Chronology of the Río Bec Settlement and Architecture

Abstract

Chronology is a crucial issue given the specific settlement patterns of the Río Bec region located on the northern fringe of the Maya central lowlands. Fine-resolution chronology of the local residential occupation in its many spatial and temporal forms is one of the main proxies available to reconstruct social organization and dynamics, in the absence of a nucleated center with the typical Maya political monuments usually investigated. Variability can be traced in residential morphologies and evolution that must be dated. The scope of the paper aims to describe the construction of the Río Bec chronology in its multiple dimensions, based on a diversity of methods from ceramic TypeVariety classification up to seriation of building sequences defining the evolution of the famous Río Bec architectural style. Epigraphic evidence exists, albeit limited and ambiguous. The general sequence of occupation for the targeted micro-region stretches from the Middle Preclassic to the end of the Terminal Classic period.

Living Together in Río Bec Houses: Coresidence, Rank, and Alliance

“…In high-ranking houses, noble sons probably married high-status women from distant wards or cities, while their noble sisters would have married men of the local neighborhood (Helms 1998). The latter would account for some abandonment episodes that occurred in direct proximity to the groups we intensively excavated (Arnauld 2011; Nondédéo et al 2013; Taladoire et al 2013). Endogamic marriages (among other ties) with lesser-ranking households would have resulted in absorption of the corresponding units and their land into the neighboring, more affluent house.…”

“…Architectural constraints and solutions can be reasonably generalized across lowland sites, although a degree of variability is patent in many details. In the Río Bec region, on the northern fringe of the central lowlands, a specific style of domestic architecture emerged at sites where innovation seems to have arisen at the shift from the Early to Late Classic period (Taladoire et al 2013). Generally speaking, if correctly identified and interpreted in a representative house sample, architectural variations, modifications, and innovations are meaningful inasmuch as they can help pinpoint not only structural conceptions and needs, but also even something of the intentional strategies of their builders and inhabitants in their interactions with other components of the settlement at large (Beck 2007; Blanton 1994; Bourdieu 1973, 1977; Cuisenier 1992; Giddens 1984; Hirth 1993; Kent 1990; Kowalski 1987, 1999; Sanders 1990; Terraciano 2001).…”

Structure 5n2 (“Group A”): A Río Bec Paradigmatic Palace?

“…It included several stages, but was still incomplete at the moment the structure was abandoned just around a.d. 950. In the rooms with perfectly intact floors corresponding to the second episode (Rooms e-f and i-j), the most recent sherds contained in the deep fill layers constitute a terminus post quem for dating the construction activity, and these sherds ( Pixtun Trickle-on-gray: Pixtun variety, Traino Brown: Lodo variety, Tancachacal Slate: Tancachacal variety, Torro Gouged-Incised: Torro variety ) are representative of the very beginning of the Xpuhuk 1 phase ( a.d. 850–900) (Taladoire et al 2013). So, the second episode in the building's history would have lasted for at least 50, or at the most 100, years spread over two to four generations.…”

Ceramic History, Ceramic Change, and Architectural Sequence at Acanmul, Campeche: A Local Chronicle and Its Regional Implications

“…They go on to describe an apogee of architectural activity associated with the full Terminal Classic Xcocom phase, with major emblematic architectonic undertakings at Becan, Chicanna, Xpuhil, and other zonal sites (Campaña Valenzuela 2005, Campaña Valenzuela andBoucher 2002;Nondédéo et al 2011:50-54;[also Bueno Cano 1987, 1999Carrasco Vargas 1989, 1994). 9 Importantly, these and other researchers (Arnauld et al 2010;Dzul Gongóra and Taladoire 2010:127, Cuadro 2;Nondédéo and Dzul Gongóra 2010:120, Grafica 4;Taladoire et al 2013) have continued to employ the now forty years old Becan ceramic study (Figure 24; Ball 1977) for the relative and absolute chronologies and relationships of the late ceramic phases involved, whereas a close scrutiny and reassessment of these coupled with later pertinent architectural data and radiocarbon determinations from Chicanna suggest that a radical revision of them is in order (Figure 24; Ball 2014;Ball and Taschek 2013;Bueno Cano1987;Carrasco Vargas 1989).…”

“…Chart of oceanic surface currents affecting the Yucatan peninsula showing highly advantageous nexus-position occupied by Acanmul. Ball 1974Ball , 1977Bueno Cano 1999;Nondédéo 2003;Nondédéo et al 2011;Taladoire et al 2013), but it is very much in sync with available data as newly reexamined and reassessed (Ball 2014;Ball and Taschek 2013), and as has long since been hinted at by a number of seemingly "anomalous" findings identifying major architectural activity at Becan and Chicanna during the Terminal Classic Xcocom ceramic phase and dating well into the eleventh or even twelfth centuries (Bueno Cano 1987Cano , 1999Carrasco Vargas 1989;Nondédéo et al 2011).…”