1 Chapter 2 ARCHAEOWORK Stephen Houston The visit was brief. A group of Lacandon Maya, men in all likelihood, walked to a part of Piedras Negras with the largest collection of standing rooms, the Acropolis. In the back corner of a long chamber they left six censer pots with the faces of their gods. Several decades later—the exact lapse of time is unclear—laborers brought to Piedras Negras by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania uncovered the pots. These lay against the back wall of the southwestern room of Str. J-2. Three censers were complete, two rested on a support slab above debris that covered the floor; a covering of decayed stucco, covered in turn by slabs, suggested that they had been there for some years before the vault’s collapse (Satterthwaite 2005:58, fig. 3.3b). Earlier still, perhaps about AD 1000, another set of visitors, also Maya, deposited two broken plates, a shell, and a object, stuccoed blue, probably of wood or dried gourd, on rubble fill near the southern entrance of the P-7 sweatbath (Child 2006:488-489, fig. 6:30; Child and Golden 2008:fig. 3.13). The ceramics traveled far. They most resemble pottery Chichen Red pottery from Yucatan (Christopher Gunn, pers. comm., 2011). Such episodes make hash of archaeological pretensions to site “discovery.” The later Maya knew of Piedras Negras over a span of many centuries and found it a suitable, if ruined, receptacle for sacred offerings. Even the loggers who came to the zone in the 2 19th century, and to Piedras Negras itself in the 1880s and 1890s, understood that ancient remains lay near at hand: they dislodged two square slabs, probably cornice soffits, and dragged them to their camp, which, a century later, became the seat of the BYU/UVG archaeological project (proximity to water, but at an elevation that would avoid flooding, made good sense of the location). Nonetheless, the first mention of Piedras Negras as an archaeological site took place in 1889, when a “Gascon au Mexique,” Ludovic Chambon, came to the ruins after being told about them by “many people” ([p]lusieurs personnes, Chambon 1892:119). The name of the site was taken from the montería or forest camp of the same name, so labeled because of the black, manganese-streaked rocks that served as an ancient quarry along the shore of the Usumacinta. Chambon describes what is almost certainly Str. P-7, the best-preserved sweatbath at the site and a source of fascination to the loggers as a casa cerrada, “closed house,” without sign of entrance (Chambon 1892:121). The few indications of early looting at Piedras Negras by the loggers involved coring and hacking into its chamber, without, one presumes, much result. The early visitor of authentic consequence was Teobert Maler, who came to Piedras in 1895 and 1899. In his usual ekphrastic manner—the sculpture-by-sculpture description soon becomes plodding—Maler reported 37 stelae, a variety of altars, and the so-called “Sacrificial rock” hewn with glyphs and two figures on a stone outcrop near the Usumacinta River (e.g., Maler 1901:pl. VII.1). His photographs still form a fundamental record for sculptures that Maler found in good shape; subsequent decades, especially after 1939, would see considerable deterioration of their surfaces, along with sawing and looting in the 1960s up to the present. The patron of Maler’s exploration, Charles 3 Bowditch, noted with prescience some of the same historical patterns that led to the breakthroughs of Tatiana Proskouriakoff in the late 1950s (Bowditch 1901:13; Houston et al. 2001:270-271; see Proskouriakoff 1960), although the field seemed unable to extend or embrace his discovery. Its impact proved small. That indefatigable collector of hieroglyphic dates, Sylvanus Morley, also came to the site in 1914, 1920, and 1921, the last trip with Oliver Ricketson. Morley revisited the ruins in 1931, in the company of his wife Frances and their Yukatek-Korean servant, Tarsisio “Jimmy” Chang. Memorable photographs in the Carnegie Institution of Washington archives at Harvard show them, dyspeptic, squinting, on the beach at Piedras Negras, a pith helmet perched on a stick nearby (AHarvard-10310435326 and AHarvard-10310435327). In that same visit, Karl Ruppert, another Carnegie archaeologist, identified the ballcourt markers in Str. R-11 (Satterthwaite 2005[1943]:158). PENN AT PIEDRAS NEGRAS Archaeological research of a comprehensive sort began with the University Museum fieldwork, headed first by J. Alden Mason (1931-32), then by Linton Satterthwaite, Jr. (1933-1937, 1939; see Satterthwaite 1969). Morley had encouraged the choice of Piedras Negras. The site was close to water, possessed a large set of stelae that would, in Mason’s words, “throw more light upon the question of the origins of Maya culture,” and could, from a museum perspective, yield statuary for eventual display in 4 Philadelphia and, after long-term loan, for shipment Guatemala City (Mason 1934:88, 2005 [1933]:11). Reality must have set in when Mason visited the ruins in 1930. He soon understood that the Usumacinta River was only partly suitable for transporting sculpture—some of its courses are highly treacherous and unpredictable--and that a road needed to be cut to Piedras Negras from the Mexican border (Mason 1947:8).i This was done in 1931, and the results remain visible today. A Fordson tractor that lugged monuments sits in rusting glory near the K-6 ballcourt. The Penn research developed in tandem with Maya archaeology, with evergreater attention to architectural sequence and artifacts. There were few models at the time, other than the Carnegie Institution of Washington projects at Chichen Itza (geared also to reconstruction, e.g., Morris et al. 1931; Ruppert 1952) and Uaxactun (focused on deep chronology among the Maya, e.g., Kidder 1947; Ricketson and Ricketson 1937; A. L. Smith 1950, R. Smith 1954). In part, this professional growth played out in the field notes, now stored in the University of Pennsylvania Museum archives. The earliest, such as Mason’s, are virtually illegible and unusable, in strong contrast to the fluidity and elegance of his published prose (e.g., Mason 2005[1933]). Written in a cursive, almost continuous scrawl, the notes tie poorly if at all to profiles or plans. Worse, his excavations in Str. O-13, the main pyramid at the site, gutted the building with shocking violence. Stelae in front, especially St. 17, disappeared under tons of debris from what had been the central stairway of the largest pyramid at Piedras Negras. Siftings through Mason’s backdirt attested to haste and indifferent supervision, yielding the occasional chert eccentric from a mauled cache. Such damage was irreparable, yet our project did clear the base of Str. O-13 and discovered that parts of the building were in good shape 5 (Op. PN1B, and see below). Sattherthwaite’s field notes, written on letterhead marked “Linton Satterthwaite…Counsellor-at-Law”--residue from his previous life as a lawyer-were more accomplished in describing the texture and contents of archaeological sections, although seldom, to be sure, with clear, measured scales. His excavations, too, seem at least to have been tidy and well-controlled. In Str. O-13, Terence Egan-Wyer, the engineer who built the road to the site in 1931, was even more skilled than Mason and Sattherthwaite, but it would take several years for standards to improve. By the time of Frances Cresson (1935-1937), Tatiana Proskouriakoff (19361937), and William Godfrey (1936-1937, 1939), the notes, including Satterthwaite’s, had shifted from aides-mémoires to coherent descriptions and well-integrated portfolios of texts and drawings. Godfrey, who went on to become a professor of anthropology at Beloit College, Wisconsin, set the gold standard while still an undergraduate at Harvard.ii His notes, lettering, and drawings shine with the greatest clarity (e.g., Str. K-5 notes) and are matched by some of the isometric drawings that appeared to advantage in Proskouriakoff’s architectural notes (e.g., Str. J-4 materials in the archive). Impressionistic sketches of stratigraphy were no longer the norm but, rather, by the end of the Penn project, archaeologists shifted as a whole to the use of scale drawings on gridded paper. It is fair to say that the Penn project did not come to a resounding conclusion. The dig took place during the Great Depression, and its initial benefactor, Eldridge Johnson, co-creator of the Victor Talking Machine Company, lost interest after 1932. That Satterthwaite was able to continue the fieldwork until 1939 places him in the best 6 possible light, with due credit going also to Mason and the University Museum. What had begun as a barely disguised retrieval of sculpture evolved into a more scholarly effort, helping to shape the high expertise in architectural excavation that distinguishes Maya archaeology at Penn. Nonetheless, publication lagged and came eventually to an end. At best, several excavations exist today as only a faint record in the Museum archives; others were close to print, in the form of mimeographed and lightly edited reports. Satterthwaite’s ordering and annotation of fieldnotes reveal movement forward to a publishing program that, in fair recognition of his effort, issued a series of monographs (Satterthwaite 1943, 1944, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, republished in Weeks et al. 2005, along with useful ancillary material and the limited-distribution “preliminary papers”). There were doctoral theses, too, including an exemplary report on the caches and burials (W. Coe 1959) and a perceptive analysis of ceramics by George Holley, a student of Robert Rands, to whom Satterthwaite had entrusted these finds in 1960 (Holley 1983).iii Another student of Rands, Ann Schlosser, analyzed the figurines (Schlosser 1978). Satterthwaite knew that projects should enjoy an “afterlife.” They required an archival existence in which evidence could open and unfold to others, allowing fresh research on old results. Later, while reviewing the notes, Satterthwaite jotted authorship of particular drawings and, in a welcome innovation, marked the perspective from which certain photos had been taken. Some comments date as late as 1960, a few years prior to his retirement. Satterthwaite was in a difficult spot. Global, institutional, and personal events overtook him, along with what appears to have been an idiosyncratic approach to research. The heaviest impact came from World War II, which put paid to any 7 continuation of fieldwork. Cresson, a central figure in the middle years of the project, became a conscientious objector (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/a/r/a/ Robert-B-Aranow/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0027.html), disappearing from archaeology, it seems, by the early 1940s, after graduate study at Harvard and an episode of digging and labwork in Pennsylvania for the Works Project Administration. Others found employment in the family firm (Godfrey) or the Carnegie Institution of Washington (Proskouriakoff). After the war, Godfrey turned his attention to the Newport Tower in Newport, Rhode Island, a feature he confirmed to be, not a Norse citadel, but a 17th century construction (Godfrey 1952). These departures loaded Satterthwaite with principal responsibility for write-up, in what proved to be an insurmountable challenge. By then, graduate students at Penn had gravitated to the Tikal project, which promised, not clean-up of past excavations, but exciting opportunities for fieldwork. Satterthwaite remained alone with his notes, photographs, and drawings. Under press of other obligations, he simply ran out of time and energy, passing away in 1978. The Penn Piedras Negras Project phased into archival slumber. A 1938 memo in the archives—the project did not go to the field that year— indicates that Satterthwaite contemplated at least 4 to 5 more seasons. This dream persisted for another10 years. In a memo from c. 1948, Satterthwaite proposed a decisive return to the ruins.iv The plan was to “begin a systematic attack on the peripheral mounds,” determine the edges of settlement, and estimate population density.” There would be further photography of inscriptions, “Lacadandone [sic] Ethnology,” “Rescue of additional monuments” by “air freight,” “Cave excavation,” a search for “Refuse 8 deposits,” and “Hilltop Mound Excavation” (Satterthwaite n.d.). Satterthwaite anticipated by five years the advent of Gordon Willey (1974) into settlement study among the Maya. Yet the proposal reveals a weak linkage of theory to practice and a worrisome imprecision about the possible harvest from a renewed project. Satterthwaite wished to target “how the Maya priests and their families lived,” a worthy aim, but by means of deep pits, an uncertain means of answering such questions. In any case, the museum soon seconded him to fieldwork at Caracol, Belize (1951, 1953 [Beetz and Satterthwaite 1981:1; Satterthwaite 1954:1]), where additional sculptures could be collected for display in Philadelphia, and, from 1956 on, to the Tikal project, an expedition far beyond the scale of Piedras Negras (Coe and Haviland 1982:9, 41). A final challenge might have been psychological, and perhaps intrinsic to Satterthwaite’s background. His training as a lawyer, a practice given to the close dissection of evidence, suggests a motivation for the immersion in detail. At times, there are few indications of larger purpose. The reasoning appears to exist for its own sake, to show due diligence or the care and caution of the writer. A lawyerly mind explains the close argumentation, formidable to the reader, as well as the copious labeling of platforms and walls, as though to serve as evidence in a court-case, hemmed and channeled by concern with chain-of-custody. The typed memos of Satterthwaite, to himself or to the “chief” (Mason), resemble nothing less than legal briefs--these were probably sent when the former was in sole direction at the site. All point, perhaps, to a second problem, the steady erection of an impasse, a blockage of forensic detail. The archives contain typewritten “Progam[s] of work,” ticked to the side if completed, along with “additions” or “queries” about the minutiae of deposits. These comments came from 9 Sattherthwaite himself, as external notes to an internal conversation or, more disturbing, as way stations on an ever-receding horizon. Satterthwaite was preparing to prepare to publish. Once, the notes came from the then-Museum director, Horace Jayne, triggering an acerbic response from Satterthwaite. He seemed vexed by intrusions into a process he wished to control (note dated Feb. 1932).v Perhaps, then, the involution of thought affected Satterthwaite’s ability to move forward, as did his duties on other projects and his increasing distance from a decades-old dig. For the BYU (Brigham Young University)/UVG (Universidad del Valle) excavations, these field records, so generously shared by the University of Pennsylvania Museum, proved difficult to understand. Usually, it was better to start afresh. Many of the connections that made sense of the notes disappeared with their makers. And, in fairness, Satterthwaite’s mode of reasoning, his wrangling with detail, reflected what archaeology could do at the time. It was successful when sorting through stratigraphy and delimiting the contours, forms, and past layout of massed buildings. It did less well in establishing the relations of such features to artifacts or to the behaviors and processes that produced them. For example, a ceramic restudy by Bruce Bachand (see above) found difficulties and frustrations in the precise reprovenancing of potsherds. Satterthwaite’s interest in chain-of-custody failed in this instance. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania project cannot be judged a failure by any stretch. It worked to varying degrees of intensity in a wide variety of buildings and paid close attention to their features. The buildings included: pyramids or “temples” (Strs. J-3, J-4, J-29 [Sattherwaite1936], K-5 [Satterthwaite 1939, 1940], 0-12 [unpublished], O-13 10 [unpublished, with extensive ms. by Satterthwaite and drawings by Terence Egan-Wyer, see also Coe 1959:153-155], R-1 [unpublished], R-3 [unpublished, with full section by Fred Parris, dated 1933, but reconstruction drawing in Satterthwaite 1937:fig. 1], R-4 [unpublished], R-5 [unpublished], R-9, R-16 [unpublished]); ballcourts (Strs. K-6-A/K-6B, R-11-A/R-11-B), which were identified at the site after a suggestion by Sylvanus Morley (Satterthwaite 1936:74, 2005[1933]:30) and comparative work by Frans Blom (1932); palaces and their constituents (Strs. J-1 [unpublished], J-2, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-9, J-10, J-11, J-12, J-13, J-18, J-19, J-20, J-2, J-23, “Sub-Acropolis” buildings and platforms such as numbers 1 to 4, as well as Str. J-19, J-24); sweathouses (Str. J-17, N-1, O-4, P-7, R-13, S-4, S-19, S-21); “unclassified” buildings, so-named because of uncertainties about their original function (Strs. F-3, F-4, O-1 [unpublished], O-2, O-7, O-15 [unpublished], O-16 [unpublished], O-18, P-6, R-2 [unpublished], R-7 [unpublished], S-5, S-7 [unpublished], U-3 [unpublished, but see Satterthwaite 1941:fig. 62], V-1). Petroglyphs along the rocky shore or in the southern part of the were chalked and photographed (Satterthwaite 1935:pls. I-II). The finds were divided between the University Museum and the Guatemalan government, and complete catalogues were prepared every season, in Spanish.vi A catastrophic campfire in 1932 destroyed stratigraphic notes and some shell figurines (Bachand 1997:4, 60). All sculptures but St. 14 and a support for Altar 4 were returned to Guatemala City. Artifacts still at Penn include objects from Burial 5, bags of potsherds, damaged caches from the camp fire, singed and distorted by heat, along with small fragments of Throne 1, some Lacandon censers, and partial vessels, including an inscribed drum (e.g., Danien 2002:pls. 1-5, 23-24; Holley 1983:fig. 69w). 11 In his 1938 memo, mentioned above, Satterthwaite crafted his ideas of why the work had taken place and what it might accomplish: “To establish for a type site in the western (Usumacinta) region of the Maya “Old Empire” area” the “nature and chronological sequence” of buildings and ceramics and to ascertain the “functions of the various buildings types; the numerical proportions of each.” An overall goal was “to lay the basis for valid interpretation of a complete Maya site in a funtcional [sic] sense and to describe its evolution, and to identify the influences from other Maya and non-Maya regions which have contributed to that evolution.” Much of this came to pass. His report on the sweatbaths (2005[1950]:241-315) excelled for what it was, an identification of building function and its placement within comparative evidence, past and present. There was much, too, that he could not know. Aside from the dates on the monuments, which Satterthwaite and his colleagues employed for structural chronology, the work took place in an essentially prehistoric framework, in signal contrast to the BYU/UVG research, which built on the evidence of dynastic history. All trenches and pits were still open in 1997 when the BYU/UVG project began its work. It had to remove—often with unavoidable discontent--the heaped, even mountainous, debris from the 1930s. Where possible, our teams backfilled excavations from the Penn project, although the depth of some of these pits, trenches, and gashes made this undoable: for example, at least a quarter of Str. K-5 lay in spoil, and the top levels of its southern half had been removed to facilitate photography. (More than other mounds, this excavation was geared to the potential of cameras in recording sequences of construction.) Again, standards differed in the 1930s. The information had been extracted, the sites were thought so remote that few visitors would ever bother with such 12 a difficult journey--in many respects, this continues to be true. Another notable feature of the Penn excavations was a perceptible diffidence about cutting to bedrock, thus missing the deeper history of certain parts of the site. Buildings were assumed to have deep history, a feature not thought to apply, for some reason, to many of the open areas. In the West Group Plaza, the BYU/UVG project discovered that leveled areas often held considerable evidence of building activity. Episodes of filling and leveling expressed royal commissions of immense energy and ambition. It soon became clear why Penn avoided these deposits. At Piedras Negras, most earlier levels, including the Balche deposits from the later 6th century AD, lie beneath a calcified level of surpassing hardness, probably reflecting a time of exposure or abandonment when such concretions formed. Our project could only pierce these deposits selectively, with muscular application of crowbars. The Penn archaeologists may have interpreted these indurated layers as bedrock and stopped when they reached them. This was certainly true for Mary Butler’s test-pits (see below), which did shallow probes into the upper layers of thick fill in the East Group Plaza. Some of the Penn excavations were deep and extensive—structures like the P-7 sweathouse and the sub-buildings in Court 1 of the Acropolis come to mind. Others were rapid clearances to determine whether a building had been vaulted or they helped to clarify the internal layout of rooms, with secondary comment on stratigraphy (e.g., W. S. Godfrey notes, Strs. O-15, O-16). In 1932, Mary Butler, the project ceramicist, sank 42 1m x 1m test pits to plumb stratified deposits of ceramics (Butler 2005:fig.4-10; Holley 1983:fig. 3). Evidently, the location of her pits adhered to some implicit notion of likely discard patterns among the Maya, clustering in front of monumental stairways (Str. J-10), 13 to the sides and front of pyramids (Str. R-5, R-9, K-5), the edges of gullies where trash might have been thrown (western and southwestern edges of the East Group Plaza), palace courtyards (in front of Str. J-8, which probably led to the discovery of Ruler 3’s tomb, Burial 5), and even a residential group (behind Str. V-1). It is fortunate that Holley and Bruce Bachand furthered her ceramic analysis. Butler did not progress much beyond the 1932 materials and some of those from the 1931 season (Butler 2005:90). The lasting visual record of the Penn research was not, however, in the form of sections, field notes or photographs. They came instead from Tatiana Proskouriakoff, present in the 1936 and 1937 field seasons, and a long-standing friend of Satterthwaite’s (Solomon 2002:139-140). The contributions were three-fold. First, Proskouriakoff made the final inking of the Piedras Negras map, based on her field notes and earlier survey by Fred Parris.vii This map guided all the BYU/UVG research, although by the 1998, 1999 and 2000 field seasons and in subsequent CAD modeling it became clear that there were serious problems with the connection between the South and East Group sectors and all areas to the north.viii A gap of some 20 m and elevation differentials of 5 m or more indicated that it had been an error on our part to take the map at face value (see below, description of 1998 field season, also Nelson 2009:52); our project also mapped 90 new mounds in the center alone. Starting again, our project would remap the site afresh, although this would not affect strongly the reliable building plans or relative disposition of structures in these two parts of Piedras Negras. The Penn team, too, concentrated on more monumental areas. Mapping to the south by Zachary Nelson and Timothy Murtha confirmed that large-scale construction could be found there, especially across from the 14 flat area that defines the southern edge of the South Group (Strs. V-27 to V-35, Nelson 2009:figs. 4.4-4.6). Proskouriakoff’s second contribution was in her bracing and instructive depiction of reconstructed buildings at Piedras Negras, showing them in full splendor, as in her view of the Acropolis, or in sequential building, especially Str. K-5. Other, preliminary versions of these drawings, along with renderings of the South Group pyramids, have appeared in print (Khristaan Villela, www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/journal/02/proskouriakoff.pdf, dated 2000). These distilled into graphic form all that Satterthwaite wished to show with his written descriptions, that Maya buildings evolved in reconstructible ways, that they grew by a combination of minute additions (or subtractions) along with major renovations. Proskouriakoff (1946:15-29) also innovated by contrasting a reconstruction with a rendering of what the buildings looked like in the 1930s, defining carefully the considered leaps from present views to probable ones in the past. Her final contribution, in revolutionary import far beyond Piedras Negras, was to consider the ordering of stelae at Piedras Negras, many erected in five-year intervals, in groupings near particular buildings, and to discern their biographical content (Proskouriakoff 1960, 1993). These conclusions did not strike her overnight. They probably coalesced because of her long interest in, and meticulous documentation of, building and sculptural sequence. By one reading, her detection of dynastic history precipitated as an inadvertent outcome from these interests. Her affection for Piedras Negras remained intact. Partly because of Proskouriakoff’s sustained identification with the site, Ian Graham asked that her cremated remains be interred at Piedras Negras, with the permission of Dr. Juan Antonio 15 Valdés, then-Director General of the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala (IDAEH). This was done in 1998. The ashes were buried in the southwestern antechamber of Str. J-23, overlooking the river, and are now marked by a small marble plaque. INTERMEZZO When the Penn team left in 1939, never to return, others did, but of an unwelcome sort. In the 1960s, stelae began to be carved and transported north, out of Tenosique. Unconfirmable rumors attach these illegal activities to this or that person, but all that remains relevant is that the damage took place and that hacked pieces of the monuments reached locations as far distant as Cologne, Mérida, Yucatan, Minneapolis, and New York City. A staging area seems to have been just to the east of Str. J-1, in the West Group Plaza. In the absence of continuous guards at the site—the authorities elected to place their camp in a preexisting building at El Porvenir, some 2 km from Piedras Negras--this damage carries on to the present, with one interlude of attempted sawing in c. 2003. During this time, Ian Graham visited the ruins, as did, in 1975, Jeffrey Miller, a student in the Yale Department of Anthropology who planned to do his doctoral thesis on the inscriptions. Afflicted with severe heart problems, Miller died shortly after his visit, but proof-sheets of the photographs passed to Floyd Lounsbury, then to Mary Miller, and are now in Houston’s possession. In this period, too, an unknown party attempted to cast 16 Lintel 7 with an ineradicable plastic molding material, still visible on the panel when it was photographed, drawn, and interred to a depth of 1.5 m in front of St. 39. The BYU/UVG project, which excavated from 1997 to 2000, with a final, shorter field season in May 2004, had its roots in an abortive effort that took place in 1983. Funding from a private source in Florida opened for Michael Coe and Mary Miller, both at Yale; with Jeffrey Wilkerson and George and David Stuart, both had just been on a river trip to Piedras Negras, in March 1983. A plan developed to begin a project at Piedras Negras that would probe for royal tombs, investigate correlations between architecture and dynastic history, and explore residential buildings, all in response to serious discussions to dam the Usumacinta, with probable injury to Piedras Negras and other sites along the river (Wilkerson 1986); tentatively, Houston, still a graduate student at Yale, would play some indeterminate role in these excavations. But the project failed to materialize, and the funding went instead to support a new project at Caracol, Belize. Another effort, with formal budget, was proposed by the late Miguel Valencia of IDAEH, yet this, too, collapsed for want of governmental funding and the instabilities of the region during the Guatemalan civil war. The Fuerzas Armadas Rebeldes (FAR) had infiltrated the zone around Piedras Negras and set up numerous camps as places of refuge for civilians and combatants. These settlements served also as experiments in utopic socialism, the Comunidades Populares en Resistencia-El Petén (CPR-P, “Popular Communities in Resistance—El Petén”), with protected settlements, revolving commanderies, and controlled or centralized money supplies and acquisition of supplies (Moller and Bazzy 2009). Regrettable relics of those times included mined areas in the vicinity of La Pasadita to the south, presumably to guard against Guatemala army 17 incursions, and the caching near Piedras Negras of at least one stash of explosives and mines, found by our project in 1998. Such settlements began to disappear from the area in 1997, after the 1996 Peace Accords and the creation of a national park for the Sierra Lacandona, as managed by the Defensores de la Naturaleza, a private non-governmental organization. THE PROJECT Houston’s interest resurged in 1995. With Héctor Escobedo, a colleague from the Vanderbilt University Petexbatun Project, he visited the site in that year as part of a 5-day rafting trip down the Usumacinta. This revealed to plain gaze the archaeological possibilities of the area but also its daunting logistics. At Piedras Negras Escobedo and Houston saw little evidence of guerilla encampments—a mistaken impression, as it turned out. They resolved to mount a long-term excavation. With Escobedo’s counsel and guidance, negotiations took place in 1996 with both IDAEH, which authorizes legal permits, and, under the auspices of the Archbishop of Guatemala, with the CPR-P, for practical reasons the local entity that would actually allow such work to take place. The time was opportune, the Peace Accords signed, looting barely present if at all because of CPR-P vigilance, and Guatemalan and Mexican settlers, now a keen challenge in the region, had yet to seize land in the area. With surprising ease, funding came into place from the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Research, Inc. (FAMSI) and, 18 eventually, from other university, private, foundation, and federal sources. A project of this scale and timing in the academic calendar was only made possible because of thoughtful flexibility at Brigham Young University. Mindful of the threat from dams, the original aims were to document the site by more current means, against a backdrop of glyphic history, to train national and international students, affording masters and doctoral opportunities, and to bring Piedras Negras to its appropriate role: as a central contributor to present understanding of the Classic Maya, within a region that was remote then, continued to be remote now, a kingdom in constant antagonism with neighbors, along a river route that seemed at times, paradoxically, to impede movement rather than facilitate it. Doctoral, Masters, and Licenciatura theses included that drew on this work included: Acuña Smith (2005); Calvin (2006); Child (2006); Fernández (2002); Garrido Catalán (2009); Golden (2002); Hruby (2006); Jackson (2005); Muñoz (2006); Nelson (2005); Parnell (2001); Pérez Robles (2006); Scherer (2004). A book on the monuments came out somewhat later by another participant in the 2000 field season (O’Neil 2012, esp, pp. 189-211); its account of the depressing journeys of looted sculptures from Piedras Negras makes a sobering read. An evolving team was recruited (see Table 2.1).ix As with all projects, staff and expertise reached, by the final season, a comfortable familiarity with the area and more focused knowledge of how best to study it. An enduring truth: a dig grows to full skill by the time it concludes; it seldom has, with younger staff or directors, such expertise at the outset. The dig molded us all and made demands beyond prior imagining. The final season, in 2004, was highly focused, with less overlap in personnel than other seasons. Only Houston, Escobedo, and Zachary Nelson continued from the bulk of the team in the 1997-2000 fieldwork. 19 Travel to Piedras Negras was feasible by three routes: (1) by boat, downstream from the distant settlements of Bethel and Frontera Corozal; (2) by horse and foot from Corregiadora Ortíz, a small community in Tabasco, Mexico, some 5-hours' walk from Piedras Negras; and (3) by helicopter, with landing area in El Porvenir, about 15 minutes by boat from Piedras Negras or an hour on foot--this last was used only in 2004, by visitors to the project. The trail from Ortíz follows the road cut by Wyer. Far more difficult is the crossing from the Chiapan banks of the Usumacinta. The river flows swiftly, with relatively few fords to Guatemalan territory, and political and social unrest make any travel through this area inadvisable. From 2000 onwards, Park guards have lived intermittently at El Porvenir but in conditions of insecurity, with occasional displacement by drug traffickers and threats from settlers. As of 2007, agriculturalists from Tabasco have invaded the Park, leaving stable areas of forest only in the neighborhood of Piedras Negras and other pockets. The long-term viability of the park prompts long-term concern, and a permanent presence needs to be established at the city itself. An attempt by the Defensores to build a camp there, with initial support from the World Monument Fund, appears to have stopped for lack of funds. The Proyecto Arqueológico Piedras Negras (PAPN) had to construct and break down its own camp on an annual basis, with the archaeologists housed in tents within the patio defined by Str. T-3 and T-1, its lab on a small platform just to the southeast, off the entrance to the South Group plaza, and the workers on a ridge line down towards the socalled “Sacrificial Rock.” Here was the sandy beach where boats still land and where, probably, watercraft have embarked and disembarked for millennia. In the 2004 field season, park officials insisted, out of concern for the project “footprint,” that the camp be 20 shifted to their own at El Porvenir. This proved inconvenient logistically, with daily walks of 2 hours to and from the excavations in and around Str. K-5. Provisions came in regular shipment from Tabasco, by mule train, or, initially, by boat, although such trips were prohibitive in cost. Food planning required the most careful attention. The dig had scant leeway if supplies ran short, as happened frequently during the first year of fieldwork.x In off-season, excavation equipment was stored with the always-reliable Defensores de la Naturaleza, in a small, concrete block structure built at our expense in their Santa Elena headquarters, near Flores. Other, heavier gear was left in sheds in Bethel and El Porvenir, both susceptible to pilferage. Artifacts went up the Usumacinta by mahogany lancha (stiff, plank boat) to Bethel, then by vehicle to the project lab in Guatemala City. All finds, but for a small study collection in Escobedo’s care, were submitted in 2004 to the national museum (for complete objects) and a storage facility (“Salon 3,” for potsherds). Each season, the project submitted lengthy reports to IDAEH, all of which remain on-line (Chapter 1, http://www.famsi.org/research/piedras_negras/pn_project/piedras_negras.htm), and also gave regular talks at the annual archaeological symposia in Guatemala. A full list of operations appears in Table 2.2. The excavation system accorded with that at many Maya digs and followed closely the system labels and protocols by Penn archaeologists at Tikal and elsewhere, as transmitted to Houston through his work at Caracol, Belize, with Arlen and Diane Chase: site name first, followed by an “operation” number, referring to a substantial but coherent entity at the ruins (a pyramid, a sector, a residential group), a “sub-operation” letter that specified an area within that operation, often well over several 21 m2 in size, a “unit” that represented, usually, a 1x1 m area (all measurements were metric), and “lots” that served as collection entities, usually vertical, within a unit. Some “lots” might contain no artifacts, but forms were filled out for each, indicating properties, contents, context, matrix. A separate number would apply to complete objects within such lots, and these were in turn organized by master sheets of artifact classes (“jade,” etc.) Such forms are all on file at Brown University, and are now in the process of being digitized as part of the university’s Digital Humanities Initiative.xi The 1997 Season The project began in earnest after Houston and Escobedo signed a permit in September 1996. This agreement identified Escobedo and Houston as Co-Directors of the project, with institutional backing of Brigham Young University (BYU), IDAEH, and the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (UVG), at the time the institutional home of Escobedo. As negotiated, the project concession included an area of approximately 840 km2, with at least two major sites, Piedras Negras and La Pasadita, inside the project area (many others were found by Charles Golden and Andrew Scherer in superb, later survey [e.g., Golden and Scherer 2006; Golden et al. 2008; Scherer and Golden 2009]). This concession proved too large to be studied effectively with staff and resources at hand. Work at Piedras Negras began in mid-April 1997. A camp was built of tarp, netting, and local woods, and equipped with two, highly efficient generators. Coincidentally, we selected the same place for our camp as did the foresters before 1895 and Carnegie researchers in 1920 and 1921: rusted pots, hut foundations, and archival 22 photographs testified to the exact location of earlier bivouacs. That this general area also held the earliest settlement at Piedras Negras (see Chapter 4) stemmed in all likelihood from proximity to the landing beach. All water for the project came directly from the river, via an industrial filtration unit donated by Katadyn, a welcome donation that still needed frequent maintenance and cleaning. Several mishaps persuaded us that the Usumacinta was hardly a pristine body of water. Incautious bathing quickly infected bug bites, leading in two cases to severe cellulites, and one need for medical evacuation. As for our workers, most came in this and subsequent seasons from Dolores, Peten, excepting a few in 1997 who reported from the local CPR-P and others in 2000 from Bethel and other points along the river. The Dolores workers in particular showed the highest skill and professionalism in all seasons, often under difficult conditions. Within days of arrival we began test-pitting and limited architectural clearance in the South Group sector, and on Strs. J-3, J-4, and O-13, a set of pyramids linked to dynastic monuments. A short time later clean-up and buttressing started in the P-7 sweatbath. This building proved remarkably well-preserved, although the same could not be said of the O-13 pyramid, which had been savaged by Mason (see above). Nonetheless, our work did show that at least the southwestern base of O-13 was undisturbed. By the end of the field season we succeeded in refilling some of these pits. In late April, the project created a soils lab at the site, generating chemical analysis standards and calibrating analytical instrumentation; in subsequent seasons, this allowed the prospection of useful locations for test-pits (Parnell 2001; Parnell et al. 2001). Concurrently, specialists, particularly Perry Hardin of BYU, began soils description of pits, experimentation with GPS units, and systematic probing of soils near the “O-sector” 23 and its patio groups. (The "sectors" take their name from blocks of contiguous mounds and patio groups designated by letters on the University Museum map.) Team members undertook the photographic documentation of remaining stelae and altars. In the last week of April, the project reconnoitered northwest of Piedras Negras, re-locating El Porvenir, a cluster of mounds with courtyards. Meanwhile, test-pitting extended throughout Piedras Negras, resulting in over 200 separate excavations. Testing ranged from Court 3 of the Acropolis, the far north of areas mapped by Pennsylvania the “Ksector” on the slope behind the K-5 pyramid, as well as most other zones with smaller house mounds. Probes near Str. R-5 revealed 4-m-high structures completely buried by loose fill. At the end of May operations were closed systematically and backfilled completely, starting with major operations near the Acropolis, and then moving south. The momentum of massed effort by workers was impressive to watch and suggestive of the Maya activities that created Piedras Negras. Up until the last week, excavation continued in the R-13 sweatbath and in Court 3, near Str. J-20, where Charles Golden cleaned out a small part of a buried structure with evidence of ritual termination. By May 24, all units were completely backfilled. The last team members left Piedras Negras on the morning of May 26, 1997, taking all project equipment with them. Labwork continued through the summer in San Lucas, near Guatemala City. For the 1998 and following seasons, the lab shifted, for convenience, to Guatemala City itself, closer to IDAEH and local staff. The 1998 Season 24 By late March of 1998 camp construction began anew at Piedras Negras. Seventyfive laborers and cooks arrived by river, and operations commenced in a variety of locations. A larger labor force allowed the project to open more excavations than in 1997, often with as many as 13 operations running simultaneously. Sixteen new operations followed the sequence established in 1997. Several earlier operations were re-opened, principally Ops. 1 and 11. The first season relied heavily on large-scale test-pitting, a useful exploratory strategy at a site as large and complex as Piedras Negras. During the second season, project staff reduced the number of test-pits, restricting them to stillunexplored areas in the N/O and G/K sectors. All soil, excepting loose rubble, passed through 1/4 inch screens. Samples of particular cultural interest–burials, middens, floors– were floated by Nicholle Townsend, who employed a wet-flotation process developed under the guidance of Deborah Pearsall of the University of Missouri. This material was later studied in Pearsall’s lab, although the results reported only “herbaceous matter” and were not otherwise revealing. Flotation did prove useful in extracting delicate material, such as a slender bone needle. Most operations could be divided into two kinds of excavation: monumental architecture and small-scale structures and patios. Both could be time-consuming. At Piedras Negras, the excavation of monumental structures required exceptional caution because of unstable rubble, which necessitated hard-hats and wooden shoring. Several operations, including a trench through Court 2 of the Acropolis (Op. 32), had to be closed for fear of rock fall, and the project was unable to hit bedrock. Escobedo took the lead in such operations with a thorough investigation of Str. O-13, a structure with striking similarities to the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque (Macri 1994). Str. O-13 had 25 already been the focus of study in 1997, when Escobedo and Tomás Barrientos, with minor assistance from Houston, uncovered a royal burial that had been re-opened and burned a few years after its interment (Barrientos et al. 1997; Houston et al. 1998:18-19). The O-13 excavations explored the mortuary nature of the pyramid, mentioned hieroglyphically on Panel 3 (Escobedo 2004). The loose rubble core of the pyramid had defeated an earlier tunnel by Escobedo to the side of the O-13 stairway. Determined to improve safety, Escobedo searched for, and found, a layer of structurally stable, sterile clay, which his workers proceeded to tunnel after inserting roof supports. Directly overhead lay a chocolate-colored clay with sporadic Early Classic sherds. After 13 m, this clay proved unstable, drying and then scaling from the walls. Terminating this operation for safety reasons, Escobedo cleared the rest of Burial 13 and established its relation to an unusual dressed-stone pavement that had been penetrated by the Maya to burn this burial a few years after its interment (Houston et al. 1998:19). All monumental excavation at Piedras Negras suffered from the difficulty, often insuperable, of digging into loose rubble (Chapter 3). By mid-season, Escobedo, with the assistance of Carlos Alvarado, had demonstrated several important features of O-13. In the first place, the pyramid exhibited, in areas left undisturbed by Mason, a surprisingly good state of preservation. Its projecting stairway had most of its courses intact; terraces above still bore evidence of plaster flooring. More startling, the back of O-13 displayed a continuous face of plastered, red-painted masonry, with considerable modifications and additions, along with evidence of intrusive burials. But it was the front and axis of O-13 that revealed the 26 nature of the building. Escobedo removed several tons of rubble, exposing the lower risers of the stairway, an outside balustrade (perhaps the footing of a fallen stela), and a flagstone pavement. Excavations to bedrock in Mason’s axial cavity failed to reveal any sign of a burial, and Escobedo determined to dig inwards on axis. Almost immediately, workers struck one of the largest known caches in the Maya (Lowlands, consisting of approximately 129 eccentrics (54 chert, 75 of obsidian, most in groupings of nine equivalent shapes), 1 bird skeleton, 1 vessel with 8 jade beads and 9 pyrites (interspersed with jade, Spondylus, and hematite flecks), and a marine spiral shell, all placed in a prepared cist. The cache marked and celebrated the axis of the pyramid. With this indication, Escobedo began a tunnel, eventually aborted because of structural instability. The presence of a tomb within cannot be discounted, although the tunnel did begin to reach a rising slope of sterile clay presumably leading to the hillside under O-13. Our supposition in 1997 proved correct (Escobedo 2004): Burial 13, a rich interment on axis of O-13, lying beneath the flag pavement but with proof of later reentry, represented the tomb of Ruler 4 of Piedras Negras. If so, the events recorded on Panel 3–interment, followed 24 years later by tomb opening–corresponded closely to our "reading" of this deposit. It would seem that the cache and pavement, which passes underneath the final stage of O-13, came into existence in AD 757. The later phase and tomb reentry can be dated, if our reasoning is correct, to AD 782, in a ritual under the supervision of Ruler 7. The connection with Ruler 7 is reinforced by the presence nearby of Altar 4, a gigantic, stone jaguar paw resting on four stones (Stuart 2004). The sculptors of this altar are known to have been active during the reign of Ruler 7, and the object itself may be mentioned on another monument of his rule, Throne 1 (Chapter 3). (An earlier version of 27 this monument is mentioned on El Cayo Panel 1, from the time of Ruler 5 [Stuart 2004:fig. 4].) Escobedo ended the season by plumbing the front platform of Str. R-1, with the same results of loose rubble core and multiple layers. The earliest levels proved to be Early Classic in date. In 1997 the royal palace of Piedras Negras, the Acropolis, had begun to reveal its secrets. Court 3 was shown to contain Early Classic structures on a different orientation from buildings on the surface (Golden 1997:95). In 1998 we resolved to excavate in many places within the palace, since these investigations would capture its constructional history and functional complexity, mirroring changes in court activity. Overall, the excavations showed unambiguously that the Acropolis had significant Early Classic components, including an enigmatic, ritual component in Court 3: a bedrock outcropping and abyss accessed by steps. Nonetheless, other data pointed to its overwhelmingly Late Classic construction. Court 1 was found to have many buried layers in St. J-7–in reality a platform permitting access from Court 1 to Court 2 vía terraces on Str. J-4. Uppermost was the level surface of J-7, then came a courtyard with several episodes of replastering, a buried terrace, and lower still, a cluster of buildings facing Court 1 on its east and north sides. Work by the University Museum demonstrated that Court 1 possessed a deep patio filled to its current level when the buildings were constructed underneath J-7. Lowermost was a level with Early Classic material, but it was thinly distributed and embedded in what appeared to be natural clay (Satterthwaite 1954:71). Ceramics from all subsequent deposits dated to the Late Classic period (Yaxche to Chacalhaaz phases), with a few artifacts from the Early Classic/Late Classic transition (Balche). Coincidentally, 28 excavations in J-7 demonstrated that Str. J-4, a building that probably housed the tomb of Ruler 2 (a factum from the 2000 season), was constructed after these platforms. By mid-season excavations accelerated in the Acropolis, particularly in the courtyards. This approach involved less disturbance of standing masonry and promised deeper soundings in areas without heavy overburden. Golden extended trenches in Court 3, exposing earlier building levels and establishing articulations between architecture ringing (and underlying) the court. In Court 2 Houston and Urquizú cleaned a north-south trench left by the University Museum, simultaneously probing an opening cut by looters through the back of Str. J-10. By the end of the season, the team had moved to Court 1, invited by a massive, leveled platform (J-7) left undisturbed by the University Museum. This platform had two further attractions: it permitted study of the joins between Court 1, its defining palace rooms, and Str. J-4; and it corresponded symmetrically to J-5, where the Museum had found Burial 5 in the 1930s (W. Coe 1959:figs. 64-650. The Acropolis excavations in 1998 raised another question: where did the Early Classic rulers live? A strong candidate came to light under the West Group Plaza. During test-pitting, Lilian Garrido found at least two structures, fronted to the south by at least two, successive monumental stairways (Garrido Catalán 2009). Dating to the Early Classic period, these structures had been thoroughly leveled and their superstructures tossed, after demolition, into areas around the buildings. By this means the Maya of Piedras Negras created the current level of the West Group Plaza. The bases of the structures were finely plastered, with evidence of several entrances or access stairways. Moreover, the plan of the buildings lay on the same orientation and general axis as Court 29 1 of the Acropolis. It was difficult to escape the notion that the buildings constituted an earlier, smaller palace of more open, accessible form. In turn, Court 1 represented an attempt to emphasize dramatic enclosure and spatial exclusivity, a pattern found also in comparable buildings at Uaxactún (Proskouriakoff 1946:111-129). Clearly, the Maya chose at the end of the Early Classic to reconfigure, through gigantic effort, processional approaches to the Acropolis. This complex apparently evolved from a natural hill with structures on its summit, to an architectural mass that was almost entirely artificial in appearance. This effort reshaped the urban form of Piedras Negras, lending a monumental aspect, including Ballcourt 2 and later stages of Str. K-5 (W. Coe 1959:152), integrating isolated buildings, and bonding the northern and southern portions of the site. For his doctoral research, Child further investigated more sweatbaths of Piedras Negras, a feature known elsewhere but of relative rarity outside the Usumacinta basin (Childe 2006). In 1998, Child concentrated on sweatbaths P-7, S-2, S-4, and S-19, most arranged around a planned area oriented to the S-group. Urquizú showed that the group contained high-quality masonry and most likely served as a residence of nobles or lesser royalty. The sweatbaths can in all cases be shown to have at least two phases of construction. Primary, sealed contexts dated their earliest building to the Naba period (R13), late Naba/early Balche (P-7), Yaxche (S-4 and S-2 in sequence), and early Chacalhaaz (S-19). Str. P-7 proved to have a cistern above its steam room, to collect rainfall for bathing. The reconstruction of P-7 allowed Child to bring hot stones into its rejuvenated fire-box. When basted with water, the rocks generated heat that became almost intolerable within minutes, particularly if (unwise) bathers stood atop benches within the chamber. A contractual obligation of our permit was the consolidation of 30 endangered buildings. After consideration of several alternatives, the project targeted the P-7 sweatbath (Child 1997, 2006). Twelve masons, working in teams of two, master and apprentice side-by-side, selected and shaped the thin flagstones distinctive of late masonry at the site, removed deep tree roots that had infiltrated the body of the structure, excavated remaining room debris, sifted and graded soil of decomposed plaster from the building, and experimented with several grades of cement to reproduce the dense pointing of the original. An industrial pump and ½ km of reinforced hose brought water to the sweatbath, since project masons required at least 150 gallons a day. After a month’s work, the masons succeeded in consolidating the central room of the sweatbath, roof piers, northeast door, room benches, and the sluice (desagüe) leading from the inner sweatroom. Our policy was to consolidate masonry still in place or recently fallen, and not to engage in plausible, but still speculative, reconstruction. The masons also provided Child with an unusual opportunity to gauge the energetics of construction at Piedras Negras, a feature explored in more detail by Elliot Abrams in the 2000 field season (Abrams 2001, see also Chapter 5). Steel axes, not chert adzes, were used in shaping stone, but this could not have been radically different from ancient results, since the flagstones took their shape largely from bedding planes in local rock. With water, stone, and cement in place, masons took approximately one day to build 1 m2 of wall, two days for 1 m2 of vaulting. They noted that much of the stone came from the riverbank, some 500 m away, the same location where local artisans extracted the poor-quality, white chert employed for tools at Piedras Negras (Chapter 4). Our masons also proved helpful in preparing a cist in Str. J-23 for the ashes of Tatiana Proskouriakoff (see above). On Easter Sunday (non-Orthodox calendar) project members 31 respectfully buried her remains. Not only Proskouriakoff was interred: by the end of the season, all pits and trenches, including some left open by the University Museum, were backfilled in accordance with the requirements of our permit. Another crucial focus of the Piedras Negras project were small-scale residences, which typically receive little to no scholarly attention in the western Maya Lowlands. Working around Str. R-20, Nancy Monterroso found an unusual deposit: a Late Classic cemetery. Initial clearance exposed seven burials (three infants, two children, 1 adult male, 1 adult woman), all with the same general north-south orientation (Nelson 2009:393-419). Within R-20 was found a burial (#45) along the same orientation, but with far richer remains. Burial 45, an adult male, lay within a cist covered by meter-long slabs. Niches to the side held polychrome dishes, some emblazoned with a peculiar glyphic formulae of day signs and other suffixes that is unique to Piedras Negras (Chapter 4). It would seem likely that these burials possessed a familial relationship and that Burial 45 contained a lineage founder or at least a central figure in these residential groups. Nearby, Christian Wells undertook the first stripping excavations within Piedras Negras, in an area of concentrated settlement between the arroyo and the South Group Plaza. Finds included a dense concentration of obsidian flaking, antler cutting, as well as additional evidence of an ancestral burial in a small, eastern platform (see Nelson 2009:80-144). This area was thoroughly soil-tested by Hardin, Parnell, and Terry, and showed striking patterns of elevated phosphorus concentration along the platform edge, which may have served as a midden or an easily cleaned work station (Wells et al. 2000). Nicholle Townsend conducted a small-scale excavation in conjunction with soil sampling by Hardin and Parnell northeast of Piedras Negras, on the trail to México (Op. 38). Low 32 background levels of phosphate (<3 mg/kg) were found in suspected ancient agricultural fields compared to elevated phosphate concentrations in suspected patio soils adjacent to house mounds. Test-pitting by Arredondo and Aguirre added considerably to the number of burials, bringing the current total to forty-six (for general discussion, see Nelson 2009:193-355). In the N/O sector, Arredondo also found an extraordinary special deposit of fine ceramics in an ashy lens (Op. 24b). In 1997, Golden found a similar deposit of Early Classic date under Str. J-20, and Wells encountered a slightly later lens of fine, burnt material under Str. F-2. Such finds appeared to involve termination rituals, although less obviously so in Arredondo’s case: the lens lay between two, low-lying buildings only slightly visible on the surface. The quality of this material was stunning: many figurines, including probable portraits; ocarinas and a polyphonic flute with three chambers; incised ceramics referring to Ruler 2 (accession AD 639, death AD 686, see Chapter 3). It seems plausible that this material came, not from buildings around it, but from the Acropolis. Why it would appear in Op. 24b continues to be a mystery. Jennifer Kirker and Amy Kovak systematically surveyed a 3-4 km2 region composed of three survey blocks to the east, south, and northwest of Piedras Negras proper. Their primary aim was to document patterns of settlement form, density, and distribution both on the near-periphery of the main site and in more distant, rural zones. Two other goals were to locate visible agro-engineering features and to test the usefulness of GPS systems in rugged topography under high forest. Eighty-five sites, ranging from a ceremonial precinct just south of Piedras Negras to small, single mounds, were located and mapped. Most were near-periphery sites within about 1 km of Piedras 33 Negras, but some were recorded as much as 3.2 km to the northeast around the outlying subsidiary center of El Porvenir. It proved possible to obtain GPS fixes in almost all cases despite the vegetation cover. Kirker, along with Timothy Murtha, later completed 27 test excavations in 19 sites, or 22% of the total located this year. Small residential terraces were common, but this team detected no traces of extensive agricultural terracing or other agro-engineering features. The settlement survey, conducted by Pennsylvania State under project permit and supervision, far extended the results of the 1997 season. As mentioned before Kirker and Kovak located 84 separate mound groups or platforms within their survey blocks. Topography clearly determined density: gentle slopes invited settlement, broken terrain repelled it, a pattern quite distinct from that around La Pasadita, where structures abounded on mesa summits, perhaps for defensive reasons in the northern reaches of the Yaxchilan kingdom (Scherer and Golden 2009). According to preliminary study, most sites date to the Yaxche and Chacalhaaz phases–firmly in the Late Classic period, and further evidence of a population explosion at that time. A more extensive excavation by Webster and Kovak retrieved far deeper chronology, from Balche to late Chacalhaaz, over 200 years of occupation. That site may be anomalous because of its position astride one of the few access routes into Piedras Negras. A large number of chert points plausibly attests to its function as a guard post. Another discovery made during survey may explain the name of Piedras Negras, yokib (yo-ki-bi), a probable, archaic term for “entrance” (later texts employ a logograph with “cave” element). Close to the Webster/Kovak excavation is a rise, also with mound group, that leads up a narrow defile to a dry cenote fully 200 m across and 50 m deep, one of the largest yet found in Guatemala; a shallower cenote lay directly to the west. Initial attempts at exploration 34 were stymied by the steep drop, but further exploration took place under George Veni’s tream in 1999. But it seems probable that these features intrigued the Maya, to the extent that they used them in their place name. Perry Hardin and Jacob Parnell supplemented such reconnaissance by exploring valleys to the northwest of Piedras Negras. They also took numerous soil samples for processing by Terry at BYU. In the site core, Christian Wells moved his crew to a set of low, unexplored mounds squeezed between the South Group Plaza and the arroyo near the South Group Plaza. This research had several objectives: to determine whether the area contained Preclassic deposits such as those in the Plaza nearby (it did not); but, even more important, to start extensive clearance of domestic architecture, a feature barely studied at Piedras Negras or, for that matter, anywhere in the western Maya Lowlands. Using a total station, Nathan Currit mapped all excavations from the 1997 and 1998 field seasons. To our dismay, he showed that the University Museum map, excellent in some respects, suffered from large horizontal errors somewhere along the East Group Plaza, an error suspected by University Museum researchers (Satterthwaite, 1943:21). Architecture in the Acropolis area needed to be moved 20 m to the northeast; buildings near the South Group Plaza lay, according to Currit’s measurements, some 20 m to the southeast. In March 1998, a small team led by Charles Golden reached the remote and heavily looted site of La Pasadita, in the southern part of the BYU/UVG concession. The ruin, famous to epigraphers because of its murals, lintels, and connection to the dynastic polity of Yaxchilán, was first reported by Ian Graham in 1971 (Graham 2010:453-461). It proved exceptionally difficult to relocate. Contrary to published maps, the area around La 35 Pasadita consisted of broken, occasionally swampy (and demonstrably malarial) terrain. Ancient settlement clustered on hilltops, with small terraces and small mounds sparsely scattered on lower slopes some 20-50 m below. The discarded remains of military rations and reports of intense battles during the height of civil conflicts in Guatemala lent weight to persistent rumors of land mines in the area (see above). Tragically, the building that housed the murals, Str. 1, had collapsed a few years before Golden’s visit. Most buildings and platforms in the area bore testimony to savage, persistent looting. At least ten graves, including three crypts in a building adjacent to Str. 1, lay open to view when Golden’s party visited La Pasadita. The 1999 Field Season As in past years, the field season began in late March with camp construction and the transportation of several tons of food and equipment by river. Security at Piedras Negras, just across from the unstable Mexican state of Chiapas, had improved during our absence. The Guatemalan military decided to install a group of military specialists (paracaidistas) at El Porvenir, an hour’s walk to the northeast. During the interim their presence and continuous patrolling had quickly discouraged further incursions by milperos from the Mexican border village of Corregidora Ortíz. Within a week, the camp had been erected in the same location as last year, but with new materials: massive tarps and self-supporting tents required less cutting of local vegetation. Excavations commenced thereafter. Houston continued his excavations in the Acropolis, as did Charles Golden and a new member of the team, Mónica Pellecer; later, Houston was 36 joined by Ernesto Arredondo as his principal assistant. The purpose of these investigations was to discover the nature of architectural superimposition from bedrock to the latest stages of the Acropolis. The larger aim was to finish a comprehensive study of this, one of the most elaborate artificial constructions in the Maya region. In general, this work had to adjust itself to the few spaces left undisturbed by Pennsylvania or otherwise bereft of their spoil. In the South Group, Escobedo and his assistant, Marcelo Zamora, attended to Str. R-5, a structure explicitly labeled by glyphs as the muk, or burial, of Ruler 1 (Stuart 1998:x). Here there seemed to be an ideal opportunity to link the historical and archaeological records of Piedras Negras at the key juncture between the Early and Late Classic periods, and at a time when the South Group lost its preeminence as the ritual center of the city. An even earlier construction, the buried Early Classic palace complex under the West Group Court, was again explored with slot trenching by Lilian Garrido. Mark and Jessica Child examined all sweatbaths left unstudied from earlier seasons, including Strs. J-17, N-1, and O-4, along with ancillary buildings O-3 and P-6. Christian Wells and Luis Romero built on earlier excavations by Wells and Nancy Monterroso by proceeding with the stripping and trenching of Strs. R-18, R-31, and U-16 (Nelson 2009:393-419). The first two buildings lay directly adjacent to a Late Classic cemetery around Structure R-20 (Houston et al. 1999:fig. 4). This, together with the presence of an Early Classic substrate, motivated a complete cleaning of its lower terraces and the penetration of its early component. Str. U-16 was the sole remaining building of its group not excavated in 1998. Wells completely stripped it of overburden and effected a wide trench in its north-south axis. 37 By mid-season, all operations were in full-swing. In the so-called "servant’s quarters," the N/O sector of settlement below the West Group Plaza, James Fitzsimmons excavated two structures, N-7 and N-10, and ended the season by investigating an enigmatic, ruined, perhaps unfinished building, O-17. Through test-pitting, Alejandro Guillot had encountered fertile concentrations of crypted burials, Early Classic walls, and caches in the patio of a group dominated by Str. C-13. The detection of a probable burial panel and an eastern mound, both clues to mortuary function, led to the excavation of a burial, largely dug and recorded by Zachary Hruby and René Muñoz. Meanwhile, Webster and Amy Kovak excavated two groups to the south, as part of a "community" or "barrio" study that rested on earlier, more extensive surveys in the 1997 and 1998 field seasons (Webster and Kirker 1997; Webster et al. 1998). This work was assisted by Zachary Nelson’s computer-assisted mapping, which established, for the first time, absolute elevations in peripheral zones. Nelson also concentrated in the southeast zone of Piedras Negras proper, known to contain many, hitherto unmapped mound groups (Nelson 2009:47-79). Simultaneously, Jacob Parnell, with the assistance of Fabián Fernández and Benjamin Crozier, perfected the process of phosphate prospecting and heavy metal sampling as pioneered in earlier seasons, taking a total of 1217 samples. In the low mound group south of Str. C-10, Parnell had great success in predicting the location of rich middens and human burials (Parnell 2001; Parnell et al. 2001). Areas in the periphery and the Acropolis (Op. 46) were also gridded and tested, with positive results that bode well for systematic use of this procedure in the future. Emily Elmer floated soil samples sent in from excavations, again with retrieval of carbonized plant remains, fish 38 bone, lithics, and small artifacts. Ten soil profiles located within Piedras Negras and at rural sites outside the city were described and samples collected from each horizon. A side-project included the cave or rock shelter investigations of the late Pierre Robert Colas, who dug in three areas: the so-called "Maler’s Cave," the Cueva de Alberto located 2 km south of Piedras Negras, and Actun Yuch’ib, overlooking the Northwest Group Court. By mid-May, all operations ceased. Work parties filled open units, and then planted the backfilled areas with xate palm (Chamaedorea sp.). The Piedras Negras project continued its commitment to consolidation. The 1999 efforts focused on Str. J-11 in the Acropolis. Roots had dismantled and weakened two extant vaults and several walls were leaning dangerously. In the vain hope of finding burials, Penn excavators had hollowed out two benches, tossing fill in all directions. Under the supervision of a master mason, eight specialists sifted through 1930s backdirt, separating building stone from degraded plaster. On clearing Penn’s debris within Str. J11, they began the arduous work of transporting hundreds of liters of water up from the river to storage tanks in Court 1 (two pumps and 400 m of tubing were necessary because of the Acropolis’ height above the Usumacinta). While project members took photographs of standing masonry, workers mixed the degraded plaster and earth with a light cement. (The master mason suspected the presence of other, organic binders in the original mortar.) Following customary practice, all rotten mortar was removed and unstable stones refooted. Stones retrieved from Penn backfill were reshaped and carefully fitted to surround and protect the endangered vaults. Leaning walls had to be marked, disassembled, and rebuilt on correct vertical plane. Finally, the benches were refilled with stone, leveled, and covered with 5 cm of plaster, leaving original surfaces well marked. In 39 no case could large trees be felled because of Piedras Negras’ location within a biosphere reserve, but the remaining trees on Str. J-11 will likely prevent the regrowth of smaller plants cleared during consolidation. The 2000 Season On schedule, camp construction began at Piedras Negras in late March, with an enlarged lab and more orderly storage for sherds. Operations soon opened in Strs. R-5 and R-3 in the South Group, where the project focused on the presumed Early Classic remains at Piedras Negras. This area had been touched relatively little by the University Museum project, although a 3.5 m deep trench had been driven into R-3. Partly with the idea of cleaning and backfilling this gaping pit, which still retained metal wire from Museum revetments, Mark and Jessica Child excavated the trench down to the original limits of the Pennsylvania operations and slightly beyond, into Preclassic levels (Op. 55). The profiles proved to be extremely unstable, so the Childs reinforced them with bagged silt. At the end of the season, the trench was refilled to the original surface of the pyramid. In the meantime Escobedo and Marcelo Zamora completed work on the basal platform and adjacent plaza of Str. R-5 (Op. 47). Repeated attempts to pierce the core of the pyramid were made impossible by the loose, poorly consolidated rubble of the structure. By late April, Escobedo and Zamora moved to a well-preserved Early Classic building, Str. R-2 (Op. 56), which held several column altars that seem to have been flung there during Terminal Classic times. None of these columns had cist foundations, suggesting that they originated in another part of the site. This building was shown 40 stratigraphically to postdate Str. R-3, and to rest on a large Early Classic extension of the R-32 platform. Unfortunately, the surface of R-2 had been cleared by the University Museum, which seems not to have preserved records of these excavations, evidently by Mason, nor of those in R-3. Escobedo and Zamora finished the season by limited clearing and testing of Pyramid R-16 (Op. 58), shown to be of Early Classic date, with sherds of this period atop its basal platform. A final test in Str. O-12 attempted to retrieve remains linked to the enigmatic Ruler 6, whose stela now lies in front of this building. In late April the Childs moved to Str. R-8, an extension of R-7 that merited excavation because of its unusual shape (Op. 59). The chances were high that the irregular outline of this mound concealed earlier structures. Clearance began on top and near its stairway, which faced the alley to the west of the R-11 ballcourt. An L-shaped excavation led to the uncovering of R-8-Sub 1, an Early Classic structure with excellent if variable preservation. On May 23rd, three days before the projected close of excavations, a richly appointed, probably royal tomb, Burial 110, was found oriented along its long-axis, towards the rear of the structure, directly on bedrock. With the assistance of fans, generators, and long workdays, this tomb was recorded and cleared within a five-day period. Simultaneously, workers pitted into R-14 (Op. 60), finding an Early Classic deposit and cleaned the front of the R-8 stairway oriented to the South Group Court. Meanwhile, Golden and Fabiola Quiroa concentrated exclusively on a residential terrace behind the Acropolis (Ops. 46 and 54). In 1999 this area was found to produce deep stratigraphy, with the chance of functional insights into an undisturbed residential 41 component of the Acropolis. Quiroa devoted her attentions initially to Str. J-27, evidently the summit of a long, ruined stairway leading to the Northwest Group Court. However, the building clearly differed from other temples, being little more than a crudely fashioned platform of Yaxche date with superficial deposits of Chacalhaaz materials, perhaps tossed from the residential area above. The buildings above (Op. 46), excavated by Golden, later with the assistance of Quiroa, absorbed the entire field season because of the complexity of the deposits. Nearby, Houston and Arredondo commenced a broad approach to the few areas in the remainder of the Acropolis that were not covered by debris left by the University Museum or by standing buildings. In early April Arredondo directed himself to Platform J-1, particularly the base of Pyramid J-4 (Op. 48). There, excavations found Panel 15, the largest and longest text found by our project. Later, he opened simultaneous operations throughout the Acropolis, with the aim of determining the constructional history of standing buildings on the palace. These tests targeted Court 1 (clearance of part of Str. J-6 in preparation for consolidation efforts in a destabilized wall, along with final explorations of Platform J-5), Court 2 (Strs. J-9, J-11, J-12, J-13, and what appeared to be a hitherto undetected, late structures between Strs. J-4 and J-12), and points above (J-21, J-22, and J-23). Megan O’Neil undertook documentation of all standing masonry in the Acropolis, and later assisted Zachary Hruby’s ongoing, invaluable contributions to project photography. Heather Hurst, too, took measurements and began perspective drawings of buildings throughout the site. James Fitzsimmons and Lillian Garrido complemented these efforts with thorough tests and trenches throughout the West Group Plaza and its surrounding structures. Fitzsimmons dealt with Strs. O-14, O-16, O-17, K-1, K-3, and K-7, Garrido 42 with the subterranean mysteries of the Early Classic palace under the Plaza. Garrido ended the season by further explorations in Str. S-5 (Nelson 2009:445-452), following through on tests made in the beginning of the season by Sarah Jackson (2005:548-590), who began her work in the patio dominated by Str. S-11 (Op.15), a presumed elite, subroyal residence, and directed the remaining forty-five days of the season to Str. C-10 and C-12. From mid-April excavations picked up from earlier seasons in Op. 33, under the supervision of Zachary Nelson, who gradually extended this operation into test-pitting in the unexcavated portion of the "U-sector." Simultaneously, Amy Kovak began an ambitious program of stripping in Str. RS-28, among the more monumental structures in the periphery of Piedras Negras. After Webster’s arrival in late April, he completed excavations in RS-27, assisted by Mark Child, who excavated a probable sweatbath nearby, and by early May had moved to RS-24, the most distant site excavated thoroughly by the Pennsylvania State team. These excavations were done in concert with soil tests by Jacob Parnell and Fabián Fernández. Parnell tested for phosphate throughout the Arroyo sector of settlement, mapped in 1998 by Nelson (Nelson 1999), as well as in residential areas explored by James Fitzsimmons around Str. N-3, following up on unusually high concentrations of phosphorus and heavy metals detected in previous seasons of soil testing. Alejandro Guillot augmented our large number of test pits with others in the Z-sector (Op. 53), near the northern trail leading into Piedras Negras. He completed his work by comprehensive test-pitting in the difficult second-growth that covered the Arroyo sector. Finally, Rachel Cane mapped in the Acropolis while Timothy Murtha surveyed the area of the suburban excavations. 43 By contract the Project was again obliged to invest over 20% of its 2000 budget in consolidation and restoration. Efforts were directed to two locations, the P-7 sweatbath, the scene of restoration in the 1998 field season, and selected points in the Acropolis. A team of 20 masons needed first to address the perilous state of the north, front wall of P7, which had begun to lean ominously after the 1999 field season. Masons soon determined the cause: rubble under the wall had been poorly compressed, an instability exacerbated by great weight and height of the building facade. After marking each stone, the masons dismantled and rebuilt the wall on a level footing. Probing around the side walls soon revealed the distressing fact that virtually all of the mortar had decomposed to the consistency of powder. Worse, tree roots had penetrated the full height of the northwestern wall. The decision was made then and there to concentrate all restoration efforts on Str. P-7. By the end of the field season most internal and external walls had been repointed with mortar, loose sections dismantled and reconstituted, tree roots entirely removed, cornices brought back to their original reversed-Z, sloping outlines, and three benches returned to their former height (two of these benches, those in the front vestibule, had the character of thrones, with freestanding front supports; those in the back room were entirely solid, intended, one presumes, for reclining). To facilitate visits by tourists, a central portion of the front stairway was fully consolidated and loose fill heaped to the sides to prevent erosion. Finally, holes in masonry were patched in the Acropolis, particularly in Str. J-6. Some of these cavities came from looting, although the largest resulted from Pennsylvania excavations, which, in searching for earlier remains, had undermined the northern interior wall of J-6. 44 By May 20 of 2000, the rains arrived early, making further work difficult or even impossible. Hardships in removing the massive Panel 15 meant that Arredondo and Inspector Gustavo Amarra had to stay past June 3, at which time all excavations had been completely backfilled and most staff transported from Piedras Negras. This situation remained thus until Escobedo arranged, with the help of numerous friends but especially the American Embassy, the airlift by Chinook helicopter of the panel to safety in Guatemala City. The monument is now on display in the MUNAE, the national museum of Guatemala. The 2004 Season Str. K-5 is one of dozen or so pyramidal structures known at the Maya city of Piedras Negras, Guatemala (Houston et al. 2006, 2008). The BYU/UVG project had been unable to re-examine it during earlier seasons, for several reasons: (1) the Penn team partly dismantled the building, and other research priorities were higher; and (2) the structure appeared to be well-understood because of the excavations in 1939. After discussions with the Defensores de la Naturaleza and the World Monument Fund, however, Escobedo, Houston, and Luis Romero decided that the structure needed urgent attention. In the first place, its stucco masks, so well-preserved when exposed by the University of Pennsylvania in 1932 and 1939 had been left unburied, with clear, damaging consequences. The masks had begun to split under flow of seasonal rain, fungal growth was consuming the stucco surface, visitors prior to 1997 caused damage through pointless vandalism of the mask’s nose; and, worst of all, trees had begun to 45 grow directly behind the mask, endangering the surface. Despite these poor indicators, the mask had, by some miracle, retained much of its fabric, at least to the present, and the stairways uncovered by Pennsylvania remained in relatively good condition. Our team was motivated by another question: what, precisely, was the dating of the buildings and sub-buildings found by Pennsylvania? As mentiones before, the University Museum excavators did not fully understand that Plazas could contain crucial details: their vision was, in a word, “horizontal,” strongly oriented to the investigation of buildings but not to the substrates that supported them. Fieldwork by the BYU/UVG project had, with specific help from Lilian Garrido, who prepared a licenciatura on the subject, sunk test-pits nearby (Garrido Catalán 2009:fig. 4). It had detected considerable evidence of earlier structures that had been destroyed and covered by the massive plaza that now fronts the Acropolis of Piedras Negras and supports the K-6 ballcourt. In most prior research on ceramics at Piedras Negras, K-5 had played a key role, particularly in Holley’s dissertation (1983:tables 6, 24) and in the isolation and categorization of the Balche phase of ceramics, a rare instance in which Maya ceramics shifted without break from the Early Classic to Late Classic periods. Materials from K-5 were also used by William Coe (1959:92-95) in his report on the caches of Piedras Negras. These finds led Hector Escobedo to sink, in 1997, two test pits near the stelae of K-5 (St. 38 and 39) so as to examine the chronology of this portion of the plaza. At that time, Escobedo used one of these test-pits to inter fragments of Panel 7 (see above). The team began work in early May, with considerable logistical support from the Defensores. Participants included Romero, with Escobedo as key consultant, Houston as supervisor of excavations in the plaza floor, Griselda Pérez Robles and Juan Carlos 46 Meléndez Mollinedo, Kelleigh Cole, Kylie McKay as lab manager, Zachary Nelson as principal surveyor, and Milton Jair Sarg Gálvez as main supervisor of consolidation. Angelyn Bass Rivera did valuable service as the consultant and consolidator of the mask of K-5, as did a team of expert masons from Dolores, Guatemala. Two operations took place concurrently. The first was to drop test pits into the plaza in front of K-5, with surprising results: almost immediately, other structures, including compact human burials, came to light, along with what seemed to be an early test pit, from the 1930s, by Mary Butler. Pérez and Meléndez, along with Cole, executed a series of such pits on the axis and to the southwest of K-5, in some of the few areas not disturbed by the 1930s excavations. (To the south of k-5, one heap of masonry was so large that team members wondered initially if it was an entirely new pyramid.) A set of testpits extended towards the K-6 ballcourt, and demonstrated that it was a relatively late construction, possibly even after the building of K-5. Deep and loose rubble made these test-pits hazardous. Most were aborted after reaching a depth of 2 m. Meanwhile, masons cleaned, repointed, and relaid the front stairway of K-5, consolidating the mass firmly with a mixture of plaster and lime employed as a standard at most archaeological parks in Guatemala. (The majority of the masons had just come from other IDAEH projects and followed closely the procedures on that undertaking.) Bass assisted masons in the following ways: by (1) engineering a lightweight roof of natural materials (as desired by the Defensores) yet at a sufficient height to make the mask visible to visitors; (2) consolidating the masonry around the masks and removing all vegetation within, as well as scouring the surface of its biotic infestation; (3) reattaching the masks to consolidate walls behind them, as all were in immediate danger of 47 slumping outwards; and (4) arranging to avoid any possibility of water channeling over the masks. Prior to these interventions, the area around the masks was carefully excavated and screened and a few additional pieces of stucco found. Finally, Bass and the workers created a drainage berm around the mask and devised a fence so that visitors would not be tempted to touch or vandalize the surface. Regrettably, some years later, when the natural roofing deteriorated, exposure to the elements continued. In all likelihood, as with many stuccoes, the masks should have been entirely reburied, a practice now in place for some Maya ruins in Mexico (Olvera 2009). A final operation, under Pérez, with close consultation by Escobedo, was the clearing and cleaning of a chaotic heap of masonry on the summit of the pyramid, as left in 1939. It was decided that the lower chamber found and left exposed by Penn would afford sufficient space to examine the interior of the pyramid, as bedrock only lay a few meters away. This work was done with great care because of loose rubble fill, but received some stability by following an internal muro de contención, a casual, internal wall intended by the Maya to strengthen fill against lateral displacement. But any expectation of finding a burial—the lone panel from Str. K-5 referred to its possession by a deceased queen, the Lady of Hix Witz (Houston et al. 2008:50-52)--was misplaced. The bottom of the pit showed a rough arrangement of stones, finer sediment, and bedrock. The more intriguing finds proved to be in front of K-5, where Meléndez and Cole discovered a dump of densely concentrated, often hand-situated ceramics and figurines directly in front of the stairway and, indeed, passing under it. This deposit appeared to be preparatory to the construction of K-5. In the process of creating this leveled area, the Maya covered a rectangular structure that proved to be densely filled with burials, of all 48 ages, including youths and prepared crypts almost directly adjacent to one another. Probes to the west delimited the far end of this building and showed that the plaza dropped down to lower levels that could not be reached because of dangerous overburden. Testspits to the south of this building uncovered yet other leveled structures that continued into a heavily forested area. These finds made it clear that the area under the K-6 ballcourt, as faced by K-5, was at one time replete with many structures that had to be leveled to create a suitable entrance to K-5: in some respects, a brute-force clearance by eminent domain. A deep ravine, an extension of that defining the eastern side of the Acropolis, once ran under this zone as well. Most likely, the sector formed part of an earlier set of palaces linked to those excavated in earlier seasons by Garrido. The key difference were the burials in this sector, none of which appeared to have rich grave goods. Coda After the 2004 field season, work continued at Piedras Negras, but as part of larger consolidation efforts by Luis Romero and the current supervisors of the ancient city, the Defensores de la Naturaleza. The foci thus far have been mostly in the Acropolis, including further consolidation of the Str. J-6 stairway and the incidental discovery of caches therein. Other work by Romero has targeted El Porvenir, where ceramics were found of Early Postclassic date, and construction of a covering for the reconsolidated Burial 10, an enigmatic, open crypt in the South Group Plaza, just to the front of Str. U-3 (Coe 1959:126-127, fig. 67). The reports of late ceramics at El Porvenir 49 brought Golden and Andrew Scherer back to El Porvenir, with useful, complementary results (Golden et al. 2010). That much remains to be done at Piedras Negras is a banal yet true statement: extensive exposures of settlement, especially in peripheral areas and near the South Group, are scarcely begun at Piedras Negras, despite our best efforts, nor has there been systematic coordination with research to the northern boundaries of the Piedras Negras kingdom in what is now Mexico (González and Fournier 2006). That must await future archaeowork by those tasked with this high charge. 50 Table 2-1. Staff of the Piedras Negras Project Elliot Abrams, Ohio University, architecture: 2000 Isabel Aguirre, USAC, house mounds: 1998 Carlos Alvarado, UVG, architecture: 1998 Josh Anderson, BYU, soils: 2000 Ernesto Arredondo, UVG, architecture, housemounds: 1998-2000 Tomás Barrientos, UVG, architecture: 1997-1998 Angelyn Bass-Rivera, National Park Service, conservation: 2004 Rachel Cane, Yale, mapping: 2000 Jeannette Castellanos, USAC, ceramics: 1997-1998 Jessica Child, SUNY-Albany: 1999-2000 Mark Child, Yale University, architecture: 1997-2000 Alan Cobb, independent researcher, caves: 1999 Pierre Robert Colas, Hamburg University, architecture, caves: 1999 Kelleigh Cole, BYU, architecture: 2004 Benjamin Crozier, BYU, soils: 1999 Nathan Currit, BYU, mapping: 1998 Emily Elmer, BYU, flotation: 1999 Héctor Escobedo, UVG, co-director: 1997-2000, 2004 Olivia Farr, Southern Methodist University, architecture: 2004 Fabian Fernández, BYU, soils: 1999-2000 51 James Fitzsimmons, Harvard, architecture: 1999-2000 Donald Forsyth, BYU, ceramics: 1997 Lilian Garrido, USAC, house mounds, architecture: 1998-2000 Charles Golden, University of Pennsylvania, architecture: 1997-2000 Alejandro Guillot, UVG, house mounds: 1999-2000 Perry Hardin, BYU, soils: 1997-1998 Stephen Houston, BYU, co-director: 1997-2000, 2004 Zachary Hruby, UC-Riverside, drafting, lithics, photography, architecture: 1998-2000 Heather Hurst, independent scholar, drafting: 1999-2000 Mark Jackson, BYU, soils: 1997-1998 Sarah Jackson, Harvard, architecture: 2000 Chris Jensen, BYU, flotation: 2000 Jennifer Kirker, Penn State, mapping, settlement: 1997-1998 Amy Kovak, Penn State, mapping, settlement: 1998-2000 Bonnie Longley, independent researcher, caves: 1999 Kylie McKay, BYU, architecture: 2004 Juan Carlos Meléndez, USAC, architecture: 2004 Nancy Monterroso, USAC, house mounds: 1997-1998 René Muñoz, University of Arizona, ceramics: 1998-2000 Timothy Murtha, Penn State, mapping: 1998, 2000 Zachary Nelson, Penn State, house mounds: 1999-2000, 2004 Megan O’Neill, Yale, documentation: 2000 Jacob Parnell, BYU: 1998-2000 52 Mónica Pellicer, USAC, architecture: 1999 Griselda Pérez Robles, USAC, architecture: 2004 Fabiola Quiroa, UVG, architecture: 2000 Alfredo Román, USAC, drafting: 1997 Luis Romero, USAC, house mounds: 1999 Shelby Saberon, BYU, mapping: 1997 Milton Jair Sarg Gálvez, USAC, consolidation: 2004 Andrew Scherer, Texas A&M University, osteology: 2000 David Stuart, Harvard, epigraphy: 1998 Richard Terry, BYU, soils: 1998-2000 Nicholle Townsend, BYU, house mounds, flotation: 1998 Monica Urquizú, USAC, architecture: 1997-1998 George Veni, independent researcher, caves: 1999 David Webster, Penn State, settlement: 1997-2000 Christian Wells, Arizona State, house mounds: 1998-1999 Marcelo Zamora, UVG, architecture: 2000 Key: BYU = Brigham Young University; USAC = Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala; UC-Riverside = University of California at Riverside; UVG = Universidad del Valle de Guatemala 53 Table 2-x. Archaeological Operations at Piedras Negras. PN1: Str. O-13 pyramid (Alvarado [1998], Barrientos [‘97], Escobedo [’97, ‘98], Houston [‘97] A: summit and terraces of Str. O-13 (1997, ‘98) [Burial 38?] B: base and front area of Str. O-13 (1997) [Burial 13, PN1B-4A-5, -6; Cache O-13-57, PN1B-106] C: tunnels within Str. O-13 (1998) PN2: Residential area, 50 m. east of South Group Court, test pits (Román, Urquizú [1997]) A: Strs. S-39, S-40, S-41 [Burial 12, PN2A-11-2] B: Strs. S-35 and S-36 C: Strs. S-38, S-39, and P-27 D: Strs. S-8, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12, and S-13 E: Strs. S-11, S-17, and S-18 F: Strs. S-2 and S-44 G: Strs. S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, and S-9 H: in front of Strs. S-17, S-18, and S-19 PN3: South Group Plaza, test pits (Monterroso [1997]) A-1: southwest corner, Str. U-3 A-2: northeast corner, Str. U-4 A-3: northeast corner, Str. R-1 A-4: southwest corner, Str. R-1 A-5: northeast corner, Str. R-1 A-6: platform corner, Str. R-10 A-7: southeast corner, Str. R-1 [Burial 11, PN3A-7-3] A-8: 6 m. from axis of Str. R-1 A-9: southeast platform, corner, Str. R-32 A-10: southeast corner, Str. U-2 54 A-11: near Str. R-1, extension of A-7 and A-8 A-12: southeast, Str. R-1, extension of A-5 PN4: South Group Court, test pits (Castellanos [1997]) A-1: near Str. R-32, base of R-4, axis of St. 29 A-2: Str. R-32, 6 m. from access stairway, on axis A-3: front of Str. R-6, 3 m., on west axis . A-4: front of Str. R-5 A-5: near Str. R-7, on plaza level, southwest corner A-6: front of Str. R-7, front of access stairway A-7: front of Str. R-8, on plaza level A-8: front of Str. R-9, on axis of front stairway A-9: front of Str. R-10, on axis of front stairway A-10: center of South Group Court [Cache] A-11: near Str. R-5, northwest corner A-12: northwest corner of South Group Court A-13: northeast corner of South Group Court A-14: southeast corner of South Group Court A-15: southwest corner of South Group Court PN5: P-7 sweat bath (M. Child [1997, ’98, ‘00]) A: excavations within Str. P-7 (1997) B: excavations within, behind, and front of Str. P-7 (1998) C: excavations within and front of Str. P-7 (2000) PN6: Residential area, V-sector, test pits (Urquizú [1997]) A: 5 m. to east of Str. V-28 B: patio in front of Str. V-20 C: Str. V-1, V-2, and V-3 D: Str. V-17, back edge E: patio in front of Str. V-23 55 F: patio in front of Str. V-11 PN7: Str. J-4 pyramid (Escobedo [1997]) A: summit of J-4 PN8: Test pit near Turtle Petroglyph, near Str. G’-12 (Golden [1997]) A: base of cliff with petroglyph B: niches below petroglyph PN9: Second terrace, Str. J-3 pyramid (Escobedo [1997]) A: second terrace, Str. J-3 PN10: Residential area, southeast of West Group Plaza, test pits (Urquizú [1997]) A: patio in front of Str. O-16 B: platform of Str. O-23 C: between Strs. O-19 and O-20 D: patio in front of Str. O-30 E: patio in front of Str. O-26 [Burial 14, PN10E-1-5] F: back of Str. O-24 G: patio in front of Str. N-7 H: patio in front of Str. N-7 I: patio in front of Str. O-22 J: back of Str. O-22 K: patio in front of Str. N-4 L: south corner, Str. N-6 PN11: Court 3, Acropolis, palace (Golden [1997, ‘98, ‘99], Pellecer [1999]) A: Str. J-20, front of stairway (1997, ‘98) B: front of Str. J-18 (1997) C: center of Court 3 (1997) D: Str. J-23 (1998) E: trench between Str. J-19 and bedrock outcropping (1998) F: Str. J-20 stairway (1998) 56 G: corner of Strs. J-20, J-23, and J-21 (1998) H: northwest side of Str. J-20 (1998) I: northwest side of Str. J-18 (1999) J: southwest room, Str. J-18 (1999) K: northwest front, Str. J-18 (1999) L: corner of Strs. J-18 and J-21 (1999) PN12: West Group Plaza (Escobedo [1997], Garrido [’98, ’99, ‘00]) A-1: front of Str. K-5 pyramid (1997) [Burial 22, PN12A-1-8] A-2: front of Str. J-3 pyramid (1997) [Burial 21, PN12B-1-3] C: front of Str. J-1, connection of stairway and megalithic facing (1998) D: foot of Str. J-2, on central axis (1998) E: center of West Group Plaza, on alignment (1998) F: front of Str. O-17 (1998) G: near Str. O-17, close to Str. N-1 sweat bath (1998, ‘99, ‘00) H: near Str. O-18 (1998) I: platform of Str. K-2 (1998) J: West Group Plaza (1998) K: near Str. G-2 (1999) PN13: “Corridor,” Strs. R-7 to O-7, R-16 to O-5 (Monterroso, 1997) A-1: northwest corner, Str. R-7 A-2: southeast corner, Str. R-16 pyramid A-3: 6 m from Str. R-16, on its axis A-4: between Strs. R-16 and R-11a A-5: between Strs. R-15 and R-16 pyramid A-6: southeast corner, Str. O-2 A-7: near front axis, Str. R-15 A-8: southeast corner, Str. O-5 A-9: between Strs. O-2 and R-15 57 A-10: northwest corner, Str. O-7 PN14: Northwest Group Plaza (Monterroso [1997]) A-1: foot of Str. J-29 pyramid, north-south axis A-2: 23 m. north of Str. J-29 pyramid A-3: 46 m. north of Str. J-29 pyramid A-4: 79 m. north of Str. J-29 pyramid A-5: west corner, Str. F-1 A-6: front axis, Str. J-28 A-7: western center of Northwest Group Plaza A-8: western center of Northwest Group Plaza (75 m. from A-7) A-9: western center of Northwest Group Plaza (75 m. from A-8) A-10: base of Str. K-13 PN15: S-sector (Escobedo [1997], Jackson [‘00], Urquizú [‘98]) A: Str. S-11 (1997) B: Str. S-12 (1997) C: Str. S-10 (1997) D: Str. S-8 (1998) E: Str. S-9 (1998) F-1: front of Str. S-9 (2000) [Burial 78, PN15F-1-9] F-2: front of Str. S-8 (2000) F-3: front of Str. S-11 (2000) F-4: front of Str. S-13 (2000) F-5: front of Str. S-13, on axis (2000) F-6: plaza, front of Str. S-13 (2000) F-7: plaza, front of Str. S-8 (2000) PN16: East Group Plaza (Barrientos [1997]) A-1: near stairway of Str. O-12 pyramid A-2: along east-west axis of Plaza, 25 m. from A-1 58 A-3: near Altar 4 A-4: along east-west axis of Plaza, 25 m. from A-3 A-5: southern area of Plaza, 10 m. from Altar 4 A-6: 10 m. from Altar 4 A-7: 12 m. from PN1B-4a PN17: C-sector (Golden [1997]) A-1: southeast side, Str. C-25 B-1: between Strs. C-32 and C-33 PN18: R-13sweat bath (Child [1997]) A: within and around Str. R-13 [Cache PN18A-4] PN19: K-sector (Golden [1997]), see below, under PN25A, B, C A-1: corner between Strs. K-16 and K-17 [Burial 15, PN19A-1-3] B-1: west side of Str. K-20 C-1: east side of Str. K-23 D-1: east side of Str. K-8 E-1: between Strs. K-29 and K-30 PN20: Residences to west of South Group Court (Urquizú [1997]) A to C not excavated D: behind Strs. R-3 and R-4, in front of Str. R-18 [Burials 17, 18, PN20D-1-2] E: behind Str.R-18, on terrace F: center of patio defined by Strs. U-10, U-11, U-14, and U-15 [Burial 16, PN20F-1-3] G: center of patio defined by Strs. U-13, U-15, and R-29 [Burial 20, PN20G-1-5] H: behind Str. T-2 I: front of Str. Q-3, in patio between Q-1, Q-3, Q-4, and R-29 PN21: West Group Court near Str. R-5 (Urquizú [1997]) A: north of Str. R-5, west of Str. R-6 PN22: Southern arroyo of Piedras Negras (Jennifer Kirker [1997], David Webster [‘97]) A-1, -3, -4: c. 20 m. east of Str. V-32 [Burial 19, PN22A-1, 3, -4-2] 59 A-2: south of Str. V-35 B: south of Str. Y-2, south of Y-3 PN23: Plaza of Str. R-20 (Monterroso [1998], Romero [‘99]) A: Plaza of Str. R-20 (1998) [Burial 23, PN23A-1-5; Burial 29, PN23A-6-3; Burial 31 PN23A-6-5; Burial 32 (PN23A-3-4?), Burial 33, PN23A-6-4; Burial 35, PN23A-8-3] B: Str. R-20 (1998) [Burial 45, PN23B-3-7] C: near Str. R-31 (1998) [Burial 28, PN23C-2-5] D: center of Str. R-30 platform (1998) E: Strs. R-18 and R-31 (1999) [Burial 51 (PN23E-4-2); Burial 65, PN23E-26-3; Burial 66, PN23E-13-3; Burial 68, PN23E-26-3; Burial 74, PN23E-20-3; Burial 75, PN23E-18-3] PN24: Residential area, southeast of West Group Plaza, equates to Operation 10 (Aguirre [PN24A, 1998], Arredondo [PN24B, ‘98], Fitzsimmons [‘99], Muñoz [‘99], equivalent to Operation PN10 A-1: Str. O-23, behind Str. O-15 (1998) A-2: in plaza between Strs. O-19 to -21, and O-23 (1998) [Burial 24, PN24A-2-3] A-3: between Strs. O-19 and O-20 (1998) [Burial 25, PN25A-3-4] A-4: in front of Str. O-21 (1998) [Burial 30, PN24A-4-4] A-5: between Strs. O-21 and O-16 (1998) A-6: in front of Str. O-16 (1998) A-7: back of Str. O-16 (1998) A-8: in front of Str. O-16 (1998) A-9: back of Str. O-21 (1998) A-10: back of Str. O-21 (1998) A-11: back of Str. N-8 (1998) [Burial 36, PN24A-11-5] A-12: corner of Str. N-6 (1998) [Burial 37, PN24A-12-4] A-13: corner of Str. O-24 (1998) [Burial 39, PN24A-13-3] A-14: back of Str. O-24 (1998) B-1: near corner of Str. N-10 (1998) B-2: behind Strs. N-10 and N-11 (1998) 60 B-3: near corner of Str. N-10 (1998) B-4: west of Str. N-7 (1998) B-5: near corner of Str. N-10 (1998) C: Str. N-19 terrace (1999) [Burial 53, PN24C-2-2] PN25: Residences west of Str. K-5; equates to PN19-A-1 to –A4, close to Str. K-16 (Arredondo [1998]) A-1 to -4: near Str. K-16 A-5: in front of Strs. K-9 and K-10 [Burial 26, PN25A-5-4] A-6 to -7: in front of Str. K-12 [Burial 27, PN24A-7-3, -6-3] B and C: Str. K-16 PN26: Str. F-2, Northwest Group Plaza (Arredondo [PN26B, 1998], Wells [PN26A, 1998]) A: Str. F-2 B: Str. E-2 PN27: S-19 sweat bath (M. Child [1998]) A: within and around Str. S-19 PN28: S-4 sweat bath (M. Child [1998]) A: S-4 sweat bath PN29: North of Str. K-5 (Arredondo [1998]) A-1: center of plaza defined by Strs. G-9 to -11 A-2: between Strs. G-13 and G-14 PN30: Northwest of Str. K-5 (Arredondo [1998]) A: near Strs. K-23 and K-24 [Burial 34, PN30A-1-4] PN31: Flat area to north of Str. K-5 (Arredondo [1998]) A-1: behind Str. G-19 A-2 to -4: near Strs. G-16 and G-17 [Burial 42, PN31A-2-3] PN32: Court 2, Acropolis (Arredondo [2000], Houston [‘98, ‘00], Urquizú [98]) A-1: trench of University Museum (1998) B-1: tunnel in Str. J-10 (1998) B-2: room of Str. J-10 (1998) 61 G-1, G-4: inside Str. J-11, back central room (2000) G-2, G-3: inside Str. J-12 (2000) G-5: inside Str. J-13 (2000) G-6: south room of Str. J-11 (2000) G-7: inside Str. J-22, southern section (2000) G-8: inside of Str. J-9, northern room (2000) G-9: cleaning of room, south of Str. J-21 (2000) G-10: inside Str. J-23 (2000) G-11: in front of Str. J-23 (2000) G-12: inside Str. J-23 (2000) G-13: inside Str. J-23 (2000) G-14: Str. J-12 platform, intersection with terrace of Str. J-4 (2000) G-15: atop unmapped platform, close to G-16 (2000) G-16: platform at corner of Str. J-12, close to base of Str. J-4 (2000) G-17: foot of platform of Str. J-12 (2000) G-18: axis of stairway of Str. J-15 (2000) PN33: Residences in the U-sector (Wells [1998, ‘99], Nelson [‘00]) A: Strs. U-16 and U-17, with patios (1998) [Cache U-17-1] B: Str. U-17 and adjacent patio (1998, ‘99) [Burial 40, PN33B-5-2; Burial 41, PN33B-6-2; Burial 46, PN33B-22-3; Burial 61, PN33B-29-3; Burial 72, PN33B-6-3] C: Strs. U-8 and U-17, with adjacent patio (1998, ‘99) [Cache U-8-1] D: Strs U-18 and adjacent terraces (1998) [Burial 43, PN33D-3-2] E: base of Str. U-16 (1998, ‘99) [Burial 48, PN33E-26-1, disarticulated; Burial 54, PN33E-27-4; Burial 60, PN33E-35-4; Burial 67, PN33E-27-3; Burial 70, PN33E-19-6; Burial 71, PN33E-19-5; Burial 73, PN33E-34-4] F: Strs. U-5, U-6, test pitting in Str. U-19 (2000) [Burial 84, PN33F-44-4; Burial 85, PN33F-694; Burial 90, PN33F-46-4; Burial 93, PN33F-2-3; Burial 97, PN33F-74-3; Burial 98, 62 PN33F-74-4; Burial 106, PN33F-28-3; Burial 107, PN33F-28-6; Burial 109, PN33F74-7] PN34: Court 1, Acropolis, palace (Arredondo [1999, ’00]; Houston [’98, ‘99], Urquizú [‘98]) A-1 to-15, -17: Str. J-7, near Str. J-6 (1998, ‘99) A-16: Str. J-6, central rooms, near Throne 1 (1999) A-18: Str. J-6, southwest room (1999) A-19 to -22, Str. J-5 platform (1999, ‘00) A-23: inside floor of Burial 5 [Burial 5] PN35: Test pits near Strs. T-1, T-3, and U-13 (Muñoz [1998, ’99]) A: test pits (1998) B: test pits (1999) PN36: S-2 sweat bath (M. Child [1998]) A: within and around sweat bath PN37: Strs. S-3, S-44, and S-45, between sweat baths Strs S-2 and S-4 (M. Child [1998]) A: Str. S-44 B: Str. S-3 PN38: Rural plaza group on road to Corregidora Ortíz (Parnell [1998], Townsend [‘98]) A: three test pits PN39: Str. R-1 (Alvarado [1998], Escobedo [’98, ‘00], Zamora [‘00]) A: front basal terrace of Str. R-1 (1998) B: excavations in temple (2000) PN40: Strs. N-7 and N-10 (Fitzsimmons [1999]) A: Str. N-7 [Special Deposit, PN40A-2-2 to -3, -9-2 to -93, Burial 52, PN40A-9-8] B: Str. N-10 PN41: C-group, Strs. C-10 to -14 (Gillot [1999], Hruby [‘99], Jackson [‘00], Muñoz [‘99]) A: patio (1999) [Burial 50, PN41A-4-5; Burial 62, PN41A-20-1; Cache C-13-1, PN41A-5; Cache C-13-2, PN41A-14] B: Str. C-13 (1999) [Burial 77, PN41B-1-5] 63 C-1 to -2: residential group to south of C-group, north of Str. C-3 (1999) [Burial 58, PN41C-5-8] C-3 to -4: south of Str. C-3 (1999) [Burial 59, PN41C-3-8] D: Str. C-12 (2000) E: Str. C-10 (2000) [Burial 105, PN41E-6-7, -38-4] PN42: C-sector, north of C-group (Arredondo [1999], Gillot [1999]) A-1, A-2, A-4: front of Str. C-25 [Burial 49, PN42A-4-3] A-3, A-5: east of Str. C-28 [Burial 47, PN42A-3-4] B: Str. C-25, cleaning of looters’ pit PN43: O-4 sweat bath, and Str. O-3 (J. Child [1999], M. Child [1999]) A: within and around sweat bath B: Str. O-3 PN44: N-1 sweat bath (J. Child [1999], M. Child [1999]) A: surface collection from University Museum excavations B: within and around sweat bath PN45: Str. P-6 (J. Child [1999], M. Child [1999]) A: summit and stairway [Burial 64, PN45A-8-2] PN46: Northwest Acropolis (Fitzsimmons [1999], Golden [’99, ‘00], Parnell [‘99], Pellecer [‘99], Quiroa [‘00], Scherer [‘00]) A: southeast corner, Str. J-33 (1999) B: south of Str. J-24 (1999) [Burial 63, PN46B-5-3, -6-3] C: northwest of Str. J-24 (1999) D: phosphate testing (1999) E: southeast corner, Str. J-26 (1999) F: in and around Strs. J-24, J-33, and J-34 (2000) [Burial 81, PN46F-12-4, -23-4; Burial 83, PN46F-33-3;; Burial 96, PN46F-29-2; Burial 101, PN46F-10-4; Burial 104, PN46F-204] G: Strs. J-35 and J-36 (2000) H: between Strs. J-25 and J-33, near PN46F-22 (2000) 64 I: between Strs. J-25, J-33, and J-34 (2000) [Burials 94, PN46F-1-4; Burial 95, PN46F-1-4] PN47: Str. R-5 (Escobedo [1999, ‘00], Zamora [’99, ‘00]) A: temple summit (1999) [Cache R-5-2, PN47A-1-3] B: southwest basal terrace (1999) [Burial 57, PN47B-2-4] C: northeast basal terrace (1999, ‘00) [Cache R-5-4, PN47C-1-4; Cache R-5-6, PN47C-5-4] D: central axis, front, with tunnel inside Str. R-5 (1999, ’00) [Cache R-5-5, PN47D-1-4] PN48: Str. J-1 terrace, into lower base of Str. J-4 (Arredondo [1999, ‘00], Houston [’99, ‘00]) A: stairway axis and adjacent pits (1999) [Burial 76, PN48A-10-6; Cache J-1-4, PN48A-9-2] A-14, A-18, A-19: northeast corner of Str. J-1, near niche of Stela 7 (2000) A-15, A-17: 2 m. from A-4, front of southwest corner of Str. J-4 stairway (2000) A-16: cleaning of northeast corner of Str. J-4 stairway (2000) B: interior of stairway of Str. J-4 (2000) C: Str. J-4, inside substructure and early platform of Str. J-1 (2000) D: substructure inside Str. J-4 (2000) PN49: J-17 sweat bath (J. Child [1999], M. Child [1999], Colas [1999]) A: within and around sweat bath [Burial 55, PN49A-1-2] PN50: Between Strs. J-3 and J-18 (Golden [1999], Hurst [1999], Pellecer [1999]) A: behind Str. J-3, on Str. J-8 B: sub-structure platform of Str. J-18 PN51: Str. O-17 (Fitzsimmons [1999, ‘00], Scherer [‘00]) A: northern and southern sides (1999) B: northern side, Str. O-17 (2000) C: Str. O-18 (2000) D: all sides, Str. K-3 (2000) [Burial 82, PN51D-1-8, -2-9] E: test pit in West Group Plaza, west of Str. K-3 (2000) F: test pit next to Str. K-7 (2000) G: all sides, Str. K-1 (2000) PN52: Str. N-4 (Fitzsimmons [1999, ‘00]) 65 A: south side (1999) B: east side, Str. N-3 (2000) [Burial 100, PN52B-9-7, -14-8, -15-6; Burial 103, PN52B-13-8, -1410] C: test pit between Strs. O-14 and O-15 (2000) PN53: Z sector (Gillot [2000]) A-1 to A-5: plaza in front of Strs. Z-5, Z-6, and Z-7 A-6: behind Str. Z-6 A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11: front of Str. Z-8 A-10: on Str. Z-8 A-12: northeast corner of Str. Z-6 A-13: northeast corner of mound group A-14: behind Str. Z-7 A-15: northwest corner of Str. Z-5 A-16: northeast corner of Str. Z-7 B-1, B-3: on Str. Z-5 B-2: on Str. Z-7 B-4: on Str. Z-6 C-1, C-8: south side of Str. Z-2 C-2, C-3, C-4: southeast corner of Str. Z-2 C-5: northeast corner of Str. Z-2 C-6: northwest corner of Str. Z-2 C-7: southwest corner of Str. Z-1 C-8, C-10: north side of Str. Z-1 C-9: extension to north of PN53C-1 C-11, C-13: northeast side of group C-12: west side of Str. Z-1 C-14: north side of Str. Z-1 D-1: on Str. Z-2 66 PN54: Excavations in Str. J-27 (Golden [2000], Quiroa [2000]) A-1: on J-27, in center of structure A-2: on J-27, an extension of A-1 A-3: on J-27, in northwest section of A-2 A-4: on J-27, adjacent to and southwest of A-3 A-5: on J-27, adjacent to and northeast of A-2 A-6: on J-27, adjacent to and northeast of A-3 A-7: on J-27, northeast of A-6 A-8: on J-27, northwest of A-7 A-9: on J-27, northwest of A-8 A-10: on J-27, northwest of A-9 A-11: on J-27, northwest of A-10 A-12: on J-27, southwest of A-11 A-13: on J-27, northeast of A-12 A-14: on J-27, southwest of A-13 A-15: on J-27, southeast of A-14 A-16: on J-27, southwest of A-15 A-17: on J-27, southwest of A-1 A-18: on J-27, northwest of A-1 and A-17 A-19: on J-27, southwest of A-18 A-20: on J-27, northeast of A-18 A-21: on J-27, southwest of A-11[Burial 79, PN54A-1-5, -2-5; Burial 80, PN54A-3-2, -4-2] PN55: Strs. R-3 and R-32 (J. Child [2000], M. Child [‘00]) A: excavations around platform R-32 and within Temple R-3 PN56: Str. R-2 (Escobedo [2000], Zamora [‘00]) A-1: in front of stairway A-2: behind Str. R-2, on axis A-3: central part of top terrace 67 A-4: front of top platform A-5: between lateral east wall of Str. R-3 and west side of Str. R-2 PN57: V group (Gillot [2000], Scherer [‘00]) A-1, A-4: on platform of Str. V-45 [Burial 86, PN57A-1-5; Burial 87, PN57A-4-4; Burial 88, PN57A-4-5; Burial 89, PN57A-1-5] A-2: north side of Str. V-44 A-3: southwest side of Str. V-46 A-5: east corner of Str. V-43 PN58: Str. R-16 pyramid (Escobedo [2000], Zamora [‘00]) A: front base, near stairway B: summit [Cache R-16-2, PN58B-5-4] PN59: Str. R-8 (J. Child [2000], M. Child [2000]) A: excavations within and around Str. R-8 [Burial 110, PN59-19-2] PN60: Str. R-14 (J. Child [2000], M. Child [2000]) A: excavations within and around Str. R-14 PN61: Strs. S-5 and S-7 in S-sector (Garrido [2000]) A1-A34: Str. S-5 B1-B13: Str. S-7 PN62: G’ and H’ sector (Gillot [2000]) A-1, A-7, A-8: on Str. H’-4 [Burial 91, PN62A-1-3; Burial 102, PN62A-7-5; Burial 99, PN62A8-4] A-2: south corner of Str. H’-2 A-3, A-5: north corner of Str. G’-3 [Burial 92, PN62A-5-4] A-4: 1.50 m from northwest profile of A-1 A-6: between Strs. G’1- and G’-2 A-9, A-10, A-11: between Strs. G’-6 and G’-3 [Burial 108, PN62A-9-3, -10-3, -11-3] PN63: Str. O-12 pyramid (Escobedo [‘00], Zamora [‘00]) A-1: central axis of pyramid, on plaza, front of access stairway 68 A-2: unit inside summit temple, southwest wing PN64: Str. K-5 pyramid (Cole [2004], Escobedo [‘04], Meléndez [‘04], Nelson [‘04], Pérez [‘04]) A: front and plaza [Burial 121, PN64A-5-9; Burial 119, PN64A-9-13; Burial 120, PN64A-9-14; Burial 122, PN64A-10-13] B: first terrace C: unassigned D: top terrace E: interior chamber Rural Survey Operations (Kirker [1997, ‘98], Kovak [’98, ’99, ‘00], Murtha [’98, ‘00], Webster [‘97, ’98, ’99, ‘00]) 1: El Porvenir Sector Transect, test pit (1997) 2: El Porvenir Sector Transect, 1 test pit (1997) 3: El Porvenir Sector Transect, 1 test pit (1997) 4: El Porvenir Sector Transect, 2 test pits (1997) 5: El Porvenir Sector Transect, at El Porvenir, 3 test pits (1997) 6: Brecha Sur Sector Site 23 (1998) [Burial RS1 (111), RS6A-6-3; Burial RS2 (112), RS6A-166] 7: El Porvenir Sector Site 19 (1998) 8: El Porvenir Sector Site 20 (1998) 9: El Porvenir Sector Site 25 (1998) 10: El Porvenir Sector Site 9 (1998) 11: El Porvenir Sector Site 15 (1998) 12: El Porvenir Sector Site 27 (1998) 13: El Porvenir Sector Site 6 (1998) 14: Brecha Sur Sector Site 7 (1998) 15: Brecha Sur Sector Site 6 (1998) 16: Brecha Sur Sector Site 14 (1998) 69 17: Brecha Sur Sector Site 21 (1998) 18: Brecha Sur Sector Site 17 (1998) 19: Brecha Sur Sector Site 26 (1998) 20: Brecha Sur Sector Site 25 (1998) 21: Brecha Muñeca Sector Site 23 (1998) 22: Brecha Muñeca Sector Site 13A (1998) 23: Brecha Muñeca Sector Site 24 (1998) 24: Brecha Muñeca Sector Site 17 (1998) 25: Brecha Muñeca Sector Site 28 (1998) 26: Brecha Sur Site 25 (Kovak [1999], Webster [1999]) A: stripping of mound [Burial RS3 (113), RS26A-15-3; Burial RS4 (114), RS26A-14-3] 27: Brecha Sur Site 27 (J. Child [2000], M. Child [‘00], Kovak [‘99], Webster [’99, ‘00]) A: stripping of plaza group (1999, ‘00) [Burial RS5 (115), PNRS27-17-4] B: cave sweat bath (2000) 28: Brecha Sur Site 6 (Kovak [2000], Webster [‘00]) A: stripping of plaza group [Burial 6 (116), RS28A-183-3; Burial 7 (117), RS28A-1854; Burial 8 (118), RS28A] 29: Brecha Sur Site 24 (Kovak [2000], Webster [‘00]) A: stripping of residential group 30: Brecha Sur Site 8 (Kovak [2000], Webster [‘00]) A: 7 test pits in multi-plaza group Cave Survey operations (Colas [1999]) 1A: rock overhang, south of Piedras Negras (1999) 2A: shallow cave, northwest of Str. K-13 (1999) [Burial 56, CS2A-2-3] Note: Muñóz (2006:319-330, Table B), taken from unpublished list by Houston, with additions here; subop [letters], excavators, years, special deposits, and location). 70 i When Houston and Escobedo first visited Piedras Negras in 1995, a boat accident had just taken place, drowning some dozen migrants attempting to cross into Mexico and on to the United States. Our group passed the wrecked boat in an area north of the Chicozapote falls and occasionally came across shredded, inexpensive—and clearly useless--life-vests from this tragedy. Such traffic became heavy by the end of the 2000 field season, when many dozens of migrants were abandoned by their ‘coyote’ or guide to the north of Piedras Negras. The project fed them for several days, dipping into its scarce supplies, until they moved on. In 2004, migratory traffic in well-provisioned boats took place on a daily basis past the ruins and our camp in El Provenir to the north. ii Godfrey’s parents were wealthy Philadelphians and patrons of the Museum. His mother, Marian, who had come to Piedras Negras in 1935 to prepare casts of sculpture, served as interim director of the University Museum after George Vaillant’s suicide in 1945 (Weeks et al. 2005:386; Willey 1989:xx). iii A careful write-up of the Guatemalan collection, divided with the University Museum, appears in Bruce Bachand’s Master’s thesis (1997). Preliminary designations appear to have been made, too, by Robert Smith, on the basis of his research at Uaxactun, along 71 with an unpublished study of resist techniques by Robert Sonin of New York City [Bachand 1997:11]). iv There may have been an internal vetting of proposals at this time. In the same year, 1948, Tikal was also under discussion as the next Penn project (Coe and Haviland 1982:1). v From Satterthwaite to Jayne, in evident ire about pressures to acquire more objects for display: “Spectacular artistic finds are important, but with four or five previously unknown to the public being brought to Phila. this year, one of three gangs applied to finding more seems to me sufficient. I would like to concentrate on selected structures themselves for comparative purposes, and I should think if you send Mary [Butler] out with a gang of her own, she could bet look for pot-sherd stratigraphy…What I would like for myself is not to be held responsible for finding a dman [sic] thing in the way of sculpture, but for complete descriptions of what Time and the Mayans have left of the structures which I dug, plus a careful account of the provenance of objects, burials &c.” vi The Penn project sent 1,390 potsherds to the Guatemalan government, which now houses them in basement storeroom at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología e Ethnología (MUNAE) (Bachand 1997:2). The provenance system consisted of a letter to indicate sector of the site (e.g., NE for ‘northeast,” W for “west,” E for “east,” S for “south,” M for “miscellaneous”), a first number to register a building or feature, and a second to record the operation or lot (Bachand 1997:6-7). Thus, E-1-1 referred to an operation in Str. O-12, and NE-4-19 to a cache vessel from Str. J-29. All sherds in the University of Pennsylvania Museum are inked with a “L,” for “loan,” presumably to express their eventual return to Guatemala. (The original contract, signed in 1930 by Mason, specifies 72 a 10-year loan, although this was prorogued at a later time [Mason 1947:8].) A subcollection of 48 sherds was sent to Gordon Willey at Harvard University, where they reside today in the Peabody Museum (Bachand 1997:8). vii Of Fred P. Parris, one comment reports, “little is known of him,” other than that he continued to do fieldwork with Karl Ruppert and John Denison in their explorations of Campeche (Weeks et al. 2005:356). Almost certainly he was the same Fred P. Parris, architect, who turned up later in Richmond, VA, after helping to design the park of the Statue of Liberty in New York City (http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/regional_review/vol1-2e.htm). The American Architects Directory of 1970 lists his particulars: born in 1906, a B.Arch. from Ohio State in 1930, and an M.Arch. from Harvard in 1932, death date unknown (Bowker 1970:695). viii The principal datum for the Parris map was “the lowest point on the incised circular band on the Sacrificial Rock” (Satterthwaite 1943:22), to which Nathan Curritt mapped in 1998. This is when doubts arose about the accuracy of the Penn map. ix Tasks and intended duty for final publication were divided by building type, thematic focus of excavations, and material, with eventual person in charge underscored here: palace/Acropolis sector (Houston, Golden, Fitzsimmons, Garrido); pyramids and temples (Escobedo); ceramics (Muñoz, Acuña, Pérez); lithics and non-pottery artifacts (Hruby); sweatbaths (M. Child); early buildings in Southern Group (M. Child and J. Child); subroyal residences (Jackson); residential, extensive settlement, and agriculture (Webster, Nelson, Kovak, Kirker); and soil chemistry (Terry). The aim was to be as comprehensive as possible, targeting all possible zones and classes of material yet to avoid overlap and 73 maintain communication between operations. On a daily basis, sometimes twice a day, Houston would visit all operations from start to finish. Labor was organized by a caporal (foreman) system, headed by Raúl Aldana of Dolores, and separated into three spheres of responsibility: kitchen (head cook, assistant cooks, fire-wood splitter, laundresses); excavations (excavators and assistants, organized in pairs, at least two to each suboperation); and masons (master mason with assistants). In some seasons, the camp population exceeded 125 people, most of whom had to be brought in by river from Bethel. Purchasing was also done by an employee and muleteer in Corregiadora Ortíz, from which, with Villahermosa, Tabasco, most supplies came. Houston and Escobedo, with Mark Child, who served as an able field and logistical director from 1998-2000, spoke daily about issues before the project and made joint decisions about how to resolve them. x At the memorably egregious end to the 1997 season, while waiting for promised by delayed boats, Houston and Charles Golden subsisted for two days on canned black beans and mustard. Tents gone, they wrapped ourselves in sheets by night, huddled on the hot beach, assaulted by mosquitoes. The 1997 season was also the wettest in our stays at Piedras Negras, with torrential downpours in the first week of fieldwork. xi Daily recording consisted of individual notebooks, by operation, and simultaneous entry of separate lot forms, often intentionally duplicating such information. Burials and caches were drawn on gridded metric paper, sometimes with Mylar overlay, at 1:5, other deposits at 1:10, depending on the need for detail, and sections and profiles at 1:20. Regrettably, a so-called Harris Matrix, which elucidates stratigraphy, was attempted only in Court 1 of the Acropolis, as its complexity proved difficult to master by project 74 excavators (Houston et al. 1998 48-50, appendix 1; see also Mesick 2012). From 1998 on, black and white photographs (by Pentax 6 x 7, usually with Tri-X film) and color slides (Ektachrome) were shot by Zachary Hruby, project photographer and illustrator. The dappling in many of the operations, occasioned by intense light alternating with dark zones created by vegetation, posed serious challenges. To compensate, Hruby often took images in early morning or late afternoon, even early evening, with fill-in flash. At these hours contrast and mottling tended to diminish. The photographs were scanned at BYU in 2002 and 2003, and may be consulted, tagged by operation, on the FAMSI database (see above). In 2000, lengthy interviews with Houston were shot on video by a team from KBYU; these, too, are available at the FAMSI site. At each operation, artifacts were placed in Tyvek bags marked by site/op./sub-op/unit/lot. Long experience showed that only Tyvek, strong yet breathable, did well in tropical conditions; cotton receptacles rotted quickly from fungal growth. Aluminum tags indicating operation and lot were prepared and tossed into each bag in case of mishap to the external tag. All non-ceramic or special artifacts were bagged separately, with padding and boxing if the objects were delicate. Artifact washing took place in the lab and some marking too, although this last was often a challenge, requiring further work in the lab with student staff from Guatemala. All artifacts now display an indelible operation, sub-operation, unit, and lot designation, sealed in nail lacquer. The quantity of eroded body sherds, the extreme difficulties of transport, and the eventual shortfall in storage, both in the project lab and its final repository in IDAEH, made discard necessary. This followed established protocols, with retention of all rim or diagnostic sherds, including those with slip, and a weighing and counting of the remainder. During analysis, lot bags were emptied, their 75 contents organized by type, and two study collections prepared: one for the long-term project lab, the other for the Ceramoteca, a comparative collection created by IDAEH. All complete artifacts, including objects of shell, bone, and jade, were photographed by specialist—although centralization of these data sometimes went awry—and went to the MUNAE bodega or principal, subterranean storeroom. Most lithics, other than eccentrics, passed in turn to the Salon 3 facility in Guatemala City. As of this writing, records at Brown include: (1) field notebooks; (2) original and inked drawings; (3) all black and white negatives, with proofing sheets, along with color slides; (4) lot forms; (5) some color transparencies by Jorge Pérez de Lara, taken in the Guatemala City lab; and (6) project correspondence, along with digital records on CD of most of the above.