Citation
Architectural energetics and the construction of circle 2, Los Guachimontones, Jalisco

Material Information

Title:
Architectural energetics and the construction of circle 2, Los Guachimontones, Jalisco
Creator:
Deluca, Anthony James ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of arts)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Anthropology, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Anthropology

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Indians of Mexico -- Antiquities ( lcsh )
Public architecture -- Mexico -- Jalisco ( lcsh )
Indian architecture -- Mexico -- Jalisco ( lcsh )
Division of labor ( lcsh )
Division of labor ( fast )
Indian architecture ( fast )
Indians of Mexico -- Antiquities ( fast )
Public architecture ( fast )
Mexico -- Jalisco ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Labor organization above the household level is necessary to construct monumental buildings. The method of labor organization can differ between cultures depending on the capital utilized, the size of the population, and the labor required for construction. Labor organization strategies range from work exchanges to corvée labor. This thesis analyzes a circular temple structure at the site of Los Guachimontones, Jalisco, Mexico in order to understand how the Teuchitlán culture may have organized labor. ( ,, )
Review:
Los Guachimontones is located on a hill overlooking the town of Teuchitlán in north-central Jalisco. The site has been occupied since the Middle Formative period (1000 - 300 B.C.), but construction on its circular temples did not begin until the Late Formative (300 - 100 B.C.). The temples located at Los Guachimontones are some of the largest temples in the region. Circle 2, the most complete excavated temple at the site, is the second largest temple and is the focus of this thesis. The data for Circle 2 provides insight into how the Teuchitlán culture may have organized the necessary labor and how they were politically organized.
Review:
Three different political models have been proposed for the Teuchitlán culture. Each political model proposes a different method for the organization of labor. This thesis analyzes Circle 2 using architectural energetics in order to estimate the amount of labor needed to construct the temple. The estimated amount of labor is then compared to the proposed political models, the quality of construction, and logistical constraints. Based on these comparisons, I propose that the Teuchitlán culture made use of both collective labor and corvée labor in order to construct Circle 2. Collective labor was used to recruit a large amount of labor to construct the patio that served as a base for the temple. Corvée labor was then employed by elites in order to recruit family or close relationships to construct the rest of Circle 2 over five subsequent construction periods. I argue that the use of these two forms of labor organization supports the model of collective governance consisting of elite lineages for the Teuchitlán culture.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Anthony James Deluca.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10115 ( NOTIS )
1011599798 ( OCLC )
on1011599798
Classification:
LD1193.L43 2017m D46 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
ARCHITECTURAL ENERGETICS
AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIRCLE 2, LOS GUACHIMONTONES, JALISCO by
ANTHONY JAMES DELUCA
B.A., State University of New York at Albany, 2012
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Anthropology
2017


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Anthony James DeLuca Has been approved for the Anthropology Program by
Christopher S. Beekman, Chair Tammy Stone
Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza


DeLuca, Anthony James (M.A. Anthropology)
Architectural Energetics and the Construction of Circle 2, Los Guachimontones, Jalisco Thesis directed by Associate Professor Christopher S. Beekman
ABSTRACT
Labor organization above the household level is necessary to construct monumental buildings. The method of labor organization can differ between cultures depending on the capital utilized, the size of the population, and the labor required for construction. Labor organization strategies range from work exchanges to corvee labor. This thesis analyzes a circular temple structure at the site of Los Guachimontones, Jalisco, Mexico in order to understand how the Teuchitlan culture may have organized labor.
Los Guachimontones is located on a hill overlooking the town of Teuchitlan in north-central Jalisco. The site has been occupied since the Middle Formative period (1000 300
B.C.), but construction on its circular temples did not begin until the Late Formative (300 -100 B.C.). The temples located at Los Guachimontones are some of the largest temples in the region. Circle 2, the most complete excavated temple at the site, is the second largest temple and is the focus of this thesis. The data for Circle 2 provides insight into how the Teuchitlan culture may have organized the necessary labor and how they were politically organized.
Three different political models have been proposed for the Teuchitlan culture. Each political model proposes a different method for the organization of labor. This thesis analyzes Circle 2 using architectural energetics in order to estimate the amount of labor needed to
iii


construct the temple. The estimated amount of labor is then compared to the proposed political models, the quality of construction, and logistical constraints. Based on these comparisons, I propose that the Teuchitlan culture made use of both collective labor and corvee labor in order to construct Circle 2. Collective labor was used to recruit a large amount of labor to construct the patio that served as a base for the temple. Corvee labor was then employed by elites in order to recruit family or close relationships to construct the rest of Circle 2 over five subsequent construction periods. I argue that the use of these two forms of labor organization supports the model of collective governance consisting of elite lineages for the Teuchitlan culture.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Christopher S. Beekman
IV


I dedicate this work to my grandfather, Charles Pihlaja.
v


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Writing this thesis has been a long process with many people helping me along the way. Without their help, this would not have been possible, and I would not be one step closer towards achieving my goal of becoming an archaeologist. This thesis has tested me in ways I never expected. While there may have been moments when I wanted to give up, I never did because of all the wonderful people in my life. I am a stronger and better person because of them.
I would first like to thank my parents, Pete and Kim, who have been supportive of my pursuit of archaeology since my time in high school. Archaeology was not only an odd choice to pursue in our family, but also an odd choice for anyone to pursue in our remote corner of Upper Michigan. I knew the trials and tribulations that awaited me, and I knew archaeology is not a career one gets into to make money. They have continued, nonetheless, to support my endeavors, and for that, I am eternally grateful.
I would like to thank my friend, Victor Pesola, who took the time to help edit this thesis. I know it was not easy to read many of the tedious descriptions of excavation units or grapple with the unfamiliar jargon that accompanies archaeological texts. I appreciate your proficiency with the English language and I hope you do not mind if I rely on your skills and suggestions in the future.
I would like to thank Cuauhtemoc Vidal-Guzman. Thank you for your friendship these past several years, your exhaustive discussions on all things related to Mesoamerican, and your willingness to discuss many of my hypotheses and ideas on West Mexico. I would not be the scholar that I am today without you.
vi


I would like to thank my friend, Kong F. Cheong, for your continued support and encouragement since we first met. You have always been a beacon of positivity as I continue to pursue academia. I look forward to working together in the future.
There are a number of other friends I would like to thank also. You all have provided rigorous discussions on topics relating to Mesoamerica, insight into my thesis, and have provided an immense amount of emotional support. In no particular order, I would like to thank Robert Suits, Catherine Johns, Nichole Abbot, Karen Pierce, Jones LeFae, Corey Herrmann, Alex Wiley, Liz Heuer, and Mark Suda. I am honored to have you all as my friends.
I would like to thank my former professor Marilyn Masson from the State University of New York at Albany. Despite not pursuing Maya archaeology, you left a long lasting impression on my interests in archaeology and myself. Without your classes on Maya art and iconography, I may not have discovered my love of the topic. While I did not pursue iconography for this thesis, I hope that I can utilize what I have learned from you in future studies of West Mexican artifacts.
I would like to thank Kirk Anderson whom I first met working on the Proyecto Arqueologico en la Cuenca de la ex-Laguna de Magdalena, Jalisco (PAX). Your willingness to explain geomorphology its relationship to the Tequila valleys has been a great source of information and insight into this region. Your positive attitude and friendliness have always made the workdays more enjoyable. I look forward to working with you again.
I would also like to thank my former professor, Julien Riel-Salvatore, for his classes at UCDenver and for introducing me to the topic of architectural energetics. Without him, I
vii


do not believe I would have pursued this topic. Julien has helped to shape the archaeologist that I am today and I will forever be indebted to him.
I would also like to thank my current professor, Charles Musiba. While you could not convince me to change from West Mexican archaeology to early hominins in Tanzania, I will always be grateful for your support, encouragement, and riveting informal discussions on anthropology after class with my fellow students.
I would like to thank my committee members. Tammy Stone has provided much needed insight, constructive criticism, and support of my thesis and thesis topic. Verenice Heredia Espinoza, as current director of the Proyecto Arqueologico Teuchitlan, has graciously allowed me to use data collected by PAT for my thesis. As a colleague and friend, you have continued to support my interests in studying the Teuchitlan culture. I hope that we will continue to work together to better understand the Tequila valleys and the West Mexican region.
Lastly, I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Christopher Beekman. You took a chance on a very wide-eyed, overly enthusiastic, and talkative young man who had trouble not bombarding you with questions every hour of every day and provided him with some much needed guidance, direction, and temperance. I am eternally grateful for your patience and for everything you have done for me. I hope that you will continue to be a positive influence, in both my career and my life.
vm


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. THEORY...........................................................4
Capital and Labor...............................................9
Labor Organization.............................................16
WorkFeasts/Exchanges.....................................16
Labor Collective.........................................19
Labor Tax................................................22
Labor Organization in the Archaeological Record................28
III. BACKGROUND......................................................31
Geography of the Tequila Valleys...............................31
History of the region..........................................33
Models of Political Organization and their Relation to Labor...40
Los Guachimontones.............................................47
IV. METHODOLOGY......................................................54
Data Source....................................................55
Data Recovery..................................................60
Measuring Drawings.............................................64
Issues and Assumptions
68


Calculating Volumes
70
Architectural Energetics................................................78
V. ANALYSIS...................................................................82
Excavation Summary......................................................89
Patio............................................................89
Altar............................................................96
Banquette.......................................................108
Platform 1......................................................116
Platform 2......................................................128
Platform 3......................................................135
Platform 4......................................................147
Platform 5......................................................158
Platform 6......................................................169
Platform 7......................................................180
Platform 8......................................................185
Platform 9......................................................193
Platform 10.....................................................205
Summary of Volumes.....................................................213
Applying Architectural Energetics......................................222
Summary of labor.......................................................238
x


Analysis of person-days......................................246
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION......................................266
How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fill vs. external appearance?.266
Do scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization?..273
How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco?........................................276
REFERENCES.........................................................285
APPENDIX
A. CALCULATING ARCHITECTURAL VOLUMES............................303
Patio Issues and Assumptions.................................303
Banquette Issues and Assumptions.............................306
Altar Issues and Assumptions.................................308
Platform Issues and Assumptions..............................312
B. MEASUREMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.......................316
C. LABOR ESTIMATES..............................................349
D. EXCAVATION DRAWINGS..........................................358
xi


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
2.1 Labor organization methods and archaeological identifiers.........................29
3.1 Chronological phases in the Tequila Valleys.......................................50
5.1 Height of platforms measured from banquette surface...............................85
5.2 Architectural terms to describe construction material and features.................87
5.3 Volume of material used to construct the patio...................................214
5.4 Volume of material used to construct the banquette...............................214
5.5 Volume of material used to construct the altar...................................214
5.6 Volume of material used to construct Platform 1...................................215
5.7 Volume of material used to construct Platform 2...................................216
5.8 Volume of material used to construct Platform 3...................................217
5.9 Volume of material used to construct Platform 4...................................217
5.10 Volume of material used to construct Platform 5..................................218
5.11 Volume of material used to construct Platform 6..................................218
5.12 Volume of material used to construct Platform 7..................................219
5.13 Volume of material used to construct Platform 8..................................219
5.14 Volume of material used to construct Platform 9..................................220
5.15 Volume of material used to construct Platform 10.................................221
5.16 Distance between platform pairs..................................................224
5.17 Rates of work for architectural energetics.......................................233
5.18 Density of cobbles...............................................................236
5.19 Estimated amount of labor to construct the patio...............................239
5.20 Estimated amount of labor to construct the banquette.............................239
xii


5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 1.............................239
Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 2.............................240
Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 3...............................240
Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 4...............................240
Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 5...............................241
Estimated amount of labor to construct the entire altar......................241
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 1..............................241
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 2..............................242
Estimated amount of labor to construct shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2.. 242
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 3..............................242
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 4..............................243
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 5..............................243
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 6..............................243
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 7..............................244
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 8..............................244
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 9..............................244
Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 10.............................245
Estimated amount of laborers to construct Circle 2 (112,651.41 p-d)............247
Percent of labor pool required to construct Circle 2 in one season.............248
Amount of labor in people needed to construct each Group.......................251
Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 1..............................252
Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 2..............................252
Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 3..............................252
xm


5.44 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 4.......................253
5.45 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 5.......................253
5.46 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each primary platform.256
5.47 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct secondary platforms for each
platform....................................................................257
5.48 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each platform group...258
5.49 Estimated number of days needed to construct each Group................261
B.l Measurements of primary platform, Platform 1............................318
B.2 Measurements of Southeast 1 secondary platform, Platform 1...............318
B.3 Measurements of Southeast 2 secondary platform, Platform 1...............319
B.4 Measurements of Northwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 1...............319
B.5 Measurements of Northwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 1...............319
B.6 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 2............................320
B.7 Measurements of secondary platform, Platform 2..........................320
B.8 Measurements of shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2...............321
B.9 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 3............................322
B.10 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 3................323
B. 11 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 3...............324
B.12 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 4...........................325
B.13 Measurements of Southwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 4..............326
B. 14 Measurements of Southwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 4.............326
B.15 Measurements of Northeast secondary platform, Platform 4...............326
B.16 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 5...........................327
xiv


B.17 Measurements of East 1 secondary platform, Platform 5...............327
B.18 Measurements of East 2 secondary platform, Platform 5...............328
B.19 Measurements of West 1 secondary platform, Platform 5...............329
B.20 Measurements of West 2 secondary platform, Platform 5...............330
B.21 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 6........................331
B.22 Measurements of secondary platform, Platform 6......................332
B.23 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 7........................332
B.24 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 7.............333
B.25 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 7.............333
B.26 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 8........................334
B.27 Measurements of Southwestern secondary platform, Platform 8.........335
B.28 Measurements of Northeastern secondary platform, Platform 8.........335
B.29 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 9........................336
B.30 Measurements of Western secondary platform, Platform 9..............336
B.31 Measurements of Eastern secondary platform, Platform 9..............337
B.32 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 10.......................338
B.33 Measurements of center secondary platform, Platform 10..............338
B.34 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 10............339
B.35 Measurements of Northern 1 secondary platform, Platform 10..........339
B.36 Measurements of Northern 2 secondary platform, Platform 10..........339
B.37 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 6 and 7.............340
B.38 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2.............340
B.39 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 10............341
xv


B.40 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2.
B.41 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 2...........
B.42 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 10..........
B.43 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 9...........
B.44 Measurements of the banquette near Platforms 3 and 4....
B.45 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 4...........
B.46 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 5...........
B.47 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 5...........
B.48 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 8...........
B.49 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 9...........
B.50 Measurements of the banquette and patio near Platform 1.
B.51 Measurements of the patio from Trench la................
B.52 Measurements of the patio from Trench lb................
B.53 Measurements of the patio from Trench 2.................
B.54 Measurements of the patio from Trench 3.................
B.55 Measurements of the patio from Trench 4.................
B.56 Measurements of the patio from near Platform 10.........
B.57 Measurements of the altar...............................
B.58 Measurements of the banquette and patio.................
B. 59 Measurements of the banquette and patio (contd).......
C. 1 Labor estimates for Platform 1..........................
C.2 Labor estimates for Platform 2...........................
C.3 Labor estimates for shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2.
342
342
342
342
342
343 343 343 343
343
344 344 344 344
344
345
345
346
347
348 350 350 350
xvi


C.4 Labor estimates for Platform 3.......................................................351
C.5 Labor estimates for Platform 4.......................................................352
C.6 Labor estimates for Platform 5.......................................................353
C.7 Labor estimates for Platform 6.......................................................353
C.8 Labor estimates for Platform 7.......................................................354
C.9 Labor estimates for Platform 8.......................................................354
C. 10 Labor estimates for Platform 9..................................................355
C. 11 Labor estimates for Platform 10.................................................356
C. 12 Labor estimates for the banquette................................................356
C. 13 Labor estimates for the patio..................................................357
C.14 Labor estimates for the altar.....................................................357
xvii


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
3.1 Ceramic model of a village scene.........................................35
3.2 Map of Tequila valleys....................................................42
3.3 Aerial photo of Los Guachimontones........................................48
3.4 Map of Los Guachimontones.................................................49
4.1 Los Guachimontones........................................................56
4.2 Circle 2 architectural features...........................................58
4.3 Plan drawing of Platform 5................................................66
4.4 Profile drawing of Cala 5, Platform 10....................................67
4.5 Cylinder..................................................................71
4.6 Nested hollow cylinders...................................................73
4.7 Nested rectangular prisms.................................................74
4.8 Platform 5................................................................75
4.9 Calculating platform fill.................................................76
4.10 Calculating altar fill...................................................78
4.11 Mesoamerican digging sticks..............................................80
5.1 Los Guachimontones site map...............................................83
5.2 AutoCAD model of Circle 2.................................................88
5.3 C2_T_Tl_Sa................................................................92
5.4 C2 XX XX Rg...............................................................93
5.5 AutoCAD model for the altar...............................................96
5.6 C2_A_C7Ext_Sc.............................................................99
5.7 C2_A_C7Ext_Sb............................................................102
xviii


5.8 C2_A_C7Ext_Sa.......................................................103
5.9 C2_A_T7_S...........................................................105
5.10C2 B.P1.10 Cl S.....................................................109
5.11 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S.....................................................Ill
5.12( 2 B.P6.7 XX S.....................................................113
5.13 AutoCAD model of Platform 1........................................117
5.14 Partial site map of Circle 2.......................................118
5.15 C2P1CAS............................................................120
5.16C2 PI 13 Sb........................................................122
5.17C2 PI 13 Sc........................................................123
5.18 C2 PI 13 Sd........................................................124
5.19 AutoCAD model of Platform 2........................................129
5.20 C2 P2 C1S..........................................................130
5.21 C2P2C2S............................................................132
5.22 C2 P2 C3 S.........................................................134
5.23 AutoCAD model of Platform 3........................................136
5.24 C2 P3 XX P.........................................................137
5.25 C2_P3_XX_SE,W......................................................138
5.26 C2 P3 C1S..........................................................139
5.27 C2 P3 C2 S.........................................................141
5.28 C2 P3 C3 S.........................................................143
5.29 C2 P3 XX S.........................................................145
5.30 AutoCAD model of Platform 4........................................148
xix


149
5.31 C2P4XXP..........
5.32 C2 P4 XX SNW,SW...................................................150
5.33 C2 P4 XX S........................................................151
5.34 C2 P4 C2 S.........................................................152
5.35 C2 P4 C3 S.........................................................154
5.36 C2 P4 C4 S.........................................................156
5.37 AutoCAD model of Platform 5.......................................159
5.38 C2 P5 XX P.........................................................160
5.39 C2_P5_XX_SN,E......................................................161
5.40 C2 P5 C3 S.........................................................162
5.41 C2P5C4S............................................................163
5.42 C2 P5 C5 S.........................................................165
5.43 C2 P5 XX S.........................................................167
5.44 AutoCAD model of Platform 6........................................170
5.45 C2 P6 XX P.........................................................171
5.46 C2 P6 Cl S.........................................................172
5.47C2 P6 C2 S..........................................................174
5.48 C2 P6 XX Sa........................................................175
5.49 C2 P6 XX Sb........................................................177
5.50 C2 P6 XX Sc........................................................179
5.51 AutoCAD model of Platform 7........................................181
5.52 C2 P7 XX P.........................................................182
5.53 C2_P7_XX_SN,E......................................................183
xx


5.54 C2P7C lExtS.........................................................184
5.55 AutoCAD model of Platform 8.........................................186
5.56 C2 PS C3 S..........................................................187
5.57 C2 P8 C4 S..........................................................189
5.58 C2_P8_C4_Sa.........................................................191
5.59 AutoCAD model of Platform 9.........................................194
5.60 C2 P9 XX P..........................................................195
5.61 C2P9XXSNW, SW.......................................................196
5.62 C2 P9 C2 S..........................................................197
5.63 C2_P9_C4_S..........................................................199
5.64 C2 P9 C5 S..........................................................201
5.65 C2 P9 XX S..........................................................203
5.66 AutoCAD model of Platform 10........................................206
5.67 Partial site map of Circle 2........................................207
5.68 C2 P10 Cl S.........................................................208
5.69 C2_P10_C2_S.........................................................210
5.70 C2_P10_C5_S.........................................................212
5.71 Los Guachimontones site.............................................227
5.72 Hillside above Los Guachimontones...................................228
5.73 Circle 2 during restoration efforts.................................229
5.74 Modem route.........................................................231
5.75 Labor-days needed to construct Circle 2 platforms...................259
A. 1 Plan drawing of Platform 4 with division lines......................315
xxi


D.l
C2_P1,9,10_CN, PI 171,1271,1371,1471,1571,1671,1771,1871,1971,2071,2171,2271,2371,2
471.2571.2671.2771.2871.2971.3071.3 171 SS................................359
D.2 C2 P4.5.6 CS.P2850.2950.3050 SN........................................360
D.3 C2 P4.5 CS.P 1149.1249.1349.1449.1549.1649 S\..........................361
D.4 C2_ ( 2 P4.5 CS.P 1748.1749 SW.........................................362
D.5 C2 P4.5 CS.P 1847.1947.2047.2147.2247 SN...............................363
D.6 ( 2 P4.5 CS.P2349.2449.2549.2649 SN....................................364
D.7 C2 P4.5 P2345.2348 SW..................................................365
D.8 C2_P6,7_CW,P3151-3156_SE...............................................366
D.9 C2 P6.7 CW.P3 157-3 162.3 163-3 168.3 169-3 171 Si:....................367
D.10 C2_T_Tl_Sa............................................................368
D.ll C2_T_Tl_Sb............................................................369
D.12 C2 T T2 S.............................................................370
D.13 C2_T_T3_Sa............................................................371
I). 14( 2 T T3 Sb.........................................................372
D.15 C2 T T4 S.............................................................373
D.16 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB overview.....................................374
D.17 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB ceremonial center............................375
D.l8 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2.....................................376
D.19 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2 angled..............................377
xxii


CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
This research examines the construction of public architecture and the organization of labor during the Late Formative period within the Teuchitlan culture of Jalisco, Mexico. The ceremonial centers of this area are most heavily concentrated in the valleys surrounding the Tequila volcano, and examples of their distinctive circular temple architecture are known from the far northern part of Jalisco and the surrounding states of Nayarit, Colima, Zacatecas, Michoacan, and Guanajuato. These temples were used to carry out world renewal and agricultural rituals by elite lineages who ruled through shared governance. Previous excavations at the sites of Llano Grande and Navajas identified a wide range of variability between platforms in terms of size and construction. Beekman (2008) proposed that this reflects the different labor groups recruited by each elite lineage constructing their temple separately.
This model of political organization and the differences evident in their ceremonial structures led me to ask the following questions: How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fill vs. external appearance? Do scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization?
Of the excavated ceremonial complexes, I chose to examine Circle 2 of the site of Los Guachimontones for two reasons; first, the site has the largest known guachimontones, excavated or unexcavated, in the region. Therefore, a study of a large temple from this site
1


will likely provide an upper boundary to the scale of construction work and labor organization for the sites of the Teuchitlan culture. Second, excavations heavily tested Circle 2 that provides a detailed view of the construction of the entire ceremonial complex.
To answer these questions I applied an architectural energetics approach and analyzed Circle 2s architectural components. The components are quantified by estimating the volumes of their various construction materials, rates of work gathered from experiments are applied to those volumes, and these are transformed into the amount of labor invested in building construction. This numerical value is often labeled person-days (p-d). These person-days can then be assessed against different proposals to answer the research questions.
Chapter 2 covers why the study of labor organization is important to archaeology and how it informs us about political systems and societal organization. Bourdieus (1986) three forms of capital are discussed and how capital is used to recruit labor. Different theoretical approaches are reviewed for how they view the organization of labor, as well as different models of how labor is organized through the control of capital. Architectural energetics is also covered with a discussion of how buildings are quantified into different volumes of construction material and how those volumes are turned into a measure of labor.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the Tequila valleys area including the geography, climate, and previous archaeological work conducted in the region. Different forms of architecture from this region are briefly discussed with a focus on the surface architecture that is the subject of this thesis. Included in this chapter is a discussion of proposed political models for the Teuchitlan culture. Each political model proposes how labor may have been organized according to each model.
2


Chapter 4 discusses the archaeological work conducted on Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones by the Proyecto Arqueologico Teuchitlan (PAT) under the direction of Phil Weigand. How the data were documented and the limitations in using these data for a secondary analysis of the complex are discussed. I also discuss how I utilized the data to estimate the volume of construction material for the components of Circle 2.1 discuss how I measured the components of Circle 2 and their construction material and how I determined the volumes of the components. I also discuss the assumptions made for the energetics analysis such as distances to sources of construction material, the length of the workday, and the weight of the loads being carried.
Chapter 5 is an in-depth analysis at how the architectural features of Circle 2 were measured and the data used for this analysis. Included within this chapter is how contradictions in the prior recording of Circle 2s construction were resolved in order to perform the analysis. The results of the volume estimates and energetic calculations are presented for different architectural features of Circle 2. The previously proposed model of labor organization for the Teuchitlan culture are applied to the labor requirements for the construction of Circle 2 based on the site population size, the amount of time available for construction, and the quality of construction to understand how labor may have been organized.
Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the findings of this analysis with a discussion on how existing models hold up to this new data and whether changes are needed to incorporate this new research. The chapter ends with suggestions regarding avenues of future research.
3


CHAPTER II
THEORY
How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? What were the size of labor groups and how did they relate to the current model of lineage organization? To answer these questions we must first understand the theoretical perspectives on the study of labor.
To understand the theoretical perspectives on the study of labor it may be beneficial to understand labor through a framework based on Bourdieus (1986) forms of capital. This framework allows us to consider all forms of labor recruitment and organization that may not necessarily fit within a simple economic transaction involving disparities of wealth. From relatively egalitarian societies to more complex states, there is a wide variety of labor organization methods that utilize other forms of capital. Sometimes within a society there is more than one method to organize labor depending on the scale of the project, the person or group organizing the labor, and the type or amount of capital being used. By understanding Bourdieus forms of capital and recognizing those forms in other case studies, we can suggest how labor was organized within central Jalisco based upon current models for political organization, available evidence from archaeological work, and an examination of a temple at the site of Los Guachimontones.
Capital
Bourdieu defines capital simply as accumulated labor (Bourdieu 1986: 15). The most recognizable and distinguishable form of capital is economic capital. Economic capital includes such things such as money, property, or the means of production. Economic capital
4


forms the basis for economic theory; however, the reliance on just economic capital is inadequate to explain fully human nature and diversity (Bourdieu 1986: 16). Instead, Bourdieu proposes two other forms of capital that can derive from economic capital (Bourdieu 1986: 24) as well as become methods to generate economic capital. These two other forms of capital are called cultural capital and social capital.
Cultural capital is an investment of time and economic capital into knowledge and skills. Bourdieu argues that cultural capital exists in three forms: the embodied state, the objectified state, and the institutionalized state (Bourdieu 1986: 17). The embodied state is simply the holder of cultural capital, the person that invested the time and economic capital into the acquisition of cultural capital. When the holder dies, so too, does the cultural capital.
Bourdieu argues that cultural capital can go unrecognized as cultural capital due to the way cultural capital is disguised when transferred or gained. Instead, cultural capital functions as symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is perceived not to be capital at all, yet provides the holder of capital with some sort of authority that allows them to exert a force on the market. This authority can be used within the culture to secure economic capital depending on its scarcity (Bourdieu 1986: 18). Bourdieu uses the example of being able to read in a world of illiterates. Literacy itself is cultural capital as it can be acquired. However, literacy may be misrecognized as cultural capital and instead literacy may function as symbolic capital. In this world of illiterates, a literate person can sell their services of reading and writing to those with economic capital who are unable or unwilling to learn to read and write.
5


The objectified state of cultural capital is simply cultural capital made physical in objects, media, or services (Bourdieu 1986: 19). Objectified cultural capital can be appropriated materially or symbolically by those with economic capital. Material appropriation would include trading or buying the object or media, such as purchasing a novel. Symbolic appropriation would include employing the services of those that hold the cultural capital, such as employing the reader in a world of illiterates mentioned above (Bourdieu 1986:20). The objectified state allows cultural capital to be exchanged for economic capital.
The institutionalized state of cultural capital is simply the framework in which cultural capital is recognized and defined. Within this framework, the institutionalized state allows for the comparison and exchange of cultural capital with defined conversion rates. By comparing and exchanging cultural capital, cultural capital can be appropriated materially or symbolically (Bourdieu 1986:20-21).
Social capital is potential capital backed by a network of relationships and memberships that can be drawn upon or credited (Bourdieu 1986:21). The volume of capital that one can draw upon is dependent on two factors, ones own capital and the size of the network. There are two important features to social capital that allows us understand labor organization. The first is that social capital is present in all exchanges of capital. Since, in any exchange of capital, all parties must have some sort of recognition of each other, social capital is the foundation of those exchanges. Further, through an exchange of capital, social capital itself is renewed and reinforced between parties. To maintain social capital one must repeatedly conduct exchanges to renew and maintain the network (Bourdieu 1986: 21-22; Mauss 1990).
6


The second important feature to social capital is the ability of the network to appoint a spokesperson that can speak for the network and direct their collective capital. Bourdieu argues that this appointee is the basis for heads of households, nations, associations, and political parties. Not only can the spokesperson speak for the group and direct capital, but the spokesperson can ease conflict within the network should a member fail to uphold their responsibilities. The spokesperson can even go against the wishes of the network to a certain extent, especially in cases where the network only exists with the existence of the spokesperson (Bourdieu 1986: 23).
As mentioned previously, cultural capital and social capital can be derived from economic capital. Converting capital from one form to another form is the basis for strategies to reproduce capital. However, the conversion of both forms of capital to economic capital requires a substantial amount of effort. It is this conversion of cultural and social capital into economic capital that is important to understand labor recruitment strategies and organization. By highlighting Bourdieus explanation of how capital is converted, I am embedding my questions of labor organization into a practice theory perspective.
Bourdieu argues that cultural and social capital are disguised forms of economic capital and can be concealed from the possessors and the recipients within an exchange (Bourdieu 1986: 24). One part of the disguise is time itself. While economic capital can be drawn upon and utilized immediately without any secondary costs, social and cultural capital cannot always be immediately accessed. Social capital may require a relationship to have been established and maintained for a long period of time o fully utilize the effects of social capital. This investment in time creates a debt for those that possess these forms of capital.
7


The other part of disguise is that fact that economic capital is the root of all capital. Because all forms of capital are economic at their root, some forms of capital may need to disguise that root in order for the capital to produce its desired effects. Bourdieu argues that this disguise is based on two opposing, but equally partial views of capital. The first is economisn, which argues that every type of capital can be reduced to economic capital, but ignores the effectiveness of other types of capital. The other view is semiologism which reduces social exchanges to communication, but Bourdieu argues it ignores the brutal fact that everything can be reduced to economics (Bourdieu 1986: 24).
Disguising the economic root, however, creates loss for the capital. Loss occurs when capital loses its value and effectiveness, which in turn affects how it is converted, transmitted, or reproduced. If the capital is too disguised, its loss is high and then cannot be converted or transmitted (Bourdieu 1964: 25-26). If the capital is not concealed well enough, it may not be accepted and cannot be produced within the long term.
Trying to maintain balance between capital that is too disguised and capital that is not disguised well enough creates risk and uncertainty in the conversion and transmission process. That risk and loss of capital can be used to create debts for the creation of social capital to be called upon later in such forms as gifts, visits, and services. Without debt, one would not be able to organize labor, for example. However, if the capital used to create debt is too disguised and suffered too much loss, the debtor can refuse to acknowledge the debt. Bourdieu distinguishes the types of capital within the conversion process by how easily they are transmitted or converted from one form to another. This is based on the inverse ratio
between the amount of loss and the degree of concealment of the capital (Bourdieu 1986: 25).
8


Every transfer of capital is a reproduction strategy as well as a legitimizing strategy that solidifies within society who can appropriate and reproduce capital. If the institutionalized state is inadequate and questioned by the non-dominant class, the holders of capital must rely on disguising their capital further if they wish to continue to possess their capital by taking advantage of converting their capital into other forms. While this runs the risk of loss through the conversion process, it also allows the holders of capital to occupy rare positions (Bourdieu 1986: 26). Balance between the three forms of capital must be made so that holder of the capital limits their loss while continuing to possess their capital for future use.
Capital and Labor
Strategies for labor recruitment vary from culture to culture and I argue that these different strategies are dependent on the forms of capital as well as the volume of capital used as outlined by Bourdieu above. We must keep in mind that different cultures have different rules in how capital can be used and what value capital may have. Therefore, while two strategies may utilize similar amounts of one form of capital, the result can be different for each culture. This section discusses several case studies in terms of Bourdieus three forms of capital that feature strategies that allow individuals or groups to accumulate the necessary capital to recruit labor.
Webster (1990) argues that labor is recruited through the accumulation of capital. He explores how labor is recruited in 31 agropastoral groups in Africa that range from kingdoms to relatively egalitarian societies (Webster 1990: 338). To put his conclusions in terms of Bourdieus capital, labor is recruited either through debts and obligations based on the accumulation of economic capital or through the increase of social capital (Webster 1990:
9


339-340). The household is the basic unit to produce capital. Economic capital can be produced by inheriting, raising, or taking cattle, creating an agricultural surplus, or acquiring bridewealth (Webster 1990: 339-340). Social capital can be acquired by expanding ones social network through marriage, kin, and non-kin obligations. Non-kin support is often acquired by taking captives, extracting tribute, trading for slaves, and offering aid in the form of protection and economic support (Webster 1990: 340). Webster argues that through a combination of kin and non-kin support, political interest groups form and a patron-client relationship is created. Economic capital in the form of labor, tribute, specialized craft products, and military members is then reproduced and legitimized through these patron-client relationships in competition with other such groups, a feature of Bourdieus social capital (Webster 1990: 340).
Feasting is another method in which capital can be mobilized for labor. Dietler (2001: 66) argues that feasts are inherently political actions and are fundamental to political relationships. As Dietler (2001: 67) explains, feasts provide an arena for both the highly condensed symbolic representation and the active manipulation of social relations. To put feasts in terms of Bourdieus capital, feasts are an expression of all forms of capital. The food and drink provided by the host (economic capital), the types of food and drink being served or vessels used (cultural capital), the avoidance or restriction of food between segments of society (symbolic capital), and the network that helps to provide food and drink or the people attending whose social relations are established or renewed with the host (social capital) make use of all forms of capital (Dietler 2001: 81, 82-83, 85-88).
Not all feasting is the same, however, with different patterns of feasting used with different goals, consciously or unconsciously, in mind by the host. Dietler describes three
10


patterns of feasts drawn from anthropological literature on African cultures that manipulate different types of capital to reinforce social debt and differences in social capital. These patterns of feasting can occur in any group or culture and are not mutually exclusive. The first pattern of feasting is called empowering feasts. This pattern works towards acquiring and maintaining symbolic and economic capital to create differences in social capital. Dietler cautions that not all forms of symbolic or economic capital are attainable with this pattern (Dietler 2001: 76). Empowering feasts work by creating a competitive atmosphere in which there are real or perceived asymmetrical imbalances of capital between the host and attendees. Those that do not respond in kind to the host with their own feast are perceived to fall behind and results in a shift in social capital among all parties. Even feasts, which are perceived to be events of unity and harmony, are open arenas for participants to compete against one another to gain capital, status, and power (Dietler 2001: 77). The end goal of empowering feasts is to create enough of a perceptual asymmetrical balance in capital that the host can influence group decisions and actions.
Patron-role feasts are the second pattern of feasting. Unlike empowering feasts, which work to create imbalances of capital, patron-role feasts are used to reinforce existing asymmetrical imbalances. Patron-role feasts are used to renew and reinforce the social network between the host and attendees, an act that Bourdieu describes for building and maintaining social capital. Dietler (2001: 82-83) argues that given enough time in which one party has more capital than the other, this imbalance becomes permanent. Dietler (2001: 83) asserts that this imbalance of capital forms the basis of institutionalized authority. Clark and Blake (1994) make a similar argument. They argue that the results of competition are unknown to the aggrandizers that seek prestige and influence (Clark and Blake 1994: 259-
11


260). The most successful aggrandizers are those who can maintain their prestige and influence through gift giving and generosity. If they are able to sustain their prestige long enough, it may become permanent. This prestige can then be passed down to further generations via wealth, access to resources, or craft specialization (Clark and Blake 1994: 265-266).
The last feasting pattern is that of diacritical feasts. While empowering feasts rely on the amount of economic capital provided during a feast and patron-role feasts rely on reinforcing imbalances of social capital, diacritical feasts rely on the hosts knowledge and access to resources to gain cultural and symbolic capital. As Dietler (2001: 86-87) describes this pattern, the feast is about quality rather than quantity. A host goes out of their way to procure or create exotic, rare, or specialty items for the feast to show off their knowledge that they can create such things or to show off their connections that allow them to procure those items. A host may also use elaborate vessels for the feast or stage the feast at a particular location. They may also emphasize methods of preparation and consumption that differ from the norm. While a host may accumulate much cultural or symbolic capital from a diacritical feast, these sorts of feasts run the risk of being emulated by others. There is a subsequent devaluation every time someone copies the host. This forces the host to either be creative or pass rules or laws that restrict access and consumption to these diacritical feasting elements.
Clark and Blake (1994) argue for a similar pattern among the Mokaya of the Soconusco. The Mokaya adopted ceramic technology from their southern neighbors during the Barra phase (1550-1400 BC) (Clark and Blake 1994: 269-270). However, the Mokaya did not adopt the vessel forms. Instead, Clark and Blake propose that the Mokaya used ceramics to emulate existing and socially significant gourd vessel forms and decorations. By
12


doing so, the Mokaya would have added value to the newly adopted medium without changing prestigious vessel forms and decoration (Clark and Blake 1994: 271). By the later Locona phase, ceramics and the ability to make ceramics had become so ubiquitous that unslipped pottery became common as the novelty of the Barra phase ceramics faded (Clark and Blake 1994: 272).
Dietlers models for feasting are largely centered on economic capital to recruit labor since sufficient food and drink must first be accumulated before other forms of capital may take precedence. While a host may recruit labor directly by providing food, they can also convert their economic capital into social or cultural capital in order to recruit labor.
However, labor may be recruited directly using social capital without first converting from economic capital. Bernardini (2003) argues for a model of labor recruitment based upon the construction of Hopewell earthwork groups in Ohio. Within Ohio, there are a number of earthworks consisting of a circle, a square, an octagon, and even roads all linked together (Bernardini 2003: 334). While there is variation in how the earthworks are arranged with respect to one another, there is consistency in the shapes being used across all the sites surveyed. These mounds are a demonstration of cultural and symbolic capital, in which a few people may have possessed the necessary knowledge to plan, interpret, and reinforce the interpretation of the earthworks in these reoccurring forms (Bernardini 2003: 338).
All of these earthworks are quite large, covering 30 acres or more, but are located in a low population density region away from any major settlements (Bernardini 2003: 332). The earthworks themselves are separated from the next nearest earthwork group by a minimum of 6 kilometers and a maximum of 22 kilometers (Bernardini 2003: 346). Bernardini (2003: 346-348) argues that even with high population density estimate of 1 person/km2 and a
13


conservative period of two and a half months over ten years, each earthwork group would have required people to travel from as far away as 22 kilometers to aid in construction. Sites close to rivers could potentially tap into labor as far away as 45 kilometers if people traveled by canoe. Artifact deposition from Hopewell burials and artifact caches indicate it was not uncommon for the Hopewell to travel great distances for special events (Bernardini 2003: 350).
Despite the substantial amount of labor required in constructing these earthworks, they do not seem to have a specific function. There is little in the way of material culture that indicates these earthworks were used exclusively as burial mounds, defensive mounds, or places of ritual or feasting (Bernardini 2003: 334-335). With such a large distance between populated areas, it was unlikely these earthworks were regularly used by the people who had to travel such a great distance to aid in constructing the earthworks (Bernardini 2003: 348). Based upon the number of earthworks and the frequency with which they were constructed, however, Bernardini (2003: 350) argues that construction of these earthworks was a reoccurring and frequent activity for the Hopewell people that necessitated people to travel frequently. Bernardini argues that the earthwork groups may have started off as a way to enclose ancestral land that had burials, but this pattern changed over time as other sites were built in locations lacking such connection (Bernardini 2003: 351). The sites of Liberty, Frankfort, and Seip do enclose burials, but the other sites of Baum and Works East surveyed in Bernardinis study do not. The similarity of earthwork forms between groups appears to stem from a shared cosmology among the Hopewell instead of a specific function.
The repetition in earthwork shapes, the need to travel great distances, and the lack of evidence of as specific purpose suggests that the Hopewell people constructed these
14


earthworks as part of a shared experience (Bemardini 2003: 350-351). The very act of creating the earthworks produced and reproduced social capital through this shared experience. These earthworks may be better understood in terms of habitus, one of Bourdieus other concepts.
Habitus is the sum of a persons gained knowledge and lived experiences that influence a persons worldview and their decision making process (Bourdieu 2001: 533-537). Habitus can produce individual and collective practices (Bourdieu 2001: 537). Practices are activities that reproduce the conditions for the production of habitus (Bourdieu 2001: 533). The social conditions that allow for the production of habitus are called structure and practices operate within structure (Bourdieu 2001: 533). For the Hopewell, the passing of an important ancestor may have created the structure that necessitated an act to honor or remember the dead. Through the group habitus, the Hopewell constructed earthworks in symbolically important geometric shapes. As other important ancestors passed away, more earthworks were constructed and a group practice was formed. Over time, the cause for constructing earthworks may have been forgotten but the practice continued with the construction of earthworks not associated with burials. In place of honoring or remembering important ancestors, the Hopewell created a homogenizing group habitus around the construction of these earthworks (Bourdieu 2001: 535). The homogeneity of habitus creates a common worldview that is reinforced by the group consensus for the meaning of practices even if the origins are forgotten (Bourdieu 2001: 534-535). The very act of coming together from great distances and experiencing together the construction of earthworks can be used to recruit labor.
15


In summary, labor recruitment hinges on the use of large amounts of capital to bring people together. Capital can be expended on the laborers in exchange for their work, laborers may contribute labor to pay off a debt of capital, or labor may be recruited using social bonds.
Labor Organization
Labor organization refers to how people were recruited and deployed for a task.
Labor organization largely falls under three broad categories in the anthropological literature: work feasts, labor collectives, and labor taxes. These categories are largely based on the scale of work, the quality of work, and the amount of capital used to recruit labor. These categories can and are used simultaneously within cultures. Some methods of labor organization, however, are more scale or quality appropriate than others. Discussed below are several case studies that illustrate these forms of labor organization.
Work Feasts/Exchanges
Like the production of capital, the household unit is the basic unit for labor organization. What cannot be done within the household must employ external labor using capital and methods of labor organization to complete the necessary task. Dietler and Herbich (2001: 241) provide a smaller scale model for labor organization that they call collective work events. Collective work events are a range of labor organization strategies that fall upon a continuum. This continuum varies by the number of laborers, the amount and quality of food and drink, the expectation of reciprocity, and the status of participants (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242). On one end of the continuum is the work feast and on the other is the work exchange. These two polar extremes are described below.
16


On one end of the scale is the work feast. Work feast is the term used by Dietler and Herbich to describe a particular form of empowering feast (Dietler 2001: 76-77; Dietler and Herbich 2001: 241). While patron-role and diacritic feasts are used to establish and gain capital, they are not well suited to organize labor. Under the guise of a festive atmosphere, the work feast is used to bring together a large number of people to contribute labor in exchange for food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246). Rather than create a temporary asymmetrical balance in which the attendees are in debt to the host for consuming food, the debt is immediately paid off by labor contributions. However, it is expected that for the exchange of food and labor to occur, there should be a great deal of adequate food and drink from the host (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242-243).
Work feasts can occur in voluntary and obligatory forms. Voluntary feasts are just that, voluntary. People choose to contribute labor because of the prospect of food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 247). Obligatory work feasts, on the other hand, are a form of corvee, unpaid or forced, labor in which the host has added cultural or social capital that requires people to participate (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 244). Obligatory work feasts are still expected to provide adequate amounts of food and drink for the laborers (Bray 2003: 4).
Work feasts can last from one to several days in which the host is expected to provide for the laborers during the entire duration. Work feasts can involve anywhere from several people to hundreds of people. Contributors of labor can be gathered from outside of ones social network from all levels of society given an adequate amount and quality of food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). The labor provided at the work feast is largely unskilled and repetitive labor that requires no special knowledge outside of typical household activities (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 245). The quality of work can vary depending on the
17


number of people participating and drink being served. With large numbers of people, there is the inability to supervise the work and ensure that the work is being done (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246). Moreover, depending on the quantity of drink served at the feast, drunkenness may lower the quality of work (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 248). Work feast activities include tasks such as agricultural infrastructure improvement, harvesting crops, or the construction of a larger house (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 247). The result of the work feast is usually a net benefit in economic or symbolic capital for the host of the feast (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 241).
Marshs examination of Khonkho Wankane in Bolivia suggested that the people held feasts for the construction of their architecture (Marsh 2016). The site appears to lack an identifiable hierarchy or evidence of coerced labor (Marsh 2016: 321). Based on ceramic evidence at the site, Marsh suggests that the people came together over feasts during the off season to work on community projects such as the construction of architecture. These feasts would be brief and as a result, buildings were often constructed in a piecemeal fashion over several years (Marsh 2016: 321-322). Participation in these work feasts was a way for the community to renew social bonds and strengthen relationships with one another (Marsh 2016: 323).
Work exchanges are at the other end of the collective work event continuum. Work exchanges involve the exchange of labor between contributing parties. The extreme form of work exchanges are understood to involve little to no food or drink during the collective work event. Instead, participants rely on a repayment of their labor by the host with an equivalent amount of labor (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242-243). Like work feasts, work exchanges benefit participants by increasing their economic capital by undertaking projects
18


they could not do themselves. The advantage of the work exchange is that it does not require a substantial amount of accumulated capital to first attract labor contributions, though it does require a social network with some social capital. Projects include many agricultural tasks such as harvesting, transporting crops, and clearing fields (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 344). Work exchanges may also be individual or group-based. With group based work exchanges a group makes a circuit stopping to work on a project for each member participating in the group like an Amish barn raising (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243).
The major disadvantage of work exchanges is a logistics issue. Work exchanges are only as good as the amount of labor one is willing or able to pay back and the size of the social network one can tap into to participate in the balanced reciprocity of work (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). Under a work exchange, for example, if someone asked ten people to work for him or her for a week that person would then be required to pay back a total of seventy days of labor. One does not necessarily need to pay off their debt immediately, but they are expected to do so. As a result, work exchange tends to involve fifteen or less persons and relies primarily upon ones social network of family and friends or those of comparable social status (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). The quality of work in a work exchange tends to be higher than that of a work feast. Feasts tend to involve alcohol which impacts work quality while work exchanges normally do not (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246).
Labor Collective
While work feasts/exchanges can organize large amounts of labor, and may have even been used to bring people together for large construction projects (Anderson 2004; Sara-LaFosse 2007), work feasts/exchanges tend to rely on the capital of a single person, family, or group in order to organize labor or the ability to reciprocate labor. Instead, the
19


labor collective form of labor organization discussed by Carballo (2012) provides a model to explain labor organization that falls in between work feasts and labor tax strategies. Unlike work feasts/exchanges or labor tax strategies, collective labor is able to recruit labor without the use of food and drink or persons in a position of power and authority. Instead, labor collectives are a community driven form of labor organization with an aim towards projects that improve the community as a whole and benefits all the participants directly rather than the organizer alone.
Carballo bases his labor collective model on ethnographic and ethnohistoric case studies from Mexico. Using Carballos terminology, the tequitl (Nahuatl task, work, tribute,), or the labor collective, is a community driven method of gathering labor for projects that can benefit the community (Carballo 2012: 246). These projects are organized by the calpolli (Nahuatl big house), a corporate based political body centered on small towns, barrios, or neighborhoods (Carballo 2012: 247). Carballo argues there is strong reciprocity in the tequitl that differs from a labor tax or work feast/exchange. The sense of duty to participate in the tequitl is so strong that members are obligated to participate (Carballo 2012: 247). Failure to meet labor obligations for the tequitl may result in low-level retribution or even ostracization. Tequitls are self-monitoring with members watching each other to ensure participation in the tequitl (Carballo 2012: 245, 249-250).
The tequitl has the ability to bring together a large number of people for a single task. Carballo notes in one case that as many as 600 men were assembled together to work on a project clearing brush to define the village limit (Carballo 2012: 248). Because of the useful division of labor and households for the labor collective, labor could also be appropriated by the tecalli (Nahuatl lords house) in the form of taxation (Carballo 2012: 247). This labor
20


tax, called coatequitl (Nahuatl snake/twin work), does not see that same sort of reciprocity from higher political authorities as it does when organized by the calpolli (Carballo 2012: 248-249). However, the work conducted under coatequitl was seen as community and public work.
Carballos model of a labor collective is one in which social capital appears to be the primary moving force to organize labor. Social capital is both generated and shared by the community under calpolli projects, or capital is leveraged by the tecalli and their network for their own purposes and gains. I find parallels in Carballos model with the Hopewell earthworks discussed by Bernardini (2003), the Meddler Point site by Craig et al. (1998) discussed below, and Bourdieus discussion for the creation and production of group habitus. As mentioned, the Hopewell earthworks in Ohio are proposed to have been constructed not for ritual or practical use. Instead, the construction of the earthworks may have been part of a practice that allowed people in the region to share in a group experience and reproduce group habitus.
Craig et al. (1998) argue for a similar model of a labor collective in Arizona at the Meddler Point Site for the construction of a platform mound. Due to the size of the mound, the small time frame over which it was constructed, the small population of the site, and the lack of distinct elite households in the material culture, they proposed that the driving force for the construction of the sites platform mound may have been the community need for the structure during a time of environmental instability (Craig et al. 1998: 254-256). Depending on the number of seasons spent on the platform mound and the number of people able to contribute labor, the construction of the platform mound may have been a small regional
21


effort. Settlements from the surrounding area would have contributed persons to aid in construction (Craig et al. 1998: 254).
Labor Tax
Corvee labor is forced or unpaid labor. That is not to say that laborers are slaves, but that societal rules may dictate that members of the populace contribute labor. Corvee labor often manifests in the form of a labor tax in which elites use their accumulated capital and institutionalized positions of power and authority to demand a certain amount of labor from the populace. If there is reciprocity, the reciprocity often takes other forms rather than a return of labor. These forms include the elites providing communication to the gods, protection from enemies, and access to trade goods. Corvee labor is almost a necessity for large construction projects due to the number of people needed, the amount of time spent devoted to a project, and the quality of work required. The Inca (Ogbum 2004) and Chimu (Moseley 1975; Smailes 2011) states in the Andes offer an abundance of evidence for a labor tax system as do the chieftains of Hawaii (Kolb 1994, 1997) and the kings of Maya city-states (Abrams 1994; Lucero 2004). These examples offer a wide variety of evidence allowing us to understand how labor tax systems were used in the past.
The Andes provide some of the best evidence of a labor tax system. Colonial Europeans recorded that the Inca extracted a labor tax from their population going so far as creating made work for the sole purpose of keeping people busy (Ogburn 2004: 420, 436-437). There is a debate as to the reasons behind the creation of made-work and the prevalence of the practice in the Inca state. Ogburn notes that some people within the empire boasted to colonial Europeans that they did not have to do made-work under the Inca (Ogbum 2004: 435). Some of the justifications Ogburn cites include the perception by the
22


Inca elite that provincial people were lazy and must be kept busy, that made-work was punishment for rebellion, or made-work was a method to curb rebellion by keeping people too busy to organize resistance (Ogburn 2004: 436). It is more likely that the Inca created this made-work to reinforce control over the people of their empire and maintain asymmetrical balances of capital and power.
To evaluate the ethnohistoric accounts, Ogburn analyzed stone blocks found in southern Ecuador. Colonial accounts and local histories say that the blocks were meant for the construction of a building for the Inca emperor, but the blocks were abandoned when the project was canceled (Ogburn 2004: 425). Ogburn wanted to source these blocks to see whether the stone was local or not in order to evaluate accounts that laborers were made to transport these blocks from Cusco to southern Ecuador. Ogburn conducted a survey of several stone quarries that were used in pre-Columbian times in both Ecuador and Peru.
Using XRF (X-ray fluorescence), he analyzed the trace elements from samples from the quarries and samples from the abandoned stone blocks. Ogburn determined that the abandoned blocks found in southern Ecuador closely resembled samples from quarries near the Inca capital of Cuzco in Peru (Ogburn 2004: 425-432). These quarries were known to have produced stone for the construction of elite buildings in pre-Columbian times. Ogburn dismisses the idea that the blocks quarried from Cusco may been selected for their quality or sacredness. The Cojitambo quarry produced blocks of a similar quality and was much closer than Cusco. While Ogburn does not specify what these mechanisms are, he states that the Inka had other mechanisms to transfer sacredness from Cusco to the new residence. Ogburns evidence supports the idea that not only did the Inca make use of a labor tax, but that the
23


large distances involved for transporting the stone could be argued to support the existence of a made-work system.
The examination of the Chimu site of Chan Chan in Peru provides another example of the labor tax system (Moseley 1975). Chan Chan, unlike its stone built counterpart in Cusco, was constructed using adobe bricks. While this would be unremarkable elsewhere in the world, many of Chan Chans adobe bricks are imprinted with unique markings. Moseley examined some of the millions of bricks used to construct the buildings at Chan Chan. He determined that these bricks came from a variety of different quarries as evidenced by their color, salt content, and carbonate content (Moseley 1975: 192). A little over 100 brick symbols have been identified. While it may be tempting to say that these marks are the result of 100 different brick makers, due to the number of bricks used in the construction and the long construction period, it is unlikely these are marks specific to individuals. Instead, these markings likely point to groups of people from nearby communities that made the bricks for construction as part of a required labor or material contribution. This hypothesis is further reinforced by the bricks themselves with some of the bricks containing the same markings, but constructed using different soil types from different quarries. Moseley hypothesized that the group that corresponds to a particular marking produced bricks by exploiting multiple quarries. Moseley (1975: 192) examined the frequency of the brick markings and believed that the brick markings that occur more frequently are evidence of larger work groups producing that particular marked brick.
Moseley supports the hypothesis of multiple labor groups using the size of the bricks, the way bricks were used in construction at Chan Chan, and soil type used in brick production (Moseley 1975: 192-194). The bricks themselves were reported to vary in size,
24


though Moseley does not provide any specific measurements. Smailes (2011: 40) reports variation in brick size, as well, but only provides the dimensions for the bricks used in the construction of a storeroom. These bricks were approximately 19 x 48 x 10 centimeters. The walls at Chan Chan are segmented wherein sections of walls were constructed homogenously in brick placement and brick soil type. The typical pattern of brick placement was to create alternate courses of bricks placed runner (shortest side) to header (longest side), but Moseley (1975:-193) notes that deviation was frequent. The change in pattern is most evident when two sections of wall abut and the differences in brick size and placement are visually apparent. Moseley characterizes this as haphazard work conducted by groups of workers with variable skills.
Identifying different levels of quality of construction is an important step to understanding labor organization, especially in the context of corvee labor. Lucero (2007) offers another example of differing qualities of construction from the Maya region. Like the Inca and Chimu, the Maya may have also made use of a labor tax system for the construction of temples and palaces (Abrams 1989, 1994; Abrams and Bolland 1999). Variability in temple construction is well known in the Maya region, but some centers lack iconography or inscriptions that aid in identifying who sponsored the construction of the temples (Lucero 2007: 413). Lucero compared the construction qualities of Late Classic temples at the site of Yalbac to evaluate whether differences in the size, construction pattern, evidence of single purpose or multi-purpose use, and location of the temples can be used to determine who sponsored their construction. These temples were situated around the main plaza, Plaza 2, and a nearby secondary plaza, Plaza 3.
25


Lucero created four hypotheses concerning the temples at Yalbac based on who constructed the temples and whether they were single or multi-purpose (Lucero 2007: 413-414). If various groups constructed multi-purpose temples one would expect to see different amounts of labor, different sized temples, different construction patterns, and differences in ritual deposits. If royals were the only ones to construct temples, one would expect similar amounts of labor, similar temple sizes, and similar ritual deposits. If various groups constructed single purpose temples one would expect differences in labor, temple size, and construction pattern as well as differences in location, style, symbolism in decoration, orientation, and types of offerings. If royals constructed single purpose temples one would expect similar amounts of labor, size, and ritual deposits as well as differences in location, style, symbolism in decoration, orientation, and types of offerings.
After comparing the available information for six temples, Lucero proposed that the temples at Yalbac most closely matched her third hypothesis of single-purpose temples constructed by multiple groups (Lucero 2007: 419). The temples around Plaza 2 are much larger than the temples around Plaza 3, one indicator that multiple groups may have participated in construction. The temples themselves also seem to have specific purposes (Lucero 2007: 421). Material recovered from tests pits and looters trenches at the temples indicate that two temples were used for burials and tombs, one had a ritual deposit dedicated to God N, and three had possible stela fragments (Lucero 2007: 417).
Around Plaza 2, the temples were constructed using large boulders and heterogeneous construction fill for the interior while utilizing large, variably shaped facing stones for the exterior. This contrasts sharply with the temples around Plaza 3. Plaza 3s temples were constructed using much smaller boulders, well sorted construction fill, and facing stones with
26


a standardized shape. Lucero proposes that Plaza 2 temples were constructed by the ruling family of Yalbac with Plaza 3 temples constructed by founding or noble families. The differences in construction may have been the result of competition between elite groups vying for power during events like the dry season or the death of a king (Lucero 2007: 423). The variety of temples would have offered the people of Yalbac a choice of which temple to support (Lucero 2007: 422).
It should be noted that Plaza 2s temples differ from those in the royal acropolis. Lucero notes that the acropolis is orientated north-south while Plaza 2s temples are orientated at an azimuth of 9 east or 351. The royal acropolis is constructed with smaller, standardized facing stones instead of the large facing stones used in Plaza 2 (Lucero 2007: 419). Unfortunately, Lucero does not offer an explanation as to why Plaza 2 and the royal acropolis differ in construction if both were constructed by the ruling family. I speculate that the choice in using larger boulders and facing stones was a method of demonstrating access to these resources and the ability to spend more time and labor in gathering, moving, and using the construction material.
This speculation is supported by Sherwood and Kidders (2011) examination of mound construction in the Mississippi River basin. Mounds were not constructed using the closest available earthen material. Instead, many of the mounds examined by the authors were constructed with materials that came from very specific sources, sometimes from a great distance or depth below the surface. Sherwood and Kidder (2011: 71) offer several examples. Poverty Points initial mounds were constructed with almost all E-horizon material that could only be obtained a meter or more beneath the surface in certain locations within the region. The red sediment used in the construction for the mound at Shiloh is obtained
27


after digging down 2 meters below the surface, which could not be obtained from the borrow pits typically found near the mounds. The red sediments were used as a veneer to cover the mound. This had a practical effect in which the fine texture and smooth surface could repel rainwater and protect the mound. However, the red sediment would have also given the mound a distinct appearance on the landscape. The color of the mound may have served a symbolic purpose, as well as a practical purpose (Sherwood and Kidder 2011: 81-82). When assessing labor organization, the source, and distance to the construction material is an important consideration. The builders may be targeting construction material for a practical purpose as well as a symbolic purpose. The extra effort to target specific sources may be tied to efforts to gain more status and prestige to ensure that the construction lasts longer or that the construction achieves a particular appearance.
Labor Organization in the Archaeological Record
The labor organization models discussed above provide a number of variables that can be identified in the archaeological record. These variables, summarized in Table 2.1, are largely constrained by the duration of the project, the amount of labor mobilized, and the quality of labor. Not all labor organization models can scale to accommodate every type of project. Work exchanges, for example, are largely limited to activities that do not take more than a few weeks to complete. Work exchanges are not feasible for the construction of large architecture that may take several seasons to construct. The organizer of the project would be indebted to the participants for the rest of the organizers life. Just as not all models can scale appropriately upward, not all models can be appropriately applied to a smaller scale. While a labor tax is able to recruit sufficient labor to construct pyramids, a labor tax may not be an appropriate model for smaller projects that require fewer people or a shorter amount of time.
28


Table 2.1 Labor organization methods and archaeological identifiers
Organization Method Timespan of project Quantity of labor mobilized Quality of labor mobilized Organizer Expenditure by organizer
Work feast (voluntary) Days to weeks Tens to hundreds of people Unskilled Individual or group Continuous food and drink
Work exchange Days Tens of people Unskilled Individual or group Reciprocal Labor
Labor collective (,tequitl) Days to years Tens to thousands of people Unskilled Group Reciprocal Labor
Work feast (obligatory) Days to months Tens to hundreds of people Unskilled to skilled Individual or group Limited food and drink
Labor tax/Corvee Days to years Tens to thousands of people Unskilled to skilled Individual or group Social contract between elites and commoners
To summarize, Table 2.1 provides a condensed view of labor organization models. Construction events for work feasts are characterized by tens of people gathering for brief periods over several seasons. Over time, a building is constructed piecemeal as people add to the construction every year (Marsh 2016). Construction events for labor collectives are characterized by tens to even thousands of people gathering together to complete a project over a period of days to years. These projects typically aid the community in some way, such as strengthening social bonds or providing religious spaces (Bernardini 2003; Craig et al. 1998). Construction events for obligatory work feasts and labor taxes are characterized by hundreds to thousands of people working on projects over several years (Kolb 1994, 1997;
29


Moseley 1975). These projects can include specialized labor that requires fewer people, but greater technological knowledge or artistic skill (Abrams 1994).
Three models of labor organization have been proposed for the Teuchitlan culture, discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. Each model of labor organization relies heavily on one of the three forms of capital discussed by Bourdieu (1986). The variables from Table 2.1 will guide my analysis of Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones to test the proposed models of labor organization and to answer my research questions.
30


CHAPTER III
BACKGROUND
The area we define as West Mexico in Mesoamerican studies includes the modern-day states of Michoacan, Colima, Jalisco, Nayarit, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas. The Teuchitlan culture, named after a town in Jalisco, is one of many cultures found across these six states. The Teuchitlan culture is centered in the north-central area of the state of Jalisco. Around the Tequila volcano and its nearby valleys, circular ceremonial temples constructed by the Teuchitlan culture can be found along with ballcourts, residential structures, and shaft and chamber tombs for the dead. Previous work at the sites of Llano Grande and Navajas identified a wide variability in the construction of these temples. This is proposed to reflect different labor groups recruited by elites in their construction efforts (Beekman 2008). This model of political organization and the differences evident in their ceremonial structures led me to ask the following questions: How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fill vs. external appearance? Do scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization?
Geography of the Tequila Valleys
The Tequila volcano and nearby valleys are located just west of the modem city of Guadalajara. The Tequila valleys are situated within the Sierra Madre Occidental mountain range. This mountain range runs along the Pacific coast of Mexico from the U.S. border to the state of Michoacan where it joins with the Sierra Madre del Sur mountain range. The
31


Tequila Valleys are located where the Neo-Volcanic Axis crossed with the Sierra Madre Occidental. The Tequila valleys have an elevation between 1200 and 1400 meters above sea level. They are characterized by broad open plains, seasonal arroyos, and steep sided mountains. The region is rich in mineral wealth such as obsidian, silver, and opals. The climate is characterized as semi-arid with dry, warm winters and hot, wet summers. Rains occur from late May to September and average about 1,000 millimeters a year (Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco 2013). The dry season is roughly 200 days from the end of September to the end of May.
The Tequila valleys are roughly divided into three regions. To the north and northeast, the land today is characterized by extensive agave cultivation for the production of tequila. The modern town of Tequila is located in this area as well as the towns of Amatitan and El Arenal. This northern area is bordered by a canyon and the Rio Santiago forming a natural barrier against the mountains and valleys to the north. The northern area tends to be drier than the west or south and is rockier. The northern region is excellent for the production of blue agave. To the west is the Magdalena lake basin that once contained a broad, but shallow lake until it was drained in the early 20th century. The modern towns of Magdalena, Etzatlan, and San Juanito de Escobedo are located in the lake basin. The Magdalena Lake would have provided lacustrine resources to nearby inhabitants. Up until the 1950s when the lake was completely drained people were still fishing and collecting reeds (Nance et al.
2011:10). To the south, the valley is bordered by the Sierra de Ameca. In the northwest portion of the southern valley is the Laguna Colorada, a lake formed from draining Lake Magdalena. In the central area of the valley is the Presa La Vega formed by a dam near the modern town of La Vega. Presa La Vega stretches from the southern edge of the town of
32


Teuchitlan in the north to the modern towns of Castro Urdiales and La Vega. A spring located to the northeast of the town of Teuchitlan drains into Presa La Vega.
History of the region
The Teuchitlan culture dates to the Late Formative to Early Classic periods (300 B.C. 400/500 A.D.) (Beekman and Weigand 2008). The Teuchitlan culture is one of several cultures during this period in West Mexico that share in the practice of burying some of their dead in shaft and chamber tombs. West Mexico is sometimes viewed as a monolithic cultural region for their use of shaft and chamber tombs during this period. Continued work over the last 60 years has demonstrated that a patchwork of individual, but related, cultures was spread across the region. While many of these cultures may have used shaft and chamber tombs for interring the dead, this burial practice was neither exclusively used among these cultures or is no longer the defining feature of these cultures. Recognition of local burial practices, ceramic vessel styles, ceramic figure styles, and surface and sub-surface architecture has illustrated a divided landscape made up of multiple cultures. While this thesis focuses on a ceremonial surface construction by the Teuchitlan culture, much of what we know about this region comes from work on burials and their associated offerings.
The earliest documented surface constructions in the region possibly date to the Middle Formative (see Table 1.1). Weigand identified three large, earthen, round or oval mounds in the Tequila valleys region that possibly date to the Middle Formative (Weigand 1989). These mounds have been dated based on ceramic sherds found in and near the mounds. These mounds functioned as a location for burials. A 6 meter diameter and 1 meter high mound near the town of San Pedro was partially destroyed by a highway work crew.
33


Before its complete destruction, Weigand believed he identified four individuals from simple pit burials within the mound based on the number of unearthed skulls and long bones (Weigand 1989:41). Unfortunately, the entire mound was destroyed as the highway was completed.
During the Late Formative to Early Classic period (300 B.C. 400/500 A.D.) in the Tequila valleys, the region experienced a surge in construction of surface architecture (see Table 1.1). Circular temple groups called guachimontones (colloquially called Circles), named after a site in the town of Teuchitlan, Jalisco, were constructed throughout the Tequila Valleys. Guachimontones are heavily concentrated in the southern valley between the modern towns of San Juanito de Escobedo and Tala, but are also found in the Magdalena Lake Basin (Beekman and Heredia Espinoza, in prep.), the northern Tequila valley (Heredia Espinoza 2008, 2017), and southeast of Tala (Beekman 2007). Guachimontones in have been reported outside of the Tequila valleys as far as the Bolanos canyon to the north (Cabrero 1989, 1991), Colima to the south (Olay Barrientos and Morton 2015), and Guanajuato to the east (Cardenas Garcia 1999). Guachimontones locations can vary from the valley floor to mountain ridges. The site of Santa Rosalia in the Magdalena Lake Basin, for example, is located on a mountain ridge overlooking part of the Basin (Lopez Mestas 2011).
Guachimontones typically consist of a flattened patio space in the center of which a circular, stepped altar is constructed. Along the circumference of the patio is a ring shaped platform called a banquette. Constructed on top of the banquette is an even number of quadrangular platforms that number as few as four to as many as sixteen. Guachimontones can be found as singular structures or connected together with a shared platform. Other
34


surface architecture in the region includes ballcourts and household platforms. Ballcourts can be freestanding or can be built off a guachimonton.
Figure 3.1 Ceramic model of a village scene
Ceramic model attributed to the Ixtlan del Rio region of Nayarit. The model depicts a simplified guachimonton. Some figures are playing musical instruments, dancing, and women attending children. Image courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago
Interpretations of the form and meaning of the guachimontones vary. Based on ceramic models that depict simplified versions of guachimontones (See Figures 3.1, 3.2), Kelley proposed that the pole in these models may depict a volador ceremony or that the pole
35


may have represented the tree of heaven common to Mesoamerican ideology (Kelley 1974:25-32). Witmore suggested that guachimontones might be linked to the sun. He compares the structures to ideological concepts of the Huichol deities Grandfather Fire and Father Sun (Witmore 1998: 142). Beekman proposed two other meanings to the form of guachimontones (Beekman 2003a, 2003b). The first is that the circular temples may be representations of maize. Eight-row maize is common to the region and when cut in half, resembles an eight platform guachimontdn (Beekman 2003a). The second proposal by Beekman was expanding upon and exploring the idea of guachimontones as places for volador ceremonies. Excavations of a guachimontdn at the site of Llano Grande revealed an eight platform guachimontdn with no altar or sufficiently deep posthole in the center (Beekman 2003b: 302). Beekman proposed that a different pole ceremony may have taken place at the guachimontones by discussing other pole ceremonies, such as pole-climbing ceremonies and green maize ceremonies, recorded in Central Mexico (Beekman 2003b: 303-314).
The ceramic models depicting houses and guachimontones from the Ixtlan del Rio region of Nayarit provides a glimpse into the everyday and ceremonial life of people in West Mexico (Butterwick 1998; Gallagher 1983; von Winning and Hammer 1972). Often these models depict three or four houses on raised platforms with a stepped circular altar in the center. The figures that populate the model are often in the midst of a variety of activities such as playing music, carrying other people, tending children, preparing food, or wrapped in blankets that may be related to marriage ceremonies (Gallagher 1983: 108-109). A simpler model depicting a single house and a stepped altar show two groups of armed people engaged in conflict. One group is positioned on the steps of the altar while the other is below
36


(von Winning and Hammer 1972). These models depict guachimontones as more than just ceremonial centers. Guachimontones appear to be community centers in which people come together for a wide range of activities including conflict.
Weigands survey work on sites in the Tequila valleys has documented the forms and variability of the guachimontones (Weigand 1996: 91). Weigand proposed that there were strict rules in how a guachimonton was laid out for construction (Weigand 1996: 96). The first rule is that the width of the initial architectural features of a guachimonton must follow a ratio. Weigand argued that the builders followed a ratio of 1:1:2.5 for the width of the banquette, the enclosed patio space, and the diameter of the altar for the larger guachimontones (Weigand 1996: 97). For example, a guachimonton that was 65 meters in diameter should have a banquette with a width of 10 meters, an enclosed patio space with a width of 10 meters, and an altar that is 25 meters in diameter. This ratio creates symmetry between the three circular features of a guachimonton and prevents an ovoid or even lumpy shape to the guachimonton. The second rule guided the planning of the platforms for a guachimonton. Weigand proposed two methods for the placement of the platforms. The first is done by simply dividing the banquette into equal sections based on the number of platforms needed. The other method is to draw two squares on a pair of perpendicular axes. Where each square intersects is where a platform would be constructed (Weigand 1996: 97). The first method appears to leave open room for error, but the second method could only be used for an eight platform guachimonton. Both methods ultimately create symmetry within the guachimonton. To lay out a guachimonton, Weigand proposed the temples could be planned using a rope and two people. One person would stand in the center holding one end of the rope and the other person holding the other end of the rope would mark the limit of the
37


guachimontdn, interior facing of the banquette, perimeter of the altar, and the platforms to be constructed on top of the banquette (Weigand 1996: 97).
Hollon (2015)s analysis of the proportions of Los Guachimontones temples has questioned Weigands rules of symmetry. According to Hollon, Circle 1 should exhibit the rules of proportionality given its early construction and large size. However, Circle ls platforms are several meters too small to adhere to Weigands ratio of 1:1:2.5. Circle ls platforms should be around 19 meters wide and are instead 13.59 to 15.83 meters wide (Hollon 2015: 173-174). A similar breaking of the rules occurs at Circle 4, as well. The platforms at Circle 4 should be 8.5 meters wide in order to adhere to the ratio. Circle 4s platforms all exceed 8.5 meters in width and measure between 9.21 meters and 12.37 meters (Hollon 2015: 187). Likewise, Circle 2 shows a wide amount of variation in its platform size and adherence to the 1:1:2.5 ratio. Hollons analysis found that Circle 2s platforms would generate a diameter of 10 meters of Circle 2s 99 meter diameter if the temple were constructed according to the rules of proportionality (Hollon 2015: 177-178). The variation in platform size for Circle 2 is a part of my own analysis and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
Symmetry within the guachimontones appears to extend only as far as the layout and placement of the architectural features. Excavations at Llano Grande (Beekman 2003c), Navajas (Beekman 2007), and Los Guachimontones (Weigand et al. 1999; Weigand and Garcia de Weigand 2000a, 2000b 2002; Weigand and Esparza Lopez 2008) have shown that there is a wide range of variability in the construction of a guachimontdn. Beekmans excavations of the platforms of Llano Grandes guachimontdn uncovered a range of sizes and construction methods. For example, the western platform 14-2 was constructed on a natural
38


slope. The builders utilized this slope to construct a low platform using a single row of stones (Beekman 2008: 421-422). The platform opposite of 14-2, 14-6, was constructed using stacked stones and an earth mix (Beekman 2008: 423). At Navajas, Beekman found similar irregularities in the construction of Circles 1 and 5. At Circle 5, the smaller of the two guachimontones, one platform was constructed with a single row of stones, two platforms used boulders in their fill, and three platforms were constructed using fairly uniformed stones (Beekman 2008: 424). The altar of Circle 5 was also irregularly constructed. The southern half of the altar was constructed with very tight fitting stones with little earth or clay fill. The northern half of the altar was constructed very differently, using mostly clay with some stones mixed within (Beekman 2008: 425). Circle 1, the larger guachimontdn, has four taller and four shorter platforms in an alternating arrangement on its banquette. Beekman hypothesized that the four taller platforms were expanded as the four shorter platforms were added to the temple. Two of these platforms were excavated to determine whether the taller platforms were indeed expanded later. Instead, Beekman discovered that the taller platforms were constructed to their respective height and showed no indication of expansion. Further, both platforms were constructed in a similar manner using a layer of clay followed by layers of sand. The alternating pattern of tall platform to short platform was thus planned (Beekman 2008: 426).
Weigands excavations at Los Guachimontones have produced a similar assessment of the construction of the platforms. Unpublished excavation drawings of Platform 1 at Circle 1 show that the platform was constructed with a layer of clay mixed with aggregate, then a large uneven mass of clay, followed by another layer of clay mixed with aggregate. Another unpublished excavation drawing of Platform 7 shows that it was constructed using clay
39


mixed with large aggregate. Platform 11 was constructed using small to medium aggregate packed in earth. Circle 2 has a similar range of construction differences. Platform 1 was constructed using mostly clay with some very small retaining walls located near the surface (Weigand et al. 1999: 23). Platform 5 was constructed with a small clay mound surrounded by clay mixed with aggregate (Weigand and Garcia de Weigand 2002: 26-27). Platform 8 was constructed using a large amount of aggregate mixed with clay followed by a layer of clay (Weigand and Garcia de Weigand 2002: 38-39). While guachimontones may have been laid out to provide symmetry, there do not appear to be rules in how the architectural features should be constructed within a given guachimonton, whether the temple be small or large.
Models of Political Organization and their Relation to Labor
Three political models have been hypothesized for the Teuchitlan culture in the Tequila valleys. Weigand and Beekman proposed that the Teuchitlan culture was a segmentary state (Beekman 1996a: 992-993, 1996b: 144; Weigand and Beekman 1998: 42-48). A segmentary state is defined by its concentrated core and broad hinterland. The concentrated core of a segmentary state is characterized by ceremonialism, not by political force (Weigand and Beekman 1998: 48). Weigand and Beekman argued that the segmentary state centered in the Tequila valleys formed a core region based the density and size of architecture found within the Tequila valleys and the relative lack of similar densities and size of architecture outside the valleys. Those sites with guachimontones located outside of the core region were considered peripheral regions that were exploiting rare resources (Weigand and Beekman 1998: 44). Within the Tequila valleys, Weigand argued there was a settlement hierarchy between major sites like Los Guachimontones, Ahualulco, and Santa Quiteria and smaller sites like Llano Grande, El Saucillo, and Arroyo de las Chivas (see
40


Figure 3.2). Some of these smaller sites were positioned in key areas that could manage and defend passage into the Tequila valleys area, such as the site of Llano Grande. This hierarchy was based on volumetric estimates based on surface measurements of the monumental architecture at the sites (Weigand 1990: 39). Weigand attempted to support his hierarchical system citing obsidian craft specialization in the region. Weigand notes that a large obsidian workshop is located at the site of Los Guachimontones. Millions of flakes can be found at this workshop including prismatic blades, cores, and macro-cores. However, Heredia Espinoza has raised questions concerning the date of this workshop, its role in tool and jewelry production within the Teuchitlan culture, and the movement of workshop goods via trade within and outside of the Tequila Valleys (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017; Cardona Machado et al. 2017).
41


to
Figure 3.2 Map of Tequila valleys
Map showing the location of Los Guachimontones, circled in red, in relation to several other sites within the Tequila valleys (Weigand and Beekman 1998: 17).


Weigands proposed political hierarchy was tested by Ohnersorgen and Varien (1996). Using Weigands maps and unpublished data, volume estimates based on visible mounds were created by Ohnersorgen and Varien. However, the authors do note that recent work at the time by the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH) demonstrated that surface mounds did not adequately represent the structure and their volumes. The volume estimates used by the authors thus represent conservative estimates (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 108). Ohnersorgen and Varien then created a four tier system for sites based on the number of guachimontones, number of ballcourts, and their respective measurements and volumes (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 107). A gravity model was then applied to the sites in the Tequila valleys region and four models were generated based on the use of different constants. The first model emphasized site size and Los Guachimontones featured prominently due to its central location and numerous temples. Smaller clusters formed around Ahualulco, Santa Quiteria, and Navajas. The second model began emphasizing distance over site size and clusters around the previously mentioned centers became more important, though connections remained between Los Guachimontones and other major centers. Huitzilapa to the northwest formed its own cluster, due to its distance from other major sites. The third model shows six distinct clusters with very little interaction other than that between Los Guachimontones and Ahualulco. Finally, the last model solidifies these six distinct clusters (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 113). The first two models would seem to suggest that Los Guachimontones placed a central role in administrative functions while the third and fourth models lend support Weigands proposed model for a segmentary state consisting of clusters of sites within the Tequila valleys (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 118). While Ohnersorgen and Variens work illustrated
43


different possible models, their analysis did not propose which constant was more likely to be accurate.
In Weigand and Beckmans segmentary state model, power and authority held by elites stemmed from cultural capital accumulated from their ritual, religious, and ceremonial acts. Any tribute and trade were enacted through a lens of religion and ritual (Weigand 1997: 40-42). To construct the guachimontones, Weigand suggests the use of corvee labor (Weigand 2007: 105). Labor may have been recruited as work gangs from different groups at the site. Weigand attributes the variation present in the construction of a guachimonton to these possible work gangs (Weigand 2007: 105). This would seem to suggest a labor tax was employed, possibly similar in concept to the labor tax employed at Chan Chan (Moseley 1975).
Lopez Mestas (2011) proposes a political model in which the Tequila valleys consisted of a group of alliances ruled by lineage or clan-based chiefs. Unlike Weigands model, which proposes elites fulfilled religious roles to gain and maintain status and power through cultural capital, Lopez Mestas proposes that elites also relied upon their ability to acquire economic capital in the form of exotic and prestigious goods and temporarily band together in defense of the valleys (Lopez Mestas 2011: 475-476, 479). These chiefs are thought to be lineage or clan based as evidenced by the close relationship of remains recovered in the Huitzilapa shaft tomb (Lopez Mestas 2011: 480). The tombs themselves, as well as the surface architecture, were associated with ideological beliefs concerning the heavens, underworld, and cosmos. This association helps to reaffirm the position of elites as negotiators with the supernatural (Lopez Mestas 2011: 477). Elite power was not absolute and elites could not do whatever they wanted. Lopez Mestas argues that elite power was
44


based on consensus, not coercion, and chiefs were obligated to perform their necessary duties such as defense (Lopez Mestas 2011: 482).
Lopez Mestas suggests in her political model that elites held ceremonies with their people, as interpreted by several ceramic models from the greater West Mexico region (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). These models not only depict ceremonies, but may have also involved feasting. During these events, elites would try to convince people to donate to them in the form of artisan goods or domestic surplus. By controlling economic capital in the form of goods and surpluses, Lopez Mestas argues that elites could increase their own wealth and status. With their new wealth, they could hold larger feasts and gain control over more economic capital (Lopez Mestas 2011: 251). While Lopez Mestas does not make the suggestion, her model could be used to recruit labor for the construction of guachimontones. Lopez Mestas model parallels Dietler and Herbichs (2001) voluntary work feast model in which hosts try to convince people to contribute labor rather than force people to contribute labor with a token feast in an obligatory feast.
Beekman later shifted support away from the segmentary state model to a new model after excavations at the sites of Navajas and Llano Grande uncovered considerable architectural variation. Beekman (2008) proposes a model in which the Teuchitlan culture centers were ruled by corporate groups composed of lineages, families, or clans that cooperated in a broader form of collective governance (Beekman 2008: 415, 430).
Beekmans analysis of guachimonton structures at Llano Grande and Navajas supports a model of competing and cooperating lineages. As previously discussed, the three guachimontones examined by Beekman contained a number of irregularities within their respective platforms. Beekman argues that the differences in construction between platforms
45


at Llano Grande and Navajas indicate that separate labor groups were employed for platform construction. Differences between platforms may indicate competition and status signaling between these lineages (Beekman 2008: 423). However, these differences may also be attributed to different levels of skill, construction practices, or resources by participating lineages. No one platform appears to dominate over the others in terms of size. This may suggest that individual lineages may have been unable to dominate the other lineages and solidify its place as a royal lineage (Beekman 2008: 429).
The cemetery at Tabachines and the tomb at Huitzilapa are cited in support of lineages within the Teuchitlan culture. Several tombs at Tabachines include multiple internments, though it is unclear if these interments are sequential or simultaneous (Beekman and Galvan 2006: 264). Five of the six individuals recovered from Huitzilapa were found to share a genetic defect in the spine suggesting these five people were closely related. Combined with the great wealth of goods in the tomb, this supports the hypothesis that lineages played an important role within the Teuchitlan culture (Beekman 2008: 218).
In order to construct these temples, elites would have had to command a substantial amount of labor. Elites, however, did not have buildings that could be clearly interpreted as palaces or other elite structures (Beekman 2008: 417). It would appear that elites might not have had enough power in order to recruit a sufficient amount of labor to construct large personal projects such as a palace. In order to construct aguachimonton, elites would have had to cooperate and pool their resources. Elites could have relied upon cultural capital based on their control over religious beliefs and practices in order to recruit the necessary labor. Elites could have also recruited labor from within their family, lineage, or clan or by their social network by leveraging accumulated social capital. The amount of labor required to
46


construct a guachimontdn, which otherwise is not present in other constructions, may have been justified in order to create a space in which to perform any necessary rituals and religious activities (Beekman 2008: 230).
Los Guachimontones
The site of Los Guachimontones is located in the foothills of Tequila volcano above the town of Teuchitlan. The site is located about one kilometer north of the town. At the towns northern edge is a spring that drains into Presa La Vega. The ceremonial center of Los Guachimontones is located on a sloping hill with an elevation of 1360 to 1375 meters above sea level. The site is littered with cobbles and small boulders. Located on the summit of the hill to the northeast of Los Guachimontones is another sector of the same site known as Loma Alta with an elevation of 1490 meters above sea level (see Figure 3.4).
47


Figure 3.3 Aerial photo of Los Guachimontones
Photo courtesy of Sebastian Albachten.
/r


Figure 3.4 Map of Los Guachimontones
Elevation map depicting the sites of Los Guachimontones and Loma Alta. Image courtesy of
PAT.
49


The site of Los Guachimontones consists of 14 guachimontones, 4 ballcourts, and numerous residential structures and terraces scattered along the hillside to the north of the ceremonial center. In Figure 3.3, Circles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and Ballcourts 1 and 2 are visible. The other four guachimontones in this area of the site are obscured by foliage. Recent survey work by Verenice Heredia Espinoza has estimated the size of Los Guachimontones to be 369 hectares during the Late Formative to Classic periods during which the guachimontones and ballcourts were constructed (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017: 29) (see Table 1.1. for periods). Based on this area, the population is estimated to be 3,690 to 9,225 people with a mean population of 6,458 (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017; Heredia Espinoza personal communication 2017).
Table 3.1 Chronological phases in the Tequila Valleys
Phase Period Dates
Tequila IV Classic 200-450/500 A.D.
Tequila III Late/Terminal Formative 100 B.C.-200 A.D.
Tequila II Late Formative 300- 100 B.C.
Tequila I Middle Formative 1000-300 B.C.
The Proyecto Arqueologico Teuchitlan (PAT) under direction of Phil Weigand began excavation at Los Guachimontones in 1999. By 2008, PAT had excavated Circles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10, both ballcourts, a residential area, part of Loma Alta, and a Postclassic area at the site (Weigand et al. 1999; Weigand and Garcia de Weigand 2000a, 2000b 2002; Weigand and Esparza Lopez 2008). Radiocarbon dates placed the occupation of the site during the Late Formative to Classic periods (300 B.C. to 400 A.D); however, there are issues with the context of the recovered datable material (Beekman 2015: 6). The ceramic sequence for the
50


site also faced issues in placing the occupation of the site within known ceramic chronologies. The ceramic sequence for Los Guachimontones was contradicted by two publications co-authored by Phil Weigand (Beekman 2015: 3). One publication said there were no changes in the ceramics recovered from the site during occupation from the Late Formative to Classic periods (Blanco et al. 2010), while the other publication described and discussed ceramic changes within this same period (Beekman and Weigand 2008, 2010). A later analysis of materials recovered at the site by Beekman (2015) helps to resolve some of the site chronology issues.
Occupation at Los Guachimontones begins during the Tequila I phase. At this time activity at the site appears to be restricted to the household level with no associated monumental construction. During the following Tequila II phase, Circle 1 and Ballcourt 1 are constructed along with several other smaller guachimontones. During the Tequila III phase, Circles 2 and 3 are constructed. During the Tequila IV phase, there is a decline in monumental construction. At the end of the Tequila IV phase and beginning of the El Grillo phase, there is a drastic decline in occupation of the site.
Of the guachimontones excavated by PAT, Circle 2 was the most complete excavated temple at the site. Almost every platform at Circle 2 was sampled, a tunnel explored part of the interior of the altar, and a number of units were placed into the patio and banquette.
While these excavations provided a detailed understanding of some of the temples construction, important key areas of the guachimonton were never explored. Circle 1, while larger and constructed earlier than Circle 2, had suffered damage from farming and erosion. Only half of its platforms were restored by PAT. Much of the excavation data on these platforms are unpublished or missing. For this thesis, I have chosen to examine Circle 2, as it
51


is the second largest guachimontdn at the site and one of the largest guachimontones in the Tequila valleys region. The available data of Circle 2s construction will in aid in understanding how labor was organized at Los Guachimontones for the construction of some of the largest known guachimontones.
Weigands labor organization model relies heavily upon cultural and symbolic capital gained from conducting ritual, religious, and ceremonial acts to give elites the authority to recruit a large number of people over a long period. However, Weigands labor organization model lacks a strong argument with multiple lines of supportive evidence. Weigands model is especially difficult to test considering the prevalent use of corvee labor as the de facto model of labor organization for a wide range of proposed political models in architectural energetics studies. Beekmans labor organization model relies heavily upon cultural and social capital. Cultural capital stems from elites using their positions as negotiators with the supernatural to recruit labor. Social capital stems from elites recruiting labor from close kin or extended social network in order to construct a guachimontdn. However, Beekmans model is limited by his analysis of two comparatively smaller Teuchitlan culture sites and his model may not be applicable to a larger guachimontdn, located at a larger site in a more central area of the Tequila Valleys, and with a larger population that can contribute labor. Lopez Mestas model relies heavily upon economic capital in which elites hold ceremonies or feasts to recruit people to contribute to elites in the form of exotic goods and possibly labor. However, Lopez Mestas model is limited by the constraints of a voluntary feasting model as discussed in Chapter 2. The feasting model is limited in the number of people that can be recruited and the duration in which work can occur.
52


My thesis tests the proposed political and labor organization models by estimating the amount of labor required to construct a guachimonton and whether the amount of labor can be recruited under each labor organization model. Based on the variables discussed in Chapter 2 and outlined in Table 2.1, each model can be tested based on the site population size, amount of labor required to construct Circle 2, duration of construction, and quality of construction. The results of these tests are used to suggest a model for labor organization for the construction of Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones.
53


CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? Do scheduling and labor constraints place outside parameters upon the size of labor groups that limit the possible forms of labor organization? To answer these research questions we must first answer questions regarding the construction of the ceremonial buildings at Los Guachimontones.
Public architecture has often been the subject of labor analyses because they required more complex labor strategies than a household. Public architecture tends to be larger, more complex, and more labor intensive. At Los Guachimontones, the ceremonial temples are the largest buildings at the site and their size is greater than household platforms. To understand labor organization at Los Guachimontones questions regarding the timespan of the project, quantity of labor, and quality of labor must be answered (see Table 2.1). This has led me to ask the following questions: how much labor was necessary to construct one of the large temple complexes in the Tequila Valleys? How do different construction materials affect labor estimates? How do labor estimates compare between the construction of internal fill and external appearance? Can we discern subdivisions in the construction that point to the size or skill of individual labor groups? Can we discern skilled vs. unskilled labor in the quality of construction? Can we discern construction patterns within individual architectural features? Can we discern a pattern in architectural feature volume? To address these questions I have calculated the labor costs associated with the construction of one of the ceremonial centers at Los Guachimontones using architectural energetics (Erasmus 1965; Abrams 1994; Milner et al. 2010). The architectural energetics process requires estimating
54


the volume of a building and each type of construction material used. Different types of construction material require different rates of work to estimate the amount of labor needed to procure, transport, and construct the material. Rates of work from replicative experiments from published sources are applied to these volumes to estimate the amount of labor used in construction. Subdivisions within a building can indicate separate construction events and changes in construction material can alter labor estimates. These factors dictate the timespan of the project and labor group size needed.
I measured architectural features in plan and section drawings from excavations, reports submitted to the Jalisco state government and INAH, and AutoCAD files recovered from Proyecto Arqueologico Teuchitlan (PAT) computers during Phil Weigands directorship. Based on these three sources I determined that the most complete documented architectural group at Los Guachimontones was Circle 2. Almost all of Circle 2s platforms were sampled with excavation units. A trench explored part of the interior of the altar. In addition, numerous excavation units were placed into the patio and banquette of Circle 2. These excavations provided strategic data that helped me to answer my research questions and to test previously proposed models of labor organization.
Data Source
The data on Circle 2 come from excavations conducted by PAT under the direction of Phil Weigand between the years of 1999 and 2003. While PAT continued excavating until 2010, their investigations shifted focus from Circle 2 to other parts of the site such as the Ballcourt 2, other guachimontones within the ceremonial center, residential structures near Circle 1, and guachimontones further up on the hill at the area known as Loma Alta (see Figure 4.1).
55


N
Figure 4.1 Los Guachimontones
Map of the ceremonial center of Los Guachimontones. Image courtesy of PAT.
Excavations into Circle 2 were originally conducted by PAT with two goals in mind: understanding the construction and composition of Circle 2 and preparing the ceremonial complex for tourism by clearing later soil deposition and restoring walls. Units and trenches were purposely placed in key positions around the gucichimonton and dug until bedrock was reached. These key areas include the center of the platforms, the altar, the interface between
56


the platform and banquette and the patio, how Circle 2 relates to Ballcourt 1, and into the banquette near each platform, as well as other locations. Some of the work in clearing the complex was focused on finding staircases to locate the access points to the platforms, though no excavations were dug into the staircases themselves. The work on Circle 2 was preoccupied with the period of its construction and use. The soil layers that date to later periods were often stripped from the architectural features and were not documented as thoroughly. These units and trenches are labeled as calas, pozos, and trincheras (trenches). Pozos are one meter2 or two meter2 excavation units, calas are one meter by two meters or larger rectangular excavation units, and trincheras are long rectangular excavation units, usually greater than three meters in length. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably within the reports or on the excavation drawing necessitating frequent crosschecks between data sources.
There are a number of architectural terms to define. Each individual temple or ceremonial structure is called a guachimonton and multiple structures are called guachimontones. A guachimonton is sometimes colloquially referred to as a circle due to its shape. For example, Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones. A guachimonton is primarily composed of four architectural components (see Figure 4.2). The base component is the patio. While a patio normally refers to an open space within or next to a structure, the patio for a guachimonton is actually a cylindrical platform. This cylindrical platform serves as a base for the rest of the architectural components that make up the guachimonton.
In the center of the patio is the altar. In the case of Circle 2, the altar is a stepped, truncated cone. However, not all altars take this form and not all guachimontones have an altar. For example, Circle 4s altar is a square platform and the guachimonton at the site of
57


Llano Grande lacks a constructed altar, but has a central hole carved into the bedrock. Along the outside of the patio is the banquette. The banquette is a cylindrical ring platform. The banquette acts as a base for the final architectural component, the platforms. The platforms themselves are divided into primary platforms and secondary platforms. The primary platforms are the largest platforms built onto the banquette. In Circle 2s case, there are ten primary platforms. Secondary platforms are smaller platform additions typically constructed on the flanks of the primary platform. The banquette, with its set width, limits the expansion potential of the primary platforms and prevents additions into or outside of the patio without disrupting the symmetry of the structure.
Figure 4.2 Circle 2 architectural features
AutoCAD model demonstrating the architectural features of Circle 2. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca
58


Each architectural component is composed of several features. The fill of an architectural component is the construction material used to create the bulk and body of a component. Fill includes materials such as aggregate, earth, clay, toba, and liga. Aggregate consists of various size stones used in the fill, usually mixed with another material such as earth or clay. Small aggregate is defined as stones from pea to fist size, used as inert material in a mortared mass while large aggregate is defined as stones, boulders, or rubble larger than fist sized (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 13; 9). Medium aggregate falls somewhere in between the two sizes of aggregate defined by Loten and Pendergast. Fill composed of earth is topsoil gathered from the area and is neither sandy nor as moist as clay. Clay is fine grained earth mixed with water believed to have come from a nearby spring or Presa de la Vega. Toba is a material found in the region and used in construction. Toba is defined by Weigand as specks, pebbles, or small cobbles consisting of semi-consolidated or consolidated jal [volcanic material] in which the cement agent is yellow and/or grey/yellow ochre (Weigand et al. 1999: 19).
The cobble facing for an architectural component is the outer construction of the architectural component. This includes the four walls for a platform, the rise and run for the steps for the altar, and the walls of the banquette. Surfaces in architectural features are layers within the construction formed from different kinds of fill. A layer of clay followed by a layer of cobbles would produce a surface where the clay meets the cobble. Surfaces also include the outermost feature of an architectural component such as the cobble facing or the top of a platform. Floors are prepared surfaces on or within an architectural component. They usually contain evidence for activity. For example, floors are found on the top of the primary
59


platforms. Aplanado is the clay material applied to the cobble facing and other exterior surfaces of the architectural features that creates a smooth appearance for the architectural component. Liga is a material sometimes noted by Weigand. Liga is a cement-like clay that is grey in color (Weigand 2000: 37). The sources of these raw materials and the costs for collecting, transporting, and construction will be addressed later in this chapter.
Data Recovery
Excavation records from PAT in the years 1999 to 2010 are largely available in a digital format, either through reports in a PDF format submitted to the state of Jalisco and INAH or in files recovered from PAT laboratory computers. Some original hardcopy drawings exist of excavation units, but many are missing after the passing of Phil Weigand and the dispersal of project archaeologists in 2011. In the summer of 2014,1 traveled to the Los Guachimontones laboratory to sort through, record, and categorize part of the digital data left behind on PAT computers with a focus on the excavation data. With direction from Dr. Beekman and Dr. Heredia Espinoza, current director of PAT, I developed a filing and naming system for the available data to facilitate access for future researchers and myself.
PAT excavation drawings were first recorded on grid paper. Based on the 1999, 2000, and 2001-2002 reports, the drawings seem to have been made by Weigand himself. Starting with the 2003-2006 report, drawings were included by other project archaeologists and few were made by Weigand. Scales for the drawings, when they are included, range from 1 centimeter equaling 10 centimeters on the drawing to 1 centimeter equaling 1 meter. The scale varies depending on the size of the excavation unit and the size of the architectural feature. For example, the plan drawing for Platform 3 of Circle 2 is at a scale of 1 centimeter to 1 meter, the trench into the altar of Circle 2 has a scale of 1 centimeter to 50 centimeters,
60


and the excavation unit into the banquette near Platform 5 of Circle 2 has a scale of 1 centimeter to 10 centimeters.
As stated previously, many of the paper drawings are missing though some are retained by PAT. The paper excavation drawings are preserved digitally on PAT computers. Based on the Date, Date Created, and Date Modified fields in Windows Explorer, PAT personnel began creating digital copies using a scanner in 2002. The majority of the digital copies are in the .JPEG image format with some copies in other image formats like .PNG, GIF, and TIFF.
Beginning with the 2003-2006 report, the scans of excavation drawings were imported into the computer program AutoCAD. AutoCAD is a computer aided design and drafting program. Using AutoCAD, PAT created a digital tracing of the scanned excavation drawing using different colored lines. The digital tracings were then included in the 2003-2006 report instead of the scanned drawings. The digital tracings were saved in AutoCADs DMG format. The DMG format can only be opened using the AutoCAD program, but AutoCAD includes an export feature to convert the .DMG file into a viewable PDF.
The file names for PAT project material did not have a uniform naming scheme. Project material was organized by individual project archaeologists who each had their own system for assigning file names. This posed a problem when search for material for a specific architectural feature of the site. By file name, I refer to the string of alphanumeric characters used to identify a computer file. Some file names contained descriptive titles that were beneficial in identifying the contents when the drawings themselves lacked any sort of legend. By legend, I refer to the information provided within the drawing itself. Normally this consists of information such as the architectural feature, the excavation unit, the date, the
61


excavators name or initials, etc. Other file names were machine-produced names from the scanner they used such as docu0009.jpg, docu0010.jpg, docu0011.jpg, etc.
I want to make a brief note on excavation photos that were also recovered on PAT computers. Some of these photos show clear views of structures and architectural features or appear in reports to INAH and technical reports and have proved useful in understanding site maps and plan drawings. The majority of these photos consist of photos of excavation units or the area around excavation units. These excavation unit photos were not given a descriptive file name and there was no peg photo board present in the photos themselves. We were unable to locate any list or database that details which photo files correspond to which excavation units. Without interviewing past excavators and spending a considerable amount of time trying to assign photos to features, these photos have been largely unused for this thesis.
Between Dr. Beekman and myself, and confirmation with Dr. Heredia Espinoza, we decided that the drawing files would be grouped according to architectural feature or excavation areas at the site. Material for Circle 1 would be placed in a folder labeled Circle 1, material for Ballcourt 1 would be placed in a folder labeled Ballcourt 1, and so forth. For the files themselves, we decided on a label scheme that involved a form of shorthand to provide the greatest amount of data to the reader with the least number of characters. This was done as a preventative measure after examining several files. Windows shortened the file name of several files when their file paths became too long, the result of file names being too long or files being placed in too many nested folders. This shorthand would help ensure that critical data were retained should the files be placed within several nested folders.
62


One of the objectives given to me by Dr. Beekman and Dr. Heredia Espinoza for the 2014 field season was to convert the AutoCAD files to a more usable format, one that would not need the knowledge or use of AutoCAD itself. AutoCAD contains a feature to allow its drawing files to be converted to a PDF format. A few trial tests determined the best method of creating PDFs, although this required intermediate steps. Simply commanding AutoCAD to convert a file to a PDF was not sufficient since only part of the drawing would be captured in the output. An area surrounding the drawing within AutoCAD was selected as the output space for the entire drawing to appear in the PDF. The cosmetic changes came in the form of changing yellow lines to black. Within AutoCAD, the workspace is a dark grey background with default lines appearing as white to stand out. These white lines would convert automatically to black when viewing the drawing in the Layout view, printing a drawing, or converting to a PDF format. After creating several PDF files from the drawings, I realized that any yellow lines appeared poorly on the white background within the PDF. These lines were selected prior to the output function and changed to black for the output process. The file was then closed without saving to prevent these changes from being permanent to keep them as they were when first opened. The output process did not affect the integrity of the data, but the files were still not saved when closed as a redundant preventative measure.
The completeness of the data for the entirety of the Los Guachimontones excavations is currently uncertain. We know that we did not have everything that was digitally scanned. This is evident in the reports, especially the earliest reports from 1999 to 2003, in which drawings appear whose originals have not been located. In some cases, some of these files were overwritten during the copy process. Files for the La Joyita section of the site, for example, appeared briefly in the 2003-2006 report but I could not locate most of its files.
63


After sorting through files with machine produced file names, we discovered that some duplicate files were not duplicates, but instead had been overwritten during the copy process. The original files were re-examined partway through the process of organizing so that files with duplicate file names were not overwritten. This allowed the recovery of dozens of excavation drawings from parts of the site we thought were lost, but also confirmed the need for systematic nomenclature of all drawings.
Measuring Drawings
Before talking about how volumes were measured, I want to discuss briefly these volumes in the context of accuracy and precision. The volumes of the architectural features are based upon the excavation drawings and descriptions produced by PAT. Any architectural features that are measured are dependent upon the accuracy of the drawing or description by the excavator. If a drawing has a scale, I had to trust that the drawing has been accurately drawn to that scale. Similarly, I had to trust that descriptive measurements provided in the reports were also accurate. Because drawings can be measured and checked, both paper drawings and AutoCAD files were given preferential treatment over descriptions in case of contradictory statements. However, not all features were excavated and had drawings that could be measured. In those few cases, textual descriptions from reports were used. The volumes produced based on these measurements and descriptions are simply estimates. These estimates are used to provide a point of discussion and should not be lost within the greater discussion of labor organization.
The measurements used in volume calculations were based on an average measurement taken from the drawings and files. Three measurements were taken each for the length, width, or height. When measuring architectural features from plan drawings, such as
64


a primary or secondary platform, these measurements were taken in the center and outer edges of the platform (see Figure 4.3). When measuring section drawings, the placement of the measurements followed the same format. Two measurements were placed on either edge of the construction fill and one placed in the center (see Figure 4.4). There is some variability in replicating measurements that is dependent on the location measured. Cobble shapes in the cobble facing of platforms come in a wide variability of shapes and sizes. Alternatively, construction fill is not always a consistent thickness throughout the structure and instead has slopes or bulges where the construction material is thinner or thickest. Depending on where one measures, the slope of the line may change the length of the measurement.
65


Figure 4.3 Plan drawing of Platform 5
The red lines show the placement of where measurements were taken to find the length and width of the platform. Image courtesy of PAT.
66


- 7?t.

~\ ,{fc^f\|.... ...
'Atlp.<={~ k><
juJ^K ls £,<1
w-' "
p(*hf/W-ft
Figure 4.4 Profile drawing of Cala 5, Platform 10
The red lines show the placement of where measurements were taken to find the depth of the construction fill. Image courtesy of PAT.
Because of the digital format of the excavation drawings and AutoCAD files, I decided to measure them digitally using Photoshop CS5 and AutoCAD 2012. The Photoshop program contains a measurement tool that normally measures the number of pixels in an image. This measurement tool can be provided with a custom scale to denote a certain number of pixels equating to a certain value. Each of the excavation drawings had their own scale, usually 20 centimeters, 50 centimeters, or 1 meter scales. When measuring each drawing, the scale of the measurement tool was set to the scale of the drawing so that features
67


that measured 20 centimeters in the drawing were measured as 20 centimeters within the Photoshop program. AutoCAD has a measurement tool that was utilized in the cases where an AutoCAD drawing was measured. Within the AutoCAD drawings, PAT members provided a scale that proved to be accurate when measured. No adjustment to the measurement tool was needed for measuring within AutoCAD. Measurements were taken to the nearest 10 centimeter unit.
Issues and Assumptions
The section drawings of architectural features within Circle 2 only provided a partial view of the composition of the structure. Often the section drawing was of just one or two walls of the excavation unit with other unit walls missing or simply undrawn. The placement of these excavation units followed a nonprobability form of sampling; they were placed in specifically selected locations within Circle 2 to provide specific data. Because of the inconsistent coverage within excavation units, I must assume that for the volumetric calculations of construction material that the composition of the architectural feature within the excavation drawing was representative of the entire structure. For example, if a section drawing from an excavation pit that was placed in the center of a platform depicted a layer of rubble fill above a layer of clay fill, then those layers would be assumed to extend throughout the entirety of the platform.
Another issue was the lack of excavation units placed within every architectural feature. It was common for an excavation unit to be placed within the center of the primary platform and one secondary platform, but not every secondary platform. In these cases, I made the assumption that similar, especially symmetrically placed, architectural features were constructed the same if there were no drawings available. If one secondary platform fill
68


consisted of clay mixed with aggregate, I assumed that the unexcavated secondary platforms were also constructed with clay mixed with aggregate with the same clay to small aggregate ratio.
In regards to calculating the aggregate to earth ratio for the construction fill, a dot matrix was placed over the excavation drawings within Photoshop. Dots that were located within a drawn piece of aggregate were counted as a whole number and dots that landed on the line of a piece of aggregate were counted as one half. The total number of dots associated with aggregate were then divided by the total number of dots within the square to find a percentage of aggregate to earth. Sometimes more than one square was used to provide a more accurate ratio of aggregate to earth. These percentages were then applied to the total volume of that construction layer to arrive at volumes for aggregate and earth for energetics calculations. This ratio of aggregate to earth was then applied consistently throughout the architectural feature.
One last issue was finding the heights of some of the architectural features, namely secondary platforms. In the cases where no excavation units placed within a secondary platform, I did not know the construction composition or the height of the secondary platform. The length and width of the secondary platforms were often depicted in plan drawings, but heights were not given. In these cases, I made use of one of the site maps produced in AutoCAD. These maps were quite roughly made with the general shapes of architectural features. Features that should have been rectangular or close to rectangular were not. The altar, which should have been drawn as round, was instead drawn as a polyhedron. Some architectural features like the secondary platforms were missing or drawn incorrectly after a comparison with plan drawings and photos of the site. Despite the roughness of the
69


drawing, it contained critical values in the Z-coordinates of its lines. The site map may have used data made by a total station based on the contour lines of the hill and rough approximations of heights of architectural features on the map. By using the measurement tool in AutoCAD, I was able to measure the Z-coordinates of these lines and determine the height of architectural features that were otherwise unknown by comparing these values against the height of other features and the contour lines of the landscape itself. For each line in the architectural feature, I measured in three places; one in the middle and one on either end of the line as I did in the plan and section drawings. For platforms this resulted in twelve measurements, three for each side, which were then averaged together to obtain a height value. This height value was then compared against the known heights of other architectural features or the contour lines of the map as a check for accuracy.
Calculating Volumes
Architectural features are used as a basis to define geometric shapes for volumetric estimates. The patio is calculated as a cylinder, the banquette is calculated as nested hollow cylinders, platforms are calculated as rectangular prisms, and the altar is calculated as a series of nested truncated cones. Dividing volumes based upon architectural features presented challenges. Assumptions made for calculating these volumes are discussed in part below and in Appendix A.
70


Figure 4.5 Cylinder
AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of a cylinder. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca.
The patio platform spans the entire diameter of Circle 2 and will be calculated as a cylinder (V = nr2h) where r = the radius of Circle 2 and h = the average thickness the platform. The average thickness is determined by averaging measurements across multiple excavation drawings. Prior information suggested that a truncated cylinder would be more appropriate due to the natural slope of the hill on which Circle 2 is constructed. However, a lack of sufficient data on the depth of the patio platform in the downslope area of Circle 2 prevents the use of this geometric shape.
The banquette will be calculated as a series of nested hollow cylinders (V = nh(R2 r2)) where h = average height of the feature, R = outer radius of the feature, and r =
71


the inner radius of the feature. Each hollow cylinder represents a different part of the banquette structure. The outer hollow cylinder is the outer cobble facing, the middle hollow cylinder is the construction fill of the banquette, and the inner hollow cylinder is the inner cobble facing (see Figure 4.6). The inner radius used in the equation for the outer hollow cylinder will be determined by subtracting the full radius of Circle 2 from the average thickness of the cobble facing where it can be measured. The middle hollow cylinder will use the smaller radius from the outer hollow cylinder as its largest radius. The inner radius will be determined by subtracting the average width of the banquette fill measured from plan drawings. These steps will be repeated for the inner hollow cylinder using the average width of the cobble facing where it can be measured to determine the inner radius.
72


Figure 4.6 Nested hollow cylinders
AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of nested hollow cylinders. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca
Platforms will be calculated as two nested rectangular prisms (V = Iwh) where / = the length of the platform, w = the width of the platform, and h = the height of the platform. The outer prism consists of the cobble facing while the inner prism consists of construction fill (see Figure 4.7). To determine the volume of the cobble facing, measurements will first be taken from the total length and width of the cobble facing using plan drawings. The height of the cobble facing will be measured from section drawings. Multiplying the length, width, and height will provide the volume of the platform to the height of the cobble facing. This will be followed by measuring the length and width of the construction fill from the plan
73


drawings and multiplying these measurements by the height of the cobble facing. Subtracting this interior volume from the total volume will provide the volume of the cobble facing. To calculate the volume of construction fill, the height of construction fill based on section drawings will be multiplied by the length and width measurements of the construction fill from plan drawings. Construction fill will be divided based upon the height of different construction layers based on fill material if needed.
Figure 4.7 Nested rectangular prisms
AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of nested rectangular prisms. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca
74


Sometimes secondary platforms were built off primary platforms (see Figure 4.8). These secondary platforms were sometimes constructed in an L-shape that bordered two sides of the primary platform. In these cases, the secondary platform will be divided into two sections with an arbitrary line made from the corner of the primary platform. These sections will be calculated as separate prisms, but will be combined for a total volume afterward. Figure 4.8 illustrates the relationship between the primary platform and one of Platform 5s L-shaped secondary platforms.
pUn .'PU
JI- J
* l/z>* 3
J. U: |. [. J-.L j
rispr/s,Hp
jtEcpGafbC
st_far~/\e\u>1r rvinrt" i>*M
Primary Platform
Secondary Platform
bidder___/
Figure 4.8 Platform 5
Plan drawing indicating the primary platform and an L-shaped secondary platform. Image courtesy of PAT.
75


In some cases, platform construction fill will be calculated as several rectangular
prisms based upon retaining walls constructed within the platform. In the case of Platform 4,
however, the construction fill will be calculated as three rectangular prisms and three
1
triangular prisms (V = bhl) due to the angle of the retaining wall within the platform (see
Appendix A). Figure 4.9 illustrates how one of Platform 4s retaining walls is angled. Each platform fill section is divided into a rectangular prism and triangular prism in order to calculate the entire volume.
Figure 4.9 Calculating platform fill
AutoCAD model demonstrating how to calculate platform fill with a retaining wall. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca
76


For simplicity, the altar will be calculated as a series of nested truncated cones (V = -7r(/?2 + Rr + r2)h ) wherein R = radius of the larger base, r = the radius of the smaller
base, and h = the height of the truncated cone (see Figure 4.10). The cobble facing of the altar appears to have been stepped in the past, but preservation is poor within earlier construction periods of the altar. The divisions between these truncated cones will be based upon the cobble facing and construction fill with the assumption that the cobble facing and construction fill is consistent throughout the altar. For the cobble facing, I will use an average thickness based on the rise and run for that construction stage. To obtain the radii of each truncated cone I will begin with the radius of the entire altar at its base, in this case R. The smaller radius, r, and height, /?, will come from descriptions in reports. Using the average thickness of the ruble facing, this measurement will be subtracted from R, r, and h to obtain R\ r\ and h\ Subtracting V from V will provide the volume for cobble facing of the altar. V,R\ and f will became the new l \ R, and r for the calculation of the construction fill underneath the cobble facing. This fill was measured in several places to provide an average thickness, which was then subtracted from the new R, r, and h values to provide new R\ f and /? values. The process will be repeated for each construction stage of the altar with the last stage, Pyramid 5, consisting of a block of clay in the form of a truncated cone.
77


Altar fill
Cobble facing
Figure 4.10 Calculating altar fill
AutoCAD model demonstrating how to calculate altar fill. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca
Architectural Energetics
The rates of work used in my energetics calculations come from Abrams (1994) and Milner et al. (2010). Erasmus (1965) and Abrams (1984, 1987, 1989, Abrams and Bolland 1999, Arco and Abrams 2006, and Abrams and LeRouge 2008) are heavily used within the literature for their rates of work as they cover most of the basic tasks used in pre-historic construction without the use of draft animals or wheels. Abramss work (1994) provides most of the rates of work I require for energetics calculations such as the collection of cobbles, the construction of walls, construction of earthen fill, and the transportation of materials. Unlike Abrams and other researchers, I chose not to use Erasmus rate of work for the excavation of clay for reasons detailed below.
78


Full Text

PAGE 1

ARCHITECTURAL ENERGETICS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF CIRCLE 2, LOS GUACHIMONTONES, JALISCO by ANTHONY JAMES DELUCA B.A., State University of New York at Albany, 2012 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Anthropology 2017

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Anthony James DeLuca Has been approved for the Anthropology Program by Christopher S. Beekman, Chair Tammy Stone Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza Date: August 1, 2017 ii

PAGE 3

DeLuca, Anthony James (M.A. Anthropology) Architectural Energetics and the Construction of Circle 2, Los Guachimontones, Jalisco Thesis directed by Associate Professor Christopher S. Beekman ABSTRACT Labor organization above the household level is necessary to construct monumental buildings. The method of labor organization can differ between cultures depending on the capital utilized, the size of the population, and the labor required for construction. Labor organization strategies range from work exchanges to corve labor. This thesis analyzes a circular temple structure at the site of Los Guachimontones, Jalisco, Mexico in order to understand how the Teuchitln culture may have organized labor. Los Guachimontones is located on a hill overlooking the town of Teuchitln in northcentral Jalisco. The site has been occupied since the Middle Formative period (1000 300 B.C.), but construction on its circular temples did not begin until the Late Formative (300 100 B.C.). The temples located at Los Guachimontones are some of the largest temples in the region. Circle 2, the most complete excavated temple at the site, is the second largest temple and is the focus of this thesis. The data for Circle 2 provides insight into how the Teuchitln culture may have organized the necessary labor and how they were politically organized. Three different political models have been proposed for the Teuchi tln culture Each political model proposes a different method for the organization of labor. This thesis analyzes Circle 2 using architectural energetics in order to estimate the amount of labor needed to iii

PAGE 4

construct the temple. The estimated amount of labor is then compared to the proposed political models, the quality of construction, and logistical constraints. Based on these comparisons, I propose that the Teuchitln culture made use of both collective labor and corve labor in order to construct Circle 2. Collective labor was used to recruit a large amount of labor to construct the patio that served as a base for the temple. Corve labor was then employed by elites in order to recruit family or close relationships to construct the rest of Circle 2 over five subsequent construction periods. I argue that the use of these two forms of labor organization supports the model of collective governance consisting of elite lineages for the Teuchitln culture. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Christopher S. Beekman iv

PAGE 5

I dedicate this work to my grandfather, Charles Pihlaja. v

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing this thesis has been a long process with many people helping me along the way. Without their help, this would not have been possible, and I would not be one step c loser towards achieving my goal of becoming an archaeologist. This thesis has tested me in ways I never expected While there may have been moments when I wanted to give up, I never did because of all the wonderful people in my life I am a stronger and better person because of them. I would first like to thank my parents, Pete and Kim, who have been supportive of my pursuit of archaeology since my time in high school. Archaeology was not only an odd choice to pursue in our family, but also an odd choice for anyone to pursue in our remote corner of Upper Michigan. I knew the trials and tribulations that awaited me, and I knew archaeology is not a career one gets into to make money. They have continued, nonetheless, to support my endeavors, and for that, I am eternally grateful. I would like to thank my friend, Victor Pesola, who took the time to help edit this thesis. I know it was not easy to read many of the tedious descriptions of excavation units or grapple with the unfamiliar jargon that ac companies archaeological texts. I appreciate y our proficiency w ith the English language and I hope you do not mind if I rely on your skills and suggestions in the future. I would like to thank Cuauhtmoc Vidal-Guzman. Thank you for your friendship these past several years, your exhaustive discussions on all things related to Mesoamerican, and your willingness to discuss many of my hypotheses and ideas on West Mexico. I would not be the scholar that I am today without you. vi

PAGE 7

I would like to thank my friend, Kong F. Cheong, for your continued support and encouragement since we first met. You have always been a beacon of positivity as I continue to pursue academia. I look forward to working together in the future. There are a number of other friend s I would lik e to thank also. You all have provided rigorous discussions on topics relating to Mesoamerica, insight into my thesis, and have provided an immense amount of emotional support. In no particular order, I would like to thank Robert Suits, Catherine Johns, Nichole Abbot, Karen Pi erce, Jones LeFae, Corey Herrmann, Alex Wiley, Liz Heuer, and Mark Suda. I am honored to have you all as my friends. I woul d lik e to thank my former professor Marilyn Masson from the State University of New York at Albany. Despite not pursuing Maya archaeology, you left a long lasting impression on my interests in archaeology and myself. Without your cla sses on May a art and iconography, I may not have discovered my love of the topic. While I did not pursue iconography for this thesis, I hope that I can utilize what I have learned from you in future studies of West Mexican a rtifacts I would like to thank Kirk Anderson whom I first met working on the Proyecto Arqueolgico en la Cuenca de la exLaguna de Magdalena, Jalis co (PAX) Your willingness to explain geomorphology its relationship to the Tequila valleys has been a great source of informatio n and insight into this region. Your positive attitude and friendliness have always made the workdays more enjoyable. I look forward to working with you again. I would also like to thank my former professor, Julien RielSalvatore for his classes at UCDenver and for introducing me to the topic of architectural energetics. Without him, I vii

PAGE 8

do not believe I would have pursued this topic. Julien has helped to shape the archaeologist that I am today and I will forever be indebted to him. I would also like to thank my current professor, Charles Musiba. While you could not convince me to change from West Mexican archaeology to early hominins in Tanzania, I will always be grateful for your support, encouragement, and riveting informal discussions on anthropology after class with my fellow students I would lik e to thank my committee members. Tammy Stone has provided much needed insight, constructive criticism, and support of my thesis and thesis topic. Verenice Heredia Espinoza, as current director of the Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln, has graciously allowed me to use data collected by PAT for my thesis As a colleague and friend you have continued to support my interests in studying the Teuchitln culture. I hope that we will continue t o work together to better understand the Tequila valleys and the West Mexican region. Lastly, I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Christopher Beekman. You took a chance on a very wide-eyed, overly enthusiastic, and talkative young man who had trouble not bombarding you with questions every hour of every day and provided him with some much needed guidance, direction, and temperance. I am eternally grateful for your patience and for everything you have done for me I hope that you will continue to be a positive influence, in both my career and my life. viii

PAGE 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 II. THEORY ........................................................................................................................ 4 Capital and Labor .................................................................................................... 9 Labor Organi zation ............................................................................................... 16 Work Feasts/Exchanges ............................................................................ 16 Labor Collective ........................................................................................ 19 Labor Tax .................................................................................................. 22 Labor Organization in the Archaeological Record ............................................... 28 III. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 31 Geography of the Tequila Valleys ........................................................................ 31 History of the region ............................................................................................. 33 Models of Political Organization and their Relation to Labor .............................. 40 Los Guachimontones ............................................................................................ 47 IV. METHOD OLOGY ..................................................................................................... 54 Data Source ........................................................................................................... 55 Data Recovery ....................................................................................................... 60 Measuring Draw ings ............................................................................................. 64 Issues and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 68 ix

PAGE 10

Calculating Volumes ............................................................................................. 70 Architectural Energetics ........................................................................................ 78 V. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 82 Excavation Summary ............................................................................................ 89 Patio .......................................................................................................... 89 Altar .......................................................................................................... 96 Banquette ................................................................................................ 108 Platform 1 ................................................................................................ 116 Platform 2 ................................................................................................ 128 Platform 3 ................................................................................................ 135 Platform 4 ................................................................................................ 147 Platform 5 ................................................................................................ 158 Platform 6 ................................................................................................ 169 Platform 7 ................................................................................................ 180 Platform 8 ................................................................................................ 185 Platform 9 ................................................................................................ 193 Platform 10 .............................................................................................. 205 Summary of Volumes ......................................................................................... 213 Applying Architectural Energetics ..................................................................... 222 Summary of labor ............................................................................................... 238 x

PAGE 11

Analysis of persondays ...................................................................................... 246 VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 266 How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fill vs. external appearance? ............................. 266 Do scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization? ................................ 273 How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? .................................................................................................... 276 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 285 APPENDIX A. CALCULATING ARCHITECTURAL VOLUMES ........................................... 303 Patio Issues and Assumptions ............................................................................. 303 Banquette Issues and Assumptions ..................................................................... 306 Altar Issues and Assumpt ions ............................................................................. 308 Platform Issues and Assumptions ....................................................................... 312 B. MEASUREMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ................................ 316 C. LABOR ESTIMATES ......................................................................................... 349 D. EXCAVATION DRAWINGS ............................................................................. 358 xi

PAGE 12

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 Labor organization methods and archaeological identifiers ............................................. 29 3.1 Chronological phases in the Tequila Valleys.................................................................... 50 5.1 Height of platforms measured from banquette surface ..................................................... 85 5.2 Architectural terms to describe construction material and features ................................. 87 5.3 Volume of material used to construct the patio. ............................................................ 214 5.4 Volume of material used to construct the banquette. ..................................................... 214 5.5 Volume of material us ed to construct the altar. ............................................................. 214 5.6 Volume of material used to construct Platform 1. ......................................................... 215 5.7 Volume of material used to construct Platform 2. ......................................................... 216 5.8 Volume of material used t o construct Platform 3. ......................................................... 217 5.9 Volume of material used to construct Platform 4. ......................................................... 217 5.10 Volume of material used to construct Platform 5. ....................................................... 218 5.11 Volume of material used to construct Platform 6. ....................................................... 218 5.12 Volume of material used to construct Platform 7. ....................................................... 219 5.13 Volume of material used to construct Platform 8. ....................................................... 219 5.14 Volume of material used to construct Platform 9. ....................................................... 220 5.15 Volume of material used to construct Platform 10. ..................................................... 221 5.16 Distance between platform pairs. ................................................................................. 224 5.17 Rates of work for architectural energe tics. .................................................................. 233 5.18 Density of cobbles........................................................................................................ 236 5.19 Estimated amount of labor to construct the patio. ....................................................... 239 5.20 Estimated amount of labor to construct the banquette. ................................................ 239 xii

PAGE 13

5.21 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 1. ..................................................... 239 5.22 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 2. ..................................................... 240 5.23 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 3. ...................................................... 240 5.24 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 4. ...................................................... 240 5.25 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 5. ...................................................... 241 5.26 Estimated amount of la bor to construct the entire altar ................................................ 241 5.27 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 1. ..................................................... 241 5.28 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 2. ..................................................... 242 5.29 Estimated amount of labor to construct shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. 242 5.30 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 3. ..................................................... 242 5.31 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 4. ..................................................... 243 5.32 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 5. ..................................................... 243 5.33 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 6. ..................................................... 243 5.34 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 7. ..................................................... 244 5.35 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 8. ..................................................... 244 5.36 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 9. ..................................................... 244 5.37 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 10. ................................................... 245 5.38 Estimated amount of laborers to construct Circle 2 (112,651.41 p-d). ......................... 247 5.39 Percent of labor pool required to construct Circle 2 in one season. ............................. 248 5.40 Amount of labor in people needed to construct each Group. ....................................... 251 5.41 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 1....................................................... 252 5.42 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 2....................................................... 252 5.43 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 3....................................................... 252 xiii

PAGE 14

5.44 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 4....................................................... 253 5.45 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 5....................................................... 253 5.46 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each primary platform. ................. 256 5.47 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct secondary platforms for each pl atform. ................................................................................................................................ 257 5.48 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each platform group. ..................... 258 5.49 Estimated number of days needed to construct each Group. ........................................ 261 B.1 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 1. ........................................................... 318 B.2 Measurements of Southeast 1 secondary platform, Platform 1. .................................... 318 B.3 Measurements of Southeast 2 secondary platform, Platform 1. .................................... 319 B.4 Measurements of Northwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 1. ................................... 319 B.5 Measurements of Northwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 1. ................................... 319 B.6 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 2. ........................................................... 320 B.7 Measurements of secondary p latform, Platform 2. ....................................................... 320 B.8 Measurements of shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. .................................... 321 B.9 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 3. ........................................................... 322 B.10 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 3. ...................................... 323 B.11 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 3. ...................................... 324 B.12 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 4. ......................................................... 325 B.13 Measurements of Southwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 4. ................................. 326 B.14 Measurements of Southwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 4. ................................. 326 B.15 Measurements of Northeast secondary platform, Platform 4. ..................................... 326 B.16 Measurements o f primary platform, Platform 5. ......................................................... 327 xiv

PAGE 15

B.17 Measurements of East 1 secondary platform, Platform 5. .......................................... 327 B.18 Measurements of East 2 secondary platform, Platform 5. .......................................... 328 B.19 Measurements of West 1 secondary platform, Platform 5. ......................................... 329 B.20 Measurements of West 2 secondary platform, Platform 5. ......................................... 330 B.21 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 6. ......................................................... 331 B.22 Measurements of secondary platform, Platform 6. ..................................................... 332 B.23 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 7. ......................................................... 332 B.24 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 7. ...................................... 333 B.25 Measurements o f Southern secondary platform, Platform 7. ...................................... 333 B.26 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 8. ......................................................... 334 B.27 Measurements of Southwestern secondary platform, Platform 8. .............................. 335 B.28 Measurements of Northeastern secondary platform, Platform 8. ................................ 335 B.29 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 9. ......................................................... 336 B.30 Measurements of Western secondary platform, Platform 9. ....................................... 336 B.31 Measurements of Eastern secondary platform, Platform 9. ........................................ 337 B.32 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 10. ....................................................... 338 B.33 Measurements of center secondary platform, Platform 10. ........................................ 338 B.34 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 10. .................................... 339 B.35 Measurements of Northern 1 secondary platform, Platform 10. ................................. 339 B.36 Measurements of Northern 2 secondary platform, Platform 10. ................................. 339 B.37 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 6 and 7. ...................................... 340 B.38 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2. ...................................... 340 B.39 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 10. .................................... 341 xv

PAGE 16

B.40 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2. ...................................... 342 B.41 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 2. ........................................................ 342 B.42 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 10. ...................................................... 342 B.43 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 9. ........................................................ 342 B.44 Measurements of the banquette near Platforms 3 and 4. ............................................. 342 B.45 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 4. ........................................................ 343 B.46 Measurements of the banq uette near Platform 5. ........................................................ 343 B.47 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 5. ........................................................ 343 B.48 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 8. ........................................................ 343 B.49 Measurements of the banq uette near Platform 9. ........................................................ 343 B.50 Measurements of the banquette and patio near Platform 1. ........................................ 344 B.51 Measurements of the patio from Trench 1a. ............................................................... 344 B.52 Measurements of the patio from Trench 1b. ............................................................... 344 B.53 Measurements of the patio from Trench 2. ................................................................. 344 B.54 Measurements of the patio from Trench 3. ................................................................. 344 B.55 Measurements of the patio from Trench 4. ................................................................. 345 B.56 Measurements of the patio from near Platform 10. ..................................................... 345 B.57 Measurements of the altar. ........................................................................................... 346 B.58 Measurements of the banquette and patio .................................................................... 347 B.59 Measurements of the banquette and patio (contd) ...................................................... 348 C.1 Labor estimates for Platform 1. ..................................................................................... 350 C.2 Labor estimates for Platform 2. ..................................................................................... 350 C.3 Labor estimates for shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. ................................. 350 xvi

PAGE 17

C.4 Labor estimates for Platform 3. ..................................................................................... 351 C.5 Labor estimates for Platform 4. ..................................................................................... 352 C.6 Labor estimates for Platform 5. ..................................................................................... 353 C.7 Labor estimates for Platform 6. ..................................................................................... 353 C.8 Labor estimates for Platform 7. ..................................................................................... 354 C.9 Labor estimates for Platform 8. ..................................................................................... 354 C.10 Labor estimates for Platform 9. ................................................................................... 355 C.11 Labor estimates for Platform 10. ................................................................................. 356 C.12 Labor estimates for the banquette. .............................................................................. 356 C.13 Labor estimates for the patio. ...................................................................................... 357 C.14 Labor estimates for the altar. ...................................................................................... 357 xvii

PAGE 18

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3.1 Ceramic model of a village scene .................................................................................... 35 3.2 Map of Tequila valleys ..................................................................................................... 42 3.3 Aerial photo of Los Guachimontones ............................................................................... 48 3.4 Map of Los Guachimontones ............................................................................................ 49 4.1 Los Guachimontones ........................................................................................................ 56 4.2 Circle 2 architectural features ........................................................................................... 58 4.3 Plan drawing of Platform 5 ............................................................................................... 66 4.4 Profile drawing of Cala 5, Platform 10 ............................................................................ 67 4.5 Cylinder............................................................................................................................. 71 4.6 Nested hollow cylinders .................................................................................................... 73 4.7 Nested rectangular prisms ................................................................................................. 74 4.8 Platform 5 ......................................................................................................................... 75 4.9 Calculating platform fill .................................................................................................... 76 4.10 Calculating altar fill ........................................................................................................ 78 4.11 Mesoamerican digging sticks .......................................................................................... 80 5.1 Los Guachimontones site map .......................................................................................... 83 5.2 AutoCAD model of Circle 2 ............................................................................................. 88 5.3 C2_T_T1_Sa ..................................................................................................................... 92 5.4 C2_XX_XX_Rg ............................................................................................................... 93 5.5 AutoCAD model for the altar ........................................................................................... 96 5.6 C2_A_C7Ext_Sc ............................................................................................................... 99 5.7 C2_A_C7Ext_Sb............................................................................................................. 102 xviii

PAGE 19

5.8 C2_A_C7Ext_Sa ............................................................................................................. 103 5.9 C2_A_T7_S .................................................................................................................... 105 5.10 C2_B,P1,10_C1_S ........................................................................................................ 109 5.11 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S .......................................................................................................... 111 5.12 C2_B,P6,7_XX_S ......................................................................................................... 113 5.13 AutoCAD model of Platform 1 ..................................................................................... 117 5.14 Partial site map of Circle 2 ............................................................................................ 118 5.15 C2_P1_CA_S ................................................................................................................ 120 5.16 C2_P1_T3_Sb ............................................................................................................... 122 5.17 C2_P1_T3_Sc ............................................................................................................... 123 5.18 C2_P1_T3_Sd ............................................................................................................... 124 5.19 AutoCAD model of Platform 2 ..................................................................................... 129 5.20 C2_P2_C1_S ................................................................................................................ 130 5.21 C2_P2_C2_S ................................................................................................................ 132 5.22 C2_P2_C3_S ................................................................................................................ 134 5.23 AutoCAD model of Platform 3 ..................................................................................... 136 5.24 C2_P3_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 137 5.25 C2_P3_XX_SE,W ........................................................................................................ 138 5.26 C2_P3_C1_S ................................................................................................................ 139 5.27 C2_P3_C2_S ................................................................................................................ 141 5.28 C2_P3_C3_S ................................................................................................................ 143 5.29 C2_P3_XX_S ............................................................................................................... 145 5.30 AutoCAD model of Platform 4 ..................................................................................... 148 xix

PAGE 20

5.31 C2_P4_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 149 5.32 C2_P4_XX_SNW,SW .................................................................................................. 150 5.33 C2_P4_XX_S ............................................................................................................... 151 5.34 C2_P4_C2_S ................................................................................................................ 152 5.35 C2_P4_C3_S ................................................................................................................ 154 5.36 C2_P4_C4_S ................................................................................................................ 156 5.37 AutoCAD model of Platform 5 ..................................................................................... 159 5.38 C2_P5_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 160 5.39 C2_P5_XX_SN,E ......................................................................................................... 161 5.40 C2_P5_C3_S ................................................................................................................ 162 5.41 C2_P5_C4_S ................................................................................................................ 163 5.42 C2_P5_C5_S ................................................................................................................ 165 5.43 C2_P5_XX_S ............................................................................................................... 167 5.44 AutoCAD model of Platform 6 ..................................................................................... 170 5.45 C2_P6_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 171 5.46 C2_P6_C1_S ................................................................................................................ 172 5.47C2_P6_C2_S ................................................................................................................. 174 5.48 C2_P6_XX_Sa ............................................................................................................. 175 5.49 C2_P6_XX_Sb ............................................................................................................. 177 5.50 C2_P6_XX_S c ............................................................................................................. 179 5.51 AutoCAD model of Platform 7 ..................................................................................... 181 5.52 C2_P7_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 182 5.53 C2_P7_XX_SN,E ......................................................................................................... 183 xx

PAGE 21

5.54 C2_P7_C1Ext_S ........................................................................................................... 184 5.55 AutoCAD model of Platform 8 ..................................................................................... 186 5.56 C2_P8_C3_S ................................................................................................................ 187 5.57 C2_P8_C4_S ................................................................................................................ 189 5.58 C2_P8_C4_Sa ............................................................................................................... 191 5.59 AutoCAD model of Platform 9 ..................................................................................... 194 5.60 C2_P9_XX_P ............................................................................................................... 195 5.61 C2_P9_XX_SNW,SW .................................................................................................. 196 5.62 C2_P9_C2_S ................................................................................................................ 197 5.63 C2_P9_C4_S ................................................................................................................ 199 5.64 C2_P9_C5_S ................................................................................................................ 201 5.65 C2_P9_XX_S ............................................................................................................... 203 5.66 AutoCAD model of Platform 10 ................................................................................... 206 5.67 Partial site map of Circle 2 ............................................................................................ 207 5.68 C2_P10_C1_S .............................................................................................................. 208 5.69 C2_P10_C2_S .............................................................................................................. 210 5.70 C2_P10_C5_S .............................................................................................................. 212 5.71 Los Guachimontones site. ............................................................................................. 227 5.72 Hillside above Los Guachimontones. ........................................................................... 228 5.73 Circle 2 during restoration efforts. ................................................................................ 229 5.74 Modern route ................................................................................................................. 231 5.75 Labor-days needed to construct Circle 2 platforms ...................................................... 259 A.1 Plan drawing of Platform 4 with division lines .............................................................. 315 xxi

PAGE 22

D.1 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171,1271,1371,1471,1571,1671,1771,1871,1971,2071,2171,2271,2371,2 471,2571,2671,2771,2871,2971,3071,3171_SS ................................................................... 359 D.2 C2_P4,5,6_CS,P2850,2950,3050_SN ........................................................................... 360 D.3 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149,1249,1349,1449,1549,1649_SN ................................................... 361 D.4 C2_ C2_P4,5_CS,P1748,1749_SW ............................................................................... 362 D.5 C2_P4,5_CS,P1847,1947,2047,2147,2247_SN ............................................................ 363 D.6 C2_P4,5_CS,P2349,2449,2549,2649_SN ..................................................................... 364 D.7 C2_P4,5_P2345,2348_SW............................................................................................. 365 D.8 C2_P6,7_CW,P3151-3156_SE ...................................................................................... 366 D.9 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157-3162,3163-3168,3169-3171_SE ................................................. 367 D.10 C2_T_T1_Sa ................................................................................................................ 368 D.11 C2_T_T1_Sb ................................................................................................................ 369 D.12 C2_T_T2_S .................................................................................................................. 370 D.13 C2_T_T3_Sa ................................................................................................................ 371 D.14 C2_T_T3_Sb ................................................................................................................ 372 D.15 C2_T_T4_S .................................................................................................................. 373 D.16 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB overview .................................................................... 374 D.17 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB ceremonial center ...................................................... 375 D.18 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2 ...................................................................... 376 D.19 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2 a ngled .......................................................... 377 xxii

PAGE 23

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This research examines the construction of public architecture and the organization of labor during the Late Formative period within the Teuchitln culture of Jalisco, Mexico. The ceremonial centers of this area are most heavily concentrated in the valleys surrounding the Tequila volcano, and examples of their distinctive circular temple architecture are known from the far northern part of Jalisco and the surrounding states of Nayarit, Colima, Zacatecas, Michoacn, and Guanajuato. These temples were used to carry out world renewal and agricultural rituals by elite lineages who ruled through shared governance. Previous excavations at the sites of Llano Grande and Navajas identified a wide range of variability between platforms in terms of size and constructio n. Beekman (2008) proposed that this reflects the different labor groups recruited by each elite lineage constructing their temple separately. This model of political organization and the differences evident in their ceremonial structures led me to ask the following questions: How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fil l vs. external appearance? D o scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization? Of the excavated ceremonial complexes, I chose to examine Circle 2 of the site of Los Guachimontones for two reasons; first, the site has the largest known guachimontones excavated or unexcavated, in the region. Therefore, a study of a large temple from this site 1

PAGE 24

will likely provide an upper boundary to the scale of construction work and labor organization for th e sites of the Teuchitln culture. Second, excavations heavily tested Circle 2 that provides a detailed view of the construction of the entire ceremonial complex. To answer these questions I applied an architectural energetics approach and analyzed Circle 2s architectural components. The components are quantified by estimating the volumes of their various construction materials, rates of work gathered from experiments are applied to those volumes, and these are transformed into the amount of labor invested in building construction. This numerical value is often labeled persondays (p d). These persondays can then be assessed against different proposals to answer the research questions. Chapter 2 covers why the study of labor organization is important to archaeology and how it informs us about political systems and societal organization. Bourdieus (1986) three forms of capital are discussed and how capital is used to recruit labor. Different theoretical approaches are reviewed for how they view the organization of labor, as well as different models of how labor is organized through the control of capital Architectural energetics is also covered with a discussion of how buildings are quantified into different volumes of construction material and how those volumes are turned into a measure of labor. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the Tequila valleys area including the geography, climate, and previous archaeological work conducted in the region. D ifferent forms of architecture f rom this region are brief ly discussed with a focus on the surface architecture that is the subject of this thesis. Included in this chapter is a discussion of proposed political models for the Teuchitln culture. Each political model proposes how labor may have been organized according to each model. 2

PAGE 25

Chapter 4 discusses the archaeological work conducted on Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones by the Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln (PAT) under the direction of Phil Weigand. How the data were documented and the limitations in using thes e data for a secondary analysis of the complex are discussed. I also discuss how I utilized the data to estimate the volume of construction material for the components of Circle 2. I discuss how I measured the components of Circle 2 and their construction material and how I determined the volumes of the components. I also discuss the assumptions made for the energetics analysis such as distances to sources of construction material, the length of the workday, and the weight of the loads being carried. Chapter 5 is an in-depth analysis at how the architectural features of Circle 2 were measured and the data used for this analysis. Included within this chapter is how contradictions in the prior recording of Circle 2s construction were resolved in order to perform the analysis. The results of the volume estimates and energetic calculations are presented for different architectural features of Circle 2 The previously proposed model of labor organization for the Teuchitln culture are applied to the labor r equirements for the construction of Circle 2 ba sed on the site population size, the amount of time available for construction, and the quality of construction to understand how labor may have been organized. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the findings of this analysis with a discussion on how existing models hold up to this new data and whether changes are needed to incorporate this new research. The chapter ends with suggestions regarding avenues of future research. 3

PAGE 26

CHAPTER II THEORY How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? What were the size of labor groups and how did they relate to the current model of lineage organization? To answer these questions we must first understand the theoretical perspectives on the study of labor. To understand the theoretical perspectives on the study of labor it may be beneficial to understand labor through a framework based on Bourdieus (1986) forms of capital. This framework allows us to consider all forms of labor recruitment and organization that may not necessarily fit within a simple economic transaction involving disparities of wealth. From relatively egalitarian societies to more complex states, there is a wide variety of labor organization methods that utilize other forms of capital. Sometimes within a society there is more than one method to organize labor depending on the scale of the project, the person or group organizing the labor, and the type or amount of capital being used. By understanding Bourdieus forms of capital and recognizing those forms in other case studies, we can suggest how labor was organized within central Jalisco based upon current models for political organization, available evidence from archaeological work, and an examination of a temple at the site of Los Guachimontones. Capital Bourdieu defines capital simply as accumulated labor (Bourdieu 1986: 15). The most recognizable and distinguishable form of capital is economic capital. Economic capital includes such things such as money, property, or the means of production. Economic capital 4

PAGE 27

forms the basis for economic theory; however, the reliance on just economic capita l is inadequate to explain fully human nature and diversity (Bourdieu 1986: 16). Instead, Bourdieu proposes two othe r forms of capital that can derive from economic capital (Bourdieu 1986: 24) as well as become methods to generate economic capital. These two other forms of capital are called cultural capital and social capital. Cultural capital is an investment of time and economic capital into knowledge and skills. Bourdieu argues that cultural capital exists in three forms: the embodied state, the objectified state, and the institutionalized state (Bourdieu 1986: 17). The embodied state is simply the holder of cultural capital, the person that invested the time and economic capital into the acquisition of cultural capital. When the holder dies, so too, does the cultural capital. Bourdieu argues that cultural capital can go unrecognized as cultural capital due to the wa y cultural capital is disguised when transferred or gained Instead, cultural capital functions as symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is perceived not to be capital at all, yet provides the holder of capital with some sort of authority that allows them to exert a force on the market. This authority can be used within the culture to secure economic capital depending on its scarcity (Bourdieu 1986: 18). Bourdieu uses the example of being able to read in a world of illiterates. Literacy itself is cultural capital as it can be acquired However, literacy may be misrecognized as cultural capital and instead literacy may function as symbolic capital. In this world of illiterates, a literate person can sell their services of reading and writing to those with economic capital who are unable or unwilling to learn to read and write. 5

PAGE 28

The objectified state of cultural capital is simply cultural cap ital made physical in objects, media or services (Bourdieu 1986: 19). Objectified cultural capital can be appropriated materially or symbolically by those with economic capital. Material appropriation would include trading or buying the object or media, such as purchasing a novel. Symbolic appropriation would include employing the services of those that hold the cultural capital, such as employing the reader in a world of illiterates mentioned above (Bourdieu 1986:20). The objectified state allows cultural capital to be exchanged for economic capital. The institutionalized state of cultural capital is simply the framework in which cultural capital is recognized and defined. Within this framework the institutionalized state allows for the comparison and exchange of cultural capital with defined conversion rates. By comparing and exchanging cultural capital, cultural capital can be appropriated materially or symbolically (Bourdieu 1986:20-21). Social capital is potential capital backed by a network of relationships and memberships that can be drawn upon or credited (Bourdieu 1986:21). The volume of capital that one can draw upon is dependent on two factors, ones own capital and the size of the network. There are two important features to social capital that allows us understand labor organization. The first is that social capital is present in all exchanges of capital. Since, in any exchange of capital, all parties must have some sort of recognition of each other, social capital is the foundation of those exchanges. Further, through an exchange of capital, social capital itself is renewed and reinforced between parties. To maintain social capital one must repeatedly conduct exchanges to renew and maintain the network (Bourdieu 1986: 21-22; Mauss 1990). 6

PAGE 29

The second important feature to social capital is the ability of the network to appoint a spokesperson that can speak for the network and direct their collective capital. Bourdieu argues that this appointee is the basis for heads of households, nations, associations, and politic al parties. Not only can the spokesperson speak for the group and direct capital, but the spokesperson can ease conflict within the network should a member fail to uphold their responsibilities. The spokesperson can even go against the wishes of the networ k to a certain extent, especially in cases where the network only exists with the existence of the spokesperson (Bourdieu 1986: 23). As mentioned previously, cultural capital and social capital can be derived from economic capital. Converting capital from one form to another form is the basis for strategies to reproduce capital. However, the conversion of both forms of capital to economic capital requires a substantial amount of effort. It is this conversion of cultural and social capital into economic capi tal that is important to understand labor recruitment strategies and organization. By highlighting Bourdieus explanation of how capital is converted, I am embedding my questions of labor organization into a practice theory perspective. Bourdieu argues that cultural and social capital are disguised forms of economic capital and can be concealed from the possessors and the recipients within an exchange (Bourdieu 1986: 24). One part of the disguise is time itself. While economic capital can be drawn upon and utilized immediately without any secondary costs social and cultural capital cannot always be immediately accessed. Social capital may require a relationship to have been established and maintained for a long period of time o fully utilize the effects of social capital. This investment in time creates a debt for those that possess these forms of capital. 7

PAGE 30

The other part of disguise is that fact that economic capital is the root of all capital. Because all forms of capital are economic at their root, some forms of capital may need to disguise that root in order for the capital to produce its desired effects. Bourdieu argues that this disguise is based on two opposing, but equally partial views of capital. The first is economisn, which argues that every type of capital can be reduced to economic capital, but ignores the effectiveness of other types of capital. The other view is semiologism which reduces social exchanges to communication, but Bourdieu argues it ignores the brutal fact that everything can be reduced to economics (Bourdieu 1986: 24). Disguising the economic root, however, creates loss for the capital. Loss occurs when capital loses its value and effectiveness, which in turn affects how it is converted, transmitted, or rep roduced. If the capital is too disguised, its loss is high and then cannot be converted or transmitted (Bourdieu 1964: 25-26). If the capital is not concealed well enough, it may not be accepted and cannot be produced within the long term. Trying to maintain balance between capital that is too disguised and capital th at is not disguised well enough creates risk and uncertainty in the conversion and transmission process. That risk and loss of capital can be used to create debts for the creation of social capital to be called upon later in such forms as gifts, visits, and services. Without debt, one would not be able to organize labor, for example. However, if the capital used to create debt is too disguised and suffered too much loss, the debtor can refuse to acknowledge the debt. Bourdieu distinguishes the types of capital within the conversion process by how easily they are transmitted or converted from one form to another. This is based on the inverse ratio between the amount of loss and the degree of concealment of the capital (Bourdieu 1986: 25). 8

PAGE 31

Every transfer of capital is a reproduction strategy as well as a legitimizing strategy that solidifies within society who can appropriate and reproduce capital. If the institutionalized state is inadequate and questioned by the non-dominant class, the holders of capital must rely on disguising their capital further if they wish to continue to possess their capital by taking advantage of converting their capital into other forms. While this runs the risk of loss through the conversion process, it also allows the holders of capital to occupy rare positions (Bourdieu 1986: 26). Balance between the three forms of capital must be made so that holder of the capital limits their loss while continuing to possess their capital for future use. Capital and Labor Strategies for labor recruitment vary from culture to culture and I argue that these different strategies are dependent on the forms of capital as well as the volume of capital used as outlined by Bourdieu above. We must keep in mind that different cul tures have different rules in how capital can be used and what value capital may have. Therefore, while two strategies may utilize similar amounts of one form of capital, the result can be different for each culture. This section discusses several case studies in terms of Bourdieus three forms of capital that feature strategies that allow individuals or groups to accumulate the necessary capital to recruit labor. Webster (1990) argues that labor is recruited through the accumulation of capital. He explores how labor is recruited in 31 agropastoral groups in Africa that range from kingdoms to relatively egalitarian societies (Webster 1990: 338). To put his conclusions in terms of Bourdieus capital, labor is recruited either through debts and obligations b ased on the accumulation of economic capital or through the increase of social capital (Webster 1990: 9

PAGE 32

339-340). The household is the basic unit to produce capital. Economic capital can be produced by inheriting, raising, or taking cattle, creating an agricultural surplus, or acquiring bridewealth (Webster 1990: 339-340). Social capital can be acquired by expanding ones social network through marriage, kin, and non-kin obligations. Non-kin support is often acquired by taking captives, extracting tribute, trading for slaves, and offering aid in the form of protection and economic support (Webster 1990: 340). Webster argues that through a combination of kin and non-kin support, political interest groups form and a patronclient relationship is created. Economi c capital in the form of labor, tribute, specialized craft products, and military members is then reproduced and legitimized through these patronclient relationships in competition with other such groups, a feature of Bourdieus social capital (Webster 19 90: 340). Feasting is another method in which capital can be mobilize d for labor. Dietler (2001: 66) argues that feasts are inherently political actions and are fundamental to political relationships. As Dietler (2001: 67) explains feasts provide an ar ena for both the highly condensed symbolic representation and the active manipulation of social relations. To put feasts in terms of Bourdieus capital, feasts are an expression of all forms of capital The food and drink provided by the host (economic capital), the types of food and drink being served or vessels used (cultural capital), the avoidance or restriction of food between segments of society (symbolic capital), and the network that helps to provide food and drink or the people attending whose soc ial relations are established or renewed with the host (social capital) make use of all forms of capital (Dietler 2001: 81, 82-83, 85-88). Not all feasting is the same, however, with different patterns of feasting used with different goals, consciously or unconsciously, in mind by the host. Dietler describes three 10

PAGE 33

patterns of feasts drawn from anthropological literature on African cultures that manipulate different types of capital to reinforce social debt and differences in social capital These patterns of feasting can occur in any group or culture and are not mutually exclusive. The first pattern of feasting is called empowering feasts. This pattern works towards acquiring and maintaining symbolic and economic capital to create differences in social capital Dietler cautions that not all forms of symbolic or economic capital are attainable with this pattern (Dietler 2001: 76). Empowering feasts work by creating a competitive atmosphere in which there are real or perceived asymmetrical imbalances of capita l between the host and attendees. Those that do not respond in kind to the host with their own feast are perceived to fall behind and results in a shift in social capital among all parties. Even feasts, which are perceived to be events of unity and harmony, are open arenas for participants to compete against one another to gain capital, status, and power (Dietler 2001: 77). The end goal of empowering feasts is to create enough of a perceptual asymmetrical balance in capital that the host can influence group decisions and actions. Patron role feasts are the second pattern of feasting. Unlike empowering feasts, which work to create imbalances of capital, patron role feasts are used to reinforce existing asymmetrical imbalances. Patron role feasts are used to renew and reinforce the social network between the host and attendees, an act that Bourdieu describes for building and maintaining social capital. Dietler (2001: 82 -83) argues that given enough time in which one party has more capital than the other, this imbalance becomes permanent. Dietler (2001: 83) asserts that this imbalance of capital forms the basis of institutionalized authority. Clark and Blake (1994) make a similar argument. They argue that the results of competition are unknown to the aggrandizers that seek prestige and influence (Clark and Blake 1994: 25911

PAGE 34

260). The most successful aggrandizers are those who can maintain their prestige and influence through gift giving and generosity. If they are able to sustain their prestige long enough, it may become permanent. This prestige can then be passed down to further generations via wealth, access to resources, or craft specialization (Clark and Blake 1994: 265-266). The last feasting pattern is that of diacritical feasts. While empowering feasts rely on the amount of economic capital provided during a feast and patronrole feasts rely on reinforcing imbalances of social capital diacritical feasts rely on the hosts knowledge and access to resources to gain cultural and symbolic capital. As Dietler (2001 : 86-87) describes this pattern, the feast is about quality rather than quantity. A host goes out of their way to procure or create exotic, rare, or specialty items for the feast to show off their knowledge that they can create such things or to show off their connections that allow them to procure those items. A host may also use elaborate vessels for the feast or stage the feast at a particular location. They may also emphasize methods of preparation and consumption that differ from the norm. While a host may accumulate much cultural or symbolic capital from a diacritical feast, these sorts of feasts run the risk of being emulated by others. There is a subsequent devaluation every time someone copies the host. This forces the host to either be creative or pass rules or laws that restrict access and consumption to these diacritical feasting elements. Clark and Blake (1994) argue for a similar pattern among the Mokaya of the Soconusco. The Mokaya adopted ceramic technology from their southern neighbors during the Barra phase (1550 -1400 BC) (Clark and Blake 1994: 269-270). However, the Mokaya did not adopt the vessel forms. Instead, Clark and Blake propose that the Mokaya used ceramics to emulate existing and socially significant gourd vessel forms and decorations. By 12

PAGE 35

doing so, the Mokaya would have added value to the newly adopted medium without changing prestigious vessel forms and decoration (Clark and Blake 1994: 271). By the later Locona phase, ceramics and the ability to make ceramics had become so ubiqui tous that unslipped pottery became common as the novelty of the Barra phase ceramics faded (Clark and Blake 1994: 272). Dietlers models for feasting are largely centered on economic capital to recruit labor since sufficient food and drink must first be accumulated before other forms of capital may take precedence. While a host may recruit labor directly by providing food, they can also convert their economic capital into social or cultural capital in order to recruit labor. However, labor may be recruited directly using social capital without first converting from economic capital. Bernardini (2003) argues for a model of labor recruitment based upon the construction of Hopewell earthwork groups in Ohio. Within Ohio, there are a number of earthworks consisting of a circle, a square, an octagon, and even roads all linked together (Bernardini 2003: 334). While there is variation in how the earthworks are arranged with respect to one another, there is consistency in the shapes being used across all the sites surveyed. These mounds are a demonstration of cultural and symbolic capital, in which a few people may have possessed the necessary knowledge to plan, interpret, and reinforce the interpretation of the earthworks in these reoccurring forms (Bernardini 2003: 338). All of these earthworks are quite large, covering 30 acres or more, but are located in a low population density region away from any major settlements (Bernardini 2003: 332). The earthworks them selves are separated from the next nearest earthwork group by a minimum of 6 kilometers and a maximum of 22 kilometers (Bernardini 2003: 346). Bernardini (2003: 346-348) argues that even with high population density estimate of 1 person/km2 and a 13

PAGE 36

conservative period of two and a half months over ten years, each earthwork group would have required people to travel from as far away as 22 kilomet ers to aid in construction Sites close to rivers could potentially tap into labor as far away as 45 kilometers if people traveled by canoe. Artifact deposition from Hopewell burials an d artifact caches indicate it was not uncommon for the Hopewell to travel great distances for special events (Bernardini 2003: 350). Despite the substantial amount of labor required in constructing these earthworks, they do not seem to have a specific function. There is little in the way of material culture that indicate s these earthworks were used exclusively as burial mounds, defensive mounds, or places of ritual or feasting (Berna rdini 2003: 334-335). With such a large distance between populated areas it was unlikely these earthworks were regularly used by the people who had to travel such a great distance to aid in constructing the earthworks ( Bernardini 2003: 348). Based upon the number of earthworks and the frequency with which they were constructed, however, Bernardini (2003: 350) argues that construction of these earthworks was a reoccurring and frequent activity for the Hopewell people that ne cessitated people to travel frequ ently Bernardini argues that the earthwork groups may have started off as a way to enclose ancestral land that had burials, but this pattern changed over time as other sites were built in locations lacking such connection (Bernardini 2003: 351). The sites of Liberty, Frankfort, and Seip do enclose burials, but the other sites of Baum and Works East surveyed in Bernardinis study do not. The similarity of earthwork forms between groups appears to stem from a shared cosmology among the Hopewell instead of a specific function. The repetition in earthwork shapes, the need to travel great distances, and the lack of evidence of as specific purpose suggests that the Hopewell people constructed these 14

PAGE 37

earthworks as part of a shared experience (Bernardini 2003: 350-351). The very act of creating the earthworks produced and reproduced social capital through this shared experience. These earthworks may be better understood in terms of habitus one of Bourdieus other concepts. H abitus is the sum of a persons gained knowledge and lived experiences that influence a persons worldview and their decision making process (Bourdieu 2001: 533-537). Habitus can produce individual and collective practices (Bourdieu 2001: 537). Practices are activities that reproduce the conditions for the production of habitus (Bourdieu 2001: 533). The social conditions that allow for the production of habitus are called structure an d practices operate within structure (Bourdieu 2001: 533). For the Hopewell, the passing of an important a ncestor may have created the structure that necessitated an act to honor or remember the dead. Through the group habitus, the Hopewell constructed earthworks in symbolically important geometric shapes. As other important ancestors passed away, more earthworks were constructed and a group practice was formed. Over time, the cause for constructing earthworks may have been forgotten but the practice continued with the construction of earthworks not associated with burials. In place of honoring or remembering important ancestors, the Hopewell created a homogenizing group habitus around the construction of these earthworks (Bourdieu 2001: 535). The homogeneity of habitus creates a common worldview that is reinforced by the group consensus for the meaning of pract ices even if the origins are forgotten (Bourdieu 2001: 534-535). The very act of coming together from great distances and experiencing together the construction of earthworks can be used to recruit labor. 15

PAGE 38

In summary, labor recruitment hinges on the use of large amounts of capital to bring people together. Capital can be expended on the laborers in exchange for their work, laborers may contribute labor to pay off a debt of capital, or labor may be recruited using social bonds. Labor Organization Labor organization refers to how people were recruited and deployed for a task. Labor organization largely falls under three broad categories in the anthropological literature: work feasts, labor collectives, and labor taxes. These categories are largely based on the scale of work, the quality of work, and the amount of capital used to recruit labor. These categories can and are used simultaneously within cultures. Some methods of labor organization, however, are more scale or quality appropriate than others. Discuss ed below are several case studies that illustrate the se forms of labor organization. Work Feasts/Exchanges Like the production of capital, the household unit is the basic unit for labor organization. What cannot be done within the household must employ external labor using capital and methods of labor organization to complete the necessary task. Dietler and Herbich (2001: 241) provide a smaller scale model for labor organization that they call collective work events. Collective work events are a range of labor organization strategies that fall upon a continuum. This continuum varies by the number of laborers, the amount and quality of food and drink, the expectation of reciprocity, and the status of participants (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242). On one end of the continuum is the work feast and on the other is the work exchange. These two polar extremes are descri bed below. 16

PAGE 39

On one end of the scale is the work feast Work feast is the term used by Dietler and Herbich to describe a particular form of empowering feast (Dietler 2001: 76 77; Dietler and Herbich 2001: 241). While patronrole and diacritic feasts are used to establish and gain capital, they are not well suited to organize labor. Under the guise of a festive atmosphere, the work feast is used to bring together a large number of people to contribute labor in exchange for food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246). Rather than create a temporary asymmetrical balance in which the attendees are in debt to the host for consuming food, the debt is immediately paid off by labor contributions. However, it is expected that for the exchange of food and labor to occur, there should be a great deal of adequate food and drink from the host (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242-243). Work feasts can occur in voluntary and obligatory forms. Voluntary feasts are just that, voluntary. Peopl e choose to contribute labor because o f the prospect of food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 247). Obligatory work feasts, on the other hand, are a form of corve, unpaid or forced, labor in which the host has added cultural or social capital that requires people to participate (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 244). Obligatory work feasts are still expected to provide adequate amounts of food and drink for the laborers (Bray 2003: 4). Work feasts can last from one to several days in which the host is expected to provide for the laborers during the entire duration. Work feasts can involve anywhere from several people to hundreds of people. Contributors of labor can be gathered from outside of ones social network from all levels of society given an adequate amount and quality of food and drink (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). The labor provided at the work feast is largely unskilled and repetitive labor that requires no special knowledge outside of typical household activities (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 245). The quality of work can vary depending on the 17

PAGE 40

number of people participating and drink being served. With large numbers of people, there is the inability to supervise the work and ensure that the work is being done (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246). Moreover, depending on the quantity of drink se rved at the feast, drunkenness may lower the quality of work (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 248). Work feast activities include tasks such as agricultural infrastructure improvement, harvesting crops, or the construction of a larger house (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 247). The result of the work feast is usually a net benefit in economic or symbolic capital for the host of the feast (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 241). Marshs examination of Khonkho Wankane in Bolivia suggested that the people held feasts for the construction of their architecture (Marsh 2016). The site appears to lack an identifiable hierarchy or evidence of coerced labor (Marsh 2016: 321). Based on ceramic evidence at the site, Marsh suggests that the people came together over feasts during the off season to work on community projects such as the construction of architecture. These feasts would be brief and as a result, buildings were often constructed in a piecemeal fashion over several years (Marsh 2016: 321-322). Participation in these work feasts was a way for the community to renew social bonds and strengthen relationships with one another (Marsh 2016: 323). Work exchanges are at the other end of the collective work event continuum. Work exchanges involve the exchange of labor between contributing parties. The extreme form of work exchanges are understood to involve little to no food or drink during the collective work event. Instead, participants rely on a repayment of their labor by the host with an equivalent amount of labor (Dietler and Herbi ch 2001: 242-243). Like work feasts, work exchanges benefit participants by increasing their economic capital by undertaking projects 18

PAGE 41

they could not do themselves. The advantage of the work exchange is that it does not require a substantial amount of accum ulated capital to first attract labor contributions though it does require a social network with some social capital. Projects include many agricultural tasks such as harvesting, transporting crops, and clearing fields (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 344). Wor k exchanges may also be individual or group-based. With group based work exchanges a group makes a circuit stopping to work on a project for each member participating in the group like an Amish barn raising (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). The major disad vantage of work exchanges is a logistics issue. Work exchanges are only as good as the amount of labor one is willing or able to pay back and the size of the social network one can tap into to participate in the balanced reciprocity of work (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). Under a work exchange, for example, if someone asked ten people to work for him or her for a week that person would then be required to pay back a total of seventy days of labor. One does not necessarily need to pay off the ir debt immediately but they are expected to do so. As a result, work exchange tends to involve fifteen or less persons and relies primarily upon ones social network of family and friends or those of comparable social status (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 24 3). The quality of work in a work exchange tends to be higher than that of a work feast. Feasts tend to involve alcohol which impacts work quality while work exchanges normally do not (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 246). Labor Collective While work feasts/exchanges can organize large amounts of labor, and may have even been used to bring people together for large construction projects (Anderson 2004; Sara LaFosse 2007), work feasts/exchanges tend to rely on the capital of a single person, family, or group in order to organize labor or the ability to reciprocate labor. Instead, the 19

PAGE 42

labor collective form of labor organization discussed by Carballo (2012) provides a model to explain labor organization that falls in between work feasts and labor tax strategies. Unlike work feasts/exchanges or labor tax strategies, collective labor is able to recruit labor without the use of food and drink or persons in a position of power and authority. Instead, labor collectives are a community driven form of labor organization with an aim towards projects that improve the community as a whole and benefits all the participants directly rather than the organizer alone. Carballo bases his labor collective model on ethnographic and ethnohistoric case studies from Mexico. Using Carballos terminology, the tequitl (Nahuatl task, work, tribute,) or the labor collective, is a community driven method of gathering labor for projects that can benefit the community (Carballo 2012: 246). These projects are organized by the calpolli (Nahuatl big house), a corporate based political body centered on small towns, barrios, or neighborhoods (Carballo 2012: 247). Carballo argues there is strong reciprocity in the tequitl that differs from a labor tax or work feast/exchange. The sense of duty to participate in the tequitl is so strong that members are obligated to participate (Carballo 2012: 247). Failure to meet labor obligations for the tequitl may result in low level retribution or even ostracization Tequitls are self monitoring with m e mbers watching each other to ensure participation in the tequitl (Carballo 2012: 245, 249-250). The tequitl has the ability to bring together a large number of people for a single task. Carballo notes in one case that as many as 600 men were assembled together to work on a project clearing brush to define the village limit (Carballo 2012: 248). Because of the useful division of labor and households for the labor collective, labor could also be appropriated by the tecalli (Nahuatl lords house) in the form of taxation (Carballo 2012: 247). This labor 20

PAGE 43

tax, called coatequitl (Nahuatl snake/twin work), does not see that same sort of reciprocity from higher political authorities as it does when organized by the calpolli (Carballo 2012: 248-249). However, the work conducted under coatequitl was seen as community and public work. Carballos model of a labor collective is one in which social capital appears to be the primary moving force to organize labor. Social c apital is both generated and shared by the community under calpolli projects, or capital is leveraged by the tecalli and their network for their own purposes and gains. I find parallels in Carballos model with the Hopewell earthworks discussed by Bernardini (2003), the Meddler Point site by Craig et al. (1998) discussed below, and Bourdieus discussion for the creation and production of group habitus. As mentioned, the Hopewell earthworks in Ohio are proposed to have been constructed not for ritual or practical use Instead, the construction of the earthworks may have been part of a practice that allowed people in the region to share in a group experience and reproduce group habitus. Craig et al. (1998) argue for a similar model of a labor collective in Arizona at the Meddler Point Site for the construction of a platform mound. Due to the size of the mound, the small time frame over which it was constructed, the small population of the site, and the lack of distinct elite households in the material culture, they proposed that the driving force for the construction of the sites platform mound may have been the community need for the structure during a time of environmental instability (Craig et al. 1998: 2 54-256). Depending on the number of seasons spent on the platform mound and the number of people able to contribute labor, the construction of the platform mound may have been a small regional 21

PAGE 44

effort. Settlements from the surrounding area would have contributed persons to aid in construction (Craig et al. 1998: 254). Labor Tax Corve labor is forced or unpaid labor. That is not to say that laborers are slaves, but that societal rules may dictate that members of the populace contribute labor. Corve labor often manifests in the form of a labor tax in which elites use their accumulated capital and institutionalized positions of power and authority to demand a certain amount of labor from the populace. If there is reciprocity, the reciprocity often takes othe r forms rather than a return of labor. These forms include the elites providing communication to the gods, protection from enemies, and access to trade goods. Corve labor is almost a necessity for large construction projects due to the number of people needed, the amount of time spent devoted to a project, and the quality of work required. The Inca (Ogburn 2004) and Chimu (Moseley 1975; Smailes 2011) states in the Andes offer an abundance of evidence for a labor tax system as do the chieftains of Hawaii (K olb 1994, 1997) and the kings of Maya citystates ( Abrams 1994; Lucero 2004). These examples offer a wide variety of evidence allowing us to understand how labor tax systems were used in the past. The Andes provide some of the best evidence of a labor tax system. Colonial Europeans recorded that the Inca extracted a labor tax from their population going so far as creating made work for the sole purpose of keeping people busy (Ogburn 2004: 420, 436437). There is a debate as to the reasons behind the creat ion of made -work and the prevalence of the practice in the Inca state. Ogburn notes that some people within the empire boasted to colonial Europeans that they did not have to do made-work under the Inca (Ogburn 2004: 435). Some of the justifications Ogburn cites include the perception by the 22

PAGE 45

Inca elite that provincial people were lazy and must be kept busy, that madework was punishment for rebellion, or made-work was a method to curb rebellion by keeping people too busy to organize resistance (Ogburn 2004: 436). It is more likely that the Inca created this madework to reinforce control over the people of their empire and maintain asymmetrical balances of capital and power. To evaluate the ethnohistoric accounts, Ogburn analyzed stone blocks found in southern Ecuador. Colonial accounts and local histories say that the blocks were meant for the construction of a building for the Inca emperor, but the blocks were abandoned when the project was cancel ed (Ogburn 2004: 425). Ogburn wanted to source these blocks to see whether the stone was local or not in order to evaluate accounts that laborers were made to transport these blocks from Cusco to southern Ecuador. Ogburn conducted a survey of several stone quarries that were used in preColumbian times in both Ecuador and Peru. Using XRF (Xray fluorescence), he analyzed the trace elements from samples from the quarries and samples from the abandoned stone blocks. Ogburn determined that the abandoned blocks found in southern Ecuador closely resembled sampl es from quarries near the Inca capital of Cuzco in Peru (O gburn 2004: 425-432). These quarries were known to have produced stone for the construction of elite buildings in pre-Columbian times. Ogburn dismisses the idea that the blocks quarried from Cusco m ay been selected for their quality or sacredness. The Cojitambo quarry produced blocks of a similar quality and was much closer than Cusco. While Ogburn does not specify what these mechanisms are, he states that the Inka had other mechanisms to transfer sacredness from Cusco to the new residence. Ogburns evidence supports the idea that not only did the Inca make use of a labor tax, but that the 23

PAGE 46

large distances involved for transporting the stone could be argued to support the existence of a made-work sys tem. The examination of the Chimu site of Chan Chan in Peru provides another example of the labor tax system (Moseley 1975). Chan Chan, unlike its stone built counterpart in Cusco, was constructed using adobe bricks. While this would be unremarkable elsewhere in the world, many of Chan Chans adobe bricks are imprinted with unique markings. Moseley examined some of the millions of bricks used to construct the buildings at Chan Chan. He determined that these bricks came from a variety of different quarries a s evidenced by their color, salt content, and carbonate content (Moseley 1975: 192). A little over 100 brick symbols have been identified. While it may be tempting to say that these marks are the result of 100 different brick makers, due to the number of bricks used in the construction and the long construction period, it is unlikely these are marks specific to individuals. Instead, these markings likely point to groups of people from nearby communities that made the bricks for construction as part of a required labor or material contribution. This hypothesis is further reinforced by the bricks themselves with some of the bricks containing the same markings, but constructed using different soil types from different quarries. Moseley hypothesized that th e group that corresponds to a particular marking produced bricks by exploiting multiple quarries. Moseley (1975: 192) examined the frequency of the brick markings and believed that the brick markings that occur more frequently are evidence of larger work groups producing that particular marked brick. Moseley supports the hypothesis of multiple labor groups using the size of the bricks, the way bricks were used in construction at Chan Chan, and soil type used in brick production (Moseley 1975: 192-194). The bricks themselves were reported to vary in size, 24

PAGE 47

though Moseley does not provide any specific measurements. Smailes (2011: 40) reports variation in brick size, as well, but only provides the dimensions for the bricks used in the construction of a storeroom These bricks were approximately 19 x 48 x 10 centimeters. The walls at Chan Chan are segmented wherein sections of walls were constructed homogenously in brick placement and brick soil type. The typical pattern of brick placement was to create alternate courses of bricks placed runner (shortest side) to header (longest side), but Moseley (1975:-193) notes that deviation was frequent. The change in pattern is most evident when two sections of wall abut and the differences in brick size and placement are visually apparent Moseley characterizes this as haphazard work conducted by groups of workers with variable skills. Identifying different levels of quality of construction is an important step to understanding labor organization, especially in the context of corve labor. Lucero (2007) offers another example of differing qualities of construction from the Maya region. Like the Inca and Chimu, the Maya may have also made use of a labor tax system for the construction of temples and palaces (Abrams 1989, 1994; Abrams and Bolland 1999). Variability in temple construction is well known in the Maya region, but some centers lack iconography or inscriptions that aid in identifying who sponsored the construction of the temples (Lucero 2007: 413). Lucero compared the construction qualities of Late Classic temples at the site of Yalbac to evaluate whether differences in the size, construction pattern, evidence of single purpose or multi -purpose use, and location of the temples can be used to determine who sponsored the ir construction. These temples were situated around the main plaza, Plaza 2, and a nearby secondary plaza, Plaza 3. 25

PAGE 48

Lucero created four hypotheses concerning the temples at Yalbac based on who constructed the temples and whether they were single or multi-purpose (Lucero 2007: 413414). If various groups constructed multipurpose temples one would expect to see different amounts of labor, different sized temples, different construction patterns, and differences in ritual deposits. If royals were the only ones to construct temples, one would expect similar amounts of labor, similar temple sizes, and similar ritual deposits. If various groups constructed single purpose temples one would expect differences in labor, temple size, and construction pattern as well as differences in location, style, symbolism in decoration, orientation, and types of offerings. If royals constructed single purpose temples one would expect similar amounts of labor, size, and ritual deposits as well as differences in location, style, symbolism in decoration, orientation, and types of offerings. After comparing the available information for six temples, Lucero proposed that the temples at Yalbac most closely matched her third hypothesis of single-purpose temples constructed by multiple groups (Lucero 2007: 419). The temples around Plaza 2 are much larger than the temples around Plaza 3, one indicator that multiple groups may have participated in construction. The temples themselves also seem to have specific purposes (Lucero 2007: 421). M aterial recovered from tests pits and looters trenches at the temples indicate that two temples were used for burials and tombs, one had a ritual deposit dedicated to God N, and three had possible stela fragments (Lucero 2007: 417). Around Plaza 2, the temples were constructed using large boulders and heterogeneous construction fill for the interior while utilizing large, variably shaped facing stones for the exterior. This contrasts sharply with the temples around Plaza 3. Plaza 3s temples were constructed using much smaller boulders, well sorted construction fill, and facing stones with 26

PAGE 49

a standardized shape. Lucero proposes that Plaza 2 temples were constructed by the ruling family of Yalbac with Plaza 3 temples constructed by founding or noble families. The differences in construction may have been the result of competition between elite groups vying for power during events like the dry season or the death of a king (Lucero 2007: 423). The variety of temples would have offered the people of Yalbac a choi ce of which temple to support (Lucero 2007: 422). It should be noted that Plaza 2s temples differ from those in the royal acropolis. Lucero notes that the acropolis is orientated northsouth while Plaza 2s temples are orientated at an azimuth of 9 east or 351. The royal acropolis is constructed with smaller, standardized facing stones instead of the large facing stones used in Plaza 2 (Lucero 2007: 419). Unfortunately, Lucero does not offer an explanation as to why Plaza 2 and the royal acropolis differ in construction if both were constructed by the ruling family. I speculate that the choice in using larger boulders and facing stones was a method of demonstrating access to these resources and the ability to spend more time and labor in gathering, moving, and using the construction material. This speculation is supported by Sherwood and Kidders (2011) examination of mound construction in the Mississippi R iver basin. Mounds were not constructed using the closest available earthen material. Instead, many of the mounds examined by the authors were constructed with materials that came from very specific sources, sometimes from a great distance or depth below the surface. Sherwood and Kidder (2011: 71) offer several examples. Poverty Points initial mounds wer e constructed with almost all E horizon material that could only be obtained a meter or more beneath the surface in certain locations within the region. The red sediment used in the construction for the mound at Shiloh is obtained 27

PAGE 50

after digging down 2 meters below the surface, which could not be obtained from the borrow pits typically found near the mounds. The red sediments were used as a veneer to cover the mound. This had a practical effect in which the fine texture and smooth surface could repel rai nwater and protect the mound. However, the red sediment would have also given the mound a distinct appearance on the landscape. The color of the mound may have served a symbolic purpose, as well as a practical purpose (Sherwood and Kidder 2011: 8182). Whe n assessing labor organization, the source, and distance to the construction material is an important consideration. The builders may be targeting construction material for a practical purpose as well as a symbolic purpose. The extra effort to target specific sources may be tied to efforts to gain more status and prestige to ensure that the construction lasts longer or that the construction achieves a particular appearance Labor Organization in the Archaeological Record The labor organization models discussed above provide a number of variables that can be identified in the archaeological record. These variables, summarized in Table 2.1, are largely constrained by the duration of the project, the amount of labor mobilized, and the quality of labor. Not all labor organization models can scale to accommodate every type of project. Work exchanges, for example, are largely limited to activities that do not take more than a few weeks to complete. Work exchanges are not feasible for the construction of large arch itecture that may take several seasons to construct. The organizer of the project would be indebted to the participants for the rest of the organizers life. Just as not all models can scale appropriately upward, not all models can be appropriately applied to a smaller scale. While a labor tax is able to recruit sufficient labor to construct pyramids, a labor tax may not be an appropriate model for smaller projects that require fewer people or a shorter amount of time. 28

PAGE 51

Table 2.1 Labor organization methods and archaeological identifiers Organization Method Timespan of project Quantity of labor mobilized Quality of labor mobilized Organizer Expenditure by organizer Work feast (voluntary) Days to weeks Tens to hundreds of people Unskilled Individual or group Continuous food and drink Work exchange Days Tens of people Unskilled Individual or group Reciprocal Labor Labor collective ( tequitl ) Days to years Tens to thousands of people Unskilled Group Reciprocal Labor Work feast (obligatory) Days to months Tens to hundreds of people Unskilled to skilled Individual or group Limited food and drink Labor tax/Corve Days to years Tens to thousands of people Unskilled to skilled Individual or group Social contract between elites and commoners To summarize, Table 2.1 provides a condensed view of labor organization models. Construction events for work feasts are characterized by tens of people gathering for brief periods over several seasons. Over time, a building is constructed piecemeal as people add to the construction every year (Marsh 2016). Construction events for labor collectives are characterized by tens to even thousands of people gathering together to complete a project over a period of days to years. These projects typically aid the community in some way, such as strengthening social bonds or providing religious spaces (Bernardini 2003; Craig et al. 1998). Construction events for obligatory work feasts and labor taxes are characterized by hundreds to thousands of people working on projects over several years (Kolb 1994, 1997; 29

PAGE 52

Moseley 1975). These projects can include specialized labor that requires fewer people, but greater technological knowledge or artistic skill (Abrams 1994). Three models of labor organization have been proposed for the Teuchitl n culture, discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. Each model of labor organization relies heavily on one of the three forms of capital discussed by Bourdieu (1986). The variables from Table 2.1 will guide my analysis of Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones to t est the proposed models of labor organization and to answer my research questions. 30

PAGE 53

CHAPTER III BACKGROUND The area we define as West Mexico in Mesoamerican studies includes the modernday states of Michoacn, Colima, Jalisco, Nayarit, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas. The Teuchitln culture, named after a town in Jalisco, is one of many cultures found across these six states. The Teuchitln culture is centered in the north central area of the state of Jalisco. Around the Tequila volcano and its nearby valleys, circular ceremonial temples constructed by the Teuchitln culture can be found along with ballcourts, residential structures, and shaft and chamber tombs for the dead. Previous work at the sites of Llano Grande and Navajas identified a wide variability in the construction of these temples. This is proposed to reflect different labor groups recruited by elites in their construction efforts (Beekman 2008). This model of political organization and the differences e vident in their ceremonial structures led me to ask the following questions: How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between i ndividual components such as f ill vs. external appearance? D o scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relationship to the proposed model of social organization? Geography of the Tequila Valleys The Tequila volcano and nearby valleys are located just west of the modern city of Guadalajara. The Tequila valleys are situated within the Sierra Madre Occidental mountain range. This mountain range runs along the Pacific coast of Mexico from the U.S. border to the state of Michoacn where it joins with the Sierra Madre del Sur mountain range. The 31

PAGE 54

Tequila Valleys are located where the Neo Volcanic Axis crossed with the Sierra Madre Occidental. The Tequila valleys have an elevation between 1200 and 1400 met ers above sea level. They are characterized by broad open plains, seasonal arroyos, and steep sided mountains. The region is rich in mineral wealth such as obsidian, silver, and opals. The climate is characterized as semi -arid with dry, warm winters and hot, wet summers. Rains occur from late May to September and average about 1,000 millimeters a year (Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco 2013). The dry season is roughly 200 days from the end of September to the end of May. The Tequila valleys are roughly divided into three regions. To the north and northeast, the land today is characterized by extensive agave cultivation for the production of tequila. The modern town of Tequila is located in this area as well as the towns of Amatitan and El Arenal. This northern area is bordered by a canyon and the Rio Santiago forming a natural barrier against the mountains and valleys to the north. The northern area tends to be drier than the west or south and is rockier. The northern region is excellent for the production of blue agave. To the west is the Magdalena lake basin that once contained a broad, but shallow l ake until it was drained in the early 20th century. The modern towns of Magdalena, Etzatlan, and San Juanito de Escobedo are located in the lake basin. The M agdalena Lake would have provided lacustrine resources to nearby inhabitants. Up until the 1950s when the lake was completely drained people were still fishing and collecting reeds (Nance et al. 2011:10). To the south, the valley is bordered by the Sierra de Ameca. In the northwest portion of the southern valley is the Laguna Colorada, a lake formed from draining Lake Magdalena. In the central area of the valley is the Presa La Vega formed by a dam near the modern town of La Vega. Presa La Vega stretches fr om the southern edge of the town of 32

PAGE 55

Teuchitln in the north to the modern towns of Castro Urdiales and La Vega. A spring located to the northeast of the town of Teuchitln drains into Presa La Vega. History of the region The Teuchitln culture dates to t he Late Formative to Early Classic periods (300 B.C. 400/500 A.D.) (Beekman and Weigand 2008). The Teuchitln culture is one of several cultures during this period in West Mexico that share in the practice of burying some of their dead in shaft and chamber tombs. West Mexico is sometimes viewed as a monolithic cultural region for their use of shaft and chamber tombs during this period. Continued work over the last 60 years has demonstrated that a patchwork of individual, but related, cultures was spread across the region. While many of these cultures may have used shaft and chamber tombs for interring the dead, this burial practice was neither exclusively used among these culture s or is no longer the defining feature of these cultures. Recognition of local burial practices, ceramic vessel styles, ceramic figure styles, and surface and sub surface architecture has illustrated a divided landscape made up of multiple cultures. While this thesis focuses on a ceremonial surface construction by the Teuchitln culture, much of what we know about this region comes from work on burials and their associated offerings. The earliest documented surface constructions in the region possibly date to the Middle Formative (see Table 1.1). Weigand identified three large, earthen, round or oval mounds in the Tequila valleys region that possibly date to the Middle Formative (Weigand 1989). These mounds have been dated based on ceramic sherds found in and near the mounds. These mounds functioned as a location for burials. A 6 meter diameter and 1 meter high mound near the town of San Pedro was partially destroyed by a highway work crew. 33

PAGE 56

Before its complete destruction, Weigand believed he identified four individuals from simple pit burials within the mound based on the number of unearthed skulls and long bones (Weigand 1989:41). Unfortunately, the entire mound was destroyed as the highway was completed. During the Late Formative to Early Classic period (300 B.C. 400/500 A.D.) in the Tequila valleys, the region experienced a surge in construction of surface architecture (see Table 1.1). C ircular temple groups called guachimontones (colloquially called Circles), named after a site in the town of Teuchitln, Jalisco, were constructed throughout the Tequila Valleys. Guachimontones are heavily concentrated in the southern valley between the modern towns of San Juanito de Escobedo and Tala, but are also found in the Magdalena Lake Basin (Beekman and Heredia Espinoza, in prep.), the northern Tequila valley (Heredia Espinoza 2008, 2017), and southeast of Tala (Beekman 2007). Guachimontones in have been reported outside of the Tequila valleys as far as the Bolaos canyon to the north (Cabrero 1989, 1991), Colima to the south (Olay Barrientos and Morton 2015), and Guanajuato to the east (Crdenas Garcia 1999). Guachimontones locations can vary from the valley floor to mountain ridges. The site of Santa Rosalia in the Magdalena Lake Basin, for example, is located on a mountain ridge overlooking part of the Basin (Lopez Mestas 2011). Guachimontones typically consist of a flattened patio space in the center of which a circular, stepped altar is constructed. Along the circumference of the patio is a ring shaped platform called a banquette. Constructed on top of the banquette is an even number of quadrangular platforms that number as few as four to as many as sixteen. Guachimontones can be found as singular structures or connected together with a shared platform. Other 34

PAGE 57

surface architecture in the region includes ballcourts and household platform s. Ballcourts can be freestanding or can be built off a guachimontn. Figure 3.1 Ceramic model of a village scene Ceramic model attributed to the Ixtlan del R o region of Nayarit. The model depicts a simplified guachimont n Some figures are playing musical instruments, dancing, and women attending children. Image courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago Interpretations of the form and meaning of the guachimontones vary. Based on ceramic models that depict simplified versions of guachimontones (See Figures 3.1, 3.2), Kelley proposed that the pole in these models may depict a volador ceremony or that the pole 35

PAGE 58

may have represented the tree of heaven common to Mesoamerican ideology (Kelley 1974:2532). Witmore suggested that guachimontones might be li nked to the sun. He compares the structures to ideological concepts of the Huichol deities Grandfather Fire and Father Sun (Witmore 1998: 142). Beekman proposed two other meanings to the form of guachimontones (Beekman 2003a, 2003b). The first is that the circular temples may be representations of maize. Eight-row maize is common to the region and when cut in half, resembles an eight platform guachimontn (Beekman 2003a). The second proposal by Beekman was expanding upon and exploring the idea of guachimont ones as places for volador ceremonies. Excavations of a guachimontn at the site of Llano Grande revealed an eight platform guachimontn with no altar or sufficiently deep posthole in the center (Beekman 2003b: 302). Beekman proposed that a different pole ceremony may have taken place at the guachimontones by discussing other pole ceremonies, such as pole-climbing ceremonies and green maize ceremonies, recorded in Central Mexico (Beekman 2003b: 303314). The ceramic models depicting houses and guachimontones from the Ixtlan del Ro region of Nayarit provides a glimpse into the everyday and ceremonial life of people in West Mexico (Butterwick 1998; Gallagher 1983; von Winning and Hammer 1972). Often these models depict three or four houses on rai sed platforms with a stepped circular altar in the center. The figures that populate the model are often in the midst of a variety of activities such as playing music, carrying other people, tending children, preparing food, or wrapped in blankets that may be related to marriage ceremonies (Gallagher 1983: 108-109). A simpler model depicting a single house and a stepped altar show two groups of armed people engaged in conflict. One group is positioned on the steps of the altar while the other is below 36

PAGE 59

(von Winning and Hammer 1972). These models depict guachimontones as more than just ceremonial centers. Guachimontones appear to be community centers in which people come together for a wide range of activities including conflict. Weigands survey work on sites in the Tequila valleys has documented the forms and variability of the guachimontones (Weigand 1996: 91). Weigand proposed that there were strict rules in how a guachimontn was laid out for construction (Weigand 1996: 96). The first rule is that the widt h of the initial architectural features of a guachimontn must follow a ratio. Weigand argued that the builders followed a ratio of 1:1:2.5 for the width of the banquette, the enclosed patio space, and the diameter of the altar for the larger guachimontones (Weigand 1996: 97). For example, a guachimontn that was 65 meters in diameter should have a banquette with a width of 10 meters, an enclosed patio space with a width of 10 meters, and an altar that is 25 meters in diameter. This ratio creates symmetry between the three circular features of a guachimontn and prevents an ovoid or even lumpy shape to the guachimontn. The second rule guided the planning of the platforms for a guachimontn. Weigand proposed two methods for the placement of the platforms. The first is done by simply dividing the banquette into equal sections based on the number of platforms needed. The other method is to draw two squares on a pair of perpendicular axes. Where each square intersects is where a platform would be constructed (Weigand 1996: 97). The first method appears to leave open room for error, but the second method could only be used for an eight platform guachimontn. Both methods ultimately create symmetry within the guachimontn. To lay out a guachimontn, Weigand proposed the temples could be planned using a rope and two people. One person would stand in the center holding one end of the rope and the other person holding the other end of the rope would mark the limit of the 37

PAGE 60

guachimontn, interior facing of the banquette, perimeter of the altar, and the platforms to be constructed on top of the banquette (Weigand 1996: 97). Hollon (2015)s analysis of the proportions of Los Guachimontones temples has questioned Weigands rules of symmetry. According to Hollon, Circle 1 should exhibit the rules of proportionality given its early construction and large size. However, Circle 1s platforms are several meters too small to adhere to Weigands ratio of 1:1:2.5. Circle 1s platforms should be around 19 meters wide and are instead 13.59 to 15.83 meters wide (Hollon 2015: 173174). A similar breaking of the rules occurs at Circle 4, as well. The platforms at Circle 4 should be 8.5 meters wide in order to adhere to the ratio. Circle 4s platforms all exceed 8.5 meters in width and measure between 9.21 meters and 12.37 meters (Hollon 2015: 187). Likewise, Circle 2 shows a wide amount of variation in its platform size and adherence to the 1:1:2.5 ratio. Hollons analysis found that Circle 2s platforms would generate a diameter of 0 met ers of Circle 2s 99 meter diameter if the temple were constructed according to the rules of proportionality (Hollon 2015: 177-178). The variation in platform size for Circle 2 is a part of my own analysis and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5. S ymmetry within the guachimontones appears to extend only as far as the layout and placement of the architectural features. Excavations at Llano Grande (Beekman 2003c), Navajas (Beekman 2007), and Los Guachimontones (Weigand et al. 1999; Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000a, 2000b 2002; Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008) have shown that there is a wide range of variability in the construction of a guachimontn. Beekmans excavations of the platforms of Llano Grandes guachimontn uncovered a range of sizes and construction methods. For example, the western platform 14-2 was constructed on a natural 38

PAGE 61

slope. The builders utilized this slope to construct a low platform using a single row of stones (Beekman 2008: 421-422). The platform opposite of 14-2, 14-6, was constructed using stacked stones and an earth mix (Beekman 2008: 423). At Navajas, Beekman found similar irregularities in the construction of Circles 1 and 5. At Circle 5, the smaller of the two guachimontones one platform was constructed with a single row of stones, two platforms used boulders in their fill, and three platforms were constructed using fairly uniformed stones (Beekman 2008: 424). The altar of Circle 5 was also irregularly constructed. The southern half of the altar was constructed with very ti ght fitting stones with little earth or clay fill. The northern half of the altar was constructed very differently using mostly clay with some stones mixed within (Beekman 2008: 425). Circle 1, the larger guachimontn, has four taller and four shorter platforms in an alternating arrangement on its banquette. Beekman hypothesized that the four taller platforms were expanded as the four shorter platforms were added to the temple. Two of these platforms were excavated to determine whether the taller platforms were indeed expanded later Instead, Beekman discovered that the taller platforms were constructed to their respective height and showed no indication of expansion. Further, both platforms were constructed in a similar manner using a layer of clay followed by layers of sand. The alternating pattern of tall platform to short platform was thus planned (Beekman 2008: 426). Weigands excavations at Los Guachimontones have produced a similar assessment of the construction of the platforms. Unpublished excavation drawings of Platform 1 at Circle 1 show that the platform was constructed with a layer of clay mixed with aggregate, then a large uneven mass of clay, followed by another layer of clay mixed with aggregate. Another unpublished excavation drawing of Platform 7 shows that it was constructed using clay 39

PAGE 62

mixed with large aggregate. Platform 11 was constructed using small to medium aggregate packed in earth. Circle 2 has a similar range of construction differences. Platform 1 was constructed using mostly clay w ith some very small retaining walls located near the surface (Weigand et al. 1999: 23). Platform 5 was constructed with a small clay mound surrounded by clay mixed with aggregate (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 26 -27). Platform 8 was constructed using a large amount of aggregate mixed with clay followed by a layer of clay ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 38-39). While guachimontones may have been laid out to provide symmetry, there do not appear to be rules in how the architectural features should be constructed within a given guachimontn, whethe r the temple be small or large. Models of Political Organization and their Relation to Labor Three political models have been hypothesized for the Teuchitln culture in the Tequila valleys. Weigand and Beekman proposed that the Teuchitln culture was a segmentary state (Beekman 1996a: 992 -993, 1996b: 144; Weigand and Beekman 1998: 4248). A segmentary state is defined by its concentrated core and broad hinterl and. The concentrated core of a segmentary state is characterized by ceremonialism, not by political force (Weigand and Beekman 1998: 48). Weigand and Beekman argued that the segmentary state centered in the Tequila valleys formed a core region based the d ensity and size of architecture found within the Tequila valleys and the relative lack of similar densities and size of architecture outside the valleys. Those sites with guachimontones located outside of the core region were considered peripheral regions that were exploiting rare resources (Weigand and Beekman 1998: 44). Within the Tequila valleys, Weigand argued there was a settlement hierarchy between major sites like Los Guachimontones Ahualulco, and Santa Quiteria and smaller sites like Llano Grande, El Saucillo, and Arroyo de las Chivas (see 40

PAGE 63

Figure 3.2) Some of these smaller sites were positioned in key areas that could manage and defend passage into the Tequila valleys area, such as the site of Llano Grande. This hierarchy was based on volumetric estimates based on surface measurements of the monumental architecture at the sites (Weigand 1990: 39). Weigand attempted to support his hierarchical system citing obsidian craft specialization in the region. Weigand notes that a large obsidian workshop is l ocated at the site of Los Guachimontones. Millions of flakes can be found at this workshop including prismatic blades, cores, and macrocores. However, Heredia Espinoza has raised questions concerning the date of this workshop, its role in tool and jewelry production within the Teuchitln culture, and the movement of workshop goods via trade within and outside of the Tequila Valleys (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017; Cardona Machado et al. 2017). 41

PAGE 64

Figure 3. 2 Map of Tequila valleys Map showing the location of Los Guachimontones, circled in red, in relation to several other sites within the Tequila valleys ( Weigand and Beekman 1998 : 17 ). 42

PAGE 65

Weigands proposed political hierarchy was tested by Ohnersorgen and Varien (1996). Using Weigands maps and unpublished data, volume estimates based on visible mounds were created by Ohnersorgen and Varien. However, the authors do note that recent work at the time by the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia (INAH) demonstrated that surface mou nds did not adequately represent the structure and their volumes. The volume estimates used by the authors thus represent conservative estimates (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 108). Ohnersorgen and Varien then created a four tier system for sites based on the number of guachimontones number of ballcourts, and their respective measurements and volumes (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 107). A gravity model was then applied to the sites in the Tequila valleys region and four models were generated based on the use of different constants. The first model emphasized site size and Los Guachimontones featured prominently due to its central location and numerous temples. Smaller clusters formed around Ahualulco, Santa Quiteria, and Navajas. The second model began emphasizing distance over site size and clusters around the previously mentioned centers became more important, though connections remained between Los Guachimontones and other major centers. Huitzilapa to the northwest formed its own cluster, due to its distanc e from other major sites. The third model shows six distinct clusters with very little interaction other than that between Los Guachimontones and Ahualulco. Finally, the last model solidifies these six distinct clusters (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 113). The first two models would seem to suggest that Los Guachimontones placed a central role in administrative functions while the third and fourth models lend support Weigands proposed model for a segmentary state consisting of clusters of sites within the Tequila valleys (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: 118). While Ohnersorgen and Variens work illustrated 43

PAGE 66

different possible models, their analysis did not propose which constant was more likely to be accurate. In Weigand and Beekmans segmentary state model, power and authority held by elites stemmed from cultural capital accumulated from their ritual, religious, and ceremonial acts. Any tribute and trade were enacted through a lens of religion and ritual (Weigand 1997: 40-42). To construct the guachimontones We igand suggests the use of corve labor (Weigand 2007: 105). Labor may have been recruited as work gangs from different groups at the site. Weigand attributes the variation present in the construction of a guachimontn to these possible work gangs (Weigand 2007: 105). This would seem to suggest a labor tax was employed, possibly similar in concept to the labor tax employed at Chan Chan (Moseley 1975). Lopez Mestas (2011) proposes a political model in which the Tequila valleys consisted of a group of alliances ruled by lineage or clan -based chiefs. Unlike Weigands model, which proposes elites fulfilled religious roles to gain and maintain status and power through cultural capital Lopez Mestas proposes that elites also relied upon their ability to acquire economic capital in the form of exotic and prestigious goods and temporarily band together in defense of the valleys (Lopez Mestas 2011: 475 -476, 479). These chiefs are thought to be lineage or clan based as evidenced by the close relationship of remains recovered in the Huitzilapa shaft tomb (Lopez Mestas 2011: 480). The tombs themselves, as well as the surface architecture, were associated with ideological beliefs concerning the heavens, underworld, and cosmos. This association helps to reaffirm the position of elites as negotiators with the supernatural (Lopez Mestas 2011: 477). Elite power was not absolute and elites could not do whatever they wanted. Lopez Mestas argues that elite power was 44

PAGE 67

based on consensus, not coercion, and chiefs were obligated to perform their necessary duties such as defense (Lopez Mestas 2011: 482). Lopez Mestas suggests in her political model that elites held ceremonies with their people, as interpreted by several ceramic models from the g reater West Mexico region (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). These models not only depict ceremonies, but may have also involved feasting. During these events, elites would try to convince people to donate to them in the form of artisan goods or domestic surplus. By controlling economic capital in the form of goods and surpluses, Lopez Mestas argues that elites could increase their own wealth and status. With their new wealth, they could hold larger feasts and gain control over more economic capital (Lopez Mestas 2 011: 251). While Lopez Mestas does not make the suggestion, her model could be used to recruit labor for the construction of guachimontones Lopez Mestas model parallels Dietler and Herbichs (2001) voluntary work feast model in which hosts try to convince people to contribut e labor rather than force people to contribute labor with a token feast in an obligatory feast. Beekman later shifted support away from the segmentary state model to a new model after excavations at the sites of Navajas and Llano Grand e uncovered considerable architectural variation Beekman (2008) proposes a model in which the Teuchitln culture centers were ruled by corporate groups composed of lineages, families, or clans that cooperated in a broader form of collective governance (Beekman 2008: 415, 430). Beekmans analysis of guachimontn structures at Llano Grande and Navajas supports a model of competing and cooperating lineages. As previously discussed, the three guachimontones examined by Beekman contained a number of irregularit ies within their respective platforms. Beekman argues that the differences in construction between platforms 45

PAGE 68

at Llano Grande and Navajas indicate that separate labor groups were employed for platform construction. Differences between platforms may indicate competition and status signaling between these lineages (Beekman 2008: 423). However, these differences may also be attributed to different levels of skill, construction practices, or resources by participating lineages. No one platform appears to dominate over the others in terms of size. This may suggest that individual lineages may have been unable to dominate the other lineages and solidi fy its place as a royal lineage (Beekman 2008: 429). The cemetery at Tabachines and the tomb at Huitzilapa are cited in support of lineages within the Teuchitln culture Several tombs at Tabachines include multiple internments, though it is unclear if the se interments are sequential or simultaneous (Beekman and Galvan 2006: 264). Five of the six individuals recovered from Huitzilapa were found to share a genetic defect in the spine suggesting these five people were closely related. Combined with the great wealth of goods in the tomb, this supports the hypothesis that lineages played an important role within the Teuchitln culture (Beekman 2008: 218). In order to construct these temples, elites would have had to command a substantial amount of labor. Elites, however, did not have buildings that could be clearly interpreted as palaces or other elite structures (Beekman 2008: 417). It would appear that elites might not have had enough power in order to recruit a sufficient amount of labor to construct large per sonal projects such as a palace. In order to construct a guachimontn, elites would have had to cooperate and pool their resources. Elites could have relied upon cultural capital based on their control over religious beliefs and practices in order to recru it the necessary labor. Elites could have also recruited labor from within their family, lineage, or clan or by their social network by leveraging accumulated social capital. The amount of labor required to 46

PAGE 69

construct a guachimontn, which otherwise is not present in other constructions, may have been justified in order to create a space in which to perform any necessary rituals and religious activities (Beekman 2008: 230). Los Guachimontones The site of Los Guachimontones is located in the foothills of Tequila volcano above the town of Teuchitln The site is located about one kilometer north of the town. At the towns northern edge is a spring that drains into Presa La Vega. The ceremonial center of Los Guachimontones is located on a sloping hill with an elevation of 1360 to 1375 meters above sea level. The site is littered with cobbles and small boulders. Located on the summit of the hill to the northeast of Los Guachimontones is another sect or of the same site known as Loma Alta with an elevation of 1490 meters above sea level (see Figure 3. 4). 47

PAGE 70

Figure 3. 3 Aerial photo of Los Guachimontones Photo c ourtesy of Sebastian Albachten. 48

PAGE 71

Figure 3. 4 Map of Los Guachimontones Elevation map depicting the sites of Los Guachimontones and Loma Alta. Image courtesy of PAT. 49

PAGE 72

The site of Los Guachimontones consists of 14 guachimontones 4 ballcourts, and numerous residential structures and terraces scattered along the hillside to the north of the ceremonial center. In Figure 3.3, Circles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and Ballcourts 1 and 2 are visible. The other four guachimontones in this area of the site are obscured by foliage. Recent survey work by Verenice Heredia Espinoza has estimated the size of Los Guachimontones to be 369 hectares during the Late Formative to Classic periods during which the guachimontones and ballcourts were constructed (Her edia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017: 29) (see Table 1.1. for periods). Based on this area, the population is estimated to be 3,690 to 9,225 people with a mean population of 6,458 (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017; Heredia Espinoza personal communic ation 2017). Table 3.1 Chronological phases in the Tequila Valleys Phase Period Dates Tequila IV Classic 200 450/500 A.D. Tequila III Late/Terminal Formative 100 B.C. 200 A.D. Tequila II Late Formative 300 100 B.C. Tequila I Middle Formative 1000 300 B.C. The Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln (PAT) under direction of Phil Weigand began excavation at Los Guachimontones in 1999. By 2008, PAT had excavated Circles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10, both ballcourts, a residential area, part of Loma Alta, a nd a Postclassic area at the site ( Weigand et al. 1999; Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000a, 2000b 2002; Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). Radiocarbon dates placed the occupation of the site during the Late Formative to Classic periods (300 B.C. to 400 A.D); however, there are issues with the context of the recovered datable material (Beekman 2015: 6). The ceramic sequence for the 50

PAGE 73

site also faced issues in placing the occupation of the site within known ceramic chronologies. The ceramic sequence for Los Guachimontones was contradicted by two publications co-authored by Phil Weigand (Beekman 2015: 3). One publication said there were no changes in the ceramics recovered from the site during occupation from the Late Formative to Classic periods (Blanco et al. 20 10), while the other publication described and discussed ceramic changes within this same period (Beekman and Weigand 2008, 2010). A later analysis of materials recovered at the site by Beekman (2015) helps to resolve some of the site chronology issues. Occupation at Los Guachimontones begins during the Tequila I phase. At this time activity at the site appears to be restricted to the household level with no associated monumental construction. During the following Tequila II phase, Circle 1 and Ballcourt 1 are constructed along with several other smaller guachimontones During the Tequila III phase, Circles 2 and 3 are constructed. During the Tequila IV phase, there is a decline in monumental construction. At the end of the Tequila IV phase and beginning of the El Grillo phase, there is a drastic decline in occupation of the site. Of the guachimontones excavated by PAT, Circle 2 was the most complete excavated temple at the site. Almost every platform at Circle 2 was sampled, a tunnel explored part of the interior of the altar, and a number of units were placed into the patio and banquette. While these excavations provided a detailed understanding of some of the temples construction, important key areas of the guachimontn were never explored. Circle 1, whi le larger and constructed earlier than Circle 2, had suffered damage from farming and erosion. Only half of its platforms were restored by PAT. Much of the excavation data on these platforms are unpublished or missing. For this thesis, I have chosen to exa mine Circle 2, as it 51

PAGE 74

is the second largest guachimontn at the site and one of the largest guachimontones in the Tequila valleys region. The available data of Circle 2s construction will in aid in understanding how labor was organized at Los Guachimontones for the construction of some of the largest known guachimontones Weigands labor organization model relies heavily upon cultural and symbolic capital gained from conducting ritual, religious, and ceremonial acts to give elites the authority to recruit a large number of people over a long period However, Weigands labor organization model lacks a strong argument with multiple lines of supportive evidence. Weigands model is especially difficult to test considering the prevalent use of corve labor as the de facto model of labor organization for a wide range of proposed political models in architectural energetics studies. Beekmans labor organization model relies heavily upon cultural and social capital Cultural capital stems from elites using their positions as negotiators with the supernatural to recruit labor. Social capital stems from elites recruiting labor from close kin or extended social network in order to construct a guachimontn. However, Beekmans model is limited by his analysis of two comparatively smaller Teuchitln culture sites and his model may not be applicable to a larger guachimontn, located at a larger site in a more central area of the Tequila Valleys, and with a larger population that can contribute labor. Lopez Mestas model relies heavily upon economic capital in which elites hold ceremonies or feasts to recruit people to contribute to elites in the form of exotic goods and possibly labor. However, Lopez Mestas model is limited by the constraints of a voluntary feastin g model as discussed in Chapter 2 The feasting model is limited in the number of people that can be recruited and the duration in which work can occur. 52

PAGE 75

My thesis tests the proposed p olitical and labor organization models by estimating the amount of labor required to construct a guachimontn and whether the amount of labor can be recruited under each labor organization model. Based on the variables discussed in Chapter 2 and outlined in Table 2.1, each model can be t ested based on the site population size, amount of labor required to construct Circle 2, duration of construction, and quality of construction. The results of these tests are used to suggest a model f or labor organization for the construction of Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones. 53

PAGE 76

CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? Do scheduling and labor constraints place outside parameters upon the size of labor groups that limit the possible forms of labor organization? To answer these research questions we must first answer questions regarding the construction of the ceremonial buildings at Los Guachimontones. Public architecture has often been the subject of labor analyses because they required more complex labor strategies than a household. Public architecture tends to be larger, more complex, and more labor intensive. At Los Guachimontones, the ceremonial temples are the largest buildings at the site and their size is greater than household platforms. To understand labor organization at Los Guachimontones questions regarding the timespan of the project, quantity of labor, and quality of labor must be answered (see Table 2.1). This has led me to ask the following questions: how much labor was necessary to construct one of the large temple complexes in the Tequila Valleys? How do different construction materials affect labor estimates? How do labor estimates compare between the construction of internal fill and external appearance? Can we discern subdivisions in the construction that point to the size or skill of individual labor groups? Can we discern skilled vs. unskilled labor in the quality of construction? Can we discern construction patterns within individual architectural features? Can we discern a pattern in architectural feature volume? To address these questions I have calculated the labor costs associated with the construction of one of the ceremonial centers at Los Guachimontones using architectural energetics (Erasmus 1965; Abrams 1994; Milner et al. 2010) The architectural energetics process requires estimating 54

PAGE 77

the volume of a building and each type of construction material used. Different types of construction material require different rates of work to estimate the amoun t of labor needed to procure, transport, and construct the material. Rates of work from replicative experiments from published sources are applied to these volumes to estimate the amount of labor used in construction. Subdivisions within a building can indicate separate construction events and changes in construction material can alter labor estimates. These factors dictate the timespan of the project and labor group size needed. I measured architectural features in plan and section drawings from excavatio ns, reports submitted to the Jalisco state gov ernment and INAH, and AutoCAD files recovered from Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln (PAT) computers during Phil Weigands directorship Based on these three sources I determined that the most complete documented architectural group at Los Guachimontones was Circle 2. Almost all of Circle 2s platforms were sampled with excavation units. A trench explored part of the interior of the altar. In addition, numerous excavation units were placed into the patio and banquette of Circle 2. These excavations provided strategic data that helped me to answer my research questions and to test previously proposed models of labor organization. Data Source The data on Circle 2 come from excavations conducted by PAT under the direction of Phil Weigand between the years of 1999 and 2003. While PAT continued excavating until 2010, their investigations shifted focus from Circle 2 to other parts of the site su ch as the Ballcourt 2, other guachimontones within the ceremonial center, residential structures near Circle 1, and guachimontones further up on the hill at the area known as Loma Alta (see Figure 4.1). 55

PAGE 78

Figure 4.1 Los Guachimontones Map of the ceremonial center of Los Guachimontones. Image courtesy of PAT. Excavations into Circle 2 were originally conducted by PAT with two goals in mind: understanding the construction and composition of Circle 2 and preparing the ceremonial complex for tourism by clearing later soil deposition and restoring walls. Units and trenches were purposely placed in key positions around the guachimontn and dug until bedrock was reached. These key areas include the center of the platforms, the altar, the interface between 56

PAGE 79

the platform and banquette and the patio, how Circle 2 relates to Ballcourt 1, and into the banquette near each platform, as well as other locations. Some of the work in clearing the complex was focused on finding staircases to locate the access points to the platforms, though no excavations were dug into the staircases themselves. The work on Circle 2 was preoccupied with the period of its construction and use. The soil layers that date to later periods were often stripped from the architectural feature s and were not documented as thoroughly. These units and trenches are labeled as calas pozos and trincheras (trenches). Pozos are one meter2 or two meter2 excavation units, calas are one meter by two meters or larger rectangular excavation units, and trincheras are long rectangular excavation units, usually greater than three meters in length. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably within the reports or on the excavation drawing necessitating frequent crosschecks between data sources. There are a number of architectural terms to define. Each individual temple or ceremonial structure is called a guachimontn and multiple structures are called guachimontones A guachimontn is sometimes colloquially referred to as a circle due to its shape. For example, Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones. A guachimontn is primarily composed of four architectural components (see Figure 4.2). The base component is the patio. While a patio normally refers to an open space within or next to a structure, the patio for a guachimontn is actually a cylindrical platform. This cylindrical platform serves as a base for the rest of the architectural components that make up the guachimontn. In the center of the patio is the altar. In the case of Circle 2, the altar is a stepped, truncated cone. However, not all altars take this form and not all guachimontones have an altar. For example, Circle 4s altar is a square platform and the guachimontn at the site of 57

PAGE 80

Llano Grande lacks a constructed altar, but has a central hole carved into the bedrock. Along the outside of the patio is the banquette. The banquette is a cylindrical ring platform. The banquette acts as a base for the final architectural component, the platforms. The platforms themselves are divided into primary platforms and secondary platforms The primary platforms are the largest platforms built onto the banquette. In Circle 2s case, there are ten primary platforms. Secondary platforms are smaller platform additions typically constructed on the flanks of the primary platform. The banquette, with its set width, limits the expansion potential of the primary platforms and prevents additions into or outside of the patio without disrupting the symmetry of the structure. Figure 4.2 Circle 2 architectural features AutoCAD model demonstrating the architectural features of Circle 2. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca 58

PAGE 81

Each architectural component is composed of several features. The fill of an architectural component is the construction material used to create the bulk and body of a component. Fill includes materials such as aggregate, earth, clay, toba, and liga Aggregate consists of various size stones used in the fill, usually mixed with another material such as earth or clay. Small aggregate is defined as stones from pea to fist size, used as inert material in a mortared mass while large aggregate is defined as stones, boulders, or rubble larger than fist sized (L oten and Pendergast 1984: 13; 9). Medium aggregate falls somewhere in between the two sizes of aggregate defined by Loten and Pendergast. Fill composed of earth is topsoil gathered from the area and is neither sandy nor as moist as clay. Clay is fine grained earth mixed with water believed to have come from a nearby spring or Presa de la Vega. Toba is a material found in the region and used in construction. Toba is defined by Weigand as specks, pebbles, or small cobbles consisting of semi -consolidated or consolidated jal [volcanic material ] in which the cement agent is yellow and/or grey/yellow ochre ( Weigand et al. 1999: 19). The cobble facing for an architectural component is the outer construction of the architectural component. This includes the four walls for a platform, the rise and run for the steps for the altar, and the walls of the banquette. Surfaces in architectural features are layers within the construction formed from different kinds of fill. A layer of clay followed by a layer of cobbles would produce a surface where the clay meets the cobble. Surfaces also include the outermost feature of an architectu ral component such as the cobble facing or the top of a platform. Floors are prepared surfaces on or within an architectural component. They usually contain evidence for activity. For example, floors are found on the top of the primary 59

PAGE 82

platforms. Aplanado is the clay material applied to the cobble facing and other exterior surfaces of the architectural features that creates a smooth appearance for the architectural component. Liga is a material sometimes noted by Weigand. Liga is a cement like clay that is grey in color (Weigand 2000: 37). The sources of these raw materials and the costs for collecting, transporting, and construction will be a ddressed later in this chapter. Data Recovery Excavation records from PAT in the years 1999 to 2010 are largely available in a digital format, either through reports in a PDF format submitted to the state of Jalisco and INAH or in files recovered from PAT laboratory computers. Some original hardcopy drawings exist of excavation units, but many are missing after the passing of Phil Weigand and the dispersal of project archaeologists in 2011. In the summer of 2014, I traveled to the Los Guachimontones laboratory to sort through, record, and categorize pa rt of the digital data left behind on PAT computers with a focus on the excavation data. With direction from Dr. Beekman and Dr. Heredia Espinoza, current director of PAT I developed a filing and naming system for the available data to facilitate access for future researchers and myself. PAT excavation drawings were first recorded on grid paper. Based on the 1999, 2000, and 2001-2002 reports, the drawings seem to have been made by Weigand himself. Starting with the 2003-2006 report, drawings were included by other project archaeologists and few were made by Weigand. Scales for the drawings, when they are included, range from 1 centim eter equaling 10 centim eters on the drawing to 1 c entim eter equaling 1 meter. The scale varies depending on the size of the excavation unit and the size of the architectural feature. For example, the plan drawing for Platform 3 of Circle 2 is at a scale of 1 c enti m eter to 1 m eter, the trench into the altar of Circle 2 has a scale of 1 centim eter to 50 centim eters, 60

PAGE 83

and the excavation unit into the banquette near Platform 5 of Circle 2 has a scale of 1 centim eter to 10 centim eters. As stated previously, many of the paper drawings are missing though some are retained by PAT. The paper excavation drawings are preserved digitally on PAT computers. Based on the Date, Date Created, and Date Modified fields in Windows Explorer, PAT personnel began creating digital copies using a scanner in 2002. The majority of the digital copies are in the .JPEG image format with some copies in oth er image formats like .PNG, .GIF, and .TIFF. Beginning with the 2003-2006 report, the scans of excavation drawings were imported into the computer program AutoCAD. AutoCAD is a computer aided design and drafting program. Using AutoCAD, PAT created a digital tracing of the scanned excavation drawing using different colored lines. The digital tracings were then included in the 20032006 report instead of the scanned drawings. The digital tracings were saved in AutoCADs .DMG format. The .DMG format can only be opened using the AutoCAD program, but AutoCAD includes an export feature to convert the .DMG file into a viewable PDF. The file names for PAT project material did not have a uniform naming scheme. Project material was organized by individual project archaeologists who each had their own system for assigning file names. This posed a problem when search for material for a specific architectural feature of the site. By file name, I refer to the string of alphanumeric characters used to identify a compute r file. Some file names contained descriptive titles that were beneficial in identifying the contents when the drawings themselves lacked any sort of legend. By legend, I refer to the information provided within the drawing itself. Normally this consists o f information such as the architectural feature, the excavation unit, the date, the 61

PAGE 84

excavators name or initials, etc. Other file names were machine-produced names from the scanner they used such as docu0009.jpg, docu0010.jpg, docu0011.jpg, etc. I want to make a brief note on excavation photos that were also recovered on PAT computers. Some of these photos show clear views of structures and architectural features or appear in reports to INAH and technical reports and have proved useful in understanding sit e maps and plan drawings. The majority of these photos consist of photos of excavation units or the area around excavation units. These excavation unit photos were not given a descriptive file name and there was no peg photo board present in the photos the mselves. We were unable to locate any list or database that details which photo files correspond to which excavation units. Without interviewing past excavators and spending a considerable amount of time trying to assign photos to features, these photos have been largely unused for this thesis. Between Dr. Beekman and myself and confirmation with Dr. Heredia Espinoza, we decided that the drawing files would be grouped according to architectural feature or excavation areas at the site. Material for Circle 1 would be placed in a folder labeled Circle 1, material for Ballcourt 1 would be placed in a folder labeled Ballcourt 1, and so forth. For the files themselves, we decided on a label scheme that involved a form of shorthand to provide the greatest amount of data to the reader with the least number of characters. This was done as a preventative measure after examining several files. Windows shortened the file name of several files when their file paths became too long, the result of file names being too long or files being placed in too many nested folders. This shorthand would help ensure that critical data were retained should the files be placed within several nested folders. 62

PAGE 85

One of the objectives given to me by Dr. Beekman and Dr. Heredia Espinoza for the 2014 field season was to convert the AutoCAD files to a more usable format, one that would not need the knowledge or use of AutoCAD itself. AutoCAD contains a feature to allow its drawing files to be converted to a PDF format. A few trial tests determined the best method of creating PDFs, although this required intermediate steps. Simply commanding AutoCAD to convert a file to a PDF was not sufficient since only part of the drawing would be captured in the output. An area surrounding the drawing within AutoCAD was selected as the output space for the entire drawing to appear in the PDF. The cosmetic changes came in the form of changing yellow lines to black. Within AutoCAD, the workspace is a dark grey background with def ault lines appearing as white to stand out. These white lines would convert automatically to black when viewing the drawing in the Layout view, printing a drawing, or converting to a PDF format. After creating several PDF files from the drawings, I realize d that any yellow lines appeared poorly on the white background within the PDF. These lines were selected prior to the output function and changed to black for the output process. The file was then closed without saving to prevent these changes from being permanent to keep them as they were when first opened. The output process did not affect the integrity of the data, but the files were still not saved when closed as a redundant preventative measure. The completeness of the data for the entirety of the Lo s Guachimontones excavations is currently uncertain. We know that we did not have everything that was digitally scanned. This is evident in the reports, especially the earliest reports from 1999 to 2003, in which drawings appear whose originals have not be en located. In some cases, some of these files were overwritten during the copy process. Files for the La Joyita section of the site, for example, appeared briefly in the 2003-2006 report but I could not locate most of its files. 63

PAGE 86

After sorting through file s with machine produced file names, we discovered that some duplicate files were not duplicates, but instead had been overwritten during the copy process. The original files were re-examined partway through the process of organizing so that files with dupl icate file names were not overwritten. This allowed the recovery of dozens of excavation drawings from parts of the site we thought were lost, but also confirmed the need for systemati c nomenclature of all drawings. Measuring Drawings Before talking about how volumes were measured, I want to discuss briefly these volumes in the context of accuracy and precision. The volumes of the architectural features are based upon the excavation drawings and descriptions produced by PAT. Any architectural features that are measured are dependent upon the accuracy of the drawing or description by the excavator. If a drawing has a scale, I had to trust that the drawing has been accurately drawn to that scale. Similarly, I had to trust that descriptive measurements provide d in the reports were also accurate. Because drawings can be measured and checked, both paper drawings and AutoCAD files were given preferential treatment over descriptions in case of contradictory statements. However, not all features were excavated and h ad drawings that could be measured. In those few cases, textual descriptions from reports were used. The volumes produced based on these measurements and descriptions are simply estimates. These estimates are used to provide a point of discussion and should not be lost within the greater discussion of labor organization. The measurements used in volume calculations were based on an average measurement taken from the drawings and files. Three measurements were taken each for the length, width, or height. Whe n measuring architectural features from plan drawings, such as 64

PAGE 87

a primary or secondary platform, these measurements were taken in the center and outer edges of the platform (see Figure 4.3). When measuring section drawings, the placement of the measurements followed the same format T wo measurements were placed on either edge of the construction fill and one placed in the center (see Figure 4.4). There is some variability in replicating measurements that is dependent on the location measured. Cobble shapes in the cobble facing of platforms come in a wide variability of shapes and sizes. Alternatively, construction fill is not always a consistent thickness throughout the structure and instead has slopes or bulges where the construction material is thinner or thickest. Depending on where one measures, the slope of the line may change the length of the measurement. 65

PAGE 88

Figure 4.3 Plan drawing of Platform 5 The red lines show the placement of where measurements were taken to find the length and width of the platform. Image courtesy of PAT. 66

PAGE 89

Figure 4.4 Profile drawing of Cala 5, Platform 10 The red lines show the placement of where measurements were taken to find the depth of the construction fill. Image courtesy of PAT. Because of the digital format of the excavation drawings and AutoCAD files, I decided to measure them digitally using Photoshop CS5 and AutoCAD 2012. The Photoshop program contains a measurement tool that normally measures the number of pixels in an image. This measurement tool can be provided with a custom scale to denote a certain number of pixels equating to a certain value. Each of the excavation drawings had their own scale, usually 20 centimeters, 50 centimeters, or 1 meter scales. When measuring each drawing, the scale of the measurement tool was set to the scale of the drawing so that features 67

PAGE 90

that measured 20 centim eters in the drawing were measured as 20 centimeter s within the Photoshop program. AutoCAD has a measurement tool that was utilized in the cases where an AutoCAD drawing was measured. Within the AutoCAD drawings, PAT members provided a scale that proved to be accurate when measured. No adjustment to the measurement tool was needed for measuring within AutoCAD. Measurement s were taken to the nearest 10 centimeter unit. Issues and Assumptions The section drawings of architectural features within Circle 2 only provided a partial view of the composition of the structure. Often the section drawing was of just one or two walls o f the excavation unit with other unit walls missing or simply undrawn. The placement of these excavation units followed a nonprobability form of sampling; they were placed in specifically selected locations within Circle 2 to provide specific data. Because of the inconsistent coverage within excavation units, I must assume that for the volumetric calculations of construction material that the composition of the architectural feature within the excavation drawing was representative of the entire structure. For example, if a section drawing from an excavation pit that was placed in the center of a platform depicted a layer of rubble fill above a layer of clay fill, then those layers would be assumed to extend throughout the entirety of the platform. Another is sue was the lack of excavation units placed within every architectural feature. It was common for an excavation unit to be placed within the center of the primary platform and one secondary platform, but not every secondary platform. In these cases, I made the assumption that similar, especially symmetrically placed, architectural features were constructed the same if there were no drawings available. If one secondary platform fill 68

PAGE 91

consisted of clay mixed with aggregate, I assumed that the unexcavated secon dary platforms were also constructed with clay mixed with aggregate with the same clay to small aggregate ratio. In regards to calculating the aggregate to earth ratio for the construction fill, a dot matrix was placed over the excavation drawings within Photoshop. Dots that were located within a drawn piece of aggregate were counted as a whole number and dots that landed on the line of a piece of aggregate were counted as one half. The total number of dots associated with aggregate were then divided by the total number of dots within the square to find a percentage of aggregate to earth. Sometimes more than one square was used to provide a more accurate ratio of aggregate to earth. These percentages were then applied to the total volume of that construction layer to arrive at volumes for aggregate and earth for energetics calculations. This ratio of aggregate to earth was then applied consistently throughout the architectural feature. One last issue was finding the heights of some of the architectural featur es, namely secondary platforms. In the cases where no excavation units placed within a secondary platform, I did not know the construction composition or the height of the secondary platform. The length and width of the secondary platforms were often depicted in plan drawings, but heights were not given. In these cases, I made use of one of the site maps produced in AutoCAD. These maps were quite roughly made with the general shapes of architectural features. Features that should have been rectangular or cl ose to rectangular were not. The altar, which should have been drawn as round, was instead drawn as a polyhedron. Some architectural features like the secondary platforms were missing or drawn incorrectly after a comparison with plan drawings and photos of the site. Despite the roughness of the 69

PAGE 92

drawing, it contained critical value s in the Zcoordinates of its lines. The site map may have used data made by a total station based on the contour lines of the hill and rough approximations of heights of architectural features on the map. By using the measurement tool in AutoCAD, I was able to measure the Z coordinates of these lines and determine the height of architectural features that were otherwise unknown by comparing these values against the height of other features and the contour lines of the landscape itself. For each line in the architectural feature, I measured in three places; on e in the middle and one on either end of the line as I did in the plan and section drawings. For platforms this resulted in tw elve measurements, three for each side, which were then averaged together to obtain a height value. This height value was then compared against the known heights of other architectural features or the contour lines of t he map as a check for accuracy. Calcu lating Volumes Architectural features are used as a basis to define geometric shapes for volumetric estimates. The patio is calculated as a cylinder, the banquette is calculated as nested hollow cylinders, platforms are calculated as rectangular prism s, and the altar is calculated as a series of nested truncated cones. Dividing volumes based upon architectural features presented challenges. Assumptions made for calculating these volumes are discussed in part below and in Appendix A. 70

PAGE 93

Figure 4.5 C ylinder AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of a cylinder. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. The patio platform spans the entire diameter of Circle 2 and will be calculated as a cylinder ( = ) where r = the radius of Circle 2 and h = the average thickness the platf orm. The average thickness is determined by averaging measurements across multiple excavation drawings. Prior information suggested that a truncated cylinder would be more appropriate due to the natural slope of the hill on which Circle 2 is constructed. However, a lack of sufficient data on the depth of the patio platform in the downslope area of Circle 2 prevents the use of this geometric shape. The banquette will be calculated as a series of nested hollow cylinders ( = ( ) ) where h = average height of the feature, R = outer radius of the feature, and r = 71

PAGE 94

the inner radius of the feature. Each hollow cylinder represents a different part of the banquette structure. The outer hollow cylinder is the outer cobble facing, the middle hollow cylinder is the construction fill of the banquette, and the inner hollow cylinder is the inner cobble facing (see Figure 4.6). The inner radius used in the equation for the outer hollow cylinder will be determined by subtracting the full radius of Circle 2 from the average thickness of the cobble facing where it can be measured. The middle hollow cylinder will use the smaller radius from the outer hollow cylinder as its largest radius. The inner radius will be determined by subtracting the average width of the banquette fill measured from plan drawings. These steps will be repeated for the inner hollow cylinder using the average width of the cobble facing where it can be measured to determine the inner radius. 72

PAGE 95

Figure 4.6 Nested hollow cylinders AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of nested hollow cylinders. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca Platforms will be calculated as two nested rectangular prisms ( = ) where l = the length of the platform, w = the width of the platform, and h = the height of the platform. The outer prism consists of the cobble facing while the inner prism consists of construction fill (see Figure 4.7). To determine the volume of the cobble facing, measurements will first be taken from the total length and width of the cobble facing using plan drawings. The height of the cobble facing will be measured from section drawings. Multiplying the length, width, and height will provide the volume of the platform to the height of the cobble facing. This will be followed by measuring the length and width of the construction fill from the plan 73

PAGE 96

drawings and multiplying these measurements by the height of the cobble facing. Subtracting this interior volume from the total volume will provide the volume of the cobble facing. To calculate the vol ume of construction fill, the height of construction fill based on section drawings will be multiplied by the length and width measurements of the construction fill from plan drawings. Construction fill will be divided based upon the height of different co nstruction layers based on fill material if needed. Figure 4.7 Nested rectangular prisms AutoCAD model demonstrating the form of nested rectangular prisms. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca 74

PAGE 97

Sometimes secondary platforms were built off primary platforms (see Figure 4.8). These secondary platforms were sometimes constructed in an L -shape that bordered two sides of the primary platform. In these cases, the secondary platform will be divided into two sections with an arbitrary line made fr om the corner of the primary platform. These sections will be calculated as separate prisms, but will be combined for a total volume afterward. Figure 4.8 illustrates the relationship between the primary platform and one of Platform 5s L-shaped secondary platforms. Figure 4.8 Platform 5 Plan drawing indicating the primary platform and an L-shaped secondary platform. Image courtesy of PAT. 75

PAGE 98

In some cases, platform construction fill will be calculated as several rectangular prisms based upon retaining walls constructed within the platform. In the case of Platform 4, however, the construction fill will be calculated as three rectangular prisms and three tria ngular prisms ( = ) due to the angle of the retaining wall within the platform (see Appendix A). Figure 4.9 illustrates how one of Platform 4s retaining walls is angled. Each platform fill section is divided into a rectangular prism and triangular prism in order to calculate the entire volume. Figure 4.9 Calculating platform fill AutoCAD model demonstrating how to calculate platform fill with a retaining wall. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca 76

PAGE 99

For simplicity, the altar will be calculated as a series of n ested truncated cones ( = ( + 5E5E + ) ) wherein R = radius of the larger base, r = the radius of the smaller base, and h = the height of the truncated cone (see Figure 4.10). The cobble facing of the altar appears to have been stepped in the past, but preservation is poor within earlier construction periods of the altar. The divisions between these truncated cones will be based upon the cobble facing and construction fill with the assumption that the cobble facing and construction fill is consistent throughout the altar. For the cobble facing, I will use an average thickness based on the rise and run for that construction stage. To obtain the radii of each truncated cone I will begin with the radius of the entire altar at its base, in this case R The smaller radius, r and height, h, will come from descriptions in reports. Using the average thickness of the ruble facing, this measurement will be subtracted from R r and h to obtain R r and h Subtracting V from V will provide the volume fo r cobble facing of the altar. V R and r will became the new V R and r for the calculation of the construction fill underneath the cobble facing. This fill was measured in several places to provide an average thickness, which was then subtracted from the new R r and h values to provide new R r and h values. The process will be repeated for each construction stage of the altar with the last stage, Pyramid 5, consisting of a block of clay in the form of a truncated cone. 77

PAGE 100

Figure 4.10 Calculatin g altar fill AutoCAD model demonstrating how to calculate altar fill. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca Architectural Energetics The rates of work used in my energetics calculations come from Abrams (1994) and Milner et al. (2010). Erasmus (1965) and Abrams (1984, 1987, 1989, Abrams and Bolland 1999, Arco and Abrams 2006, and Abrams and LeRouge 2008) are heavily used within the literature for their rates of work as they cover most of the basic tasks used in prehistoric construction without the use of draft animals or wheels. Abramss work (1994) provides most of the rates of work I require for energetics calculations such as the collection of cobbles, the construction of walls, construction of earthen fill, and the transporta tion of materials. Unlike Abrams and other researchers, I chose not to use Erasmus rate of work for the excavation of clay for reasons detailed below 78

PAGE 101

With growing interest in and use of in architectural energetics comes refinement and improvement of rates of work. One such improve ment comes from Milner et al. (2010) and needs to be discussed in the context of Los Guachimontones. Milner et al.s research focused on the construction of Mississippian mounds, which, like Circle 2, were constructed primarily with clay. Erasmus rate of work is based on digging in loose, sandy soil. These conditions are not always applicable or appropriate for other archaeological contexts. Experiments by Milner et al. using a stone hoe, based upon archaeological examples, crea ted several rates of work for use on different clay conditions ranging from little inclusions to many inclusions. The employed students and experienced Maya workers for the replicative experiments. Milner et al. found that inclusions had little effect on the rate of work, but moisture was a factor as the wet clay often adhered to the hoe blade. I decided to use a slightly different rate of work for the excavation of toba. This rate of work was an average of Milner et al.s rates of work for clay that includ ed inclusions despite the inclusions not being a major factor. The assumption is that excavating toba would be a slower task than excavating clay for fear of breaking any tools. 79

PAGE 102

Figure 4.11 Mesoamerican digging sticks The Good Farmer (top) and The Bad Farmer (bottom), Book 10 of the Florentine Codex. Both farmers make use of a digging stick (de Sahagn 1979, book 10, folio 28, page 30). While stone hoes may not have been used widely by Mesoamericans, digging sticks were used by other people like the Az tecs (Donkin 1970). These digging sticks, called uictli in Nahuatl, consist of a shaft of wood shaped to have an asymmetrical wooden blade that comes to a point at the end (see Figure 4.11). While uictli were more often used for planting, 80

PAGE 103

farming, and wate r irrigation activities, Donkin (197 0: 509) points out their use in construction projects as evident by their depiction in the construction of a foundation for a cathedral in the Codex Osuna (1565). Despite a lack of direct evidence that the Teuchitln cul ture made use of a digging stick, for this thesis I am assuming that they did0. This assumption, combined with Milner et al.s rate of work for excavating different types of clay, would provide a more accurate estimation of labor over Erasmus rate of work for loose, sandy soil. In summary, I have reviewed and described the source of the data used for my thesis as well as steps taken to recover data from PAT computers and data quality. I have described architectural terminology and features of the guachimontn in order to understand its form. I have a lso described the methods to measure the data and to calculate the volumes of specific construction materials. These methods have been put into practice in the next chapter to calculate the estimated am ount of labor needed to construct Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones. 81

PAGE 104

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS The following section is a summary of excavation and work on Circle 2. This section is divided by architectural feature. Within each summary of an architectural feature, information from multiple field seasons is summarized. Descriptions of excavation units, their locations, and the construction of the feature are included. Detailed measurements for features, construction layers, etc. are found in Appendix B. Cir cle 2 is the second largest guachimontn at the site of Los Guachimontones and is located between Ballcourt 1 and Circle 3 (see Figure 5.1). Circle 2 consists of a patio, a two tiered altar, a banquette, and ten platforms constructed on top of the banquette (see Table 5.2 for definitions). In the center of Circle 2 is the altar, a two tiered stepped truncated cone. The lower tier of the altar has thirteen steps while the upper tier has four steps. The banquette is constructed along the circumference of Circle 2 and forms a ringed shape platform for the ten quadrangular platforms. Three of the quadrangular platforms, Platforms 10, 1, and 2, are partially constructed on top of Ballcourt 1 where Circle 2 and Ballcourt 1 join. Due to the height of Ballcourt 1, these three platforms are constructed higher than the other seven platforms. Circle 2 is connected to Circle 3 via Platform 5, which is shared between the two guachimontones 82

PAGE 105

Figure 5.1 Los Guachimontones site map A site map from the 2000a report depicting the locations of excavation units ( We igand and Garca de Weigand 2000a: 27). Image courtesy of PAT. 83

PAGE 106

The reported diameter of Circle 2 varies across sources. In 1999 report, Weigand stated that the diameter of Circle 2 is 115 meters with a circumference of 360+ meters (Weigand et al. 1999: 18). AutoCAD maps in the 2003 to 2006 report provide a dimension of 94.68 m to 97.51 m in diameter (Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). GPS coordinates taken by Dr. Verenice Heredia Espinoza vary from 94 m to 99 m (Heredia Espinoza, personal communication 2015). Checking Google Earth and using the programs measurement tool, Circle 2 varies form 97 meters to 100 meters. For this thesis, it is assumed that Circle 2 is 99 meters in diameter, the maximum recorded diameter with a GPS unit. The banquettes dime nsions also vary across sources. Typically, the banquette is constructed on top of the patio with the outer radius of the banquette matching the outer radius of the patio. For Circle 2, the outer radius of the banquette is assumed to be 99 meters. Plan drawings of six of the ten platforms depict a variable banquette width. The banquette width ranged from its narrowest at Platform 6 with 13.07 meters to its widest at Platform 5 with 17.01 meters with an average width of 15.34 meters. For this thesis, it is a ssumed that the banquette measures 15.34 meters in width. No measurements were given for the altar, though measurements for the interior construction stages of the altar are made in reference to an unstated base diameter. GPS coordinates taken by Dr. Ver enice Heredia Espinoza indicate that the restored base diameter of the altar is 37.5 meters and the overall height is 8 meters (Heredia Espinoza, personal communication 2015). Described below, t he height and diameter for the top surface of the lower tier o f the altar can be inferred from excavation drawings. For the outermost construction stage of the altar, the top surface diameter is estimated to be 20.84 meters with a 84

PAGE 107

height of 5.71 meters. The measurements of the upper tier are unknown and its construction is not factored into this architectural energetics process. The enclosed space formed by the banquette and the altar has an estimated outer diameter of 68.32 meters and an estimated inner diameter of 37.5 meters. The estimated surface area for the encl osed space is 2,561.47 meters2. Table 5.1 Height of platforms measured from banquette surface Platform Height (meters) 1 2.51 2 1.96 3 1.36 4 1.42 5 1.58 6 2.26 7 1.64 8 1.31 9 1.4 10 2.42 Average 1.79 The platforms for Circle 2 average 1.79 meters in height measured from the surface of the banquette to the surface of the platform (see Table 5.1). Platforms 10, 1, and 2 are much taller due to their unique position on the banquette near Ballcourt 1. These three platforms measure at least half to a meter in height more than the other six platforms. Platform 2 is the smallest of the three with a height of 1.96 meters. Platform 1 is the tallest 85

PAGE 108

with a height of 2.51 meters and Platform 10 is nearly tall as Pl atform 1 with a height of 2.42 meters. Platform 6 is unusual in that the height of the platform is greater than its neighbors, Platform 5 and 7. This may be due to the slope of the hill on which Circle 2 is constructed. Platform 6s height may be compensat ing for this slope to keep the structure level with its neighbors. Of the ten platforms, Platform 8 is the smallest. This may be, in part, due to erosion and modern farming destroying part of the surface of the platform as it did with Platform 9. 86

PAGE 109

Table 5.2 Architectural terms to describe construction material and features These were initially described in Chapter 4 and are summarized here. Term Definition Toba Specks, pebbles, or small cobbles consisting of semi consolidated or consolidated jal [pumic e] in which the cement agent is yellow and/or grey/yellow ochre (Weigand et al. 1999 : 19). Small aggregate Stones from pea to fist size, used as inert material in a mortared mass (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 13). Large aggregate Stones, boulders, or rubble larger than fist sized (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 9). Aplanado Greyish brown to grey [clay] with a high liga content ( Weigand et al. 1999 : 31) Liga Lake side clay which has a naturally occurring high level of both jal and cal ( Weigand et al. 1999: 31) Cal Lime, calcium oxide Jal Volcanic material including pumice and ash Cobble facing The body of stone made of cobbles that forms the exterior of a structure Pozo Typically a 1 meter 2 or 2 meter 2 excavation unit Cala Typically a 2 meter 2 excavation unit Trench Long rectangular excavation units, usually greater than 3 meters in length. Altar/Pyramid Circular stepped structure in the form a truncated cone located in the center of a guachimontn Banquette Cylindrical ring platform that acts as a base for the construction of platforms Primary platform Term used to describe part of an original structure, rather than a modification of that structure (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 12) Secondary platform Added to a structure as a modificati on of the primary effort (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 12). 87

PAGE 110

Figure 5.2 AutoCAD model of Circle 2 The model shows the approximate locations of excavation units. Units with drawings are in red, units without drawings are in blue. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 88

PAGE 111

Excavation Summary This section of the Analysis chapter summarizes the excavations conducted in Circle 2 by PAT. The construction of architectural features is described in the context of their respective excavation units. PAT did not produce a detailed map of Circle 2 displa ying the placement of excavation units, the orientation of architectural features, or the true size of architectural features. Figure 5.2 is a model created in AutoCAD using all known available data from excavation drawings, descriptions in reports, and later GPS taken by new PAT members. Many data is missing, nor recorded, or poorly recorded. Figure 5.2 represents an approximation of the size, layout, and location of architectural features and excavation units. Excavation units with corresponding drawings are marked in red while excavation units with no corresponding drawing are marked in blue. The location of the blue excavation units come from site maps (see Figure 5.1) or plan drawings of platforms. There are a number of excavation units that were mentioned in reports, but were not described and were not drawn on maps or plan drawings. Not included in this model are the excavation units placed into the patio of the structure. Individual units, described below, could not be placed given the available information. The extensive trenches placed into the patio, described below, are included in a separate map (see Figure 5.4). Patio Excavations began in 1999 with the placement of several excavation units into the patio. The labeling and placement of thes e units is unclear. There exist six excavation drawings, but two sets have the same label. One pair of drawings are labeled Trench 1 and the other pair are labeled Trench 3 (see Figure 5.3; see Table 5.2 for definition). The two other excavation drawings are labeled Trench 2 and Trench 4. The index of drawings in the 89

PAGE 112

1999 report lists these drawings as calas instead of their label as trenches. For this discussion, the excavation drawings will be referred to as calas The redundancy in labels appears to have been the result of two different segments within one long excavation trench having been drawn, though the segments drawn are not located next to one another. There is further confusion with the 1999 report stating that four units were excavated into the patio. Only three units were discussed in the report. Two of these units are named Pozos 1 and 2 and the third unit is named Cala 1 (see Table 5.2 for definition). Weigand discusses these drawings collectively and as a result I am unsure which unit and excavation drawings were left out in his description. Weigand (1999: 19) states that these units were placed in the southern area of the patio; however, there is no map or plan view to narrow down this placement. The orientations for these units are also unconfirmed. Locations in the drawings are described as 7 m from the 1st stake at pyramid/banquette edge, but there is no mention of where this stake is in the reports. A map in the 1999-2000 report seems to suggest that these patio excavation units could be a part of the trenches placed in a radial fashion into the altar of Circle 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000a: unlabeled figure 3). These radial trenches are labeled Cala 1 through 5, 7 and 8 (see Figure 5.1). Calas 1, 2, 3, and 4, extend from the top of the altar to the center of a platform. Cala 1 extends to Platform 5, Cala 2 to Platform 3, Cala 3 through Platform 1, Ballcourt 1, and into Circle 1, and Cala 4 extends to Platform 9. If the patio drawings are segments of these long trenches, both Ca la 1 units are located in the southern area of the patio near Platform 5, Cala 2 is located in the southeastern area of the patio by Platform 3, both Cala 3 units are located in the northeastern side of the patio near Platform 1, and Cala 4 is located in the northern side of the patio near Platform 9. 90

PAGE 113

Based on these excavation units, it was determined that the patio was constructed on a natural slope (Weigand et al. 1999: 17). A layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba was placed on the A-horizon and bedrock of the hillside (see Table 5.2 for definition). This layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba measured from nine to centimeters 99 centimeters in thickness. Weigand describes this toba layer as gravel -like and proposes that it helped promote drainage and kept the patio space free of standing water (Weigand et al. 1999: 19). This layer is referred to as the dense toba layer in the tables below and in the appendices. Above this toba layer, a layer of brown clay that leveled the construct ion area was laid down. This layer of brown clay measured from 4 centimeters to 45 centimeters in thickness. This clay is mixed with only a few specks of toba or small aggregate no larger than a few centimeters in diameter (see Table 5.2 for definition). 91

PAGE 114

Figure 5.3 C2_T_T1_Sa One of two excavation drawings labeled Trench 1, Patio (Weigand et al. 1999: 65). Image courtesy of PAT. The patio is interpreted to have been constructed in a single stage of construction using the two previously described layers of clay and clay mixed with toba (Weigand et al. 1999: 2021). At the time of excavation, the clay layer was noted to extend under neath the altar and platforms 1 and 5 indicating that the entire diameter of Circle 2 was planned out before the construction of these architectural components. Weigand argues the entire patio acted as a foundation platform for the later construction of the altar, banquette, and platforms (Weigand et al. 1999: 21). Above this clay layer is a plow-zone between 25 and 30 centimeters thick that contained occasional cobbles. These cobbles most likely came from the 92

PAGE 115

altar or nearby platforms. The plow-zone contai ns material culture from post-occupation deposition from later periods. Figure 5.4 C2_XX_XX_Rg AutoCAD model depicting the locations of the patio trenches ( Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2003 to 2006 field seasons, three ve ry long trenches consisting of two meter by two meter excavation units were p laced into the patio in the northern, western, and southern areas of the patio (see Figure 5.4). The overall length of the northern trench measures 40 meters. The northern trench includes a perpendicular trench that adjoins at the midpoint and 93

PAGE 116

extends towards the banquette between Platforms 9 and 10. This perpendicular trench measures 26 meters in length. The overall length of the western trench measures 44 meters and consists of a single, double, or triple row of excavation units. The overall length of the southern trench measures 40 meters and is U -shaped in layout. These trenches did not excavate to the bedrock, but did excavate as far down as the surface of the toba lay er. These three trenches confirmed that the patio was constructed with a single layer of clay that leveled the entire area. Because of the extensive nature of the trenches, PAT uncovered gaps in the clay coverage that the excavators interpreted as later mi ning of raw material in the Epiclassic and Postclassic periods. The areas that were mined were filled by soil layers with associated diagnostic artifacts from the Epiclassic and Postclassic periods. The mined areas showed no evidence that the patio was mined recently. Measurements from these drawings for the patio fill were taken from unmined sections of the patio only. Later excavations within Circle 2 described below demonstrated that the patio does not extend underneath all the platforms. Platforms 9, 10, 1, and 2 are all constructed on outcroppings of bedrock that place their foundations above the patio surface. In these four cases, the same layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba found in the patio was discovered on the bedrock underneath these platforms. This layer, however, is not continuous from patio to platform and is interrupted by the bedrock. The layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba is present underneath the other six platforms, but excavations are not sufficient to confirm whe ther this layer is continuous from the patio to the platforms or is interrupted by other features such as the bedrock. In summary, the patio was constructed using two different layers of construction material in one single construction event. The first lay er consists of clay mixed with a large 94

PAGE 117

amount of toba deposited onto the bedrock and buried A-horizon. This toba layer may have acted as gravel to promote drainage for the site. The second layer consists of clay with little to no toba and no aggregate. This second layer leveled the patio as evidenced by the extensive excavations in the northeast that show the patio to be quite thin and excavations in the southwest that show that patio to be much thicker. The patio does not act as the foundation for all subsequent constructions for Circle 2 as was previously believed. Excavations into the banquette, described and discussed in further detail below, have demonstrate that Weigand was mistaken in his belief. Patio excavations did not reveal a floor applied to the patio; however, excavations in other areas of Circle 2 described below have uncovered possible floors. It is possible that a floor once covered the patio, but due to exposure to the elements, the floor did not preserve over time. 95

PAGE 118

Figure 5.5 AutoCAD model for the altar AutoCAD model depicting the locations trenches into the altar. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. Altar In 1999, work began on the altar with seven trenches placed into the altar. Unlike the patio, the altar was constructed o ver five construction events rather than a single construction event. Of the seven trenches, only Cala 7 fully explored the interior of the structure. The other six trenches were placed in a radial fashion into the altar (see Figures 5.2 and 5.5). The tren ches were excavated into the outermost construction stag e to expose the construction, partially explore the interior, and to understand how the structure may have appeared in the past. (Weigand et al. 1999: 33). Weigand notes that the outermost construction stage, and the site as a whole, was heavily quarried in the past to make nearby field boundaries. These six 96

PAGE 119

calas aided in understanding that the outermost construction was once terraced and stepped. Wei gand describes that the construction fill of the outermost construction forms seven terraces over which the builders constructed 13 steps with the cobble facing (see Table 5.2 for definition). Both the terraces and the steps were noted to be roughly made, most likely with the intention of covering the structure with a thin layer of dark brown clay with small specks of toba found on Pyramid 1 and Pyramid 3 described below. The rough shape of the terraces and steps were further disturbed by the expansion of the clay construction fill pushing outward causing shifts that dislodged part of the cobble facing. Only two excavation drawings were recovered for two of the six calas These drawings are labeled Cala 5 and Trench 1. There is a possible plan view for an unlabeled unit. These two excavation drawings do not clearly define the terraces or steps discussed by Weigand. Presumably, the missing drawings contain that information. Cala 7 entered the altar from the northwest and continued towards the southeast direction ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000a: Fig 3). Work began with the 1999 field season and ended with the 2002 field season (Weigand et al. 1999: 2023; 2002: 13-18). Cala 7 is made up of two parts; an expansive vertical trench that penetrated part of the altar and a tunnel that continued from the trench towards the center of the altar. Based on the excavation drawings, the trench was 8.33 meters in length from the base of Pyramid 1 to the end of the excavation unit, 6.6 meters in height from the bedrock to the top of Pyramid 1, and 1.6 meters in width. The interior tunnel measured 8.9 meters in length, 1.4 meters in height from the top of the tunnel to the bottom of the excavation unit, and 1 meter in width. The interior tunnel was not fully excavated to the bedrock. Three 60 centimeter units were placed in the 97

PAGE 120

tunnel floor and excavated until bedrock was reached. When the tunnel neared the center of the altar, the tunnel was excavated fully to the bedrock. It should be noted that there is a discrepancy between the drawings and the reports. Weigand reported the tunnel length as 9.2 meters and that the tunnel excavated just past the center of the altar (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 14 15). This discrepancy creates a difference of 0.3 meters between the measureable drawings and the descriptive reports. It is possible that the difference of 0.3 meters is a transition between the extensive vertical trench and tunnel. However, Weigands reported tunnel length would not have reached the center of the altar. If one adds the length of the trench to the length of the interior tunnel, the result in a total length of 17.23 meters. If the altar did have a diameter of 37.5 meters (18.75 meter radius) before restoration, the total length of the trench and tunnel is 1.52 meters short of the center of the altar. Even with the added 0.3 meter difference, Cala 7 does not appear to have reached the center as Weigand had stated. In 1999 PAT described three construction phases for the altar (Weigand et al. 1999 : 30-33), but this was later revised to five after the 2001 -2002 field season (2002: 13-15). Each construction phase is labeled Pyramid 1 through 5 with 1 being the outermost and most recent construction and 5 being the innermost and oldest construction. 98

PAGE 121

Figure 5.6 C2_A_C7Ext_Sc One of three tunnel excavation drawings of Cala 7. This drawing depicts Pyramid 5, the earliest altar construction ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 103104). Image courtesy of PAT. Pyramid 5 was constructed on top of the patio surface with no indication of a patio floor as was found in other construction stages. Pyramid 5 consists of a truncated cone of alternating layers of brown/grey clay and clay mixed with toba surrounded by a layer of clay mixed with toba and faced with cobbles (see Figure 5.6). The builders began construction when they laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba directly onto the surface of the patio. This first layer forms a sloping shape from the exterior towards the center where it reaches a maximum height of 33 centimeters, but the wedge does not extend throughout the Pyramid. The profile at the end of the tunnel excavation indicates 99

PAGE 122

that this first layer is only present on the northeast side of the Pyramid. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba averaging 40 centimeters that encompassed the first layer. This second layer leveled the interior construction of the Pyramid. This second layer was followed by a thin layer approximately 9 centimeters thick of clay mixed with a large amount of toba, the same material as the first layer. The fourth layer was a thin layer approximately 12 centimeters thick of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba, the same as the second layer. The fifth layer laid down is the same as the first and third layers and is approximately 7 centimeters thick. The last layer consists of a 50 centimeter thick layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba, the same material as the second and fourth layer. On top of the last layer, the builders laid down a horizontal layer of large aggregate (see Table 5.2 for definition). Next, the builders laid down just a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba directly on top of the patio and partially on top of the truncated cone of alternating layers of clay creating a sloping exterior surface. The excavation drawing shows that this expansion extended approximately 1.5 meters outward from the base of the truncated cone. The Cala 7 tunnel indicates that this layer reached a height of 90 centimeters from the patio surface, and then was covered with a horizontal layer of large aggregate. Next, the builders constructed a cobble facing on top of the sloping exterior surface of Pyramid 5. The interior tunnel of Cala 7 was not sufficiently excavated vertically to provide a complete understanding of Pyramid 5. It is unknown whether the same clay mixed with a large amount of toba was used above the horizontal aggregate layer or if the builders used a different construction material. For this thesis I have assumed that the construction material used above the aggregate layer is the same brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of 100

PAGE 123

toba found below the aggregate layer and that this clay layer completely cover ed the truncated cone. The height and top surface radius of Pyramid 5 is also unknown. The base radius of Pyramid 5 is estimated to be 4.76 meters by measuring from the base of Pyramid 1 to the base of Pyramid 5 using the excavation drawings. Located near the center of Pyramid 5 is a circular stone lined cist dug near the center of the Pyramid. This cist is circular in shape, lined with stone, and measures 45 c enti m eters in diameter and 75 c entim eters in height. This cist is capped with a large slab measuring 65 centim eters by 50 centim eters by 23 centim eters. The cist itself is filled in with grey -brown loose earth. Weigand suggests that this space is a posthole, reminiscent of other postholes found within the altars and patio spaces of other complexes (2002: 15). 101

PAGE 124

Figure 5.7 C2_A_C7Ext_Sb One of three tunnel excavation drawings of Cala 7. This drawing depicts Pyramid 4 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 103). Image courtesy of PAT. Pyramid 4 modestly expanded upon Pyramid 5 (see Figure 5.7). The builders first laid down brown/grey clay mixed with a heavy amount of toba in an uneven layer approximately 21 centimeters thick and 1.7 meters in length on top of the patio surface. This lay er was then covered with a layer of large aggregate approximately 17 centimeters thick. Above the layer of large aggregate, the builders laid down a single layer approximately 77 centimeters thick of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba. Pyramid 4 was then covered with a cobble facing. However, the cobble facing is deformed and is pushed outward. Weigand believes this may have been due to the weight of later expansions (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 17). As with Pyramid 5, Cala 7 was insufficiently excavated vertically in this 102

PAGE 125

section. It is unknown which construction material was used above the layer of aggregate, the height of the altar, and top surface radius of Pyramid 4. For this thesis, I have assumed that the construction mater ial above the aggregate layer is the same as the construction material below the aggregate layer. The base radius of Pyramid 4 is estimated to be 6.77 meters by measuring from the base of Pyramid 1 to the base of Pyramid 4 using the excavation drawings. Figure 5.8 C2_A_C7Ext_Sa One of three tunnel excavation drawings of Cala 7. This drawing depicts part of Pyramid 3 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 102). Image courtesy of PAT. 103

PAGE 126

Pyramid 3 expanded the altar further. From the cobble facing of Pyramid 4 to the entrance of the tunnel seen in Figure 5.6, the builders laid down a thin layer of light brown earth approximately 3 centimeters thick on top of the patio (see Figure 5.8). Weigand believes this may be a surviving floor for the patio (Weigand et al. 1999: 31). The builders then laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay with little to no toba on top of this possible floor. From the cobble facing of Pyramid 4 to the entrance of the tunnel, this clay layer gradually thickens to 30 centimeters. Outside of the tunnel, this clay layer ends with a large mound of clay near the exterior of Pyramid 3. On top of this layer of clay, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba that extends to the top of the tunnel, approximately 93 centimeters. At the tunnel entrance of Pyramid 3, the construction method is more detailed as seen in Figure 5.9. Above the layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba, the builders laid down alternating uneven layers of brown/grey clay mixed with toba that gradually slope inward. These alternating layers are separated by thin lines of puddled brown clay, but these thin lines do not represent floors (Weigand e t al. 1999: 31). Covering the large mound of brown/grey clay with no toba found near the tunnel entrance, as well as the sloping alternating layers of clay mixed with toba, the builders laid down a layer of brown clay mixed with small specks of toba and la rge aggregate. Directly above the alternating layers of clay mixed with toba the builders laid down a thick layer of aggregate. On the sides of Pyramid 3, the builders constructed stepped cobble facing creating nine steps. Applied to the cobble facing are traces of a layer of grey -brown clay. On the top surface of Pyramid 3 where this layer is preserved best, the layer measures approximately 16 centimeters. Applied to this layer of grey-brown clay is a final layer of dark brown clay with small specks of toba that 104

PAGE 127

would have covered the entire altar. On the top surface of Pyramid 3 where this layer is preserved best, the layer measures approximately 8 centimeters thick (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b:20). Pyramid 3 has a base radius of 15.32 meters, an e stimated top surface radius of 8.35 meters, and an estimated height of 3.93 meters. Figure 5.9 C2_A_T7_S Excavation drawing depicting Pyramids 1, 2, and the remainder of Pyramid 3 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 101). Image courtesy of PAT. Pyramid 2 expanded the altar modestly outwards, but increased the height of the altar considerably. Expanding upon Pyramid 3, the builders laid down a single layer of brown clay mixed with some large aggregate onto the patio surface and the entirety of Pyramid 3. This layer measured approximately 50 centimeters at the base, 103 centimeters at the top surface 105

PAGE 128

radius, and 97 centimeters thick at the top. While Weigand discusses alternating layers of clay at the top of Pyramid 2, this is not depicted in the drawings (Weigand et al. 1999: 32). No possible patio floor was uncovered underneath Pyramid 2. Covering Pyramid 2s construction fill of clay, the builders constructed a stepped cobble facing. The cobble facing for Pyramid 2 was more clearly defined than Pyramid 3 and PAT uncovered 13 steps leading up to the top of the altar (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b:21). PAT did not uncover a layer of grey-brown clay and dark brown clay with small specks of toba covering Pyramid 2 as they did for Pyramid 3. Pyram id 1, the final construction phase of the altar, expanded the overall diameter of the altar, but increased the height marginally. The builders laid down a single layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of large aggregate that covered the lateral surf ace of Pyramid 2. This clay layer measured approximately 2.25 meters at the base and 34 centimeters near the top surface radius. On top of Pyramid 1, the builders increased the thickness of the cobble facing without adding any construction fill. Pyramid 1 was completed by covering the structure with a clay layer similar to the clay layer found on Pyramid 3 (Weigand et al. 1999: 32). The upper tier of the altar consists of a small circular stepped truncated cone with four steps. This small altar was not excavated by PAT. Weigand describes the upper tier as once being 2.5 meters in height, but now only 1.5 meters are preserved. A looters destroyed much of the upper tiers height. In 1970 when Weigand first examined the altar he said that it once showed evidence of a post hole that was 1 m in diameter and 1.5 m in depth, but this post hole has since eroded away due to the looters actions and time (Weigand et al. 1999: 35-36). This small altar appears to have been constructed for Pyramid 1 and there is no 106

PAGE 129

indication of a small altar once existing for Pyramid 2. The interior construction of the small altar was observed by Weigand to consist of a single construction event. In summary, the altar was constructed in five stages. Of the five stages, only Pyramid 3 appears to have been constructed with uneven and alternating levels of construction fill. Without further excavation into the altar, it is unknown how complex the cons truction of Pyramids 4 and 5 are, but Cala 7 indicates they appear to be uniform in composition like Pyramids 2 and 1. Pyramids 5 and 4 appear to have been constructed before the patio was given a floor a s evidenced by the possible floor underneath Pyramid 3. This floor, however, did not preserve under Pyramids 1 and 2, which raises questions about whether this layer is a floor or something else. Because the floor consists of unfired clay, it is possible that a floor was routinely applied to the surface of the patio as the floor itself was destroyed by the elements over time. This could explain why a section was preserved under Pyramid 3, but not under the other pyramids or in the excavations into the patio. At the time Pyramid 3 was constructed, perhaps eno ugh of the floor had survived to be preserved under the new expansion of the altar. Pyramid 3 saw the altar greatly expanded from its modest size. Pyramid 3 is unique in that a thick aggregate layer comprised a substantial portion of the top of the altar. Pyramid 2 saw an expansion of the altars height with a modest expansion of the altars base. Lastly, Pyramid 1 expanded the altars base, but minimally expanded the altars height. Due to a lack of sufficient data, it is unknown whether the current upper tier of the altar is unique to Pyramid 1 or if previous construction stages of the altar had their own upper tier. Excavations have shown that Pyramids 1 and 3 were once covered by thin layers of clay that sealed the cobble facing of the structure and possibly act ed as a surface for decoration. 107

PAGE 130

Banquette The banquette is a platform ring constructed on top of part of the patio and serves as a base platform for the ten quadrangular platforms. The outer radius of the banquette follows the circumference of the patio. For this thesis, the outer radius of the banquette is assumed to be 49.5 meters. The inner radius of the banquette is constructed towards the center of the patio. As discussed above, the banquettes dimensions vary across sources. Plan drawings of six of the ten platforms depict different banquette widths. Platform 6 has the narrowest banquette with a width of 13.07 meters while Platform 5 to the east of Platform 6 has the widest banquette with a measurement of 17.01 meters. The average width of the banquette is 15.34 meters. Using this average, the inner radius of the banquette is 34.16 meters. Excavations into the banquette and the platforms described below do not indicate that the banquette was expanded upon. It is possible that farming over the years destroyed parts of the banquette that were not protected by the platforms resulting in narrower sections of the banquette. Without a detailed map of the site, it is not possible to determine the exact shape of the banquette or the placement of the platforms on top of the banquette. For this thesis, I have assumed that the banquette is a perfect circular ring with an outer radius of 49.5 meters, an inner radius of 34.16 meters, and a width of 15.34 meters. The banquette has a complicated construction t hat is exacerbated by the numerous excavation units placed into Circle 2s platforms that sit atop the banquette. Described below are three calas placed into the banquette that were not placed immediately adjacent to a platform. The descriptions of the banquette construction found within or next to a platform are included in the discussion of that platform below. This is done to aid in understanding the 108

PAGE 131

construction of the platforms more than the banquette. A summary and discussion of the entire banquette i s included below that incorporates information from all of Circle 2. Figure 5.10 C2_B,P1,10_C1_S Excavation drawing depicting Cala 1, Platforms 1 and 10 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 108). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2000 field season, Weigand stated that calas were placed between the platforms into the banquette, but makes no mention of how many or where (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 23). He cites Figures 13 and 14 in the 2000 report, but only Figure 13 was included. Figure 13 is an excavation drawing labeled Cala 1 (see Figure 5.10). Cala 1 is located where the banquette meets the patio between Platforms 1 and 10 where the 109

PAGE 132

patio is thinnest and there is a natural rise in the bedrock (see Figure 5.13). This excavation unit measu res 1.6 meters in length, 2 meters in depth, with an unspecified width. The unit is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northwestern profile of the excavation unit. Within Cala 1, there are two distinct features to the banquette. The first feature is a stepped portion of the banquette consisting of two steps leading from the patio to the top of the banquette. The second feature is the main body of the banquette on which the platforms are constructed. Under the third s tep and surface of the banquette, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 1.19 meters thick on top of the bedrock and buried A-horizon. This layer forms the bulk of the banquette construction in this area of Circle 2. Under the first two steps of the banquette, the builders laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba on top of the bedrock and buried A-horizon next to the banquette construction layer. This layer of clay mixed with toba measures from 23 centimeters near the bottom step to 64 centimeters where it joins the banquette construction layer. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with some toba over the previously described layers forming three rough step shapes. Under the first step this layer measures approximately 39 centimeters, under the second step 52 centimeters, and under the third step 29 centimeters. A cobble facing consisting of cobbles and a clay mortar was constructed on the vertical faces of each step with the top surfaces left unfaced. 110

PAGE 133

Figure 5.11 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S Excavation drawing depicting Cala 1, Platforms 1 and 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 150). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2001 and 2002 field season, one cala was placed in the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2 (see Figure 5.19). The cala, labeled Cala 1, was placed in this area to understand the relationship between Circle 2 and the ball court by trying to uncover the external cobble facing of the ballcourt. Cala 1 measures 4.75 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 3 meters in depth. The unit is orientated roughly east-northeast to southsouthwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeastern and southeastern profiles of the excavation unit (see F igure 5.11). The excavation unit uncovered the cobble facing of the ball court that suggested that Circle 2 was constructed after the construction of the ballcourt 111

PAGE 134

(Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 4546). Here the banquette was constructed when the builders first laid down an uneven layer of dark brown clay mixed with some large aggregate approximately 32 centimeters thick over the buried A-horizon and bedrock of the hill. Next, they laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large amounts of toba. At the north end of the cala the second construction layer is approximately 21 centimeters thick, while at the south end the construction layer is approximately 81 centimeters thick. The builders laid down a third layer consisting of dark brown clay with no toba approximately 70 centimeters at the north end of the cala This third layer was brought level with the thicker second construction layer in the south. Finally, the builders laid down a fourth construction layer consisting of brown/grey clay mixed with small aggregate approximately 1.03 meters thick (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 46). 112

PAGE 135

Figure 5.12 C2_B,P6,7_XX_S Excavation drawing depicting Cala 1, Platforms 6 and 7. Image courtesy of PAT. A cala was placed in the banquette between Platforms 6 and 7 and extending outward to the exterior of Circle 2 during the 2003 field season (see Figure 5.51). This drawing was recovered from files found on the PAT computer and was not included in any report. This cala measures 11 meters in length 1.5 meters in depth at its deepest and the width is unspecified The unit is orientated north -northwest by southsoutheast with the excavation drawing depicting the southeastern profile of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.12). Here, a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba was first laid on top of the bedrock and soil of the hill approximately 45 centimeters thick. Next, a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba 113

PAGE 136

approximately 43 centimeters thick was laid down. The second layer marks the final layer of construction for the banquette. The banquette as a whole exhibits a wide range of variability in terms of construction material and construction method. The variability within the banquette, however, is restricted to varying amounts of toba found within the clay. Variabilit y within the banquette is not just restricted to the immediate area around a platform, but is present within a platform area as well. This is a stark contrast to the uniform construction of the patio. While this variability can be recognized within the banquette, a lack of sufficient horizontal excavations hinders the ability to provide definitive borders between the differing construction materials With the exception of the banquette excavation between Platforms 1 and 10 described above, the amount of tob a in the clay of the banquette varies from no toba to a small amount of toba. In summary, excavations into the banquette have raised questions regarding the extent of the patio and its use as a base platform for remaining architectural features of Circle 2. The construction layers within the banquette do not completely correspond to the construction layers in the patio. The only layer that remains consistent is the layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba applied to the bedrock or buried A-horizon. This dense toba layer is found in virtually every excavation unit within Circle 2, even underneath Platforms 9, 10, 1, and 2, which are constructed on top of a natural rise in the bedrock. Two separate construction layers, which would indicate the banquette was constructed on top of the patio, are not consistently found within excavation units dug into the banquette. If the banquette were constructed on top of the patio as Weigand believed, one would expect to find a layer of clay with little to no toba wh ich was used as the second construction layer in the patio, followed by a construction layer for the banquette. Instead, excavations have shown that a 114

PAGE 137

single construction layer on top of the dense toba is more commonly found. There are several cases in whi ch a division is present or possibly present, such as in Cala 2 of Platform 6 or Cala 5 of Platform 9 described in detail below. This single layer could represent the construction of the banquette simultaneously with the construction of the patio, or that clay of the patio was wetted before the clay of the banquette was deposited. If this occurred, a division would not be expected or seen within the excavation drawings. It is also possible that the division between the two features was too subtle to be not ed by the excavators. Excavation drawings such as Calas 1 and 2 for Platform 5 and the staircase Cala 1 for Platform 6 described below, which would be able to provide insight into the relationship between the patio and banquette, are unfortunately missing. Other excavation units, such as the unnumbered cala at Platform 4 and Cala 4 for Platform 9 described below, only excavated as far as the patio surface and thus could not illuminate the relationship between these two features. Because of this uncertain relationship between the banquette and the patio, for this thesis I have assumed that these two features were constructed separately. The layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba is assumed to be present for the full extent of Circle 2s 99 meter diam eter. The clay fill of the patio, however, is assumed to extend only as far as the interior cobble facing of the banquette. Any construction material found within the cobble facing of the banquette, above the dense toba layer, but below the platforms is assumed to be banquette construction material. This division between the patio and the banquette eliminates the uncertainty between the two features while providing an accurate estimation for the volume of each feature and the amount of labor that may have gone into their construction. 115

PAGE 138

Platform 1 Platform 1 is located on the northeast portion of the banquette, partially constructed on top of Ballcourt 1 that separates Circles 1 and 2. Platform 1 consists of a primary platform measuring 9.38 meters by 15.77 m eters and a height of 2.51 meters measured from the surface of the banquette. Platform 1 has four small secondary platforms (see Figure 5.13). Two secondary platforms flank the primary platform to either side. The adjacent northwest secondary platform meas ures 11.05 meters by 1.63 meters with a height of 86 centimeters. The other northwest secondary platform measures 11.05 meters by 1.67 meters with a height of 45 centimeters. The adjacent southeast secondary platforms measures 9.38 meters by 99 centimeters with a height of 65 centimeters. The other southeast secondary platform measures 9.38 meters by 96 centimeters with a height of 37 centimeters. No dedicated plan view drawing exists for Platform 1. A plan view for Platform 1, along with Platforms 2 and 10, can be found on a site map in the 2000 report (see Figure 5.14). This map depicts part of Circle 1, Ballcourt 1, and Circle 2. There are two staircases located to either side of Platform 1 that provide access from the patio to the banquette. 116

PAGE 139

Figure 5.13 AutoCAD model of Platform 1 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 117

PAGE 140

Figure 5.14 Partial site map of Circle 2 This partial site map is the only plan view available for Platforms 10, 1, and 2 ( W eigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 102). 118

PAGE 141

Calas A and B were placed where the platform, banquette, and patio meet, but only Cala A has a drawing (see Figure 5.15). Cala A is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and southeast profiles of the excavation unit. The excavation unit measures 3.6 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2.2 meters in depth. The southeast profile of Cala A depicts the construction of the banquette next to Platform 1. The builders first laid down a layer of brown clay mixed with toba and small aggregate approximately 37 centimeters thick on top of the bedrock of the hill. This layer measures 2.8 meters in length from Platform 1 to the cobble facing of the banquette. Next, an uneven layer of brown clay mixed with small sized toba approximately 38 centimeters thick was laid down on top of the first layer. The second layer measures 2 meters from Platform 1 towards the cobble facing of the banquette, but does not fully cover the first layer. Lastly, the plow zone consisting of loose soil and aggregate is deposited on top of the second and first layers. 119

PAGE 142

Figure 5.15 C2_P1_CA_S Excavation drawing depicting Cala A, Platform 2 (Weigand et al. 1999: 78). Image courtesy of PAT. The northeast profile of Cala A depicts the construction of Platform 1 (see Figure 5.15). Underneath Platform 1, the bedrock extends 30 centimeters or more higher than the bedrock in the southeast profile of the excavation unit. Deposited on this bedrock outcrop is a thin layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba measuring approximately 7 centimeters thick. On top of this layer, the builders constructed alternating layers of what Weigand describes as puddled light brown/grey clay with lines of dark brown earth. Weigand describes puddled clay as wet clay that has been deposited and allowed for the surface to dry slightly forming di stinct levels between other layer s of clay deposits ( Weigand et al. 1999: 120

PAGE 143

23). The lines of dark brown earth noted by Weigand are the slightly dried surfaces of the pulled clay deposits. These alternating layers of puddled light brown/grey clay form a layer 80 centimeters thick. On top of this layer, the builders laid down a layer of brown clay mixed with small specks of toba measuring 40 centimeters thick. Last, the plow zone co nsisting of loose soil and aggregate is deposited on top of the second layer. The puddled layers of clay were initially proposed as the construction method for Platform 1 (Weigand et al. 1999:2223), but this was modified by Cala 3 described below. The drawing for Cala B is missing and Weigand does not describe the unit within the report. 121

PAGE 144

Figure 5.16 C2_P1_T3_Sb Second excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 1 (Weigand et al. 1999: 79). Image courtesy of PAT. 122

PAGE 145

Figure 5.17 C2_P1_T3_Sc Third excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 1 ( Weigand et al. 1999: 80). Image courtesy of PAT. 123

PAGE 146

Figure 5.18 C2_P1_T3_Sd Excavation drawing of the Cala 3 extension, Platform 1 (Weigand et al. 1999: 81). Image courtesy of PAT. 124

PAGE 147

Cala 3, labeled Trench 3 in the drawing but Cala in the report, is a long excavation unit placed in the center of the primary platform. Cala 3 consists of three excavation drawings. The first drawing depicts a small excavation unit placed where the patio meets the banquette. The drawing contains no scale with which to measure the architectural feature and was not included in this thesis. The second drawing depicts a long trench extending from the patio to the edge of the primary platform (see Figure 5.16). This trench exposed the cobble facing of the banquette, part of the primary platform, and some of the construction fill of the primary platform. Part of the construction fill of the primary platform is depicted in the upper right hand corner of the drawing, possibly because ther e was insufficient space on the paper. This trench measures approximately 15.5 meters in length, the width is unspecified, and four meters in depth. The excavation drawing depicts the southeast profile of the excavation unit. The third drawing depicts the excavation unit into the construction fill of the primary platform (see Figure 5.17). This unit is located 1.5 meters from the end of the long trench. This unit measures approximately 3.5 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 4 meters in depth. The excavation drawing depicts the southeast and northeast profiles of the excavation unit. This unit uncovered some slight differences in construction between this unit and Cala A ( Weigand et al. 1999 : 23). Attached to Cala 3 is an excavation unit perpendicular to the trench labeled Trench 3 Extension (see Figure 5.18). The additional excavation unit is orientated northwest to southeast. The excavation drawing lacks detailed labels to indicate whether the drawing depicts the northeastern or southwestern profile of the excavation unit. The additional excavation unit measures 3.6 meters in length, 2 meters in depth, with an unspecified width. 125

PAGE 148

Located in the western half of the unit is a pit 1 meter in length and 2 meters in depth that reached bedrock. Using Figure 5.17, construction for the primary platform began with a layer of brown clay mixed with toba approximately 18 centimeters thick laid upon the bedrock of the hill. This is the same layer found underneath the patio, altar, and banquette described above. Above this layer, the builders laid down a slightly uneven layer of dark brown clay with little to no toba approximately 96 centimeters thick. This second layer appears to be the construction fill of the banquette upon which Platform 1 is built. Towards the nort heast section of Cala 3, this layer of clay was covered with a thin layer of powdery, gray clay approximately 6 centimeters thick, which may mark the floor of the banquette. Excavations within Circle 2 have rarely uncovered a preserved floor for any architectural feature. Above this thin layer, the builders laid down a layer of large aggregate. In the southwest section of Cala 3, the thin, grey clay layer and layer of cobbles is not present. Instead, the dark brown layer of clay gradually turns into a thick layer of light brown clay that forms the construction fill for Platform 1. This layer of lighter brown clay covers the layer of cobbles found in the northeast section of the unit and measures approximately 2.51 meters. Within Cala 3 there is no indication of puddled layers of clay that were found in Cala A which suggests some slight construction differences between the center and closer to the exterior. It should be noted that Cala A did not extend into the interior of Platform 1 and the extent of the use of puddled layers of clay is uncertain. Near the surface of Platform 1, the builders constructed a series of retaining walls orientated northwest to southeast. Between these retaining walls, the construction material consisted of the same brown clay found below the retaining walls. Excavation drawings do suggest that these were a later addition to Platform 1. 126

PAGE 149

The additional excavation unit depicts a similar construction to Cala 3 (see Figure 5.18). The first layer laid on top of the bedrock is a layer of dark brown clay mixed with toba approximately 21 centimeters thick. Above this, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay with little to no toba approximately 1.11 meters thick. A thin layer of powdery, grey clay approximately 7 centimeters thick was laid on top of the second layer marking a possible floor for the banquette. Above this thin powdery grey layer, the builders constructed a retaining wall made of cobbles and brown clay that extended from the possible banquette floor to the surface of Platform 1. In summary, Weigand believed that Platform 1 was constructed in two stages with an initial stage that reached the height of the other platforms of Circle 2 and then a second stage that boosted its size above the rest ( Weigand et al. 1999: 24-25). I believe that this is unsupported. The first stage that Weigand may be referring to could be the construction material for the banquette on top of the natural rise in bedrock. Adding together the height of the bedrock, the layer of clay mixed with toba, and the construction material for the banquette the total height from patio surface to banquette surface is approximately 1.44 meters. This creates the illusion that a large platform was constructed on top of the banquette for Platforms 10, 1, and 2 as seen in maps or photos of the site. The reality is that the builders used the bedrock to their advantage when constructing these three platforms. The second stage that Weigand may be referring to could be the construction of Platform 1 itself in a single ev ent. There are no discernable divisions within Platform 1 that may indicate a period in which construction was later expanded. Some aggregate was mixed into the clay near the surface of the primary platform, but there are no divisions within that area to indicate the primary platform was expanded in height. 127

PAGE 150

Further, excavation units were limited to the primary platform with no excavation units placed into the secondary platforms. For this thesis, I have assumed that the secondary platforms were constructed in a similar manner to the primary platform by utilizing brown clay with little to no toba as their construction fill. Platform 2 Platform 2 is located on the eastern portion of the banquette ne xt to the ballcourt that separates Circles 1 and 2. Platform 2 consists of a single primary platform with a smaller secondary platform constructed in the center of the primary platform (see Figure 5.19). There are no secondary platforms that flank the prim ary platform. The primary platform measures approximately 11.67 meters by 12.68 meters and 1.92 meters high. The secondary platform measures approximately 8.63 meters by 9.07 meters and 46 centimeters high. A plan view for Platform 2, along with Platforms 1 and 10, can be found on a site map in the 1999 2000 report (see Figure 5.14). This map depicts part of Circle 1, Ballcourt 1, and Circle 2. A staircase located between Ballcourt 1 and Platform 2 provides access from the exterior of Circle 2 to the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2. The 2000 field season uncovered a shared platform that extended from Platform 1 to Platform 2. This platform presents an asymmetrical feature to the layout of the platforms, one that is only exacerbated by the wide distance between Platforms 1 and 2. The reason or cause for this spacing and shared platform is unresolved, but is discussed below. Three calas labeled 1 through 3, were placed around Platform 2. 128

PAGE 151

Figure 5.19 AutoCAD model of Platform 2 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. Cala 1 was placed where the platform meets the banquette and patio. The unit measures 5.2 meters in length, the width is unspecified, and 2.8 meters in depth. The unit is orientated slightly south of due east with the excavation drawing depicting the southern profile of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.20). The builders began construction with the banquette and laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 82 centimeters thick. This was followed by a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with som e large aggregate averaging 77 centimeters thick. This layer was laid down between the cobble facing of Platform 2 and the cobble facing of the banquette and slopes towards the enclosed 129

PAGE 152

patio space. There are no discernable divisions within this second con struction layer in the excavation drawing, but Weigand describes a middle wall to the banquette (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 30). This middle wall may refer to the short step present at the platform today. If this is the case, this step was constr ucted concurrently with the rest of the banquette using the same clay mixed with large aggregate. Figure 5.20 C2_P2_C1_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 110). Image courtesy of PAT. 130

PAGE 153

Cala 1 may be the only excavation drawing that provides any information on the actual construction of Platform 2 since no excavation units were placed into the platform and Weigand does not discuss the construction fill in his reports. Located on the far left of the excavation drawing, the interior of Platform 2 appears to have been drawn. The drawing lacks a 90 mark and line in this area that Weigand would have used to distinguish the profiles of excavation units in his drawings. If the line and mark were present, everything drawn to the left of the line would depict the exterior of the platform body rather than the interior construction. For this thesis, I am assuming that the excavation drawing for Cala 1 does depict part of the interior construction of Platform 2 and Weigand did not make an error by forgetting to draw his 90 mark and line. Underneath Platform 2, the bedrock extends upwards past the patio surface providing a natural rise to Platform 2, as it does under Platform 1, for approximately 40 centimeters. The builders laid down a layer of clay mixed with toba approximately 62 centimeters thick that is lev el with the corresponding banquette layer. Above this base layer, the builders constructed Platform 2 using clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.53 meters thick. 131

PAGE 154

Figure 5.21 C2_P2_C2_S Excavation drawing of Cala 2, Platform 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 111). Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 2 was placed in the banquette and shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. Cala 2 measures 1.4 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 3.4 meters in depth. The unit is orientated slightly west o f due south with the excavation drawing depicting the western, southern, and eastern profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.21). Here the builders first laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 66 centimet ers thick. On the southern profile of the excavation unit, the builders constructed the cobble facing for Platform 2 directly on top of this first layer. The cobble facing for the platform measures approximately 1.96 meters. On the western and eastern prof iles of the 132

PAGE 155

unit, the builders laid down a layer of cobbles set in clay approximately 35 centimeters thick on top of the first layer. Weigand believed that this layer of cobbles sealed the previous layer for construction and acted as a floor (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 31). Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba. On the western profile of the unit, the layer of clay mixed with toba is approximately 49 centimeters thick. Above this layer, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 34 centimeters thick. Next, the builders constructed a short retaining wall approximately 1.13 meters that extended to the surface of the excavation unit. We igand (2000b: 31) describes this as a buttress in the 2000 report, but interprets it as a terrace wall for the shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2 in the excavation drawing. This retaining wall does not appear in photos of Platform 2. Because of the confusing label and inability to examine the wall, the walls function or use is unclear. On the eastern profile of the unit, the layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba is uneven and slopes sharply northward to the surface of the excavation unit. This layer measures approximately 1.92 meters at its thickest and approximately 65 centimeters at its thinnest. Laid on top of the slope of clay mixed with toba and the cobble facing of Platform 2, is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with small aggregate. At its thickest, this layer measures approximately 1.4 meters and at its thinnest measures approximately 21 centimeters. 133

PAGE 156

Figure 5.22 C2_P2_C3_S Excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 112). Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 3 was placed at the rear of Platform 2 against the cobble facing of Platform 2 in the space between the banquette and the ballcourt (see Figure 5.22). Cala 3 measures 1.6 meters in length, 1.4 meters in width, and 2 meters in depth. The unit is orientated slightly north of due west with the excavation drawing depicting the western and northern profiles of the excavation unit. The western profile of the unit was placed against the cobble facing of the banquette while the northern pro file of the unit shows the fill between Platform 2 and the ballcourt. Below the cobble facing, the only construction layer is a thin layer of brown/grey 134

PAGE 157

clay mixed with toba approximately 12 centimeters thick laid onto the bedrock of the hill. This is the same layer of clay mixed with toba laid onto the bedrock found elsewhere in Circle 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 31). In summary, no excavations were actually placed within Platform 2 itself with the possible exception of Cala 1. As a result, the actual construction of Platform 2 is uncertain. However, for this thesis I have assumed that the excavation drawing for Cala 1 is accurate and does depict the construction fill for Platform 2. What we can say is that Platform 2 was constructed directly onto the banquette with a very tall cobble facing located between Platforms 1 and 2. The height of the wall is somewhat reduced in height on the patio side of the platform. This discrepancy cannot be explained due to an insufficient amount of data. At some point after the construction of the primary platform, the shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2 was constructed. This shared platform consisted of a cobble facing connecting the two platforms and the filling in the resulting space. Platform 3 Platform 3 is located on the southeastern portion of the banquette. Platform 3 consists of a primary platform and two secondary platforms (see Figure 5.23). A single secondary platform flanks the primary platform on either side of the structure (see Figure 5.24). The primary platform measures approximately 14.15 meters by 13.21 meters with a height of 1.49 meters. The northern secondary platform measures 13.99 meters by 1.81 meters with a height of 23 centimeters. The southern secondary platform measures 14.06 meters by 2.01 meters with a height of 19 centimeters. A small staircase leading from the banquette to the top of the primary platform is located on the patio side of Platform 3. 135

PAGE 158

Figure 5.23 AutoCAD model of Platform 3 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 136

PAGE 159

Figure 5.24 C2_P3_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 3 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 106). Image courtesy of PAT. 137

PAGE 160

Figure 5.25 C2_P3_XX_SE,W Profile drawing of Platform 3 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 107). Image courtesy of PAT. Platform 3 was selected by PAT for extensive exploration during the 1999 field season because they believed the platform was more typical of the rest of the platforms within Circle 2 than Platforms 10, 1, and 2 (Weigand et al. 1999: 25). Platforms 10, 1, and 2, were constructed against the ballcourt and Platforms 1 and 2 were connected with a shared platform that signaled some sort of connection. Platform 3 lacked these characteristics. Pl atform 3 has two secondary platforms built on top of the banquette, one on either side of the primary platform. Work on Platform 3 to clean the surface of the structure revealed possible foundations on the platform surface that may have delineated rooms in the past. The 138

PAGE 161

patio side cobble facing of the primary platform consisted of a double row of cobbles in thickness. The other three sides of Platform 3 utilized a single row of cobbles for the thickness of the cobble facing. Figure 5.26 C2_P3_C1_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 3 (Weigand et al. 1999: 88). Image courtesy of PAT. Three calas were placed in Platform 3 during the 1999 field season. Cala 1 is located in the banquette next to the northeast secondary platform. Cala 1 is orientate d northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the southwest and southeast profiles of the excavation unit. The southwest profile of the unit is placed against the northeast secondary 139

PAGE 162

platform (see Figure 5.26). The unit measures 2.5 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 1.6 meters in height. Here the banquette is constructed on a rise of the bedrock. The height difference was determined to be 1.5 meters higher than the bedrock in Cala 2 of the patio (Weigand et al. 1999: 26). Looking at the southeast profile of the excavation drawing, on top of the bedrock the builders first laid down a layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 25 centimeters thick. Above this layer, the builders laid down a layer of brown clay wi th little to no toba approximately 35 centimeters thick. The third through sixth layers consisted of uneven alternating layers of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba and brown clay mixed with little to no toba that averaged 13 centimeters, 11 centimeters, 8 centimeters, and 10 centimeters thick respectively. The sixth and topmost layer, consisting of brown clay with little to no toba suffered damage from modern farming. The southwest profile depicts the same construction with only one difference. On top of the sixth layer, the builders constructed a single row of cobbles approximately 24 centimeters thick that mark s the ledge of the secondary platform. 140

PAGE 163

Figure 5.27 C2_P3_C2_S Excavation drawing of Cala 2, Platform 3 (Weigand et al. 1999: 89). Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 2 is located in the banquette near the southwest secondary platform. Cala 2 is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and southeast profiles of the excavation unit. The northeast profile of the unit is placed against the southwest secondary platform (see Figure 5.27). The unit measures 2.5 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 1.4 meters in depth. Looking at the southeast profile of the excavation unit, here the banquette is first constructed with a layer of dark brown clay with little to no toba approximately 12 centimeters thick laid directly onto the bedrock. This is a departure from the rest of Circle 2 in which the first layer above the bedrock is a layer of clay mixed 141

PAGE 164

with a large amount of toba. The second layer consists of an uneven layer of brown clay mixed with a large a mount of toba averaging 13 centimeters in thickness. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown clay mixed with toba approximately 39 centimeters thick. The fourth layer consists of another layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 14 centimeters thick. Lastly, the builders laid down a layer of brown clay with little to no toba approximately 19 centimeters thick. The northeast profile depicts the same construction as the southeast with only one difference. Like Cala 1 and the northeast secondary platform, the builders constructed a single row of cobbles approximately 16 centimeters thick to mark the ledge of the secondary platform. 142

PAGE 165

Figure 5.28 C2_P3_C3_S Excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 3 (Weigand et al. 1999: 90). Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 3 was placed in the northwest area of the primary platform to understand its construction. Cala 3 is orientated northeast to southwest. It is uncertain whether the excavation drawing depicts the northeast and southeast profiles or the southwest and northwest profiles (see Figure 5.28). The unit measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and approximately 2.6 meters in depth. The builders first laid down an uneven layer of brown clay mixed with some toba averaging 27 centimeters in thickness onto the bedrock. The excavation drawing shows two small intrusions of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba. Next, the builders laid down an uneven layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba averaging 22 centimeters in t hickness. On the short profile, this layer is relatively 143

PAGE 166

thin. As this layer approaches the corner of the profile, it begins to thicken. On the long profile, this layer of brown clay mixed with toba is thick and uneven. The third layer the builders laid do wn is a sloping layer of brown clay mixed with very little toba averaging 31 centimeters in thickness. Weigand believes that the third layer may be the surface of the banquette because the clay layer was extremely compact ( Weigand et al. 1999: 26-27). On the short profile of the unit, the construction of Platform 3 continued with a layer of brown clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 77 centimeters thick. The fifth and final layer laid down is a layer of brown clay mixed with toba approximately 72 c entimeters thick. The long profile of the unit shows the fourth layer also consists of clay mixed with large aggregate that slopes to and becomes the surface of the platform. This layer measures approximately 1.36 meters thick. Within this fourth layer, PA T uncovered a small retaining wall half the height of the primary platform built on top of the banquette. Placed on top of the sloping fourth layer is a layer of brown clay mixed with toba that joins the fifth layer of the short profile in the corner of th e unit. 144

PAGE 167

Figure 5.29 C2_P3_XX_S Excavation drawing of an unnumbered cala, Platform 3 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 108). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2001 to 2002 field season, an unnumbered cala was placed in the southwest secondary platform. The unnumbered cala is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and southeast profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.29). The unnumbered cala measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2 meters in depth. The northeast profile of the excavation until is against the inside cobble facing of the primary platform. Located on top of the bedrock is a layer of toba mixed with soil approximately 9 centimeters thick. Weigand describes this layer as the original top soil of the hill also known as a buried A-horizon. On top of the buried A-horizon, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 1.1 145

PAGE 168

meters thick. On the northeast profile of the excavation unit, the cobble facing begins approximately 50 centimeters above the surface of the first layer. Near the surface of the secondary platform there is some large aggregate mixed in with the clay. This may be a separate construction event; however, there are no visible divisions between the banquette and the secondary platform. This suggests that the secondary platform was almost immediately constructed on top of the banquette. In summary, Platform 3 presents an inconsistent picture of the features construction. Calas 2 and 3 lack the base layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba found in Cala 1 and the unnumbered cala Instead, Calas 2 and 3 are constructed first with a layer of clay with no toba This creates an alternating pattern of base clay with toba and base clay without toba from northeast to southwest. There may even be inconsistencies within each architectural element as shown by Cala 2 and the unnumbered cala. These inconsistencies are h ighlighted by the unnumbered cala which lacks any alternating layers of construction visible in Cala 2 despite Cala 2 being placed next to the same secondary platform. Finally, Cala 3s lack of orientation labels or description in reports creates two issu es in trying to calculate the volume of Platform 3. The first issue is determining how much of Platform 3 was constructed with two layers of construction material and how much was constructed with just a single layer. The second issue is determining the volume of the retaining wall found within Platform 3 since the platform is not perfectly square. For this thesis, it is assumed that the excavation drawing depicts the northeast and southeast profiles of the excavation unit. However, the retaining wall will not be factored into the platforms volume estimates due to its poor condition and limited extent in the excavation unit. I have assumed that aggregate 146

PAGE 169

used to build the wall is incorporated into the clay and aggregate construction fill on that side of the platform. Platform 4 Platform 4 is located on the southeastern portion of the banquette. Platform 4 consists of a primary platform and three secondary platforms. One secondary platform is located on the eastern side of the primary platform and two small secondary platforms are located on the western side of the primary platform (see Figure 5.30). A secondary platform is attached to the banquette on the eastern side of the eastern se condary platform (see Figure 5.31). The primary platform measures approximately 12.44 meters by 12.47 meters with a height of 1.5 meters. The eastern secondary platform measures approximately 12.35 meters by 2.08 meters with an average height of 1.44 meters. The adjacent western secondary platform measures 12.27 meters by 81 centimeters with a height of 36 centimeters. The other western secondary platform measures 13.6 meters by 1.62 meters with a height of 13 centimeters. A single staircase located on the patio side of Platform 4 provides access from the patio to the top of the primary platform. 147

PAGE 170

Figure 5.30 AutoCAD model of Platform 4 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 148

PAGE 171

Figure 5.31 C2_P4_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 4 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 110). Image courtesy of PAT. 149

PAGE 172

Figure 5.32 C2_P4_XX_SNW,SW Profile drawing of Platform 4 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 111). Image courtesy of PAT. 150

PAGE 173

Figure 5.33 C2_P4_XX_S Excavation of an unnumbered cala, Platform 4 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 113) Image courtesy of PAT. Four calas were placed in Platform 4 in the 2001 to 2002 field season. An unnumbered cala, most likely Cala 1 based on its location, was placed into the patio and banquette near Platform 4s staircase The unnumbered ca la focuses on the construction of the banquette instead of the platform (see Figure 5.33). This excavation unit is orientated just west of due south and the excavation drawing depicts the eastern profile of the unit. The unit measures 2.4 meters in length, an unspecified width, and 1.5 meters in depth. The excavation unit extended to the surface of the patio and did not reach bedrock. At the surface of the patio, PAT uncovered a layer of burned brown clay they argued is the floor of the patio (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 23). On top of this possible patio floor, the builders 151

PAGE 174

laid down a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 21 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with some toba and some aggregate approximately 49 centimeters thick. This layer was then covered by soil and rubble from the plow zone. Figure 5.34 C2_P4_C2_S Excavation of Cala 2, Platform 4 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 112) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 2 is located in the exterior portion of the banquette at the rear of Platform 4. The banquette at the rear of Platform 4 has an attached secondary platform, which Weigand labels as an extension. Cala 2 is orientated just west of due north, the excavation drawing depicts 152

PAGE 175

the northern, and western profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.34). The unit measures 3 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2.2 meters in depth. Here the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 19 centimeters thick. Underneath the secondary platform, this layer of clay mixed with toba tapers off before reaching the exterior cobble facing of the secondary platform. For the secondary platform, the builders laid down a single thi ck layer of brown/grey mixed with a little toba approximately 1.05 meters thick that forms the entirety of its construction fill. The secondary platform was then given a cobble facing made out of cobbles. PAT uncovered some cobbles in the clay construction fill near the surface forming an incomplete cobble face. For the banquette, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 21 centimeters thick onto the layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba. On top of th is, the builders constructed a wall set in brown/grey clay approximately 44 centimeters thick. The fourth and final layer consists of brown/grey clay mixed with some toba approximately 81 centimeters thick. This layer extends from the wall to the surface of the banquette. The banquette was given a cobble facing made of cobbles as well, suggesting that the secondary platform was perhaps a later addition. Located near the surface of the banquette, cobbles were found embedded in the clay forming an incomplete cobble face. 153

PAGE 176

Figure 5.35 C2_P4_C3_S Excavation of Cala C, Platform 4 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 112) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 3 is located in the eastern secondary platform. Cala 3 is orientated east -northeast to west -southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northern, western, and southern profiles of the unit. The western profile is placed up against the cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.35). The northern and southern profiles depict the construction of the secondary platform. This excavation unit measures 1.9 meters in length, 80 centimeters in width, and 2.8 meters in depth. Here the builders first laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay mixed with blue/grey toba averaging 35 centimeters thick. Weigand specifies the color because the second layer of construction consists of an uneven layer of 154

PAGE 177

brown/grey clay mixed with yellow toba averaging 12 centimeters thick. For the third layer, the builders laid down an uneven layer of brown/grey clay with little to no toba averaging 46 centimeters. The third layer marks the construction of the banquette. Based on the western profile, the cobble facing for the primary platform began midway into the construction of the banquette. Recovered in this excavation unit is a layer of brown/grey clay approximately 11 centimeters thick that was applied to the cobble facing. This forms what Weigand calls aplanado (see Table 5.2 for definition). In the northern and southern profiles of the excavation unit, the builders laid down a single thick layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate that forms the entirety of the construction of the secondary platform (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 22). 155

PAGE 178

Figure 5.36 C2_P4_C4_S Excavation of Cala C, Platform 4 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 114) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 4 is located approximately one meter west and one meter north of the center of the primary platform. Cala 4 is orientated just west of due n orth with the excavation drawing depicting the northern, western, and southern profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.36). The excavation unit measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2.8 meters in depth. The builders first laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 48 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay with little to no toba approximately 65 centimeters thick. This second layer marks the construction of the banquette. On top of the banquette, the builders laid down a layer of large 156

PAGE 179

aggregate approximately 21 centimeters thick. In this area of the platform, the builders also constructed a retaining wall made of cobbles. Weigand notes that this retaining wall was not well made ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 22-23). On the southern side of the excavation unit, the builders laid down a layer of loose grey/brown earth mixed with large aggregate approximately 93 centimeters thick. On the northern side of the excavation unit, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 98 centimeters thick. On the western side of the excavation unit, the builders laid down a layer of light brown/grey clay mixed with little to no large aggregate approximately 39 centimeters thick. Above this layer, and level with the southern and northern construction fill layers, the builders laid down a layer of darker brown/grey clay mixed with some large aggregate approximately 71 centimeters thick. Covering all three different forms of construction fill from the southern, western, and northern profiles of the excavation unit the builders laid d own a layer of dark brown clay mixed with some toba and some large aggregate approximately 23 centimeters thick. In summary, Platform 4 appears to have been constructed in a heterogeneous manner. Different construction cells created with retaining walls within the platform contain similar, but different construction material. This creates an issue in determining the volume of each construction material without knowing the full extent of the retaining walls. In order to determine the volume of the construction material, it is assumed that the retaining wall found within Platform 4 extends from one exterior wall to the other exterior wall while keeping its present orientation. In this manner, the three construction cells are given an estimated size and position within Platform 4 so that their respective construction material can be calculated. Platform 4s construction material is thus calculated as three rectangular prisms. 157

PAGE 180

No excavation units were placed in the western secondary platforms. For this thesis, I will assume they were constructed in a similar manner to the eastern secondary platform that utilized brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate. Platform 5 Platform 5 is located on the southern portion of the banquette for Circle 2 (see Figure 5.37). Platform 5 is unique for Circle 2 in that the platform is shared with Circle 3. Even though Platform 5 is shared with Circle 3, the only staircase that provides access to the top of the primary platform is located on the Circle 2 patio side of the structur e. Platform 5 consists of a primary platform and four secondary platforms, two of which are Lshaped (see Figure 5.38). One rectangular and one L-shaped platform flank the primary platform on either side, but the position of the Lshaped platforms are reversed on the eastern and western sides of the primary platform. For the eastern side, the L -shaped secondary platform is the easternmost secondary platform. For the western side, the rectangular secondary platform is the westernmost secondary platform. The primary platform measures approximately 11.43 meters by 13.21 meters with a height of 1.67 meters. The adjacent eastern secondary platform measures 11.16 meters by 2.22 meters with a height of 1.3 meters. The eastern Lshaped secondary platform measures 12 .55 meters by 8.06 meters with a height of 92 centimeters. The adjacent western secondary platform measures 12.82 meters by 5.12 meters with a height of 1.36 meters. The far western secondary platform measures 14.02 meters by 1.47 meters with a height of 99 centimeters. 158

PAGE 181

Figure 5.37 AutoCAD model of Platform 5 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 159

PAGE 182

Figure 5.38 C2_P5_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 5 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 117) Image courtesy of PAT. 160

PAGE 183

Figure 5.39 C2_P5_XX_SN,E Profile drawing of Platform 5 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 118) Image courtesy of PAT. Four calas were placed in this area; C alas 3, 4, 5, and an unnumbered cala Calas 1 and 2 are unaccounted for and not described in the reports, but the plan map for the platform does indicate their location (see Figure 5.29). Cala 1 appears to be two different excavation units. One unit was excavated in the patio near the staircase leading to the primary platform and was approximately 2 meters in length by 1 meter in width. The other Cala 1 was located in the patio of Circle 3 up against the banquette. This other unit was approximately 1.5 meters in length by 1 meter in width. Cala 2 wa s excavated into the patio and banquette approximately 1.5 meters west of the staircase. The excavation unit was approximately 2 meters in length by 1 meter in width. 161

PAGE 184

Figure 5.40 C2_P5_C3_S Excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 5 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 120) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 3 is located in the westernmost secondary platform Cala 3 is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and southeast of the excavation unit. The northeast profile of the unit shows the construction of the secondary platform while the southeast profile was placed up against the cobble facing of the innermost secondary platform (see Figure 5.40). The unit measures 1.5 meters in length, 80 centimeters in width, and 2.8 meters in depth. The first layer on the bedrock of the hill is a layer of dark brown clay mixed a large amount of toba approximately 11 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay mixed with little to no toba approximately 21 162

PAGE 185

centimeters thick. The third layer laid down is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 30 centimeters thick. The second and third layers mark the construction of the banquette. On top of the banquette, the builders laid down a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 99 centimeters thick that formed the ent irety of the construction fill for the secondary platform (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 2728). The southeast profile shows that the cobble facing for the other secondary platform begins on top of the banquette surface. Figure 5.41 C2_P5_C4_S Excavation drawing of Cala 4, Platform 5 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 121) Image courtesy of PAT. 163

PAGE 186

Cala 4 is located in the adjacent western secondary platform. Cala 4 is also orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and southeast profiles of the excavation unit. The northeast profile of the unit shows the construction of the secondary platform while the southeast profile was placed up against the cobble facing of Platform 5 (see Figure 5.41). The unit measures 1.5 meters in length, 80 centimeters in width, and 2.9 meters in depth. The first layer on the bedrock of the hill is a layer of brown clay with no toba approximately 39 centimeters thick. This differs from Cala 3 and the rest of Circle 2 where the base layer is normally clay mixed with a large amount of toba. The second layer laid down is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 37 centimeters thick. This marks the construction of the banquette. On top of the banquette, the builders laid down a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.36 meters thick that formed the entirety of the construction fill for the secondary platform ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 27-28). The southeast profile shows the cobble facing for the primary platform begins on top of the banquette surface. 164

PAGE 187

Figure 5.42 C2_P5_C5_S Excavation drawing of Cala 5, Platform 5 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 121) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 5 is located in the center of Platform 5. Cala 5 is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting five different profiles of the Tshaped excavation unit. The excavation drawing depicts the northeast, eastern, and southeastern sides of the excavation unit. The excavation drawing appears to have been drawn backwards (see Figure 5.42) The northeast profile measures 3.2 meters in length, the first east profile measures 1.3 meters in length, the southeast profile measures 1 meter in length, the second southeast profile measures 1.5 meters in length, and the southeastern profile measures 1 meter in length. The overall depth of the excavation unit is 3.6 meters. Underneath the 165

PAGE 188

primary platform, the builders first laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 48 centimeters thick onto the buried A-horizon (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 26-27). Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay mixed with a small amoun t of toba approximately 84 centimeters thick. This second layer marks the construction of the banquette. For the construction of the primary platform, the builders laid down a large mound of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba onto the banquette surface. The northeast profile of the excavation unit shows that this mound of clay is level for approximately 1 meter from the northeast corner of the unit towards the northwest corner of the unit. The mound of clay then begins to slope at about 45 for 1.3 meters before terminating 20 centimeters before the northwest corner of the excavation unit. The first eastern profile shows that the mound of clay slowly slopes from north to south. At the corner of the east and southeast profiles, the builders constructed a retaining wall for the mound of clay. Covering the mound of clay and forming the rest of the construction fill for Platform 5, the builders laid down a thick layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.58 meters thick. Platform 5 was possibly covered with a thin layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba, but only two small patches were uncovered in the excavation unit. 166

PAGE 189

Figure 5.43 C2_P5_XX_S Excavation drawing of an unnumbered cala, Platform 5 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 122) Image courtesy of PAT. The unnumbered cala is located in the banquette up against the easternmost secondary platform and a long, narrow step. The unnumbered cala is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the southwest profile. The excavation unit was placed into the banquette near the easternmost secondary platform and a small step (see Figure 5.43). The excavation unit measures 1.4 meters in length, the width is unspecified, and 1.4 meters in depth. The excavation unit was dug as far down as the patio floor. The first layer laid down on the patio floor is a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 34 centimeters thick. N ext, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with 167

PAGE 190

toba approximately 33 centimeters thick. The first two layers mark the construction of the banquette. Applied to the cobble facing of the secondary platform is a thick layer of brown/grey cl ay that may represent the vertical aplanado of the secondary platform. The cobble facing for the secondary platform was constructed on top of the layer of clay with no toba. The cobble facing for the long, narrow step was constructed on top of the layer of clay mixed with toba. The construction fill for the step is unknown. In summary, the primary platform for Platform 5 is somewhat unusual in that it contains a mound of clay surrounded by clay mixed with large aggregate. This mound of clay is not, however, an earlier platform that was later expanded. This is evidenced by a lack of cobble facing on all four sides of the mound as well as the sloping nature of the northern side of the mound. The only expansions to the primary platform are its secondary platfor ms. These platforms were constructed on either side of the primary platform as well as in front of the primary platform. Based on the excavations by PAT, the secondary platforms were constructed similarly to the primary platform. Weigand (2002: 25-26) sugg ests that these expansions were added later when Circle 3 was constructed. However, no floor for the banquette was discovered in the secondary platform excavation units that might have suggested a period of use before their addition. If the secondary platf orms were added after the construction of the primary platform, they were added soon after. The only other curiosity within Platform 5 is the inconsistency in the first layer laid down onto the bedrock between the two western secondary platforms. As noted elsewhere in Circle 2, there are some inconsistencies with the first layer laid onto the bedrock. Since no excavation units were placed in the eastern secondary platforms, for this thesis I will assume that the eastern secondary platforms are constructed in a similar manner to the western secondary platforms. 168

PAGE 191

Platform 6 Platform 6 is located on the southwestern portion of the banquette. Platform 6 consists of a single primary platform and a single secondary platform located at the rear of the primary platfo rm (see Figure 5.44). The placement of this secondary platform makes Platform 6 unique in Circle 2 since all other secondary platforms flank their primary platforms. This secondary platform was built to the height of the primary platform rather than being lower than the primary platform like other secondary platforms found in Circle 2. The primary platform measures 8.92 meters by 13.20 meters with a height of 2.26 meters. The secondary platform measures 3.14 meters by 13.19 meters weight a height of 2.26 me ters. A single staircase located on the patio side of Platform 6 provides access from the patio to the top of the primary platform. 169

PAGE 192

Figure 5.44 AutoCAD model of Platform 6 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 170

PAGE 193

Figure 5.45 C2_P6_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 6 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 124) Image courtesy of PAT. Three excavation units were placed within Platform 6; Calas 1, 2, and an unnumbered cala. It should be noted that the plan map of Platform 6 shows nine excavation units (see Figure 5.45). Calas 1 and 2 are clearly marked and accounted for. The unnumbered cala, which contains three drawings, appears to account for two of the excavation units. The remaining five units are unaccounted for and the reports make no mention of them. 171

PAGE 194

Figure 5.46 C2_P6_C1_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 6 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 130) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 1 is located near the center of the primary platform and is orientated northeast to southwest. On the plan drawing for Platform 6, this excavation unit is labeled Cala 1 Extension. The plan drawings show another Cala 1, but this unit is located at the sta ircase leading to the primary platform. There is also a third Cala 1, labeled Cala 1 Exterior, located in the secondary platform. For this thesis, Cala 1 refers to the excavation unit placed in the center of the primary platform. The excavation drawing depicts the southeast and northeast profiles of the unit (see Figure 5.46). The unit measures 2 meters in length, 1.5 meter in width, and 3.4 meters in depth. The first layer laid down by the builders is of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 23 centimeters thick onto the bedrock of 172

PAGE 195

the hill. Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay with a small amount of toba approximately 83 centimeters thick. The second layer marks the construction of the banquette. Located within the excavation unit on the northeastern profile is a sloping retaining wall built on top of the banquette. Based on the location of this retaining wall, the northwestern and western half of the primary platform was constructed with a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of large aggregate approximately 2.26 meters thick. The eastern half of the primary platform was constructed first with a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 70 centimeters thick. This lay er is similar to the clay used in the banquette and there is a gradual change from the third level into the second suggesting that deposition occurred rapidly with little to no time for a separation to form between the two layers. On top of this third laye r, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.5 meters thick. This third layer contains a lower ratio of aggregate to clay than the western half of the platform (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 30). 173

PAGE 196

Figure 5.47 C2_P6_C2_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 6 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 129) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 2 is located in the banquette southeast of the primary platform and is orientated northeast to southwest. The excavation drawing depicts the northwest and southwest profiles of the excavation unit with the northwest profile placed against the cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.47). Cala 2 measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2.6 meters in depth. The first layer laid down onto the bedrock by the builders is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 48 centimeters thick. The drawing does not depict or note the density of the toba within this layer. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 39 centimeters thick. The northwest profile shows that on top of the second layer a thin layer of brown sandy 174

PAGE 197

clay approximately 14 centimeters was laid on t op of the second layer. Applied to the third layer is a thin brown clay layer approximately 4 centimeters thick interpreted as the floor of the banquette. Applied to the cobble facing of the primary platform is a layer of brown clay that Weigand describes as aplanado. The southwest profile uncovered a buttress made of cobbles set in clay mixed with a small amount of toba. This buttress was constructed directly on top of the banquette and was constructed to the height of the primary platform. The buttress does not appear in site photos and is not visible on the surface today. Figure 5.48 C2_P6_XX_Sa One of three excavation drawings for the unnumbered cala, Platform 6 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 126) Image courtesy of PAT. 175

PAGE 198

The unnumbered cala is located within the secondary platform towards the exterior of Circle 2. The unnumbered cala is orientated northeast to southwest. As noted above, the unnumbered cala has three excavation drawings and appears to span two excavation units. C2_P6_XX_Sa depicts the northeast cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.48). Within this drawing there is a blank space for a Cala 1, which may have been the unit labeled Cala 1 Exterior in the plan drawing. C2_P6_XX_Sb depicts the southeast side of the re taining wall built in the secondary platform (see Figure 5.49). C2_P6_XX_Sc is the last drawing and depicts more of the northeast cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.50). The excavation unit measures 6.3 meters in overall length, 3.3 meters in width at is widest, and 2.9 meters in depth at its deepest point. 176

PAGE 199

Figure 5.49 C2_P6_XX_Sb One of three excavation drawings for the unnumbered cala, Platform 6 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 128) Image courtesy of PAT. Only drawing C2_P6_XX_Sa was excavated further than 2.2 meters in depth, but it still did not reach bedrock. The bottommost layer uncovered by the excavation unit is a layer of dark brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 35 centimeters thick that is typically found laid on top of the bedrock. Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay approximately 29 centimeters thick that marks the construction of the banquette. The excavators uncovered a thin layer of light brown/grey clay approximately 4 centimeters thick applied to this second layer that may be a floor. Although bedrock was not reached in this excavation unit, the first two layers and the floor correspond to similar layers found in Calas 1 and 2. Despite a difference of a half a meter in depth in the excavation units between 177

PAGE 200

Cala 1 and the unnumbered cala, the depth from the surface of the platform to the construction layer of the banquette are similar. The builders next constructed the cobble facing for the primary platf orm on top of the banquette surface. Applied to the cobble facing was a thin brown clay layer that Weigand describes as aplanado. Within the aplanado are distinct horizontal lines of dark brown clay. Weigand believes that the aplanado was applied in horizontal bands around the primary platform (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 29). The construction material used to construct the secondary platform is not depicted in the excavation drawings or described in the report. For this thesis, I have assumed the c onstruction material is the same as the primary platform. The ratio of aggregate to clay is based on the ratio depicted in C2_P6_XX_Sc. 178

PAGE 201

Figure 5.50 C2_P6_XX_Sc One of three excavation drawings for the unnumbered cala, Platform 6 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 127) Image courtesy of PAT. In summary, Platform 6 exhibits two noteworthy features. The choice to construct a secondary platform at the rear of the primary platform without leaving any exposed banquette surface is perhaps the more unusual feature of the two. The other platforms in Circle 2 have, at least, a narrow exposed banqueted surface surrounding the platforms, with the exception of Platforms 10, 1, and 2, which are incorporated into Ballcourt 1. The other noteworthy feature within Pl atform 6 is the use of a retaining wall with differing construction materials on either side of the wall. This is a feature found in Platforms 3, 4, and 10. What makes Platform 6 noteworthy is the angle of the retaining wall within the primary platform Instead of dividing the platform into rectangular prisms with 90 corners, the retaining wall 179

PAGE 202

divides the primary platform at an angle and creates two quadrangular prisms of unequal sizes and corner angles. Platform 7 Platform 7 is located on the western portion of the banquette. (see Figure 5.51) Platform 7 consists of a primary platform and two secondary platforms (see Figure 5.52). A single secondary platform flanks the primary platform on either side of the structure. The primary platform measures appr oximately 13.13 meters by 12.66 meters with a height of 1.64 meters. A single staircase located on the patio side of Platform 7 provides access from the patio to the top of the primary platform. A small staircase on the northeastern corner of Platform 7 provides access from the patio to the top of the banquette. 180

PAGE 203

Figure 5.51 AutoCAD model of Platform 7 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 181

PAGE 204

Figure 5.52 C2_P7_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 7 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 132) Image courtesy of PAT. 182

PAGE 205

Figure 5.53 C2_P7_XX_SN,E Profile drawing of Platform 7 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 133) Image courtesy of PAT. 183

PAGE 206

Figure 5.54 C2_P7_C1Ext_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 7 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 135) Image courtesy of PAT. Only one excavation unit was placed in Platform 7. The excavation drawing is labeled vertical extension of Cala 1 suggesting that there is another Cala 1 unit. Unfortunately, this excavation drawing is unaccounted for and not described in the reports. For this thesis, the vertical extension of Cala 1 will simply be referred to as Cala 1. Cala 1 is located towards the center of the primary platform. The excavation unit is orientated just south of due east and measures 2 meters in length, 1.5 meters in width, and 3 meters in depth. The excavation drawing depicts the eastern and southern profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.54). The builders first l aid down a layer of dark brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of 184

PAGE 207

toba approximately 33 centimeters thick onto the buried A-horizon and bedrock of the hill. Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown clay mixed with a small amount of toba approximately 77 centimeters thick. Towards the southwestern area of the southern profile, there is a possible lighter brown clay layer laid on top of the second layer. This lighter layer terminates midway through the southern profile of the excavation unit with no hard, definite division between itself and the second layer. Laid down on top of the second, and possibly third, layer is a thin layer of light brown/grey clay approximately 8 centimeters thick that possibly represents a floor. This possible floor marks the construction of the banquette. Located near the southeastern portion of the southern profile is a small patch of burnt clay located within the possible floor. Next, the builders laid down a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.64 meters thick that formed the entirety of the construction fill for Platform 7 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 34:35). Platform 7 does have one secondary platform located on the north side of the primary platform. This secondary platform, however, was not explored by PAT. It is assumed that the secondary platform was constructed in a similar fashion as the primary platform by using clay mixed with large aggregate. Platform 8 Platform 8 is located on the northwestern portion of the banquette. Platform 8 consists of a primary platform and two secondary platforms (see Figure 5.55). A single secondary platform flanks the primary platform on either side of the structure. The primary platform measures 13.95 meters by 12.3 meters with a height of 1.67 meters. The southwest secondary platform measures approximately 12.55 meters by 2 meters with a height of 91 centimeters. The northeast secondary platform measures 12.82 meters by 1.83 meters with a height of 185

PAGE 208

1.10 meters. No staircases were unc overed that provided easy access to the top of the primary platform. PAT excavated three calas in Platform 8 labeled Cala 3, Cala 4, and a misnumbered cala that was also labeled Cala 4. PAT did not produce a plan drawing of Platform 8 and the exact location of the excavation units is uncertain. The report makes no mention of calas 1 and 2, where they may have been located, or what they may have uncovered. Figure 5.55 AutoCAD model of Platform 8 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 186

PAGE 209

Figure 5.56 C2_P8_C3_S Excavation drawing of Cala 3, Platform 8 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 139) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 3 is located in the southwestern secondary platform. Cala 3 is orientated northwest to southeast with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and northwest profiles of the excavation unit. Cala 3 measures 1.5 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 2.3 meters in depth. The northeast profile of the excavation unit was placed against the cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.56). This was erroneously labeled in the excavation drawing as the cobble facing for the secondary platform. However, a comparison with Cala 4 shows that height of the cobble facing does not match. The northwest profile of the excavation unit depicts the fill of the secondary platform. Missing in the drawing is 187

PAGE 210

Weigands 90 notation above the darkened line he uses to mark a corner of the excavation unit. The northwest profile of the unit shows the first layer laid down by the builder is a layer of brown/grey clay approximately 45 centimeters thick. There is a small intrusion of brown/grey clay mixed with toba in the northern corner of the unit. Next, the builders laid down a single layer of grey/brown heavily eroded clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.48 meters thick that formed the construction fill of the secondary platform (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 38). Looking at the northeast profile of the excavation unit, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba onto the bedrock approximately 41 centimeters thick. This layer, and the corresponding layer of clay in the northwest profile of the excavation unit, constitutes the fill of the banquette. Built on top of the banquette is the cobble facing of the primary platform measuring approximately 1.67 meters. Applied to the cobble facing is a layer of brown/grey clay that Weigand describes as aplanado approximately 26 centimeters thick. 188

PAGE 211

Figure 5.57 C2_P8_C4_S Excavation drawing of Cala 4, Platform 8 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 139) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 4 is located in the banquette on the southwestern side of Platform 8. Cala 4 is orientated northwest to southeast with the excavation drawing depicting the northeast and northwest profiles. The excavation unit measures 2 meters in length, 2 meters in width, and 2.2 meters in depth. The northeast profile of the unit was placed against the cobble facing of the secondary platform (see Figure 5.57). The northwest profile of the unit depicts the construction of the banquette. The first layer laid down by the builders is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba averaging 35 centimeters thick. In the northwest profile of the unit, this layer slopes downward to the southwest. Next, the builders laid down a layer of 189

PAGE 212

brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba averaging 12 centimeters. The second layer also slopes to the southwest in the northwest profile of the excavation unit. The third layer laid down is a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba averaging 32 centimeters that leveled the construction layers. This layer is thicker in the southwest side of the unit to compensate for the slope of the first two layers. The northwest profile shows that a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 16 centimeters thick was laid on top of the clay and marks the surface of the banquette. The northeast profile shows that this fourth layer is different. With the exception of a small intrusion of clay mixed with a large amount of toba, the fourth layer is mostly brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 20 c entimeters thick (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002:37-38). On top of this fourth layer, the cobble facing for the secondary platform is constructed. 190

PAGE 213

Figure 5.58 C2_P8_C4_Sa Excavation drawing of misnumbered cala, Platform 8 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 137) Image courtesy of PAT. The misnumbered cala is located near the center of the primary platform. The misnumbered cala is orientated northwest to southeast with the excavation drawing depicting the northwest, southwest, and southeast profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.58). The excavation drawing depicts a unit 2 meters in length, 1.2 meters in width, and 1.8 me ters in depth, but the unit itself may have had a greater width. A small sketch providing orientation for the unit in the upper left-hand corner suggests the unit was 2 meters on each side. The excavation of this unit was prematurely halted before reaching bedrock because of concerns about unstable unit walls. Erosion and insects had destabilized the construction fill of the 191

PAGE 214

platform in the past. In the southeast and southwest profiles of the excavation unit, the bottommost layer of construction is a thick layer of earth mixed with a large amount of large aggregate approximately 90 centimeters thick. In the northwest profile of the excavation unit, the construction material changes. Halfway in the northwest profile the layer of earth mixed with a large amount of large aggregate slopes sharply downward. Continuing northward the construction material changes to a thick layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of large aggregate approximately 87 centimeters thick. No retaining wall separates these two different construction materials (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 38-39). This suggests that the northern corner of the primary platform is constructed differently from and contemporaneously to the rest of the platform. On top of these two layers is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a small amount of toba averaging 41 centimeters thick. The uneven nature of this layer could result from modern farming cutting down into the upper surface of this layer. These layers constitute the known construction of the primary platform. In summary, there is some confusion between Calas 3 and 4 for Platform 8. In Cala 4, the total height from the bedrock to the surface of the banquette is approximately 1 meter. In Cala 3, however, the height from the bedrock to the surface of the banquette is only 45 centimeters. This discrepan cy would have created a dip, of which does not exist in the restored structure, in the construction of Platform 8. Weigand does not explain the differences in height. It could be that under Cala 3 there is a natural rise in the bedrock since the hill does slope upwards towards Platforms 10, 1, and 2. It is also possible that the incorrect scale was given to one or both of the drawings. Unfortunately, the cala excavated into the primary platfo rm was not excavated down far enough to help resolve this issue. 192

PAGE 215

Platform 9 Platform 9 is located on the northern portion of the banquette. Platform 9 consists of a primary platform and two secondary platforms (see Figure 5.59). A single secondary platform flanks the primary platform on either side of the structure (see Figure 5.60). The primary platform measures approximately 15.33 meters by 12.51 meters with a height of 1.4 meters. The western secondary platform measures approximately 16.57 meters by 1.5 meters with a height of 59 centimeters. The eastern secondary platform measures approximately 16.5 meters by 1.86 meters with a height of 1.33 meters. No staircases were uncovered that provide access to the top of the primary platform. 193

PAGE 216

Figure 5.59 A utoCAD model of Platform 9 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 194

PAGE 217

Figure 5.60 C2_P9_XX_P Plan drawing of Platform 9 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 141) Image courtesy of PAT. 195

PAGE 218

Figure 5.61 C2_P9_XX_SNW,SW Profile drawing of Platform 9 ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 142) Image courtesy of PAT. In the 1999 field season, work was restricted to exposing the surface of the platform that revealed two secondary platforms constructed on eith er side of the primary platform. During the process of exposing this platform, PAT divided the surface into 1 meter square units to test for the possibility of preserved specialized artifact distributions on or within the platform. PAT did not detect these distributions based on the few artifacts recovered (Weigand et al. 1999: 28-29). In the 2000 field season efforts to expose the platform continued. A cala was placed at the rear of the platform mound to find its exterior cobble facing, but no excavation drawing was included in the report. During this cleaning process 196

PAGE 219

PAT discovered that the area outside of Circle 2 was also plastered with clay and may have also been employed as a formal use area ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 33-34). Figure 5.62 C2_P9_C2_S Excavation drawing of Cala 2, Platform 9 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 145) Image courtesy of PAT. PAT excavated four calas in Platform 9 during the 2001 to 2002 field season. Cala 2 is located in the banquette between Platforms 9 and 10, but the exact location is uncertain. The area around Platform 9 had been damaged from farming and erosion, but still showed the construction layers clearly. The excavation unit is orientated approximately due north and measures 4 meters in length, the width is unspecified, and 1.4 meters in depth. The 197

PAGE 220

excavation drawing depicts the eastern profile of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.62). The first layer laid down onto the bedrock is a layer of light brown/grey clay with a small amount of toba approximately 22 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay with a small amount of toba approximately 17 centimeters thic k. On top of this second layer are three very thin layers of material measuring approximately 5 centimeters in total. The first is a light grey clay mixed with pieces of carbon. Next is gray layer, very hard, and unburnt. The topmost layer is an orange, ha rd, burnt clay floor that covered the banquette ( Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002:43-44). 198

PAGE 221

Figure 5.63 C2_P9_C4_S Excavation drawing of Cala 4, Platform 9 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 144) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 4 is located near the center of the primary platform Cala 4 is orientated slightly west of due north with the excavation drawing depicting the eastern profile of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.63). The unit measures 6.4 meters in length, the width is unspecified, and 2.4 meters in depth at its deepest point. Only two sections of the excavation unit were excavated to the bedrock. The first section was against the banquette cobble facing and excavated into the patio until bedrock was reached. The second section was placed in the primary platform near the patio -side cobble facing. For the patio section, the first layer laid down onto the bedrock is a layer of clay approximately 20 centimeters thick. On top of this 199

PAGE 222

layer, the builders laid down a thin, burnt, brown/red clay layer that has been identified as the floor of the patio. For the primary platform section, the bedrock is approximately 50 centimeter s higher than the bedrock in the patio. The first layer laid onto the bedrock is a layer of brown/grey c lay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 44 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 67 centimeters thick. This layer represents the construction of the banquette. The third layer laid down by the builders is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba, small aggregate, and large aggregate averaging 1.4 meters thick. This layer forms the entirety of the construction fill for the primary platform. The uneven nature of this layer is a resu lt of mechanized farming and erosion (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 42-43). 200

PAGE 223

Figure 5.64 C2_P9_C5_S Excavation drawing of Cala 5, Platform 9 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 146) Image courtesy of PAT. Cala 5 is located in the western secondary platform. Cala 5 is orientated just west of due north with the excavation drawing depicting the eastern and southern profiles of the excavation unit. The unit measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and approximately 2 meters in depth. The eastern profile of the excavation unit was placed against the cobble facing of the primary platform while the southern profile depicts the construction of the secondary platform (see Figure 5.64). The first layer laid onto the bedrock by the builders is a layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 22 centimeters thick. Next, the builders laid down a layer of dark brown/grey clay with no toba. The third layer laid down is a lighter brown/grey clay with no toba. The division between these two layers is 201

PAGE 224

diffuse with the third layer blending in with the second layer. Together, these two possible layers measure approximately 46 centimeters thick. The eastern profile shows that the cobble facing for the primary platform was constructed directly on top of the third layer. The southern profile shows that a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 23 centimeters thick was laid onto the third layer. The fourth layer was then covered by a thin layer of burnt clay approximately 6 centimeters thick that marks the floor of the banquette. There is some confusion in regards to the secondary platform. According to the excavation drawing, above the burnt clay floor is a layer labeled as loose earth and large aggrega te from collapsed material approximately 1 meter thick that Weigand labels as derrumbe This layer is found elsewhere at the site and does not normally form a construction layer for an architectural feature. However, this label is contradicted by a note an d a line drawn to this layer saying that this layer is the construction fill for the secondary platform. The report, too, states that the construction fill for the secondary platform consists of a rather thick layer of loose brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 43). Photos of Platform 9 do not show the secondary platform reaching to the height of the primary platform as is depicted in the excavation. There are no divisions within this layer in the excavation drawin g to suggest any height for the secondary platform. The unnumbered cala, described below, clarifies this conclusion. 202

PAGE 225

Figure 5.65 C2_P9_XX_S Excavation drawing of the unnumbered cala, Platform 9 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 143) Image courtesy of PAT. The unnumbered cala is also located in the secondary platform several meters away from Cala 5, though the exact position is uncertain. The unnumbered cala is also orientated just west of due north with the excavation drawing depicting the northern profile of the unit. The unit measures 1.2 meters in width, the length is unspecified, and 1.1 meters in depth. The eastern profile of the excavation unit was placed against the cobble facing of the primary platform (see Figure 5.65). The unnumbered cala is somewhat shallower than Cala 5 with the bottom of the excavation unit stopping just above the bedrock. The first layer laid onto the bedrock is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 44 centimeters 203

PAGE 226

thick. Applied to this layer is a thi n layer of brown clay approximately 5 centimeters thick with small, burnt, orange sections. This marks the floor of the banquette. Applied to the floor of the banquette is a sloping layer of loose grey/brown earth mixed with large aggregate averaging 25 centimeters thick. This sloping layer is the construction fill for the secondary platform. On top of the construction layer for the secondary platform is a similar, but thin layer of loose brown/grey earth mixed with large aggregate that Weigand says is collapsed material from the platform. Applied to the cobble facing of the primary platform is a layer of brown clay approximately 20 centimeters thick that Weigand describes as aplanado. A comparison of Cala 5 and the unnumbered cala to a drawing showing the front and side profile of the primary platform and its secondary platforms indicates that the secondary platform is approximately 63 centimeters in height. Neither Cala 5 nor the unnumbered cala accurately depict the height of the secondary platform. I spe culate that for Cala 5, the division between the plow zone and the construction material was as clearly defined as in the unnumbered cala. However, the stratigraphic layers in the unnumbered cala may have suffered damage in the past from modern farming practices. This would explain why its stratigraphic layer for the construction fill of the secondary platform is lower than in the platform profile drawing. For this thesis, I have assumed that the height of 63 centimeters for the secondary platform in the pl atform profile drawing is the correct the height for the architectural feature. In summary, Calas 1 and 3 are unaccounted. These excavation units are not mentioned in the reports and do not appear on the plan drawing for Platform 9. There is some variabil ity within the western secondary platform of Platform 9. The construction material for the banquette differs despite the excavation units being placed just meters apart from one 204

PAGE 227

another. Those few meters also show that the floor of the banquette was not ev enly burned. Midway through the banquette where Cala 5 was located, the floor is burned completely through. Just a few meters closer to the patio where the unnumbered cala is located the floor is only partially burnt. It appears that perhaps the floor was not meant to be burnt and instead some event in the past resulted in this feature The other variation is the thickness of the fill for the secondary platform is discussed above. Platform 10 Platform 10 is located on the northeast portion of the banquette next to the ballcourt that separates Circles 1 and 2. Platform 10 consists of a primary platform with four secondary platforms (see Figure 5.66). Two secondary platforms flank the primary platform to the west, one secondary platform flanks the primary platform to the east, and one secondary platform was constructed on top of the primary platform. The primary platform measures approximately 10.71 meters by 13.62 meters with a height of 2.42 meters. The adjacent western secondary platform measures approximately 11.78 meters by 1.36 meters with a height of 44 centimeters. The other western secondary platform measures approximately 11.71 meters by 82 centimeters with a height of 29 centimeters. The eastern secondary platform measures approximately 11.95 meters by 1.65 meters with a height of 26 centimeters. The secondary platform constructed on top of the primary platform measures approximately 7.89 meters by 9.92 meters with a height of 27 centimeters. No individual plan view drawing exists for Platform 10. A plan view for Platform 10 is depicted in a site map in the 2000 report that depicts only part of Circle 1, the ballcourt, and Circle 2 (see Figure 5.67). 205

PAGE 228

Figure 5.66 AutoCAD model of Platform 10 AutoCAD model depicting the location of associated excavation units. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. 206

PAGE 229

Figure 5.67 Partial site map of Circle 2 This partial site map is the only plan view available for Platforms 10, 1, and 2 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 103). Image courtesy of PAT. 207

PAGE 230

Figure 5.68 C2_P10_C1_S Excavation drawing of Cala 1, Platform 10 (Weigand et al. 1999: 93). Image courtesy of PAT. Work on Platform 10 was supposedly restricted to exposing the structure during the 1999 field season (Weigand et al. 1999: 29), though an excavation drawing exists for a Cala 1 that is dated to 1999. This drawing is not described in the report, though it is included in the appendix of images. Cala 1 was placed into the patio and next to the cobble facing of the banquette underneath Platform 10. Cala 1 is orientated northeast to southwest and the excavation drawing depicts the northwest and northeast profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.68). The unit measures 2 meters in length, 1.5 meters in width, and 1.5 meters in depth. The northwest profile of the unit excavated into the patio. Here the first layer laid onto 208

PAGE 231

the bedrock is a layer of brown clay mixed with toba approximately 27 centimeters thick. On top of this first layer, the excavators uncovered a very thin layer of what Weigand describes as liga like clay approximately 2 centimeters thick and 31 centimeters long (see Table 5.2 for definition). No interpretation is offered in the excavation drawing as to what this may represent. Two concentrations of burned clay were found on top of the first layer, as well. One concentration is next to the liga -like clay and the other near the cobble facing of the banquette. These burned clay concentrations were interpreted as burned aplanado from the cobble facing Laid on top of the base layer is a layer of brown clay approximately 9 centimeters t hick that is described as the floor of the patio. The northeast profile of the unit was placed against the cobble facing of the banquette. Here the first layer laid onto the bedrock and buried A-horizon of the hill is a layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 16 centimeters thick. On top of this layer is also a layer of brown clay approximately 9 centimeters thick that is described as the floor of the patio. The con struction of the cobble facing for the banquette began on top of the patio floor. 209

PAGE 232

Figure 5.69 C2_P10_C2_S Excavation drawing of Cala 2, Platform 10 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 109). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2000 field season, a single cala was excavated at Platform 10. This cala, labeled Cala 2, was placed into the banquette on the western side of Platform 10. The unit is orientated just south of due east with the excavation drawing depicting the western, northern, and eastern profiles of the excavation unit (see Figure 5.69). Cala 2 measures 2 meters in length, 1 meter in width, and 1.8 meters in depth. The first layer laid onto the bedrock is a layer of brown/grey clay with no toba approximately 8 centimeters thick. In the eastern half of the excavation unit, a layer of brown clay mixed with a large amount of toba 210

PAGE 233

approximately 64 centimeters thick was laid onto the thin clay layer. Weigand believed that this might have once been the top of the banquette, though no floor has been preserved (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 26). In the western half of the excavation unit, a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba averaging 75 centimeters thick was laid down on top of the thin clay layer. This layer was also deposited on top of the brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba from the eastern profile. Here, this layer averaged 51 centimeters thick. Located 75 centimeters from the western profile of the excavation unit is a small pit filled with grey soil and covered with cobbles (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b: 26). 211

PAGE 234

Figure 5.70 C2_P10_C5_S Excavation drawing of Cala 5, Platform 10 (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 148). Image courtesy of PAT. In the 2001-2002 field season, PAT placed Cala 5 near the center of the primary platform. Calas 3 and 4 are unaccounted for and not mentioned in the 2002 report. Cala 5 is orientated northeast to southwest with the excavation drawing depicting the northeastern and southeastern profiles of the excavati on unit. The southeast profile of the unit is placed against a retaining wall found within the primary platform (see Figure 5.70). The unit measures 2 meters in length, 1.5 meters in width, and 3.2 meters in depth. There is no scale provided on the excavat ion drawing, but Weigand provides a measurement for one construction layer within the 2002 report (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 45). Using this measurement, 212

PAGE 235

I determined that the scale was 20 centimeters, the most common scale used in the excavation drawings. The first layer laid onto the bedrock of the hill is a sloping layer of sandy, light brown clay approximately 41 centimeters thick. This layer is descri bed by Weigand as the fill for the banquette (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2002: 45). In the northeast profile of the excavation unit, a single layer of brown/grey clay mixed with large aggregate approximately 1.77 meters thick was laid onto the banquette. Next, the builders laid down a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with toba approximately 36 centimeters thick. The retaining wall in the southeast profile w as constructed directly onto the surface of the banquette. The height of the retaining wall is approximately 2.11 meters and it is level with the third layer in the northeast profile of the unit. Laid on top of the third layer and the retaining wall is a layer of brown/grey clay mixed with a large amount of toba approximately 29 centimeters thick. In summary, there are no major inconsistencies within Platform 10s construction. Missing from within the primary platform is the typical base layer of clay mixed with a large amount of toba that is normally found throughout Circle 2. While there are no inconsistencies within the construction of Platform 10, some data are missing for architectural features. Platform 10 has an eastern secondary platform as well as two western secondary platforms that were not explored. We can only speculate if Calas 3 and 4 rel ate to these secondary platforms. Without knowing where the calas may have been placed or what they may have been depicted, I have assumed that the secondary platforms were constructed in a similar manner to the primary platform by using clay mixed with large aggregate. 213

PAGE 236

Summary of Volumes This section includes tables summarizing the volumes of each architectural feature of Circle 2. Each table provides the total volume of construction material used in each feature. Included in the tables is the total volume of the feature. The division of construction material volume is important in estimating the amount of work for the construction of Circle 2. Different construction materials require different rates of work for their procurement, transport, and construction. Issues, assumptions, and resolutions in calculating the volumes for each architectural feature are discussed in further detail in Appendix A. Detailed measurements of each architectural feature are discussed in further detail in Appendix B. Table 5.3 Volume of material used to construct the patio. Architectural feature Clay (m 3 ) Dense toba (m 3 ) Total volume (m 3 ) Patio 953.14 2309.31 3262.45 Table 5.4 Volume of material used to construct the banquette. Architectural Feature Exterior cobble facing (m3) Interior cobble facing (m3) Clay with and without toba (m3) Total volume (m3) Banquette 180.33 68.19 1755.46 2003.98 | 214

PAGE 237

Table 5.5 Volume of material used to construct the altar. Architectural feature Clay (m3) Dark brown clay with toba (m3) Cobble facing (m3) Clay with toba or aggregate (m3) Total volume (m3) Pyramid 1 48.05 96.10 372.90 619.53 1136.58 Pyramid 2 285.94 717.80 1003.74 Pyramid 3 31.69 58.86 537.65 875.28 1503.48 Pyramid 4 37.62 141.39 179.01 Pyramid 5 36.11 17.78 42.94 96.83 3919.64 Table 5.6 Volume of material used to construct Platform 1. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m 3 ) Clay (m 3 ) Retaining wall (m3) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 16.12 331.23 13.95 361.3 NW secondary platform 1 2.1 6.2 3.33 NW secondary platform 2 4 11.49 6.04 SE secondary platform 1 1.38 1.95 8.3 SE secondary platform 2 2.44 3.6 15.49 394.46 215

PAGE 238

Table 5.7 Volume of material used to construct Platform 2. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m 3 ) Clay mixed with aggregate (m3) Total volume (m 3 ) Primary platform 19.32 211.32 224.72 Secondary platform 3.27 32.74 36.01 260.73 216

PAGE 239

Table 5.8 Volume of material used to construct Platform 3. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m 3 ) Clay with toba (m 3 ) Clay with aggregate (m3) Dense toba (m 3 ) Total volume (m3) Primary Platform 23.09 65.33 176.47 264.89 North secondary platform 5.75 6.09 5.29 17.13 South secondary platform 4.51 4.47 3.29 12.27 294.29 Table 5. 9 Volume of material used to construct Platform 4 Architectural feature Cobble facing (m3) Dark brown clay with toba (m3) Earth (m3) Clay with aggregate (m3) Retaining wall (m3) Aggregate layer (m3) Light brown/grey clay (m3) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 26.01 32.76 37.41 80.56 3.71 29.91 18.18 228.54 SW secondary platform 1 1.16 2.12 3.28 SW secondary platform 2 0.45 2.64 3.09 NE secondary platform 2.06 15.16 17.22 252.13 217

PAGE 240

Table 5. 10 Volume of material used to construct Platform 5 Architectural feature Cobble facing (m 3 ) Clay with aggregate (m 3 ) Clay (m 3 ) Total volume (m 3 ) Primary platform 31.27 214.94 1.57 247.78 East secondary platform 1 5.16 28.53 33.69 East secondary platform 2 6.91 25.77 32.68 West secondary platform 1 14.58 54.83 69.41 West secondary platform 2 7.55 14.31 21.89 405.42 Table 5.11 Volume of material used to construct Platform 6. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m3) Clay with small amount of aggregate (m3) Clay with large amount of aggregate (m3) Clay with toba (m3) Retaining wall (m3) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 11.13 61.47 141.72 28.69 4.18 247.19 Secondary platform 4.25 75.42 79.67 326.86 218

PAGE 241

Table 5.12 Volume of material used to construct Platform 7. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m 3 ) Clay with aggregate (m3) Total volume (m 3 ) Primary platform 21.29 254.33 275.62 Northern secondary platform 4.25 25.48 29.73 Southern secondary platform 4.82 21.05 25.87 331.22 Table 5.13 Volume of material used to construct Platform 8. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m3) Clay with toba (m3) Earth with aggregate (m3) Clay (m 3 ) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 17.59 66.03 109.83 35.12 228.57 SW secondary platform 4.89 20.51 25.40 NE secondary platform 5.94 19.87 25.81 279.78 219

PAGE 242

Table 5.14 Volume of material used to construct Platform 9. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m3) Clay with aggregate (m3) Earth with aggregate (m3) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 25.15 243.34 268.49 Secondary platform west 4.42 10.93 15.35 Secondary platform east 15.04 25.26 40.30 324.14 220

PAGE 243

Table 5.15 Volume of material used to construct Platform 10. Architectural feature Cobble facing (m3) Clay with toba (m3) Dense toba (m 3 ) Clay with aggregate (m3) Retaining wall (m3) Total volume (m3) Primary platform 7.25 48.94 240.62 11.14 307.95 Secondary platform 1.95 20.61 22.56 South secondary platform 1.3 3.84 5.14 North secondary platform 1 2.11 4.94 7.05 North secondary platform 2 1.31 1.47 2.78 345.48 221

PAGE 244

Applying Architectural Energetics To estimate the amount of labor needed to construct Circle 2, the volumes of the construction material used in each architectural feature were multiplied by rates of work for each activity needed for construction. The labor activities for Circle 2 consist of unskilled labor that required no special knowledge. While laborious and even time consuming, the skill to procure construction material, transport construction material, and con struct the architectural features are skills adults would have learned from the construction of their own homes. Groups of square platforms in a quadripartite formation are common household forms in the region (Lopez Mestas and Ramos de la Vega 2006), though non-grouped platforms and circular platforms also exist at the Los Guachimontones site and Navajas (Beekman 2007; Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). Skilled labor, if present, would consist of roles like architect, stone sculptor, and plaster maker (Abram s 1994:114-119). As Abrams points out in the case of Copan, there is no evidence for the position of architect. It is accepted however, that such a position may have existed based on the size of the monumental architecture, and the skill needed to plan th e building. In the case of Circle 2, such an architect may have existed plan out the general size and shape of the guachimontn. Weigand (1996: 97) suggests that only two or three people were needed to lay out the entirety of a guachimontn. This could be done by simply using a rope with one person standing in the center and the other walking the circumference of each circular element of the temple. At the most simplistic level three circles would need to be marked. The outermost circle would mark the edge of the patio and exterior cobble facing of the banquette. The center circle would mark the interior cobble facing of the banquette. T he innermost circle would mark the edge of the altar. In Circle 2s case, the altar 222

PAGE 245

may have been marked on five different occasions as the altar was first constructed and then expanded. The placement of the platforms on the banquette would have been another task performed by the architect. Weigand (1996: 97) offers two models as to how this may have been done. The first consists of dividing the outer and middle circles into even sections for however many platforms are being constructed. The second method is more complicated and seems best suited for a guachimontn with eight platforms. The second method involves dividing the outer and middle circles into eighths and creating two squares. Each square is drawn on a pair of perpendicular axes. The point where the two squares intersect is the central axis for the platform. The amount of time it would take to draw out three circles and find the placement of the platforms would be just several hours including back sighting to check for accuracy. These several hours do not include any ceremony or ritual that may have been involved in the past with the creation of a guachimontn. Both methods can be tested by measuring the distance between two platforms. A composite model of Circle 2 was created in AutoCAD since a site map that depicts accurate dimensions for each platform, the banquette, and the altar as well as their precise location relative to one another after excavation does not yet exist. The model created used measurements taken from excavation drawings to draw each architectural feature. The placement of the altar and banquette were simple given the concentric nature of the tem ple. A maximum diameter of 99 meters was used for both the patio and the outer radius of the banquette, though it should be noted that Circle 2 might have a variable diameter. The banquette was drawn using the average width taken from measurements of plan views of the platforms. As discussed in the Appendix, the width of the banquette was variable from 223

PAGE 246

platform to platform. As a result, the banquette is too narrow for some platforms. Without knowing the actual inner radius of the banquette, it was decided to place Platforms 3 through 7 and 9 the measured distance from the outer cobble facing of the banquette to the rear cobble facing of the platform based on the available plan maps. For Platforms 10, 1, and 2, these platforms were placed the measured distance from the interior cobble facing of the banquette to the inner cobble facing of the platform. This was done because the fusion of the ballcourt and the banquette obscures where the outer edge of the banquette is located. No plan view of Platform 8 exists, but photos show some banquette space located in front of the platform. Platform 8 was placed so its rear corners almost touch the outer cobble facing of the banquette. The platforms were placed on top of the banquette according to their orientation in degrees from true north along their centr al axis, as calculated by DuVall (2007). Table 5.16 Distance between platform pairs. Platforms Distance (m) 1 & 2 29.44 2 & 3 31.44 3 & 4 25.14 4 & 5 29.32 5 & 6 28.22 6 & 7 31.88 7 & 8 32.53 8 & 9 27.17 9 & 10 31.41 10 & 1 28.97 224

PAGE 247

The distances between two platforms were measured from the central axis at the rear of the platform to the central axis at the rear of the adjacent platform (see Table 5.16). This was done for two reasons. The first is because the majority of the platforms were placed according to their distance from the exterior cobble facing of the banquette. The second is that by measuring from the central axis the variation in primary and secondary platform dimensions can be elimina ted. As the table above shows, the distances between platforms are not consistent with the expected results of either method Weigand suggested. This information combined with the variable diameter of the patio and width of the banquette suggests that the placement of the platforms may not have been as formally laid out as Weigand suggested. Instead, the platforms may have been roughly positioned within a few meters of difference by the builders. The skilled activities of a stone sculptor are not present at Circle 2. Abrams classified sculptors as skilled masons who created decorative and artistic work for buildings. Sculptors did not fall under the same category as stonemasons who mined and shaped the stone blocks for construction at Copan. Despite the time consuming task of creating these blocks, the labor of a stonemason required very little skill. Sculptors, however, required both technical and artistic skill to carve glyphs, designs, or statues used to decorate the buildings (Abrams 1994:114-116). Plaster required a lot of technical knowledge in its production. One needed to know how hot to burn limestone, how to crush the limestone into powder, and how to mix the powder into plaster. Plaster creation would have had to have been done just days prior to surfacing any buildings (Abrams 1994:116-117). Circle 2 exhibited none of these elements described by Abrams. There is no decorative stone sculpture and the entire temple was covered in aplanado, unfired clay, rather than plaster. 225

PAGE 248

With no skilled labor present at Circle 2, standard rates of work in architectural energetics analyses were used to estimate the amount of labor needed to construct the temple. Different rates of work were chosen based on the material used for the construction of Circle 2 to provide a more accurate estimation of labor. Most of the material used in construction consisted of clay, toba, and aggregate. Some earth was present in the construction of Circle 2 in limited quantities, but was not a preferred building material. The largest chal lenge in estimating the amount of labor used to construct Circle 2 was determining the source of the construction material. Sources of construction material are needed to estimate the amount of labor required to transport the material from the point of procurement to the construction site. Without the necessary time, money, and lab work to chemically source the construction material, some assumptions were made based on existing documentation regarding sources of construction material. Aggregate and earth were assumed to have been collected within 100 meters of the construction site. The hilltop and hillsides in which Los Guachimontones is constructed is littered with numerous natural cobbles used as aggregate for construction fill and for the construction of cobble facing. Earth, likewise, was plentiful with no need to travel very far from the construction site. 226

PAGE 249

Figure 5.71 Los Guachimontones site. Looking down at Circles 1 and 2. Note the rocky foreground littered with cobbles. Image courtesy of PAT. 227

PAGE 250

Figure 5.72 Hillside above Los Guachimontones. The hillside around Loma Alta scattered with cobbles, further up the hill. Image courtesy of PAT. 228

PAGE 251

Figure 5.73 Circle 2 during restoration efforts. A view from the altar of Circle 2 during excavation circa 1999. Note the cobble stone wall. Image courtesy of PAT. Clay and toba were assumed to have come from 1 kilometer away from the construction site at the base of the hill in which Circle 2 is located. Weigand proposed varying distances for the clay source used in construction for the site. The 1999 report proposed the source of clay to be 1 kilometer south of Los Guachimontones along what is described as the fossil lakeshore between Teuchitln and Estanzuela where undated hydraulic 229

PAGE 252

features can still be seen ( Weigand et al. 1999: 20). The current lakeshore of Presa de la Vega is actually 2.5 kilometers straight line distance south of the site measured via Google Earth. In the 2000 report, the distance to the clay source was stated to be 800 meters away along the lakeshore (Weigand and Garca de Weigand 2000b:72). The 2003 to 2006 report reiterated that the clays used in construction came from the shore of the lake, but a distance was not provided (Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008: 161). In February 2010, PAT codirector Juan Rodrigo Esparza Lpez examined a trench dug by a waterpa rk that wanted to put in pumps near a spring located 1 kilometer south of Los Guachimontones at the base of the hill the site is built upon. Within this trench Esparza Lpez recovered ceramic fragments and observed a stone layer that he suggested was part of a pier or hydraulic feature that possibly dated to the occupation of Los Guachimontones ( Esparza Lpez 2010: 10-11). Because of the confusion and the lack of chemical sourcing, I decided to be conservative in the distance from where the clay was transpo rted I decided to use the closest possible source of clay. I have assumed that the clay source used for construction in the past is located near the present-day spring and river that empties into the Presa de la Vega. 230

PAGE 253

Figure 5.74 Modern route The route highlighted in red depicts the modern access from the area around the spring to the Los Guachimontones ceremonial center. Image courtesy of Google Earth. For the toba, Weigand (1999: 19) noted that a quarry near the town of La Mora, 3 kilometers away, produced toba that was similar to what was found at the site. He makes no other mention of possible toba sources in the reports. It is also unclear how similar La Moras toba is to the sites toba. Toba described in the excavations are either yellow or blue in color. When mixed with clay, the toba consists of just yellow or just blue toba with no color mixing. Whether or not La Moras toba is also yellow and blue is unknown. This may suggest more than one source of toba used in the construction of the site. The excavation unit Cala 3 into Platform 4s secondary platform shows the only example in the site in which both colors of toba mixed with clay are present in the same ex cavation unit. Weigand also frequently describes the clay mixed with toba as well sorted, which suggests that some sort of processing of the pumice took place before mixing. Perhaps the pumice was mined in 231

PAGE 254

chunks, ground, and then mixed with clay. Howeve r, it cannot be said at this time if the mixing occurred at the construction site or at the place of procurement. Processing clay, removing large inclusions, and adding any needed temper during ceramic production is a familiar task for the people of the Te uchitln culture. As Johns (2014: 4045) notes in detail sometimes a tremendous amount of work went into processing the clay and temper used to create ceramic vessels in the region For example, the very finest ceramic vessels like the Tabachines ware, were made of well refined clay leaving only small and very rounded inclusions (Johns 2014: 54-55). In contrast, poor clay deposits or less refined ceramics, like the Colorines ware, would include larger and more angular inclusions. Due to the uncertainty r egarding the source or sources of the toba, and whether or not any processing and mixing actually took place, I made several assumptions regarding the toba. The first assumption is that the toba is naturally small in size This assumption is made to avoid speculating how much labor may have been expended in processing the pumice to the appropriate size. The second assumption is that the toba was premixed with the clay This assumption is made to avoid speculating how much labor may have been expanded for this process. The third assumption is that the source of the toba premixed with clay is the same distance of 1 kilometer as the clay without toba used in construction. This assumption is made due to the higher uncertainty of the toba source as compared to the clay source. The same rate of work for the procurement of clay will be used for clay mixed with a small to medium amount of toba. Clay mixed with a large amount of toba will use a rate of work based on the slowest rates of work by Milner et al. (2010) with the idea that procuring the toba dense clay would be a slower task. 232

PAGE 255

Table 5.17 Rates of work for architectural energetics. Procurement Clay 1.13 m 3 /p d Earth 2.6 m 3 /p d Toba 0.85 m 3 /p d Cobbles / = 2560 7200 Transport p d = 1 + toba 0.094 m 3 /p d Earth 1.875 m 3 /p d Cobbles 0.938 m 3 /p d Construction Fill construction 4.8 m 3 /p d Walls 0.8 m 3 /p d The rates of work used to estimate the amount of labor for the construction of Circle 2 are summarized in Table 5.17. These rates of work are based upon a five hour workday. A five hour workday was originally proposed by Erasmus (1965) due to the hot days of the Sonoran summer. The five hour workday has become a standard in energetic studies Oth er studies have examined six, seven and eight hour workdays that reduce the total number of estimated person days needed or four hour workdays which increase the total number of persondays (Hammerstedt 2005; Moyes et al. 2016). For this thesis, a five ho ur workday is assumed to coincide with the rates of work being used. To calculate the amount of labor for a task, the volume of the construction material is divided by the rate of work to find the amount 233

PAGE 256

of person-days required to accomplish the task. The rates of work of the procurement of cobbles and the transport of materials differ in their method of calculation as explained in detail below. For the procurement of clay, a rate of 1.13 m3/p d was used from Milner et al. (2010). In other architectural energetics work, Erasmus (1965) rate of 2.6 m3/p -d is typically used for the procurement of any kind of earth, soil, or clay. However, Erasmus rate of work is for loose, sandy soil in the arid environment of Sonora, Mexico and is not suitable to use for calculating the labor necessary to procure the clay used in the bulk of Circle 2s construction. Milner et al. (2010), however, produced a rate of work for the procurement of clay in their study of Mississippian mounds in the U.S. Midwest. While their rate of work is based on the use of stone hoes, it is more suitable in the context of Circle 2. While there is little evidence of stone hoes used at the site for construction, it is possible that the Teuchitln culture shared the tradition of using a digging stick found in other parts of Mesoamerica as discussed in Chapter 4. The Aztecs, for example, made use of a wooden digging stick called a uictli in Nahuatl. This shaft of wood with an asymmetrical wooden blade at the end was typically used for planting, farming, and water irrigation in Postclassic Central Mexico (see Figure 4.11). Donkin (1970: 509) notes that the digging stick was used by early colonial Aztecs for the construction of a foundation for a cathedral as seen in the Codex Osuna (1565). For this t hesis, I am assuming that Teuchitln culture made use of a similar digging stick for their procurement of clay. This assumption, along with the rate of work from Milner et al. (2010) provides a more accurate estimation of labor over Erasmuss rate of work. For the procurement of toba, a rate of work of 0.85 m3/p -d was adapted from Milner et al. (2010). In four of their eight experiments, the rate of work was much slower due to a 234

PAGE 257

heavy amount of rocks present in the clay that was being mined. Their rate of work slowed down out of fear of snapping the stone hoe blade. Under the assumption that the toba is premixed, the slower rate of work needed to excavate clay dense with toba seems more applicable given the gravellike nature of the pumice. To calculate the rate of work of gathering cobbles, the formula used by Abrams (1984, 1994) was employed. The use of weight rather than volume is based on five replicative experiments conducted by Abrams in which two participants were tasked with gathering cobbles from the Copan River and bringing them to a terrace about 6 meters away. Abrams (1984: 154-155) does not discuss why he chooses weight over volume in his creation for this rate of work. I speculate that because of the number of cobbles gathered during the experiments (minimum 46, maximum 71), it was easier to weigh the cobbles and divide by a density than to measure each cobble. He found that a person would be able to collect 7200 kilograms of cobbles in a day at the rate his volunteers were gathering cobbles. To determine just how much labor was needed for a certain volume of cobbles, the volume of cobbles for an architectural feature is multiplied by the density of the stone in kilograms and then divided by 7200 kilograms. In the 2015 field season, Beekman (personal communication 2015) was kind enough to gather typical cobbles from around the site and weigh them so that an average density of stone could be used to calculate loads of cobbles for collection and transportation. The density was determined by estimating the size of the cobbles and then dividing the volume by the weight (see Table 5.18). The result is an average density of 2.56 g/cm3 or 2560 kg/m3. 235

PAGE 258

Table 5.18 Density of cobbles. Object Dimensions Weight Density Rock 1 4 cm x 16 cm x 13 cm 2231 g 2.68 g/cm 3 Rock 2 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm 1704 g 2.43 g/cm 3 For calculating the transportation of construction material, Abrams used the formula developed by Aaberg and Bonsignore (1975). Their formula is based upon UN experiments (ECAFE 1957) comparing manual to mechanical transportation. The values of their formula are as follows: Q = quantity of earth per load in cubic meters, L = lead or transport distance in meters, V = loaded velocity, constant of 3 kilometers/hour, V = unloaded velocity, a constan t of 5 kilometers/hour, and H = hours per day. To calculate the transportation costs the volume of one load of material was needed. Abrams (1984: 160; 1994:48) cites 22 kilograms as the standard load for transportation, though it is ethnographically record ed that larger loads were common in this region of Mexico (Lumholtz 1902: 369-370). This 22 kilogram load dictates the volume that a person is able to carry. Heavy m aterial results in a smaller volume and a lighter material results in a larger volume. For the clay used in construction, no samples had been weighed to determine its density. However, a survey of densities of clay around the globe show that clay can vary between 1.37 g/cm3 to 2.37 g/cm3 when dry and 1.87 g/cm3 to 2.49 g/cm3 when wet (Manger 1963). While this is certainly a wide range of densities, the densities can be narrowed down to wet density values since the clay at the base of hill near the spring is wet. In both the low and high densities of clay, the volume of a 22 kilogram load is 0.01 m3 236

PAGE 259

rounded to the nearest tenth of a cubic meter. This volume is common for a 22 kilogram load and was used by Abrams in his work to calculate cobbles and plaster (Abrams 1994:48). The toba, like the clay, also poses a problem in calculations because it, too, was not measured. Weigand has described the toba as consisting of consolidated jal [pumice]. Pumice has a wide range of densities because of how porous it can be, but most material that is described as pumice has a density of less than 1.0 g/cm3 (Manv ille et al. 1998: 5). Assuming the toba used in construction matched the upper range of pumice density because of its consolidated nature, a 22 kilogram load would have a volume of 0.02 m3 rounded to the nearest tenth of a cubic meter. Like the volume used in the transportation of clay, this volume corresponds to volumes used in previous energetics experiments. The same volume was used by Erasmus (1965) for his work on loose, sandy soil and later cited by Abrams (1994:48) for his energetics calculations at Copan. With the density of the cobbles known from measurements, the volume of a 22 kilogram load of cobbles is 0.01 m3 rounded to the nearest tenth of a cubic meter, the same volume as the clay. The rates of work for construction come from Abrams own repl icative experiments at Copan (Abrams 1994: 50-51). Abrams observed that it took almost no time for bulk construction fill to be deposited in a structure. He argues that the labor cost for depositing fill can be factored into the transportation cost and is not a separate rate of work. In the cases where extra time was needed to prepare or work with the construction fill Abrams assigned a rate of work of 4.8 m3/p -d. I applied this rate of work to all construction fill volumes. Most of the construction fill wa s described as compact or contain ed aggregate mixed into the clay or earth. Both activities necessitate some time to either pack down the clay or mix clay and aggregate together. 237

PAGE 260

The rate of work for the construction of walls came from Murakamis (2010) r eplicative experiments at Teotihuacan. Unlike Abrams replicative experiments at Copan (Abrams 1994: 51), which made use of cut masonry blocks, Murakamis walls consisted of unshaped rocks and mud. T hese walls are similar in composition to the walls found at Los Guachimontones. I have opted to use Murakamis rate of 1.06 m3/p d for wall construction labor estimates. Previous estimates had made use of Abrams rate of work at Copan (DeLuca 2016). These rates of work were applied to the volumes of construction material for each architectural feature. The result is a total of 112,651.41 p-d needed to construct Circle 2 in its entirety including all secondary platforms and all five construction stages of the altar. The most labor intensive features of Circle 2 are the patio, banquette, and the altar as a whole. Each of these three features requires more than 20,000 p -d to construct. Each platform, including the secondary platforms, all require less than 4400 p-d to construct. Summary of labor Tables 5. 19 through 5.37 summarize the labor needed to construct each architectural feature based on construction material. The total volume is given as well as the labor costs for procurement, transportation, and construction. The total amount of person-days required for each construction material is also given with a grand total for the entire architectural feature given at the bottom right of the table. For more detailed tables of labor estimates broken down by individual features, see Appendix C. 238

PAGE 261

Table 5.19 Estimated amount of labor to construct the patio. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Clay 953.14 843.49 10139.79 198.57 11181.85 Dense toba 2309.31 2716.84 24567.13 481.11 27765.08 38946.93 Table 5.20 Estimated amount of labor to construct the banquette. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 248.52 88.36 264.95 234.45 587.76 Clay with and without toba 1755.46 1553.5 18675.11 365.72 20594.33 21182.09 Table 5.21 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 1. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 691.28 245.79 736.97 418.12 1400.88 Clay with and without toba 445.3 394.06 4737.23 96.36 5227.65 6628.53 239

PAGE 262

Table 5.22 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 2. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 370.07 131.58 394.53 287.28 813.39 Clay with and without toba 633.67 560.77 6741.17 132.01 7433.95 8247.34 Table 5.23 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 3. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 782.47 278.21 834.19 558.22 1670.62 Clay with and without toba 721.01 638.06 7670.32 150.21 8458.59 10129.21 Table 5.24 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 4. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 37.62 13.38 40.11 35.49 88.98 Clay with and without toba 141.39 125.12 1504.15 29.46 1658.73 1747.71 240

PAGE 263

Table 5.25 Estimated amount of labor to construct Pyramid 5. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 17.78 6.32 18.96 16.77 42.05 Clay with and without toba 79.05 69.96 840.96 16.47 927.39 969.44 Table 5.26 Estimated amount of labor to construct the entire altar. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 1899.22 675.28 2024.76 1315.88 4015.92 Clay with and without toba 2020.42 1787.97 21493.83 424.51 23706.31 27722.23 Table 5.27 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 1. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 39.99 14.22 42.67 37.72 94.61 Clay 354.47 313.69 3770.95 73.84 4158.48 4253.09 241

PAGE 264

Table 5.28 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 2. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 138.7 49.31 134.33 15.72 199.36 Clay 122.03 109.99 1298.19 50.85 1459.03 1658.39 Table 5.29 Estimated amount of labor to construct shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 3.91 1.39 4.17 3.69 9.25 Clay with toba 114.78 101.58 12.91 1221.07 1335.56 1344.81 Table 5.30 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 3. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 111.77 39.73 119.16 47.79 206.68 Clay with and without toba 173.94 153.93 1850.43 36.24 2040.6 Clay with large amount of toba 8.58 10.09 91.28 1.79 103.16 2350.44 242

PAGE 265

Table 5.31 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 4. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 93.41 33.68 100.93 38.02 200.85 Clay with and without toba 129.49 113.5 1364.33 26.73 1504.56 Earth 29.23 11.24 15.59 6.09 32.92 1738.33 Table 5.32 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 5. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 240.58 85.53 256.5 98.24 440.27 Clay 164.86 145.88 1753.64 34.34 1933.86 2374.13 Table 5.33 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 6. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 144.29 51.30 153.83 44.44 249.57 Clay with and without toba 182.57 161.56 1942.24 38.04 1533.55 2391.40 243

PAGE 266

Table 5.34 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 7. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 173.74 62.46 187.27 60.30 348.13 Clay 158.97 139.36 1675.25 32.81 2044.91 2157.45 Table 5.35 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 8. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 104.78 37.25 111.70 42.71 191.66 Clay with and without toba 141.44 125.16 1504.68 29.47 1659.31 Earth 33.47 12.87 17.85 6.97 37.69 1888.66 Table 5.36 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 9. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 161.56 57.45 172.23 66.45 296.13 Clay with and without toba 129.29 114.41 1375.39 26.93 1516.73 Earth 14.74 10.14 14.17 5.53 29.84 1853.64 244

PAGE 267

Table 5.37 Estimated amount of labor to construct Platform 10. Material Volume (m 3 ) Procurement (p d) Transportation (p d) Construction (p d) Total p d Cobbles 126.95 45.14 135.34 44.87 225.35 Clay with toba 197.92 175.15 2105.53 41.23 2321.91 Dense toba 20.61 24.25 219.26 4.29 247.8 2795.06 245

PAGE 268

Analysis of person -days The total amount of estimated labor used to construct Circle 2 is meaningless without further context. There are constraints that influence how this amount of labor is perceived and understood. Those constraints include population size, number of construction events, and length of time dedicated to construction. For example, people at a site cannot construct an entire building within a given period if the site lacks the necessary population. Construction events and expansions can divide the amount of labor i nto more manageable construction episodes over several seasons. Nonetheless, energetics studies often test the total amount of estimated labor for feasibility of one season construction events (Abrams 1989; Craig et al. 1998). To test the feasibility of a one season construction event for Circle 2 we must look at the length of time of the dry season in the Tequila Valleys. In Abrams work, he chose a period of 60 days, or half the dry season, for the period of construction (Abrams 1987, 1989). The dry period was chosen based on ethnographic work in which the construction of buildings by agrarian groups occurred during the off-season. Abrams first justified halving this period by explaining that the construction tasks were somewhat sequential, with a time delay between procurement and construction, with periods of 80 or 100 days possible (Abrams 1987: 490). Later, Abrams justified the 60 day period as standard given that agrarian societies typically construct new houses for immediate use within a month in the dry season and as a way to avoid scheduling conflicts for unstated dry season activities (Abrams 1989: 66-67). This period of 60 days is used by others in their energetics assessments (Murakami 2010; Ortmann and Kidder 2013; Rosenswig and Masson 2002). Other day 246

PAGE 269

periods have also been used that are tailored to their respective regions (Carmean 1991; Kim 2013). As noted in Chapter 3, the dry season for the Tequila valleys lasts from November to May providing around 200 days for construction free from rainfall. A 60 day work period is less than one-third of the entire dry season and may not be a suitable period fo r this analysis The 60 day work period would necessitate a large burden on the people of Los Guachimontones in terms of labor contribution to continue their work over this short period Correspondingly, a 200 day work period may be too long. The full 200 days may not allow for other necessary dry season activities like house construction, craft production, planting next years crops, etc. Instead, a range of day periods consisting of onehalf, two -thirds, and three -quarters of the dry season was chosen to provide a range from restrictive to generous periods for construction (see Table 5.38). The number of estimated people needed for construction is rounded to the nearest person. Table 5.38 Estimated amount of laborers to construct Circle 2 (112,651.41 pd) Construction period (days) Number of laborers 100 1126 133 847 150 751 Current population estimates by Dr. Verenice Heredia for Los Guachimontones at the time of the construction are 3,690 to 9,225 people with a mean population of 6,458 people (Heredia Espinoza and Sumano Ortega 2017; personal communication 2017). If we use 247

PAGE 270

Abrams (1994:106) assumption for Copan that 20% of a population are available for labor conscription, we can estimate the number of people available for construction for the minimum, maximum and mean populations. We can then compare the number of people av ailable in the labor pool to the estimated number of people needed to construct Circle 2 in 100 day, 133 day, and 150 day periods. The table below (Table 5.39) expresses this comparison as a percent of the number of people in the labor pool needed to const ruct Circle 2 in their respective period. Table 5.39 Percent of labor pool required to construct Circle 2 in one season. Population Labor pool Laborers for one season 1126 847 751 3690 738 152.57% 114.77% 101.76% 6458 1292 87.15% 65.56% 58.13% 9225 1845 61.03% 45.91% 40.70% If the smallest population and labor pool is compared against the shortest period needed for construction, 152.57% of the labor pool would be needed to construct Circle 2. If three -quarters of the dry season were spent constructing Circle 2, the smallest population estimate at Los Guachimontones would still require more than the sites available labor pool. Both of these cases would require more than 20% of the site population to be available for conscription. If the largest population and labor pool is compared against the longest period needed for construction, 40.70% of the labor pool would be needed for construction. While this number is more feasible, it still requires a comparatively large percentage of the available 248

PAGE 271

labor pool. A comparison of the amount of labor needed to construct a building in one season can be made with other sites and architectural energetics studies. Copan provides a comparison to a citystate in Mesoamerica that most likely made use of corve labor in the form of a labor tax to the elite. The most laborintensive structure examined at Copan by Abrams was Structure 10L-22, a palace for Copans 13th king, which required 24,705 p-d to construct. If constructed during a 60 day period, only 412 people or 6%, of the available labor pool of 5,000 people, were needed to construct Structure 10L-22. This would include all specialized labor such as sculpting and plaster making that would have normally required more time with fewer people (Abrams 1994:106; 133). Hammerstedts (2005) work at Annis on Mississippian mounds provides a comparison to a work feast system (Hammerstedt 2005: 64-65). The mound at Annis consists of three different construction stages that required a total of 1,196 pd to 2,144 p-d for a 5 hour workday or 825 p-d to 1,531 p-d for a 7 hour workday to construct. The site of Annis has an estimated population of 500 to 1000 people providing a labor pool of 100 to 200 people at 20% of the population. The entire mound at Annis could have been built by 100 people in just 22 days or 50 people could have built the mound in 69 days (Hammerstedt 2005: 226). Bernardinis labor estimates for the Hopewell mounds in Ohio provide an example for a labor collective from a low population density region. Bernardini measured each earthwork feature separately before adding them together. His original calculations are in person-hours rather than person-days (Bernardini 2003: 341). If we convert them to persondays using a 5 hour workday, his estimates for the sites of Baum, Seip, Liberty, Works East, and Frankfort are 83,040, 98,940, 97,720, 70,220, and 94,240 persondays, respectively. 249

PAGE 272

Bernardini (2003: 345) then modeled four different scenarios with three different periods using 50 and 25 workdays per year for construction to estimate the amount of laborers the Hopewell may have needed to construct their sites. His periods were 1 earthwork shape in 1 year, 1 earthwork shape in 5 years, all the earthworks in 5 years, and all the earthworks in 10 years. The largest site, Seip, would have required 1320 to 2650 people just to construct the square earthwork the largest earthwork feature, in one year. To build all the earthworks in 5 years, Seip would have needed 400 to 790 people. The smallest site Bernardini analyzed, Works East, needed 750 to 1510 people to construct their square earthwork. To construct all the earthworks in 5 years, Works East would have needed 280 to 560 people. The Meddler Point site in Arizona is a small site that contains a mound, a typical form of public architecture for the Hohokam and Salado in Arizona from 1150AD to 1450 AD. Meddler Point provides a labor comparison to a labor collective form of labor organization. The mound at Meddler Point required 2,527 p-d to construct. The si te of Meddler Point has an estimated population of 100 to 150 people. Craig et al. estimated 24 to 36 adult males could have contributed 40 to 45 days of labor per year towards the construction of the mound. Meddler Point would have needed 155.99% to 263.23% of the sites labor pool to construct the mound in one season. However, Craig et al. argue that Meddler Point was most likely constructed over several seasons instead of just one. Craig et al. estimated that two years were needed to construct the mound if Meddler Point only used labor from their settlement and did not draw labor from surrounding settlements (Craig et al. 1998: 252-253). As with other large structures, Circle 2 was most likely constructed over several seasons rather than just one season (Murakami 2010, 2015; Webster and Kirker 1995). The 250

PAGE 273

most obvious stages of construction within Circle 2 are demonstrated in the altar. The altar underwent five distinct construction stages with an initial construction and four expansions. The construction events for the remaining architectural features of Circle 2 are less clear. However, logical divisions within Circle 2 can b e made. For example, Pyramid 1 cannot be constructed before Pyramid 5 and Pyramid 5 cannot be constructed before the patio. Alternatively, the secondary platforms cannot be constructed before the primary platforms and the primary platforms cannot be constr ucted before the banquette. If the altar is used as the minimum number of construction events for Circle 2, the remaining architectural features can be divided into five construction event groups that each correspond to one construction stage of the altar. I propose the following five groups that may have been constructed over five different construction seasons. Group 1 consists of the construction of the patio and Pyramid 5. Group 2 consists of the construction of the banquette and Pyramid 4. Group 3 consists of the construction of all ten platforms and Pyramid 3. Group 4 consists of the construction of all secondary platforms and Pyramid 2. Finally, Group 5 consists of just the construction of Pyramid 1. Table 5.40 Amount of labor in people needed to construct each Group. Total person days Construction period 100 days 133 days 150 days Group 1 39,916.37 399 300 266 Group 2 22,929.80 229 172 153 Group 3 30,129.36 301 226 201 Group 4 12,983.37 130 98 87 Group 5 6,624.94 66 50 44 251

PAGE 274

Table 5.41 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 1. Estimated amount of laborers Labor pool 738 1292 1845 399 51.08% 30.88% 21.63% 300 40.65% 23.22% 16.26% 266 36.04% 20.59% 14.42% Table 5.42 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 2. Estimated amount of laborers Labor pool 738 1292 1845 229 31.03% 17.72% 12.41% 172 23.31% 13.31% 9.32% 153 20.73% 11.84% 8.29% Table 5.43 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 3. Estimated amount of laborers Labor pool 738 1292 1845 301 40.79% 23.3% 16.31% 226 30.62% 17.49% 12.25% 201 27.24% 15.56% 10.89% 252

PAGE 275

Table 5.44 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 4. Estimated amount of laborers Labor pool 738 1292 1845 130 17.62% 10.06% 7.05% 98 13.28% 7.58% 5.31% 87 11.79% 6.73% 4.72% Table 5.45 Percent of labor pool needed to construct Group 5. Estimated amount of laborers Labor pool 738 1292 1845 66 8.94% 5.11% 3.58% 50 6.78% 3.87% 2.71% 44 5.96% 3.41% 2.38% Table 5.40 provides the total number of person-days required for each construction group. Included within the table are the estimated numbers of laborers needed for each construction group and construction period. By dividing Circle 2 into these five construction groups and events, the amount of labor needed per construction season does not exceed the number of people within the labor pool. Even if Los Guachimontones had the smallest estimated population and only worked on Circle 2 for 100 days, the most strenuous construction stage would be Group 1 using 51.08% of the labor pool (see Table 5.41). This percent is greater than the percentage of the labor pool needed to construct Circle 2 in one season using the largest estimated population and the longest period of time (see Table 5.39), but is still realistic and attainable for Los Guachimontones. 253

PAGE 276

Tables 5.41 through 5.45 compare the estimated number of people needed to construct each Group to the estimated labor pool of the minimum, maximum, and mean popula tion estimates of the site. This comparison is made across all three proposed construction periods and is expressed as a percent of the people from the labor pool needed for construction. Tables 5.41 through 5.45 demonstrate that Groups 1, 2, and 3 all individually require a higher percent of the labor pool for construction compared to Structure 10L-22 at Copan or the ceremonial mound at Annis. This higher percentage can be interpreted in several ways. If the elites of Los Guachimontones employed corve labor, an individual ruling family may only be able to muster control over a small percentage of the available surplus labor for construction purposes. However, if ruling families worked collectively as suggested by Beekman (2008), the ruling families wielded a greater amount of power over surplus labor. If a comparison to Structure 10L-22 at Copan can be made, the palace for a king required less than one quarter the amount of persondays that Circle 2 required. If four such palaces were constructed in a 150 day period, 659 people, or 13.18% of Copans labor pool, would be utilized. This places the construction requirements of four palaces in a Maya city state as less than the amount of labor required for the construction of Circle 2 in both number of laborers and percent of the labor pool. For another comparison, Kolb (1994: 525) estimated a total 117,933 person-days for all elite construction on the island of Maui, Hawaii during the Consolidation period (14001500 AD). The Consolidation period for Maui was the most labor intensive period of the islands history. During this period, higher labor obligations in the form of corve labor were enacted on the population to improve agricultural fields for a chief or the construction of a 254

PAGE 277

temple. Over a possible five year period, the ruling families at Los Guachimontones were able to harness almost as many person days as the chiefs of Hawaii harnessed over a hundred year period that included the construction of ceremonial buildings. The labor used to construct Circle 2 can be viewed a different way. Instead of time being a constraint that dictates the number of laborers needed, the amount of laborers able to be recruited could dictate the amount of time needed to construct Circle 2. Beekman (2008) hypothesized that the Teuchitln culture was ruled by competing and cooperating ruling families, lineages, or clans. These ruling families would be in charge of performing the necessary rituals and religious activities to ensure that the world would continue. Each platform at a guachimontn may correspond to one of these ruling families and provide these families with a place to perform these needed rituals and activities or to prepare for feasting (Johns 2014: 108-114). For Circle 2, that would mean ten families were in charge of constructing and maintaining the guachimontn. Suppose the primary and secondary platforms were constructed in one construction season with each of the ten families building one platform group. The number of laborers each family was able to recruit every construction period may have been determined by the amount of labor needed to construct each platform group in that time span. The tables below list the total number of person-days needed to co nstruct each platform divided into primary platform, secondary platforms, and total number of person-days. The number of laborers needed to construct the platforms is rounded to the nearest person required for 100 day, 135 day, and 150 day construction periods. For Platforms 1 and 2, half the amount of persondays needed to construct the shared platform was added to each secondary platform total and feature total. 255

PAGE 278

Table 5.46 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each primary platform. Architectural feature Total person days Construction period 100 days 133 days 150 days Platform 1 3957.01 40 30 26 Platform 2 1431.93 14 11 9 Platform 3 2099.14 21 16 14 Platform 4 1602.83 16 12 11 Platform 5 1392.66 14 10 9 Platform 6 1734.65 17 13 12 Platform 7 1809.59 18 14 12 Platform 8 1389.35 14 10 9 Platform 9 1762.11 18 13 12 Platform 10 2411.24 24 18 16 Total laborers 196 147 130 256

PAGE 279

Table 5.47 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct secondary platforms for each platform. Architectural feature Total person days Construction period 100 days 133 days 150 days Platform 1 963.49 10 7 6 Platform 2 893.87 9 7 6 Platform 3 251.3 3 2 2 Platform 4 135.5 1 1 1 Platform 5 981.47 10 7 7 Platform 6 656.75 7 5 4 Platform 7 347.86 3 3 2 Platform 8 499.31 5 4 3 Platform 9 91.53 1 1 1 Platform 10 383.82 4 3 3 Total laborers 53 40 35 257

PAGE 280

Table 5.48 Estimated amount of laborers needed to construct each platform group. Architectural feature Total person days Construction period 100 days 133 days 150 days Platform 1 4920.5 49 37 33 Platform 2 2325.8 23 18 16 Platform 3 2040.60 20 15 14 Platform 4 1738.33 17 13 12 Platform 5 2374.13 24 18 16 Platform 6 2391.40 24 18 16 Platform 7 2157.45 22 16 14 Platform 8 1888.66 19 14 13 Platform 9 1853.64 18 14 12 Platform 10 2795.06 28 21 19 Total laborers 244 184 165 As Tables 5.46 through 5.48 show, Platform 1 requires the most amount of persondays and laborers for constructing both the primary platform and platform total than any other platform. Platform 1 is unique compared to other platforms due to its large size and heavy use of clay for construction material. In terms of primary platform construction, Platforms 5 and 8 both require less than 1,400 persondays while Platform 2 requires just over 1,400 persondays. This is somewhat unusual. All other primary platforms require more than 1,600 person-days for their construction, a difference of more than 200 person-days. In terms of secondary platform construction, Platform 5 is comparable to Platform 1 and 2 in the number of people required for construction. In fact, Platform 5s secondary platforms require a greater amount of person-days than Platform 1. Platform 4 and Platform 9 both 258

PAGE 281

required a single person for the construction of their secondary platforms for every construction period making the secondary platforms for these two platforms the least labor intensive secondary platforms. Figure 5.75 Labor days needed to construct Circle 2 platforms AutoCAD model of Circle 2 with the amount of persondays needed to construct each platform. Drawn by Anthony DeLuca. For overall person-days, Platforms 4, 8, and 9 make use of the least amount of person-days and labor with totals under 2,000 person-days. This is due to Platforms 4, 8, and 9 being constructed primarily using aggregate for their construction fill material. The use of aggregate and earth greatly reduces the burden of labor for their construction since the transportation costs for moving cobbles and earth are one-tenth and onetwentieth the cost of 259

PAGE 282

moving cla y, respectively. Interestingly, despite Platform 2s position near Ballcourt 1, its height over the other platforms, and its connection to Platform 1 with a shared platform, the amount of labor required to construct Platform 2 is comparable to most of Circ le 2s other platforms. Platform 2s labor requirements are less than Platform 1 because of its use of aggregate in its construction fill rather than clay. Platform 10, which also connects to Ballcourt 1, makes use of mostly clay for its construction fill. While Platform 10 is not as large as Platform 1, its larger size and greater amount of clay compared to Platform 2 makes Platform 10 the second most labor intensive platform at Circle 2. The total number of laborers needed to construct all ten platforms in 100 day, 133 day, and 150 day periods are just a fraction of the labor pool available at Los Guachimontones. This would not have created a n undue burden on the population for construction efforts. The number of laborers that needed to be recruited by each potential ruling family is also quite small. The low number of laborers per family opens up the possibility that any form of labor organization could have been used. Depending on the size of the family, lineage or clan the laborers themselves could simply be family members and kin relations recruited using social capital. Social capital could have also been used to recruit those who may have been indebted to the ruling families. Work feasts with labor obligations are another possible route of labor recruitment for both kin and non-kin relations. Feasting may not have occurred for the full dry season because of the logistical difficulty in feeding so many people over a long period. However, a symbolic feast could have been hosted at the beginning, end, or several times throughout the construction season. As Johns 2011 analysis of wares found at Navajas Circle 5 indicates, most of the ceramic sherds recovered from excavation were Colorines ware (Johns 2014: 112). Colorines ware is typically thick walled, 260

PAGE 283

less refined ceramic vessels used primarily for domestic activates such as cooking and feasting (Johns 2014: 77-82). With the low number of people needed, people may have simply volunteered to aid in constructing the temple with volunteers coming and going during the construction season. Table 5.49 Estimated number of days needed to construct each Group. Total person days Labor pool 244 184 165 Group 1 39,916.37 163.59 216.94 241.92 Group 2 22,929.80 93.97 124.62 138.97 Group 3 30,129.36 123.48 163.75 182.60 Group 4 12,983.37 53.21 70.56 78.69 Group 5 6,624.94 27.15 36.00 40.15 The plausibility of this scenario in which each ruling family recruits several dozen people, is dependent upon whether the same number of people can construct Circle 2 over several seasons based on the previously defined five construction groupings. Table 5.49 lists the previously defined five construction groups, the total amount of person-days needed to construct each group, and the number of days needed to construct each group according to the total estimated number of people that could be fielded by the ruling families for 100 day, 133 day, and 150 day construction periods. In this scenario, Group 1 and Group 3 are unable to be constructed within an individual season Groups 2, 4, and 5 can be constructed in an individual season. 261

PAGE 284

Group 1 and Group 3 break with the hypothesized model of family based labor recruitment. These two outliers could be explained if we consider the architectural features of Group 1, the patio and Pyramid 5, and Group 3, Pyramid 3 and the primary platforms, in detail For Group 1, Pyramid 5 is quite small and requires very little labor by itself. Removing Pyramid 5 from Group 1 would have little impact on the amount of labor that needed to be recruited. The patio, however, is the single most costly feature of Circle 2 because of its large volume of clay. Despite its large size and huge cost in labor, the patio is one of the most homogenously constructed features of Circle 2. Great effort and care was taken to use only two types of construction material without any variability. This differs greatly from the banquette and the platforms in which we see different construction layers and construction materials within the feature itself. The patio may have been the result of a much larger community effort in which labor from outside the ruling families was temporarily recruited. The larger number of people may have required the cooperation of the ruling families to direct labor efforts to ensure that the patio was constructed before the end of the dry season. This model seems to fit with Carballos (2012) labor collective model or Bernardinis (2003) model for the Hopewell earthw orks. Support for the idea could come from the shape of the guachimontn structure and the ceramic models depicting simplified versions of the temple. The guachimontn itself is a relatively open structure with no high walls or particularly high platforms While staircases on some platforms and areas of the banquette attempt to direct the flow of movement, one can nonetheless simply climb up onto the structure from any point. The lack of walls, enclosed spaces, or restricted pathways to prevent such actions may be reflective of its inclusive nature. People were free to move around the ceremonial precinct and structures of 262

PAGE 285

Los Guachimontones despite its removal from domestic areas (Hollon 2015; Sumano Ortega and Englehardt 2016). The ceramic models that depict simplified guachimontones often show scenes of activity including a possible pole ceremony (Beekman 2003b), a conflict between two or more groups, and a festive atmosphere full of food preparation, cooking, dancing, music ma king, and talking (Butterwick 1998; Gallagher 1983; Von Winning and Hammer 1972). The guachimontn may not have been an exclusively religious structure, but instead a sort of community center in which people came together for a variety of activities (See F igures 3.1 and 3.2). This does not preclude any necessary religious rituals performed by elites, but opens the possibility of multiple functions for the structure. Having the community partake in the construction of the patio may create an investment within the community. While being a smaller shareholder than the elites, those in the community that aided in its construction would nonetheless remain part-shareholder of the temple structure. This investment into the construction of the temple may have foster ed social bonds and camaraderie in the community. For Group 3, the construction of Pyramid 3 and the primary platforms are both large undertakings. Pyramid 3 by itself requires 10,129.21 person-days and the primary platforms require a total of 20,000.15 persondays. If these two features were not artificially grouped together and instead constructed in separate construction seasons, Pyramid 3 would be no more strenuous than Group 4 and the primary platforms no more strenuous than Group 2 (see Table 5.47). B y ungrouping Pyramid 3 and the primary platforms, the hypothesized model of family based labor recruitment holds true. 263

PAGE 286

Based on the amount of labor, length of time, and number of people required it is unlikely that a work exchange or voluntary work feast was utilized to construct Circle 2. While a work exchange is always a possibility, the labor debt incurred by one or eve n several members of a ruling family would take decades to pay off. It would simply be more economical to recruit laborers via other methods than to incur such a debt. Voluntary work feasts are also unlikely if they are not obligatory feasts disguised as corve labor obligations. Circle 2 was not constructed in a clear piecemeal fashion over time as is described by Marsh (2016). Further, the amount of food necessary to feed hundreds of people every day during the dry season would be a monumental undertaking in and of itself. Even if ruling families pooled their resources together, surveys of the Los Guachimontones and other Teuchitln culture sites indicate a lack of elite structures like palaces. Elite structures are not only an expression of authority and power, but of wealth and economic capital. Elite structures could have been used to store large amounts of physical wealth, such as food, for the express purpose of hosting feasts. Without the storage facilities to accumulate sufficient food to feed so man y people, it is unlikely the families of Los Guachimontones employed feasting in this manner to construct Circle 2. Laborers most likely provided food for themselves from their own stores while they participated in the construction of C ircle 2 The lack of palaces does not preclude the use of corve labor by the elites of the Teuchitln culture. As Webster (1990: 343344) discusses, the emergence of social inequality can be linked to the creation of large constructions with unexpectedly low wealt h. The megarons in Greece, for example, appear to be proportionally larger structures since there is very little material wealth found within them Webster also argues that site growth can occur before the emergence of hierarchies as seen in Poland and Czechoslovakia. During the 5th 264

PAGE 287

millennium, long house sizes were constructed in a range of sizes from 6 meters to 80 meters in length. However, despite the interpretation that larger longhouses could have hosted clubhouses or assembly halls for civicritual, the material culture general ly appears to be domestic. While there may not be palaces, as one would expect for the Aztec at Tenochtitlan or the Inca in Cusco, elites may still have been able to leverage their control over resources, wealth and knowledge to command and direct corve labor for the construction of buildings larger than a house. 265

PAGE 288

CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this research was to evaluate a range of labor organizational models in the Teuchitln culture at the site of Los Guachimontones, Jalisco. A series of labor models were developed based on prior interpretations of political organizations at the site. These were then tested by an architectural energetics analysis of Circle 2. The volume of ea ch architectural feature in Circle 2 was calculated. Architectural energetics rates of work were applied to these volumes in order to understand how much labor may have been expended in the construction of the temple. These calculations were then assessed against the sites population, likely seasons of construction, and other constraints to develop several possible scenarios for Circle 2s construction. Comparisons were made between the amount of labor needed to construct Circle 2 and other architectural e nergetics case studies in order to reduce the possible models of labor organization at Los Guachimontones. How does the construction volume, quality, or labor estimate differ between individual components such as fill vs. external appearance? Excavations into Circle 2 and its architectural features have shown a number of similarities and differences within the construction of the guachimontn. The entire temple was constructed using only clay, toba earth, and unshaped cobbles in varying combinations and densities. Every architectural feature of Circle 2 utilized one or more of the four materials for their construction fill and each architectural feature was faced with cobbles set in a clay mortar. For every architectural feature of Circle 2, the volume of the construction fill was greater than the volume of the cobble facing. This includes Pyramid 5, the smallest architectural feature at the site. 266

PAGE 289

Variation within Circle 2 stems from the volume of each architectural feature, the combination of materials u sed for fill, and the labor expended to construct each architectural feature. In terms of volume, the single largest architectural feature of Circle 2 is the altar containing 3,919.64 meters3 of material. The altar was constructed using clay, toba, and cobbles with some variation in the construction fill of each stage of the altar. Pyramids 5 and 4 made use of more toba in their fill with little to no aggregate while Pyramids 1, 2, and 3 included aggregate in their fill to varying densities. Both Pyramid 4 and 5 are quite small with volumes of 179.01 meters3 and 96.83 meters3 respectively. The later additions of Pyramids 3, 4, and 5 added the bulk of the altars volume with Pyramid 3 having the largest volume of any construction stage with 1,503.48 meters3. If one considers each stage of the altar as a separate architectural feature that cannot be totaled together than the patio is the largest architectural feature of Circle 2 with a volume of 3,262.45 meters3 of material. This material consists of clay and clay mixed with toba both of which are found throughout the patio with no variation in their respective composition. As stated in Chapter 5, only the first of the patios construction layers extends to the full 99 meter diameter of Circle 2. The second construction layer appears to extend only as far as the interior cobble facing of the banquette. The banquette has a volume of 2 ,003.98 meters3, which places the volume of the architectural feature between the patio and Pyramid 3. The bulk of the banquettes construction consists of a single layer of clay mixed with some toba; however, there are numerous areas around the banquette, and even withi n the same architectural feature, in which the composition of the banquette can vary greatly. One should keep in mind that the volume of the banquette is based upon an average width of the banquette. Plan drawings of 267

PAGE 290

platforms have recorded a width of between 13.05 meters and 16.86 meters of which I used an average of 15.34 meters for calculations. Of Circle 2s ten platforms, Platform 5 has the most volume with 405.42 meters3 of material. With a difference of almost 11 meters3, Platform 1 is a close second with a volume of 394.5 meters3. Half of the other eight platforms have volumes less than 300 meters3 of material while the other half have over 325 meters3 of material. Platforms 6, 7, 9, and 10 contain over 325 meters3 of material with Platform 10 having the largest volume of the four with 345.48 meters3. Platforms 2, 3, 4, and 8 contain less than 300 meters3 with Platform 4 having the smallest volume of 252.13 meters3. It is somewhat tempting to claim there is a pattern in platform volume that is split a long an axis formed by Platforms 1 and 5; however, platform volume is not necessarily indicative of the labor expended to construct each platform, as discussed below. It is also variously manifested visually in width and height. In total, all ten platforms contain a volume of 3,234.09 meters3, slightly less than the entire volume of the patio. The quality of construction for Circle 2 is relatively consistent for all architectural features. No architectural feature was so poorly constructed that it was destr oyed over time due to the elements. Even Platform 8, which utilized earth mixed with aggregate rather than clay, was largely intact. Overall, the resilience of Circle 2 was high and was only affected by recent people and their actions such as farming and looting. However, quality can also be discussed in terms of which materials were used in construction and how those materials may have been perceived. The use of clay and clay mixed with toba in the construction of the patio, for example, showed little variability within 268

PAGE 291

their respective layers. The base layer of clay mixed with toba appeared to be consistent in the density of the toba. The second layer of clay, li kewise, was consistent with v ery little toba mixed within. The consistency of the patios construction when compared to the rest of the architectural features of Circle 2 provides some insight into the Teuchitln culture. The patio had to be constructed in a particular way that left little room for variability. The altar, the banquette, and the platforms all contained variability in their construction material with the platforms exhibiting the most variability. The patio stands out as a component that the people of Los Guachimontones took the time to construct well. This could be because the clay mixed with toba and clay was practical to use or perhaps had symbolic importance or perceived higher quality (Sherwood and Kidder 2011). The perception that clay may be of a higher quality than other construction material is reflected in the construction and labor of the platforms. Clay requires the most amount of labor to transport due to the distance from the source and the weight of the clay. Ex pending the extra labor to use clay over the mor e cost saving earth and aggregate materials that could be gathered closer to the ceremonial center lends supports to the hypothesis that the clay was perceived to be more practical, be of higher quality, or has symbolic importance. By using a more costly c onstruction material, the builders may have gained higher status and prestige for their willingness to expend the extra effort. As Sherwood and Kidder (2011: 74) note in the construction of mounds in the Mississippi River basin, people were willing to travel great distances or dig for several meters in order to obtain their desired construction material. The conscious choice to use different construction materials can be seen in the platforms for Circle 2. All ten platforms conta in some aggregate mixed with clay or earth in the construction fill. The ratio of aggregate to clay or earth, and how the aggregate fill is 269

PAGE 292

used differs from platform to platform. Some platforms used a layer of clay and a layer of aggregate fill in all or part of their construc tion, like Platforms 3, 6, 8, and 10. Others used aggregate fill in differing ratios like Platforms 2, 7, and 9. However, Platform 1 has the least amount of aggregate, which is limited to some small retaining walls near its surface. Unlike the other platf orms, the bulk of Platform 1s construction consists of clay. With the bulk of the fill consisting of clay, the amount of labor expended to construct Platform 1 is double the amount of labor for other platforms. In total, Platform 1 requires an estimated 4,253.09 person-days to construct. The second most labor intensive platform is Platform 10, which also utilizes a large amount of clay in its construction, but offsets part of the cost by using an aggregate mixture. As a result, Platform 10 requires 1,463.55 persondays less than Platform 1 to construct. As stated previously, the volume of a platform may not be indicative of its importance. While two platforms may have a similar volume, their choice in using more clay over an aggregate mixture greatly increases the amount of labor needed for their construction. For example, Platforms 10 and 6 have almost the same volume with 326.65 meters3 and 326.86 meters3 respectively. However, Platform 10s greater use of clay over aggregate results in needing an estimated 2,789.54 person-days to construct while Platform 6 requires an estimated 1,841.51 person-days. The labor needed to construct Platform 10 is 66% greater than Platform 6. As another example, Platform 5 has the largest volume of all the platforms of Circle 2. However, because of the use of an aggregate mixture in most of Platform 5s construction, the platform needs an estimated 2,374.13 person-days to construct, which is 1,878.96 person-days less than Platform 1. 270

PAGE 293

This preference for clay over aggregate can be seen in the construction of the banquette and altar, as well. The banquette, while containing variability in its clay construction, uses only clay for its fill. The variability for the banquette is the result of a presence or absence of toba mixed in with its clay and the density of toba if present The banquette does not use any aggregate in its construction. As discussed in Chapter 5, it is possible that the banquette was constructed shortly after the patio, which would blur the division between construction layers of these two architectural featu res. W hile the banquette has some variability within it, the variability was still constrained by the choice not to use aggregate. The altar shows a preference for the use of clay early in its constr uction before switching to an aggregate mixture in its fill. Based on the tunnel excavation of Cala 7, Pyramids 5 and 4 were constructed using clay and clay mixed with toba. It was not until Pyramid 3 that aggregate was mixed in to the clay fill. Pyramid 3 was also the largest construction stage of the altar in both volume and labor. That is not to say that Pyramids 2 and 1 did not require a large volume of material and labor, but their expansion of the altar was comparatively mor e modest. It is also possible that the use of aggregate was a cost saving measure enacted towards the end of the construction of Circle 2. If one traces the chane opratoire of Circle 2, we see that the earliest architectural features were constructed wit h clay more than an aggregate mixture It is possible that the people of Los Guachimontones had limited access to clay for construction or limited labor to expend in transporting the material. This may explain the change from consistent construction material in construction layers, as seen in the patio, to dissimilar construction materials in construction layers, as seen in the platforms. Considering 271

PAGE 294

the small population of Los Guachimontones, the early commencement of construction at the site compared to other sites in the region such as Llano Grande and Navajas, the monumental size of Circles 1, 2, and Ballcourt 1, and the lack of comparable Middle Formative sites with monumental construction in the region, the people of Los Guachimontones may have taken time to develop an approach to organizing the construction of such large buildings. This switch to aggregate may not have been a reflection of quality, but of practicality in finishing their construction efforts. Whether the use of clay over other material is a matter of perceived practicality, quality, or display of status the reality is that the use of clay came at a high labor cost. As discussed in Chapter 5, Circle 2 requires an estimated 112,651.41 person-days to construct. All of the architectural fe atures that make use of a large volume of clay, like the patio, banquette, Pyramid 3, and Platform 1, all require comparatively more labor than architectural features that used less clay. The actual act of procuring and constructing with earth, aggregate, and clay is a fraction of the total labor costs. The high transport costs should not come as a surprise, however. As noted by Abrams (1987: 492) transportation costs are the highest costs in construction. Without a sufficient labor force moving construction materials from the site of procurement to the construction site, a bottleneck can occur that slows down construction (Abrams and Bollard 1999: 273). The decision to use clay and expend the labor to transport this material was most likely a conscious choice. This conscious choice signals the ability or willingness of the people of Los Guachimontones to devote a significant amount of labor to their temples construction. 272

PAGE 295

Do scheduling and labor constraints suggest the size of labor groups and their relati onship to the proposed model of social organization? Circle 2 requires an estimated 112,651.41 person-days to construct. At a minimum, 751 people would be required to construct Circle 2 within three-quarters of a dry season or 150 days. A t a maximum, 1,126 people would be required for half the dry season or 100 days. The labor required to construct Circle 2 does not exceed the sites minimum population unlike at Meddler Point in Arizona (Craig et al. 1998). As a result, there are more than a sufficient number of people to aid in the construction of the temple. However, it is uncommon in present energetics studies for a building to use such a large proportion of people for a project in one season. If 20% of Los Guachimontones population were available to work on construction, Circle 2 would require 101.76% to 40.705% of the sites labor pool to construct the temple in 150 days based on the minimum and maximum population estimates for the site. These figures increase to 152.57% to 61.03% of the labor pool if Circle 2 were constructed in 100 days. Compared to other energetics studies, the percent of labor from the labor pool is unprecedented with the exception of the Meddler Point. The amount of persondays exceeds the requirements of building Structure 10L-22, a palace for the 13th king at Copan, and is nearly the same amount of person-days expended by Hawaiian chiefs over a century during their busiest period of construction (Kolb 1994). Because of this high percentage of labor pool participation, it is unlikely that Circle 2 was constructed in a single season. In line with other energetics analyses of monumental constructions, it is more likely that Circle 2 was constructed over multip le seasons. This is most apparent at Circle 2 by the 273

PAGE 296

construc tion stages evident within the altar. An argument could be made that more than five construction seasons took place. If each architectural feature were constructed during a separate season, 33 seasons would be needed to construct all the primary and secondary platforms. It is unlikely that this is the case. Instead, like architectural features were most likely constructed contemporaneously. Excavations within Circle 2 have shown that individual architectural features do not appear to have been built over multiple seasons. The banquette, for example, does appear to contain smaller components that may mark where labor stopped and started from one season to the next. Instead, it appears as though once the builders of Circle 2 began construction on an architect ural feature they continued to work on that architectural feature until completion. Therefore, construction could not have stopped at any point at the end of the dry season, and would need to have completed any major architectural features. I proposed tha t Circle 2, at a minimum, took five construction seasons. This is based on the stages within the altar. If different architectural features are grouped with each construction stage of the altar, the amount of labor needed each season to construct Circle 2 is much more manageable. For example, the proposed Group 1 consisting of the patio and Pyramid 5, needs an estimated 266 laborers for a period of 150 days or 399 people for 100 days in order to construct these architectural features. Group 1 marks the most labor intensive group of the proposed five groupings. Group 1 is estimated to require 51.08% to 21.63% of the labor pool for a period of 100 days or 36.04% to 14.42% of the labor pool for a period of 150 days. The number of laborers for Group 1 is a littl e over a third of the people Circle 2 may have required if they were to build the temple in one season. This is a much smaller and 274

PAGE 297

more manageable amount of labor to recruit and expend during a single season with repercussions for the mechanisms available for organizing labor. A more accurate estimation in the number of construction seasons can be made based on the amount of labor expended to construct the Platforms. If each platform represents a ruling family, as proposed by Beekman (2008), then the total amount of labor needed to construct all ten platforms may be indicative of the maximum amount of labor these ten ruling families could recruit each season. If this amount of labor were unable to construct a Group within a single season, that Group would have to be dissolved. T he architectural features assigned to the group are then assumed to be constructed over two differ seasons. While this method demonstrated that Architectural Groups 2, 4, and 5 could be constructed within a season, Architectural Group s 1 and 3 could not. This would seem to indicate that Group 3, consisting of the platforms and Pyramid 3, are an unlikely pairing. However, Group 1 poses a problem in that it cannot easily be broken down into smaller construction units. As discussed previously, Group 1 consists of the patio and Pyramid 5. The amount of labor for Pyramid 5 is negligible compared to the patio. The only way the patio could be broken down into smaller construction units is if the two construction layers were constructed in two different seasons. This would leave the first layer exposed to the elements during the rainy season. If that did occur, then Circle 2 could have been constructed in as few as seven seasons by the ten ruling lineages. This is unlikely because separating the se two construction layers would leave the first layer open to possible damage. 275

PAGE 298

How was labor organized in the construction of public architecture in Late Formative central Jalisco? I argue that labor organization at Los Guachimontones made use of two for ms of labor organization, the labor collective and corve labor. I also argue that the use of two forms of labor organization supports Beekmans (2008) model of a corporate society in which elites cooperated and competed with one another. This model of cooperation and competition allows multiple strategies to be employed to gain capital, status, and prestige in the construction of monumental architecture. These strategies can be seen in the amount of labor used to construct Circle 2 and how Circle 2s indiv idual architectural features were constructed. However, cultural rules and physical limitations may have directed how elites approached and executed the construction of Circle 2. Circle 2 poses some issues when making a comparison to other structures exami ned in architectural energetics studies. Part of this issue is that other studies examine just one form of labor organization employed in a structures construction and not multiple forms of labor organization. The most commonly used model for labor organi zation in these studies is the labor tax. This tax, a form of corve labor, required a certain number of people within a society to contribute labor every year to elites. The labor tax model is supported in these energetic studies by other evidence within their respective case studies. That same evidence is not apparent at Los Guachimontones or other sites within the Tequila Valleys region during the Late Formative to Classic periods The other issue in comparing Circle 2 to other sites is the variability within the temples construction. Few architectural energetics analyses discuss and explore construction 276

PAGE 299

variability in their respective case studies. Circle 2 is unique in that regard. Circle 2 has some architectural features that are constructed similarl y throughout that individual architectural feature, like the patio. At the same time, Circle 2 has some architectural features that are constructed differently within the architectural feature or from like architectural features, like the platforms. If eve ry architectural feature were constructed differently within and compared to like architectural features, comparisons for a model of labor organization could be made to places like Chan Chan (Mosely 1975). However, that is not the case at Circle 2. If every architectural feature were constructed similarly within and compared to like architectural features, comparisons for a model of labor organization could be made for supervised and directed labor to ensure consistency (Lucero 2007). Again, that is not the case at Circle 2. Instead, I suggest that these differences are indicative of two forms of labor organization employed at different stages of the temples construction. Based on excavations of Circle 2 and the architectural energetics analysis of the stru cture, I suggest that the patio was constructed using a labor collective model. The patio requires the most material and labor of any other architecture feature. Despite being the largest and most labor intensive architectural feature, it is surprisingly h omogeneous in its construction layers. Excavations did not record inconsistencies within the patios two construction layers. The consistency suggests that labor was being directed by a person or people in a position of power and authority to ensure that labor was conducted in a uniform manner. However, those people directing labor effort s need not necessarily be in a centralized and authoritative position like a king or chief. Instead, those directing the labor could be people in a less highly stratified position of power, such as the case at Meddler Point (Craig et al. 1998) and the Hopewell earthworks in Ohio (Bernardini 2003). Both sites 277

PAGE 300

had people in positions with power that may have aided in directing labor efforts, though these positions appear not have been a positions like a king or chief within their respective culture. These positions may include lineage elders or religious leaders who hold the knowledge, or cultural capital, of how the structure should be laid out and built. Construction of Circle 2 was of such a size that labor could have been organized at a scale lower than that of a polity, as is the case for the Hopewell earthworks. A similar argument for a lack of such high ranked positions has been made by Beekman (2008) for the Teuchitln culture. The Tequila valleys lack recognizable palaces for high ranked elites and artwork lacks the imagery that could be associated with such positions during this period However, that is not to say, that there is no evidence for social ranking. Simple pit burials and shaft and chamber tombs display a variety of wealth and status. Simple pit burials often contain few or no grave offerings and represent the majority of burials in the region. Shaft tombs, while fewer in number, often contain grave offerings. Beekman (2016b) argues that tombs associated with architecture tend to be more elaborate and contain more elaborate ceramic figures as part of the grave offerings. Beekman (2008) has proposed that the elites who had the large tombs and more elaborate figures as part of their grave offerings were members of higher ranking families, lineages, or clans. These elites, while not kings or chiefs, may have wielded enough collective capital to direct the labor of tens to hundreds of people for the construction of a guachimontn. However, the elites of Los Guachimontones may not have been able to recruit collectively a sufficient amount of labor to construct the patio of Circle 2. The total labor required to construct all ten platforms of Circle 2 falls short of the labor needed to construct the patio. In Bourdieus terms, the lineages of Los Guachimontones lacked sufficient 278

PAGE 301

quantities of capital if they were relying on existing social networks. To remedy this problem, elites may have relied on the creation of new social capital through community participation via a labor collective to construct the patio. Participation in previous guachimontn constructions at the site or within the area may have become a part of the Teuchitln culture group habitus (Bourdieu 2001). The numerous guachimontn structures in the Tequila Valleys and their repetitive form contain parallels with the Hopewell earthworks in Ohio (Bernardini 2003). The people of Los Guachimontones may have participated in the construc tion of Circle 2 as part of a practice (Bourdieu 2001: 533, 537), possibly with origins in Middle Formative mound construction. The result of this practice was the reproduction of group habitus, a shared experience to renew social capital, and an investment in their community. Based on ceramic models from the Ixtlan del Ro region of Nayarit, guachimontones may have acted as a sort of community center By constructing this community center, the Teuchitln culture was investing in their community to provide a shared space for group activities like music making, feasting, dancing, and even defense (Butterwick 1998; Gallagher 1983; Lopez Mestas; von Winning and Hammer 1972). To create that desire for investment, a guachimontn should be easily accessibl e to the community so that the people can utilize its space. While the ceremonial center at Los Guachimo ntones is located away from most domestic structures, the guachimontones are still in close proximity. As Hollon (2015) and Sumano Ortega and Englehardt (2016) have argued, the guachimontn is an open structure that is easily accessible by anyone. Movement is not restricted, though the layout may direct movement to a degree. This open layout emphasized easy access and could facilitate community gatherings and activities. 279

PAGE 302

Johns (2014) analysis of the ceramic assemblage at Navajas supports the hypothesis that guachimontones are more than just religious structures. The result of Johns analysis suggests that guachimontones were sites of domestic activates, such as feasting, occurring within the space of a guachimontn, despite a lack of hearths in which to prepare food. By aiding in the construction of Circle 2, the people of Los Guachimontones were investing in themselves by providing a space for activities and community engagement. Cooperation among the sites elites may have begun to break down or been unnecessary with the construction of the banquette. As discussed in Chapter 5, if the platforms are indicative of the labor that elites were able to recruit, elites were able to construct the banquette within a single season. The banquette would not require the same level of participation from the community as the patio and may be a transition from a labor collective model to a corve labor model, but organize d at a lineage level. I propose that elites would have needed to continue to cooperate to construct the banquette since the banquette forms a basal platform for their individual platforms. However, their cooperation is not reflected in homogeneity of the c onstruction method, but in the general form of the architectural feature. Excavation units and plan drawings have shown that the construction layers within the banquette and the width of the banquette is variable from area to area, possibly a sign of lessening cooperation. Based on the available evidence, it would seem that the banquette was constructed in sections and joined together. This would explain its variable construction layers and width from platform area to platform area. If the banquette was constructed in sections, elites may have relied on their own accumulated capital to recruit labor rather than using a labor collective model. Because of the lack of palaces and few house excavations in the region, I 280

PAGE 303

propose that elites relied on a combination of social and cultural capital rather than economic capital, to recruit their labor. Kin, friends, and those that may be indebted to elite lineages could be recruited using social capital. Cultural capital would stem from religious positions elite lin eage members held within the Teuchitln culture. Palaces, which would normally be an indicator of some economic capital, have not been identified and associated with the Teuchitln culture in the region. Cultural and societal rules may have limited how muc h economic capital elites were able to accumulate and how elites could use their capital. Elites may have had to transform their economic capital into social or cultural capital in order to retain any capital. However, their accumulated capital may have had limited uses. For example, elites may have only been able to use their capital for constructing guachimontones ballcourts, and tombs. They could not use their capital to construct palaces. Competition between lineage groups is most evident in the composition of and labor necessary to build the platforms that sit atop the banquette. As elites were required or obligated to construct a platform at the guachimontn, many of them adopted cost-saving measures in the form of adding readily available aggregate to the construction fill. By adding aggregate, lineages reduced the volume and labor cost of transporting clay a kilometer away. However, not all lineages incorporated a large amount of aggregate into their construction fill. This choice to limit the amoun t of aggregate may denote a lineages capital and status within society. The use of aggregate over clay would have been visible to other lineages during the construction process. If platforms denote the accumulated capital and status within the Teuchitln culture at Los Guachimontones, then Platform 1 represents the lineage with the most capital and status. Platform 1 has the second largest volume of the ten platforms and uses almost all clay in its construction. These two factors result in Platform 1 being the most 281

PAGE 304

labor intensive platform at Circle 2. The location of Platform 1 at the center of three platforms joined with Ballcourt 1 further emphasizes its importance relative to the other platforms. The other platforms demonstrate that other lineages could not compete to the same degree with each other Platforms 10 and 6 have almost the same volume, but their choice in using more labor intensive or costsaving construction material results in two very different estimates for the amount of labor expended in their construction. Platforms 3 and 5 require almost the same amount of estimated labor, but have very dissimilar volumes. Platform 5 has the largest volume of all ten platforms, but the volume is negated by the choice to use more aggregate in its fill. D espite the smaller volume for Platform 3, the choice to use more clay than aggregate in terms of labor puts Platform 3 at the same level as Platform 5. Competition between l ineages is also evident in the construction of secondary platforms. Due to the nature of a guachimontn, there is limited space in which a lineage could expand and make their platform larger. The banquette should constrain construction towards or away from the altar. Excavations do not indicate that the banquette was ever expanded to ac commodate these platforms. Lineages bypassed the constraint of the banquette by first constructing the banquette to the width they wanted. Despite creating this space to accommodate their platform, eight of the ten lineages constructed secondary platforms that flanked their primary platform. Platform 6 constructed a secondary platform at the rear of its primary platform. Platform 2 did not construct any secondary platforms, though it was connected to Platform 1 by building up the space between the two platf orms. Beekman (2008) has made the same argument for the site of Navajas. At Navajas, the only way to expand the platforms of the guachimontn was to build upwards. 282

PAGE 305

The model of using two forms of labor organization raises a number of questions regarding th e construction of guachimontones Were all guachimontones at Los Guachimontones constructed like Circle 2 with more homogeneously constructed architectural features at the start of construction and more heterogeneously constructed architectural features towards the end of construction? Is this pattern evident at other sites within the region? Or do labor organization strategies differ over time or from site to site? Is the labor requirement to construct Circle 2 unique based on its position and construction material? Or do other guachimontones exhibit the same level of effort to build? Was there competition in constructing guachimontones between sites in the region? How do the largest guachimontones at Ahualulco, Santa Quiteria, Navajas, and San Juan de los Arcos compare to Circles 1 and 2 at Los Guachimontones? And why construct guachimontones in difficult positions that would onl y a dd to the labor requirements? There are also a number of questions regarding capital and status within the Teuchitln culture. How did capital and status among elites of Los Guachimontones change over time from the sites early occupation in the Middle For mative to the end of the Classic period? Do changes in capital and status among elites reflect the size of the guachimontones constructed at that time? If elites do not live in palac es, what does an elite house look like? And how do elite houses compare to commoner house s? Is there a relationship betw een elite and commoner house s that include forms of capital that may be used to recruit labor? Are guachimontones an attempt by elites to establish their power and authority resulting in the need for fewer grand temples to be constructed after about 100 AD? As always, further excavation and research is needed to answer these questions. However, by examining Circle 2 at Los Guachimontones a clearer political model can be 283

PAGE 306

created to understand the Teuchitln culture and their religious structures in the Tequila valleys. Circle 2 is one of the largest guachimontones in the region and provides an upper limit on the amount of labor elites in the region were able to recruit. We can hypothesize that the elites of other sites in the region may not have had as much capital as the elites at Los Guachimontones. Or elites had similar amounts of capital, but other sites had smaller populations A third possibility is that the elites at Los Guachimontones used up their capital after constructing Circle 2. After construction, they may not have had enough social capital to dominate the region. This limited the ability of elites to recruit labor, how much they could accomplish within a single season, and limit ed the size of construction. The use of two models of labor organization to construct a single building complex hopefully provides insight into future case studies. The scale of variability in the quality of architecture should be considered when conducting an architectural energetics analysis and trying to model labor organization. Circle 2 stands out as an example of the capability of a corporate society to construct monumental architecture without the need for a centralized authority, as is the case in so many other energetics analyses. We must rethink how structures are built and who participates in their construction. We must be aware that cooperation and competition can go hand in hand within a society even when a sacred space is being created. 284

PAGE 307

REFERENCES Aaberg, S., and J. Bonsignore 1975 A Consideration of Time and Labor Expenditure in the Construction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Poverty Point Mound. In Three Papers on Mesoamerican Archaeology edited by J. A. Graham and R. F. Heizer, pp. 40-78. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 24, Berkeley. Abrams, Elliot M. 1984 Systems of Labor Organization in the Late Classic Copan, Honduras: the Energetics of Construction Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College. 1987 Economic Specialization and Construction Personnel in Classic Period Copan, Honduras. American Antiquity 52(3): 485-499. 1989 Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Pe rspective. Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 47-87. 1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Abrams, Elliot M., and Mary F. LeRouge 2008 Political Complexity and Mound Construction among the Early and Late Adena of the Hocking Valley, Ohio. In Transitions: Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country edited by Martha P. Otto and Brian Gerald Redmond, 214-231. Ohio University Press, Athens. 285

PAGE 308

Abrams, Elliot M., and Thomas W. Bolland 1999 Architectural Energetics, Ancient Monuments, and Operations Management. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(4): 263-291. Anderson, David G. 2004 Archaic Mounds and the Archaeology of Southeastern Tribal Societies. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast edited by Jon L. Gibson and Philip J. Carr, pp. 270-364. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Arco, Lee J., and Elliot M. Abrams 2006 An Essay on Energetics: the Construction of the Aztec Chinampa System. Antiquity 80(310): 906-918. Beekman, Christopher S. 1996a The Long-Term Evolution of a Political Boundary: Archaeological Research in Jalisco, Mexico Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1996b Political Boundaries and Political Structure: The Limits of the Teuchitlan Tradition. Ancient Mesoamerica 7(1):135-147. 2003a Fruitful Symmetry: Corn and Cosmology in the Public Architecture of Late Formative and Early Classic Jalisco. Mesoamerican Voices 1: 5 -22. 286

PAGE 309

2003b Agricultural Pole Rituals and Rulership in Late Formative Central Jalisco. Ancient Mesoamerica 14: 299-318. 2003c Llano Grande Construction Sequence. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver. 2008 Corporate Power Strategies in the Late Formative to Early Classic Tequila Valleys of Central Jalisco. Latin American Anti quity 19(4): 414-434. 2016a Settlement Patterns and Excavations: Contexts of Tombs and Figures in Central Jalisco. In Shaft Tombs and Figures in West Mexican Society: A Reassessment edited by Christopher S. Beekman and Robert B. Pickering, pp. 85-96. Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2016b Who did the Western Mexican Figures Portray? The Correlation Between Figures and Their Contexts. In Shaft Tombs and Figures in West Mexican Soci ety: A Reassessment edited by Christopher S. Beekman and Robert B. Pickering, pp. 97-108. Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2016c The Early Segment of the Chronological Sequence at Los Guachimontones. Beekman, Christopher S. (editor) 2007 Informe Final de la Temporada 2003, Proyecto Arqueolgico Regional Valles de Tequila. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional De Antropologa e historia, Mxico, D.F. Beekman, Christopher S., Luis Javier Galvn Villegas 2006 The Shaft Tombs of the Atemajac Valley and their Relation to Settlement. Ancient Mesoamerica 17: 259-270. 287

PAGE 310

Beekman, Christopher S., and Phil C. Weigand 2008 Conclusiones, Cronologa y un intento de sntesis. In Tradicin Teuchitln edited by Phil C. Weigand, Christopher S. Beekman, and Rodrigo Esparza, pp. 303337. El Colegio de Michoacn, Zamora, Mxico. 2010 La Secuencia Cronolgica de la Tradicin Teuchitln. In El Eje Lerma -Santiago durante el Formativo Terminal y Clsico temprano: precisiones cronolgicas y dinmicas culturales edited by Laura Solar, pp. 237-261. INAH, Mxico. Beekman, Christopher S., and Verenice Yunuen Heredia Espinoza. In prep. Regional Survey and the Trajectory of Complexity in the Magdalena Lake Bas in, Jalisco, Mexico. Bernardini, Wesley 2004 Hopewell geometric earthworks: A case study in the referential and experiential meaning of monuments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(3): 331-356. Blanco, Ericka, Sean M. Smith, Jorge Herrejon, and Phil C. Weigand 2010 La Tradicin Alfarera en Guachimontones y Loma Alta: Tipos, Formas, y Usos Ecumene 1(1): 88-119. 288

PAGE 311

Bourdieu, Pierre 1986 The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education edited by Richardson J, pp. 15-20. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut. 2001 Structures, Habitus, and Practices. Translated by Richard Nice. In Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory edited by Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, pp. 533-542. Broadview Press, Orchard Park, NY. Bray, Tamara L. 2003 Inka Pottery as Culinary Equipment: Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State Design. Latin American Antiquity 14(1): 328. Butterwick, Kristi 1998 Days of the Dead: Ritual Consumption and Ancestor Worship in an Ancient West Mexican Society. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Cabrero Garcia, Maria Teresa 1989 Civilizacin en el norte de Mxico: Arqueologa de la caada del Rio Bolaos (Zacatecas y Jalisco). Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mxico City. 1991 Cultura arqueolgica de Bolaos (Zacatecas y Jalisco): Una frontera cultura. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(2): 193-203. 289

PAGE 312

Carballo, David M. 2012 Labor Collectives and Group Cooperation in PreHispanic Central Mexico. In Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeological Perspectives edited by David M. Carballo, pp. 243-274. University Pres s of Colorado, Boulder. Crdenas Garcia, Efrain 1999 El Bajo en el clsico: anlisis regional y organizacin poltica. El Colegio de Michoacn, Zamora, Mxico. Cardona Machado, Hctor J., Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza, and John K. Millhauser 2017 La Obsidiana en la regin de Tequila, Jalisco: Ausencias en la opulencia. Paper presented at the 8nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia Carmean, Kelli 1991 Architectural Labor Investment and Social Stratification at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2(2): 151-165. Clark, John E., and Michael Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional competition and political development in the New World edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, pp. 258-281. Cambridge University Press, New York. 290

PAGE 313

Craig, Douglas B., James P. Holmlund, and Jeffery J. Clark 1998 Labor Investment and Organization in Platform Mound Construction: A Case Study from the Tonto Basin of Central Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(3): 245-259. DeLuca, Anthony James 2016 An Architectural Energetics Analysis of Ceremonial Architecture from the Teuchitln Culture of the Highland Lakes Region of Jalisco, Mexico. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, Florida. de Sahagn, Bernardino 1979 Codice Florentino: el manuscrito 21820 de la coleccin Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Secretara de Gobernacin. Dietler, Michael 2001 Theorizing the feast: rituals of consumption, commensal politics, and power in African contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 65-114. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 291

PAGE 314

Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich 2001. Feasts and Labor Mobilization: Dissecting a Fundamental Economic Practice. In Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 240-264. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Donkin, R. A. 1970 Pre -Columbian Field Implements and Their Distribution in the Highlands of Middle and South America. Anthropos (H. 3./4): 505-529. duVall, Shina 2007 Shared Symbolism in Powerful Places: Cosmological Principles Displayed Through the Ceremonial Public Architecture of the Teuchitln Tradition in the Tequila Valleys of Jalisco, West Mexico Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver. Erasmus, Charles J. 1965 Monument Building: Some Field Experiments. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21(4): 277-301. Esparza Lopez, Juan Rodrigo 2010 Informe de Actividades en el Proyecto Arqueolgico Guachimontones de Diciembre de 2009 a Febrero de 2010. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. 292

PAGE 315

Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco 2013 Municipios de Jalisco / Teuchitln. Elect ronic document, https://jalisco.gob.mx/es/jalisco/municipios/teuchitlan accessed April 30th, 2017. Hammerstedt, Scott William 2005 Mississippian Construction, Labor, and Social Organization in Western Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College. Heredia Espinoza, Verenice Y. 2008 The Agave Landscape and its Archaeological Context in the Tequila Volcano Area. Report submitted to the Foundation for Ancient Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/07012/, accessed April 30th, 2017. 2017 Long-term Regional Landscape Change in the Northern Tequila Region of Jalisco, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology dx.doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1338510 Heredia Espinoza, Verenice Y., and Kimberly Sumano Ortega 2017 Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln. Adenda al Informe Tcnico Final. Extensin de Mapeo en Los Guachimontones, Temporada 2014-2016. Report presented to the Consejo de Arqueologa, INAH, Mxico D.F. 293

PAGE 316

Hollon, Kristie 2015 Analysis of Social Space: Analyzing Lived Experiences in the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver. Johns, Catherine Janette 2014 Ceramic Activity Analysis of Navajas Circle 5 and the need for Practice Theory in Unusual Monumental Architecture Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver. Kelley, J. Charles 1974 Speculations on the culture history of northwestern Mesoamerica. In The Archaeology of West Mexico edited by Betty Bell, pp. 19-39. Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de Mxico. Kim, Nam C. 2013 Lasting Monuments and Durable Institutions: Labor, Urbanism, and Statehood in Northern Vietnam and Beyond. Journal of Archaeological Research 21(3): 217267. Kolb, Michael J. 1994 Monumentality and the Rise of Religious Authority in Precontact Hawaii. Current Anthropology 35(5): 521-547. 294

PAGE 317

1997 Labor Mobilization, Ethnohistory, and the Archaeology of Community in Hawaii. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(3): 265-285. Lopez Mestas C., Lorenza 2011 Ritualidad, prestigio y poder en el centro de Jalisco durante el preclsico tardo y clsico temprano. Un acercamiento a la cosmovisin e ideologa en el occidente del Mxico prehispnico Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologa Social, Guadalajara, Mx ico. Lopez Mestas C., Lorenza, and Jorge Ramos de la Vega 2006 Some Interpretations of the Huitzilapa Shaft Tomb. Ancient Mesoamerica 18: 271-281. Loten, H. Stanley, and David M. Pendergast 1984. A Lexicon for Maya Architecture. Archaeology No. 8. Royal Ontario Museum. Lucero, Lisa J. 2007 Classic Maya temples, politics, and the voice of the people. Latin American Antiquity 18(4): 407-427. 295

PAGE 318

Lumholtz, Carl 1902 Unknown Mexico: A Record of Five Years Exploration Among the Tribes of the Western Sierra Madre; In The Tierra Caliente of Tepic and Jalisco; and Among the Tarascos of Michoacan. Vol. 2. C. Scribners sons, New York. Manger, George Edward 1963 Porosity and Bulk Density of Sedimentary Rocks. Contributions to Geochemistry, Geological Survey Bulletin 1144E. Manville, V., and J. D. L. White, B. F. Houghton, C. J. N. Wilson 1998 The Saturation Behavior of Pumice and Some Sedimentological Implications. Sedimentary Geology 119(1): 5-16. Marsh, Erik J. 2016 Building Household and Community through Active Assemblages: A Late Formative Patio Group at Khonkho Wankane, Bolivia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26(2): 305-327. Milner, George R., Scott W. Hammerstedt, and Kirk D. French 2010 Chert hoes as digging tools. Antiquity 84(323): 103-113. 296

PAGE 319

Moseley, M. Edward 1975 Prehistoric Principles of Labor Organization in the Moche Valley, Peru. American Antiquity 40(2): 191-196. Moyes, Holley, Mark Robinson, and Keith M. Prufer 2016 The Kayuko Mound Group: A Festival Site in Southern Belize. Antiquity 90(349): 143-156. Murakami, Tatsuya 2010 Power Relations and Urban Landscape Formation: A Study of Construction Labor and Resources at Teotihuacan Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Nance, C. Roger, Jan de Leeuw, Phil C. Weigand, Kathleen Prado, and David S. Verity 2013 Correspondence Analysis and West Mexico Archaeology: Ceramics from the LongGlassow Collection University of New M exico Press, Albuquerque. Ogburn, Dennis E. 2004 Evidence for Long-Distance Transportation of Building Stones in the Inka Empire, from Cuzco, Peru to Saraguro, Ecuador. Latin American Antiquity 15(4): 419-439. 297

PAGE 320

Ohnersorgen, Michael A., and Mark D. Varien 1996 Formal architecture and settlement in ancient West Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7(1): 103-120. Olay Barrientos, Maria de los Angeles, and Ligia Sofia Sanchez Morton 2015 La Tradicion Teuchitlan en Colima, notas para una discusin. Revista Occidente. Ortmann, Anthony L., and Tristram R. Kidder 2013 Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana: Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, and Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. Geoarchaeology 28(1):66-86. Rosenswig, Robert M., and Marilyn A. Masson 2002 Transformation of the Terminal Classic to Postclassic Architectural Landscape at Caye Coco, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 13(2): 213-235. Sara Lafosse, Rafael Vega-Centeno 2007 Construction, Labor Organization, and Feasting During the Late Archaic Period in the Central Andes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(2): 150-171. 298

PAGE 321

Sherwood, Sarah C., and Tristram R. Kidder 2011 The DaVincis of dirt: Geoarchaeological perspectives on Native American mound building in the Mississippi River basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: 69-87. Smailes, Richard L. 2011 Building Chan Chan: A Project Management Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 22(1): 37-63. Sumano Ortega, Kimberly and Joshua Englehardt 2016 Architectural Discourse and Sociopolitical Organization at Los Guachimontones, Jalisco. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, Florida. Von Winning, Hasso, and Olga Hammer 1972 Anecdotal Sculpture of Ancient West Mexico Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles. Webster, David, and Jennifer Kirker 1995 Too Many Maya, Too Few Buildings: Investigation Construction Potential at Copan, Honduras. Journal of Anthropologic al Research 51(4): 363-387. 299

PAGE 322

Webster, Gary S. 1990 Labor Control and Emergent Stratification in Prehistoric Europe. Current Anthropology 31:4 (337-366). Weigand, Phil C. 1989. Architecture and Settlement Patterns Within the Western Mesoamerican Formativ e Tradition. In El Preclsico o Formativo: Avances y perspectivas edited by Martha Carmona Marcas, pp. 39 64. Museo Nacional de Antropologa, INAH, Mxico. 1990 The Teuchitln Tradition of Western Mesoamerica. In La poca clsica: nuevos hallazgos, nuevas ideas edited by Amalia Cards de Mndez, pp. 25-54. Museo Nacional de Antropologa. 1996 The Architecture of the Teuchitln Tradition of the Occidente of Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 7(1): 91-101. 1998 Archaeology in the Occidente of Mexico: Architecture and Settlements Patterns of the Teuchitln Tradition of West-Central Jalisco. Unpublished manuscript. 2007 States in prehispanic western Mesoamerica. In The Political Economy of Ancient Mesoamerica: Transformations during the Formative and Classic Periods edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, pp. 101-113. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 300

PAGE 323

Weigand, Phil C., and Acelia Garca de Weigand 2000a La Tradicin Teuchitln. Las Temporadas de Excavacin de 1999-2000 en Los Guachimontones. Re port presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. 2000b Segundo Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Los Guachimontones de Teuchitln, Jalisco. Temporada de 2000. Estudio de Excavaciones en Los Crculos #4, #2, y #1; los Juegos de Pelota #1 y #2, y ER-1, 2, y 3. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. Weigand, Phil C., and Acelia Garca de Weigand (editors) 2002 Tercer Informe al INAH. Excavaciones de Los Guachimontones de Teuchitln, Jalisco: Tercera Temporada 2001 -2002. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. Weigand, Phil C., and Christopher S. Beekman The Teuchitln Tradition: Rise of a Statelike Society. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past edited by Richard Townsend, pp. 35-51. Art Institute of Chicago. Weigand, Phil. C., and Efran Crdenas Garca, Acelia Garca de Weigand, and Eugenia FernandezVillanueva 1999 Primer Informe del Proyecto Arqueolgico Los Guachimontones de Teuchitln. Estudio de Superficie, Aeromapificacin, Aerofotografa, Delimitacin, y Excavaciones. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. 301

PAGE 324

Weiga nd, Phil C., and Juan Rodrigo Esparza Lpez (editors) 2008 Informe de Excavaciones 2003-2006 en el Complejo Arqueolgico Guachimontones. Report presented to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico D.F. Witmore, Christopher 1998 Sacred sun centers. Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past edited by Richard Townsend, pp. 137-150. Art Institute of Chicago. 302

PAGE 325

APPENDIX A CALCULATING ARCHITECTURAL VOLUMES In this section, the volumes of the architectural features o f Circle 2 are discussed. Issues that arose and were resolved while measuring and calculating are also discussed. A summary chart of the dimensions for all architectural features and their volumes of construction material for each feature are located below. Detailed measurements and volumes for Circle 2s architectural featu res can be found in Appendix B. Patio Issues and Assumptions Despite the number of excavations into the patio, too few excavations were placed where the patio meets the banquette. As a result, there is some uncertainty in how far the clay construction fill of the patio extends underneath the banquette. Only Cala A of Platform 1, Cala 1 of Platform 2, and an unnumbered cala from Platform 4 explored this relationship. These excavations are described in more detail in Chapter 5. To summarize, only Calas A and 1 were excavated to the bedrock while the unnumbered cala was excavated as far as the patio floor only. While Calas A a nd 1 were excavated to the bedrock, they are located in the northern area of the patio where the construction fill is thinnest. The relationship between patio fill and the banquette is further obscured by the bedrock that rises up naturally. The builders ut ilized the bedrock for the construction of the banquette and platforms. As a result, no clear distinction between patio fill and banquette fill can be made. Excavations into Circle 2 in other locations of the structure do not show a clear, distinct, or frequent separation of construction material between the patio and the banquette. This lack of distinction could be a result of a single construction event in which the patio and 303

PAGE 326

the banquette were constructed at the same time. However, the banquettes const ruction is not homogene ous and can vary within the area of a platform as much as it can between platforms. Due to the inability to distinguish patio fill from banquette fill, the calculation of the patio volume will be separated based on the construction material. The volume for the dense toba layer found within the patio excavations, as well as almost all other excavations in Circle 2, will be calculated using the full diameter of 99 meters for Circle 2. The volume for the clay construction material of the patio, however, will use a smaller diameter of 68.31 meters. This smaller diameter spans the entire patio area within the confines of the banquette. Any construction material, with the exception of the dense toba layer, will be calculated as part of the b anquette rather than the patio. In this way, a more accurate estimate for the entire volume of Circle 2 can be made. As discussed in the Chapter 4, the patio will be calculated as a cylinder ( = ) where r = radius of the patio, and h = average depth o f construction material. Circle 2 sits on a slight slope from northeast to southwest and a truncated cylinder formula was considered to calculate the volume ( Weigand et al. 1999a:19, Weigand 2000:23). However, the total difference in elevation is unknown. While the large trenches put into the patio during the 2003 and 2006 field season provide a more accurate estimation for the clay fill of the patio, these excavations did not excavate into the dense toba layer or reach bedrock (Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). The lack of data, as well as the uncertainty of what constitutes patio fill and what constitutes banquette fill within the banquette discussed above, dictates that a more conservative estimation of the patio volume be used. Almost every excavation uni t placed in Circle 2 had a dense toba layer on top of the bedrock, with the exceptions of the Platform 6/7 banquette excavation, the Platform 4 304

PAGE 327

excavation into the patio and banquette, Platform 8, the Platform 9 banquette excavation, and Platform 10. The a verage thickness of the dense toba layer throughout Circle 2 is 30 centimeters providing a volume of 2,309.31 meters3. Previous estimates for the volume of the toba layer included several measurements of clay mixed with a high amount of toba that are no longer included in this estimate (DeLuca 2016). Most notable is the 1.19 meter measurement from the banquette excavation near Platforms 1 and 10. This measurement was included at the time because this section of the banquette was the only sect ion constructed using clay mixed with a high amount of toba while all other sections of the banquette were constructed using clay or clay mixed with a small amount of toba. Including the Platform 1 and 10 measurement, however, greatly increased the average thickness and did not accurately represent the base toba layer for Circle 2. For the volume of the clay construction material in the patio a radius of 34.16 meters was used. This radius is taken from the full radius of Circle 2 minus the average width o f the banquette. How the average width of the banquette was determined and calculated is discussed in further detail below. Previous estimates for the volume of the clay fill of the patio were also in error due to confusion about the stratigraphic layers in the 2003 through 2006 patio excavations (DeLuca 2016). The previous volume did not include measurements of the clay from those extensive trench excavations. The average thickness of the clay used for patio construction measures 0.26 meters providing a volume of 953.14 meters3. This is a 257 meter3 difference from the previous estimate. While the 2003 through 2006 excavations provided a more detailed understanding of the construction of the patio, numerous shallow areas lowered the average thickness. 305

PAGE 328

Ban quette Issues and Assumptions Issues with the variability of the construction fill of the banquette necessitated a solution for the ease of calculating its volume. With the exception of the excavation into the banquette between Platforms 1 and 10, most of the banquette was constructed using one or two layers of clay and/or clay mixed with a moderate to small amount of toba. Due to the variability in construction areas present both between platform areas and within a platform area, it is not possible to divide the banquette into accurate sections to calculate the volumes of each different construction material. With these issues in mind and for the ease of calculating the volume of the construction fill of the banquette, the construction material will be assu med as a single construction material. The rates of work for procuring, transporting, and constructing will use just one rate of work for each task with the assumption that the presence or absence of toba within the clay did not hinder the rate of work in the past. The banquette required several measurements to calculate the volume of its cobble facings and construction fill. The width of the banquette was taken from plan drawings of Platforms 3 through 7 and Platform 9. Platform 8 lacked a plan drawing. A plan view of Platforms 10, 1, and 2 appear in a partial map of the site in the 2000a report and could provide further measurements. However, this map is drawn at a 30 meter scale and was not as detailed as the plan drawings of the other platforms. There is also an issue with Platform 1 and the corners of Platforms 2 and 10 being constructed on top of the western wall of Ballcourt 1. Instead of building the banquette next to the ballcourt, the builders incorporated the ballcourt into the banquette for these three platforms. For this thesis, the banquette will be calculated as a hollow ring with the assumption that the ballcourt is not a part of the 306

PAGE 329

banquette under Platforms 10, 1, and 2. That is to say, the construction fill for the banquette is assumed to b e consistent throughout the entire architectural feature. The banquette width ranged from its narrowest at Platform 6 with 13.07 meters to its widest at Platform 5 with 17.01 meters with an average width of 15.34 meters. The width demonstrates more variability in the architectural features of Circle 2. Without a detailed map of all of Circle 2, it is difficult to determine whether the variability in width extends outward from Circle 2, inward into the patio, or a combination of the two. To calculate the exterior cobble facing of the banquette, an average height of the cobble facing was calculated using measurements from two excavations. Cala 3 Platform 2 and Cala 2 Platform 4 were the only excavations that provided a measurable height for the exterior cobble facing. The average height of the two measurements is 1.42 meters. Previous estimates of the cobble facing averaged the heights of the interior and exterior cobble facing of the banquette and did not differentiate between the two (DeLuca 2016). I r ecognize that the sample size is limited and may not be representative of the actual exterior cobble facing of the banquette. Separating the interior and exterior cobble facing measurements, however, provides a more accurate estimate of the interior cobble facing volume. Using this average height, the volume of the exterior cobble facing is 180.33 meters3. This volume was calculated by first finding the volume of a cylinder with a height of 1.42 meters and a radius of 49.5 meters, the average height of the cobble facing and the radius of Circle 2 respectively Th is volume was then subtracted from a volume using the same height, but a radius of 49.09 meters. This radius was calculated by subtracting the radius of Circle 2 from an average thickness of cobble facings from throughout Circle 2. This average thickness, 0.41 meters, was calculated by averaging the widths of all cobble facings in Circle 2. 307

PAGE 330

To calculate the interior cobble facing of the banquette, an average height of the interior cobble facing was taken from several excavation drawings. The average height of the interior cobble facing is 0.77 meters. This height again differs from previous estimates because of the exclusion of the exterior cobble facing measurements ( DeLuca 2016). The volume of the interior cobble facing is 68.19 meters3. The volume was determined by first calculating the volume of a cylinder using a radius of 34.16 meters and a height of 0.77 meters. This radius is the same radius used to calculate th e volume of the clay for the patio and was determined by subtracting the radius of Circle 2 from the average width of the banquette. Next, a volume was calculated using a radius of 34.57 meters, an increase of 0.41 meters and a height of 0.77 meters. The difference of the two volumes is the estimated volume of the interior cobble facing. To calculate the construction fill of the banquette, an average thickness of construction fill was used taken from throughout Circle 2. Under the assumption that the constr uction fill is all one material, the average thickness of the banquette is 0.46 meters. The volume of the banquette construction fill is 1755.46 meters3. This volume was calculated by using the inner radii of the cobble facing measurements, 49.09 meters and 34.57 meters respectively, along with a height of 0.46 meters. The difference of 14.52 meters between the two radii is the average width of the banquette construction fill. Altar Issues and Assumptions The altar for Circle 2 posed a number of challenges when calculating its volume. Some of these challenges were a result, in part, of missing data and limited vertical excavations within its interior. Previous estimates for the volume of construction material 308

PAGE 331

applied a strategy of creating an average measurement for each construction material layer within the altar (DeLuca 2016). This was done to try to provide an estimation for the volume of construction material for Pyramids 4 and 5. However, this strategy distorted the base radii, top surface radii, and volumes of Pyramids 1 through 3. For this thesis, a new approach is taken to measure the altar by taking measurements at the base and top surface of the altar rather than trying to create an average measurement. This will provide a more accurate volume for the construction materials for Pyramids 1 and 2 and parts of Pyramids 3 and 5. Determining the construction fill for Pyramid 3, all of Pyramid 4, and part of Pyramid 5 is problematic because its height and the radius of its upper surface are unknown. The i ssues involved with the interior of the altar and their possible solution are discussed below. To calculate the volume of the altar, I began with Pyramid 1 and worked inward towards Pyramid 5. The overall measurements of the altar before restoration are u nknown. None of the PAT reports provides a definitive measurement for the base diameter, top surface diameter, or height of the altar. However, the rest ored base diameter and height are known. The base diameter measures 37.5 meters in diameter and 8 meters in height ( Heredia Espinoza, personal communication 2015). Cala 7 does provide a height of the lower altar for Pyramid 1, but does not include the height of the upper altar. The height of the lower altar of Pyramid 1 measures 5.71 meters from the preserved patio floor to the top surface of the altar. Subtracting 5.71 meters from the overall height of 8 meters gives a height of 2.29 meters of the upper altar for Pyramid 1. While Cala 7 explored into the interior of the altar, Cala 7 did not reach the exact center as discussed in Chapter 5. For this thesis, the base diameter of the restored altar will be used to calculate the volume of the altar. 309

PAGE 332

The diameter of the top surface of the altar posed a problem in calculating the volume of the altar since no diam eter is given in the reports and no recent measurements were taken of the restored altar. For this thesis, an estimated diameter is used based on the excavation drawing of Cala 7 and the base diameter of the restored altar. The excavation drawing of Cala 7 depicts the altar from the outermost edge of Pyramid 1 to the edge of the excavation unit that coincides with the edge of the top surface of the lower altar. As noted in Chapter 5, the length from Pyramid 1 to the edge of the excavation unit is 8.33 met ers. Subtracting this length from the base radius of the altar provides an estimated top surface radius of 10.45 meters for Pyramid 1. The overall volume of the altar is estimated to be 3,919.64 meters3 with a base radius of 18.75 meters, a top surface radius of 10.42 meters, and a height of 5.71 meters. From these values, measurements and volumes of the cobble facing and construction fill were subtracted for Pyramids 1, 2, and 3. Finding the volume for the cobble facing of Pyramids 1, 2, and 3 and the construction fill for Pyramids 1 and 2 was simple and straightforward. Measurements for the base, top surface, and height could all be measured with the Cala 7 excavation drawing. The biggest issue in calculating the volumes of construction fill for Pyramids 3, 4, and 5 and the cobble facing for Pyramids 4 and 5 stemmed from a lack of data. The Cala 7 tunnel into the interior was not expanded sufficiently vertically to provide the heights of Pyramids 4 and 5. Without knowing these measurements, it is not possi ble to calculate accurately the interior of Pyramid 3. However, estimates can still be made for the interior of Pyramid 3 by making some assumptions and using measurements collected from the tunnel. As described in the excavation of the altar in Chapter 5, there is a truncated cone of alternating layers of clay and clay mixed with toba near the center of Pyramid 5. The height 310

PAGE 333

of the cone can be measured with the excavation drawing, but the base radius and top surface radius cannot be directly measured since the excavation unit did not reach the center. The base radius and top surface radius can be measured indirectly by using the radius of the entire altar. The first measurement needed is the length from the edge of Pyramid 1 to the entrance of the tunnel. As stated previously, that length is 8.33 meters. The second measurement needed is the length from the edge of the tunnel to the edge of the cone of clay within Pyramid 5. This length is 6.81 meters. The difference between the overall base radius and t hese two combined length s can provide the base radius of the cone of clay assuming the cone of clay is not off center within the altar. The radius for the top surface of cone can be found by subtracting the difference in horizontal length between the edge of t he base of the cone and the edge of the top surface of the cone from the base radius of the cone. The measurements of the cone of clay were then compared to the dimensions of Pyramid 3. There is a difference of 11.71 meters in base radius, 6.16 meters in top surface radius, and 2.39 meters in height between the cobble facing of Pyramid 3 and the cone of clay in Pyramid 5. With this known space, hypothetical shapes for the interior of Pyramid 3 can be created. The tunnel excavation provides base radius measurements for the construction fill of Pyramid 3, the cobble facing and construction fill of Pyramid 4, and the cobble facing and the rest of the construction fill for Pyramid 5. Using the base radius measurements, an assumption can be made that the thickness of each construction material within Pyramid 3 is the same at the base as it is at the top surface. An assumption can also be made that the thickness of the cobble facing is the same throughout Pyramids 4 and 5. For the heights of Pyramids 4 and 5, I could not assume the width of construction fill for Pyramid 3 at the base was the same thickness for the fill between the cobble facing of 311

PAGE 334

Pyramid 3 and 4. This is because the thickness of the fill for Pyramid 3 is 8.1 meters, which exceeds the difference in height mentioned above. I estimated the thicknesses of the fills for Pyramids 3, 4, and 5 by subtracting the thickness of the cobble facing from Pyramids 4 and 5 from the difference in height between Pyramids 3 and the core of clay within Pyramid 5. The remaining height was divided by three, which resulted in 33 centimeters. This measurement was used to calculate the thickness of fill for the height measurement for the fill of Pyramids 3, 4, and 5. Platform Issues and Assumptions Most of the platforms for Circle 2 posed very few problems or issues in calculating their volumes. The single largest issue was the lack of data to provide accurate measurements of Platforms 10, 1, 2, and 8 since these four platforms lack plan drawings. As discussed in Chapter 4, the method used to obtain these measurements was to use a partial site map from the 2000a report and an AutoCAD map produced by PAT members. In future energetics analyses of Los Guachimontones, it is recommended an accurate site ma p be produced of not only Circle 2, but of every guachimontn at the site. Discussed below are some of the issues and assumptions that were made to calculate platform volumes. To calculate the volume of construction fill for the primary platform of Platfo rm 2, I used six measurements for the thickness of the construction layers rather than three. Three of the measurements came from Cala 1 and three measurements came from Cala 2. I did this because of the difference in height between the two drawings While Cala 1 is assumed to depict the interior of Platform 2, the cobble facing of Platform 2 is almost a meter taller in Cala 2 than it is in Cala 1. By averaging the measurements from both sources, I hoped a more accurate volumetric estimate of Platform 2s co nstruction fill could be made. 312

PAGE 335

The shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2 presented a special case in calculating its volume. The shared platform sits on top of the banquette and follows the curve of the banquette. In order to calculate the volume of the shared platform, I decided to calculate the volume as a trapezoidal prism using the formula = wher ein a = the shorter base, b = the longer base, h = perpendicular distance from a to b, and H = the height. Using the partial site map from the 2 000b report, a is the distance from the patio -corner of Platform 1s southernmost secondary platform to the patio-corner of Platform 2. b is the distance from the ballcourt -corner of Platform 1s southernmost secondary platform to the ballcourt-corner of Platform 2. h is the perpendicular distance from a to b. H is the height of the secondary platform taken from excavation drawings. For Cala 3 of Platform 3, I used six measurements to find the average thickness of the construction layers for the banquette and patio. As discussed in Chapter 4, I would typically only use three measurements to find an average measurement. However, within Cala 3, there was a noticeable difference in thicknesses for the brown clay, dense toba, and brown clay with toba layers between the assumed northeast and southeast unit walls. When I first measured the drawing, I measured these layers with three measurements. One measurement was taken from the northeast wall, one measurement from the southeast wall, and one measurement from the corner. While this provided three measurements that sampled the range in thicknesses, the measurements were taken from two walls rather th an one wall, as was my standard practice. For consistency with measurements taken from other excavation drawings, I decided to limit the measurements to a single unit wall and simply use two sets of measurements to find an average thickness. 313

PAGE 336

Platform 4 proved to be the most challenging platform in terms of calculating its volume due to the angle of the retaining wall discovered by PAT. Because of this angle and because the primary platform was divided in three different sections with their own construction fill, the primary platform had to be divided into three rectangular prisms and three triangular prisms in order to calculate the volume for each appropriate construction material. In Figure A.1, the retaining wall has been extended using a blue line that separates the primary platform into one construction cell on the left and two construction cells on the right. The construction cells on the right are marked with a red line. A green dashed line marks the division within the cell into a rectangular and triangular prism in order to calculate the volume. The measurements for the rectangular and triangular prisms are found in Table B.12. There was a minor issue in calculating the volume of construction fill for the primary platform of Platform 8. Platform 8 la cks a plan drawing and as a result, the precise location of the mislabeled cala is unknown. Weigand describes the location as the center of the platform, which I have assumed, is correct. For the earth mixed with aggregate and brown/grey clay layers of the primary platform, I calculated their volumes using the interior cobble facing length and width measurements and then simply divided the volumes in two. 314

PAGE 337

Figure A.1 Plan drawing of Platform 4 with division lines This plan drawing of Platform 4 contains colored lines indicating how the construction fill of the primary platform was divided. Image courtesy of PAT. Platforms 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 posed no issues in calculating their volumes. While Platforms 6 and 10 both contain retaining walls, their retaining walls were not constructed at an angle from the four right angle walls of the primary platform This made it relatively straightforward to calculate the volume of the platform fill. 315

PAGE 338

APPENDIX B MEASUREMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES This appendix features tables containing measurements for each architectural feature for Circle 2. Tables are organized by the measurements used to calculate the volumes of each feature. The majority of features were calculated as rectangular prisms with some exceptions such as the altar or the primary platform for Platform 4. See Appendix A for a detailed discussion on issues and assumptions regarding calculating the volumes of these features. Typically, each table lists three measurements and the average of those three measurements. All measurements are in meters and the volume is in cubic meters. However, there are exceptions. Measurements taken from AutoCAD maps are given a single measurement in the average l h, or w column. These measurements typically required nine or more points taken from the model due to the poor quality of the drawing. The individual measurements were not recorded. The primary platform for Platform 4 requires an annotation to its format. Two mea surements are given in the length and width columns for four of its five construction materials. As discussed in Appendix A, Platform 4 was calculated as three quadrangular prisms and three triangular prisms to account for the angled retaining wall and dif ferences in construction material. The first set of measurements in the l and w columns correspond to the quadrangular prism while the second set of measurements in the l and w column correspond to the triangular prism. Construction materials in the tables are given one of three codes to indicate whether the material is associated with a platform, the banquette, or the patio. These codes are Pl, B, 316

PAGE 339

and Pa, respectively. This was done to keep measurements from the same excavation unit together in one table To calculate the measurements of the exterior and interior cobble facing of the banquette, the banquette, and the construction layers of the patio, the associated B and Pa measurements were averaged. In Table B.52, measurements for both the banquette and the patio were listed together since many of the measurements come from the same source. This was done to reduce redundancy and avoid having two lengthy tables. As part of this table, two forms of construction material are averaged together for both the banquette and the patio. In both the banquette and the patio, the brown clay and brown clay with toba measurements are averaged together. A distinction is not made between the two materials as discussed in Chapter 5. 317

PAGE 340

Table B.1 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 1. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 9.3 0 9.41 9.41 9.38 15.73 15.75 15.82 15.77 1.55 229.28 C2_P1_T3_Sb Interior cobble facing 8.85 8.96 8.97 8.93 15.36 15.38 15.45 15.40 1.55 213.16 GuachiLAConto urExc3200mB.d wg Pl brown clay (above liga) 8.85 8.96 8.97 8.93 15.36 15.38 15.45 15.40 2.53 2.61 2.4 0 2.51 345.18 C2_P1_T3_Sc Pl retaining wall 0.41 15.40 2.22 2.18 2.23 2.21 13.95 B brown clay (below liga) 1.04 0.92 0.92 0.96 C2_P1_T3_Sb Pa dense toba 0.15 0.22 0.17 0.18 C2_P1_T3_Sd Table B.2 Measurements of Southeast 1 secondary platform, Platform 1. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 9.3 9.41 9.41 9.38 0.93 0.94 1.02 0.96 0.37 3.33 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 8.85 8.96 8.97 8.93 0.56 0.57 0.65 0.59 0.37 1.95 GuachiLAContourExc3200 mB.dwg 318

PAGE 341

Table B.3 Measurements of Southeast 2 secondary platform, Platform 1. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 9.3 0 9.41 9.41 9.38 0.88 0.94 1.15 0.99 0.65 6.04 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 8.85 8.96 8.97 8.93 0.51 0.57 0.78 0.62 0.65 3.60 GuachiLAContourExc3200 mB.dwg Table B.4 Measurements of Northwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 1. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.05 1.34 1.66 2.00 1.67 0.45 8.30 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 10.6 0 0.97 1.29 1.63 1.30 0.45 6.20 GuachiLAContourExc3200 mB.dwg Table B.5 Measurements of Northwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 1. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.05 1.5 1.76 1.62 1.63 0.86 15.49 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 10.6 0 1.13 1.39 1.25 1.26 0.86 11.49 GuachiLAContourExc320 0mB.dwg 319

PAGE 342

Table B.6 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 2. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.43 11.78 11.8 11.67 13.14 12.67 12.22 12.68 1.44 1.45 1.44 2.42 2.36 2.38 1.92 284.11 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 10.98 11.33 11.35 11.22 12.77 12.3 0 11.85 12.31 1.96 270.71 GuachiLACo ntourExc320 0mB.dwg Pl clay mixed with aggregate 10.98 11.33 11.35 11.22 12.77 12.3 0 11.85 12.31 1.52 1.56 1.5 0 1.53 211.32 C2_P2_C1_ S Pa dense toba 0.61 0.61 0.64 0.62 Table B.7 Measurements of secondary platform, Platform 2. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 8.35 8.61 8.92 8.63 9.5 8.91 8.79 9.07 0.46 36.01 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 7.9 0 8.16 8.47 8.18 9.13 8.54 8.42 8.70 0.46 32.74 GuachiLAContourE xc3200mB.dwg Pl clay mixed with aggregate 7.9 0 8.16 8.47 8.18 9.13 8.54 8.42 8.70 0.46 32.74 C2_P2_C1_S 320

PAGE 343

Table B.8 Measurements of shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. Construction Material a b h A (m 2 ) h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 7.31 13.58 11.47 119.8 0.99 1.04 1.03 1.02 122.17 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S Interior cobble facing 7.31 13.58 11.1 115.94 0.99 1.04 1.03 1.02 118.26 B grey brown clay with some toba 0.96 1.03 0.99 0.99 114.78 Pa grey brown clay 0.79 0.62 0.14 0.52 Pa dense toba 0.35 0.15 0.8 0 0.43 Pa grey/brown clay 0.3 0 0.28 0.52 0.37 321

PAGE 344

Table B.9 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 3. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 14.07 14.14 14.24 14.15 13.49 13.22 12.91 13.21 1.31 1.36 1.35 1.34 250.47 C2_P3_X X_S Interior cobble facing 13.4 13.68 13.45 13.51 12.81 12.41 12.46 12.56 1.31 1.36 1.35 1.34 227.38 Pl brown clay with large amount of toba 6.7 0 6.84 6.73 6.76 12.81 12.41 12.46 12.56 0.75 0.8 0 0.75 0.77 130.66 C2_P3_C 3_S Pl brown clay with aggregate 6.7 0 6.84 6.73 6.76 12.81 12.41 12.46 12.56 0.75 0.68 0.73 0.72 122.17 Pl brown clay with aggregate 6.7 0 6.84 6.73 6.76 12.81 12.41 12.46 12.56 1.38 1.33 1.37 1.36 230.77 B brown clay with small amount of toba 0.31 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.38 0.31 Pa dense toba 0.26 0.35 0.33 0.09 0.1 0 0.17 0.22 Pa brown clay with toba 0.3 0 0.26 0.1 0 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.27 322

PAGE 345

Table B.10 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 3. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 14 .00 13.99 13.98 13.99 1.88 1.94 1.61 1.81 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 29.12 C2_P3_XX_S Interior cobble facing 13.32 13.44 13.36 13.37 1.58 1.63 1.34 1.52 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 23.37 Pl brown clay with some toba 13.32 13.44 13.36 13.37 1.58 1.63 1.34 1.52 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.17 3.45 C2_P3_C1_S Pl brown clay with large amount of toba 13.32 13.44 13.36 13.37 1.58 1.63 1.34 1.52 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.11 2.24 Pl brown clay with some toba 13.32 13.44 13.36 13.37 1.58 1.63 1.34 1.52 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.13 2.64 Pl brown clay with large amount of toba 13.32 13.44 13.36 13.37 1.58 1.63 1.34 1.52 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.15 3.05 B brown clay with little toba 0.4 0 0.3 0 0.35 0.35 Pa dense toba 0.15 0.34 0.27 0.25 323

PAGE 346

Table B.11 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 3. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 14.08 14.08 14.02 14.06 2.12 1.95 1.95 2.01 0.2 0 0.19 0.19 0.19 26.85 C2_P3_XX_S Interior cobble facing 13.69 13.64 13.43 13.59 1.72 1.845 1.62 1.73 0.2 0 0.19 0.19 0.19 22.34 Pl brown clay with some toba 13.69 13.64 13.43 13.59 1.72 1.845 1.62 1.73 0.18 0.18 0.2 0.19 4.47 C2_P3_C2_S Pl brown clay with large amount of toba 13.69 13.64 13.43 13.59 1.72 1.845 1.62 1.73 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 3.29 B brown clay with some toba 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 9.17 Pa brown clay with large amount of toba 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.13 Pa dense toba 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.12 324

PAGE 347

Table B.12 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 4. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.41 12.39 12.53 12.44 12.32 12.56 12.53 12.47 2.2 0 1.96 2 .00 2.05 318.01 C2_P4_XX_P Interior cobble facing 11.84 11.86 11.95 11.88 11.9 12.08 11.98 11.99 2.2 0 1.96 2 .00 2.05 292.00 Pl dark brown clay with toba 11.84 11.86 11.95 11.88 11.9 12.08 11.98 11.99 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.23 32.76 C2_P4_C4_S Pl loose grey brown earth 7.6 0 6.06 5.76 6.37 0.94 0.86 1 .00 0.93 37.41 Pl brown grey clay 7.6 0 6.06 5.76 9.22 0.95 0.95 1.04 0.98 47.47 Pl light brown grey clay 5.2 0 2.72 11.77 12.01 0.32 0.44 0.4 0 0.39 18.18 Pl brown grey clay 5.2 0 2.72 11.77 12.01 0.75 0.7 0 0.68 0.71 33.09 Pl retaining wall 12.10 0.31 0.85 1.13 0.99 0.99 3.71 Pl aggregate layer 11.84 11.86 11.95 11.88 11.9 12.08 11.98 11.99 0 .21 29.91 B brown grey clay with toba 0.77 0.69 0.49 0.65 Pa dense toba 0.42 0.45 0.56 0.48 325

PAGE 348

Table B.13 Measurements of Southwest 1 secondary platform, Platform 4. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.3 12.24 12.26 12.27 0.89 0.72 0.83 0.81 0.36 3.28 C2_P4_XX_P Interior cobble facing 12.05 11.88 11.83 11.92 0.51 0.45 0.65 0.54 0.36 2.12 C2_P4_XX_SN W,SW Table B.14 Measurements of Southwest 2 secondary platform, Platform 4. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 13.61 13.58 13.62 13.60 1.86 1.46 1.55 1.62 0.13 2.64 C2_P4_XX_P Interior cobble facing 13.2 13.12 13.17 13.16 1.56 1.25 1.31 1.37 0.13 2.16 C2_P4_XX_SN W,SW Table B.15 Measurements of Northeast secondary platform, Platform 4. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.35 12.32 12.38 12.35 2.06 2.03 2.14 2.08 0.59 15.16 C2_P4_XX_P Interior cobble facing 11.96 11.8 11.85 11.87 1.87 1.91 1.84 1.87 0.59 13.10 C2_P4_C3_S Pl clay mixed with large amount of aggregate 11.96 11.8 11.85 11.87 1.87 1.91 1.84 1.87 1.59 1.52 1.22 1.44 31.96 B brown grey clay 0.5 0 0.45 0.44 0.46 Pa brown grey clay with yellow toba 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.12 Pa brown grey clay with blue/grey toba 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.35 326

PAGE 349

Table B.16 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 5. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.36 11.51 11.41 11.43 13.07 13.23 13.33 13.21 2.26 2.24 2.23 2.24 338.22 C2_P5_XX_P Interior cobble facing 10.67 10.87 10.82 10.79 12.56 12.69 12.84 12.70 2.26 2.24 2.23 2.24 306.95 C2_P5_C4_S Pl clay mixed with aggregate 10.67 10.87 10.82 10.79 12.56 12.69 12.84 12.70 1.53 1.51 1.7 1.58 216.51 C2_P5_C5_S Pl brown grey clay mound 2.68 1.49 0.84 1.67 1.29 0.82 1.02 1.01 0.84 0.55 0.12 0.73 1.57 B brown grey clay with toba 0.84 0.96 0.73 0.84 Pa dense toba 0.46 0.52 0.45 0.48 Table B.17 Measurements of East 1 secondary platform, Platform 5. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.14 11.16 11.19 11.16 2.34 2.21 2.11 2.22 1.4 0 1.39 1.3 0 1.36 33.69 C2_P5_XX_P Interior cobble facing 10.6 0 10.7 0 10.65 10.65 2.11 1.86 1.93 1.97 1.4 0 1.39 1.3 0 1.36 28.53 C2_P5_XX_SN,E 327

PAGE 350

Table B.1 8 Measurements of East 2 secondary platform, Platform 5. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing east subsection 12.66 12.59 12.41 12.55 1.83 1.96 1.78 1.86 0.93 0.9 0 0.92 0.92 21.48 C2_P5_XX_P Interior cobble facing east subsection 12.2 0 12.13 12.03 12.12 1.55 1.68 1.32 1.52 0.93 0.9 0 0.92 0.92 16.95 C2_P5_XX_S N,E Exterior cobble facing north subsection 1.45 1.5 0 1.58 1.51 8.08 8.06 8.03 8.06 0.93 0.9 0 0.92 0.92 11.20 Interior cobble facing north subsection 1.14 1.2 0 1.22 1.19 8.08 8.06 8.03 8.06 0.93 0.9 0 0.92 0.92 8.82 328

PAGE 351

Table B.1 9 Measurements of West 1 secondary platform, Platform 5. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing west subsection 12.81 12.84 12.81 12.82 2.31 2.64 2.57 2.51 1.67 1.63 1.74 1.68 54.06 C2_P5_XX_P Interior cobble facing west subsection 12.28 12.33 12.33 12.31 1.96 2.06 2.08 2.03 1.67 1.63 1.74 1.68 41.98 Pl brown grey clay with aggregate 12.81 12.84 12.81 12.82 2.31 2.64 2.57 2.51 1.38 1.34 1.36 1.36 43.76 C2_P5_C4_S B brown grey clay with toba 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.37 B brown grey clay 0.4 0 0.34 0.43 0.39 Exterior cobble facing north subsection 1.6 0 1.58 1.6 0 1.59 5.16 5.13 5.08 5.12 1.67 1.63 1.74 1.68 13.68 Interior cobble facing north subsection 1.25 1.32 1.32 1.30 5.16 5.13 5.08 5.12 1.67 1.63 1.74 1.68 11.18 Pl brown grey clay with aggregate 1.6 0 1.58 1.6 0 1.59 5.16 5.13 5.08 5.12 1.38 1.34 1.36 1.36 11.07 329

PAGE 352

Table B. 20 Measurements of West 2 secondary platform, Platform 5. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 14 .00 14.05 14 .00 14.02 1.37 1.45 1.58 1.47 1.52 1.54 1.51 1.52 30.30 C2_P5_XX_SN, E Interior cobble facing 13.44 13.44 13.51 13.46 1.02 1.14 1.28 1.15 1.52 1.54 1.51 1.52 22.75 Pl brown grey clay with aggregate 12.53 12.57 12.62 12.57 1.02 1.14 1.28 1.15 1.05 0.95 0.97 0.99 14.31 C2_P5_C3_S B brown grey clay with toba 0.25 0.27 0.38 0.30 B dark brown clay with toba 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.23 0.21 Pa dense toba 0.09 0.13 0.1 0 0.11 330

PAGE 353

Table B. 21 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 6. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 8.81 8.99 8.96 8.92 13.2 0 13.16 13.24 13.20 1.3 0 1.22 1.12 1.21 142.47 C2_P6_XX_P Interior cobble facing 8.42 8.6 0 8.53 8.52 12.78 12.7 0 12.75 12.74 1.3 0 1.22 1.12 1.21 131.34 Pl clay mixed with large amount of aggregate 8.42 8.6 0 8.53 8.52 7.4 0 7.31 7.38 7.36 2.26 2.27 2.26 2.26 141.72 C2_P6_C1_S Pl retaining wall 8.42 8.6 0 8.53 8.52 0.18 0.19 0.29 0.22 2.23 4.18 Pl clay mixed with aggregate 8.42 8.6 0 8.53 8.52 4.77 4.85 4.82 4.81 1.5 0 1.53 1.46 1.50 61.47 Pl brown grey clay with toba 8.42 8.6 0 8.53 8.52 4.77 4.85 4.82 4.81 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.70 28.69 B dark brown grey clay with toba 0.86 0.8 0.84 0.83 Pa dense toba 0.2 0 0.25 0.25 0.23 331

PAGE 354

Table B. 22 Measurements of secondary platform, Platform 6. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 3.02 3.23 3.18 3.14 13.15 13.26 13.15 13.19 1.21 50.11 C2_P6_XX_P Interior cobble facing 2.95 2.95 3 .00 2.97 12.75 12.77 12.75 12.76 1.21 45.86 Pl brown grey clay mixed with aggregate 2.95 2.95 3 .00 2.97 12.75 12.77 12.75 12.76 1.98 1.99 2 .00 1.99 75.42 C2_P6_XX_Sa B dark brown clay 0.28 0.28 0.3 0 0.29 C2_P6_XX_Sc Pa dense toba 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 Table B. 23 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 7. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 13.12 13.13 13.1 0 13.13 12.46 12.63 12.89 12.66 2.42 1.74 1.56 1.91 317.49 C2_P7_XX_P Interior cobble facing 12.71 12.67 12.67 12.68 12.12 12.16 12.4 0 12.23 2.42 1.74 1.56 1.91 296.20 C2_P7_C1Ext_ S Pl brown grey clay with large amount of aggregate 12.71 12.67 12.67 12.68 12.12 12.16 12.4 0 12.23 1.74 1.67 1.52 1.64 254.33 B light brown grey clay 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08 B dark brown grey clay 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.77 Pa dense toba 0.27 0.33 0.39 0.33 332

PAGE 355

Table B.2 4 Measurements of Northern secondary platform, Platform 7. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing northeast subsection 13.12 13.09 13.09 13.10 1.9 0 1.84 1.84 1.86 1.19 1.26 1.2 0 1.22 29.73 C2_P7_XX_P Interior cobble facing northeast subsection 12.64 12.68 12.65 12.66 1.65 1.63 1.67 1.65 1.19 1.26 1.2 0 1.22 25.48 C2_P7_XX_SN, E Table B.2 5 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 7. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing northeast subsection 13.11 13.17 13.07 13.12 1.92 1.83 1.83 1.89 1.07 1.08 1.04 1.06 25.87 C2_P7_XX_P Interior cobble facing northeast subsection 12.57 12.48 12.66 12.57 1.53 1.65 1.56 1.58 1.07 1.08 1.04 1.06 21.05 C2_P7_XX_SN, E 333

PAGE 356

Table B.2 6 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 8. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 13.95 12.3 0 1.66 1.66 1.68 1.67 286.55 GuachiLAContour Exc3200mB Interior cobble facing 13.50 11.93 1.66 1.66 1.68 1.67 268.96 Pl brown grey clay with toba 13.50 11.93 0.56 0.4 0 0.26 0.41 66.03 C2_P8_C4_Sa Pl earth mixed with aggregate 13.50 11.93 0.79 0.95 0.97 0.9 0 144.95 Pl brown grey clay 6.08 6.64 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 35.12 B brown grey clay with toba 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.41 C2_P8_C3_S 334

PAGE 357

Table B.2 7 Measurements of Southwestern secondary platform, Platform 8. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.55 2.00 0.89 0.86 0.97 0.91 22.84 GuachiLAContour Exc3200mB Interior cobble facing 12.10 1.63 0.89 0.86 0.97 0.91 17.95 Pl brown grey clay with small amount of toba 12.10 1.63 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 20.51 C2_P8_C4_S B brown grey clay with large amount of toba 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 B brown grey clay 0.19 0.3 0 0.47 0.32 Pa dense toba 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.12 Pa brown grey clay with toba 0.41 0.38 0.27 0.35 Table B.2 8 Measurements of Northeastern secondary platform, Platform 8. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.82 1.83 1.10 25.81 GuachiLAContour Exc3200mB Interior cobble facing 12.37 1.46 1.10 19.87 335

PAGE 358

Table B.2 9 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 9. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 15.41 15.29 15.28 15.33 12.5 0 12.56 12.47 12.51 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.40 268.49 C2_P9_XX_P Interior cobble facing 14.8 0 14.63 14.75 14.73 11.78 11.92 11.69 11.80 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.40 243.34 Pl brown grey clay mixed with aggregate 14.8 0 14.63 14.75 14.73 11.78 11.92 11.69 11.80 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.40 243.34 C2_P9_C4_S B brown grey clay 0.71 0.66 0.65 0.67 Pa dense toba 0.38 0.49 0.45 0.44 Table B. 30 Measurements of Western secondary platform, Platform 9. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 16.52 16.56 16.63 16.57 1.50 1.60 1.41 1.50 0.57 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.59 14.66 C2_P9_XX_S Interior cobble facing 15.95 15.93 15.87 15.92 1.09 1.19 1.00 1.09 0.57 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.59 10.24 C2_P9_XX_P Pl earth mixed with aggregate 15.95 15.93 15.87 15.92 1.09 1.19 1.00 1.09 0.63 10.93 B burnt floor 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 C2_P9_C5_S B brown grey clay with toba 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 B brown grey clay 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.46 Pa dense toba 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.22 336

PAGE 359

Table B. 31 Measurements of Eastern secondary platform, Platform 9. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing north subsection 3.55 3.43 3.54 3.51 2.00 1.89 2.03 1.97 1.3 0 1.34 1.36 1.33 9.20 Interior cobble facing north subsection 3.00 2.90 2.94 2.95 1.38 1.61 1.44 1.48 1.05 1.01 1.05 1.04 4.54 C2_P9_XX_SN W,SW Exterior cobble facing central subsection 7.02 7.04 7.15 7.07 1.73 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.3 0 1.34 1.36 1.33 16.46 Interior cobble facing central subsection 6.74 6.80 6.81 6.78 1.49 1.51 1.51 1.50 1.05 1.01 1.05 1.04 10.58 Exterior cobble facing south subsection 5.98 5.93 5.85 5.92 1.84 1.85 1.89 1.86 1.30 1.34 1.36 1.33 14.64 Interior cobble facing south subsection 5.38 5.36 5.25 5.33 1.51 1.54 2.44 1.83 1.05 1.01 1.05 1.04 10.14 337

PAGE 360

Table B. 32 Measurements of primary platform, Platform 10. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 10.86 10.85 10.41 10.71 14.79 13.56 12.51 13.62 0.73 106.49 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 10.41 10.40 9.96 10.26 14.42 13.19 12.14 13.25 0.73 99.24 GuachiLACont ourExc3200m B.dwg Pl brown grey clay with toba 10.41 10.40 9.96 10.26 14.42 13.19 12.14 13.25 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.36 48.94 C2_P10_C5_S Pl brown grey clay with aggregate 10.41 10.40 9.96 10.26 14.42 13.19 12.14 13.25 1.84 1.71 1.76 1.77 240.62 Pl retaining wall 0.41 14.42 13.19 12.14 13.25 2.11 2.02 2.02 2.05 11.14 B light brown grey clay 0.33 0.43 0.47 0.41 55.74 Table B. 33 Measurements of center secondary platform, Platform 10. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 8.00 7.89 7.79 7.89 10.33 9.82 9.62 9.92 0.27 21.13 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 7.55 7.44 7.34 7.44 9.96 9.45 9.25 9.55 0.27 19.18 GuachiLACont ourExc3200m B.dwg Pl dense toba 7.55 7.44 7.34 7.44 9.96 9.45 9.25 9.55 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.29 20.61 C2_P10_C5_S 338

PAGE 361

Table B.3 4 Measurements of Southern secondary platform, Platform 10. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 12.03 11.88 11.94 11.95 1.70 1.68 1.58 1.65 0.26 5.13 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 11.58 11.43 11.49 11.50 1.33 1.31 1.21 1.28 0.26 3.83 GuachiLAContourExc 3200mB.dwg Table B.3 5 Measurements of Northern 1 secondary platform, Platform 10. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.75 11.8 11.8 11.78 1.52 1.43 1.12 1.36 0.44 7.05 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 11.30 11.35 11.35 11.33 1.15 1.06 0.75 0.99 0.44 4.94 GuachiLAContourExc 3200mB.dwg Table B.3 6 Measurements of Northern 2 secondary platform, Platform 10. Construction Material l l l Average l w w w Average w h h h Average h V Source Exterior cobble facing 11.76 11.72 11.66 11.71 0.73 0.98 0.76 0.82 0.29 2.78 Figure 12A, 2000 report Interior cobble facing 11.31 11.27 11.21 11.26 0.36 0.61 0.39 0.45 0.29 1.47 GuachiLAContourExc 3200mB.dwg 339

PAGE 362

Table B.3 7 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 6 and 7. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown grey clay with some toba 0.41 0.44 0.39 0.41 C2_B,P6,7_XX_S B brown grey clay 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.44 Table B.3 8 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown grey clay with toba 0.98 1.04 1.07 1.03 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S Pa dark brown clay 0.77 0.64 0 0.47 Pa dense toba 0.38 0.21 0.81 0.47 Pa dark brown clay 0.19 0.27 0.49 0.32 340

PAGE 363

Table B.3 9 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 10. Construction Material w w w Average w h h h Average h Source Exterior cobble facing lower tier 0.33 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.65 C2_B,P1,10_C1_S B brown grey clay with some toba 0.84 0.45 0.42 0.31 0.39 B brown grey clay with toba 0.84 0.23 0.33 0.43 0.33 Exterior cobble facing mid tier 0.2 0 0.23 0.16 0.20 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.52 B brown grey clay with some toba 0.60 0.52 0.43 0.52 B brown grey clay with toba 0.64 0.63 0.64 0.64 Pa dense toba 0.53 0.80 0.88 0.74 Exterior cobble facing top tier 0.32 0.28 0.42 0.34 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 B Brown grey clay with some toba 0.33 0.18 0.37 0.29 Pa dense toba 0.91 1.12 1.25 1.09 B Brown grey clay with some toba 0.38 0.32 0.26 0.32 Pa dense toba 0.97 1.32 1.29 1.19 341

PAGE 364

Table B.40 Measurements of the banquette between Platforms 1 and 2. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown grey clay with toba 0.98 1.04 1.07 1.03 C2_B,P1,2_C1_S Pa dark brown clay 0.77 0.64 0 0.47 Pa dense toba 0.38 0.21 0.81 0.47 Pa dark brown clay 0.19 0.27 0.49 0.32 Table B. 41 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 2. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Exterior cobble facing 0.88 0.92 0.90 0.90 C2_P2_C1_S B brown grey clay with toba 0.87 0.77 0.82 0.82 B brown grey clay 1.34 0.74 0.24 0.77 Table B. 42 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 10. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown clay with toba 0.68 0.87 0.70 0.75 C2_P10_C2_S B dense toba 0.56 0.72 0.65 0.64 B grey brown clay 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.08 Table B. 43 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 9. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B light brown clay with some toba 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.17 C2_P9_C2_S B brown clay with toba 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.22 Table B.4 4 Measurements of the banquette near Platforms 3 and 4. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown clay with toba 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.39 C2_P3_C2_S Pa brown clay with large amount of toba 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.13 Pa dark brown clay 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.12 342

PAGE 365

Table B.4 5 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 4. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown grey clay with toba 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.49 C2_P4_XX_S B brown grey clay 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.21 Exterior cobble facing upper tier 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Exterior cobble facing lower tier 0.63 0.63 0.59 0.62 Table B.4 6 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 5. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B dense toba 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 C2_P5_XX_S B brown grey clay 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.34 Table B.4 7 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 5. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B dense toba 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 C2_P5_XX_S B brown grey clay 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.34 Table B.4 8 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 8. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B brown grey clay 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.46 C2_P8_C3_S B brown grey clay with toba 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.41 Table B.4 9 Measurements of the banquette near Platform 9. Construction Material h h h Average h Source B exterior cobble facing 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.13 C2_P9_C4_S 343

PAGE 366

Table B. 50 Measurements of the banquette and patio near Platform 1. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Exterior cobble facing 0.66 0.62 0.69 0.66 C2_P1_CA_S B brown clay with toba 0.32 0.37 0.51 0.40 B light brown grey clay 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.60 Pa dense toba 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.07 Pa brown clay with toba 0.57 0.37 0.21 0.38 Pa dense toba 0.42 0.43 0.26 0.37 Table B. 51 Measurements of the patio from Trench 1a. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Pa Brown clay 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.13 C2_T_T1_Sa Pa dense toba 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 Table B. 52 Measurements of the patio from Trench 1b. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Pa Brown clay 0.53 0.45 0.39 0.45 C2_T_T1_Sb Pa dense toba 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 Table B. 53 Measurements of the patio from Trench 2. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Pa Brown clay 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05 C2_T_T2_S Pa dense toba 0.31 0.37 0.32 0.33 Table B.5 4 Measurements of the patio from Trench 3. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Pa Brown clay 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 C2_T_T3_Sa Pa dense toba 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.33 344

PAGE 367

Table B.5 5 Measurements of the patio from Trench 4. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Pa dark brown clay with toba 0.32 0.34 0.39 0.35 C2_T_T4_S Pa dense toba 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.15 Pa dark brown clay with toba 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.34 Pa dense toba 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 Table B.5 6 Measurements of the patio from near Platform 10. Construction Material h h h Average h Source Exterior cobble facing 0.60 0.62 0.71 0.64 C2_P10_C1_S Pa Brown clay 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 Pa dense toba 0.31 0.36 0.15 0.27 345

PAGE 368

Table B.5 7 Measurements of the altar. Feature Construction Material r 1 r 2 h V l l h r 1 r 2 h V Source Pyramid 1 Brown grey clay 18.75 10.42 5.71 3919.64 0 0 0.7 0 18.75 10.42 5.64 3871.59 C2_A_T7_S Dark brown clay with toba 18.75 10.42 5.64 3871.59 0 0 0.14 18.75 10.42 5.5 0 3775.49 Exterior cobble facing 18.75 10.42 5.5 0 3775.49 0.34 0.31 0.32 18.41 10.11 5.18 3402.59 Brown grey clay with aggregate 18.41 10.11 5.18 3402.59 2.25 0.34 0 16.16 9.69 5.18 2783.06 Pyramid 2 Exterior cobble facing 16.16 9.69 5.18 2783.06 0.34 0.31 0.28 15.82 9.38 4.9 0 2497.12 Brown grey clay with aggregate 15.82 9.38 4.9 0 2497.12 0.50 1.03 0.97 15.332 8.35 3.93 1779.32 Pyramid 3 Brown grey clay 15.3 2 8.35 3.93 1779.32 0 0 0.07 15.32 8.35 3.86 1747.63 Dark brown clay with toba 15.32 8.35 3.86 1747.63 0 0 0.13 15.32 8.35 3.73 1688.77 Exterior cobble facing 15.32 8.35 3.73 1688.77 0.45 0.3 1.02 14.87 8.05 2.71 1151.12 Brown grey clay with aggregate 14.87 8.05 2.71 1151.12 8.1 2.7 0.33 6.77 5.35 2.38 275.84 C2_A_C7Ext_S a Pyramid 4 Exterior cobble facing 6.77 5.35 2.38 275.84 0.19 0.19 0.19 6.58 5.16 2.19 238.22 C2_A_C7Ext_S b Brown grey clay 6.58 5.16 2.19 238.22 1.82 1.82 0.33 4.76 3.34 1.86 96.83 Pyramid 5 Exterior cobble facing 4.76 3.34 1.86 96.83 0.19 0.19 0.19 4.57 3.15 1.67 79.05 C2_A_C7Ext_S c Brown grey clay 4.57 3.15 1.67 79.05 0.96 0.96 0.33 3.61 2.19 1.34 36.11 Clay core 3.61 2.19 1.34 36.11 346

PAGE 369

Table B.5 8 Measurements of the banquette and patio Context Banquette Patio Brown clay Brown clay with toba Interior cobble facing Exterior cobble facing Brown clay with toba Brown clay Dense toba C2_B,P1,2_C1_S 0.99 0.44 0.43 C2_B,P1,10_C1_S 0.32 0.65 C2_B,P6,7_XX_S 0.44 0.41 C2_P1_CA_S 0.60 0.40 0.66 0.07 C2_P1_CA_S 0.38 0.37 C2_P1_T3_Sc 0.96 0.18 C2_P2_C1_S 0.77 0.82 0.90 C2_P2_C1_S 0.62 C2_P2_C3_S 1.67 0.11 C2_P2_C2_S 0.66 C2_P3_C1_S 0.35 0.25 C2_P3_C3_S 0.31 0.27 0.22 C2_P3_C2_S 0.39 0.12 0.13 C2_P3_XX_S 0.43 C2_P4_C4_S 0.65 0.48 C2_P4_C3_S 0.46 0.47 C2_P4_C2_S 0.21 0.81 1.16 0.19 C2_P4_XX_S 0.21 0.49 0.62 C2_P5_C3_S 0.21 0.30 0.11 C2_P5_C4_S 0.39 0.37 C2_P5_C5_S 0.84 0.48 C2_P5_XX_S 0.34 0.33 C2_P6_C1_S 0.83 0.23 C2_P6_C2_S 0.14 0.39 0.48 C2_P6_XX_Sa 0.29 0.35 C2_P7_C1Ext_S 0.77 0.33 C2_P8_C3_S 0.41 C2_P8_C4_S 0.32 0.16 0.32 0.12 C2_P9_C4_S 0.67 1.13 0.44 C2_P9_C5_S 0.46 0.22 C2_P9_C2_S 0.39 C2_P10_C5_S 0.41 C2_P10_C1_S 0.64 0.27 C2_P10_C2_S 0.08 0.75 C2_T_T1_Sa 0.13 0.18 C2_T_T1_Sb 0.45 0.09 C2_T_T2_S 0.05 0.33 C2_T_T3_Sa 0.04 0.26 C2_T_T3_Sb 0.35 0.15 C2_T_T4_S 0.34 0.21 C2_A_C7Ext_Sa 0.52 0.38 C2_A_C7Ext_Sb 0.70 0.30 C2_A_C7Ext_Sc 0.76 0.27 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.08 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.14 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.19 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.17 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.14 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.14 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.14 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.20 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.20 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.16 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171 3171_SS 0.13 347

PAGE 370

Table B.5 9 Measurements of the banquette and patio (contd) Context Banquette Patio Brown clay Brown clay with toba Interior cobble facing Exterior cobble facing Brown clay with toba Brown clay Dense toba C2_P4,5_CS,P1748,1749_SW 0.25 C2_P4,5,6_CS,P2850,2950,3050_SN 0.03 C2_P4,5,6_CS,P2850,2950,3050_SN 0.03 C2_P4,5,6_CS,P2850,2950,3050_SN 0.03 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.29 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.22 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.19 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.20 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.20 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149 1649_SN 0.17 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.23 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.25 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.27 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.30 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.56 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.58 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.21 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.22 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.21 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.25 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.24 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.23 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.24 C2_P6,7_CW,P3157 3162,3163 3168,3169 3171_SE 0.25 Average 0.47 1.42 0.77 0.26 0.29 348

PAGE 371

APPENDIX C LABOR ESTIMATES This appendix features tables containing the rates of work for each architectural feature divided by construction material. These tables use the same rates of work listed and discussed in Chapter 4. Construction material that is mixed with aggregate is gi ven a percent. This percent is the amount of aggregate in the volume of material. For example, part of Platform 3s primary platform fill is clay mixed with aggregate. 44.44% of the fill is aggregate while the remaining 55.56% of the fill is clay. The percent of aggregate in the fill was determined using a dot matrix as discussed in Chapter 4. Different rates of work for procurement and transportation were applied to the respective volume of materials. However, the same rate of work for construction was applied to both volumes of material as discussed in Chapter 5. 349

PAGE 372

Table C.1 Labor estimates for Platform 1. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 16.12 5.73 17.23 15.21 Clay 331.23 293.12 3523.72 69.00 Retaining wall 13.95 4.96 14.87 13.16 Southeast 1 Exterior cobble facing 1.38 0.49 1.47 1.30 Clay (assumed) 1.95 1.73 20.74 0.41 Southeast 2 Exterior cobble facing 2.44 0.87 2.60 2.30 Clay (assumed) 3.60 3.19 38.30 0.75 Northwest 1 Exterior cobble facing 2.10 0.75 2.24 1.98 Clay (assumed) 6.20 5.49 65.96 1.29 Northwest 2 Exterior cobble facing 4.00 1.42 4.26 3.77 Clay (assumed) 11.49 10.17 122.23 2.39 4253.09 Table C.2 Labor estimates for Platform 2. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 13.40 4.76 12.64 14.29 Clay mixed with aggregate (50%) 211.32 95.50 37.57 44.03 1124.04 99.10 Secondary Exterior cobble facing 3.27 1.16 3.08 3.49 Clay mixed with aggregate (50%) 32.74 14.49 5.82 6.82 174.15 17.45 1658.39 Table C.3 Labor estimates for shared platform between Platforms 1 and 2. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Transport Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Platform Exterior cobble facing 3.91 1.39 4.17 3.69 Grey/brown clay with some toba 114.78 101.58 1221.07 12.91 1344.81 350

PAGE 373

Table C.4 Labor estimates for Platform 3. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles (V *2560/7200) Toba (0.85 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 23.09 8.21 24.62 21.78 Clay with some toba 65.33 57.81 695.00 13.61 Clay with aggregate (44.44%) 176.47 86.77 27.88 1043.09 83.60 20.43 16.34 North Exterior cobble facing 5.75 2.04 6.13 5.42 Clay with some toba 6.09 5.39 64.79 1.27 Clay with large amount of toba 5.29 6.22 56.28 1.10 South Exterior cobble facing 4.51 1.60 4.81 4.25 Clay with some toba 4.47 3.96 47.55 0.93 Clay with large amount of toba 3.29 3.87 35.00 0.69 2040.60 351

PAGE 374

Table C.5 Labor estimates for Platform 4. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles (V *2560/7200) Earth (2.6 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m3/day) Earth (1.88 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m3/day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 26.01 9.25 27.73 24.54 Dark brown clay with toba 32.76 28.99 348.51 6.83 Earth mixed with aggregate (21.88%) 37.41 2.91 11.24 8.72 15.59 7.79 Grey/brown clay mixed with aggregate (11.04%) 47.47 37.37 1.86 449.26 5.59 9.89 Light grey/brown clay mixed with aggregate (2.73%) 18.18 15.65 0.18 188.09 0.53 3.78 Grey/brown clay mixed with aggregate (20.7%) 33.09 23.22 2.44 279.15 7.30 6.90 Retaining wall 3.71 1.32 3.96 Aggregate layer 29.91 10.63 31.89 Southwest 1 Exterior cobble facing 1.16 0.41 1.24 1.09 Clay mixed with aggregate (53.13%) 2.12 0.88 0.40 10.57 1.20 0.45 Southwest 2 Exterior cobble facing 0.45 0.16 0.48 0.42 Clay mixed with aggregate (53.13%) 2.64 1.10 0.50 13.16 1.50 0.55 Northeast Exterior cobble facing 2.06 0.73 2.20 1.94 Clay mixed with aggregate (53.13%) 15.16 6.29 2.89 75.59 8.59 3.16 1738.33 352

PAGE 375

Table C.6 Labor estimates for Platform 5. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 31.27 11.12 33.34 33.34 Clay mixed with aggregate (56.25%) 214.94 83.22 42.99 1000.39 128.90 1000.39 128.90 Clay mound 1.57 1.39 16.70 16.70 East 1 Exterior cobble facing 5.16 1.83 5.50 5.50 Clay mixed with aggregate (50%) 28.53 12.62 5.09 151.76 15.21 151.76 15.21 East 2 Exterior cobble facing 6.91 2.46 7.37 7.37 Clay mixed with aggregate (31.25%) 25.77 15.68 2.86 188.48 8.59 188.48 8.59 West 1 Exterior cobble facing 14.58 5.18 15.54 15.54 Clay mixed with aggregate (50%) 54.83 24.26 9.75 291.65 29.23 291.65 29.23 West 2 Exterior cobble facing 7.55 2.68 8.05 8.05 Clay mixed with aggregate (31.25%) 14.31 8.71 1.59 104.66 4.77 104.66 4.77 2374.13 Table C.7 Labor estimates for Platform 6. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 11.13 3.96 11.87 10.50 Clay mixed with aggregate (33.69%) 61.47 36.07 7.36 433.62 22.08 12.80 Clay mixed with aggregate (56.77%) 141.72 54.22 28.60 651.81 85.77 29.52 Clay with toba 28.69 26.39 305.21 5.98 Retaining wall 4.18 1.49 4.46 3.94 Secondary Exterior cobble facing 4.25 1.51 4.53 4.01 Clay mixed with aggregate (31.25%) 75.42 45.88 8.38 551.60 25.13 15.71 2391.40 353

PAGE 376

Table C.8 Labor estimates for Platform 7. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 21.29 7.57 22.70 20.08 Clay mixed with aggregate (47.66%) 254.33 117.80 43.10 1416.13 129.23 52.98 Northern Exterior cobble facing 4.25 2.19 6.56 5.80 Clay mixed with aggregate (47.66%) 25.48 11.81 4.32 141.91 12.94 5.31 Southern Exterior cobble facing 4.82 1.71 5.14 4.55 Clay mixed with aggregate (47.66%) 21.05 9.75 3.57 117.21 10.70 4.39 2157.45 Table C.9 Labor estimates for Platform 8. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles (V *2560/7200) Earth (2.6 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Earth (1.88 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 17.59 6.25 18.75 16.59 Clay with toba 66.03 58.43 702.45 13.76 Earth mixed with aggregate (69.53%) 109.83 27.15 12.87 81.41 17.85 22.88 Clay 35.12 31.00 372.66 7.30 Southwest Exterior cobble facing 4.89 1.74 5.21 4.61 Clay with some toba 20.51 18.15 218.19 4.27 Northeast Exterior cobble facing 5.94 2.11 6.33 5.60 Clay with some toba 19.87 17.58 211.38 4.14 1888.66 354

PAGE 377

Table C.10 Labor estimates for Platform 9. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles (V *2560/7200) Earth (2.6 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Earth (1.88 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m3/day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 25.15 8.94 26.81 23.73 Clay mixed with aggregate (46.87%) 243.34 114.41 40.55 1375.39 121.59 50.69 West Exterior cobble facing 4.42 1.58 4.71 4.17 Burned floor 1.04 Earth mixed with aggregate (26.56%) 10.93 1.03 3.01 3.09 4.28 2.27 East Exterior cobble facing 15.04 5.35 16.03 14.19 Earth mixed with aggregate (26.56%) 25.26 2.39 2.39 7.15 9.89 5.26 1853.64 355

PAGE 378

Table C.11 Labor estimates for Platform 10. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m3/day) Cobbles (V *2560/7200) Toba (0.85 m3/day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m3/day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Primary Exterior cobble facing 7.25 2.58 7.73 6.84 Clay with toba 48.94 43.31 520.64 10.20 Clay mixed with aggregate (42.29%) 240.62 122.77 36.23 1475.85 108.62 50.13 Retaining wall 11.14 3.96 11.88 10.51 Secondary Exterior cobble facing 1.95 0.69 2.08 1.84 Dense toba 20.61 24.25 219.26 4.29 South Exterior cobble facing 1.30 0.46 1.39 1.23 Clay with toba 3.84 3.40 40.85 0.80 North 1 Exterior cobble facing 2.11 0.75 2.25 1.99 Clay with toba 4.94 4.37 52.55 1.03 North 2 Exterior cobble facing 1.31 0.47 1.40 1.24 Clay with toba 1.47 1.30 15.64 0.31 2795.06 Table C.12 Labor estimates for the banquette. Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Exterior cobble facing 180.33 64.12 192.25 170.12 Interior cobble facing 68.19 24.24 72.70 64.33 Clay with toba 1755.46 1553.50 18675.11 365.72 21182.09 356

PAGE 379

Table C.13 Labor estimates for the patio. Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transportation Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Toba (0.85 m 3 /day) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Clay 953.14 843.49 10139.79 198.57 Dense toba 2309.31 2716.84 24567.13 481.11 38946.93 Table C.14 Labor estimates for the altar. Feature Material V (m 3 ) Procurement Transport Construction Total p d Clay (1.13 m 3 /day) Cobbles ( V *2560/7200) Clay/ toba (0.094 m 3 /day) Aggregate (0.938 m 3 /day) Fill (4.8 m 3 /day) Wall (1.06 m 3 /day) Pyramid 1 Grey/brown clay 48.05 42.52 511.17 10.01 Dark brown clay with toba 96.1 85.04 1022.34 20.02 Exterior cobble facing 372.9 132.59 397.55 351.79 Clay mixed with aggregate (51.39%) 619.53 266.50 113.20 3203.72 339.42 129.07 Pyramid 2 Exterior cobble facing 285.94 101.67 304.84 269.75 Clay mixed with aggregate (11.72%) 717.8 560.77 29.91 6741.17 89.69 149.54 Pyramid 3 Grey/brown clay 31.69 28.04 337.13 6.60 Dark brown clay with toba 58.86 52.09 626.17 12.26 Exterior cobble facing 537.65 191.16 573.19 507.22 Clay mixed with aggregate (27.97%) 875.28 557.93 87.05 6707.02 261.00 182.35 Pyramid 4 Exterior cobble facing 37.62 13.38 40.11 35.49 Clay mixed with toba 141.39 125.12 1504.15 29.46 Pyramid 5 Exterior cobble facing 17.78 6.32 18.96 16.77 Clay mixed with toba 42.94 38.00 456.81 8.95 Clay core 36.11 31.96 384.15 7.52 27718.64 357

PAGE 380

APPENDIX D EXCAVATION DRAWINGS This appendix features excavation drawings that were used in the architectural energetics analysis, but not heavily discussed or featured in Chapter 5. The majority of these drawings are of the patio. As discussed in Chapter 5, Weigand made some excavation s into the patio during the 1999 field season. Later, in the 2004 field season, more extensive patio excavations were conducted (Weigand and Esparza Lpez 2008). Included in this appendix is the AutoCAD map labeled GuachiLAContourExc3200mB that was created by PAT members. This map was used to acquire measurements for architectural features that lacked excavation drawings, as discussed in Chapter 4. Three views of GuachiLAContourExc3200mB are provided depicting the entire site map, the ceremonial core, and C ircle 2 itself. While a top -down view is provided, the map is 3-dimensional with zcoordinates for the architectural features, contour lines, and other features. 358

PAGE 381

Figure D.1 C2_P1,9,10_CN,P1171,1271,1371,1471,1571,1671,1771,1871,1971,2071,2171,2271,2371,2 471,2571,2671,2771,2871,2971,3071,3171_SS Excavation drawing of units 1171 through 3171 from the North Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 359

PAGE 382

Figure D.2 C2_P4,5,6_CS,P2850,2950,3050_SN Excavation drawing of units 3050 through 2850 from the South Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 360

PAGE 383

Figure D.3 C2_P4,5_CS,P1149,1249,1349,1449,1549,1649_SN Excavation drawing of units 1149 through 1749 from the South Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 361

PAGE 384

Figure D.4 C2_ C2_P4,5_CS,P1748,1749_SW Excavation drawing of units 1748 and 1749 from the South Cala, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 362

PAGE 385

Figure D.5 C2_P4,5_CS,P1847,1947,2047,2147,2247_SN Excavation drawing of units 2247 through 1847 from the South Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 363

PAGE 386

Figure D.6 C2_P4,5_CS,P2349,2449,2549,2649_SN Excavation drawing of units 2649 through 2349 from the South Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 364

PAGE 387

Figure D.7 C2_P4,5_P2345,2348_SW Excavation drawing of units 2345 through 2348 from the South Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 365

PAGE 388

Figure D.8 C2_P6,7_CW,P31513156_SE Excavation drawing of units 3156 through 3151 from the West Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 366

PAGE 389

Figure D.9 C2_P6,7_CW,P31573162,31633168,31693171_SE Excavation drawing of units 3171 through 3157 from the West Cala patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 367

PAGE 390

Figure D.10 C2_T_T1_Sa Excavation drawing of one of the Trench 1 units, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 368

PAGE 391

Figure D.11 C2_T_T1_Sb Excavation drawing of one of the Trench 1 units, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 369

PAGE 392

Figure D.12 C2_T_T2_S Excavation drawing of Trench 2, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 370

PAGE 393

Figure D.13 C2_T_T3_Sa Excavation drawing of one of the Trench 3 units, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 371

PAGE 394

Figure D.14 C2_T_T3_Sb Excavation drawing of one of the Trench 3 units, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 372

PAGE 395

Figure D.15 C2_T_T4_S Excavation drawing of Trench 4, patio. Image courtesy of PAT. 373

PAGE 396

Figure D.16 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB overview Site map of Los Guachimontones used to measure some architectural features. Image courtesy of PAT. 374

PAGE 397

Figure D.17 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB ceremonial center Site map of the ceremonial center of Los Guachimontones us ed to measure some architectural features. Image courtesy of PAT. 375

PAGE 398

Figure D.18 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2 Site map of Circle 2 used to measure some architectural features. Image courtesy of PAT. 376

PAGE 399

Figure D.19 GuachiLAContourExc3200mB Circle 2 angle d Site map of Circle 2 viewed at an angle. The map used to measure some architectural f eatures. Image courtesy of PAT. 377