Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research

James Brady; Wendy Layco

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

| Peer-Reviewed

Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research

James Brady, Wendy Layco

Published in International Journal of Archaeology (Volume 6, Issue 1)

Received: 1 August 2018 Accepted: 15 August 2018 Published: 21 September 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The function of chultuns, man-made subterranean chambers, in the southern Maya lowlands has been debated for over a century, with food storage being the most widely accepted proposal. Experimental archaeology shows, however, that none of the major Maya subsistence crops can be stored in chultuns because of their high humidity. Maya archaeology is currently at an impasse, espousing a storage function that is refuted by the data. Cave archaeology, with its intimate knowledge of subterranean space, has a decidedly different view. Ethnohistorical sources and ethnography document the fact that holes, even those dug for mining, are seen by the Maya as being caves, so one should expect chultuns to have had a religious function. Furthermore, in actual practice, there is considerable overlap between chultuns and caves, with a number of chultuns being identified as natural caves exhibiting an artificial entrance carved into them. Additionally, a number of chultuns are large enough that they could be classified as man-made caves. Religious functions have been repeatedly overlooked because of archaeologists’ insistence on a utilitarian function and further exacerbated by ignorance of Maya religion and ritual. It is shown that many chultuns have cosmological alignments, being placed along center lines or centered under structures or plazas. In proposing that chultuns functioned as sites of household ritual, considerable evidence is mustered to support an explanation that is more in accord with a realistic anthropological view of the Maya. The implications for sacred landscapes are profound in that thousands of sacred landmarks would be added to every site.

Published in	International Journal of Archaeology (Volume 6, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
Page(s)	46-55
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Cave, Chultun, Maya, Religion, Ritual, Sacred Landscape

References

[1]	A. M. Tozzer (1913). A preliminary study of the prehistoric ruins of Nakum, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. V No. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University.
[2]	A. L. Smith (1950). Uaxactun, Guatemala: excavations of 1931-1937. Publication 588. Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
[3]	D. E. Puleston (1965). The chultuns of Tikal. Expedition 7 (3), 24-39.
[4]	D. E. Puleston (1971). An experimental approach to the function of classic Maya chultuns. American Antiquity 36, 322-335.
[5]	C. H. Miksicek, K. J. Elsesser, I. A. Wuebber, K. O. Bruhns and N. Hammond (1981). Rethinking ramon: a comment on Reina and Hill's lowland Maya subsistence. American Antiquity 46, 916-919.
[6]	C. D. White, P. F. Healy and H. P. Schwarcz (1993). Intensive agriculture, social status, and Maya diet at Pacbitun, Belize. Journal of Anthropological Research 49 (4), 347-375.
[7]	J. G. D. Clark. Folk-culture and the study of European prehistory, in Aspects of archaeology in Britain and beyond, W. F. Grimes (ed.). London: H. W. Edwards, 1951. Pp. 49-65.
[8]	J. E. Thompson (1959). The role of caves in Maya culture. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde im Hamburg 25, 122-129.
[9]	J. E. Brady (1997). Settlement configuration and cosmology: the role of caves at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist 99 (3), 602-618.
[10]	R. Reina. The law of the saints: a Pokomam pueblo and its community culture. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
[11]	B. de Sahagún. General history of the things of New Spain, book 11: earthly things, C. E. Dibble & A. J. O. Anderson (translators). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1963.
[12]	J. E. Brady. An investigation of Maya ritual cave use with special reference to Naj Tunich, Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Archaeology Program, Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 1989.
[13]	D. E. Arnold (1971). Ethnominerology of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics. American Antiquity 36, 20-40.
[14]	A. M. Scott. Communicating with the sacred earthscape: an ethnoarchaeological investigation of Kaqchikel Maya ceremonies in highland Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Latin American Studies. Austin: The University of Texas, 2009.
[15]	J. E. Brady (1991). Caves and cosmovision at Utatlan. California Anthropologist XVIII (1), 1-10.
[16]	J. E. Brady and G. Veni (1992). Man-made and pseudo-karst caves: the implications of sub-surface geologic features within Maya centers. Geoarchaeology 7 (2), 149-167.
[17]	J. E. Brady. La importancia de las cuevas artificiales para el entendimiento de los espacios sagrados en Mesoamérica, in Espacios Mayas: usos, representaciones, creencias, A. Breton, A. M. Becquelin and M. H. Ruz (eds.). Mexico: Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Centre D'Étudies Mexicaines et Centraméricaines, 2003. (pp. 143-160).
[18]	J. E. Brady (2004). Constructed landscapes: exploring the meaning and significance of recent discoveries of artificial caves. Ketzalcalli 1, 2-17.
[19]	W. A. Haviland. Excavations in small residential groups at Tikal: Group 4F-1 and 4F-2. Tikal Report No. 19. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
[20]	Z. Calderón and B. Hermes. Chultunes en los alrededores de la laguna Yaxha, Petén, in XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2004, J. P. Laporte, B. Arroyo & H. Mejía (eds.), Guatemala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, 2005. (pp. 111-130).
[21]	B. Hermes Cifuentes (1993). La secuencia ceramica de Topoxte; Un informe preliminar. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie 13, 221-252.
[22]	G. R. Aylesworth. Chultuns: burials, refuse, sour wine, and rotten food. In J. J. Awe (Ed.) Belize archaeological reconnaissance project, progress report of the 1992 field season, 1993. Peterborough: Trent University. (pp. 78–96).
[23]	A. L. Smith (1929). Report of A. Ledyard Smith on the map of environs of Uaxactun. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book 28, 325-327.
[24]	O. G. Ricketson, Jr. and E. B. Ricketson, Uaxactun, Guatemala: Group E - 1926-1931. Publication 477. Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1937.
[25]	E. M. King and L. C. Shaw. A heterarchical approach to site variability: the Maax Na Archaeology Project, in Heterarchy, political economy, and the ancient Maya: the Three Rivers Region of the east-central Yucatan Peninsula, V. L. Scarborough, F. Valdez, Jr., & N. Dunning (eds.). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2003. (pp. 52–63).
[26]	E. M. King, J. E. Brady, L. C. Shaw, A. B. Cobb, C. L. Kieffer, M. L. Brennan and C. L. Harris (2012). Small caves and sacred geography: a case study from the prehispanic Maya site of Maax Na, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 23 (4), 611–628.
[27]	D. Boremanse. Hach Winik: the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, Southern Mexico. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Monograph 11, Albany: The University at Albany, 1998.
[28]	R. Wilson. Maya resurgence in Guatemala: Q’eqchi’ experience. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1995.
[29]	C. Cagnato (2017). Underground pits [chultunes] in the southern Maya lowlands: excavation results from classic period Maya sites in Northwestern Petén. Ancient Mesoamerica 28 (1), 75-94.
[30]	E. Z. Vogt and D. Stuart. Some notes on ritual caves among the ancient and modern Maya, in In the maw of the earth monster: studies of Mesoamerican ritual cave use, J. E. Brady & K. M. Prufer (eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005. (pp. 155-185).
[31]	A. Ford (1991). Problems with evaluation of population from settlement data: examination of ancient Maya residential patterns in the Tikal–Yaxha intersite area. Estudios de Cultura Maya 18, 157–186.
[32]	A. M. Tozzer. A Comparative Study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Report of the Fellow in American Archaeology. New York: Archaeological Institute of America, 1907.
[33]	T. W. F. Gann. The Maya Indians of southern Yucatan and northern British Honduras. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology No. 64; Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1918.
[34]	J. E. S. Thompson. Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970.
[35]	B. H. Dahlin and W. J. Litzinger (1986) Old bottle, new wine: the function of chultuns in the Maya lowlands. American Antiquity 51, 721-736.
[36]	Wisdom, C.. The Supernatural World and Curing, in Heritage of conquest: the ethnology of Middle America, S. Tax (ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952. (pp. 119-141).
[37]	A. M. Tozzer. Landa’s relación de las cosas de Yucatán. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1941.
[38]	A. Villa Rojas. Los elegidos de dios: etnografía de los Mayas de Quintana Roo. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 1962.
[39]	A. Barrera Vásquez. The ceremony of tsikul t'an ti' yuntsiloob at Balankanche, in Balankanche, throne of the tiger priest, appendix, by E. W. Andrews, IV. Publication 32. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, 1970. (pp. 72-780).
[40]	P. Carot. Arqueología de las cuevas del norte de Alta Verapaz. Cuadernos de Estudios Guatemaltecos 1, Mexico: Centre D'Études Mexicaines et Centraméricaines, 1989.
[41]	D. Boremanse. The faith of the real people: the Lacandon of the Chiapas rain forest, in South and Meso-American native spirituality, G. H. Gossen and M. León-Portilla, (eds.), New York: Crossroads Publishing Company, 1993. (pp. 325-351).
[42]	C. T. Morehart. Ancient Maya ritual cave utilization: a paleoethnobotanical perspective. M. S. Thesis, Department of Anthropology. Tallahassee: Florida State University, 2002.
[43]	C. T. Morehart. Food, fire, and fragrance: a paleoethnobotanical perspective on classic Maya cave rituals. BAR International Series 2186. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011.
[44]	J. E. Brady (1995). A reassessment of the chronology and function of Gordon's Cave #3, Copan, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 6, 29-38.
[45]	J. E. Brady, G. A. Ware, B. Luke, A. Cobb, J. Fogarty and B. Shade (1997). Preclassic cave utilization near Cobanerita, San Benito, Peten. Mexicon XIX (5), 91-96.
[46]	K. M. Prufer; and P. S. Dunham (2009). A shaman's burial from an early classic cave in the Maya Mountains of Belize, Central America. World Archaeology 41, 295 – 320.
[47]	R. J. Sharer and D. W. Sedat. Archaeological investigations in the northern Maya highlands, Guatemala: interaction and the development of Maya civilization. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1987.
[48]	L. J. Lucero. Agricultural intensification, water, and political power in the southern Maya lowlands. In Agricultural strategies, J. Marcus and C. Stanish, (eds.), Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, (2006). (pp. 281–305).
[49]	G. Strömsvik. Substela caches and stela foundations at Copan and Quirigua. Contributions to American Anthropology and History 37. Publication 528, Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, (1941).
[50]	D. Freidel, L. Schele, and J. Parker. Maya cosmos: three thousand years on the shaman’s path. New York: William Morrow and Company, (1993).
[51]	C. Robin, (2002). Outside of houses: the practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2 (2), 245-268.
[52]	Valdés, J. A. (1997). Tamarindito: archaeology and regional politics in the Petexbatun region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8 (2), 321-335.
[53]	J. E. Thompson (1931). Archaeological investigations in the Southern Cayo District, British Honduras. Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History. Anthropological Series 17 (3), 217-221, 223-362.
[54]	W. R. Coe. Excavations in the great plaza, north terrace and north acropolis of Tikal. Tikal Report No. 14, Vol. 3. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1990.
[55]	J. E. Brady and W. Ashmore. Mountains, caves, water: ideational landscapes of the ancient Maya, in Archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives, W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. (pp. 124-145).
[56]	A. J. García-Zambrano. Early colonial evidence of pre-Columbian rituals of foundation, in Seventh Palenque round table, 1989, M. G. Robertson and V. Field (eds.). San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, 1994. (pp. 217-227).
[57]	D. Heyden (1973). Un Chicomostoc en Teotihuacan La cueva bajo la Pirámide del Sol. Boletín del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Época II, No. 6, 3-18.
[58]	D. Heyden (1975). An interpretation of the cave underneath the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 40, 131-147.
[59]	D. Heyden. Caves, gods, and myths: world-view and planning in Teotihuacan, in Mesoamerican sites and world-views, E. P. Benson (ed.), Washington, D. C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1981. (pp. 1-39).
[60]	A. Ichon and M. C. Arnauld. Le protoclassique á La Lagunita, El Quiché, Guatemala. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/R. C. P. 294 et 500, Institut d'Ethnologie, Paris. Piedra Santa, Guatemala, 1985.
[61]	J. E. Brady. Cuevas no naturales: una forma de arquitectura no reconocida en el altiplano Maya, in Tercer simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, J. P. Laporte, H. L. Escobedo and S. Villagrán de Brady (eds.). Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, 1990. (pp. 253-265).
[62]	B. Spranz (1967). Descubrimiento en Totimehuacan, Puebla. Boletín del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 27, 19-22.
[63]	M. Aguilar, M. Medina Jaen, T. M. Tucker, and J. E. Brady. The significance of a Chicomoztoc complex at Acatzingo Viejo, in In the maw of the earth monster: Mesoamerican ritual cave use, J. E. Brady and K. M. Prufer, (eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005. (pp. 69-87).
[64]	M. K. Brown and J. F. Garber. Establishing and reusing sacred place, in Ruins of the past: the use and perception of abandoned structures in the Maya lowlands, T. W. Stanton and A. Magnoni (eds.), Boulder: University Press of Colorado, (2008). (pp. 147-170).
[65]	B. MacLeod and D. E. Puleston. Pathways into darkness: the search for the road to Xibalbá, in Tercera mesa redonda de Palenque, Vol. 4, M. G. Robertson and D. C. Jeffers (eds.), Monterey: Hearld Peters, 1979. (pp. 71-77).
[66]	M. Giron-Ábrego and J. E. Brady (2014). A behavioral interpretation of high density ceramic sherd concentrations at Midnight Terror Cave. California Anthropologist XXIX (2), 27-33.
[67]	R. D. Hansen, W. K. Howell and S. P. Gunter. Forgotten structures, haunted houses, and occupied hearts: ancient perspectives and contemporary interpretations of abandoned sites and buildings in the Mirador basin, Guatemala, in Ruins of the past: the use and perception of abandoned structures in the Maya lowlands, T. W. Stanton & A. Magnoni (eds.). Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2008. (pp. 25-64).
[68]	L. J. Lucero (1999). Classic lowland Maya political organization: a review. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 211-263.
[69]	J. E. Brady. The impact of ritual on ancient Maya economy, in Stone houses and earth lords: Maya religion in the cave context, K. M. Prufer and J. E. Brady (eds.), Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2005. (pp. 115-134).
[70]	P. McAnany. Living with the ancestors: kinship and kingship in ancient Maya society. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.
[71]	J. E. Brady and K. M. Prufer. Maya cave archaeology: a new look at religion and cosmology, in Stone houses and earth lords: Maya religion in the cave context, K. M. Prufer and J. E. Brady (eds.). Boulder: University Press of Colorado, (2005). (pp. 365-379).
[72]	S. D. Houston (1998). Understanding Classic Maya Religion. Invited lecture presented at the University Museum, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
[73]	K. M. Prufer and J. E. Brady. Introduction: religion and the role of cave archaeology in Maya studies, in Stone houses and earth lords: Maya religion in the cave context, K. M. Prufer & J. E. Brady (eds.). Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2005. (pp. 1-22).
[74]	M. E. Smith and K. J. Schreiber (2006). NewWorld states and empires: politics, religion, and urbanism. Journal of Archaeological Research 14 (1), 1-52.
[75]	A. N. Mason. What's in a chultun? : Identifying formation processes at La Milpa, Belize: a comparative life history approach. M. A. thesis. Las Cruces: New Mexico State University, 2012.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

James Brady, Wendy Layco. (2018). Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. International Journal of Archaeology, 6(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

James Brady; Wendy Layco. Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. Int. J. Archaeol. 2018, 6(1), 46-55. doi: 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

James Brady, Wendy Layco. Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. Int J Archaeol. 2018;6(1):46-55. doi: 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16,
  author = {James Brady and Wendy Layco},
  title = {Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research},
  journal = {International Journal of Archaeology},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {46-55},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ija.20180601.16},
  abstract = {The function of chultuns, man-made subterranean chambers, in the southern Maya lowlands has been debated for over a century, with food storage being the most widely accepted proposal. Experimental archaeology shows, however, that none of the major Maya subsistence crops can be stored in chultuns because of their high humidity. Maya archaeology is currently at an impasse, espousing a storage function that is refuted by the data. Cave archaeology, with its intimate knowledge of subterranean space, has a decidedly different view. Ethnohistorical sources and ethnography document the fact that holes, even those dug for mining, are seen by the Maya as being caves, so one should expect chultuns to have had a religious function. Furthermore, in actual practice, there is considerable overlap between chultuns and caves, with a number of chultuns being identified as natural caves exhibiting an artificial entrance carved into them. Additionally, a number of chultuns are large enough that they could be classified as man-made caves. Religious functions have been repeatedly overlooked because of archaeologists’ insistence on a utilitarian function and further exacerbated by ignorance of Maya religion and ritual. It is shown that many chultuns have cosmological alignments, being placed along center lines or centered under structures or plazas. In proposing that chultuns functioned as sites of household ritual, considerable evidence is mustered to support an explanation that is more in accord with a realistic anthropological view of the Maya. The implications for sacred landscapes are profound in that thousands of sacred landmarks would be added to every site.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research
AU  - James Brady
AU  - Wendy Layco
Y1  - 2018/09/21
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
T2  - International Journal of Archaeology
JF  - International Journal of Archaeology
JO  - International Journal of Archaeology
SP  - 46
EP  - 55
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7595
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
AB  - The function of chultuns, man-made subterranean chambers, in the southern Maya lowlands has been debated for over a century, with food storage being the most widely accepted proposal. Experimental archaeology shows, however, that none of the major Maya subsistence crops can be stored in chultuns because of their high humidity. Maya archaeology is currently at an impasse, espousing a storage function that is refuted by the data. Cave archaeology, with its intimate knowledge of subterranean space, has a decidedly different view. Ethnohistorical sources and ethnography document the fact that holes, even those dug for mining, are seen by the Maya as being caves, so one should expect chultuns to have had a religious function. Furthermore, in actual practice, there is considerable overlap between chultuns and caves, with a number of chultuns being identified as natural caves exhibiting an artificial entrance carved into them. Additionally, a number of chultuns are large enough that they could be classified as man-made caves. Religious functions have been repeatedly overlooked because of archaeologists’ insistence on a utilitarian function and further exacerbated by ignorance of Maya religion and ritual. It is shown that many chultuns have cosmological alignments, being placed along center lines or centered under structures or plazas. In proposing that chultuns functioned as sites of household ritual, considerable evidence is mustered to support an explanation that is more in accord with a realistic anthropological view of the Maya. The implications for sacred landscapes are profound in that thousands of sacred landmarks would be added to every site.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

James Brady

Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles, USA
Wendy Layco

Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

James Brady, Wendy Layco. (2018). Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. International Journal of Archaeology, 6(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

James Brady; Wendy Layco. Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. Int. J. Archaeol. 2018, 6(1), 46-55. doi: 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

James Brady, Wendy Layco. Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research. Int J Archaeol. 2018;6(1):46-55. doi: 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16,
  author = {James Brady and Wendy Layco},
  title = {Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research},
  journal = {International Journal of Archaeology},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {46-55},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ija.20180601.16},
  abstract = {The function of chultuns, man-made subterranean chambers, in the southern Maya lowlands has been debated for over a century, with food storage being the most widely accepted proposal. Experimental archaeology shows, however, that none of the major Maya subsistence crops can be stored in chultuns because of their high humidity. Maya archaeology is currently at an impasse, espousing a storage function that is refuted by the data. Cave archaeology, with its intimate knowledge of subterranean space, has a decidedly different view. Ethnohistorical sources and ethnography document the fact that holes, even those dug for mining, are seen by the Maya as being caves, so one should expect chultuns to have had a religious function. Furthermore, in actual practice, there is considerable overlap between chultuns and caves, with a number of chultuns being identified as natural caves exhibiting an artificial entrance carved into them. Additionally, a number of chultuns are large enough that they could be classified as man-made caves. Religious functions have been repeatedly overlooked because of archaeologists’ insistence on a utilitarian function and further exacerbated by ignorance of Maya religion and ritual. It is shown that many chultuns have cosmological alignments, being placed along center lines or centered under structures or plazas. In proposing that chultuns functioned as sites of household ritual, considerable evidence is mustered to support an explanation that is more in accord with a realistic anthropological view of the Maya. The implications for sacred landscapes are profound in that thousands of sacred landmarks would be added to every site.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Maya Cultural Landscapes and the Subterranean: Assessing a Century of Chultun Research
AU  - James Brady
AU  - Wendy Layco
Y1  - 2018/09/21
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
T2  - International Journal of Archaeology
JF  - International Journal of Archaeology
JO  - International Journal of Archaeology
SP  - 46
EP  - 55
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7595
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ija.20180601.16
AB  - The function of chultuns, man-made subterranean chambers, in the southern Maya lowlands has been debated for over a century, with food storage being the most widely accepted proposal. Experimental archaeology shows, however, that none of the major Maya subsistence crops can be stored in chultuns because of their high humidity. Maya archaeology is currently at an impasse, espousing a storage function that is refuted by the data. Cave archaeology, with its intimate knowledge of subterranean space, has a decidedly different view. Ethnohistorical sources and ethnography document the fact that holes, even those dug for mining, are seen by the Maya as being caves, so one should expect chultuns to have had a religious function. Furthermore, in actual practice, there is considerable overlap between chultuns and caves, with a number of chultuns being identified as natural caves exhibiting an artificial entrance carved into them. Additionally, a number of chultuns are large enough that they could be classified as man-made caves. Religious functions have been repeatedly overlooked because of archaeologists’ insistence on a utilitarian function and further exacerbated by ignorance of Maya religion and ritual. It is shown that many chultuns have cosmological alignments, being placed along center lines or centered under structures or plazas. In proposing that chultuns functioned as sites of household ritual, considerable evidence is mustered to support an explanation that is more in accord with a realistic anthropological view of the Maya. The implications for sacred landscapes are profound in that thousands of sacred landmarks would be added to every site.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download