Temples in the forest: the discovery of an

early Maya community at Caobal, Petn,

Guatemala
Jessica Munson & Takeshi Inomata
Introduction
The Middle Preclassic period (c. 900300 BC) in Maya prehistory has long been
recognized as a time of intense interregional exchange throughout Mesoamerica from
which the attributes of later Maya civilization developed. Archaeological research
conducted at various sites in the Maya lowlands has significantly broadened our
understanding of the social diversity characterizing this formative period. For example,
the discovery of painted murals at San Bartolo (Saturno et al. 2006) and monumental
sculpture at Cival (Estrada-Belli et al. 2003a & b) represent early examples of dynastic
ideology, indicating that notions of Maya kingship were well established by the end of
the Preclassic period. Yet we still know very little about these positions of authority,
how they developed, and their intersection with the rest of society during the earliest
phase of Maya prehistory.

Figure 1. Location map with major sites mentioned in the text.

These questions are being addressed with recent research conducted by the Proyecto
Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun at the important site of Ceibal in western Guatemala
(Figure 1; Inomata & Triadan 2008; Romn et al. 2009; Romn & Inomata 2010). The
discovery of Caobal, a new site with monumental architecture located a few kilometers
from Ceibal, is providing exciting new information on the formation and organization
of early Maya communities.

Background
Archaeological investigations at Ceibal were initiated in the 1960s by A. Ledyard Smith
and Gordon Willey of Harvard University. Although their research focused on Ceibal's
revival at the end of the Classic period (c. AD 800930), they discovered some of the
earliest Maya ceramics in the Pasin region, indicating that Ceibal was first settled
around 900 BC. Gair Tourtellot also conducted a survey of the Ceibal periphery and
identified dozens of house mounds and 13 minor ceremonial centres, including the
small ceremonial-administrative centre named Anonal. Harvard archaeologists
supervised excavations at several of these sites and recovered ceramics from a small
test pit at Anonal suggesting substantial Middle Preclassic occupation there.
A reconnaissance project was undertaken in 2006 to document the condition of these
minor temples. While attempting to record the site of Anonal, whose location was not
indicated on Tourtellot's (1988) settlement map, a previously undocumented site was
discovered. Initial field reports identified this site as Anonal (Munson 2006 & 2009;
Munson et al. 2008), but this must now be revised. The recent rediscovery of the site
of Anonal (i.e. the one identified by Harvard archaeologists in 1968) confirms that the
site found in 2006 is actually a different and previously unrecorded minor ceremonial
centre. This new site is called Caobal. The proximity and similarity of these two minor
temple groups raise interesting questions about community organization and ritual
practice in the Middle Preclassic.

Minor temples near Ceibal

The minor temple centre of Caobal is located 3.2km west of Ceibal's ceremonial centre
(Group A) and 1.4km north of its twin centre Anonal (Figure 2). Like many other
minor temple groups identified by Tourtellot, the mounds that comprise this
settlement are located on high ground, on top of a natural rise overlooking the Pasin
River. Standing 9m tall, Structure 1 dominates the compact temple precinct whose
plaza is enclosed by low platforms and divided into two sectors by a long low range
structure (Figure 3). Three small residential groups were also recorded and appear to
have been occupied during the Late Classic period (Figure 3, Structures 920).
Minor temple groups are common architectural features found throughout the
residential areas of Ceibal (Figure 2). These monumental buildings range in height
from 4 to 10m and are commonly located on the eastern side of a formal plaza.
Several also resemble the triadic form of Caobal's Structure 1 (Figure 4). Earlier
excavations carried out at several of these loci indicate that all of them were
constructed during the Preclassic (Tourtellot 1988) and continued to be important
nodes of residential organization during the Late Classic period (Munson 2005).
Caobal follows a similar pattern of occupation: recent investigations there focused on
its foundation and examined how this ritual site was used by communities throughout
its long occupation.

Figure 2. Location of the Ceibal area surveyed in the 1960s (marked 'Extent of Harvard
Survey') and of minor temple sites located near Ceibal (Tourtellot 1988 and current Proyecto
Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun [Caobal]). DEM base layer generated from AIRSAR data.

Figure 3. Settlement map of Caobal with location of excavation units.

Figure 4. Triadic temple complexes located near Ceibal (modified from Tourtellot 1988).

Public buildings at Caobal

Excavations concentrated on uncovering the architectural sequence of three public
buildings at Caobal (see Figure 3). Preliminary results indicate that the site was used
continuously from about 900 BC to AD 850, with the most intensive building activity in
the Middle Preclassic. Unlike the extensive sequence of Real-Xe platforms documented
at Ceibal, the earliest occupants of Caobal constructed pole-and-thatch style
structures on the exposed marl bedrock. A nearby deposit of Real-Xe ceramics from
the same level dates the foundation of this site to the eighth or ninth century BC.
Low boulder-walled platforms were preferred habitation surfaces in the following
Escoba-Mamom phase and mark the first major investment in permanent architecture
at Caobal. The construction fill of these low earthen platforms included dense deposits
of Real-Xe and Escoba-Mamom style ceramics. Charcoal from the inside of a vessel
fragment dates the construction of Str. 1-Sub 8 to the early Mamom period (Table 1).
A shallow pit filled with ash and several hundred fragmented and whole specimens
of Pomacea shell suggests that this platform was used for communal consumption
purposes.

A large circular pit dug into the soft marl bedrock near the southern edge of the plaza
provides supporting evidence for feasting events at Caobal. This pit (Str. 2-Sub 7) is

1.6m in diameter, 0.5m deep, and filled with fire-cracked cobbles, charcoal, various
riverine shells, burned mammal bone and numerous large fragments of Real-Xe and
Escoba-Mamom style serving vessels (Figure 5). If this interpretation is correct,
communal feasting may have provided the impetus to create a formal public space for
such gatherings.

Figure 5. Examples of Middle Preclassic ceramics recovered from pit at Caobal (Str. 2-Sub 7).
The fine line incision and resist decoration of these red and black-slipped serving vessels are
diagnostic attributes of the early Mamom period. a) Tierra Mojada Resist; b) Chunhinta Black;
c) Timax Incised; d) Pico de Oro Incised; 3) Guitarra Incised.

The construction of pyramid structures atop wide raised platforms marks the
beginning of a long tradition of monumental building at Caobal and the transformation

of this ceremonial site. Temple construction started during the seventh century BC
with another earthen and stone-lined platform (Str. 1-Sub 7) which provided the
foundation for a stepped earthen mound (Bldg. A) standing about 6m above the plaza
level (Figure 6). The superposition of additional platforms (Str. 1-Sub 6) and temple
buildings (Bldg. B) constructed with plaster between 600 and 400 BC represents a
major shift in architecture, ritual practice and community organization at the end of
the Middle Preclassic.

Figure 6. North profile of Structure 1.

Community formation at Caobal

Although there is no clear evidence for an elite population at Caobal, it is possible
local leaders from this community established administrative ties with emerging Ceibal
elites during the Middle Preclassic period. Changes in architectural and ritual practices
during this period reflect increasing centralisation of political authority and economic
control (Aoyama & Munson n.d.), but the replication of local centres like Caobal,
Anonal and other minor temple sites around Ceibal suggests that these communities
retained independent ritual traditions even as they were incorporated into an
expanding Maya society.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Instituto de Antropolgia e Historia for their permission to work
in Guatemala. This project was supported by an NSF doctoral dissertation
improvement grant (BCS-0837536), Dumbarton Oaks, and the School of Anthropology
at the University of Arizona.

References

AOYAMA, K. & J. MUNSON. n.d. Ancient Maya obsidian exchange and chipped stone
production at Caobal, Guatemala. Submitted to Mexicon.

ESTRADA-BELLI, F., J. BAUER, M. MORGAN & A. CHAVEZ. 2003a. Symbols of early Maya
kingship at Cival, Petn, Guatemala.Antiquity 77. Available
at http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/estrada_belli298/

ESTRADA-BELLI, F., N. GRUBE, M. WOLF, K. GARDELLA & C.L. GUERRA-LIBRERO.

2003b. Preclassic Maya monuments and temples at Cival, Petn,
Guatemala. Antiquity 77. Available
at http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/belli296/

INOMATA, T. & D. TRIADAN (ed.). 2008. Informe del Proyecto Arqueologico CeibalPetexbatun: la temporada de 2008. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.

MUNSON, J. 2005. House mounds, temples, and landscapes: domestic land use and
sociopolitical changes between Late and Terminal Classic Seibal. Unpublished MA
dissertation, University of Arizona.
- 2006. Informe sobre los grupos de templo menor en Ceibal, in E.M. Ponciano, D.
Triadan & T. Inomata (ed.) Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la
temporada de campo 2006. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.
- 2009. Investigaciones en Anonal, in O. Romn de Leon, T. Inomata, D. Triadan & K.
Aoyama (ed.) Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada
2009: 98126. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.

MUNSON, J., M.A. DE LEN & M. CORTAVE. 2008. Registro y excavaciones en Anonal:
operaciones AN1A, AN1B, y AN2A, in T. Inomata & D. Triadan (ed.) Informe del
Proyecto Arqueologico Ceibal-Petexbatun: la temporada de 2008: 3743. Guatemala:
Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.

ROMN, O. & T. INOMATA (ed.). 2010. Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico CeibalPetexbatun: la temporada 2010. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologa e Historia.

ROMN, O., T. INOMATA & D. TRIADAN (ed.). 2009. Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico
Ceibal-Petexbatun, La Temporada 2009, Guatemala: Instituto de Antropolgia e
Historia.

SABLOFF, J.A. 1975. Ceramics (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology &
Ethnology 13/2). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.

SATURNO, W.A., D. STUART & B. BELTRN. 2006. Early Maya writing at San Bartolo,
Guatemala. Science 311: 12813.

SMITH, A.L. 1982. Major architecture and caches (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 15/1). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.

TOURTELLOT, G., III. 1988. Peripheral survey and excavation settlement and
community patterns (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
16/2). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.

WILLEY, G.R., A.L. SMITH, G. TOURTELLOT III & I. GRAHAM. 1975. Introduction: the
site and its setting (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
13/1). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.

Authors
* Author for correspondence

Jessica Munson*
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson USA 85721
(Email: jlmunson@email.arizona.edu)

Takeshi Inomata
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA
(Email: inomata@email.arizona.edu)