In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

143 During the field season of 1952, preliminary studies were made of the rough stone walls found in great numbers through-out the ruins of Mayapán. The results indicated that the walls surrounded dwelling -type structures and in all probability marked the boundaries of house properties (Bullard 1952). During that season, effort was directed mostly toward examination of the walls in the central and southwestern parts of the site. Although valuable knowledge concerning the basic function of the walls was obtained, much of the information was not entirely satisfactory, largely owing to the great amount of destruction and disturbance of old wall patterns during postconquest use of the land. We needed more information about the general pattern of walls over a broad area, as well as on such specific problems as the relationship of walls to ceremonial groups, correlation of the size of property enclosures with the size of house groups, etc. The work of the 1953 season was aimed at answering these questions. The walls in Squares H, I, and Q (Jones 1952, map) were completely plotted, other parts of the ruins were surveyed in order to investigate certain specific problems, and several small excavations were undertaken for possible features of construction not apparent from surface observation. As a somewhat fuller picture of the first year’s work was obtained, it seems desirable to repeat here some of the ground covered in Current Report 3. For the term property wall, used previously, we are substituting the less specific term boundary wall. We called attention to the great number of stone walls built since the abandonment of Mayapán. The extent of this activity has varied from one part of the site to another, but at least some relatively recent walls are to be found everywhere. The majority of them seem to have been built as milpa boundaries; some, especially those near Rancho San Joachin, as cattle enclosures. Where postconquest wall building has been considerable, ancient boundary wall C u r r e n t R e p o r t s Carnegie Institution of Washington Department of Archaeology No. 13 February 1954 Boundary Walls and House Lots at Ma yapán William R. BullaRd JR. William R. BullaRd JR. 144 patterns are almost completely obliterated. Stones were removed, and the direction of old walls was changed as they were incorporated into the later walls. Very likely parts of some ancient walls were demolished because they interfered with the uses to which the modern enclosures were put. Although in relatively late times a great many stone walls have been built in Mayapán, presentday Indians construct very few of any extent in the ruins, although they take advantage of already existing enclosures where convenient. They do, however, commonly utilize ancient boundary walls as foundations for the thick brush fences which protect cornfields from deer and cattle, and they not infrequently build up and repair the old walls to further this purpose (Fig. 13.5a). Squares H and I, in the eastern part of Mayapán, were selected for investigation because reconnaissance had shown that they contained relatively few postconquest walls, and therefore would presumably have original wall patterns relatively well preserved . The area also contained such features as a well-developed lane system and the ceremonial group at Cenote Itzmal Ch’en. Of all the areas examined for boundary walls. Squares H and I proved to be the most informative (Fig. 13.1). The walls were plotted also in Square Q, which contains the main ceremonial group of Mayapán, to determine the relationship of boundary walls to ceremonial and other nonresidential buildings and to detect any difference in pattern of walls around house structures close to the Main Group. The results of much of this work were disappointing. In contrast to Squares H and I, Q is covered by a dense network of walls of unquestionably postconquest origin, indicating intensive farming and ranching in this part of Mayapán from the colonial era on. Ancient walls are so fragmentary that little in the way of pattern could be determined, but even here, where disturbance is at a maximum, a few relatively long sections of ancient wall still stand, in close proximity to large modern walls. These traces permit conclusions of a general nature only. The walls were plotted on 2½× photostatic enlargements of sections of the Jones map, which gives the convenient scale of 1:1,000. Corners of ruined buildings and other features on the map served...

Share