a The Great Tikal Earthwork Revisited David Webster ‘Timothy Murtha Kirk D. Straight ‘he Renmyaia Ste Uaersy Univers Prk, Tenn ania Jay Silverstein Joins POW/MIA Accounting Command Hickam Air Fre Base Hawa Horacio Martinez Universit de Gute Gutemala Gy, Guster Richard E. Terry Richard Burnett Brigham Young Univesity Provo, Uh In 1966 University of Pennsylvania archaeologists discovered impresive earthyvorks ner the Classic Maya cnter of Tikal, Guatemala. They were provisionally inserpreted as part of ast omic” defensive and boundary system that defined the politcal capital and the agri- cultural core of the Tikal polity around a0. 400-550. These conclsions bave ivy ila enced conceptions of Classic Maya warfare, urbanism, polity, settiement, demography, and subsistence for40 years, despite the fat that very litle research was ener done om the exrth- works, Three seasons of mapping and exeavation in 2003-2006 support some ofthe comven- tional interpretations but cal others into question. Thas the eariiworks were vera fne- ional defensive sistem seems dewbfl. The new fieldvork bas ako yielded a wealth of new ‘aca about sectiemens dieribution, household remains, soils, vegetation, and lana use at Tikal. Introduction “Found city wall. Dennis” With this dramatic 1966 ca- ‘ble Deanis Paleston announced the discovery of one of the most celebrated landscape features in the Maya Low- lands~the great northern earthwork at Tikal, Guatemala (#168. 1, 2). He and Donald Callender (Puleston and Cal- lender 1967) mapped the 9.5 km-long earthwork, which lies 4.6 km north of Tikal’s Great Plaza (#16. 3), and exca- vated small sections of it. They also found a much shorter carthwork far to the s#, near the satelite site of Ramonal For 40 years these earthworks, and the interpretations de- rived from them, have influenced conceptions of wae settlement, subsistence, and demography at Tikal and throughout the Maya Lowlands. Puleston directed fieldwork for the Tikal Sustaining Area Project, part of the University of Pennsylvania’ larg- cr research effort. His crews found the northern earthwork: while surveying four transects radiating out from central Tikal. Given the perspectives on Maya residential and po- litical landscapes of the time, the earthworks promised to resolve the vexing issue of defining the limits of a Classic Maya center, or “city Equally important were their sup- posed implications for Maya warfare. In 1966, long before major breakthroughs in epigraphy, the Classic Maya were still regarded as peaceful, despive much artistic evidence to the contrary. Even the Bonampak murals, found two decades earlier, were explained away by most Mayanists as images of ritual war and raiding for sacrificial victims, ‘The42. The Great Tikal Earthwork Revisited Webster etal, Figure 1. Map of the Maya Lowlands showing sites mentioned inthe rt, earthworks, however, with their arrangement of ditch, parapet, and artificial causeways (FIG. 4), resembled fort fications in other parts of the world (Callender, who found the earthwork, recognized it because of its similarity to American Civil War battlefield trenches). Published depi tions of the earthwork showed a major barrier built with great effort, not a puny defense meant 10 discourage a handfil of raiders. The senior author remembers the ex- citement generated by these apparent military fearares, ‘which implied warfare on a massive scale, These revelations partly motivated his excavation of the defensive system at the site of Becan in 1970 (Webster 19762). aleston and Callender not only interpreted the earth- works as fortifications but also suggested “...that the in- habitants of Tikal, inckuding the upper echetons of nobles and priests, were interested in protecting the agricultural resoutrees upon which they ultimately depended” (Puleston and Callender 1967: 48). The earthworks were thus part of unique “emic” boundary system that conveyed ancient “Maya perceptions of 2 political and agrarian landscape. A further implication was that the Tikal polity must have been effectively centralized for such a project to be con- ceived and carried out (many Mayanists were still uncom- fortable with the idea of kings and ruling dynasties in 1967), Boundary systems typically reflect politica, demograph- ic, and subsistence conditions at a particular time, Despite their best efforts, Puleston and Callender recovered only very limited ceramic or other evidence for the construction date of the earthworks, which they placed anywhere in the Barly to Late Classic incerval, approximately a.p. 200-825 in terms of the current Tikal chronology (taBLE 1). Never theless, they favored an Early Classic dare because of pur- ported wars at that time with the nearby site of Uaxactun (at or shonly after Ap. 378 according to today’s under- standing of Tikal’s history). Puleston (1983: 24) thought the northern earthwork was strategic because the enemy polity was located in this direction and there were no bajos (swamps) that could have protected Tikal’s northern ap- proaches. He also claimed that topsoil buried under the embankment was highly fertile (Puleston 1973a: 262-263), The earthwork, he reasoned, must thus be an[igure 2. Workmen cross segment ofthe northern earthwork in 2003, § sinha forested landsape ‘Table 1. The Tikal ceramie sequence (adapred from Sabloff 2008: xxv. Tanti Cares Candia Poselasic ‘Gaba 33.9507 Terminal Chsic Edna ‘xp. 825-950 Tae Chsic I ‘Ap. 700-825 “Tocecmedinte? Ue ‘av. 550-700 Esty Classe ‘Mana ‘B.200-880 ‘Teminal Predasie Ci 0. 125-200 Late Presse came O-an. 125, [Eate Precise Chien 350-Dn, MidilePredassic Taek {00-360 mc Middle Predassc Eb 1000-600 x. early construction, otherwise cultivation would have se- verely depleted soil nutrients or eroded soils away. Robert ry, the project ceramacist, aso favored an Barly Classic date (see Fry 2003 and Haviland 2003 for recent diseus- sions of the chronological evidence). Later publications by Puleston (19732, 1973b, 1983) elaborated the significance of the earthworks, Citing a Jovernal of Field Archacalagy/Yol. 32, 2007 48 vey i ical om chit ragged drop-off in structure density beyond the northern carth- work, he postulated the existence of a parallel, southern ‘one, He thought the Ramonal earthwork must take a west- cm tum and cut across his southern survey transect at abouta’6 to 7 km distance from Tikal’s Main Plaza, a point ‘where structure density also appeared to shift, Based on mapped settlements and topography, he placed eastern and. ‘western boundaries of the Tikal polity where natural bajos created effective barriers. These artificial and natural barri- crs enclosed a core agrarian hinterland of about 120 sq km, which he labeled “residential Tikal” (rt. 8). Puleston (1973b: 303) admitted thar Tikal’ earthworks and settlement were still inaclequately mapped and that the 120 sq km region was a provisional estimate. These ideas, and interpretations derived from them, nevertheless be- ‘came widely accepted and cited in the later literature (sce the many following citations). He regarded the northern and southern earthworks as the “emic” part of the bound- ary, and his own east and west lines as “etic” because he im- pposed them based on topography and measures of struc