THE MAYA AND THEIR CENTRAL AMERICAN NEIGHBORS Settlement patterns, architecture, hieroglyphic texts, and ceramics Edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell 10 THE DYNASTIC HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF PUSILHA, BELIZE1 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Pusilha, located in inland southern Belize, was a small Classic Maya city with a population of about 7,000. Despite its modest size, Pusilha is second only to Caracol in the number of known inscriptions in Belize. One of the very first sites in the country subject to professional exploration, Pusilha remained relatively unknown and understudied until 2001. In this chapter, we summarize archaeological fieldwork conducted by the authors at the site between 2001 and 2008, focusing on burials and caches associated with eight excavated structures. Among these is a royal tomb whose occupant has been tentatively identified in the hieroglyphic record.We also describe the inscriptions of Pusilha and present a full dynastic account for the kings and queen who ruled the site between AD 571 and 798. A key goal of Maya epigraphy is the development of political histories for important regional capitals. Such accounts at their simplest comprise dates and king lists, but ideally these serve as temporal frameworks for organizing more important events in the history of particular kingdoms and for understanding their relations with other polities (e.g., Marcus 1973, 1976). Our comprehension of Maya history began with the decipherment of hieroglyphs describing the birth, accession, and death of the rulers of Piedras Negras (Proskouriakoff 1960) and the identification of emblem glyphs (Berlin 1958). Since then, epigraphers have identified political events such as marriage, alliance formation and betrayal, warfare, ambassadorial visits, the inauguration of minor kings by major players, and ritual performance, as well texts regarding other kinds of behavior, customs, and beliefs (see Martin and Grube 2000). In some cases, it is now possible to study the material culture of Maya cities within a temporal framework defined by the life of particular kings. At Copan, for example, the Early and Late Classic architectural sequence of the acropolis can be discussed in terms of expansions linked to specific rulers, as can changes to the ceramic inventory of the Late Classic period (see Chapter 4). Most detailed political and dynastic histories constructed by Maya epigraphers describe sites in Peten, Guatemala, or in the adjoining regions of Chiapas and 246 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell southern Campeche. To date, only one site in Belize – Caracol – has seen extensive epigraphic research (Beetz and Satterthwaite 1981; Grube 1994; Martin and Grube 2000). One reason for this is that most of the Maya sites of Belize exhibit limited signs of literacy. An important exception is the inland Southern Belize Region (sensu Leventhal 1992), an area characterized by extensive carved hieroglyphic texts (e.g., Morley 1937–8; Wanyerka 2003, 2009). Pusilha, the largest site in the region, is particularly rich in texts. Our current knowledge of the political history of the site is sufficient to warrant its inclusion as a chapter in a volume such as The Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens (Martin and Grube 2000). The principal goals of this chapter are (1) to present epigraphic information concerning the political history of Pusilha organized by the life of each ruler; and (2) to contextualize this information by discussing the results of archaeological research conducted between 2001 and 2008. The Southern Belize Region: definition, characteristics, and settlement history The Southern Maya Region was one of the first areas in the southern lowlands to see substantial archaeological investigation during the twentieth century. Five major sites – Pusilha, Uxbenka, Lubaantun, Xnaheb, and Nim li Punit – are located in a relatively small inland area circumscribed to the north and west by the foothills of the Maya Mountains, to the east by the infertile soils and thin coniferous forest known locally as “pine ridge,” and to the south by the marshy terrain of the Temash and Sarstoon rivers. Within this small region, the five sites are situated on hilltops surrounded by drainable slopes and, with one exception, are more or less evenly spaced in a line spanning less than 50 kilometers. The two largest communities, Lubaantun and Pusilha, are strategically positioned on major rivers connecting them to the Caribbean Sea (see Figures 1.1 and 10.1). A constant water supply and proximity to important coastal trade and saltproducing communities probably accounts for the continued success of Lubaantun well into the Terminal Classic period (McKillop 2005). Uxbenka, although located relatively far from a major river, is positioned along a natural land passage running from the southeastern Peten to the Caribbean. This trade route is still important and parallels the newly paved road from the Guatemalan border at Jalacte to the junction with the Southern Highway (Prufer and Thompson 2013). Lubaantun is just 4 kilometers north of this route and has its own direct access to the Caribbean via the Río Grande. In contrast, Xnaheb and Nim li Punit are situated just above the edge of the coastal plain in locations that strategically control north to south travel.These two sites are just a few hundred meters west of the modern Southern Highway. Thus, the ancient Maya centers of Southern Belize are advantageously positioned in locations that dominate or are connected to important east–west and north–south transportation routes. Despite the short distances among the major sites of the Southern Belize Region, the rulers of a number of them employed emblem glyphs, implying at least nominal claims of political independence. The emblem glyphs of Nim li Punit and Pusilha are clearly legible, that of Uxbenka is too eroded to read, and the Lubaantun emblem glyph – if that is what it is – employs the head variant of the k’uhul glyph The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 247 FIGURE 10.1 The Southern Belize Region (after Leventhal 1990: map 1) as its main sign (Wanyerka 2003: 23; 2009: 415–18). The hieroglyphic texts of Xnaheb are eroded, fragmented, and few in number, but it is possible that an emblem glyph was employed there, as well (Wanyerka 1999). A key question in the archaeology of Toledo District is: Did these closely packed sites form the cores of independent polities, or were some of them united in one way or another? The greater Southern Belize Region extends well beyond these five sites to encompass all of Toledo District, Belize, and southeastern Peten, Guatemala (Dunham et al. 1989: 263, 269; Leventhal 1992: 145). In total it encompasses more than 4,000 square kilometers. San Luis Peten is the largest modern town in the greater region and – for the Mopan Maya of Toledo – is still a cultural center. The franja transversal del norte, a major transportation route for more than a thousand years, runs along the southern boundary of the greater region, joining it to Cancuen and, ultimately, Chiapas and the Gulf Coast (see Chapter 8). To the southwest the area extends well into the upper reaches of the Rio Cancuen (Corzo et al. 2000).The cave site of Naj Tunich (Brady 1989; 248 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Stone 1995) served as a major ceremonial pilgrimage place linking ancient sites on both sides of the modern Belize–Guatemala border. Today, Mopan and Q’eqchi’ Maya frequently cross that border, conduct trade and smuggle goods, play soccer in village leagues, worship at sacred caves, and look for spouses in communities located in both nations. The Southern Belize Region differs from adjacent cultural zones in having distinctive architectural remains, such as terraced platform constructions, ballcourts within walled enclosures, a complete lack of corbelled vaults, and the use of natural terrain to support the façades of “Hollywood”-style pyramid-like structures (Leventhal 1990: 138–9). There also is a complete lack of astronomical groups or “E-groups” (we do not consider the Stela Plaza of Nim li Punit to contain such a complex), in great contrast to the adjoining Valley of Dolores Region (Chocón 2013). “Eastern shrines” are also relatively infrequent, although Structure 5 at Nim li Punit seems to constitute such a platform. Although no single architectural convention is unique, together they help define the region. The masonry of the Southern Belize Region is also distinctive, but it ranges from very poor in quality to some of the most beautiful in the Maya region. It is fair to say that no site between Copan, Honduras, and the Rio Bec Region, Campeche, exhibits such finely crafted stonework as Lubaantun (Figure 10.2a). Construction techniques in the region all follow the same general pattern. First, a pen or box was built of cut and dressed stones to a height of about 1.5 meters and packed either with earth or with dry fill. At Lubaantun, an inner retaining box of cut but undressed stones often was built first. Platforms could be built higher by constructing a second body set back a few inches from the first, much like adding a layer to a wedding cake. Next, stairblocks were built. Finally, stairside outsets were added. Key here is that these last two features were not dovetailed or integrated into platforms. Instead, they served as separate buttresses supporting platform walls. Almost no platforms supported superstructures with stone walls. The exceptions are miniature shrines with thigh-high walls found at Lubaantun. Limited plaster mortar and thin coats of stucco were employed at Lubaantun and Uxbenka; plaster and limestone mortar are rare or absent at Nim li Punit after the Early Classic period. In great contrast, the poorly finished masonry of Pusilha (Figure 10.2b) was covered with very thick coats of stucco. Unique to Lubaantun are its two major pyramids that lack stairs that climb to the summit. Other shared cultural practices include collective tombs, the prevalence among elite burials of fully extended individuals on their backs with heads placed to the north and facing east (the opposite of the pattern seen in the Belize Valley), teeth cached as ancestral relics, a regional style of carving, a degree of literacy surprising for sites in Belize, and rather idiosyncratic hieroglyphic inscriptions employing nonstandard Lunar Series data (Braswell et al. 2004b, 2005; Fauvelle et al. 2013; Grube et al. 1999: 3–7; Leventhal 1990: 138–9; Morley 1938: vol. IV; Thompson 1928). Regional settlement history The earliest known human occupation of the region dates to the Paleoindian period. A single fishtail point was recovered from a plowed field near Big Falls village, The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 249 FIGURE 10.2 Masonry of Southern Belize: (a) Lubaantun Structure 104; (b) Pusilha Operation 8 Structure downstream from Lubaantun (Lohse et al. 2006: 215, fig. 4b; Weintraub 1994). A late Archaic Lowe point from the same general area also has been reported, and in 2013 a possible Archaic context with percussion flakes and cores was located by members of the Uxbenka Archaeological Project (Prufer and Thompson 2013). 250 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Uxbenka is the oldest known Maya center in Toledo District.The earliest construction there has been dated by radiocarbon to the first century ad (Prufer et al. 2011) or, more broadly, to the period 60 bc to ad 220 (Culleton et al. 2012). Nonetheless, the ceramics associated with early construction episodes at Uxbenka date to the Early Classic (Jordan and Prufer 2013). Thus, despite a few earlier carbon dates (derived, perhaps, from old wood), the archaeological chronology of Uxbenka – determined from diagnostic artifacts – begins in the third century ad. The pottery of this time belongs to what Juan Pedro Laporte (2007: 539–43) called the Peripheral Chicanel complex, which is a mixture of late waxy slipped monochrome pottery with early polychromes and glossy Peten monochromes typical of the Tzakol sphere (Jordan and Prufer 2013). Few of the carved monuments at Uxbenka contain readable dates (see Wanyerka 2003: 203–31), but some are argued on stylistic grounds to date to the Early Classic and others to the Late Classic. Uxbenka grew during the Late Classic and even has a Terminal Classic occupation (Aquino 2013; Aquino et al. 2013). Nonetheless, the paucity of diagnostic Terminal Classic ceramics – so common at Lubaantun, at Nim li Punit, and in some groups at Pusilha – demonstrate that occupation of Uxbenka at that time was light (Jordan and Prufer 2013; Prufer et al. 2011). In sum, the small Maya center of Uxbenka was occupied around ad 200–800, and perhaps saw limited settlement briefly before and after that time. Nim li Punit was the next major Maya site to be founded, around ad 400–450 (Daniels and Braswell 2013). Early Classic pottery of this time contains types and groups characteristic of the Tzakol sphere but lacking Chicanel material. Three slabfooted tripods from one of the earliest structures yet excavated at the site imply construction around ad 400 (ibid.; Fauvelle et al. 2013). The rulers of Nim li Punit carved seven stelae during two short periods of monument erection: ad 734–741 and 790–810. An eighth monument contains a rough and peculiarly carved date of Ajaw 7, which probably refers to 10.0.0.0.0 (ad 830). This final date seems to have been carved on an already standing plain monument. There is some ceramic evidence in the form of Thin Orange pottery that supports an occupation of Nim li Punit after that date, but so far such a presence appears to have been light and located mainly in the West Group (Daniels and Braswell 2013; Fauvelle et al. 2012). Pusilha is by far the largest site in southern Belize and the only one that reasonably can be called a city (Figure 10.3). It was founded at the very end of the Early Classic. Most sherds date to the Late Classic, but we found a handful of pottery characteristic of the Early Classic. This accords well with the historical hieroglyphic dates from Pusilha, which begin at 9.6.17.8.18 (ad 571). Pusilha is fundamentally a Late Classic site, but the Gateway Hill Acropolis and the Moho Plaza contain ample evidence of Terminal Classic occupation or use. So far unique for inland southern Belize, Postclassic ceramics have been found associated with the “Bulldozed Structure” (Bill and Braswell 2005; Braswell et al. 2004b). In many respects, the pottery of Pusilha is the most distinctive in the region (Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al. 2005; Daniels and Braswell 2013). Lubaantun has no firmly dated texts, but three ballcourt markers were dated on stylistic grounds to about ad 780–790 by Sylvanus Morley (1937–8: IV.5–10). Ceramics at Lubaantun imply a short occupation that began sometime in the eighth century FIGURE 10.3 Partial map of Pusilha, Belize: the Moho Plaza, shown in a box in the lower left corner, is located approximately 150 meters farther to the southwest. 252 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell (Hammond 1975). Norman Hammond found Belize Red in deeply buried contexts at the site. Because such pottery is limited elsewhere in the region to contexts dating to the late eighth and early ninth centuries (Daniels and Braswell 2013), we tentatively suggest that Lubaantun was founded after 750 and perhaps as late as 780.The pottery is so similar to materials from Uxbenka that much of what is found at Lubaantun seems to represent a Terminal Classic extension of that site (ibid.; Jillian Jordan, personal communication 2013). Thus, it may be that people from the Uxbenka region moved to Lubaantun shortly before the end of the eighth century. Lubaantun has a rich Terminal Classic occupation but was abandoned around 900 or perhaps somewhat later. The fifth and final major settlement is Xnaheb. Its location is anomalous because, unlike other centers that are evenly spaced, it is only a few kilometers from Nim li Punit. Xnaheb has seen relatively little archaeological investigation. Peter Dunham’s “gravity model” argues that a site built between central places will be located at or near the political boundary that separates them. He calculates that, given the relative sizes of Lubaantun and Nim li Punit, such a site should be found precisely where Xnaheb is situated (Dunham et al. 1989: 275). Key to his argument is that Xnaheb must have been built after both Nim li Punit and Lubaantun, but this remains to be demonstrated. Archaeological data appear to imply that the site was briefly occupied during the second half of the Late Classic (ibid.: 268–9; Jamison 2001: 79). A single stela has an Initial Series date of 9.17.10.0.0 (ad 780), which falls during the hieroglyphic hiatus at Nim li Punit. It might be that Xnaheb already existed or was founded at about that time, and that the royal house of Nim li Punit moved briefly to this center in order to protect its boundary from newly founded Lubaantun. Ceramics from Nim li Punit and Lubaantun dating to the Late Classic are chemically quite distinct (Fauvelle et al. 2013), so it should be rather easy to determine if Xnaheb was tied economically to Nim li Punit or to Lubaantun. Archaeological investigations at Pusilha The site of Pusilha was discovered in 1926 and investigated by the British Museum between 1928 and 1930 (Gruning 1930; Joyce 1929; Joyce et al. 1928). The principal focus of this chapter is the dynastic history of Pusilha as recorded on 44 carved limestone monuments and fragments thus far discovered. Although some are still in situ (but severely eroded), the best-preserved stelae and monument fragments were moved to the British Museum where they reside today. Between 1930 and 2001, little archaeological work was conducted at Pusilha. During this interval, sporadic excavations were conducted in 1970 by Hammond (1975), in 1979 and 1980 by Richard Leventhal (1990, 1992), and in 1992 by Gary Rex Walters and Lorington Weller (n.d.).The site again saw sustained field investigations by members of the Pusilha Archaeological Project (PUSAP), co-directed by Braswell, Prager, and Cassandra R. Bill, during the years 2001–2, 2004–5, and 2008. Results of the first two seasons of our project and a specialized study have been published in journals (Braswell 2007b; Braswell et al. 2004b, 2005; Pitcavage and Braswell 2009); preliminary results have appeared in numerous symposia volumes (Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al. 2005; Braswell 2007a, 2010; Braswell et al. The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 253 2004a, 2006, 2007, 2008; Braswell and Gibbs 2006; Braswell and Prager 2003; Braswell and Prufer 2009; Maguire et al. 2003; Pitcavage and Braswell 2009, 2010); and data collected by students have formed the basis of five MA theses (Nickels 2008; Pitcavage 2008; Prager 2002; Somerville 2009;Volta 2007). One of the goals of this chapter is to present a brief summary describing more notable finds of the 2004, 2005, and 2008 seasons. The Stela Plaza of Pusilha (16°06’45’’ N, 89°11’43 W) is located between the Poite (or Joventud) and Machaca (or Pusilha) rivers along the Guatemalan–Belize border, some 42 kilometers west of Punta Gorda, the capital of Toledo District (see Figure 10.1).To the north and south of Pusilha are an extensive series of karst limestone ridges rising to an altitude of some 200 meters above sea level. Architectural remains and ancient settlements are dispersed over an area of approximately 6 square kilometers (see Figure 10.3). Numerous settlements have been found along the sloping karst foothills north of the Poite River and along the limestone massif to the south of the mapped portion of the site. Cutting through the middle of the site is the Machaca River, which in ancient times was crossed by a triple-span bridge. The abutments of the bridge are still visible today and now support a suspension bridge (Figure 10.4). The site core runs in a northwest to southeast direction and spans both sides of the Machaca River. From the northwest, the major ceremonial and residential groups include the Stela (or Main) Plaza, the Ballcourt I Group, the Big Tree Group (Figure 10.5), and the Maya Bridge (known locally as “the Pusilha”). The vast majority of carved monuments known from Pusilha are found in the Stela Plaza. Other important groups north of the Machaca River include Leventhal’s Blank Stela Group (but there FIGURE 10.4 The Maya bridge of Pusilha, showing modern suspension bridge ( July 2007) 254 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell is no stela there) and the Pottery Cave Group (Figure 10.6). Located southeast of the Stela Plaza and on the opposite bank of the Machaca River is a stepped residential complex known as the Gateway Hill Acropolis. This portion of the site begins at the famous bridge and rises roughly 79 meters above the river in a series of terraces that FIGURE 10.5 Major architectural groups north of the Machaca River (grid in meters, as measured from a datum in the Stela Plaza) FIGURE 10.6 Major architectural groups north of the Machaca River, showing the location of the Bulldozed Mound (grid in meters, as measured from a datum in the Stela Plaza) The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 255 culminate at the tallest pyramids at the site (Figure 10.7). To the west and southwest of the Gateway Hill Acropolis are elite residential groups, among them Lower Group I, Lower Group II, and the Machaca Plaza.This last group was discovered by Leventhal and included in his map of the site (Leventhal 1990: fig. 8.1), but we were unable to gain permission to enter that parcel of land and remap it. Finally, Walters and Weller (n.d.) discovered a major outlying group that they call the Moho Plaza (Figure 10.8). FIGURE 10.7 Gateway Hill Acropolis south of the Machaca River, showing locations of excavated structures: the Operation 5–7 structures are located in Lower Group I. 256 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.8 The Moho Plaza, showing the location of excavated test pits (grid in meters, as measured from a group specific datum; contour interval is 20 centimeters) This group contains at least one ballcourt (and possibly a second) in which three carved markers were found, as well as the only known hieroglyphic stair in all of Belize (Braswell et al. 2004b). Both Leventhal’s pace-and-compass and our own total station map are woefully incomplete. More mounds and many groups can be found stretching westward towards the Guatemalan border (and perhaps beyond), on the imposing hills south of the Machaca River, and, especially, north of the Poite River. Settlement patterns at Pusilha The mapped portion of Pusilha is just under 2 square kilometers. Within this area, we recorded about 550 structures and platforms. This count does not include non-residential structures found in the Gateway Hill Acropolis, Stela Plaza, and Moho Plaza. Most of the mounds thought to have supported houses are arranged in groups. Depending on how they are defined, between 60 and 70 of these The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 257 residential groups can be identified in the mapped portion of the site. Assuming that the settlement density is fairly uniform throughout the approximate total area of 6 square kilometers, we estimate that Pusilha was a city with slightly more than 7,000 inhabitants and a settlement density of about 235 structures per square kilometer. This population estimate includes a 25 percent reduction for noncontemporaneous occupation. Thus, although Pusilha was undoubtedly a much smaller city, the density of structures there is equivalent to that of the urban core of Late Classic Tikal and much higher than that of any other major settlement in the Southern Belize Region (Rice and Culbert 1990: table 1.2). The majority of the residential architecture at Pusilha was built on well-drained, elevated hilltops and ridges. In general, larger and more elaborate platform and terrace arrangements are found at the highest elevations, with smaller clusters of mounds located on terraced areas further downslope.The natural depressions in the karst topography that separate these areas can be inundated for part of the year and probably were used for agriculture in the past, just as they are now. The watercourses provide a secondary focus for residential clustering, with slightly higher settlement densities in a 100-meter-wide strip along the banks of the Poite and Machaca rivers (Braswell et al. 2004b: 225). An analysis of the formal characteristics of residential clusters reveals that higherstatus plazuela or patio groups (sensu Ashmore 1981: 48), with four or more structures and clearly defined central plazas, are spaced fairly regularly throughout the settlement at an average distance of 300 meters from each other. Fourteen such patio groups have been identified in the mapped portion of the site. There also are seven more elaborate patio groups featuring multiple plazas, more than eight structures, or larger mounds that possibly served ritual functions. These elite groups – which include the Ballcourt I Group, the Blank Stela Group, the Big Tree Group, the Pottery Cave Group, Lower Groups I and II, and an unnamed group directly northeast of the Blank Stela Group – are clustered in an area of 0.5 square kilometers in the vicinity of the northwest–southeast axis that connects Stela Plaza to Gateway Hill (see Figure 10.3). Although this seems to suggest that the site conforms to a “concentric” or centralized settlement pattern (Folan et al. 1983, 2009), there are at least two quite large groups with monumental public architecture to the southwest of the Gateway Hill Acropolis – Leventhal’s (1990: fig. 8.1) Machaca Plaza and the Moho Plaza.The construction of the latter appears to date to the Terminal Classic, and the occupational history of the former is unknown.Thus, the settlement of Pusilha was organized into a social landscape that at different moments of its history may have been characterized either by a well-defined central area or by multiple nuclei of status and power. Most of the largest groups at Pusilha share a similar alignment: approximately 16 to 23 degrees west of true north. At the Gateway Hill Acropolis, this alignment follows natural topography. But the NNW alignment of structures in the Stela Plaza, Moho Plaza, Pottery Cave Group, Lunar Group, and Lower Group I do not.The meaning of this alignment is unknown, but it may have replicated that of the royal acropolis. Studies of the monumental public buildings of Pusilha have identified a unique architectural template that also sets the site apart from other centers in the Southern 258 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Belize Region (Braswell et al. 2005;Volta 2011).This pattern, which consists of a causeway linking an enclosed ballcourt to a large plaza, is found twice at Pusilha. One example is the sacbe that heads downhill from the Stela Plaza to Ballcourt I (see Figure 10.5). The other is the short, steep causeway connecting the northernmost terrace of the Gateway Hill Acropolis with Ballcourt II (see Figure 10.7). The first example may display cosmological principles. The Stela Plaza sits at the highest point in the site and is associated with the north, the heavens, and ancestor veneration. Ballcourt I is at a lower elevation and associated with the south, the underworld, and death. The causeway, like the world tree, connects the two (Ashmore 1991). In both examples, the plaza connected to the ballcourt is relatively open to the west and features three low-range structures on its eastern side. At Gateway Hill, these are found on the second terrace, which is connected to the first by means of a stairway (see Figure 10.7). Other examples of this plaza layout – a relatively open west side faced by three structures on the east – are found in at least three other groups: the Moho Plaza, the Pottery Cave Group, and the Lunar Group (about 1,000 meters northeast of the Stela Plaza). It is clear that this template does not duplicate the “E Group” known in other parts of the Maya lowlands, but the arrangement of three structures could be a reference to it (Volta 2007, 2011). The 2001–2004 field seasons PUSAP research began in 2001 with a season of mapping (the Gateway Hill Acropolis, the Moho Plaza, the Stela Plaza, and a large area in the northeastern portion of the site cleared by a communal plantation burn) and recording in situ monument fragments. During the 2002 field season, we mapped two adjoining transects between the Poite and Machaca rivers. These passed through the Stela Plaza. A testpitting program was conducted at this time in the Stela Plaza, the Moho Plaza, Weller’s Group (located 500 meters south of western end of the Ballcourt I Group), and – most productively – inside and outside of Pottery Cave. During a short break in our work, a platform about 600 meters northeast of the Stela Plaza and 200 meters north of the Blank Stela Plaza was partially bulldozed. Salvage excavations revealed this to be a Terminal Classic structure occupied into the Postclassic period that contained an earlier substructure. The fragmentary remains of an elderly male were recovered from undisturbed fill in the final stage structure (Pitcavage 2008: 20). An offering of three red-slipped cache vessels, a lid, and a jade bead were placed in the stair of the substructure when it was partially dismantled immediately prior to building the final stage Terminal Classic platform. Associated with this cache was abundant charcoal that two distinct assays date to the early portion of the Early Classic, centuries before Pusilha was first occupied. We assume that this represents the burning of an ancient wooden object. The substructure of the “Bulldozed Mound” was partially consolidated and can be found next to the Catholic church in the village of San Benito Poite (Braswell et al. 2004b; see Figure 10.6). Opportunistic mapping of plantation burns continued in 2004 and five structures were excavated.Two of these (the Operation 3 and Operation 4 structures) are located towards the southern end of the Gateway Hill Acropolis and three (the Operation 5, 6, The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 259 and 7 structures) are in Lower Group I (see Figure 10.7).The Operation 3 and 5 structures were excavated completely, the entire fill core and front of the Operation 6 structure and the surviving northern end of the Operation 4 structure were excavated (the southern half or more of the latter’s platform was destroyed by looting in the weeks before our season began), and test pits were placed in the Operation 7 platform. Excavations in the Operation 3 structure revealed four burials (Figure 10.9a). Three related interments containing matched polychrome ceramic vessels date to the Late Classic and were located on top of the platform. The central head-cist burial, Burial 3/1, contained an extended supine male (who died in young adulthood) and two companion caches of teeth. Strontium isotope analyses of the teeth of the principal individual in Burial 3/1 and of one of the companions reveal that they were not from Pusilha. Two flexed burials north and south of Burial 3/1 contained one local individual (Burial 3/1B, a female who survived into late adulthood) and one possible foreigner (Burial 3/A, a young adult and probable male) who may have come from a second nonlocal site. A double burial at the base of the Operation 3 structure contained two local individuals – a principal figure and a companion flexed at his feet – who were both local males that survived to an advanced age. Burial 3/2 dates to the Terminal Classic period, based on the presence of Belize Red, Pabellon Modeled-Carved super-system pottery, and a tripod orange bowl in a form diagnostic of that period. A cranium and disarticulated arm bones were found on the surface of the plaza in front of the Operation 4 structure. The head was held in place by a flat stone and a fragmentary vessel was found next to it. These remains could not be dated but are clearly late. Strontium analysis reveals that the adult woman (Burial 4/1) came from a third nonlocal place (Braswell et al. 2005; Pitcavage 2008; Pitcavage and Braswell 2010; Somerville 2009). Excavations in Lower Group I revealed that it was built and occupied entirely during the Late Classic period. The burials of two children were found in the Operation 5 structure (Figure 10.9b). The more interesting of these is Burial 5/1, which contained the remains of a small child accompanied by a shell “pukka”-style necklace. Fifteen deciduous teeth were recovered and permanent teeth were observed within the dental crypts. Together, these allow a precise determination of a dental age of between four and five years.What is most interesting is that the two upper lateral incisors had distal filings and jade inlays. This is the only known example of such modifications made to deciduous teeth in all of Mesoamerica (Braswell and Pitcavage 2009). The Operation 6 structure contained an elaborate crypt with numerous offerings, among them two shell ornaments, four Late Classic vessels (including a polychrome plate with a glyph band and a stuccoed and painted vase), a jade bead, a Spondylus shell, slate fragments and pyrite tesserae from a mirror, hematite sequins, a limestone baton and slate paddle, and a tooth cache (Figure 10.10; Braswell et al. 2005). The flexed burial of an adult of undetermined sex was found in this platform, south of and behind the offering crypt. The individuals represented by the teeth in the crypt (Burial 6/1) and the flexed interment (Burial 6/2) are both locals (Somerville 2009). A subsurface remote sensing program also was undertaken in 2004 in the vicinity of Lower Groups I and II but yielded results of limited utility. What was tentatively 260 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.9 Plans of the Operation 3 structure (a) and the Operation 5 structure (b) showing the locations of burials (after Braswell et al. 2005: figs 7 and 10) identified as a midden proved to contain soft soils washed down from a western terrace of the Gateway Hill Acropolis. Within this secondary matrix were found the partial remains of a locally born child of seven to nine years (Burial 1/25/1; Braswell et al. 2004b: 51–4; Pitcavage 2008: 19–20; Somerville 2009). FIGURE 10.10 Offering crypt Burial 6/1: (a) plan; (b) artifacts found within the crypt: (i) shell ornaments, (ii) limestone baton and slate “paddle,” (iii) pyrite mirror tesserae, (iv) hematite sequins (after Braswell et al. 2005: fig. 8) 262 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell The 2005 and 2008 field seasons During the 2005 season, opportunistic mapping continued in a large burned field stretching north of the Machaca River to the road into Poite village. The Pottery Cave group and a large, unnamed group 300 meters to the north were mapped, as were structures in a burned field on the east side of Gateway Hill. In 2008, we returned for just two weeks of mapping before a long laboratory season. During this time, we cleared and mapped the Big Tree and Blank Stela Group. Excavations in 2005 concentrated on two of the three tallest pyramidal platforms on the Gateway Hill Acropolis – the Operation 8 and 9 structures (see Figure 10.7). This work consisted of clearing the south and west faces of the Operation 8 structure and of excavating the summit of the Operation 9 structure and a small portion of the horribly looted top of the Operation 8 structure. This last was dug to a depth of about 2.5 meters; the fill was too unstable to go deeper. We did not originally plan to excavate the Operation 9 structure. For a major platform at Pusilha, it was only slightly looted. Given that virtually every platform at the site has been badly damaged by villagers from San Benito Poite, Dr Jaime Awe of the Belize Institute of Archaeology asked us to conduct preventive salvage work. Excavations revealed that the mass of the platform consists of a large, natural outcrop of rock covered with a cut stone façade lacking a stair. The summit served as an access linking the Operation 8 structure to the northern half of the acropolis. Excavations on the south side of the Operation 8 structure revealed a small Terminal Classic room constructed at plaza level against the lowermost body of the pyramid. Within this room were found the postcranial remains of a small adult or adolescent of undetermined sex (Burial 8/2). Duplicate arm bones indicate that this is not the same individual represented by Burial 4/1. A cranium and fragmentary postcranial elements were found resting on the lowermost body of the pyramid (Burial 8/1). These belong to an adult male of local origin (Pitcavage 2008: 29–30). In the plaza west of the Operation 8 structure and in front of its stair we excavated a family crypt (Pitcavage and Braswell 2009, 2010). A single pyriform vessel belonging to the Pabellon Modeled-Carved supersystem found in the crypt dates it to the Terminal Classic.The burial appears to have been opened and used in three sequential episodes that cut through the plaster floor. First, a young child was interred. Later, an adult male was added in an extended position. Finally, a woman of advanced age was placed in a flexed position at his head. Both adults are of local origin. The Burial 8/4 royal tomb The summit of the Operation 8 structure was found riddled by seven major looters’ pits and a tunnel connecting two of them. Scattered and broken cache vessels were found on this disturbed, unstable, and uneven surface. As salvage work, we excavated on top of the Operation 8 structure to see what might still be preserved prior to leveling it with fill. Our excavations quickly revealed an anthropomorphic eccentric (Figure 10.11a), as well as large capstones for a tomb. These stones were found out of place and jumbled, and appear to have been moved in antiquity. The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 263 Excavating through collapse, a tomb with a southern antechamber was revealed (Figure 10.12; Braswell 2007a, 2007b; Braswell and Gibbs 2006). A total of 761 obsidian blade fragments, flakes, and debitage were recovered from inside of the tomb, most from collapse and slump contexts above the tomb floor.This suggests that these objects may have been placed as an offering or cache above the tomb proper, perhaps on top of the capstones. With the exception of three pieces that could not be visually sourced, all the obsidian appears to come from the El Chayal sources. The tomb contained the fragmentary remains of a local male individual who died in advanced adulthood and who shows signs of arthritis, caries, and dental modification (Pitcavage 2008: 33; Somerville 2009). Also found on the floor of the tomb were four eccentrics of chert and obsidian (see Figure 10.11b–e), 13 fragmented serving vessels (Figure 10.13), a crude basin holding jadeite offerings, 197 jadeite and other greenstone artifacts (including three jadeite diadems that were part of a royal headdress), one large drilled pearl, four pyrite mirror stones, two FIGURE 10.11 Eccentric lithic artifacts associated with the Burial 8/4 royal tomb: (a) anthropomorphic chert eccentric, Op. 8/11/5, found outside tomb; (b) lunate chert eccentric Op. 8/10/5; (c–d) lunate obsidian eccentrics, Op. 8/10/5; (e) trilobe obsidian eccentric Op. 8/9/3 (original drawings by Edwin Barnes) 264 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.12 The Operation 8 structure, showing the location of the Burial 8/3 family crypt and Burial 8/4 royal tomb complete Spondylus shells (one cupping the chin and mouth, another the face of the buried individual), 17 other shells and fragments, and four carved Spondylus mosaic pieces.Thirteen broken and disturbed polychrome and monochrome vessels were lined up against the eastern side of the tomb; brightly colored polychromes were present in the north and dark monochromes in the south of this alignment (Cassandra R. Bill, personal communication 2007). Two of the jade diadems were found whole in the cache vessel located north of the head of the individual (Figure 10.14). A small fragment of the third diadem was also present in this vessel, but most of it was found broken in the southeastern corner of the tomb. This supports the observation that the tomb was opened in antiquity. FIGURE 10.13 Late Classic ceramics recovered from the Burial 8/4 royal tomb: (a) Op. 8/10/5, Vessel A; (b) Op. 8/9/3 and Op. 8/10/5, Vessel C; (c) Op. 8/11/5, Vessel E(a); (d) Op. 8/11/5, Vessel E(b); (e) Op. 8/9/3, Vessel F; (f) Op. 8/10/5, Vessel D; (g) Op. 8/9/3, Vessel G (original drawings by Edwin Barnes) 266 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.14 Three jade diadems from the Burial 8/4 royal tomb: the third diadem is carved on two sides (bottom row), and most of it was found broken in the southeastern corner of the tomb (Braswell et al. 2005: fig. 11). Who was buried in the royal tomb? Unfortunately, the painted ceramics recovered from Burial 8/4 are too poorly preserved to know if they once contained texts with nominal phrases. Thus, there is no evidence in the tomb that names its occupant. Nonetheless, the location of the tomb, the elaborate nature of the grave furnishings, the presence of the jade diadems, and the sex of the individual suggest it is the burial of a male k’uhul ajaw. Furthermore, the age of the ceramics imply that Burial 8/4 dates roughly to the middle of the eighth century.Two rulers who employed the k’uhul ajaw title and emblem glyph of Pusilha on carved monuments and a third who did not – Ruler F, Ruler G, and “Ruler” X5 – lived in this period (see below). The first of these, Ruler F, was a woman, so she is excluded. It is not clear if “Ruler” X5 was a k’uhul ajaw. He did not claim that title on his only known monument, Stela F, dedicated in ad 751. In contrast, the diadems in Burial 8/4 certainly indicate k’uhul ajaw status. Ruler G – who did employ the k’uhul ajaw title and the full emblem glyph of Pusilha – lived until sometime after 731 and presumably died before 751. These make him the strongest candidate for the occupant of Burial 8/4. But it also should be noted that three other rulers – X1, X2, and X4 – whose dynastic positions are unknown, cannot be definitively excluded. What makes the tentative identification of Burial 8/4 as that of Ruler G (or possibly “Ruler” X5) so exciting is that this is the first and only time in the nation of Belize that the remains of a hieroglyphically known ruler have been identified. Burial 8/4 thus provides a connection between the archaeology and known dynastic history of Pusilha. The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 267 The hieroglyphic monuments of Pusilha Thomas A. Joyce published photographs and several partial sketches of some of the Pusilha stelae ( Joyce et al. 1928), as did Sylvanus G. Morley (1937–8) and Berthold Riese (1972). Until recently, the hieroglyphic texts had not been thoroughly illustrated according to standards set forth by the Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions Project (Graham 1975). Moreover, except for a few brief studies concerning the chronological and astronomical contents of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, the majority of the monuments have never been adequately analyzed. To understand these texts better, Prager conducted field work at the British Museum in London in 1996 and 2000 and at the modern Q’eqchi’ village of San Benito Poite in 2001 and 2005 as co-director of the Pusilha Archaeological Project. As part of his research, Prager surveyed, photographed, and drew all of the monuments located in both the British Museum and at the site of Pusilha.2 Of particular interest to this study are the hieroglyphic inscriptions from the Stela and Moho Plazas. Most of the carved monuments known from Pusilha were found in the main Stela Plaza, a large area defined by six platforms (Figure 10.15). Structure I was the most important platform in this group, reflected in its large size and the fact that nearly all of the known monuments were concentrated in a row in front of its north side. Each monument found in front of or on Structure I was labeled with an alphabet letter (Stelae A–H, K–T, and Z) by Thomas Gann (Joyce et al. 1928: fig. 2). Stela U was found on the opposite end of the plaza in front of Structure III. This alphabet is still used, with modifications by Morley (1937–8), Riese (1972), and Prager (2002). Following a suggestion by Riese (1972), all of the monument fragments found during the 2001 field season are numbered consecutively (Figure 10.15a). Not one of the newly discovered carved fragments belongs to any of the monuments previously documented. As first reported by Gann (1928) and Joyce (1929), most of the stelae were found broken and lying on the ground near their respective monument bases except for Stela F, which was found intact. Many fell backwards, preserving their inscribed backs better than their figurative front sides. Shortly after their initial discovery, the bestpreserved monuments (Stelae C, D, E, H, M, O, P, Q, R, Z, and Monument Fragments 1–3) were removed from British Honduras and shipped to the British Museum. In 1992, Gary Rex Walters and Lorington Weller (n.d.) discovered a large residential complex and ceremonial group that they dubbed the Moho Plaza, located about 2 kilometers southwest of the Stela Plaza. It includes a previously unknown ballcourt (see Figure 10.8, Structures I and II). Walters and Weller found three small ballcourt markers and located nine hieroglyphic and iconographic cartouches engraved into the risers of a stair leading up to the top of Structure VI. During the 2001 season, the PUSAP team found 15 new sculptured monument fragments (and many more blank pieces of known monuments) in the Stela Plaza (Figure 10.15a). A well-preserved fragment of a previously unknown carved stela was brought to our attention in the village. Thus, today the corpus of carved monuments from Pusilha comprises some 46 items: 20 stelae (Stelae A, A1, B–H, K–S, U, Z), three altars (Altars V–X), three ballcourt markers (Ballcourt Markers 1–3), one hieroglyphic FIGURE 10.15 The Stela Plaza: (a) location of platforms, mapped monument fragments (black), and test pits; (b) ideal schematic of location of stelae, showing dedicating ruler and date (in years ad); Stela F (near center) and Stela N (at eastern end) are still in place (grid is in meters, as measured from a datum in the Stela Plaza; contour interval is 20 centimeters; height of the datum was arbitrarily set at 200 meters but is closer to 153 meters above sea level). The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 269 stairway (Hieroglyphic Stairway 1), 17 sculptured monument fragments (Fragments 1–17), and two miscellaneous texts (Miscellaneous Texts 1–2). Previous epigraphic studies To date, the hieroglyphic texts of Pusilha have received only moderate attention from epigraphers. Several scholars examined the dates and portions of the Supplementary Series as found on the texts shortly after their discovery (Andrews 1951; Gann 1928; Morley 1937–8; Satterthwaite 1951;Thompson 1928). Riese (1972) compiled a summary and review of the state of epigraphic research on Pusilha during the early 1970s. Table 10.1 presents the hieroglyphic dates in the Pusilha corpus as recorded in ten hieroglyphic inscriptions. The chronological sequence of dates begins in the remote and legendary past with a retrospective date of 8.2.0.0.0 (February 9, 81 bc), and the latest date known at Pusilha, found on the Hieroglyphic Stairway 1, is 9.18.7.10.3 (March 26, 798). Most historical texts date to between 9.6.17.8.18 and 9.16.0.0.0 ( June 19, ad 571 and May 9, ad 751), spanning a period of almost two centuries. One of the few researchers to use and publish data from the Pusilha inscriptions was Heinrich Berlin, who, in his study of Classic Maya emblem glyphs (Berlin 1958: 118), identified the emblem glyph of Pusilha on Stela M. Following Berlin’s work, Joyce Marcus (1973, 1976) was the first scholar to consider seriously the hierarchical nature of TABLE 10.1 Hieroglyphic dates and accompanying Supplementary Series information from Pusilha Date [8.2.0.0.0] [8.6.0.0.0]? [9.6.17.8.18] 9.7.0.0.0 9.7.0.0.0 [9.7.4.9.12] [9.7.10.0.0] 9.7.12.6.7 [9].8.[0].0.[0] 9.8*.0.0.0 [9.8.1.12.8] 9.10.15.0.0 9.10.15.0.0 9.11.0.0.0 9.12.0.0.0 [9.12.7.5.0]? 9.14.0.0.0 9.15.0.0.0 [9].16.[0.0.0] [9.18.7.10.3]? Supplementary Series 5 Ajaw 8 Sak 10 Ajaw 13 Ch’en [2 Etz’nab 11 Sek] 7 Ajaw [3 K’ank’in] 7 Ajaw 3 K’ank’in [1 Eb 10 Zotz’] 6 Ajaw 13 Sak 8 Manik’ 10 K’ayab 5 Ajaw [3 Ch’en] 5 Ajaw 3 Ch’en* 2 Lamat 1 Zip 6 Ajaw 13 Mak 6 Ajaw 13 Mak 12 Ajaw 8 Keh 10 Ajaw 8 Yaxk’in 4 Ajaw 13 Yax? [6 Ajaw 13 Muwan] 4 Ajaw 13 Yax 2 Ajaw 13 Sek 4 Ak’bal 2 Sotz’ G9, D25, C6, X6, A9 G9, D3, C3, A10 G9, D2, C5, X5, A10 G9, D17, C4, A10 G9, D3, C3, A10 G9, D23, C3, A10 G9, D4, C4?, X?, A9 G9, D1, C3, X3/4, A10 G9, C16, C?, X3/4, A? D11, C1?, X2, A9 Monument St. P St. K St. P St. O St. P St. P St. H St. H St. Q St. D St. D St. P St. D St. H St. K St. U St. M St. E St. F HS 1 Note: Unattested portions of the dates are shown in brackets, reconstructed texts are indicated by asterisks, and question marks indicate uncertainty about reconstructions. 270 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Maya polities. In so doing, based on her identification of the shared use of the Quirigua emblem glyph by Pusilha, she placed Pusilha within the political realm of Copan and Quirigua. Subsequently, Proskouriakoff (1993: 56) also suggested that Pusilha was subordinate to Copan. Nonetheless, we believe that these identifications of the Pusilha emblem glyph on Quirigua Stela I and Copan Stela 7 are incorrect. Very importantly, Proskouriakoff (1993:96) noted that the name of the eleventh ruler of Copan (nicknamed Butz’ Chan) resembles that of the contemporary ruler of Pusilha, known today as Ruler B. Her argument clearly suggests some sort of political interaction or relationship between Pusilha and Copan based on the use of a similar name by both Maya polities. Proskouriakoff’s idea was later adopted by Schele and Grube (1994), who deciphered the main sign of the Pusilha emblem glyph as T559 /TZUK/, meaning “province” or “partition.” In addition, Schele and Grube recognized and accepted the name phrase recorded on Pusilha Stela M as that of the twelfth ruler of Copan, an individual nicknamed Smoke Imix God K. Based on these arguments, they assumed that Pusilha was a province of Copan whose kings reigned temporarily over Pusilha or perhaps subdued the local rulers (ibid.: 118). These interpretations greatly influenced our thinking as we began planning PUSAP in 1998 (Braswell et al. 2004b). Braswell and Cassandra Bill’s interest in the site, in fact, was stimulated by their previous work at Copan. In his discussion of the political history of Quirigua, Matthew Looper (in Schele and Looper 1996) casts a critical eye over this regional political model. In regard to the supposed political interactions between Quirigua and Pusilha, Looper emphasizes the formal distinction between the emblem glyphs of Pusilha and Quirigua (T559 and T560). The main sign of the Pusilha glyph (T559) represents an upright avocado tree. In contrast, that of Quirigua is rotated 90 degrees (T560). In addition, Looper suggests that the name on Pusilha Stela M may simply be that of a local lord and not that of the twelfth ruler of Copan. After the seven field and laboratory seasons of PUSAP, we have found virtually no data supporting anything more than the weakest and most tenuous political connection between Pusilha and both Quirigua and Copan (Braswell et al. 2004b, 2005). Moreover, economic links are supported only by the presence of three sherds of non-Maya pottery from Honduras (Bill and Braswell 2005; Bill et al. 2005). Instead of Copan or Quirigua, the Late Classic occupants of Pusilha most likely came originally from the southwestern Peten. Before Prager’s work, the most substantial study of the dynastic history of Pusilha was an unpublished seminar paper written by Dorie Reents (n.d.), in which she correctly identifies the proper names and epithets of seven Pusilha rulers. She was among the first scholars to identify several parentage statements in the texts of Pusilha. Statements such as u bah u ch’ab, meaning “his image [is] her creation,” is an explicit “child of parent” expression. Reents also correctly identified the glyphic expression u bah u juntan, meaning “he is the cherished one of,” as another kind of “child of mother” expression. Both phrases are of help in reconstructing the dynastic sequence of Pusilha and the relationships among rulers of different generations. Images on the front of the Pusilha monuments emphasize a ruler flanked by bound captives. Both the iconography and hieroglyphic inscriptions suggest that the rulers of Pusilha seem to have participated in numerous wars. Based on the The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 271 text of Pusilha Stela D, Berthold Riese (1982) was the first scholar to identify the important “flint-and-shield” (tok’ pakal ) warfare expression, while Schele and Grube (1994: 106) identified another war-related expression in the same text, which is paraphrased as the “burning of an object” and linked to a lakam tun or “stela.” Prager deciphers this as k’asay lakam tun, meaning “the stela was broken.” The rulers of Pusilha Prager (2002) identified 38 individuals in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha. Among these are 11 individuals that employ the k’uhul ajaw title, meaning “divine ruler.” Seven can be placed into a chronological framework. Since most of the personal names cannot be read completely on account of weathering or the lack of proper decipherment, we refer to the lords of Pusilha by the alphabetic designations Ruler A to Ruler G (Table 10.2; Figure 10.16). Three more individuals employ the k’uhul ajaw title of Pusilha, but their texts do not include enough information to place them within the chronological framework of the site.Therefore they are labeled Rulers X1, X2, and X4. Ruler X3 is tenuously placed in the chronology, but his name glyph is completely eroded. Hence, it is possible that this individual is one of the other identified rulers. “Ruler” X5 is firmly placed in the chronology at 9.16.0.0.0 in a text consistent with rulership. Nonetheless, Stela F, the only monument on which he is mentioned, does not contain an emblem glyph.Thus it is likely, but not proven, that he was a divine ruler of the site. Four individuals are known from iconographic images and are called Rulers X6 to X9 (Figure 10.17 and Table 10.3). It is entirely possible that some or all of these images correspond to other named rulers identified in the texts. For example, Rulers X3 and X7, both of whom are known only from monuments in the Moho Plaza, could be the same person. Many of the legible Pusilha texts contain scant biographical information. Moreover, others are severely eroded. Therefore there is limited epigraphic data concerning many of the key individuals in the ruling families of Pusilha. The following reconstruction of the political history of Pusilha comes from the use of indirect epigraphic evidence following the biological and cultural criteria that are generally accepted by most epigraphers today: 1 2 3 4 The age of any person shall not exceed 100 years and the age difference between parents and children must be at least 15 years (Riese 1980). Only one sovereign ruler (the k’uhul ajaw) governed the polity at any given time. In order to ensure the continued existence of the dynasty, heirs apparent took power immediately or within one year after the death of their predecessors (exceptions to this rule are known from Caracol; see Grube 1994: 108). Male primogeniture generally governed succession but, in cases where the male line was broken, a brother, a sister, or even a daughter could accede. Finally, it is important always to remain cautious of the problems associated with the use of historical “truth” and “misrepresentation” associated with the political 272 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell TABLE 10.2 The ancient rulers of Pusilha and their biographies Ruler Hieroglyphic name A B Monument Birth Accession/period Death of rulership St. O, Q 9.4.0.0.1– 9.6.17.8.18? 9.4.19.17.19 9.8.14.3.6– 9.9.19.17.19 St. P, D, C? 9.8.15.0.1– 9.10.15.0.1– 9.7.4.9.12? 9.9.14.17.19 9.11.0.0.0 9.8.15.0.1– 9.9.14.17.19 St. H 9.7.12.6.7 9.11.0.0.0 9.11.0.0.1– 9.12.0.0.0 E 9.11.0.0.1– 9.12.0.0.0 9.12.0.0.1– 9.14.0.0.0 9.12.0.0.1 – 9.14.0.0.0 9.14.0.0.1– 9.15.0.0.0 F 9.14.0.0.1– 9.14.19.17.19 C D St. K St. M G X1 X2 X3 St. E 9.14.0.0.01– 9.15.0.0.0 St. N St. U HS 1 Frag. 3 9.18.7.10.3? X4 St. F X5 propaganda on Maya monuments (Marcus 1992, 1995). It is conceivable that the Maya may have distorted the historical record in both contemporary and retrospective texts as well as in posthumous references. Thus, the accuracy of historical statements also must be questioned and examined. Ruler A Sources Ruler A sponsored two known monuments – Stela O (commemorating the 9.7.0.0.0 period ending; Figure 10.18a) and Stela Q (commemorating the 9.8.0.0.0 period ending; Figure 10.18b). Given that only calendar dates survive on these two monuments, The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 273 FIGURE 10.16 The royal genealogy of Pusilha (dotted lines show uncertain kinship relationships) no contemporary historical information can be extracted from them concerning the life of Ruler A. Nonetheless, relevant biographical data were recorded on Stelae D and P (Figure 10.19), two monuments commissioned by Ruler A’s son and heir, Ruler B. From these monuments we can conclude that the dates of Ruler A’s reign fall between 9.6.17.8.18 ( June 17, 571) and 9.10.15.0.0 (November 7, 647). TABLE 10.3 The chronology of the rulers of Pusilha Date Ruler Problematic rulers with no Emblem glyph K’atun-date Long Count 9.4.0.0.0 9.5.0.0.0 9.6.0.0.0 9.7.0.0.0 9.7.4.9.12 9.7.10.0.0 9.7.12.6.7 9.8.0.0.0 B C D E F G ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♀ ♂ X1 X2 X3 X4 St. N St. U HS 1 F. 3 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 St. F St. C BM 1 F. 17 St. R ¤ 9.6.17.8.18 9.7.0.0.0 A Iconography 9.8.0.0.0 ■? ‚ St. O ‚ St. Q *? ▲ * 9.8.1.12.8 9.9.0.0.0 9.10.0.0.0 9.10.15.0.0 □? ‚ St. D, P, C? No calendar dates from 9.8.1.12.9 to 9.10.14.17.19 9.11.0.0.0 9.12.0.0.0 9.13.0.0.0 9.14.0.0.0 9.15.0.0.0 9.16.0.0.0 ■‚ St. H 9.11.0.0.0 9.12.0.0.0 ‚ St. K 9.14.0.0.0 □? ‚ St. M 9.15.0.0.0 No calendar dates from 9.12.0.0.1 to 9.13.19.17.19 ? ? □? ‚ St. E ‚ St. F 9.16.0.0.0 9.17.0.0.0 9.18.0.0.0 9.18.7.10.3? A B C D E F G X1 X2 ▲? X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Notes: Rulers A–G and X1–X4 use the Pusilha emblem glyph or are tied to an accession statement; “Ruler” X5’s status is deduced from its epigraphic context. Rulers X6–X9 are highly speculative and are known only from iconography; some or all could be duplicated in the hieroglyphically known rulers. The leftmost column displays the dedication dates of the monuments, and the second column displays the Initial Series dates associated with specific events. The rulers are identified by capital letters and their respective lifespans are indicated by bars. Stripes specify a secure lifespan, solid gray indicates an assumed period. Symbols mark specific events: ¤ = reconstructed birthdate; * = secure birthdate; □ = reconstructed accession date; ■ = secure accession date; ● = period ending and monument dedication; ▲= unknown event present in texts. 276 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.17 Monuments showing rulers known only from iconography: (a) Stela C (Ruler X6); (b) Ballcourt Marker 1, Moho Plaza (Ruler X7); (c) Fragment 17 (Ruler X8); (d) Stela R (Ruler X9). The iconographic references to Teotihuacan on Stela C are particularly striking; the inscription at pB names a captive, Itzamnaaj Balaam, but his place of origin is too eroded to read (original drawings by Christian Prager). Names and epithets The name phrase of Ruler A (dubbed “God K – 1” by Reents n.d.: 2) is recorded on Stelae D and P, both dedicated by Ruler B to commemorate the 9.10.15.0.0 period ending. The complete name phrase of Ruler A, as found on Stela D (C4–D5), reads /K’AWIL CHAN-na K’IN-ni-chi MUWAN SAK tz’u-nu-na/ > K’awil Chan K’inich Muwan Sak Tz’unun.The second part of his name phrase (Muwan Sak Tzunun) may simply be his pre-accession name and means “white hummingbird” (Acuña 1993: 158v). However, Ruler A’s proper name is recorded on Stela P (C5–D5, G5–H5) as K’awil Chan K’inich. A full title sequence appears on Stela D (D7) and includes the Pusilha emblem glyph: k’uhul un ajaw. The main sign of the Pusilha emblem glyph The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 277 inorporates the T559 logograph /UN/, meaning “avocado.” This decipherment was derived from its use in the Ch’ol month of Uniw and its respective Yukatekan cognate of K’ank’in (Grube 1990: 82). Two variants of the Pusilha emblem glyph have been discovered. In most cases, the variable element (the name of the Pusilha polity) is the T559 /UN/ (Figure 10.20a), whereas on Stelae D, K, and E the main sign contains an additional element: Tnn+T559 (Stela D: G14–H14; Figure 10.20b). Unfortunately, this additional grapheme has not been deciphered, nor is it featured in any other known hieroglyphic text. Ruler A’s title sequence contains the phrase /HUK CHAPAT CHAN K’AWIL CHAN-na/ > Huk Chapat Chan K’awil Chan, meaning “the Seventh Celestial Centipede of K’awil” (Stela D: A14–B14). This is the proper name of a supernatural agent related to the god K’awil. Ruler A also bears the epithet /OCH-K’IN KALOMTE’/ > ochk’in kalomte’, or the “West Kalomte’” (Stela D: C6–D6), which is a directional title of governance. For the most part, only senior members of the most powerful dynasties bore this title, whose precise meaning is still under discussion. Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube (2000: 17) suggest that it “asserts a legitimacy derived from the great Mexican city of Teotihuacan.” In many instances – Tikal, Copan, Naranjo, Seibal, and Pusilha – the ochk’in kalomte’ title refers to the founder of a particular dynastic line. In most cases, such king-makers were themselves ajawob, but the first, Siyaj K’ak’ of FIGURE 10.18 Stelae dedicated by Ruler A: (a) Stela O, back; (b) Stela Q, back (original drawings by Christian Prager) FIGURE 10.19 Stelae dedicated by Ruler B: (a) Stela D, back FIGURE 10.19 (b) Stela P, back (original drawings by Christian Prager) 280 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.20 Variants of the Pusilha emblem glyph: (a) principal variant, Stela M; (b) alternative variant, Stela D (original drawings by Christian Prager) Tikal, apparently was not. Given that the ceramic sequence of Pusilha begins just before about ad 600, it is reasonable to assume that Ruler A was not only the first member of the Pusilha dynasty but also the actual founder of the city. Ruler A also carries the title /CHAN WINIKHAB? Ch’a-jo-ma/ > chan winikhab? Ch’ajom, meaning that he was “four k’atun person” (Stela D: C3–D3).This indicates that he was in his fourth k’atun of life, or between 60 and eight years of age, when Stela Q (9.8.0.0.0) was dedicated. The sequence of Ruler A’s personal titles ends with the expression /UX BULUK PIK a-AJAW/ > ux buluk pik ajaw, suggesting that he was “3-11 Bak’tun Lord” (Stela D: C2–D2). Together with the 4 k’atun expression, this section of the text was previously assumed by epigraphers to be a distance number counting back from the Initial Series date of 9.8.0.0.0 to an implied date of birth (Reents n.d.). Nonetheless, this hieroglyph is simply an epithet that is also recorded in inscriptions elsewhere, such as Tikal, Copan, Naranjo, and Quirigua. According to Marie Gaida (1990), the title expresses the multiplication 3 · 11.0.0.0.0, resulting in the remote Initial Series date 1.13.0.0.0.0 10 Ajaw 8 Zip (February 24, ad 9898). Thus, this numerical title may simply allude to the eternal nature and immortality of the person who uses it. Biographical data No text at Pusilha provides direct information about K’awil Chan K’inich’s birth. To reconstruct his birthdate, one must use the k’atun-age statements recorded on Stela D (C3) and Stela P (G4).The texts on both monuments state that stelae were erected under the aegis of K’awil Chan K’inich on 9.7.0.0.0 (Stela P: A10–A11), read as /u tz’a-pa-wa T1084 LAKAM TUN-ni/ > u tz’apaw T1084 lakam tun, and 9.8.0.0.0 (Stela D: A10–A11), read as /u tz’a-pa-wa T1084 K’UH-HUL-TUN/. The text on Stela P (G4) indicates that K’awil Chan K’inich was an ux winikhab ajaw or “three k’atun-lord,” implying an age between 40 and 60.Twenty years later, according to the text of Stela D (C3), Ruler A was a “four-k’atun-lord,” implying an age between 60 and 80. These two “k’atun-age” statements imply a time span for the date of his birth of 9.4.0.0.1 to 9.4.19.17.19, also suggested by the first interpretation of the numbered title (“3-11-pik”) described above. If correct, this interpretation implies a birth on The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 281 9.4.7.15.0 12 Ajaw 18 Sek (July 8, 522).There is some epigraphic evidence to suggest that Ruler A probably acceded to kingship on 9.6.17.8.18 ( June 19, 571). Recorded on Stela P (D4) in a retrospective text are the remains of a partially effaced verbal expression containing the well-known T670 logograph /K’AM/, meaning “to receive.”This is a common verbal expression used in formal accession statements. Less than two years later, K’awil Chan K’inich celebrated the 9.7.0.0.0 period ending and dedicated a stone monument (Stela P: A10–A11), most likely Stela O, the focal point of the stelae in front of Structure I (see Figure 10.15b). Stela P and Stela D both record the proper name of the specific area of the city of Pusilha where this occurred as /T150-wi-tzi ti K’UHUL Tnn/, (T150-witz k’uhul ?) or “Platform Mountain at …” (Stela P: B11; Stela D: G12). “Platform Mountain” may have been the ancient name of the Gateway Hill Acropolis where the remains of dozens of pyramidal platforms and terraces were constructed against the natural slope of the hillside. If this is the case, it might be that the oldest stelae at the site were originally placed on the acropolis and moved later to the Stela Plaza. The arrangement of the stelae found there – with the most recent at the center of the monument row – strongly suggests that at least some resetting occurred. Alternatively, “Platform Mountain” could simply be the ancient name of the Stela Plaza. Interestingly, Yajaw Te’ K’inich II, the contemporary lord of Caracol, erected Stela 1 at that site in order to commemorate the 9.7.0.0.0 period ending. Both Caracol Stela 1 and Pusilha Stela Q share the same proper name for their respective monuments (T1084 k’uhul tun; Figure 10.21).This might provide evidence of contact between the two sites, a relationship that is not evident in the ceramics of Pusilha. 20 years later, the text of Stela D indicates that K’awil Chan K’inich was still in power. For the 9.8.0.0.0 period ending he erected a stela, also named T1084 k’uhul tun, at the “Platform Mountain” place (Stela D: A10–A13).This stela most likely corresponds to Stela Q, a fragment discovered north of the line of stelae in front of Structure I of the Stela Plaza that carries the Initial Series date 9.8.0.0.0 (see Figure 10.15b). There are no references to the death of Ruler A on any monument at Pusilha. According to the “k’atun-age” statements, Ruler A reached an age of at least 60. The text on Stela D (H10–H14) implies that K’awil Chan K’inich’s son and heir, K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan (Ruler B), erected a stela on 9.10.15.0.0.This heir carries the title “the divine FIGURE 10.21 Proper names of stelae at Caracol and Pusilha: (a) Caracol Stela 1 (after Beetz and Satterthwaite 1981: fig. 1); (b) Stela D (original drawing by Christian Prager) 282 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell lord of Pusilha.” It can be assumed that Ruler A’s death was before his son acceded to the throne, which therefore must have happened sometime before 9.10.15.0.0. Moreover, at that time the son is said to be a “2-k’atun” lord – that is, under 40 years old. Assuming the age statements for both men are true and that Ruler B really was Ruler A’s son, the date of K’awil Chan K’inich’s death could not have been before about 9.8.14.3.6, the earliest possible conception date for his heir. Furthermore, if we assume he was no older than 100 years at death (see assumptions above), then he died no later than 9.9.19.17.19. Thus, within a 55-tun period that lacks known monuments, we can conclude that Ruler A died within a range of less than 26-tuns. Parentage No explicit parentage statements are given for Ruler A. A father–son relationship between K’awil Chan K’inich and his heir K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan is indicated by the “child of father” parentage statement U YAX ch’o-ko MIJIN (u yax ch’ok mijin), which can be paraphrased as “his first offspring” (Stela P: G3–H3). Events during his reign According to the retrospective texts on both Stela D and Stela P, commissioned by Ruler A’s successor, the most notable accomplishment of Ruler A’s reign was the erection of two stelae to commemorate the 9.7.0.0.0 and 9.8.0.0.0 period endings. Both stelae were erected at the “Platform Mountain ” – again the ancient name of either the Gateway Hill Acropolis or the Stela Plaza (Stela D: A10–A13; Stela P: A10–B11). A war-related event involving the breaking of stelae is recorded on Stela D (D11– C13), corresponding to the date 9.8.1.12.8 (April 24, ad 595).The subject and object of this attack are ambiguous (i.e., it is not entirely clear if Pusilha instigated or suffered from the battle), but the individual responsible for this action was named ?-nib, and appears to be from some unknown polity, perhaps Altun Ha, as suggested by Phillip Wanyerka (personal communication 2003). The inscription itself reads: /k’a-sa-ya LAKAM TUN-ni U KAB-ji-ya ?-ni-bi/ > k’asay lakam tun (“it got broken the large stone”) u kabjiy ?-nib (“under the supervision of Scroll-nib”) (Stela D: D11–C12; but see Helmke et al. 2010: 104–5 for a different reading). It may be that these actions were against Pusilha and that this portion of the text on Stela D describes the destruction of the stone stelae originally set by Ruler A. Given that there was a 52-year interval between this event and the erection of the next known hieroglyphic monument at Pusilha, it is certainly plausible that the dynasty suffered a serious setback. Following these events the text describes that the flint and the shield of “K’ak’-Scroll” were downed, /ju-bu-yi U TOK’ U PAKAL-la MA’ CH’AB MA’ AK’AB … K’AK’ T579/ > jubuy u tok’ u pakal ma’ ch’ab ma’ ak’ab … k’ak’-? (“was downed the flint and the shield”), followed by a possible metaphor or name of a captive whose proper name remains unclear. All of this was performed under the auspices of Chan Ek’ (Stela D: F6–E7), a person from Yok’baj (Stela D: F7–E8), which is a toponym that has not yet been linked to any known archaeological site. This battle and destruction event occurred at a place whose name has survived only partially, but it includes the The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 283 well-known expression /K’O(B?)-TUN/, nicknamed “Fist-Stone” (Stela D: E5–F5). According to Markus Eberl (2005), this expression refers to a place where corpses were formally laid out. Finally, the extended war-related clause ends with the hieroglyph /k’i-k’i-yi/ > k’ik’-iy, meaning that “blood exuded” (Stela D: F8). Ruler B Sources Information concerning the life of Ruler B (K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan) comes from two monuments that he commissioned – Stelae D and P (see Figure 10.19). These two companion monuments contain the longest hieroglyphic texts at Pusilha. Both celebrate the 9.10.15.0.0 period ending and were designed to glorify the past deeds of his father, K’awil Chan K’inich (Ruler A). Because both monuments are of similar size and style they were probably designed as a pair. Both feature similar images on their fronts (a central figure flanked by seated prisoners), and their obverse faces are completely covered with long hieroglyphic texts. Stela H (Figure 10.22), a monument dedicated by Ruler C (who was probably a brother of Ruler B), is another stela that contains important data concerning Ruler B. Names and epithets Ruler B was first identified as a Pusilha lord named “Chan Na God K-West-2” by Reents (n.d.: 2), who places him as the second person in the dynastic sequence. His nominal phrase consists of a full sequence of epithets including his proper name, which probably reads /K’AK’ U TI’ CHAN-na/ > K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan, “Fire is the Mouth of the Heaven” (Stela P: H13). Schele and Grube (1994: 118) were the first scholars to propose that Ruler 11 of Copan (nicknamed “Butz’ Chan”) bears the same personal name as Pusilha Ruler B. Copan’s “Butz’ Chan” acceded to the throne on 9.7.5.0.8 (November 19, ad 578) and enjoyed a 49-year reign, dying at 9.9.14.16.9 ( January 23, ad 628). During “Butz’ Chan’s” reign, the leading elite of Copan oversaw a surge of political power and expanded into the surrounding borderlands. At this time, polities located in the southeastern periphery of the Maya Mountains such as Pusilha – which was established just before the reign of Copan Ruler 11 – might have adopted certain Copan cultural traditions. Among these traditions is the use of proper Copan rulers’ name phrases and Copan costumes, eventually including the turban headdress, as seen in a single example at Nim li Punit that dates to the early eighth century (Grube et al. 1999). “Butz’ Chan’s” reign partially overlapped that of Pusilha Ruler B, who took the proper name of his famous counterpart at Copan when he acceded to the throne sometime between 9.8.1.12.8 and 9.10.15.0.0. Based on these similarities, scholars, including Martin and Grube (2000: 201), have suggested the existence of unspecific cultural and political interrelations between Copan and its immediate neighbors to the north in the Southern Belize Region. Ruler B’s extended name phrase appears on Stela P along with several epithets, including a “2-k’atun” age statement accompanied by the royal title of ajaw, ch’ajom, FIGURE 10.22 Stela H (back), dedicated by Ruler C (original drawings by Christian Prager) The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 285 “person,” bahte’, “first tree,” and pitzil, a ballplayer title (Stela P: F10–F11). The “k’atun-age” phrase indicates that K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan was between 20 and 40 years of age when he celebrated the 9.10.15.0.0 period ending. Like his father, Ruler B also carried the Huk Chapat Chan […] or “Seventh Celestial Centipede …” title (Stela P: E9). Unfortunately, the rest of Ruler B’s name phrase is now eroded. Biographical data Ruler B’s birthdate is not explicitly recorded on a legible portion of Stela P. It can be reconstructed in two ways. First, as mentioned, Stela P contains a “2-k’atun” age statement. Since it was dedicated on 9.10.15.0.0 (November 10, ad 647), the date of Ruler B’s birth should lie between 9.8.15.0.1 and 9.9.14.17.19. A second possible birthdate of 9.7.4.9.12 1 Eb 10 Zotz’ (May 27, ad 578) may be calculated from an eroded portion of Stela P (D9–D12).This relies on the distance number of 3.10.8.8 leading back from 9.10.15.0.0 to an implied date of birth. Nonetheless, this is more than 30 years earlier than the birthdate implied by the “2-k’atun” age statement, suggesting scribal error, the altering of history for some unknown purpose, or imperfect interpretation on our part. Support for this earlier birthdate can be found on Stela H (see Figure 10.22). On that later monument, Ruler B’s name is associated with the 9.7.10.0.0 period ending (Stela H: E8), implying that K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan was already alive at that time. The precise date of Ruler B’s inauguration is unknown. We can assume he came to power during a series of wars that began with the 9.8.1.12.8 event and ended by 9.10.15.0.0, when he dedicated Stelae D and P. Stela D (G14–H14) refers to him as a k’uhul ajaw, or “divine ruler,” of Pusilha during this period. K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan is also said to have rededicated (Stela D: H10) two k’uhul tun, or “holy stones” (probably Stela O and Stela Q), that were set by his father in 9.7.0.0.0 and 9.8.0.0.0. The exact date of Ruler B’s death is also unknown, but must have occurred after the dedication of Stelae D and P on 9.10.15.0.0 and before the accession of his successor on 9.11.0.0.0. Parentage The only parentage reference to K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan is one recorded in a passage on Stela P. There, Ruler B is identified as the firstborn child of K’awil Chan K’inich (see above). Ruler B appears to have had a younger brother (Ruler C), who was born on 9.7.12.6.7 (Stela H) and acceded to the Pusilha throne on 9.11.0.0.0. Events during his reign As mentioned, Ruler B commissioned Stelae D and P commemorating the 9.10.15.0.0 period ending. Both monuments pay homage to the past deeds of his father. Because of the lack of explicit biographic data, it remains uncertain as to whether the warrelated events of 9.8.1.12.8 (the demolition of stone monuments and the downing of the war insignia by the action of “?-nib?,” or “Scroll-nib”; see above) should be associated with Ruler B or with his father. It also is unclear whether the text on Stela D describes a hostile act against Pusilha under the auspices of “Scroll-nib,” or whether this 286 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell individual was a local who attacked an unnamed polity. It is interesting to note that the T579 sign in his name occurs with increasing frequency in the hieroglyphic texts of sites north and east of Pusilha, including Altun Ha, Nim li Punit, Naj Tunich, and Tamarindito (see Grube et al. 1999: 28; Helmke et al. 2010). If “Scroll-nib” did not come from Pusilha but instead attacked it, he may have been from one of these other sites. Approximately 47 years after the destruction of his father’s monuments, Ruler B rededicated their shattered monuments: /I’ WA’-la-ja … T150 wi-tzi/ > I’ wa’laj T150-witz, or “and then was set the … [at] the Platform Mountain.” K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan linked the dedication of his two stelae to some unknown past event that occurred in the presence of an ancestral or legendary person at the “Chi-Throne Place” on 8.2.0.0.0 5 Ajaw 8 Sak (February 9, ad 81; Stela P: G7–H11). Elsewhere, the “chi-throne” glyph is associated with events involving the founding fathers of the most important dynasties of the central Maya lowlands (Grube 1988). It is probably a toponym linked to the major Late Preclassic metropolis of El Mirador (Stanley Guenter, personal communication 2001). Many dynasties throughout the southern Maya lowlands legitimized their claim to power by tracing their origins back to the legendary kings of the “Chi-Throne Place.”The name glyph of the legendary individual is partially eroded, but it includes the epithet ho’ kab ajaw, or the “Five Earth Lord” (Stela P: G11), which is the ancient name of the Ixtutz polity of the Dolores Valley. During the Late Classic Period, this toponym appears in various contexts at numerous Maya sites, among them Ixtutz and Naj Tunich, both of which lie about 30 kilometers northwest of Pusilha.Thus, epigraphic evidence implies a heritage shared by Pusilha and several other polities in the southeast Peten.This passage on Stela P suggests that Ruler B considered himself to be the descendant of a legendary ancestor who was a dynastic founder, but who – if real – lived long before any evidence of occupation at Pusilha. It also might be a statement linking the ancestors of the Pusilha rulers to the Ixtutz region. Ruler C Sources Stela H (see Figure 10.22) is the only carved monument dedicated by Ruler C. It commemorates both the 9.11.0.0.0 period ending and the accession of the king on the same day. Unlike the extremely hard, white limestone of Stelae D, P, and C, Stela H was carved on a dark conglomerate. The hieroglyphic inscription that originally faced Structure I is fairly well preserved, but the upper third of the monument is severely eroded and unreadable. Traces of a life-sized human figure occupy the front side. Names and epithets Dorie Reents (n.d.: 5) dubs Ruler C “God K-West – 3” and identifies him as the third ruler in the dynastic line of Pusilha. His name appears three times in the text and is read /MUYAL-la NAH K’UHUL Tnn K’AK’ U …/ > Muyal Nah K’uhul [unreadable] K’ak’ U … (Stela H: A14–A15). The appearance of the Pusilha emblem The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 287 glyph (B15) identifies him as a supreme Pusilha lord. The use of K’ak’ U ? in his nominal phrase replicates portions of the name of his predecessor, K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan (Ruler B).Thus we cannot completely rule out the possibility that Ruler B and Ruler C were one and the same person – a suggestion first proposed by Reents (n.d.: 5). Nonetheless, there are several reasons to think they were distinct individuals. First, according to the 2-k’atun age statement (Stela P: E10), Ruler B was between 20 and 40 years old at the start of the 9.10.15.0.0 period ending. Because Ruler C’s date of birth is known (9.7.12.6.7 8 Manik’ 10 K’ayab), he must have been about 66 years of age on 9.11.0.0.0, which would imply a 4-k’atun age statement (but see above for contradictory evidence for the birthdate of Ruler B). More importantly, K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan (Ruler B) already was the k’uhul ajaw on 9.10.15.0.0. In contrast, the individual on Stela H ascended to the Pusilha throne on 9.11.0.0.0. Because they seem to have had different birthdates and definitively had different accession dates, we conclude that K’ak’ U Ti’ Chan (Ruler B) and K’ak’ U … (Ruler C) were distinct people. Biographical data The life of Ruler C is fairly well documented, as attested by the dates of both his birth and his accession.The text on Stela H states that K’ak’ U … was born on 9.7.12.6.7.8 8 Manik’ 10 K’ayab and that he acceded to the throne on 9.11.0.0.0 at the age of 66 (Stela H: A12 and D14). The respective accession phrase on Stela H (A12–B13) reads /I’ K’AL-la-ja TIL K’AK’ WAK ye-bu tu ba-hi/ > I’ k’a(h)laj k’ak’ til wak yeb tu bah,“tied was the k’ak’ til wak yeb on his head.” Based on comparable accession phrases recorded in texts from the sites of Palenque (the Palace Tablet), Quirigua (Stela J), and Yaxchilan (Hieroglyphic Stair 3, Step III), this expression refers exclusively to the name of the royal headband that was tied to the heir apparent (Schele and Miller 1983: 18; Mathews 1988). Ruler C’s precise death date is not known, but it fell before 9.12.0.0.0, the dedication date of Stela K by Ruler D. Parentage We have no parentage statements for Ruler C because large portions of Stela H are eroded. Nonetheless, he probably was related to both Ruler A and Ruler B, the “first offspring” of the dynastic founder. Ruler C was born too early to be the son of Ruler B, but his birthdate is consistent with that of a brother (or cousin). The repetition of part of Ruler B’s name in Ruler C’s nominal phrase also suggests a close family relationship. Thus, although it is not proven, we assume that Ruler C probably was the younger brother of Ruler B and the son of K’awil Chan K’inich (Ruler A). Events during his reign Two major events occurred during the reign of Ruler C. First, he commissioned Stela H to commemorate the 9.11.0.0.0 period ending and to celebrate his accession 288 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell to the throne on that same day. Second, Stela H implies that Ruler C engaged in bellicose contact with other sites. A verbal expression that includes the T515 chuk sign (“to seize”) and the name of a captive are readable (Stela H: D2).The captive appears to carry a kob- or kotz-ajaw toponym, indicating that he was a “Lord from Kob/Kotz” (Stela H: C4). Stela H also recounts the “binding of the stone” (/K’AL-wi TUN-ni/ > k’alaw tun) rituals that presumably accompanied the 9.11.0.0.0 period ending celebration. Ruler D Sources Little is known of the history of Ruler D. As the fourth ruler of Pusilha dynasty, he was responsible for the dedication of Stela K, which commemorates the 9.12.0.0.0 period ending (Figure 10.23). FIGURE 10.23 Stela K, dedicated by Ruler D: (a) front; (b) back (original drawings by Christian Prager) The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 289 Names and epithets Ruler D was first recognized by Reents (n.d.: 5) and dubbed “God K-West – 4.” His nominal phrase consists of several elements, including ne’ … sak k’uk’ jun … aj … (Stela K: pF5–pF9), but severe weathering makes most of this unreadable.The first part of the phrase probably contains Ruler D’s proper name, and the final part incorporates the Pusilha emblem glyph (Stela K: pF10) along with the epithet /SUTZ’-Tnn+T227CHAN/ > sutz’ … chan, an undeciphered title that may be related to a supernatural location associated with the Rain God Chak as depicted in the Dresden Codex (p. 64c). Biographical data The lifespan of Ruler D cannot be ascertained because no other monument provides any information concerning him. Although we have no surviving accession statement, that event must have occurred during the interval 9.11.0.0.0 to 9.12.0.0.0 – that is, after the erection of Stela H by Ruler C and before Stela K was dedicated. Ruler D’s death date also is unknown, but Ruler E ascended to the office of king sometime before 9.14.0.0.0. Thus we may conclude that Ruler D died between 9.12.0.0.1 and 9.14.0.0.0. Events during his reign Pusilha Ruler D celebrated the 9.12.0.0.0 period ending by erecting Stela K. Following a suggestion by Grube and Martin (2001: 11), the inscription on Stela K begins with an unknown distance number leading back in time to 8.6.0.0.0 10 Ajaw 13 Ch’en? (Stela K: pB1–pB5) and linking the 9.12.0.0.0 commemoration to celebrations of that much earlier period ending at the legendary “Chi-Throne Place” (Stela K: pC6). Stela K (pC3) names the protagonist for the events surrounding this early date as “Foliated” or “Decorated” Ajaw. He appears to be an important legendary person linked to the origin of Maya kingship and is mentioned in several texts from Tikal, Copan, Calakmul, and other sites (see Martin and Grube 2000: 9ff.). In commemorating and re-enacting the 8.6.0.0.0 k’atun celebration, Ruler D legitimized his own power and reign by tying the 9.12.0.0.0 period ending to this legendary event in ad 159 and encapsulated the power and prestige associated with “Foliated” Ajaw. The iconography on the front face of Stela K (see Figure 10.23a) portrays Ruler D flanked by two kneeling captives. For this reason, it is likely that Ruler D engaged in battle at some point during his reign. Alternatively, such portrayals – which are so common at Pusilha – were propaganda, like the ubiquitous “capture” or “smiting” scenes on the pylons of Egyptian temples. Ruler E Sources Ruler E dedicated Stela M to commemorate the 9.14.0.0.0 period ending (see Figure 10.24). The reference to Ruler E on Stela M provides the only information 290 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell FIGURE 10.24 Stela M (back), dedicated by Ruler E (original drawing by Christian Prager) we have concerning the life of this ruler. Since no other monument was erected at Pusilha between 9.12.0.0.0 (Stela K) and 9.14.0.0.0 (Stela M), there is a gap of some 40 years in the local dynastic sequence. This hiatus can be explained either as an accident of preservation or as a sign of political turbulence. Reents (n.d.: 6) suggests that the severely eroded Stela U, found in the Stela Plaza in front of Structure III, may be another monument that was erected under the aegis of Ruler E. Her argument is based on the physical features of the monument that are seemingly comparable to those of Stela M. Unfortunately no dates have survived on Stela U, and thus this cannot be confirmed. Names and epithets In her unpublished paper, Reents (n.d.) nicknames Ruler E “God K-West – 5” and places him as the fifth ruler in the dynastic sequence. His name phrase consists of his proper name, a title sequence that includes the Pusilha emblem glyph, the ochk’in kalomte’ title, and a clause that seems to refer to his royal ancestry. The first part of the The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 291 phrase (Stela M: C1–C2) contains an almost illegible proper name. The second contains the previously discussed ochk’in kalomte’ title for high-ranking nobles (Stela M: D2–C3) and a long title sequence that reads /K’UHUL CHAN-na/ (Stela M: D3), /yo-ON?-ni/ (Stela M: C4), /K’AK’ U …/ (Stela M: D4), /K’AWIL JOL-…/ (Stela M: C5–D5), /K’UHUL UN? AJAW/ (Stela M: C6) > k’uhul chan yon? k’ak’ u … k’awil jol … k’uhul un? ajaw, with the final element being the Pusilha emblem glyph. By using the allegedly Teotihuacan-related ochk’in kalomte’ title, Ruler E refers to his distinguished predecessor in office, K’awil Chan K’inich, or Ruler A, the founder of the first Pusilha dynasty and probably also of permanent settlement. This reference to an important royal predecessor is a common feature of the names of most of the rulers of Pusilha and served to legitimize them.The phrase k’uhul chan yon? k’ak’ u … k’awil jol? comprises three parts: k’uhul chan, “godly heaven,” yon, “his lineage,” and k’ak’ u … k’awil jol?, which probably refers to the name of an earlier ancestral ruler.The first two elements (Stela M: D3–C4) constitute a title also borne by Copan and Quirigua kings. It is most likely associated with the veneration of ancestors, in particular with the concept of divine descent and the eternity of the royal lineage, as outlined by Eberl (2005). Because the third part of the name phrase (Stela M: D4–D5) resembles the proper names of Rulers B and C, it may well be that the last element of this title phrase refers to these kings, a predecessor in office, or a venerated ancestor. Biographical data No specific references to the birth, accession, or death of Ruler E survive. Nonetheless, he must have acceded to power before the 9.14.0.0.0 period ending that he commemorated. Similarly, he must have died before the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending celebrated by a successor. Parentage Stela M records a parentage statement. The inscription states that Ruler E was the “cared-one” (/U ba-hi JUN-TAN-na/ > u bah u juntan, “his person is the caredone of ”; Stela M: D6–C7) of a royal woman whose proper name is only partially legible because the text is broken. Her name phrase begins after the “child of mother” expression and reads ti u k’uhul k’uk’ (Stela M: D7).The classifier (T1000a, IX), which usually signifies female names and titles, is omitted in this context. The identity of Ruler E’s father remains unknown. Given that Ruler E employed the ochk’in kalomte’ title, we wonder if he started a new dynastic line at Pusilha whose legitimacy was derived more from his mother’s family than from his father’s line. Events during his reign Stela M was commissioned by Ruler E to commemorate the 9.14.0.0.0 period ending. The depiction of captives on its weathered front hints that Ruler E was involved in warfare during his reign. 292 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Ruler F Sources The only woman elevated to the office of king at Pusilha was called Ix Ich’ak … K’inich, or Ruler F. Although no monuments survive from her reign, her existence is attested in a parentage statement on Stela E (Figure 10.25), erected by her son Ruler G on 9.15.0.0.0. Names and epithets The name of Ruler F appears on Stela E and comprises the female title T1002, her proper name, and the Pusilha emblem glyph. Her personal name is partially eroded, but one can still read /IX ICH’AK-…-ki … K’INICH/ > Ix Ich’ak … K’inich, “Lady Paw … Sun God” (Stela E: Fp5–Ep7). The initial element is the T1002, a common royal title held by high-ranking female members of a dynasty who gave birth to heirs to the throne (Stela E: Fp5). This title contains the expression ix k’uh (ix is the female classifier and k’uh is glossed as “god”) and most likely refers to Goddess O, the aged goddess of birth and housekeeping (Nikolai Grube, personal communication 2000). The last part of her name and title phrase identifies her as a k’uhul un? Ajaw, “divine ruler of Pusilha” (Stela E: Fp7). Biographical data No biographical data exist for Ruler F. She must have ascended into the office of ajaw at some point during the interval between the reign of Ruler E (ca. 9.14.0.0.0) and Ruler G, who appears at 9.15.0.0.0 on the front side of Stela E. The accession of a queen at Pusilha suggests that some sort of dynastic upheaval occurred during this 20-year period. There must have been a breakdown in the patriline in order for Lady Ich’ak … K’inich to assume the throne – specifically, Ruler F’s predecessor probably died without a male heir. She could have been a sister or daughter of Ruler E, who himself might have been the child of a woman of the royal house rather than of a man belonging to it. Whatever her claim to the throne, the queen did not remain in power for long. Her son and successor in office, Ruler G, acceded to power sometime before 9.15.0.0.0. Thus Ruler F’s reign can best be characterized as that of an interim lord, comparable with the rulership of Lady Sak K’uk’ at Palenque (Martin and Grube 2000: 161). Parentage There are no statements of parentage for Lady Ich’ak … K’inich, but her consort (i.e., the father of Ruler G) was an individual named /K’INICH ba-ka-si MO’ LAJUN k’i-?/ > K’inich BakVs Mo’ Lajun …, a noble of ajaw rank (Stela E: Ep9– Fp10). Unfortunately, erosion has rendered much of his name and the emblem glyph he employed unreadable. A parentage statement for K’inich BakVs Mo’ Lajun … also names his father (i.e., the paternal grandfather of Ruler G). Finally, Stela E The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 293 FIGURE 10.25 Stela E, dedicated by Ruler G: (a) front; (b) back (original drawings by Christian Prager) (Ep3–Fp3) states that the marriage of Ruler F to her consort produced at least one son, … k’ak’ … chan, who would later become Ruler G. Ruler G Sources Ruler G presided over the erection of Stela E on 9.15.0.0.0, which is the only monument dedicated during his reign. The front side of the monument portrays the standing ruler flanked by two tied captives (see Figure 10.25a), and the text on the back mainly recounts the ancestry of Ruler G, particularly his parents and his paternal grandfather (Figure 10.25b). 294 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Names and epithets Dorie Reents (n.d.: 6) identified this ruler by means of the Pusilha emblem glyph that forms the second part of his nominal phrase. His proper name is mostly obliterated, but what remains reads /… K’AK’ … CHAN/; the T561 sign read /CHAN/ is infixed with an almost illegible portrait glyph, possibly the T1030 /K’AWIL/ glyph. Following his personal name is the Pusilha emblem glyph (Stela E: Ep4). Biographical data There are no statements directly dating Ruler G’s birth, accession, or death preserved in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha. We can place his accession in the 20-year period between the commission of Stela M by Ruler E (9.14.0.0.0) and Ruler G’s dedication of Stela E (9.15.0.0.0), shortly after his mother (Ruler F) had either died or stepped down as queen of Pusilha. Stela F (9.16.0.0.0) was dedicated by another individual, “Ruler” X5. If the latter was an ajaw of Pusilha, then we can conclude that Ruler G died during the previous k’atun. Parentage The inscription on Stela E ends with three statements, beginning with the child-ofmother relationship glyph read /U BAH U JUN-TAN-na/ > u bah u juntan, “his person is the cared-one of.” As described above, Ruler G’s mother was Lady Ich’ak … K’inich, who carried the titles T1002 “… holy woman” and k’uhul un? Ajaw, or “divine ruler of Pusilha” (Stela E: Fp5–Fp7). Ruler G’s father’s name was K’inich BakVs Mo’ Lajun …, which appears on Stela E just after the “child-of-father” relational metaphor /U si-hi U CHIT/lo-ti CH’AB/ > u sih u chit/lot (u) ch’ab, meaning “he is the gift and the relative or the creation of.” A foreign lord, K’inich BakVs Mo’ Lajun … married into the ruling family of Pusilha and gave distinction to a dynasty torn by the apparent breakdown of the male line that occurred between 9.14.0.0.0 and 9.15.0.0.0. Although it is pure speculation, the individual found in Burial 3/1 could possibly be Ruler G’s father. This Late Classic burial of a foreign male does not appear to be that of a king of Pusilha, yet it occupies the central place on a residential structure next to the tallest platform in the acropolis. Ruler G gave prominence to his paternal line by adding the names and titles of his grandfather to the inscription on Stela E, which ends with a reference to the father of K’inich BakVs Mo’ Lajun …. The expression /U BAH U CH’AB/ > u bah u ch’ab, “his person is the creation of,” precedes the proper name of Ruler G’s grandfather (Stela E: Ep11–Fp12). He is /JUN e-wa CHAK MUYAL CHAN YOP-AT-ti K’AK’ TI’ K’AWIL/ > Junew Chak Muyal Chan Yopat K’ak’ Ti’ K’awil. His place of origin is not known, but several segments of this personal name, especially chan yopat, also were used by lords of Quirigua, Copan, and Naranjo. Thus there is a slight possibility that Ruler G’s paternal line might have come from one of these foreign polities. Another personal name phrase is shared by “Ruler” X5 (Stela F; see Figure 10.26a) and a Naranjo king named K’ak’ Ukalaw The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 295 FIGURE 10.26 Late stelae dedicated by “Ruler” X5 and Ruler X2: (a) Stela F, front; (b) Stela U, back (original drawings by Christian Prager) Chan Chak, who ruled at about the same time as his similarly named counterpart at Pusilha (cf. Martin and Grube 2000: 80–81). Events during his reign By 9.15.0.0.0, the dynastic troubles caused by the breakdown of the male line and the accession of a queen were apparently surmounted by the installation of a new king – Ruler G. Ruler G presided over the erection of Stela E that commemorated this important period ending. According to the text, he performed a “stone-binding” ritual, /U K’AL TUN/ (Stela E: Ep2), ensuring that his name and lineage would live on. Although it is not mentioned in the main text of Stela E, the front face of the monument clearly shows Ruler G taking captives just as his predecessors did before him (see Figure 10.25a). Unfortunately, their name glyphs are now obliterated. 296 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Problematic Pusilha kings In addition to the seven rulers discussed above, four other individual royal name phrases have been identified in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha. These phrases include the Pusilha emblem glyph, or, as on Stela U (Figure 10.26b), the proper name is preceded by an effaced accession statement (… ti ajawle).These four rulers, however, cannot be fully integrated into the history of Pusilha because the monuments that mention them lack secure calendar dates; they are therefore nicknamed Ruler X1 (Stela N), Ruler X2 (Stela U), Ruler X3 (Hieroglyphic Stairway 1), and Ruler X4 (Sculptural Fragment 3). “Ruler” X5 A fifth individual is discussed in the hieroglyphic text of Stela F (Figure 10.26a), which dates to 9.16.0.0.0 and is the tallest monument at the site. The text on the front describes a “hand-scattering” event conducted by a person named K’ak’ Kalaw (Stela F: A5) to commemorate the 9.16.0.0.0 period ending (Stela F: A3). As mentioned, this personal name is similar to the proper name of a Naranjo king, K’ak’ Ukalaw Chan Chak, who acceded to the Naranjo throne on 9.16.4.10.18 (Martin and Grube 2000: 80ff.). K’ak’ Kalaw probably was a ruler of Pusilha (hence nicknamed “Ruler” X5), because he celebrated the all-important k’atun-ending ritual usually performed only by the sovereigns of a polity. Nonetheless, his only text neither employs the Pusilha emblem glyph nor contains an accession statement. Thus, although he can be firmly placed within the chronology of the site, it is not entirely clear if he was, in fact, an ajaw. Ruler X3 and the end of Pusilha The last monarch to accede to the Pusilha throne most likely was Ruler X3. Unfortunately, no aspect of the name of Ruler X3 can be read. Hence, it is possible that he might be the same as some other problematic ruler. Ruler X3 is mentioned in the dedication text of Hieroglyphic Stair 1, found on Structure VI of the Moho Plaza (see Figure 10.8), an outlying group far from the site center. Despite a claim to the contrary (Wanyerka 2003: 174), the glyph blocks in the stair were relocated by PUSAP in 2001 and during later seasons, all are accounted for, and – important for dating the stair – all were found in their original (but slumped) positions (see Braswell et al. 2004b: fig. 5). Because of the late architecture of the Moho Plaza – which includes an East–West ballcourt – and the presence of late ceramics, we date its occupation primarily to the Terminal Classic period. Thus, the most likely correlation for the Calendar Round event on Hieroglyphic Stair 1 and overseen by Ruler X3 is the Initial Series date 9.18.7.10.3/4 (March 26/27, ad 798). This is the last known inscription at the site. After this date, the lords of Pusilha fell silent. A Mexican-inspired date at Pusilha? The text of Hieroglyphic Stair 1 is remarkable in one respect: it contains the problematical Calendar Round date 4 Ak’bal 2 Sotz’ (Braswell et al. 2004b: fig. 5, blocks The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 297 6–7; Prager 2002;Wanyerka 2003: 174–5). For mathematical reasons, the month coefficient 2 cannot appear in conjunction with the day name Ak’bal in canonical Calendar Round dates. “Impossible” Calendar Round permutations are known in other Maya inscriptions and have been explained in terms of scribal errors, regional stylistic differences (Proskouriakoff and Thompson 1947), ordinal counting in “current time” (Bricker 2011), extensions of the month Yaxk’in to keep summer solstice events within it (Bricker and Bricker 2011), and night-time events between the clock hours that defined the change of the Tz’olkin and Haab days (Mathews 2001; Stuart 2004; Tokovinine 2010). The last category has two variants – “Haab−1” and Haab+1” Calendar Round dates, in which the coefficient of the Haab either lags behind an expected value by one (implying that the end/beginning of a Tz’olkin day occurred some clock hours before the changing of the Haab day) or jumps ahead of the expected value by one (implying that the Haab day changed a few clock hours before the Tz’olkin day). Mathews (2001) and Stuart (2004) discuss Haab−1 events (and so, too, do Proskouriakoff and Thompson 1947), which seem to be more common in the northern lowlands. They conclude that, while the Tz’olkin day began before midnight (perhaps at sundown), the Haab day began at sunrise. In contrast, Tokovinine (2010) discusses Haab+1 events such as that described on Pusilha Hieroglyphic Stair 1. He notes five examples: the Motmot marker and Copan Stela 63 (both containing the date 8 Ajaw 14 Keh), Copan Altar Q (5 K’an 13 Wooh), an inscription at La Sufricaya (11 Eb 16 Mahk), and the Palenque Sarcophagus (11 Chikchan 4 K’ayab). All were carved in the Early Classic or (in the case of Altar Q) describe events during that period. Moreover, Tokovinine ties all five examples to individuals claiming Teotihuacan affiliation. He concludes that Haab+1 dates discuss night-time events from a central Mexican perspective in which the Haab day probably began at sunset.3 Thus, following Tokovinine, the Pusilha inscription describes the dedication of Moho Plaza Structure VI as taking place after sunset on 9.18.7.10.3 (March 26, ad 798) but before the following sunrise. Bricker (2011) provides an alternative, elegant, and simpler solution to Haab+1 dates (but which does not explain aberrations of the Haab−1 sort). She suggests that Calendar Round dates of this form reflect notational practices, not ideas about when various days began. Following a discussion by Morley (1915: 46), she maintains that dates such as 4 Ak’bal 2 Sotz’ display an ordinal counting of the Haab, and hence should be read as “the second day of Sotz’.” Because the seating of the month takes place on a day with the coefficient 0, the cardinal day 1 Sotz’ is also the ordinal second day of Sotz’. Bricker ties this way of ordinal numeration or “current time” to central Mexico, echoing Tokovinine (2010). We cannot be sure which of these interpretations is correct – that is, whether or not the dedication event took place specifically during a night-time transition or more vaguely during a 24-hour period. Fortunately, the difference of only a few hours is not meaningful from an archaeological perspective. What is surprising is that the Pusilha example seems to have been carved many years after all but one of the previous examples – Copan Altar Q. Moreover, the Pusilha example lacks any sort of Teotihuacan referent. Bricker and Bricker (1995) discuss later central Mexican influence in an 298 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell inscription found at Chichen Itza; perhaps the Pusilha date reflects Terminal Classic rather than earlier contacts with western Mesoamerica. The inscriptions of Pusilha, therefore, end with a minor enigma. Conclusions Archaeological survey reveals that Pusilha was a small Maya city with perhaps 7,000 inhabitants and a population density of more than 1,100 individuals per square kilometer (Volta 2007: 39). Nonetheless, it was by far the largest site in the Southern Belize Region and the only one that might accurately be called a true city. Ceramics indicate that permanent settlement began at the very end of the Early Classic and show the strongest ties with southwestern Peten. The city flourished during a relatively short period, roughly ad 600–790. Some groups, including the Gateway Hill Acropolis, also were occupied in the Terminal Classic. Others, such as the Pottery Cave Group and Lower Group I, were abandoned during that period. The large outlying Moho Plaza Group, which resembles the Stela Plaza in some ways but includes at least one ballcourt, was built during the Terminal Classic period.Terminal Classic occupation also was vibrant in the area occupied by the modern village of San Benito Poite. There, the final stage platform of the Bulldozed Mound was built during the Terminal Classic and occupied into the Postclassic period. Test pits, salvage operations, and excavations in eight structures at Pusilha revealed 17 burial contexts containing the remains of 22 individuals (Pitcavage 2008: 19). These provide detailed information concerning health, diet, origin and migration patterns, interment practices, and ideological beliefs concerning the afterlife (Braswell and Pitcavage 2009; Pitcavage and Braswell 2009, 2010; Somerville 2009).The most elaborate of these is the tomb Burial 8/4. Jade diadems found within the tomb indicate it is the interment of an ajaw. The sex of the individual and presence of mid-eighth-century pottery are most consistent with the identification of the individual as Ruler G, but “Ruler” X5 also is a possibility. Either way, this is the only royal burial in Belize that has been linked to a historically known king whose exploits are described in hieroglyphic inscriptions. Thirty-eight individuals have been documented in the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha, 21 of whom can be securely placed within the local dynastic and chronological history of the site (Prager 2002: table 1). Reents (n.d.) was able to document seven Pusilha rulers, but the evidence now suggests that the local ruling dynasty comprised at least 11 individuals, including a lone queen (see Figure 10.16 and Table 10.2). The inscriptions reveal a 220-year span of dynastic history dating from 9.7.0.0.0 to 9.18.0.0.0. Earlier historical dates recorded on several monuments (8.2.0.0.0 and 8.6.0.0.0) prove that some Pusilha kings traced their origin back to Late Preclassic times and referred to legendary individuals who, if real, might have been ancestors or even dynastic founders from foreign locations. Similar legends are recorded at Copan, Quirigua, Calakmul, and Tikal and demonstrate that the rulers of Pusilha considered themselves as sharing the same cultural and political legacy. Pusilha itself appears to have been founded by Ruler A in the late sixth century, at the dawn of the Late Classic period. The fact that only a very The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 299 few number of sherds diagnostic of the Early Classic period have been found at the site supports this conclusion. During Classic times there was a sequence of at least six kings and one queen, spanning a period from 9.6.17.8.18 to 9.15.0.0.0 and beyond. In general, two major issues hinder the reconstruction of the Pusilha dynasty and its local history. First, the dynastic account is incomplete. It is interrupted by epigraphic gaps around 9.9.0.0.0, 9.13.0.0.0, and 9.17.0.0.0 (see Table 10.3). These could be real hiatuses in the corpus. Alternatively, they could be the results of looting, the erosion and breaking of texts (especially Stelae N and U), and the need to conduct larger-scale excavations in order to find additional inscriptions. The second major issue is the lack of important biographical data for most rulers – including dates of birth, accession, death, and parentage statements. Most personal dates are calculated using indirect evidence, such as k’atun age statements, or interpolated between the appearance of one kingly name and that of a successor. Evidence for inter-site relations between Pusilha and its neighbors are few and one-sided (cf. Wanyerka 2009: 546ff.). The ruling Maya elite of the Late Classic period employed many strategies for seizing, consolidating, and increasing their power, such as warfare, marriage alliances, hierarchical relationships among high kings and subordinate or vassal subject polities, and various forms of diplomatic relations, including royal visits. The hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha and depictions of captives on monuments stress the point that the local elite waged war intensively, but the names of captives generally remain obscure because of weathering. As a result of the present study, new metaphors can be added to the repertoire of war-related clauses, such as k’asay lakam tun, “the stela was broken” (Stela D: D11), and k’ik’iy, “blood was shed” (Stela D: F8). The child-of-father expression yax ch’ok mijin, “first youth, child” for “first offspring,” also is unique to Pusilha. Together, such phrases indicate the development of local rhetorics. Several texts provide indirect evidence that the rulers of Pusilha associated themselves in some way with other important polities. Ruler B refers to a legendary ancestor whose name could be a reference to Ixtutz, a site roughly 30 kilometers northwest of Pusilha. Although the evidence is not strong, a passage on Stela P seems to link the royal houses of these two polities in the distant past. Other hieroglyphic associations suggest some connection with royalty in the Petexbatun–Rio Pasion Region and Copan. Ceramics provide strong suggestive evidence that the inhabitants of Pusilha could have come from southwestern Peten. Ideological or even familial relations between the rulers of Pusilha and Copan seem to be implied by the structural similarity in the proper names of Pusilha Ruler B and the eleventh ruler of Copan, “Butz’ Chan.” Nonetheless, material evidence for ties with Honduras is virtually non-existent and consists of just three sherds of non-Maya pottery. Pusilha Stela Q and Caracol Stela 1 (both erected on 9.8.0.0.0) bear the identical proper name. This may indicate that the lords of Pusilha maintained cultural contacts with Caracol around 9.8.0.0.0; later contacts, however, are not reported in the texts. Evidence for ceramic ties with western Belize are lacking at Pusilha until the Terminal Classic period, when Belize Red first appeared at the site. A “water-scroll” toponym is mentioned twice on Pusilha Stela D. This glyph appears 300 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell quite often in the Petexbatun and Rio Pasion regions (especially at Aguateca and Seibal) and also at Altun Ha. Moreover, the individual credited with demolishing stelae and downing the flint and shield is called “Scroll”-nib?. The T579 hieroglyph that is part of his name is found most frequently in the inscriptions of Altun Ha in northern Belize and at Naj Tunich and other sites in southern Peten. Nonetheless, the inscriptions of Pusilha contain no unambiguous reference to a major Maya polity in the form of a legible foreign emblem glyph or a full royal name. It has been suggested that the Pusilha corpus of inscriptions contains “explicit references to accessions and other important events taking place under the auspices of rulers from foreign polities” (Wanyerka 2003: 6), but we have identified no such unequivocal or clear citations. Tikal, Calakmul, Copan, Caracol, and even the minor site of Quirigua (which displayed a similar emblem glyph) are never explicitly mentioned in the Pusilha corpus. Similarly, these sites do not mention Pusilha on their own monuments. If ambassadorial visits, royal marriages, wars, alliances, or other sorts of interactions between Pusilha and these important sites took place, we do not know of them.4 With the possible exception of Ruler B, who took the name of a sitting Copan king and who referred to a legendary ancestor associated with Ixtutz, the rulers of Pusilha seem to have studiously ignored their counterparts from other important cities. Despite the use of the prestigious ochk’in kalomte’ title at Pusilha, the rulers of important polities seem to have returned the favor. As far as we can tell, the lords of Pusilha allied themselves with neither side and took no part in the great struggles between the Tikal and Calakmul dynasties of the sixth and seventh centuries. Instead, they waged war against small, local polities whose names – where legible – have not been linked to archaeologically known polities. Pusilha, therefore, seems to have practiced a “third way” that allowed it to survive in a relatively underpopulated and marginal region situated in a frontier zone at the edge of more powerful kingdoms (Braswell et al. 2004b: 232). What is perhaps most frustrating is that the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Pusilha contain no clear references to Nim li Punit or Lubaantun, two nearby sites in the Southern Belize Region with known emblem glyphs. Uxbenka also had an emblem glyph, but it is too eroded to read. Moreover, Nim li Punit – which has eight inscribed monuments – never mentions either Pusilha or Lubaantun; the limited Lubaantun texts perhaps mention Nim li Punit once but do not reference Pusilha (Wanyerka 2003: 23–4); and readable portions of the Uxbenka inscriptions discuss none of the other three sites. The Southern Belize Region seems positively laconic compared to the Usumacinta zone, where the elite practiced extravagant royal name-dropping in their texts. In fact, pauses and hiatuses in the erection of carved monuments may tell us more about relations among the Southern Belize sites than do the texts themselves. At Pusilha, Stela F (ad 751) lacks both an emblem glyph and an Initial Series date, Stela U (which contains an accession statement) and Stela N may be later but are undated, and Hieroglyphic Stair 1 contains only a Calendar Round date.Thus, the last monument at Pusilha containing both an emblem glyph and an Initial Series date is Stela E, dedicated by Ruler G to the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending in ad 731. In contrast, the first stela was dedicated at Nim li Punit in ad 734 and two or three more were erected during the following seven years.5 The lords of Quirigua also began – after a The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 301 long hiatus – to dedicate stelae in ad 734. Both of these sites had significant Early Classic occupations but did not employ their own emblem glyphs until that year, and some sort of connection between them is demonstrated multiple times in the texts of Nim li Punit. Thus the first appearance of stelae with emblem glyphs at Nim li Punit and Quirigua appears correlated with the end of (or at least a dramatic decrease in) the erection of such monuments at Pusilha. This pattern in the inscriptions could be coincidental and causality is difficult to prove, but there is little doubt that, as the power of Pusilha and more distant Copan waned during the 730s, that of Nim li Punit and Quirigua increased. The texts and material culture of Pusilha evince idiosyncracies that do not appear elsewhere.Together, these demonstrate the insularity of the Southern Belize Region. One of the most intriguing examples is the pairing of Stelae D and P. The first of these monuments discusses foreign relations, while the second concentrates on local history. This is a unique case in Mayan epigraphy and demonstrates that the rulers of Pusilha considered external and internal history to be distinct. Moreover, this rhetorical device indicates that they wished to keep them separate. As Leventhal (1990, 1992) suggests, Pusilha exhibits local and regional traditions within a broader Classic Maya cultural framework. Having completed – at least for now – our field and laboratory research at Pusilha, our work continues at two other sites in the Southern Belize Region: Lubaantun and Nim li Punit (Braswell 2010; Braswell et al. 2011a, 2011b; Daniels and Braswell 2013; Fauvelle et al. 2012, 2013). The goal of the new Toledo Regional Interaction Project is to look inwards in order to understand better the economic and political relationships among the major centers of this fascinating region. Notes 1 2 Archaeological field and laboratory work at Pusilha was conducted from 2001 until 2008 by the three project co-directors: Geoffrey E. Braswell, Christian M. Prager, and Cassandra R. Bill.The Pusilha Archaeological Project was generously funded by the National Science Foundation Archaeology and International Research Fellowship Programs (SBE-0215068 and INT-02-2581), the Wenner-Gren Post-PhD Program (Gr. 6848), the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (Gr. 00029), two awards from the School of American Research, and grants from the Faculty Senate of the University of California, San Diego. Among the many colleagues who worked with us over the years are Edwin Barnes (2006), Jennifer B. Braswell (2002), Pierre Robert Colas (2004), Bonnie Dziadaszek (2002), Brittany Frazier (2005), Sherry Gibbs (2005), Susan Maguire (2001, 2002), Karen Nickels (2007), Megan Pitcavage (2007, 2008), Sonja Schwake (2002, 2004), Andrew Somerville (2008), Ben Volta (2005), and Lorington Weller (2001, 2002).We also thank the inhabitants of San Benito Poite village, 105 of whom worked with us in the field. Prager expresses his gratitude to the following people who supported his research: Clara Bezanilla, Pierre Robert Colas (1976–2008), Markus Eberl, Daniel Graña-Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Berthold Riese, Frauke Sachse, and Elisabeth Wagner. He gives special thanks to Phil Wanyerka, who proofread an earlier version of a portion of this text and shared his invaluable epigraphic material from Southern Belize. Finally, we thank Joyce Marcus and Will Andrews for their comments and editing prowess. Early pencil versions of Prager’s original Pusilha figures were inked by John Montgomery without our knowledge or consent. Unfortunately, errors in the preliminary drawings 302 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell 3 4 5 were reproduced in Montgomery’s inked copies, which appear throughout Wanyerka’s (2003) Southern Belize Epigraphic Project report and his dissertation (2009). These mistakes have since been corrected. For this reason, the final monument illustrations presented here, rather than those inked by Montgomery from Prager’s initial sketches, should be considered definitive. The choice of sunset is somewhat arbitrary. The Islamic and halachic Hebrew calendars change days at sunset, but shabbos and important Jewish holidays end at “nightfall,” defined by the appearance of three medium-sized stars. It is possible that such a non-solar astronomical event marked the day transition for the ancient Maya.We probably will never know. Wanyerka (2003: 185–92) discusses a polychrome vase (Kerr 8089) and a slate “wrench” (Kerr 3409) that employ the Pusilha emblem. Both are unprovenienced. The first may come from Pusilha itself, while the second discusses the capture of a Pusilha lord. Unfortunately, this text does not make clear from which polity the captor came. Nim li Punit Stelae 2 and 15 begin with earlier Initial Series dates, but these are retrospective inscriptions. If we date the monuments by their latest calendar reference, it appears that Stela 15 was carved in ad 734 (Wanyerka 2003: 74–5) and Stela 2 in ad 738 (ibid.: 47, 49). Nim li Punit Stela 1 was dedicated in ad 741, and Stela 4 has no date but is roughly contemporary with the other three. References Acuña, René (ed.) (1993) Bocabulario de Maya Than: Codex Vindobonensis N.S. 3833. Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Autónoma de México. Andrews, E.Wyllys IV (1951) The Maya Supplementary Series. In The Civilizations of Ancient America: Selected Papers of the XXIVth International Congress of Americanists, ed. Sol Tax, pp. 123–41. New York: Cooper Square. Aquino,Valorie V. (2013) Chronological Calibration and the Dynamics of Climate and Culture Change at the Lowland Maya Center of Uxbenka, Belize. Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu. Aquino,ValorieV., Keith M. Prufer, Clayton Meredith, Brendan J. Culleton, and Douglas J. Kennett (2013) Constraining the Age of Abandonment of Uxbenká Site Core Using Archaeological Stratigraphy and AMS 14C Dates. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10: 269–79. Ashmore, Wendy (1981) Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, ed. Wendy Ashmore, pp. 37–69. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ––– (1991) Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2: 199–226. Beetz, Carl P., and Linton Satterthwaite (1981) The Monuments and Inscriptions of Caracol, Belize. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Berlin, Heinrich (1958) El glifo “emblema” en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de la Société des Américanistes (n.s.) 47: 111–19. Bill, Cassandra R., and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2005) Life at the Crossroads: New Data from Pusilha, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 2: 301–12. Bill, Cassandra R., Geoffrey E. Braswell, and Christian M. Prager (2005) Interacción económica y política en la periferia Maya: Evidencia nueva de Pusilhá, Belice. In XVIII simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2004, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 467–74. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Brady, James E. (1989) An Investigation of Maya Ritual Cave Use with Special Reference to Naj Tunich, Peten, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 303 Braswell, Geoffrey E. (2007a) Late and Terminal Classic Occupation of Pusilha, Toledo District, Belize: Site Planning, Burial Patterns, and Cosmology. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4: 67–78. ––– (2007b) Step Mountain and the Kingdom of the Avocado: Engineering Marvels and Forgotten Hieroglyphs at Pusilha, Belize. Journal of Belizean Studies 29(2): 1–14. ––– (2010) La organización política y interacción en el sur de Belice: investigaciones recientes en Lubaantún y Pusilhá. Investigadores de la cultura maya [Universidad Autónoma de Campeche] 19: 113–24. Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Sherry A. Gibbs (2006) In the Land of the Avocado: Recent Archaeological Investigations at Pusilhá, Toledo District, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 3: 271–86. Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Megan R. Pitcavage (2009) The Cultural Modification of Teeth by the Ancient Maya: A Unique Example from Pusilhá, Belize. Mexicon 31: 24–7. Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Christian M. Prager (2003) ¿Una unidad politica secundaria en el área Maya? El caso posible de Pusilhá, Belice. Investigadores de la cultura Maya [Universidad Autónoma de Campeche] 11: 210–24. Braswell, Geoffrey E., and Keith M. Prufer (2009) Political Organization and Interaction in Southern Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6: 43–54. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Christian M. Prager, Cassandra R. Bill, and Sonja Schwake (2004a) Recent Archaeological and Epigraphic Research at Pusilha, Belize: Report of the 2001 and 2002 Field Seasons. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 1: 333–45. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Christian M. Prager, Cassandra R. Bill, Sonja A. Schwake, and Jennifer B. Braswell (2004b) States in the Southeastern Periphery of the Maya World: A Report of Recent Archaeological and Epigraphic Research at Pusilhá, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 15: 219–33. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Christian M. Prager, and Cassandra R. Bill (2005) The Kingdom of the Avocado: Recent Investigations at Pusilhá, a Classic Maya City of Southern Belize. Anthropological Notebooks 11(1): 59–86. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Sherry A. Gibbs, Christian M. Prager, and Cassandra R. Bill (2006) Interaccion, migracion y la emergencia de una ciudad maya: Evidencia nueva de Pusilha, Belice. Investigadores de la cultura Maya [Universidad Autónoma de Campeche] 14: 317–28. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Cassandra R. Bill, and Christian M. Prager (2007) Late and Terminal Classic Occupation of Pusilha, Toledo District, Belize: Site Planning, Burial Patterns, and Cosmology. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4: 67–78. ––– (2008) Exchange, Political Relations, and Regional Interaction: The Ancient City of Pusilhá in the Late Classic Maya World. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5: 51–63. Braswell, Geoffrey E., Nancy Peniche May, Megan R. Pitcavage, and Kiri L. Hagerman (2011a)Arqueología en el reino de la calavera de cristal: excavaciones recientes en Lubaantun y otros capitales reales de Belice meridional. In XXIV Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2010, ed. Bárbara Arroyo, Lorena Paiz Aragón, Adriana Linares Palma, and Ana Lucía Arroyave, pp. 1231–43. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. ––– (2011b) Revisiting the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: New Investigations at Lubaantun. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 8: 115–26. Bricker, Harvey M., and Victoria R. Bricker (2011) Astronomy in the Maya Codices. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Bricker,Victoria R. (2011) A Notational Explanation for Maya Calendar Round Dates such as 11 Eb 16 Mac. PARI Journal 11(4): 9–10. 304 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Bricker, Victoria R., and Harvey M. Bricker (1995) An Astronomical Text from Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Human Mosaic 28(2): 91–105. Chocón, Jorge E. (2013) Los grupos tipo E del sureste de Petén, una vision regional. Paper presented at the XXVII Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, Guatemala City. Corzo, Lilian A., Jorge E. Chocón, Rosa María Flores, Oswaldo Gómez, Nora María López, Héctor E. Mejía, Paulino I. Morales, Erick M. Mejía, Heidy Quezada, Julio A. Roldán, Jorge Mario Samayoa, and Juan Pedro Laporte (2000) San Luis, Petén: exploraciones arqueológicas en el sector montañoso. En XIII Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1999, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Héctor Escobedo, Bárbara Arroyo, and Ana Claudia de Suasnávar, pp. 590–612. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Culleton, Brendan J., Keith M. Prufer, and Douglas J. Kennett (2012) A Bayesian AMS 14C Chronology of the Classic Maya Center of Uxbenká, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1572–86. Daniels, James T., Jr., and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2013) Procurement, Production, and Distribution of Obsidian in the Southern Belize Region. Paper presented at the 11th Belize Archaeology and Anthropology Symposium, San Ignacio Cayo, Belize. Dunham, Peter, Thomas R. Jamison, and Richard M. Leventhal (1989) Secondary Development and Settlement Economics: The Classic Maya of Southern Belize. In Prehistoric Maya Economies of Belize, ed. Patricia A. McAnany and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 255–92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Eberl, Markus (2005) Muerte, entierro y ascensión: ritos funerarios entre los antiguos mayas. Merida: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Fauvelle, Mikael, Chelsea R. Fisher, and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2013) Return to the Kingdom of the Eagle: Archaeological Investigations at Nim li Punit, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10: 241–51. Fauvelle, Mikael, Megan R. Pitcavage, and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2012) Dynastic Capital, Minor Center, or Both? Recent Investigations at Nim li Punit, Toledo District, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 9: 51–9. Folan, William J., Ellen R. Kintz, and Laraine A. Fletcher (1983) Coba: A Classic Maya Metropolis. New York: Academic Press. Folan,William J., Armando Anaya Hernández, Ellen R. Kintz, Laraine A. Fletcher, Raymundo Gonzalez Heredia, Jacinto May Hau, and Nicolas Caamal Canche (2009) Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico: A Recent Analysis of the Social, Economic, and Political Organization of a Major Maya Urban Center. Ancient Mesoamerica 20: 59–70.’ Gaida, Marie (1990) Die Bak’tun-Hieroglyphe mit Doppelkoeffizient in Maya-Inschriften. Baessler Archiv (n.s.) 38: 261–9. Gann, Thomas A. (1928) Discoveries and Adventures in Central America. London: Duckworth. Graham, Ian (1975) Introduction to the Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Grube, Nikolai (1988) Städtegründer und “Erste Herrscher” in Hieroglyphentexten der klassischen Mayakultur. Archiv für Völkerkunde 42: 69–90. ––– (1990) Die Entwicklung der Mayaschrift. Berlin: Von Flemming. ––– (1994) Epigraphic Research at Caracol, Belize. In Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, ed. Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, pp. 83–122. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin (2001) The Coming of Kings:Writing and Dynastic Kingship in the Maya Area between the Late Preclassic and Early Classic: Notebook for the XXVth Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press. The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 305 Grube, Nikolai, Barbara MacLeod, and Phillip J. Wanyerka (1999) A Commentary on the Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Nim Li Punit, Belize. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research. Gruning, Edward L. (1930) Report on the British Museum Expedition to British Honduras, 1930. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 60: 477–83. Hammond, Norman (1975) Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Helmke, Christophe, Jaime Awe, and Nikolai Grube (2010) The Carved Monuments and Inscriptions of Xunantunich: Implications for Terminal Classic Sociopolitical Relationships in the Belize Valley. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics, ed. Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 97–121. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Jamison, Thomas R. (2001) Social Organization and Architectural Context: A Comparison of Nim li Punit and Xnaheb. In The Past and Present Maya: Essays in Honor of Robert M Carmack, ed. John Weeks, pp. 73–87. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos. Jordan, Jillian M., and Keith M. Prufer (2013) Contextualizing Uxbenka: Ceramic Analyses from Site Core and Household Contexts. Paper presented at the 11th Belize Archaeology and Anthropology, San Ignacio, Cayo. Joyce, Thomas A. (1929) Report of the British Museum Expedition to British Honduras, 1929. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 59: 439–59. Joyce, Thomas A., Thomas Gann, Edward L. Gruning, and Richard C. E. Long (1928) Report on the British Expedition to British Honduras, 1928. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 58: 323–50. Laporte, Juan Pedro (2007) La secuencia cerámica del sureste de Petén: tipos, cifras, localidades, y la historia del asentamiento. Guatemala: Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala. Available at www. atlasarqueologico.com/monografias.php?idm=10. Leventhal, Richard M. (1990) Southern Belize: An Ancient Maya Region. In Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, ed. Flora S. Clancy and Peter D. Harrison, pp. 125–41.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ––– (1992) The Development of a Regional Tradition in Southern Belize. New Theories on the Ancient Maya, ed. Elin C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 145–53. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. Rosenswig, and Fred Valdez, Jr. (2006) Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating the Paleoindian and Archaic Record. Latin American Antiquity 17: 209–26. Maguire, Susan, Christian M. Prager, Cassandra R. Bill, Jennifer B. Braswell, and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2003) Investigaciones recientes en Pusilhá, Belice. In XVI Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2002, Vol. 1, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Héctor Escobedo, Ana Claudia Monzón de Suasnávar, and Bárbara Arroyo, pp. 97–108. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Marcus, Joyce (1973) Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180: 911–16. ––– (1976) Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. ––– (1992) Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ––– (1995) Maya Hieroglyphs: History or Propaganda? In Research Frontiers in Anthropology, ed. C. R. Ember, M. Ember, and P. Peregrine, pp. 122–44. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube (2000) The Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens. New York: Thames & Hudson. 306 Christian M. Prager, Beniamino Volta, and Geoffrey E. Braswell Mathews, Peter (1988) The Sculpture of Yaxchilan. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microforms. ––– (2001) The Inscription on the Back of Stela 8, Dos Pilas, Guatemala. In The Decipherment of Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, ed. Stephen D. Houston, David Stuart, and Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, pp. 94–115. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McKillop, Heather I. (2005) In Search of Maya Sea Traders. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Morley, Sylvanus G. (1915) An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology. ––– (1937–8) The Inscriptions of Peten, 5 vols. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Nickels, Karen (2008) Food, Function, and Status: Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Maya Site of Pusilha, Belize. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. Pitcavage, Megan R. (2008) Companion Burials in the Kingdom of the Avocado: Indirect Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Late and Terminal Classic Maya Society. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. Pitcavage, Megan R., and Geoffrey E. Braswell (2009) Entierros múltiples en el reino del aguacate: evidencia indirecta del sacrificio humano durante el período Clásico Tardío y Terminal. In XXII Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2008, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 803–9. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. ––– (2010) Diet, Teeth, and Death at Pusilha, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 7: 65–72. Prager, Christian M. (2002) Die Inschriften von Pusilha: Epigraphische Analyse und Rekonstruktion der Geschichte einer klassischen Maya-Stätte. MA thesis, Institut für Altamerikanistik und Ethnologie, Universität Bonn. Proskouriakoff,Tatiana (1960) Historical Implications of Patterns of Dates at Piedras Negras. American Antiquity 25: 454–75. ––– (1993) Maya History. Austin: University of Texas Press. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, and J. Eric S. Thompson (1947) Maya Calendar Round Dates Such as 9 Ahau 17 Mol. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Prufer, Keith M., and Amy E.Thompson (2013) Settlements as Neighborhoods and Districts at Uxbenka: The Social Landscape of Maya Community. Paper presented at the 11th Belize Archaeology and Anthropology, San Ignacio, Cayo. Prufer, Keith M., Holly Moyes, Brendon J. Culleton, Andrew Kindon and Douglas J. Kennett (2011) Formation of a Complex Polity on the Eastern Periphery of the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 22: 199–223. Reents, Dorie (n.d.) The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Pusilha: Preliminary Comments. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the author. Rice, Don S., and T. Patrick Culbert (1990) Historical Contexts for Population Reconstruction in the Maya Lowlands. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 1–36. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Riese, Berthold (1972) Pusilhá: Dokumentation der Inschriften. Hamburg: privately published by the author. ––– (1980) Die Inschriften von Tortuguero, Tabasco. Hamburg: privately published by the author. ––– (1982) Kriegsberichte der klassischen Maya. Baessler Archiv (n.s.) 28: 155–80. Satterthwaite, Linton (1951) Moon Ages of the Maya Inscriptions: The Problems of Their Seven-Day Range of Derivation from Calculated Mean Ages. In The Civilizations of The dynastic history and archaeology of Pusilha 307 Ancient America: Selected Papers of the XXIVth International Congress of Americanists, ed. Sol Tax, pp. 142–54. New York: Cooper Square. Schele, Linda, and Nikolai Grube (1994) Tlaloc-Venus Warfare: The Peten Wars 8.17.0.0.0– 9.15.13.0.0. Notebook for the XVIIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop, March 12–13, 1994. Austin: University of Texas Press. Schele, Linda, and Matthew Looper (1996) The Proceedings of the Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop: Copan and Quirigua, March 9–10, 1996, ed. Phillip J.Wanyerka. Parma: privately published. Schele, Linda, and Jeffrey H. Miller (1983) The Mirror, the Rabbit, and the Bundle: “Accession” Expressions from the Classic Maya Inscriptions. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Somerville, Andrew (2009) Identifying the Local and the Foreign: Strontium Isotope and Trace Element Analysis of Companion Burials from Pusilha, Toledo District, Belize. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. Stone, Andrea (1995) Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition of Maya Cave Painting. Austin: University of Texas Press. Stuart, David (2004) The Entering of the Day: An Unusual Date from Northern Campeche. Available at www.mesoweb.com/stuart/notes/EnteringDay.pdf. Thompson, J. Eric S. (1928) Some New Dates from Pusilha. Man 28(6): 95–7. Tokovinine, Alexandre (2010) The Western Sun: An Unusual Tzolk’in–Haab Correlation in Classic Maya Inscriptions. PARI Journal 11(2): 17–21. Volta, Beniamino P. (2007) Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the Kingdom of the Avocado. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. ––– (2011) Spatial Plans and Community Identity in Ancient Maya Cities: A Case Study from Pusilhá, Toledo District, Belize. In Ethnicity from Various Angles and through Varied Lenses: Yesterday’s Today in Latin America, ed. Christine Hunefeldt and Leon Zamosc, pp. 58–72. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press. Walters, Gary R., and Lorington O. Weller (n.d.) Pusilha Project: 1992 Field Report. Manuscript on file at the Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize. Wanyerka, Phillip J. (1999) A Brief Description of the Carved Monuments at Xnaheb, Toledo District, Belize. Mexicon 21: 18–20. ––– (2003) The Southern Belize Epigraphic Project: The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Southern Belize. Report to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies,www.famsi.org/reports/00077/index.html. ––– (2009) Classic Maya Political Organization: Epigraphic Evidence of Hierarchical Organization in the Southern Maya Mountains Region of Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microforms. Weintraub, Boris (1994) Geographica. National Geographic 185(4).