Acropolis with that of the Carnegie Institution you
can see how the goals and efforts of the two projects differed, and how these dif-
ferences resulted In a satlsfylngly complete map of Yaxha.
North(westl Acrooolls
To avoid confusion with Tikal's North Acropolis I took the liberty of renaming this
the Northwest Acropolis. It is worth analyzing Morley's observations:
The dominant feature of the North Acropolis is Structure UX, located
at the rear, or north, edge of the platform. The ground plan resembles
a flattened T. As this mound is o f more or less uniform height from
end to end, there is no reason to believe that it had been a building of
block-like plan, having two flanking wings, rather than a multi-level
construction.
Unfortunately, this particular part of the map Is the most Inaccurate of the entire
Carnegie production. This Is not a T-shaped structure, and Is not flattened and
never had any wings. Str. 142 Is precisely what Morley dismissed, namely a multi-
level construction. In today's terms this would be a terraced pyramid. Indeed the
pyramid was, still in 1972, well enough preserved to detect the Insets, outsets and
at least some of the major terrace levels on the west side.
On top the totally collapsed remains of a masonry temple (most likely once
vaulted) was set back a substantial distance on the pyramid top.
Strs. 146 and 147 were arranged In such a position that I wondered whether they
might be a ballcourt (the Carnegie map did not Include Str. 146 at all). But I could
find no sloping terrace and ballcourts are not likely to be up on top of an acropolis
In a central Peten site. The only ballcourt In the Peten core area that Is In such a
setting Is on the Tikal model found by Guatemalan archaeologists. The definite
ballcourt In this area Is out on the plaza floor, outside the acropolis, Strs. 132 and
133. The Carnegie map has LXVIII far too far away to the west.
With the exception of Structures LViii and LX at the northern corners,

the remaining structures, LXi, LXII, LXIV and LVii, located as they are
about the rim of the platform, enclose a central court. The center of
this court is occupied by a small pyramidal heap of debris. Structure
LXiii.
The Carnegie map shows a structure In the middle of the courtyard, Str. LXIII. This
is a misplacement, as Str. 135 actually Is along the front of the acropolis, albeit
set back a meter or so, but nowhere near the middle.
There are no monuments within the confines of the North Acropolis

proper, but at the base of the southern slope of the platform, and
located about midway between the east and west ends, is a fallen
stela. This is probably Maler's Stela 7.22 (ibid.:460-461).
22. Maler 1908a. pp. 67, 68.

kkk*il<mfi
mkmm;
NORTH W E S T
ACROPOLIS
42O
f
/IT-
in
i!4TO
137
TO
119 NORTHEAST
132 ACROPOLIS
,7S7-,
8
5(3:' M j
30'
•1 120 31 ! 50
"1 ,67
183
,*=a
KD2
12a l'|iiii
D
3^
m TO
' 30si;
N 307 ',v yxcfiopoLiSTi
,1 n- CI
NORTH W E S T
ACROPOLIS
^r^:o^
NORTH W E S T
ACROPOLIS
_Y'_V VfTO
TO—-- 7 TO 1 / - - -
/ / r /TOl .
The remaining fragments of Stela 7 are Incomplete. I suspect this Is another exam-
ple of Post Classic stela displacement.
Maler Group
Lincoln's map does not show the Maler Group at all and there Is no evidence that
he even knew It existed. I believe It was Felipe Lanza that discovered this group; I
thought It was a totally new discovery since It was not on the Carnegie map, but
one of our workers had worked with Bullard and said that Bullard had known of
this group. Later we learned that It was Maler that had known of It first, since he
even describes and Illustrates the stelae, 8, 9, and 10.
First to Maler's record.

Continuing in a westerly direction, we soon reached a monumental
square, not far from the large group of cuyos, which 1 named The
Square of the Three Stelae, it had formerly been enclosed by struc-
tures on three sides—east, west, and north—and was open on the
south.
The square is bounded on the north by a large, low heap of debris;

the facade of the former structure faced the south. [This Is our Str.
3.]
The west side is closed by a higher heap of ruins, probably of a

temple with pyramidal substructure having a facade and stairway
facing the east. Adjacent to the left wing of this structure is a small
mound. [Maler did a better job of mapping than modern
archaeologists of the Carnegie era.]
The east side is occupied by a large, iong mound; its former facade,
and probably also the stairway, faced the west. Behind the ruins of
this structure is another smaller mound, and on the left flank, but a
little to the rear, stands a large high cuyo. the remains, no doubt, of a
large pyramidal temple, whose facade and stairway must have faced
the west.
in front of the oblong structure on the east of the square, stood the
three stelae, Nos. 8, 9, 10. Stelae 8 and 10 are set back a little, and
Stela 9, with a large circular altar, is somewhat advanced, (p. 68).
The Square of the Three Stelae forms the west end of Yaxh^, and at
the rear of the west structure the land slopes down to a deep ravine
running transversely. " (p. 69).
It Is possible that ruins continue to the north, since there Is what looks like a yja or
beginning of a sacbe going out to the north. Construction also continues to the
west. We decided to do a thorough job of the portions of the site we knew rather
than wandering around the entire Peten searching for house mounds, as such
mounds would continue endlessly until a seasonal swamp was reached. Such
- 41 -
ly
AA
DC Q-
LUD
-lO
< DC
MALER
G ROUP
settlement pattern survey is important but it would also be nice to have some site
centers thoroughly mapped. Too many site centers are mapped only superficially.
Virtually every site that the Carnegie mapped has had to be re-mapped; look at
Calakmul which had to be remapped by Folan's team In the 1980's. Coba was so
incompletely covered by the Carnegie that two other projects mapped the site. Yet
Ian Graham found all three maps so incomplete that in 1991 he returned to Coba
and mapped the site center himself, alone.
For the Yaxha map it would be helpful if another project could add contour interval
lines, and map the periphery, but there is no need for anyone to waste time
remapping the site center of Yaxha.
West Group
Attention was drawn to the West Group because Lincoln's map showed a mound
right in the center of the interior courtyard. At Tikal two such courtyard center
structures turned out to have tablero-talud facades in a local adaption of ultimately
Teotihuacan-influenced style (keeping in mind that the upper member was known
more for XochicaIco and El Tajin and not for Teotihuacan or Kaminaljuyu}.
Morley named this area the West Acropolis but the area was nowhere near large
enough to warrant the rank of acropolis so we renamed it the West Group.
West of Structure LXXI Is Plaza G, the northern boundary of which is
the West Acropolis, the smallest of the five known acropoleis of
Yaxha. On a platform very nearly square are symmetrically distributed
five mounds. Structures LXXIV, LXXV, LXXVI, LXXVII and LXXVIII.
Structure LXXIV, which resembles Structure LXIX on a much reduced
scale. Is set well back from the front or south edge of the platform.
Directly north of the central wing of this construct/on lies a small,
squatty pyramid. Structure LXVIII, in the center of the court of the
West Acropolis. Structure LXXVI, a very low rectangular mound,
occupies the north edge of the platform. The east and west sides of
the West Acropolis are occupied by Structures LXXV and LXXVII
respectively. (Morley 1938,111: 461).
Three buildings in the West Group were tested and recorded by Miguel Orrego.
The West Group measures 45 by 55 by 2 m high and supported over 11 struc-
tures crowded sometimes two deep around the edges. Much of the interior court-
yard was filled with tow mounds. In the center was a 2 m high mound of approxi-
mately squarish shape, which had low platforms issuing from its west and south
sides. Excavation revealed that this central mound had a sloping talud. The facing
masonry above the talud was completely uprooted and it was not possible to
determine whether there had ever been any kind of tablero or other Teotihuacan or
XochicaIco class of upper talud or molding.
In my National Science Foundation proposal I had stated specifically that we would

excavate this particular courtyard center structure. Thus, on our very first day in
May 1970, Richard Weller and I thrashed our way through the dense vegetation to
find this group. When we got to the West Group we found a gaping trench in Str.
100 to the north, an ugly pit deep into Str. 103 on the east, and a fresh pile of
- 42 -
I
71
backdirt thrown all over the structure we had come 8,000 kilometers to study. It
had rained the night before, but the backdirt was still dusty with no fallen leaves
on it. Looters had been at work that very morning of the day we arrived. They had
found a beautiful little vaulted tomb chamber beneath the center of this mound.
It seems that Peten grave robbers never take anything but the jade and the whole
pottery vessels. The backdirt pile was littered with fragments of broken burial
offerings which testified to the once richness of the tomb. One Tepeu cylinder ves-
sel had a stylized "half-starfish" design similar to that on the tablero-talud facade
of Tikal Str. 5D-43. The now lost contents of this tomb could have told us so
much about local Yaxha use of Teotihuacan motifs. The tomb offerings now prob-
ably adorn some collectors mantlepiece where the owners are unaware or uncaring
about the destruction which went into their procural. The loss of scientific
archaeological information and the desecration of the tomb is out of sight and out
of mind. Readers today in the 1990's should realize that In 1970 there was, at
most, a faint clamor about the Illicit trade in looted stelae, but in 1970 there was
no one else at all to speak out against the open trade in stolen pottery.23 Our only
consolation was that from this day on we did everything we could to protect
Yaxha from looters. We also lobbied against the looting of pottery, and even pub-
lished editorials suggesting this sort of looting be stopped [Katunob, 1972, for
example).
The other two structures excavated in the West Group had a variety of what at
Tikal might be Tzakol-slzed masonry of small, variously sized stones. The problem
is that Late Classic temples at Tikal also employed small stones—but they had
squared corners. Palaces in Tikal's Central Acropolis with small stones, slightly
irregular or slightly rounded, tended to be Early Classic. Yet these Yaxha struc-
tures were occupied right into the end of Classic times. Manos, metates, ash, gar-
bage, and numerous Modeled-Carved pot fragments littered the courtyard
immediately in front of the two buildings with benches. Fragments of modeled-
carved pottery was found in the few excavations elsewhere at Yaxha except in the
largely ceremonial plaza C. Since this was all surface finds there were no complete
vessels.
Ballcourts at Yaxha
Two ballcourts were easy to spot within the main area of Yaxha. Our map never
extended out Into the sustaining area. The outer areas were mapped in test strips
by Don and Prudence Rice In a separate project afterwards.
One ballcourt was tucked Into a corner near the Main Acropolis. The courts at
Copan, Quirigua, and Tikal, among others, are in approximately comparable loca-
23. Rafael Morales, Vivian Morales, and the Asociacion Tikal, plus naturally Ian Graham and Clemency Cog-
gins, were the main leaders in the battle against stelae looting in the 1970's. Although they were concerned
about any and a l l looting of any a r t i f a c t , in point of fact, they were so busy combating stelae looting that
they had no time to focus on looting of pottery. Unfortunately the outcry against looted pottery was not
successful until Ian Graham heard about looting of Rio Azul and then National Geographic published the
photographs. R. E. U. Adams publicity over Rio Azul f i n a l l y brought home the damage done by grave rob-
bers-since by the 1980's there were not enough stelae left to s t e a l . So attempting to raise consciousness
against grave robbers in 1970 needs to be put in i t s actual historical perspective.
- 43 -
a
tions relative to a main palace acropolis. One side mound has a stairway on its
"back." In a recent monograph on the Maya ballgames I propose that such a stair-
way actually formed the "front" of the structure. This main Yaxha ballcourt also
has probably shared a stairway leading up to the Main Acropolis. This would have
served as an end zone stairway.
It was not always as easy as it is today to recognize ballcourts. 19th century and
early 20th century mappers did not yet know what telltale structural remains pin-
pointed a ballcourt. With our experience today you can figure out which mounds
formed a ballcourt even without needing any excavation to confirm this assess-
ment. But earlier this x-ray vision was not possible: About midway between the
North Acropolis and Structure LXVI lie two small mounds. Structures LXVII and
LXVIII. These mounds, oblong In plan, have no distinctive features. (Morley
1938,111:461). Indeed it is precisely the distinctive features (the slope towards the
alley) that allows recognizing such structural pairs as definite courts.
The second ballcourt is In a relatively empty zone in the middle-west of the site. I
did not detect any stairways but In 1970 no one suspected that courts should
have stairs alongside one or both main mounds plus stairways in an end zone.
- 44-
Chapter *
MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE F.L.A.A.R. MAPPING AT YAXHA:
1 . THE DISCOVERY POSSIBLE STREETS AT A MAYA SITE
As early as the first season (1970), 1 had begun to notice a wholly unexpected
pattern of urban layout throughout the center of Yaxha. Avenue-like pedestrian
ways created an almost grid-like arrangement in certain sectors of the site.
Altogether six streets were found by the F.L.A.A.R. mapping project. Their align-
ment and intersection with each other at right angles stood out all the more since
streets are best known for far away Teotihuacan begging the question of whether
such streets at Yaxha represent a form of Teotihuacan influence on the urban
layout of a Maya site.
A full figure "imitation Teotihuacan" TIaloc warrior on Yaxha Stela 11 already

demonstrated that the Yaxha elite were familiar with some aspects of Teotihuacan
civilization, irrespective of however diffuse, filtered, or second hand this influence
may have been. Archaeologists are now faced with the question of whether the
six streets and the unusually high density of structures at Yaxha represented local
attempts to emulate what they conceived as Teotihuacan concepts of city plan-
ning.
Street-like pedestrian ways had not (in the 1970's) previously been recognized at
any other Classic Period Maya site of the Southern Lowlands. Streets are,
however, characteristic of the Highland site of Teotihuacan. Tablero-talud struc-
tures at Tikal and Kaminaljuyu have demonstrated contact between these two dis-
tant cultures, though the dates, duration, and nature of the cultural interchange
remains unresolved especially after the finds at Tikal of superimposed tablero-talud
structures by Laporte and co-workers. Their team made available considerable data
not known in the 1970's.
Until excavation reveals that the Yaxha streets date to the Early Classic, or that
the structures facing the streets feature talud-tablero facades, my interim conclu-
sion is that Yaxha's site-core settlement pattern may not be as unique as it seems.
If other lowland Maya sites were as thoroughly mapped as Yaxha they a more
urban-like density of buildings might turn up at other large Maya sites also. And
there Is no reason that streets should be restricted solely to Yaxha.
Until better maps are available of other comparably large Maya sites though,
certain sectors of Yaxha do demonstrate a gridded, rectangular layout that
certainly warrants closer attention. This report has been prepared so that the cur-
rent generation of students and colleagues, especially in Mexico and Guatemala
(the areas most likely to have Yaxha-comparable layouts) can test sites they have
access to. It is worth remembering that Yaxha had been totally mapped by the
Carnegie Institution of Washington, a formidible research Institute with decades of
field experience, manned by experienced personnel, and with an enviable budget.
- 45 -
Yet not one street, not one avenue, and not even the two main sacbes were
apparent until the F.L.A.A.R. Yaxha Project of 1970-1971.2*
Mapping in 1971 revealed four new streets or avenues to add to the two found in
1970. There are at least two other pedestrian ways elsewhere which might he
considered serviceways if not actually streets. The discovery of the four vias was
all the more exciting because they all occurred together In one zone of the site
faced by several rectangular compounds filled with low mounds.
This crowded zone was In the middle of the site and had been overlooked by Lin-
coln In 1932 (he filled the space with symbolic contour lines). Not even Project
personnel entered this area during the 1970 season because of the barriers pre-
sented by the unusually dense, low, scrubby, thorny jungle cover. Several work-
men spent most of the season first hacking trails and survey brechas into this area
and then clearing the mounds of the obscuring blanket of tropical vegetation. By
the end of the season three of the vias and facing structures were 8 0 % clear of
the low brush (tall trees were always left standing in order not to scar the
landscape, in order to provide shade to retard weed growth, and to save the time
and expense of felling, chopping, and burning). The western ends of Vias 1 and 2
at Plaza D had not yet been completely bushed, and therefore they remained
incompletely mapped. Hence, the uncertainties in the table as to the maximum
length.
Three of the vias go perfectly east-west and most have 90° angle Intersections
with at least one other street. The intersections, with buildings on the sides of the
streets, are striking and they lack only traffic lights to make them look city-like. In
the Via 1-to-4 zone of the site there are no large monumental structures. Instead
there are about 35 mounds averaging 1.3 m in height grouped rectangularly along
the avenue or often facing closed corner courtyards. There are no stelae or altars,
and, judging from the collapse profiles, few If any vaulted buildings. Below are the
measurements of the Yaxha ways. The names are field code names and may be
superseded on the final map.
Via 1 , "Divided Avenue" 170 (maybe 220) m long E-W,

27 m wide, excluding north parapet.
Via 2, "Central Street" 135 (probably 185) m long E-W,
8 m wide.
Via 3 , "Cross Avenue" 48 m long N-S, 15 m wide.
Via 4, "Stepped Avenue" 225 m long W-E (and short segment N-S)
average width 21 m.
Via 5, "Lake Avenue" 176 m long N-S,
from 12 to 26 m wide.
24. The main discoveries of mapping were those years; subsequent seasons were dedicated mainly to turning
the s i t e map into a three-dimensional picture of the ancient city.
- 46-
30-^ • \[oY M
^ MAIN
^« U
397^3981
307 ^^CFiOPOLISTl \
JJb 'KW^JHTO- '' P«-?:ftt=ft^^
I A K E ~YA X H A
Via 6, "South Street

II
217 m long W-E (and short segment N-S),
14 m wide.
Blom Sacbe 335 m long N-S,

varies from 36 to 39 m wide Including
parapets
Lincoln Sacbe 245 m long SE-NW, 35 m wide including

south parapet.
Lake Sacbe 220 m long N-S, from 16.6 to 18.3 m

wide including parapets.
Galindo Sacbe 67 m long N-S, 30 m wide.

Lake Sacbe, Lake Avenue, and the causeway northward to the Maler Group are all
in a straight line with one another. Lake Avenue is separated from the south end
of Blom Sacbe only by the long eminence supporting Structures 119 to 124.
Together the three ways form a monumental north-south axis almost one kilometer
long. It would, though, be worth pointing out the many differences with
Teotihuacan's Street of the Dead, Yaxha was certainly not a Peten version of
Teotihuacan. Whatever was even a local Interpretation of Teotihuacan was set
admist an otherwise thoroughly traditional local Maya settlement pattern. Indeed
the tendency towards avenues and vias can be seen at other sites such as at La
Hondradez, etc.
Although there are no stelae alongside Vias 1 , 2, 3 , 4, or 6, there is a strange low

stone monument (A) in the center of Via 5 near Its north end. This position is
hardly coincidental—near the end and at the center of a major artery. Several
stelae and altars are located about where Via 1 ends. Stela 12 and possibly
another monument are at the west end of Lincoln Sacbe.
On the south side of the Twin Pyramid Complex (Plaza A), between the complex
and the East Acropolis, there is a 15 m wide, 115 m long east-west passageway
which is somewhat street-like, but it might be more traditional to consider this a
simple space left over between two acropoleis, obviously left there to provide
space for movement of people. After all, Yaxha was inhabited by thousands of
people and on festive days additional thousands must have come in from the
sustaining area. In the 1970's this space was too heavily overgrown and buried by
tons of collapse from the monumental edifices of the East Acropolis to be able to
determine whether there were any stairways from the via up on to any structures
along its sides.
This east-west passageway has a 90° intersection at its east end with another
possible street which runs along part of the east edge of Plaza A. The east edge of
this second way is a bedrock outcrop which looks as though it were cut specially
to make a straight-sided edge for a street. Mapping did not extend any further past
this edge of the main site.
Considering the nature of Maya research there will likely be critique as to whether
"street" or "avenue" is a justifiable term of description for a feature of 8th century
- 47 -
Maya culture. Are they more than just open or vacant spaces between building
groups? It Is fairly easy to demonstrate that these streets (I use the word "avenue"
to mean a wide street) are distinct both from causeways, empty spaces between
acropolises, or long narrow plazas. The differences are particularly apparent when
one is actually walking along them at Yaxha—probably more so than walking your
eyes along the map in the library back home.
I have prepared a slightly more detailed analysis of these features, which follows.
A Peten causeway (sacbe, "white way") is essentially a wide raised way usually
more even-surfaced than the surrounding terrain. Sacbes are generally over 10 m
wide. Parapets are a frequent but not universal characteristic. A causeway usually
joins two or more building groups which are relatively distant from one another
and thus runs at whatever angle Is required to join the two groups efficiently.
Although there may be structures or building groups along the way, the sacbe
usually traverses rough, broken, generally empty terrain, often up and down steep
slopes without stairways, though stairways may be present when necessary (at
Nakum, for example; Hellmuth 1978: *).
In distinction, a via is usually oriented to the buildings in the vicinity, namely

north-south or east-west. A via is generally not raised above the building surface
on both sides at once and is a flat or stepped paved construction at the same or
lower elevation as the structures along it. A via Is faced along much or all of its
length by structures or raised compounds and may have 90° intersections with
other vias. Although It looks like Via 4 has some causeway-like characteristics
(long parapets rather than facing buildings) It Is easy to distingish visually, espe-
cially on the ground when you are actually walking along It.
Lake Avenue ends quite pointedly at the edge of a steep dropoff, partially blocked
by a small mound. Lake Sacbe starts at this point with a totally distinct construc-
tional arrangement having all the usual characteristics of a sacbe. This distinction
will be more noticeable in the three-dimensional drawings than in a typical two-
dimensional map.
Blom Sacbe
In the middle of the sacbe's length Is a crossing of some sort, with a break In the
parapets on both sides. We did not have a large enough crew to check the sur-
rounding area. Causeways tend to cross areas that are relatively "empty," but at
about the middle of its length some form of construction runs off to the west. This
area to the east of the sacbe, north of the NW Acropolis, was not mapped.
Building Area N
A space such as "N" on the Yaxha map is not really a plaza and not yet an
acropolis. "Group" N might be the best way to classify this without tripping on any
ethnocentric misidentification.
The Carnegie mapping effort petered out at what they interpreted as the edges of
the site. Once they ran out of large vaulted structures they evidently did not pur-
sue any meaningful search for low mounds. Morley, the boss, was waiting eagerly
- 48 -
back at Chichen Itza. His instructions to Lincoln were most likely to be sure that
no carved monuments remained undiscovered, though in fact Lincoln's map did
miss quite a number of plain stelae In Plaza B.
Lincoln did fine on outlining the overall area of Group N, especially how the edge
of plazas G and F meets the edge of Group N. He also shows the slope, especially
in the northeast corner. He located two structures but probably simply gave up on
the rest of the area. His Str. XLIV must be Str. 309, as It was large enough to
have collapsed vaulted masonry. But the structure he runs to the north Is even
larger on his scale, and there Is no such high structure, other than 307, which
comes no where near touching 309. Lincoln told us that he actually drew the map
back at camp—In Chichen Itza. We did our map directly in the field, not merely at
Yaxha per se but actually In the same plaza. We could check the physical place-
ment on the paper with the physical placement on the ground in front of us.
Vaulted structures were not common alongside the street system and Group N Is
no exception. Only one of the approximately 10 structures was vaulted, 1 0 % . It Is
hard to know whether "Str. 300" Is a single platform or several which adjoin each
other.
Might there be other Vias or Sacbes at Yaxha?
Morley records "From the northwest corner of the Northeast Acropolis a very low
causeway runs northward to join the North Acropolis." (1938,111:460). This shows
up on the Carnegie map as a low mound, not as a walkway bordered by parapets.
Perhaps It Is a sacbe with no parapets, or the slumped remains of a defensive wall
to block access to Plaza E. For it to be a causeway It should be expected to con-
nect with a stairway up to the North Acropolis at one end and the Northeast
Acropolis at Its other end. The Lincoln map shows a notch at the corner at which
might Indicate an Inset stairway but this Is not present on the FLAAR map. This
corner should be re-checked, since presumably Lincoln noticed something Irregular
here. We also need to see whether an Inset might be noticed which might have
provided access to the NE Acropolis.
Otherwise, I doubt If any vias or causeways remain undetected within the main
concentration of ruins. It would take aerial photography to detect whether any
sacbe runs in the direction of Nakum. Since we did no mapping outside the Yaxha
site core or the Nakum site core we have no way of knowing whether any sacbe
transects the areas outside, though nothing has been noted In the literature.
What I have always noted from the air when flying between Yaxha and Nakum Is a
large, perfectly rectangular treeless blemish on the landscape. You can see It on all
aerial photographs and still today from the air. I have wondered whether this was
some form of Maya water storage system though I cannot understand why no
vegetation whatsoever grows In It after all these years. It is not an abandoned
milpa since no one at all lives out in these areas, and the same square area has
been without vegetation for the last several decades. Neither sinkholes nor water
holes are perfectly rectangular.
- 49 -
ACROPOLIS
07 105 104
/•
%
l O TOT" Ti? i
I TO /\ \
126 (g)25
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
ON ANCIENT MAYA OCCUPATION IN THE LAKE YAXHA AREA
FLINT DEPOSITS
On the east end beach of Lake Yaxha (at the water level of 1970) there are thou-
sands of naturally occurring chert nodules on the exposed surface. Littering the
same 100 long by 20 m wide beach are thousands of chips and discarded cores.
Richard Weller was able to ascertain that there was evidence of human work-
manship on the chert. This area would be worthwhile to record in the future for
anyone who wished to study a chert workshop area in the heart of the Peten.
UNDERWATER SURVEY
Our planned program of underwater search for offerings of pottery was frustrated
when the air freight company lost our hookah air compressor and hoses. Project
divers with Scuba outfits were able to work only 3 afternoons and reported mainly
thick silt and sherds. Lon Mericle, Milwaukee Public Museum, who had done
underwater archaeology at the cenote of Chinkultic, showed that whereas there
were sherds on the lake bottom up to over 100 m out from the shore (as of 1970)
in water then 15 m deep there were no complete pots left. Mericle was able to
find evidence that the lake level was once at least 12 feet lower than at present.
From the dead trees on shore, higher than the present beach, we could ascertain
that the water had risen at least 2 m higher long enough to kill trees, but that the
water level had been low long enough for such trees to grow. On the basis of
these measurements, admittedly eyeball measurements, I estimate the total rise
and fall of the lake level at a surprising 6 meters. Teobert Maler also talks about
the rise and fall of the lake level at Yaxha. Of course since he had no way to see
underwater 4 meters he could not add this dimension to his observation:
/ must not omit to mention the fact that the waters of the double
lake, Yaxhd-Sdcnab, and apparently of all the lakes In the Department
of Peten, have risen considerably during the last century. This is true
to so great an extent that the first cabins of Yaxhd, built in their day
at a certain distance from the shore, now stand in the water to the
depth of one meter, even in the dry season. It is difficult to say why
these waters have thus risen.... But the fact should be emphasized
that with Yaxh^ it is not a diffeence of a few centimeters only, but
during the last twenty-five years the waters have risen at least one
meter, while those of the great Lake of Peten-ltza have risen twenty-
five centimeters or more in the same time. (Maler 1908:72).
Enrique Salazar, a hobby diver of Guatemala City, reported to Nicholas Hellmuth

that he had found whole incense burners in several diving trips to Lake Yaxha
several years ago. Surface collections by Richard Weller along the present beach
turned up a fragment of a spiked incense burner and three thick fragments of other
incensario types including two sherds with appliqu6 designs. We had hoped, based
on Salazar's reports, to find in Lake Yaxha, Teotihuacan type incense burners
similar to those found in Lake Amatitlan, 10 km from Guatemala City. Our problem
- 50-
was that Lake Yaxha covers over 8 kilometers, is over 1 km wide, and we do not
know where Salazar was diving. Unfortunately we do not have photographs of
what he found since he was at Yaxha years before we got there, so do not know
whether they are Teotihuacan style or Maya style. Lake Yaxha is still there, wait-
ing for future divers to have better equipment. With SCUBA you can cruise along
and cover considerable territory. This is what Salazar must of had. We were equip-
ped only with a Hookah, with hoses running to the diver. The pump had to be on a
raft or canoes tied together. The divers could not move away from the raft more
than a few feet. In other words, they were more or less immobile, so could search
only a few square meters.
Limited Excavation of Sacbe End at the Lake
The long, steep, paved sacbe from the main ceremonial center downhill to the lake
beach was a focus of clearing, exploration, and limited excavation along the sur-
face. Neither of the two mapping teams had time to map accurately the causeway
down the hill nor any portion of the steep zone between the main ruins on the hill
and the lake shore. But from a single causeway centerline of stakes, Don Weir
made a quick sketch map of the causeway. This work recorded what had been
noted the 1970 season, that the sacbe varied somewhat in width between 18.30
and 16.6 m (including both side parapets). Also, in the 220 m north-south run of
the sacbe there are several noticeable changes in angle.
Several days of light excavation by Daniel Shreeve on the west parapet uncovered
the preserved bottom course of the parapet facing masonry but excavation did not
go deep enough to determine how many earlier construction stages existed on the
causeway proper. We would have been interested in knowning when the
causeway had first been built and whether there had been any later additions.
The steep downhill slope of the causeway ends at a 27 m lower elevation near the
beach, opening out to a flat platform 21.6 north-south, 4 1 . 0 m east-west. From
the south edge of this platform to the water's edge is 17 more of teraced con-
struction. This is shown on the main site map. Excavations here reveled that the
whole area was artifically raised above natural beach level and built into great
sloping terraces each 1 . m high. When this was erected, the water level must have
been lower than it is at present, for today the south end of the southernmost ter-
race is 5.25 m out in water which is now about 4 meters deep.
Originally we had hoped there might be a chance that ceremonial offerings, espe-
cially incensarios, would have been thrown into the lake from the edge of the
causeway and platform. We found, however, that the platform end and terraced
extension of the causeway went way out into the lake with the result that the
place to look for objects is now under 12 feet of water and 1 foot deep of gook,
mud, and silt on the bottom of the lake. Under the supervision of Donald Weir,
Paul Saffo III and Daniel Shreeve, assisted during porions of the season by C.
Burton Alber, Richard Lussky, and Clemence Overall, spent time diving when
weather allowed. They were hampered by a tempermental twin Hookah with an
uncooperative engine and no reserve air tank. No suction equipment nor blowing
equipment was available to get rid of the muddy overburden covering the bottom
of the lake. Underwater exploration was limited in duration and restricted to a
maximum depth of 45 feet. Sherds were uncovered, mostly from plain ware ves-
- 51 -
sels, probably water vessels dropped during filling process. Thick silt not only hid
everything else but this silt made underwater vision virtually zero. It took up to an
hour for the silt to settle down after being stirred up.
Yet Enrique Salazar stated he found whole incensarios, though this may have been
off Topoxte Island, which was several kilometers away. Salazar had no way of
knowing where the sacbe from Yaxha ended in the lake because this sacbe had
not yet been discovered whenever he did his diving (we know only it was most
likely sometime in the 1960's). Sherds on the beach of Lake Yaxha told us that
such incensarios were somewhere, but the lake covers many square kilometers,
and divers tied to a Hookah system of air can cover only a square meter at a time.
We recommend that additional teams of divers consider a project to survey the
entire lake bottom, but with better equipment.
The best chance is probably off the islands, since there is no spare land on these
islands to dump garbage, so all the middens will probably be in the adjacent lake,
laden with accumulated artifactual refuse of over 1500 years. This was too far
away from our camp for our divers to reach.
Chultuns cut by FYDEP Access Road to Lake Yaxha
Since every hilltop In the entire Peten has ruins on it it is not surprising that the
FYDEP access road from the Flores-Melchor de Mencos highway cut straight
through a ruin cluster about 2 km south of Lake Yaxha. This particular mound
cluster had several chultuns associated with it. Miguel Orrego recorded the con-
siderable section exposed by the road cut and found the remains of a burial in one
of the chultuns. The walls of the burial were laid out in a round ground plan. The
chultun had been sealed by construction fill and several platform floors, but had
been looted prior to this by the ancient Maya, since no complete skeleton or even
whole offerings were located. A ^ o d sample of pre-Classic rim sherds were
secured from these excavations.^ Pre-classic sherds were also abundant in Strs.
157 and 156 of Plaza C.
25. These, and other sherds from Yaxha were analyzed by Prudence Rice.
- 52-
Recording the Stelae of Yaxha

It was originally the intention of Don Rice (Pennsylvania State University at that
time) to prepare a doctoral dissertation on the stelae of Yaxha, especially the
mutilation and resetting of Early Classic monuments and other local abnormalities.
With his wife Prudence he supervised the excavation of Stelae 5, 6, 12, 18, 19,
22, 2 3 , 24, 30, 3 1 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 34, and 39 and associated altars. Their excavations
revealed a previously unknown buried stela (39), a partially destroyed but beauti-
fully carved Early Classic altar (13) which was buried by later Maya construction,
and a fragment of carved Stela 34. The only stela cache to date (under stela 30)
was found to contain three flint chips, 1331 obsidian chips, 14 eccentric, and 13
eccentric flints.
Yaxha Stela A-3 (now renumbered 31), reported as plain by all early explorers, in
fact has two exposed sides carved with large glyphs. Miguel Orrego felt that there
was carving on the side facing the earth. When we turned this stela over we
found that the face was carved in a beautifully ornate Late Classic design. Ian
Graham subsequently made an accurate line drawing of this monument.
During the mapping operations, Miguel Orrego found several in situ stumps of
stelae. We do not yet know whether their tops have crumbled due to weathering
or whether they were set up as incomplete monuments (as Stelae 1 and 5 evi-
dently were). Elsewhere Orrego found several piles of fragments of carved stelae
which were seemingly broken up by the Maya, not by recent looters. All of these
monument remains are on the surface and none have yet been excavated.
An additional discovery was a small stela located a 20 minute walk east of Yaxha,
which was found by two workmen while they were hunting. This small monument
stands in front of an approximately 1.5 m high mound far enough away from
Yaxha proper to warrant giving the mound and stela another site name. There are
heaps of stone nearby which also could be remains of monuments. Superficially,
the standing monument seems similar in size to some of the Topoxte stelae. None
of these finds was excavated due to their distance from Yaxha.
Nioht Photooraohv of the Stelae at Yaxha

During the 1970 and 1971 seasons Stelae 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 1 1 , 13, 3 1 , 34,
37, and Altar 13 were photographed at night with side lighting powered by two
small electric generators. Joya Hairs and Ian Graham both kindly gave me Initial
suggestions on how such photography should proceed, but unfortunately we did
not have the necessary equipment. In the meantime at least we have a general
overview of the monuments, but all the Yaxha stelae need to be re-photographed
with modern equipment.
Our two problems were attempting to use cheap round aluminum reflectors and
having the too much light. We should have used rectangular light fixtures (such as
Lowell Tota-lights) and more of them, at least three on one side, one on the other
side. And the lights should have been held further way and better balanced to
avoid overexposure from hotspots. It is a credit to photographer David Bindig
(BCC) that any image at all is visible on the resultant enlargement. Actually the
- 53 -
stelae are all terribly eroded and most of the monuments are incomplete, as noted
by Maler a century ago. Nowadays It is traditional to do the epigraphy of the
monuments but there were no such epigraphers available for field work in 1970.
And the majority of the stelae were too eroded. Only when Ian Graham's drawings
are finished would it be possible to attempt to decipher the few texts at Yaxha. In
the meantime John Justeson figured out the Yaxha emblem glyph.
Prior to our arrival at Yaxha Ian Graham had previously made an inked line drawing
of Stela 13 and kindly spent several days at Yaxha in 1971 making a drawing of
the ornate front of Stela 3 1 .
Merle Greene Robertson had earlier spent several days at Yaxha making rubbings
of Stelae 6, 1 1 , 13, and 31 for her book on Maya stelae as pictured in rubbings.
Carved Bedrock Outcrop

Carlos Lanza, one of the Guatemalan workmen, discovered carvings on a bedrock
outcrop about 200 m SE of Plaza C in an area well outside the main ceremonial
center. He found them while cutting poles for the camp construction.
The carvings, chiseled about 1 cm deep, 2 cm wide, cover some 3 x 4 meters of

sloping bedrock with several mazes of curvilinear meanders and scrolls, with only
a few rectilinear forms. There were no glyphs or anthropomorphic designs
immediately apparent,. Although the Yaxha designs are somewhat similar to some
"pictographs on stucco-covered terrace at Tayasal" illustrated by Lundell (C.I.W.
Pub, 4 3 6 , 1934:pl. 5) it has been impossible to guess at even an approximately
stylistic date due to the lack of enough comparable carvings elsewhere in the
Maya area. For example, there Is nothing at Planchon de las Figuras which is really
the same because these Chiapas carvings are all fully Classic and picture standard
Maya motifs. Roberto Bruce has records of pictographs in the Lacandon area of
Chiapas but I do not know if they were ever all fully published. It is worth noting
that all of these pictographs are near bodies of water.
We feel that the Yaxha pictographs may pre-date the Long Count date of 9.3.?.?.?
on Stela 6. A 60 cm portion of the front base of Stela 6 (in Plaza C) is carved in a
similar technique and style as the bedrock carvings, a manner noticeably distinct
from the traditional Early Classic Maya designs on Stela 6 itself. It appears that the
lower fifth of the Stela 6 stone was quarried from where it protruded into an
already-carved bedrock outcrop. Or else the Tzakol scene on Stela 6 is secondary
to the designs on an earlier stela shaft. In any event the curvilinear carving
towards.the base of Stela 6 is earlier than 9 . 3 . Towards the base of the Tzakol
scene the Tzakol carving overlaps the still remaining earlier carving.
In order to photograph the rock outcrop it was necessary to erect a platform high
up in a tree but it was so shaky that a tripod was not usable.
- 54-
The Reality of Working at Yaxha

Today (1992) Yaxha looks somewhat like Club Med. It has one of the nicest
IDAEH camps in all Guatemala, overlooking the picturesque Lake Yaxha. But in
1970 it was a different picture, indeed in that year we never penetrated the area
of the current camp due to the thorny lakeshore growth. It was not until a FYDEP
bulldozer put a road into this area a year or so after our first season that we could
move In and establish our second camp. For our first season we lived up on the
hill. In order to be close to the site so as to better protect it from looters.
The N.S.F. grant paid for only direct research expenses and not for living costs, so
the six volunteer students and the director alike had to make do with inadequate
and unsafe housing, which is to say no floors, no walls, no screening, and no
furniture. Poisonous snakes, vampire bats, scorpions, tarantulas, and other jungle
fauna slitered, crept, flew, and marched right through our dwellings whenever
they wished. Two people were stung by scorpions and a workman was bitten by a
deadly fer-de-lance pit viper while clearing a sight line for mapping (fortunately we
were able to administer anti-venin and he lived). The luxurient vegetation covering
the site was so thick that people were continually getting lost just walking from
the camp to their work area, only a few hundred meters away. Tropical diseases
temporarily felled students and workmen alike.
The rude "road" to the far shore of the lake stopped three kilometers short of the
ruins and camp. All supplies, equipment, and bodies, had to be transported across
the lake in dugout canoes and then hauled up steep hills or else carried by land on
men's backs around the lake over rough, craggy, and sometimes swampy jungle
terrain. Unnecessarily slow and inadequate logistic help from my by then former
academic afiiiation made an already difficult field situation even more trying.
26. Due to the lack of support from Brown University I resigned ny position as graduate student. I did not
return to graduate school to finish my Ph.D. for over 10 years.
- 55 -
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Tepeu 3 sherds were found virtually everywhere we did surface collections and
equally often In the few places we test-excavated. I would estimate that Yaxha
had an intensive and thorough occupation during Tepeu 3 , to the degree that any
future project that wished to obtain additional information on the last days of
Maya civilization in the Peten heartland, that, after JImbal, Yaxha would be an
excellent place to do further excavation due to its lakeside environment.
It would also be worth seeing whether Tepeu 3 sherds were as common on the
three islands as on the mainland.
As an Iconographer what I found particularly interesting was the many different
scene types on the Pabellon^^ Modeled Carved sherds found at Yaxha. Since
these are mold-made they tend to repeat, that is, scenes found at Uaxactun may
also be no different than those found at Seibal. But there are regional differences,
for example, comparable Tepeu 3 material from San Jose, Belize (Thompson •; on
exhibit In the Field Museum, Chicago).
The iconography of Stela 11 is something that I know how to handle and the main
contribution of the ' 7 0 ' s excavation was the discovery of the legs and feet of the
general. The night-photography revealed the non-Peten form of spearpoint plus the
points in the headdress, missed by all field sketches and rubbing as well. Although
all pictures of art from Teotihuacan that include atlati dart points have this special
wide butt, I am not familiar with any earlier iconographic or artifactual study that
has singled this shape out as diagnostic of Teotihuacan. Because, once this has
now been done, it offers a quantative means of measuring international contacts in
Peten. Green obsidian is the best, because that can come only from a volcano
other than the normal Maya sources locally in Guatemala. A Teotihuacan spear
point can be locally made, but nonetheless, even when so, the shape is reflective
of a local act to emulate a specific foreign cultural trait. I would hope that a
geologist could distinguish between stone imported from outside Peten and a point
made form local chert.
The drawing of Yaxha Stela 11 (in a separate volume) represent a contribution to

the national archives of the art history of Peten.
The rock carvings that were found near our original field camp are potentially the
largest such example of what must have once been widespread throughout Peten.
These unusual carvings deserve more attention in the art historical literature,
which, understandably, treat primarily classical Maya art.
Structure 90 was found to have stone pillars which once were bases for probable
wooden poles to support a wooden structure. The closest model for its floor plan
is at Chichen Itza.
27. A ceramic analysis i s needed to ascertain Mhether these are imports or local copies. I use "Pabellon
modeled carved** as a generic term, not intended to indicate sherds that have been so tested.
- 56-
Probably the two accomplishments about which we can be most proud is that we
saved the entire north side of Lake Yaxha and Lake Sacnab for a Parque Nacional,
and we saved the ruins of Yaxha from grave robbers. If the F.L.A.A.R. crew had
not guarded Yaxha for five years and then had a camp available to turn over to
IDAEH, it is possible that Yaxha, like Nakum, would have been abandoned to
grave robbers and would have suffered the fate of El Zotz and Rio Azul. We must
remember that in 1970 there was virtually no interest in these sites by any other
archaeologist. Access was difficult, there was no paved road part way, no fancy
airport at Santa Elena. We had to do the best we could with scarce resources and
limited time, but we raised money from the Asociacion Tikal and were able to post
guards at Yaxha for the rainy season when we could not work there. In return for
the cooperation we received from Guatemala in the 1970's we were willing to
make the financial sacrifices necessary to protect Yaxha until the level of aware-
ness rose to the point where it could be included in the IDAEH system of guard-
ians.
- 57 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON YAXHA
A V E N I , Anthony and H . HARTUNG

1986 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E & similar Assemblages: An Archaeoastronomical
Reconsideration. Paper read at the "Second Oxford International Conference
on Archaeoastronomy, Merida, Yucatan, Jan. 1985. Typewritten ms.
B L O M , Frans
1929 Preliminary report on the John Geddings Gray Memorial Expedition,
Dept. of Middle American Research, Tulane University, New Orleans.
B U L L A R D , William R . , J r .
1960a Maya settlement pattern in northeastern Peten, Guatemala. American
Antiquity. Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 355-372.
1960b Archaeological Investigation of the Maya Ruins of Topoxte, Guatemala.

In Year Book 1960 pp. 551-554. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
1969 (two page letter and one page map of Yaxha, to Hellmuth)
1970 Topoxte: a Postclassic Maya Site in Peten, Guatemala. Papers of the

Peabody Museum. Vol. 61, No. I l l , Harvard University, Cambridge.
C A R N E G I E INSTITUTION O F WASHINGTON
1915 C.I.W. Yearbook, 1915. Washington, D . C .
1933 C.I.W. Yearbook, 1933. Washington, D . C .
GALINDO, Juan
1832 Memoire de M. Galindo... adresse a M. le secretaire de la Societe de
Geographic de Paris. Bulletin de la Societe de Geographic. Tomo 18,
No. 114, pp. 198-214. Paris.
1834 A short Account of some Antiquities discovered in the District of Peten,

in Central America, in a leter from Lieutenant-Colonel Juan Galindo,
Governor of Peten, addressed to NICHOLAS C A R L I S L E , Esq.... Archaeologia:
or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Vol. X X V , pp. 570-571.
Society of Antiquaries of London.
G R A H A M , Ian
1963 Juan Galindo, Enthusiast. Estudios de Cultura Maya. Vol. Ill, pp. 11-36.
UNAM, Mexico City.
1969 (field sketch of Yaxha Stela 11 and inked line drawing of Yaxha Stela 13,
plus personal communications).
H E L L M U T H , Nicholas
1978b Tikal Copan. Foundation for Latin American Anthropological
Research, St.Louis.
-58-
L I N C O L N , William
1932a Map of Yaxha. The original map as drawn by Lincoln has different stelae
numbers than used by Morley for the published 1937 version of this map.
1932b Appendix C , Report for the Carnegie Institution Year Book 1931-32,
The Yaxha Expedition. 5 typed, double-spaced pages and reduction of
1932a map.
1932c Appendix B, Expense Account, expedition to Yaxha, Peten, Guatemala...

2 pages typewritten mss.
1932d Untitled, typed version of personal diary, 4 pages, numbered 182-185.
1932e Untitled, personal account, handwritten, 50 pages.
1932f Untitled, notes for official expense account, and other notes, 30
pages, handwritten.
1937 Map of Yaxha, Plate 212 IN The Inscriptions of Peten. S. G. Morley,

C.I.W. Pub, 437, v o l . V, Part 2. Same as 1932a except for the numeration
of the monuments.
L U N D E L L , Cyrus L .
1934 Ruins of Polol and other archaeological Discoveries in the Department of
Peten, Guatemala. Contributions to American Archaeology Vol. I I , No. 8.
C.I.W. Pub. 436, Washington, D . C .
M A L E R , Teobert
1908 Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala and adjacent Region:
Topoxte; Yaxha... Memoirs of the Peabody Museum. Vol. IV, No. 2, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
M O R L E Y , Sylvanus Griswold
1937- The Inscriptions of Peten. 5 vols. C.I.W. Pub. 437, Washington, D . C .
1938
R U P P E R T , Karl
1940 A special Assemblage of Maya Structures. In The Maya and their Neighbors
pp. 222-231. D. Appleton-Century.
V I L L A G U T I E R R E S O T O - M A Y E R , Juan de
1933 Historia de la conquista de la provincia de El Itza... Biblioteca
"Goathemala." Vol. I X , Sociedad de Geografia e Historia, Vol. I X ,
Guatemala City.
W I L L E Y , Gordon and William R . B U L L A R D , J r .

1965 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians. Vol. 2 (G. R. Willey, ed.). Univ. of Texas
Press, Austin.
-59-
What is F.L.A.A.R.?
The Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research was founded under
the laws of the State of Rhode Island twenty-three years ago. F.L.A.A.R. is
registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a non-profit research institute dedi-
cated to educational programs related to pre-Columbian Mesoamerlca.
F.L.A.A.R. is especially interested in tropical flora and fauna and the necessity of
preserving the environment, hence our five year struggle to have the Yaxha area
declared a Parque Nacional.
As is evident from the illustrations accompanying this report the Foundation also
focuses on architecture. Since most archaeologists study sherds, or flint, or settle-
ment patterns, the analysis of architecture has been neglected.
An advantage of the study of Maya architecture is that this offers the opportunity
to increase public awareness of the need to preserve the archaeological sites,
since it is the temples and pyramids which suffer the most from the damages
caused by grave robbers. Through architecture it is also possible to awaken an
interest in Maya civilization especially by means of three-dimensional drawings.
Traditional site maps are an important contribution to science but are not always
understandable to people who have not spent months at the site. A three-
dimensional drawing aids the reader in understanding the Importance of buildings
in ancient culture. In this sense architecture is the window through which we can
look upon the achievements of Maya civilization.
B R E V A R D COMMUNITY C O L L E G E
Maxwell C . King, President
BOARD O F TRUSTEES
Bernard W. Simpkins, Chairperson
Patrick F. Healy, Vice Chairperson
John Henry Jones
Rachel C . Moehle
Frank E . Williams
Brevard Communiti; College is an equal

opportunity/equal access institution.

Nicolas Hellmuth Yaxha

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nicolas Hellmuth Yaxha

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A REPORT FOR IDAEH

FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Dr. Nicholas M. Hellmuth

Research Associate, Dept. of Anthropology, Washington University

Visiting Professor, Institute for Latin American Studies,

1519 Clearlake Road

FOUNDATION FOR LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Yaxha was first brought to the attention of archaeologists by Teobert Maler in

Since practically complete ignorance prevails in Europe and in the

The Site of Yaxha

Yaxha's site center consists of approximately 500 structures covering several

1. A complete r e p o r t has been p r e p a r e d on Yaxha S t e l a 11 a s a s e p a r a t e volume. T h i s i s the o n l y s t e l a a t the

2. C h i c l e r o s c o l l e c t the sap of the c h i c o zapote t r e e f o r c h i c l e , chewing gum. X a t e r o s c o l l e c t the l e a v e s of

Sacnab. Thus, in 1974, we turned over to IDAEH, a complete camp including a

Whv Select Yaxha?

Since 1965, I had been interested in Teotihuacan influence on the Southern

As is typical of any archaeology research program, once we actually got in the

The Seasons of Research

The Situation that we found at Yaxha in 1970

Naturally we had the Carnegie Institution of Washington map with us when we

From Yaxha's Temple 216 on the east there is an unwavering concentration of

On one of the following days, therefore, we rowed to that spot on the

larger groups of cuyos. We fastened the cayuco and entered the

During the week consumed in the examination of these mounds we

The ruins of Yaxha are located at approximately latitude 17 degrees

'Passado el Rio, camlnaron como ocho, u dlez leguas, y dieron en

he secured the notes and photographs published In his report entitled

The personnel of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania-New

W. L. Lincoln, of the Fifteenth C.A. Expedition (green dash Itinerary in

The name Yaxha Is a contracted form of the Maya word yaaxha.

8. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year book 1915, p. 345.

9. Blom 1929, p. 17.

10. idem 1928, p. 95

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Southwest of Plaza G, on the far or west side of the arroyo. is a small

During bushing and subsequent mapping operations, I concentrated on finding low

Tikal, mapped largely by professional surveyors. Is one of the most accurately

overlooked (personal communication, 1970's). An example of this comes from

Mapping by Miggel Orrego

General Considerations in Mappina Yaxha

Fig. 2 Y a x h a , t h e West Group.

. « E a ' .-: "--.l^TCLJiA-Tj 'k=>

g r i d /.:.-NTOi- . cv A', -ry. -=A- line

\nzv 1970, 1 9 7 1 , Map o f Y a x h a

Mapping in Three-Dimensional Persoective

Lincoln's 1932 Mao of Yaxha

Overall View of the Site

Discovery of Twin Pvramid Complex

[ ; ' ''• A'j'k 'L}- '-c^Ai00i

Comparison between Carnegie Map and FLAAR Mao of Plaza A

after studying the remains of Plaza A, accepted it as an example of a Twin

Morley's observations of Plaza A are limited:

Immediately adjacent to the East Acropolis, and north of it, lies

The Giant Stone on the edge of Plaza A

Pseudo Twin Pvramid Complex in Plaza F

The pillars were of interest to me as an architect because of their rarity in Maya

Four Mounds on North Side of Plaza B

Other Aspects of Plaza B

Plaza B, 80 m wide north-south, 90 m long east-west, has a 30 cm high, 2 x 2 m

Additions to the C.I.W. Mao of Plaza B

Below, on the approach to the pyramidal structure, just in front of the

Southwest of the pyramid are the ruins of an oblong palace, which

Morley seems to have recognized how to distinguish between "doorway collapse