Part 2: Surface Survey and Collection
This operation involved systematic surface survey of one hundred percent of 36 milpa surfaces by teams of archaeologists and local assistants walking the fields with an interval of 5m between them (Figure 11). The surface survey was performed for the primary purpose of identifying artifact concentrations associated with various architectural complexes within the milpas. The architecture is recorded and mapped separately by an EDM mapping team. Concentrations were charted on the Carnegie map, staked and numbered, and later mapped in by the EDM crews. For each concentration, at least one 3m radius circular “dog leash” collection was made of 100% of all artifacts, shell, and bone, within the circle. Throughout the milpa survey, isolated artifacts were also collected, whether or not they were within a concentration, on a sparing basis. We collected isolated artifacts if they represented highly diagnostic formal tool types of varieties not represented in our systematic collections (or were represented by only a few examples). These isolated collections will help us identify artifact typologies for the site and to understand the distribution of formal, perhaps more valuable tool types at the city (such as greenstone axes). The location of isolated collections was charted on the Carnegie map relative to the nearest structure. Archaeologists in charge of surface collection in various years include Masson, Antonina Delu, and Nicolas Várguez.
Artifact concentrations are defined relative to artifact density within each milpa, as overall artifact density varies across the city and is greatest in houselots near the monumental zone and least dense in houselots toward the city wall. This flexible definition of “concentrated” artifacts was essential due to variable densities of materials across the settlement. This approach is quite practical and easy to follow in the field. Where “concentrations” of a few artifacts are observed in a low density milpa, often these are the only scatters of artifacts visible within a given houselot. Within residential areas at Mayapán, our surface survey suggests that there were very distinct areas of refuse disposal and activities that define concentrations, regardless of how much material is actually there. This approach was less effective for settlement areas at a distance from the city walls, where few artifacts are present on the surface and these are less commonly found in concentrations. This observation may be due to chronological differences in refuse disposal patterns or other reasons yet to be identified. Test pitting may be needed to identify concentrations in settlement zones outside the wall not temporally or culturally associated with Mayapán. A program of random test pitting implemented in the Mayapán milpas was designed to help evaluate the reliability of the distribution of surface artifact concentrations; this program (described in the subsequent section of this report), identified no additional concentrations below the surface and indicates that the results of surface survey are valid for identifying refuse zones within the city.
Identifying surface concentrations gave us a large number of samples of artifacts associated with residences located across Mayapán and beyond its walls. The milpas sampled are located in all three arbitrarily divided areas of the city, first delineated in our research design in our NSF proposal. They come from Zone 1, which includes the 500X500m grid square (Square Q) of the site’s monumental center as well as each adjacent 500 sq meter square surrounding Square Q. Zone 2 includes squares within the city wall that are not adjacent to Square Q – this settlement is zone is thus at least 500m from the site center. Zone 3 includes squares located outside of the city wall.
Using cleared milpas for our sampling areas saved time and labor in that these areas do not need to be cleared solely for research, and takes advantage of existing land use at the site. However, much of the western third of the site is used for ranching and is under heavy secondary growth with little milpa farming. This circumstance has allowed us fewer opportunities to document surface trends in this area. Our sample of residential areas is thus not as large from the western part of the site as we would like it to be, particularly near outlying monumental/administrative architectural complexes at Cenotes Itzmal Ch’en and Xcoton by the far eastern city gates. Test pits were performed near Itzmal Ch’en in two areas that were not located in milpas to increase our sample from this zone.
In the thirty-six milpas surface surveyed between 2002 and 2003, one hundred and thirty-one surface collections were made (Table 1, Figure 11). Larger concentrations of surface debris were sometimes subjected to two or three surface collections, and in a few cases, surface collections were made for the purpose of assessing area chronology even if no concentrations of surface debris were identified. For most cases, however, surface collections were made in areas of dense surface concentrations signaling refuse zones. All materials from these surface collections have been inventoried and analyzed, and preliminary interpretations of settlement density have been derived from these data (Masson et al. n.d.). Artifact density generally decreased with distance from the site center, suggesting shorter occupation of outlying parameters of the site relative to the urban core. We have also examined the ratios and frequencies of artifacts extensively in our preliminary reports prepared for the INAH Consejo de Arqueología in Mexico City. These data have indicated craft specialist dwellings (lithic and shell production, e.g. Figure 12), and greater access to obsidian tools for residents of high status dwellings. Densities of ceramics are very high near some of the monumental zone residences and these may represent specialized activity such as food preparation or pottery production. Analysis is ongoing of artifact type frequencies that will indicate additional aspects of occupational specialization and distinctive social group identity. Density and typological/functional distribution analysis of surface collection data will be performed alongside that of test pit data.
Return to The Economic Foundations of Mayapán
Table of Contents
Return to the Main Page
© 2006 Institute for Mesoamerican Studies
Updated February 8, 2006
