|
|
| |
|
Archaeological Reconnaissance in Southeastern Campeche, Mexico
Description
|
|
|
| |
Introduction
This interactive website presents the distribution of archaeological sites in the southeastern part of the Mexican federal state of Campeche, and the corresponding illustrative material. The information derives from seven field seasons of archaeological reconnaissance, accomplished from 1996 to 2007 and directed by
Ivan Šprajc. While the field data and interpretations resulting from the first six seasons are exhaustively presented in a
monograph (Šprajc 2008), and those derived from the 2007 season in a separate report (Šprajc et al. 2009), the material shown here is intended to be used as a complementary source of information.
The area of our surveys is located south of Mexican federal highway no. 186, which crosses the Yucatan peninsula in the east-west direction, communicating the cities of Chetumal and Escárcega. In a sparsely populated strip of land, around 30 km wide and extending south of the modern town of Xpujil along the border between Mexico and Belize, colonization started about four decades ago, and the land is alloted mostly to ejidos (rural communities enjoying usufruct rights to the land held in common); the remaining territory belongs to the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, declared as a protected area in 1989 and nowadays without permanent population.
Before our surveys started, in 1996, some of the most extensive blanks on the archaeological map of the Maya area were located precisely in these central parts of the Yucatan peninsula. While the Río Bec region, defined by its typical architectural style, was relatively well known, very few archaeological data were available for the area lying south and southwest of the former and extending between the Río Candelaria and the border between Mexico and Belize (cf. Ruz 1945: 11). Until the intensive research in the area of Calakmul began, in the early 1980s (cf. Folan 1994; Folan et al. 1995; Morales 1987; Carrasco 2000), Ruppert and Denison's monumental work (1943), resulting from four expeditions accomplished by the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1938, was practically the only source of information on some archaeological sites in this region, but the sites they reported were – according to Ruppert himself (Ruppert and Denison 1943: 1) – only a few of the largest and best preserved ones. The information on some additional sites reported afterwards (Ruz 1945; Müller 1959; 1960) is so scanty that they cannot even be identified in the field. Indeed, only few decades ago, Adams (1981: 216) affirmed that the sites in the area, except for El Palmar (Thompson 1936), “were all found by Ruppert and his Carnegie Institution surveys of the 1930s. Although some of the most impressive Maya sites lie here, notably Calakmul, no serious work has since been done in the zone.”
As an attempt to improve the situation, the reconnaissance works started in 1996 in the southeastern extreme of the state of Campeche, and continued in 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007. So far we have recorded over 80 previously unknown archaeological sites; we have also managed to rediscover most of the sites that had been reported by Ruppert and Denison (1943), but whose location was later forgotten. The surveys accomplished so far in southeastern Campeche have revealed not only a great density of archaeological vestiges, comparable to the one observed in other parts of Maya Lowlands, but also the presence of major centers with extensive architectural complexes, sculpted monuments and hieroglyphic inscriptions. Aside from the
monograph
(Šprajc 2008), presenting exhaustively the results of the first six field seasons, those of particular seasons have been summarized in a number of preliminary reports (Šprajc 1998a; 1998b; 2001a; 2001b; 2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2002-2004; 2004; 2006; 2007; Šprajc et al. 1996; 1997a; 1997b; 2005; 2009; Šprajc and Juárez 2003; Šprajc and Suárez 1998a; 1998b; 2003; Šprajc and Grube 2005; Grube 2005; Juárez et al. 2007)
next >>
|
Abbreviations |
|
CIHS |
Centro de Investigaciones Históricas y Sociales. |
|
CRE NGS |
Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, U.S.A. |
|
DEA |
Dirección de Estudios Arqueológicos. |
|
DRPMZA |
Dirección de Registro Público de Monumentos y Zonas
Arqueológicos. |
|
ENAH |
Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico. |
|
FAMSI |
Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, U.S.A. |
|
INAH |
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico. |
|
UAC |
Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Mexico. |
|
UB |
Universität Bonn, Germany. |
|
UIW |
University of the Incarnate Word, Texas, U.S.A. |
|
ZRC SAZU |
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti (Scientific
Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Slovenia. |
Summary of fieldwork
|
1996 field season |
|
Time span |
July and August |
|
Activities |
surveys in the southeastern extreme of the state of Campeche (area of
ejidos). |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, DRPMZA INAH), Florentino
García Cruz and Héber Ojeda Mas (archaeologists, Centro INAH Campeche). |
|
Sponsor |
INAH. |
|
|
|
|
1998 field season |
|
Time span |
late February to early April |
|
Activities |
surveys in southeastern Campeche (area of ejidos),
salvage of the stelae of Los Alacranes. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, DRPMZA INAH), Vicente Suárez
Aguilar (archaeologist, Centro INAH Campeche). |
|
Sponsor |
INAH. |
|
|
|
|
2001 field season |
|
Time span |
early March to late May. |
|
Activities |
surveys in the area of ejidos and in the southeastern extreme of the
Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, ZRC SAZU), José Guadalupe Orta
Bautista, Pascual Medina Meléndrez (topographers, DRPMZA INAH), Rubén
Escartín Adam (geographer, DRPMZA INAH). |
|
Sponsors |
FAMSI, INAH. |
|
|
|
|
2002 field season |
|
Time span |
early March to late May. |
|
Activities |
surveys in the area of ejidos and in the eastern part of the Calakmul
Biosphere Reserve; rescue excavations and restoration works in Mucaancah and
Altar de los Reyes. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, ZRC SAZU), José Guadalupe Orta
Bautista, Pascual Medina Meléndrez (topographers, DRPMZA INAH), Rubén
Escartín Adam (geographer, DRPMZA, INAH), Daniel Juárez Cossío (archaeologist,
DEA INAH), Adrián Baker Pedroza (archaeologist, ENAH). |
|
Sponsors |
FAMSI, INAH. |
|
|
|
|
2004 field season |
|
Time span |
late March to mid-June. |
|
Activities |
surveys in the southern part of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve,
documentation of the monuments of Oxpemul. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, ZRC SAZU), Atasta Flores
Esquivel (archaeologist, ENAH), Adrián Baker Pedroza (archaeologist, ENAH),
Tomaž Podobnikar (surveyor, ZRC SAZU), Raymundo González Heredia (CIHS UAC),
Hubert R. Robichaux (epigrapher, UIW), Nikolai Grube (epigrapher, UB). |
|
Sponsors |
CRE NGS, UAC, INAH, ZRC SAZU. |
|
|
|
|
2005 field season |
|
Time span |
March to May. |
|
Activities |
surveys in the southern part of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, ZRC SAZU), Atasta Flores
Esquivel (archaeologist, ENAH), Adrián Baker Pedroza (archaeologist, ENAH),
Tomaž Podobnikar (surveyor, ZRC SAZU), Nikolai Grube (epigrapher, UB), Marco
Gross. |
|
Sponsors |
CRE NGS, ZRC SAZU. |
|
|
|
|
2007 field season |
|
Time span |
April to June. |
|
Activities |
surveys in the southern part of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. |
|
Participants |
Ivan Šprajc (archaeologist, project director, ZRC SAZU), Atasta Flores
Esquivel (archaeologist, ENAH), Saša Čaval (archaeologist,
ZRC SAZU), Aleš Marsetič (surveyor, ZRC SAZU). |
|
Sponsors |
ZRC SAZU, Ars longa. |
<< previous
next >>
Notes on Methodology
The fieldwork methods were conditioned by environmental peculiarities of the Maya Lowlands (dense tropical vegetation) and other considerations extensively presented elsewhere (Šprajc et al. 1997b: 30-33; Šprajc 2008). While the surveys depended heavily on the data provided by local informants, large scale aerial photography was also used in the last field seasons. It should be emphasized that, in view of the circumstances discussed elsewhere (Šprajc et al. 1997b: 30ss; Harrison 1981: 261; Nalda 1989: 4, 24), a project aimed at recording all archaeological features visible on the surface would be prohibitively expensive and impossible to accomplish in a reasonable time, particularly if we consider the vast territory and its environmental characteristics, as well as the high density of archaeological remains. Major sites that can be classified as centers (Ashmore 1981: 55-56; Willey 1981: 391f) were therefore given priority in the surveys. Such a strategy should by no means be considered as reflecting an "elitist" approach, but was rather dictated by the necessity of recovering the information that is in the most imminent danger of disappearance due to the looters' interests.
The exact location of every concentration of archaeological remains was determined in the field with a portable GPS navigator. Basic characteristics of archaeological features, their extent, and peculiarities of natural environment were recorded, pertinent photographs were taken and samples of available surface material were collected. Selected major sites were mapped with a total station during the final stage of each field season. The resulting maps show both contours and structures represented in accordance with conventions used in Maya site mapping (cf. Tourtellot et al. 1993: 102).
It should be pointed out that our “sites” are rather arbitrary units. If several concentrations of archaeological remains were close together, they were often assumed to form a single site, but the proximity in space does not necessarily indicate relationship in organizational terms; and inversely, some neighboring sites recorded as separate sites may have been parts of a single territorial unit.
The classification of sites in four categories (major center, medium center, minor center and small site) is based mainly on the ranking systems previously proposed by Hammond (1975), Adams and Jones (1981; cf. Adams 1981) and Guderjan (1991). While the arguments supporting this classification are presented in detail elsewhere (Šprajc 2008), only the main characteristics of the four ranks will be summarized here.
Major centers are characterized by monumental architecture that includes ceremonial, residential and administrative buildings arranged in various groups and around several plazas. Temple pyramids over 20 m high are common at these sites, as well as ballcourts and sculpted monuments, many of them with hieroglyphic inscriptions.
Medium centers are, obviously, smaller and their architecture is less diversified, but their constructions, even if less voluminous than at major centers, as well as the presence of monuments in some cases, occasionally with hieroglyphic inscriptions, attest to their relative importance on regional level.
The distinction between medium and minor centers is somehow arbitrary, based on a rather subjective comparison of construction volumes. Some minor centers have few buildings, at least one of which can be fairly voluminous, while others are of a greater extent and have a larger number of smaller structures. It is very likely that at least some of the minor and medium centers are, in fact, outliers of larger centers in the neighborhood; such a relationship can be supposed, for example, between El Chismito and Los Tambores, Plan de Ayala and El Palmar, or between Los Ángeles Norte and Los Ángeles.
All the remaining settlements, i.e. those that do not have plazas and could not be connected to a nearby center, have been classified as small sites. In most cases they consist only of low, evidently residential mounds whose number may vary considerably. Occasionally they include pyramidal mounds, probably local lineage shrines, e.g. at El Civalito, Dos Caobas and Tres Banderas, or structures that may have been residences of local elites.
<< previous
next >>
Summary of results
Like Harrison's (1981: 262) survey in Quintana Roo, our method was also “by nature nonsystematic and biased in favor of larger sites,” but it can be said that our knowledge of archaeological sites in southeastern Campeche has increased notably. Following are some of the most important conclusions.
All of the archaeological sites are Maya, mostly remains of settlements consisting of structures and spaces with residential, religious, administrative, and other functions. Buildings are regularly arranged in patio groups, and clusters of groups are focused on particular groups or individual structures (Ashmore 1981: 51-53, figs. 3.5 and 3.6). Elaborate patio groups often have a major structure on the east side and thus conform to the Plaza Plan 2 architectural configuration defined for Tikal by Becker (1971; 1991). Large courtyards or plazas are present at major sites. Chultuns are commonly found within the sites and aguadas nearby. Monumental architecture and urban patterns seem to share certain characteristics with the Petén, on the one hand, and with northern Belize, on the other. The settlements are largely Classic (A.D. 250 – 900), but since a number of earlier complexes of monumental architecture were also found, it is evident that a considerable population density and high levels of social complexity had been reached as early as the Late Preclassic period (300 B.C. – A.D. 250), paralleling the developments well documented in the Mirador Basin in northern Guatemala (Hansen 1990; 1994).
In addition, some interesting caves were inspected, with archaeological features suggesting their predominantly ritual use; they are regularly placed in the vicinity of settlement remains. The region is evidently promising for further studies, which should contribute to the understanding of the relationship between the caves, settlement patterns, and the Maya world view (Thompson 1959; Bassie-Sweet 1996; Brady 1997).
Although standing architecture is rarely preserved, the size and characteristics of architectural remains at several sites suggest they were important centers in a regional political hierarchy. While it is obvious that not all of the sites ranked as major centers had the same position in political hierarchy, the nature of archaeological remains, however, allows at least some of them to be characterized as major foci of regional territorial organization. Apart from El Palmar, Balakbal, Oxpemul, Uxul and Altamira, which have long been known (Thompson 1936; Ruppert and Denison 1943), Los Alacranes, Mucaancah, El Gallinero, Champerico, Yaxnohcah and Altar de los Reyes must have been particularly important centers. Concerning their location with regard to natural environment, most of these sites can be added to the long list of Maya centers situated characteristically on the edges of large bajos or seasonally flooded swamps, apparently as a result of agricultural advantages offered by such placement (cf. Harrison 1981: 273; Folan et al. 1995: 311; Adams 1999: 39s, 154).
While little can be said at this point about the larger territorial organization in the area, the epigraphic data do contain some specific information concerning these issues. The interpretation of the texts found at several sites has revealed their toponyms, comparable to emblem glyphs, as well as some facts about the nature of their relationship with the most important Classic period centers of the central Lowlands, such as Calakmul and Tikal. A particularly remarkable monument is Altar 3 of Altar de los Reyes, with its series of emblem glyphs. The inscription is not complete and its exact meaning remains unclear, but the references to sites as distant as Palenque and Edzná (about 280 km and 200 km to the southwest and northwest, respectively) give an idea about the extent of the interaction sphere of Altar de los Reyes, or at least about the range of its familiarity with the surrounding Late Classic polities (Grube 2005).
<< previous
next >>
Bibliography
Adams, Richard E.
W., 1981. Settlement patterns of the central Yucatan and southern Campeche
regions. In: Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya settlement patterns,
Albuquerque: School of American Research – University of New Mexico Press,
211-257.
Adams, Richard E.
W., 1999. Río Azul: An ancient Maya city. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Adams, R. E. W.,
and Richard C. Jones, 1981. Spatial patterns and regional growth among Classic
Maya cities. American Antiquity 46 (2): 301-322.
Ashmore, Wendy,
1981. Some issues of method and theory in Lowland Maya settlement archaeology.
In: Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya settlement patterns, Albuquerque:
School of American Research – University of New Mexico Press, 37-69.
Bassie-Sweet,
Karen, 1996. At the edge of the world: Caves and Late Classic Maya world view.
Norman – London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Becker, Marshall
Joseph, 1971. “The identification of a second plaza plan at Tikal, Guatemala and
its implications for ancient Maya social complexity” (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Becker, Marshall
Joseph, 1991. Plaza plans at Tikal, Guatemala, and at other Lowland Maya sites:
evidence for patterns of culture change. Cuadernos de Arquitectura
Mesoamericana núm. 14: 11-26.
Brady, James E.,
1997. Settlement configuration and cosmology: the role of caves at Dos Pilas.
American Anthropologist 99 (3): 602-618.
Carrasco Vargas, Ramón, 2000. El cuchcabal de la
Cabeza de Serpiente. Arqueología Mexicana VII, No. 42: 12-21.
Folan, William J., 1994. Calakmul, Campeche, México: una
megalópolis maya en el Petén del norte. In: William J. Folan, coord.,
Campeche maya colonial, Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, 55-83.
Folan, William J., Joyce Marcus, Sophia Pincemin, María del
Rosario Domínguez Carrasco, Laraine Fletcher, and Abel Morales López, 1995.
Calakmul: new data from an ancient Maya capital in Campeche, Mexico.
Latin American Antiquity 6 (4):
310-334.
Grube, Nikolai,
2005. Toponyms, emblem glyphs, and the political geography of southern Campeche.
Anthropological Notebooks 11 (special issue: Ivan Šprajc, ed.,
Contributions to Maya archaeology): 87-100. Ljubljana: Slovene
Anthropological Society.
Guderjan, Thomas
H., 1991. Aspects of Maya settlement in the Río Bravo area. In: Thomas H.
Guderjan, ed., Maya settlement in northwestern Belize: The 1988 and 1990
seasons of the Río Bravo Archaeological Project, San Antonio: Maya Research
Program – Culver City: Labyrinthos, 103-110.
Hammond, Norman,
1975. Maya settlement hierarchy in northern Belize. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research Facility 27: 40-55.
Hansen, Richard
D., 1990. Excavations in the Tigre Complex, El Mirador, Petén, Guatemala: El
Mirador Series, Part 3. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation
No. 62, Provo: Brigham Young University.
Hansen, Richard D., 1994. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el
norte del Petén, Guatemala: una mirada diacrónica de los orígenes mayas. In:
William J. Folan, coord., Campeche maya colonial, Campeche: Universidad
Autónoma de Campeche, 14-54.
Harrison, Peter D., 1981. Some
aspects of preconquest settlement in southern Quintana Roo, Mexico. In:
Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya settlement patterns, Albuquerque: School
of American Research - University of New Mexico Press, 259-286.
Juárez, Daniel,
Ivan Šprajc, and Adrián Baker, 2007. Mucaancah en la
perspectiva del Proyecto Sudeste de Campeche, México. In: Alejandro Martínez
Muriel, Alberto López Wario, Óscar J. Polaco, and Felisa J. Aguilar, coords.,
Anales de Arqueología 2005, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, 216-221.
Morales López, Abel, 1987. Arqueología de salvamento en la
nueva carretera a Calakmul, municipio de Champotón, Campeche. Información
12: 75-109. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.
Müller, Florencia, 1959. Atlas arqueológico de la
República Mexicana: Quintana Roo, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología
e Historia.
Müller, Florencia, 1960. Atlas arqueológico de la
República Mexicana 2: Campeche, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
Nalda, Enrique, 1989. Reflexiones sobre el patrón de
asentamiento prehispánico en el sur de Quintana Roo. Boletín de la Escuela de
Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán 16, núm. 97: 3-27.
Ruppert, Karl, y
John H. Denison Jr., 1943. Archaeological reconnaissance in Campeche,
Quintana Roo, and Peten. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication 543, Washington.
Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto, 1945. Campeche en la arqueología
maya. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (Acta
Anthropologica I: 2-3).
Šprajc, Ivan, 1998a. Stelae from Los Alacranes salvaged.
Mexicon 20 (6): 115.
Šprajc, Ivan, 1998b. “Informe del rescate de las estelas de
Los Alacranes, Campeche” (ms.). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, Archivo Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan,
2001a. “Archaeological reconnaissance in southeastern Campeche, Mexico: 2001
field season report; with an appendix by Nikolai Grube”. Informe a: Foundation
for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2001b. “Reconocimiento arqueológico en el
sureste de Campeche: Informe de la temporada de 2001; con apéndices de María
Isabel García López y Nikolai Grube” (ms.). México: Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Archivo Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan,
2002. “Archaeological reconnaissance in southeastern Campeche, Mexico: 2002
field season report; with appendices by Daniel Juárez Cossío and Adrián Baker
Pedroza, and Nikolai Grube”. Informe a: Foundation for the Advancement of
Mesoamerican Studies.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2003a. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el
sureste de Campeche: temporada de 2002. En: Los Investigadores de la Cultura
Maya 11, tomo I: 86-102. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2003b. “Reconocimiento arqueológico en el
sureste de Campeche: informe de la temporada de 2002; con apéndices de Daniel
Juárez Cossío y Adrián Baker Pedroza, María Isabel García López, y Nikolai
Grube” (ms.). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Archivo
Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2002-2004. Maya sites and monuments in
SE Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 29 (3-4): 385-407.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2004. “Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sur de
Campeche: Informe de la temporada 2004; con la colaboración de Atasta Flores
Esquivel, María Isabel García López, y Nikolai Grube” (ms.). México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Archivo Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2006. Nuevos descubrimientos arqueológicos en
el sur del estado de Campeche. In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya
14, tomo I: 155-168. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.
Šprajc, Ivan, 2007. Exploraciones recientes en el sureste de
Campeche. Arqueología Mexicana XV, No. 86: 74-80.
Šprajc, Ivan, ed.,
2008.
Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del
estado de Campeche: 1996-2005. BAR
International Series 1742 (Paris Monographs in American Archaeology 19, Series
Editor: Eric Taladoire), Oxford: Archaeopress.
Šprajc, Ivan, Atasta Flores Esquivel, Saša Čaval, and María Isabel García López, 2009.
"Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche:
Informe de la temporada 2007" (ms.).
México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Archivo Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan, William J. Folan, and Raymundo González
Heredia, 2005. Las ruinas de Oxpemul, Campeche: su redescubrimiento después de
70 años en el olvido (1934-2004). In: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya
13, tomo I: 20-27. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.
Šprajc, Ivan, Florentino García Cruz, and Héber Ojeda Mas,
1996. “Proyecto de Reconocimiento Arqueológico en el Sureste del Estado de
Campeche, como parte de las funciones del INAH en el PROCEDE: Informe de la
temporada julio-agosto de 1996” (ms.). México: Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Archivo Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan, Florentino García Cruz, and Héber Ojeda Mas,
1997a. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche, México: informe
preliminar. Mexicon 19 (1): 5-12.
Šprajc, Ivan, Florentino García Cruz, and Héber Ojeda Mas,
1997b. Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste de Campeche. Arqueología:
Revista de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología del INAH, segunda época,
no. 18: 29-49.
Šprajc, Ivan, and
Nikolai Grube, 2005. “Archaeological reconnaissance in
southern Campeche, Mexico, 2004: Report on the monuments of Oxpemul”.
Submitted to Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic
Society.
Šprajc, Ivan, and Daniel Juárez Cossío, 2003. Altar de los
Reyes, sitio del sureste de Campeche. Arqueología Mexicana X, núm. 59: 5.
Šprajc, Ivan, and Vicente Suárez Aguilar, 1998a.
Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de Campeche, México:
temporada 1998. Mexicon 20 (5): 104-109.
Šprajc, Ivan, and Vicente Suárez Aguilar, 1998b. “Proyecto de
Reconocimiento Arqueológico en el Sureste del Estado de Campeche, como parte de
las funciones del INAH en el PROCEDE: Informe de la temporada febrero-abril de
1998” (ms.). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Archivo
Técnico.
Šprajc, Ivan, and Vicente Suárez Aguilar, 2003.
Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de Campeche, México:
temporada 1998. In: Cuarto Congreso Internacional de Mayistas: Memoria (2 al
8 de agosto de 1998), México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, 492-505.
Thompson, J. E.,
1936. Exploration in Campeche and Quitana [sic!] Roo and excavations at
San Jose, British Honduras. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book
No. 35: 125-128.
Thompson, J. Eric S., 1959. The role of caves in Maya
culture. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde in Hamburg
25: 122-129.
Tourtellot III,
Gair, Amanda Clarke, and Norman Hammond, 1993. Mapping La Milpa: a Maya city in
northwestern Belize. Antiquity 67 (254): 96-108.
<< previous
next >>
Monograph
Ivan Šprajc, ed., Reconocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de Campeche: 1996-2005. BAR International Series 1742 (Paris Monographs in American Archaeology 19, Series Editor: Eric Taladoire), Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008 (ISBN 978 1 4073 0184 6).
Order at: Archaeopress, UK.
Contents:
Ivan Šprajc,
Introducción
1. Ivan Šprajc,
El sureste de Campeche: naturaleza e historia
2. Ivan Šprajc,
Trabajo de campo
3. Ivan Šprajc,
Definición y jerarquización de los sitios arqueológicos
4. Ivan Šprajc
y Atasta Flores Esquivel, Descripción de los sitios
5. Ivan Šprajc,
Rescate de las estelas de Los Alacranes
6. Daniel Juárez Cossío y Adrián Baker Pedroza,
Intervenciones en Mucaancah y Altar de los Reyes: un acercamiento a través de
sus materiales arqueológicos
7. María Isabel García López, Análisis del material de
superficie
8. Nikolai Grube, Monumentos esculpidos: epigrafía e
iconografía
9. Ivan Šprajc, Alineamientos
astronómicos en la arquitectura
10. Tomaž Podobnikar and Krištof Oštir, GIS and remote sensing
analysis
11. Ivan Šprajc
y Nikolai Grube, Arqueología del sureste de Campeche:
una síntesis
Bibliografía
Anexo 1: Mapas
Anexo 2: Tabla de coordenadas de los sitios arqueológicos
Anexo 3: Planos de los sitios arqueológicos
<< previous
|
|
|
|
|