Historical Archaeology in Yucatan: A Preliminary Framework

ANTHONY P. ANDREWS
Historical Archaeology in
Yucatan: A Preliminary
Framework
ABSTRACT
There is a growing interest in the historical archaeology
of Latin America. a discipline which until recently has
received little attention. Given the enormous quantities
of source materials and physical remains. as well as the
diverse historic and cultural backgrounds of different
geographical areas. it is necessary to prepare regional
syntheses which will provide a framework for future
research. Such a framework is presented for the peninsula of Yucatan, in Mexico. Included are a delineation
of the major chronological periods, a classification of
archaeological site types and a synthesis of source
materials.
Introduction: Background and Problems
Historical archaeology is a young discipline in
North America and Europe, having been developed within the last 50 years. In fact, the
formal methods and objectives of this field in
the United States have only been established
within the last I5 years.
Latin American countries have yet to display a serious interest in historical archaeology. Such a situation 'results from limited
funds and manpower, as well as a low level of
interest in historical remains. Even in those
countries where large-scale, government-run
archaeological research programs have existed for decades (i.e., Mexico and Peru),
scholars have concentrated heavily on those
prehispanic sites and colonial monuments
whose restoration stimulated the tourist industry, a major source of income for these countries (Yadeun 1978).
Work on historic sites, then, has focused on
the conservation and consolidation of the
more spectacular early colonial remains. In a
few isolated cases, entire communities have
been preserved or partially restored: such is
the case of Taxco, San Miguel de Allende, and
Guanajuato in Mexico, as well as Antigua in
Guatemala, all beautiful showcases of colonial
architecture. Unfortunately, the conservation
of these towns was done with an eye to attracting tourists. and little or no serious archaeological research accompanied the restoration efforts.
This overall situation is ironic, as Latin
America offers a rich field for historical archaeology, both in terms of physical remains
and historic documentation. Moreover, this
field offers certain advantages, a major one
being the near absence of looting of historical
sites: looters and collectors are mainly concerned with prehispanic remains. Another advantage is good preservation: there has been
relatively little destruction of historical sites
outside of major metropolitan areas.
Although a small number of scholars are
developing an interest in historical remains,
formal research objectives have yet to be defined. Most projects to date have been isolated
events. A number of studies have been carried
out in the Valley of Mexico, and the results
have appeared in various journals. There has
also been some work in the Mexican state of
Chiapas (Gussinyer 1972; Lee and Markman
1977; Lee 1979) and in the Caribbean (cf.
Handler and Lange 1978). Despite the paucity
of materials, there is a growing consensus that
archaeologists need not limit themselves to
prehispanic remains, and moreover, that salvage programs at historic sites should be given
special attention (Barrera Rubio 1978a: Maldonado 1976). In general, though, there is little
literature on the subject of historical archaeology. However, with the growing number of
trained professionals and larger budgets for
archaeological research, historic sites should
begin to attract more attention.
There is no formal framework for research
on historic sites anywhere in Latin America:
in fact, a comprehensive classification scheme
for historic sites has yet to be established,
either on a national or regional scale. As a
very preliminary effort to deal with this prob-
2
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
lem, this paper will attempt to set up a classification of historic sites for a specific region of
southern Mexico, namely, the peninsula of
Yucatan, which includes the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo (Figure I ) .
As in most other parts of Latin America,
historical archaeology is almost non-existent
in Yucatan. Work on historic remains has
been limited to the consolidation of a number
of early colonial buildings in the cities of
Merida, Campeche, Izamal, and Valladolid, as
well as in rural areas: the convent of Mani, the
fort of Bacalar, and a few churches in small
towns. The few reports of the restoration projects that are available offer only superficial
accounts of the work. Despite the paucity of
reports, the present consolidation work is of
the highest quality, thanks to the e’fforts of
Enrique Manero Peon, the architect who has
supervised most of the colonial projects on the
peninsula over the last decade. The conservation techniques now employed reflect the
policy common for archaeological projects
throughout Mexico: conservation and consolidation, rather than full-scale restoration (cf.
Molina Montes 1975).
GULF
OF
P
MEXfCO
Pi..,
FIGURE 1. Map of the Yucatan Peninsula, showing the major communities discussed in the text.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
Most consolidation work in Yucatan has focused on prominent early colonial buildings,
whose historical value is appreciated by the
government and private sector alike. However, the protection of less prominent colonial
structures and all post- 1800 buildings is problematical. There is a registry of colonial monuments and federal regulations for their protection, but the law is vague in many aspects
and makes no provisions for 19th century
structures, a situation which has led to a variety of legal problems in salvaging historic sites
(Ley Federal 1972; Norbert0 Gonzalez C.,
pers. comm.).
Despite this state of affairs, Yucatan offers
great potential for historical archaeology.
There are large numbers of excellently preserved historic sites, and a wealth of published
and documentary materials. This paper will attempt to bring together some of these materials. First, however. it is necessary to define
the major historic periods of the region, as
well as the different types of sites found on the
peninsula. After experimenting with a number
of different classificatory schemes, I realized
that the chronological and typological dimensions of historic sites in Yucatan could not be
merged. Consequently, chronology and site
typology are dealt with as separate, though
not unrelated variables in the classification
scheme proposed here.
A Chronological Framework
Historical remains in Yucatan can be
broken into four major periods or categories.
These follow the basic chronological framework established by Yucatecan historians,
which is recognized and accepted by most
scholars. The proposed categories are defined
as follows:
3
a “contact” site. Two kinds of contact sites
can be distinguished:
a. Sites which had one or more early contacts with Europeans (Le., early explorers, conquistadors or friars), but which
remained outside the sphere of colonial
influence and control.
b. Sites which were contacted at a late
date; these might be best categorized as
“Late Contact“ sites.
Colonial ( I 542-1 82 I)
This category includes all sites which came
under colonial jurisdiction after the founding
of Merida in 1542, when Spanish control was
established over most of the peninsula. The
period ends with the conclusion of the War of
Independence, in 1821, when Yucatan joined
the Republic of Mexico.
Republican (1821-1910)
This category includes all sites with remains
dating between the War of Independence and
the Mexican Revolution. In Yucatan. two
kinds can be distinguished:
a. Sites under the control of Mexican or
Yucatecan authorities.
b. Sites beyond such control (e.g., t h e independent Cruzob Maya villages of
southern Quintana Roo and Campeche).
NationallModern (19 1O-present)
This category includes all sites with remains
dating from the Mexican Revolution to the
present.
From an archaeological point of view, these
chronological categories may best be viewed
as “components,” as few sites are restricted
to any single time period. For example, a conContact
tact period settlement may become a colonial
Sites in this category are difficult to define, village. revert to independent Cruzob status.
as almost every native community of early and then become a modern town. Chan Santa
colonial Yucatan was. at one time or another. Cruz (todav FeliDe Carrillo Puerto) underwent
4
such a series of transformations, and archaeological investigations there should, in theory,
reveal the various components.
Site Classification
In Yucatan, an historic site may be defined
as any settlement, structure or landscape feature that is the result of human activity from
the time of Spanish contact to the present.
Following the view that archaeology and history begin in the immediate present, the classification includes all modern settlements, constructions, and remains. Hence, a resort complex presently under construction is viewed as
an historic site, as is an abandoned convent of
the 16th century. Such a comprehensive definition allows for a dynamic typology that can
deal with future sites as well as long abandoned features of the past.
The site typology presented below is based
primarily on use and habitation patterns and
may be viewed as a settlement pattern approach. It is straight-forward and self-explanatory and includes comments that clarify various aspects of individual site types. Five major categories are defined, as follows:
I . Permanent Communities (Permanent
Habitation)
a. Ciudades (Cities)
Communities with a population exceeding 10,000 people. These include the
three state capitals (Merida. Campeche,
and Chetumal) and approximately 20
other communities.
b. Villas (Towns)
Communities with a population exceeding 5,000 people. There are approximately 50 villas on the peninsula.
C. Pueblos (Vi1lage s)
Communities with a population exceeding 100 people. There are several hundred.
d. Rancherias or Caserios (Hamlets)
Settlements with less than 100 people.
e. Complejos Turisticos (Tourist Resorts)
These have variable itinerant popula-
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
tions but retain small groups of yearround residents. Contemporary examples are Isla Cancun, Club Akumal, and
Club Pez Maya on the coast of Quintana
Roo.
The vast majority of these communities are
inhabited today and overlie the remains of
earlier periods. However, there are a fair
number of abandoned pueblos and rancherias
around the peninsula. Several contact period
and early colonial settlements along the east
coast of the peninsula were abandoned in the
late 16th and early 17th centuries and lie in
ruins today. Among these are Ecab (Benavides and Andrews 1979), Pole (today Xcaret)
(Andrews IV and Andrews 1975), Xamanzama
and Zama (today Tancah/Tulum) (Miller and
Farriss 1979), and Villa Real on Chetumal
Bay. There are also a number of abandoned
colonial settlements in central Yucatan (cf.
Roys 1952, 1957). The best known is Cisteil,
which was razed by colonial authorities following a revolt in 1761 (Ramirez Aznar 1977).
2 . Ranches, Plantations and Rural Industrial
Sites (Long Term Rural Habitation)
Hacienda (Henequen plantation)
Desfibradora (Henequen processing plant)
Ingenio de Azicar (Sugar plantation)
Plantacibn Algodonera (Cotton plantation)
Rancho Ganadero (Cattle ranch)
Rancho Mifpero (Small corn farm)
Estacion Experimental (Experimental farm)
Cooperative Agricola (Cooperative farm)
Coca1 (Coconut plantation)
Aseradero (Sawmill)
Centro Salinero (Salt-processing complex)
These site types are self-evident but may
overlap. The majority of the henequen plantations of northwest Yucatan were established
after 1860; many incorporated older cattle
ranches and farms. Today, many plantations
have been broken up into communal landholding corporations (ejidos), and the central
cores of many old haciendas have evolved into
small villages. Hence, in northwest Yucatan, a
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
5
colonial period cattle ranch would be trans- 1978; Eaton 1978). Chicle camps will have
formed into a henequen plantation which to- adobe ovens and raised wooden boxes in
day may have become a village. Other sites which chicle sap was cooked and "blocked."
have gone through similar transformations. Charcoal-making sites are found along the
The 19th century cotton plantations of the shores of coastal swamps, as charcoal is genValladolid/Tizimin region are today mostly erally made from mangrove wood; large
cattle ranches. The same is true of sugar plan- patches of burnt earth are their most recogniztations of southern Yucatan and Campeche: able feature. Road construction camps are ofthey have been incorporated into modern cat- ten next to lime quarries and are easily recogtle ranches, cooperatives, and small farms. nized by their roadside location as well as by
The cotton and sugar industries, which flour- abandoned broken machinery parts. The reished briefly in the early 19th century, were mains of fuel storage tanks and large wooden
seriously crippled by the Caste War of the funnels which were used for feeding limestone
1840s. Few plantations survived past 1880, into gravel mills are also commonly found at
and today only one remains active, namely, these sites. Some camps are not so obvious
the Ingenio La Joya. near Champoton on the and may only be identified by close examinacentral coast of Campeche. Modern changes tion of surface materials. Lumber and chicle
are also affecting many early sites: several camps are easily confused: it is quite common
cocales, for example, have been displaced by for a camp to be used by woodcutters in the
growing coastal communities, summer homes dry season and by chicle gatherers in the rainy
and modern tourist resorts. At Siho Playa, in months. Hunting blinds are evident by their
Campeche, a 19th century sugar plantation, large amounts of shotgun shells, hearths, and
which lay atop a prehispanic site, was recently sometimes animal bones, features which are
particularly obvious in coastal march areas
refurbished as a tourist resort.
where duck hunters reuse the same blind on a
3 . Camp Sites (Temporal or Seasonal
seasonal basis. And finally, archaeologists
Habitation
should
be able to recognize archaeological
Pesqirero (fishing) camps
camps,
large
heaps of discarded potsherds and
Milpero (milpa) camps
rum
bottles
being
the most obvious diagnostic
Chiclero (chicle) camps
features.
Maderero (lumber) camps
Caminero (road construction) camps
4 . Special Function Sires (Variable
Sulinero (salt-collecting) camps
Habitation)
Carbonero (charcoal-making) camps
Puertos (Ports)
Militar (military) camps
In general, these will overlap with coastal
Arqueolbgico (archaeological) camps
communities. However. there are a numEstaciones de Caza (hunting blinds)
ber of sites that served purely as ports.
These camps can be identified on the basis
These generally had a pier. a warehouse,
of their locations and surface remains. The
and a house or two for the caretaker and his
more recent campsites will generally have the
family. Examples are Xtul and San Benito
remains of perishable thatched structures.
on the north coast and Vigia Chico on the
Hearths are quite common. Fishing camps will
east coast, which are today abandoned. In
have large marine faunal middens (shells and
the past they served as shipping outlets for
fishbones). A number of these camps, which
products from the interior (henequen, lumhave both prehispanic and posthispanic reber. chicle). They were often connected to
mains, have been reported on the west and
the interior by means of tranvia (Decaunorth coasts of the peninsula (Andrews 1977,
ville) lines. The modern port of Puerto
6
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
a. They are reused as shrines, camps, or
Morelos served such a function in the late
habitation sites:
19th century: it was the sole outlet for the
b. They become tourist centers, are rehuge lumber and chicle concessions based
stored and acquire guardian camps and
at Colonia Santa Maria (today Leona Vitourist facilities.
cario).
Fuertes y Fortijicaciones (Forts and FortiBalnearios (Swimming Resorts)
fications
These are day resorts, usually used by
Most of these date to the colonial period.
nearby residents and occasionally by nonThey fall into three categories:
local visitors. Examples are Playa Bonita,
a. Forts and garrisons
near Lerma on the Campeche coast, and
b. Defensive wall systems (Merida. CamPlaya Chacmool, Xelha, and Calderitas on
peche, and coastal vigia parapets)
the east coast.
c. Fortified churches and convents.
Sitios Subaciidticos (Underwater Sites)
Zonas Milifares (Military Posts)
These include all historic shipwrecks and
These are 20th century army and navy
related features.
bases, without permanent fortifications.
They generally consist of fenced-in com- 5. Speciul Landscape Features (Nonpounds, with guardhouses and barracks.
Habitational)
They cover two to three acres.
This category includes all non-habitational
Furos (Lighthouses)
sites and features that do not fall into any of
There are four kinds:
the above types. They are generally isolated constructions that serve specific pura. Community lighthouses (within coastal
poses. Some of the more prominent examcommunities)
ples include:
b. Isolated with military posts (caretaker
and militia)
Roads
c. Isolated (caretaker and family)
Bridges
d. Isolated, mechanical (no residents)
Railroad tracks
Adoratios (Shrines)
Tranvia (Decauville) tracks
There are four kinds:
Airstrips
Piers
a. Road shrines
Warehouses and granaries
b. Trail shrines
Quarries
c. Cave shrines
Roadside monuments and signs
d. Coastal shrines
Rural property walls
Guritas (Checkpoint guardhouses)
Meteorological stations
These include police, customs, migration,
Communications equipment (utility poles
and fiscal inspection stations. They will ofand lines, and microwave stations)
ten have a few residential huts nearby.
Water pipelines (for potable water)
They are generally isolated roadside staWater-pumping stations
tions, found at state and national borders or
Irrigation canals
at the boundary of a free commercial zone.
Oil rigs and pumping stations
Zonas Aryueulogicus (Prehispanic Sites)
Oil depots
Archaeological zones can be historic sites
Thermoelectric stations
in two respects:
Battlefield sites
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
Materials for Historical Archaeology:
Notes and Sources
There is considerable documentary and
published material on the history of Yucatan,
about which there has been a long tradition of
scholarly interest. There are well over 5,000
published items on Yucatecan history, and the
unpublished documentary items available in
various archives probably number in the tens
of thousands.
A major historiographic survey of Yucatan
has yet to be carried out (but see Ferrer de
Mendiolea 1946a) and will not be attempted
here. For the sake of brevity, only the major
categories and sources of materials will be
outlined. They can be broken down as follows:
1 . Pre-20th century descriptive historical
works.
2. 20th century descriptive and analytical
studies.
3. Journalistic sources: journals and newspapers, dating from 1813 to the present.
4. Travel accounts (primarily 19th and 20th
centuries).
5 . Official publications: proclamations,
statutes and legal codes, rules and regulations, speeches, etc. These date from
1821 to the present.
6. Technical manuals, leaflets, pamphlets,
and catalogs, dating from the mid-1800s
to the present.
7. Miscellaneous publications: commerical
and telephone directories, almanacs,
tourist guidebooks, road and railroad
maps, geography textbooks, etc. Most of
these date from the 1880s to the present.
8. Unpublished documents.
There are several major bibliographic
sources for Y ucatecan historical materials:
Bernal (1962). Gomez Ugarte and Pagaza
(1937), Harrison (1976), Perez Martinez (1943)
and Priego de Arjona (1944). Other major reference sources on Yucatan include the Enciclopedia Yucaranense, edited by Carlos
7
Echanove Trujillo (9 vols., 1944-51; 2nd edition, 1977; see also Garcia Canul et al., 19791,
and the Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by Robert Wauchope (16 vols.
1964- 1976).
The first printing press arrived in Yucatan in
18 13, and Yucatecan journalism was born with
the publication of the weekly El Miscelaneo
that same year. Over a hundred journals and
newspapers have since been published on the
peninsula. Most of them were short-lived but
remain valuable sources of historical information. Antonio Canto Lopez (1946) has written
a comprehensive history of Yucatecan journalism, which includes specific data on every
journal published on the peninsula up to 1943.
An updated study, covering the last 37 years,
is badly needed.
Most travel acocunts published by visitors
to the peninsula date from the 1830s to the
present. Suarez Molina (1956) has prepared a
comprehensive bibliography of these accounts.
Historians often neglect categories (6) and
(7). This is unfortunate, as these materials can
be of immense value to historical archaeologists. Tourist guidebooks are of particular
value. The oldest appears to be that of Gomez
Rul (1923). Since then, several hundred have
been published; these are extensively illustrated with maps, drawings and photographs
and often include detailed commercial directories of Yucatan's major communities. A
compilation of these would be a worthwhile
project. Another major source of information
along these lines is the Calendario de Espinoza (published annually, 185 1-1942) and
the Almanaque de Espinoia (published annually, 1942-present).
Geographical studies and local geography
textbooks, like guidebooks, are useful general
sources of information. They often contain historical data and deal with a variety of subjects
that may be of interest to the historical archaeologist. The older schoolbook geographies are veritable period pieces. as they often
include illustrations of buildings and land-
8
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
these communities were abandoned, the result
of a complex series of population movements
that characterized the early years of the colonial period (Ryder 1977; Farriss 1978; Miller
and Farriss 1979). Many such sites still lie
abandoned today, providing excellent prospects for future historical archaeology projects.
Two areas of the peninsula have been the
subject of regional historical studies. Scholes
and Roys‘ 1948 study of the Acalan-Tixchel
region of southern Campeche provides voluminous documentation for that area during the
1. Archivo General de la Nacidn, Mexico early colonial period. The major weakness of
the study is the lack of corroborating field surCity
veys. Cozumel Island, off the coast of Quin2. Archivo General de Indias, Seville
tana
Roo, has been the subject of two historic
3. Archivo Historic0 Nacional. Madrid
settlement
pattern studies (Davidson 1967;
4. Archivo de la Iglesia Catedral, Merida
Sabloff
1975).
These studies combine docu5. Archivo del Estado de Yucatan, Merida
mentary
and
informant
interview data with
6. Archivo General de Centro America,
field
reconnaissance;
as
a
result, a reasonably
Guatemala City (previously Archivo
good reconstruction of the history of settleGeneral del Gobierno)
ment patterns on the island, is available from
A comprehensive guide to Mesoamerican the conquest to the present.
documentary sources, edited by Howard F.
Historic studies of specific communities are
Cline, is available in volumes 12 to 15 of the scarce. Several descriptive works focus on the
Handbook oj’Middle American Indiuns (Cline city of Merida: Escoffie (1932), Ferrer de
1972-75).
Mendiolea (1938, 1946b), Hijuelos (1942,
1946), Garcia Preciat (1944), Camara Zavala
Community and Regional Studies
(1950, 1977). Roman Piha Chan (1977) has
made a detailed study of the city of CamThere are relatively few studies of historic peche, its fortifications and colonial architeccommunities or postconquest settlement pat- ture. This work includes a valuable collection
terns in Yucatan: the majority of the literature of early illustrations (maps, engravings, and
is documentary and focuses mainly on colo- photographs). A few historical and/or descripnial period sites.
tive works have been written on other YucaThe most comprehensive study of contact tecan communities, such as Valladolid (Baperiod and early colonial settlements in Yuca- queiro Anduze 1943; Alcocer Perez 1960),
tan is Ralph L. Roys’ Political Geography of Izamal (Bolio 1894; Ferrer de Mendiolea
the Yucatan Maya ( 1957). This work contains, 1940), Espita (Patron Peniche 1959), Tekanto
a geographic directory of early sites and their (Thompson 1978), Tekax (Civeira Taboada
documentation and is considered the most 1974), and Mani (Barrera Vasquez 1978).
basic reference source by most scholars. Roys
Studies of early communities have been
relies heavily on a collection of documents superficial and strictly exploratory. The early
known as the Relaciones de Yucatan (1898colonial settlement of Ecab, on the northeast
1900) which contain valuable information on corner of the peninsula, has recently been the
many 16th century communities. Many of subject of a brief reconnaissance (Benavides
scape features that no longer exist. These geographies focus on individual states, i.e.,
Yucatan (Edwards 1954; Martinez H. 1936,
1941, 1943, 1946; Vega C. 1967), Campeche
(Pacheco Blanco 1928) and Quintana Roo
(Edwards 1957; Pacheco Cruz 1958; Davidson
1967).
Unpublished documents can be found in a
variety of different places, from private homes
to company warehouses to specialized archives. The largest collections of historical
documents on Yucatan can be found in the
following archives :
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
and Andrews 1979). Luis Ramirez Aznar
(1977) recently located the colonial village of
Cisteil and published a brief account of its history and remains.
Finally, there is a large body of ethnographic data on Yucatecan communities, most
of it dating from the 1930s to the present.
Many of the ethnographic studies contain useful historical data and most include maps and
photographs of village scenes and buildings.
Among the more prominent general ethnographic sources are the works of Redfield
(1941. 1946) and Villa Rojas (1945, 1946,
1969). Individual communities studied include
Merida (Hansen 1934, 1946), Chankom and
Dzitas (Redfield 194 I , 1946, 1950; Redfield
and Villa Rojas 1934), Xcacal (Villa Rojas
1945, 1946). Sudzal (Bonfil Batalla 1962). Baca
(Arias Garcia 1972), Ticul (Thompson 1974a,
1974b), Postunich (Press 1975), Xoy (Rivera
1976), Coba (Rosales de Benavides l976), and
Maxcanu (Valencia Bellavista 1978).
Religious Architecture
9
(1950) has written a brief monograph on the
Convent of San Francisco, and Ruz Menendez
(1976) has recently made a survey of gravestones in the older churches of Merida.
Relatively little is known of the early
churches and chapels that dotted the Yucatecan landscape in the 16th century, mainly because they were eventually replaced and/or
incorporated into the larger and more permanent structures of later periods. Figure 2
shows the location of most of the communities
that still have standing 16th century religious
structures. Only a few of the earliest structures have survived, but only because they are
located in communities that were abandoned
early in the colonial period. Six of these have
been the subject of detailed reports: the
church at Ecab, in northeastern Quintana Roo
(Benavides and Andrews 1979); the open
chapels at Pocboc in Campeche (Messmacher
1966a), Dzibilchaltun in Yucatan (Folan 1970),
and Xcaret (Andrews IV and Andrews 1975),
Villa Real (Escalona Ramos 1943, 1946), and
Tancah (Miller and Farris 1979) in Quintana
Roo. Another 16th century open chapel has
been located in Belize at Lamanai (Indian
Church), though its discoverer erroneously
reported it to be a prehispanic structure (Castells 1904). These studies provide us with our
only record of very early colonial religious
architecture on the peninsula. Studies of similar communities are presently being carried
out in the state of Chiapas by the New World
Archaeological Foundation (Lee and Markman 1977; Lee 1979).
There is relatively little literature on the
early colonial architecture of Middle America,
and scholars have few sources to rely on for
comparative purposes. Only two major studies of early colonial Mexican architecture are
available, namely those of Kubler (1948) and
McAndrew (1965).
Studies of colonial religious architecture
deal primarily with buildings in the state of
Yucatan. The 1945 Cutalogo de Construcriones Rrligiosas del Esrudo de Yucutan is the
most basic source. This two volume catalog is
the result of an extensive field survey of buildings throughout the state and contains hundreds of architectural plans and photographs,
supplemented with historical notes on each
building. Other valuable sources include the
above-mentioned studies of Roys (1952, 1957)
and Garcia Preciat (1944). Pina Chan's (1977)
study of the city of Campeche includes illustrations of many of the religious structures
there. The cathedral of Campeche has been
described in detail by Garcia Preciat (1944).
Most other studies have focused on particular buildings. The cathedral of Merida, one of
the oldest in the New World, has been the Civic and Domestic Architecture
subject of several historical studies by Sierra
O'Reilly (184% Cant6n Rosado (1942), and
Studies of civic architecture are scarce and
Garcia Preciat (1935, 1944). Novelo Erosa are limited to the cities of Merida and Cam-
10
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
FIGURE 2. 16th Century religious structures on the Yucatan Peninsula. Major convent towns are indicated by crosses.
peche. The above-mentioned general studies
of the two cities are useful as introductory
works-particularly
those of Garcia Preciat
(1944) and Pina Chan (1977). A historical catalog of the streets of Merida is also available
(Camara Zavala 1950, 1977).
A number of buildings in Merida have been
the subject of short studies. These include the
P e h Contreras theatre (Camara Zavala 1946),
the University (Ruz Menendez 1961), the
Municipal Palace (Quintal Martin 1961), and
the House of Montejo (Rubio Maiie and
Toussaint 1941; Arrigunaga P e h 1967). A
brief study of portico styles in old homes in
the downtown area is also available (Irigoyen
1979).
A study of historic houses has yet to be undertaken in Yucatan. This is unfortunate, as
many colonial and 19th century houses are being destroyed in the course of contemporary
urban growth. The most common type of
dwelling on the peninsula is the adobe and
thatch house of the native Maya, which has
remained virtually unchanged since prehis-
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
panic times. Robert Wauchope (1938) has
made a n exhaustive study of these dwellings
and their related structures.
Military Architecture (Figure 3)
Most of the fortifications on the peninsula
have been well-documented, both historically
and architecturally. The best overall study of
these structures is that of Garcia Preciat
(1944). The most prominent military constructions on the peninsula are the massive colonial
fortifications of Campeche and Lerma; these
11
have been the subject of several studies, most
notably those of Garcia Preciat (1944), Trueba
Urbina (l960), Calder6n Quijano (1968) and
Pina Chan (1977). The city of Merida also had,
in the past, a number of colonial and 19th century military constructions: city walls, a fort
(the ciiidadela of San Benito), and several garrisons (cuarteles) and powder magazines
(cmsamatas). Most of these have been destroyed, but records of them are available
(Garcia Preciat 1944; Novelo Erosa 1950).
Also available are studies on the colonial forts
of Bacalar (Escalona Ramos 1943; Garcia
FIGURE 3. Colonial and 19th Century Fortifications of the Yucatan Peninsula
12
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
Preciat 1944; Messmacher 1%6b), Champoton Transportation and Communications
(Garcia Preciat 1944; Calderdn Quijano 1968),
There are three studies that cover most asand Sisal (Garcia Preciat (1944), Calderdn
Quijano (1968), and Civeira Taboada (1968). pects of the history of transport and communThe latter report includes architectural plans ications in Yucatan (Irabien de Rosado 1928;
of the 19th century fort. Two other garrisons Ferrer de Mendiolea 1946; Suarez Molina
of unknown date (probably colonial) at Tekax 1977). These studies trace the development of
and Sotuta in the state of Yucatan have been road systems (16th century onwards), ports,
reported by Garcia Preciat (1944). Also of in- piers, lighthouses and shipping (16th century
terest are the small defensive parapets which onwards), railroads ( 1850s onwards), airports
were built at certain locations along the north and airlines (1920s onwards), as well as postal,
coast to repel pirate attacks. These are located telegraph and telephone services.
a short distance inland from the coast. near
coastal oigius (lookouts) of the Colonial pe- Underwater and Nautical Archaeology
riod. I have located one of these parapets just
As in most other parts of the world, historic
south of the port of Chicxulub, and Barrera
Rubio (1978) reports another in the vicinity of underwater archaeology in Yucatan has been
Ixil. Both Chicxulub and Ixil were vigias in dominated by treasure hunters in search of coColonial times (Roys 1957:40). According to lonial wrecks. The peninsula is surrounded by
Barrera Rubio (1978), these parapets were shoals and reefs, where hundreds of ships
have run aground over the last four and a half
built in the early 17th century.
centuries. Although exploration of colonial
wrecks has been extensive, the available literPlantations (Cotton, Sugar and Henequen)
ature is fragmentary (cf. Bush Romero 1961,
As noted above, there are a considerable 1964a, 1964b; Marx 1972). Marx (1971a,
number of plantations in northern and western I97 1 b) has compiled an inventory of colonial
Yucatan. These include 19th century cotton shipwrecks, supplemented with useful historiand sugar plantations, as well as late 19th and cal data. Later wrecks have been neglected.
20th century henequen haciendas. While his- Although they can often be documented in
torical data on individual plantations are some detail through newspaper accounts, as
scarce, the literature on the rural plantation well as insurance and shipping records, little
economy is considerable. The evolution of the has been done ,with 19th and 20th century
rural economy of Yucatan has been the sub- wrecks.
Yucatan has had a small ship-building inject of several studies, the most informative
being those of Cline (1947a). Patch (1975, dustry since colonial times. Known shipyards
(asrillrros) include those of Campeche,
1976, 1977) and Suarez Molina (1977).
More specific studies on the 19th century Lerma, Champoton, Ciudad del Carmen, Santa
cotton and sugar plantations include those of Clara, and Isla Mujeres. These yards have
Cline (1947a, 1947b, 1948) and Suarez Molina produced a variety of wooden-hulled boats:
(1977). The literature on the henequen indus- rowboats, dories. small fishing sloops,
try is voluminous: for a general introduction I medium-sized ocean-going fishing and shrimp
would recommend the studies of Trujillo boats, and small ferries. This whole industry
(1947), Camara Zavala (1947), Aznar Mendoza has been neglected by historians; a historical
(1947), Cline (1947a. 1948a), Chardon (1961), survey of these shipyards and a chronological
Strickon (1963, Manero Ped, (1966), Gon- typology of Yucatecan seacraft is badly
zalez Navarro (1970) and Suarez Molina needed and would be of great value to histori( 1977).
cal archaeology.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
Although little has been written about it, the
fishing industry has always been prominent in
Yucatan. The works of Solis Preciat (1969),
Suarez Molina (1977), and Eaton (1978) do
contain brief accounts of this industry, but a
more comprehensive study would be very useful.
Finally (for general reference purposes), the
above-cited studies of Ferrer de Mendiolea
( 1947) and Suarez Molina (1977) contain valuable information on ports, piers, lighthouses
and shipping activities on the coasts of the
peninsula.
13
tecan communities (see Community and Regional Studies section). Ethnographic reports
often include descriptions of native ritual,
household, and farming implements, many of
which have not changed since prehispanic or
colonial times. Needless to say, many of these
artifacts turn up at historic sites.
Conclusions
Our knowledge of Yucatecan culture, from
Formative times to the present, is far more
impressive than that of many other regions of
the world. Still, anthropological research has
Artifacts
been the domain of prehispanic archaeologists
and modern ethnographers, and history has
Next to nothing is known about historic arti- been a poor cousin, often called upon to reinfacts in Yucatan, as archaeologists and collec- force archaeological and ethnographic frametors alike have been almost exclusively inter- works. Hence, while extensive use has been
ested in prehispanic remains. Nonetheless, made of historical materials, the physical retwo general surveys of the craft industry are mains of post-conquest Yucatan have been
available; these contain a fair amount of his- largely ignored.
torical information, and should be of use to
The primary objective of this paper is to
historical archaeologists (Hernandez Fajardo demonstrate the strong potential for historical
1944; Barrera Vasquez 1979).
archaeology in Yucatan and promote an
Early colonial sites have yielded small col- awareness of the physical remains and historilections of majolica and Spanish olive wares cal materials. Above all, it is a compilation of
but these have not received much analytical sources that can be of use to future research in
attention. The only studies that have dealt historical archaeology in Yucatan, and as
with local colonial ceramics are those of Gog- such, is intended mainly as a source of refergin (1960, 1968) and Ball (1978) but they only ence. The chronological categories and site
identify a few types. In contrast to the situa- typology proposed here may not prove ention in Yucatan, considerable work has been tirely adequate for subsequent research,
carried out on the colonial ceramics of central though it is hoped that they may serve as a
and northern Mexico. The studies of Florence preliminary framework from which more
and Robert Lister (1969, 1974, 1975, 1976a, complex classification schemes can be de1976b, 1978), Seifert (1975, 1977), and Ldpez veloped.
Cervantes (1976) should be of great value to
Not only is there potential for historical
future research in Yucatan.
archaeology in Yucatan but there is also an
Three studies of modern Yucatecan pottery- urgent, growing need to develop this discimaking are available and provide a good de- pline. Many historic sites are presently
scription of the raw materials, techniques and threatened by fast developing changes in the
products of this industry (Renddn 1947; urban and rural landscapes, and unless an inThompson 1958; Arnold 197 I ) .
terest in these remains develops soon, we may
Another source of information on recent ar- lose a valuable portion of the rich cultural
tifacts is the ethnographic literature on Yuca- heritage of the region.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
BAQUEIRO A D U Z E . &WALDO
I would like to thank James E. Ayres for his advice and
assistance in the preparation of this paper. Ronald L.
Michael, Antonio Benavides C. and two anonymous reviewers also offered valuable comments. I am also indebted to Barbara McClatchie Andrews for drafting the
maps that accompany this paper as well as for her editorial
assistance
~ C O C E R
EREZ.
FtiLcENcio
1960 Valladolid. Su Vida de Ayer y Hoy. Merida.
ALMANAQUE
DE ESPINOZA
1942- Compiled and published annually, Merida.
present
P.
1977 Reconocimiento arqueologico de la costa norte
del estado de Campeche. Boletin de la Escuela
de Ciencias Antopologicas de la Univrrsidad de
Yucatan 4(24):64-77. Merida.
1978 Breve addenda al "Reconocimiento arqueologico de la costa norte del estado de Campeche." Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropoldgicas de la Universidad de Yucatan
6(33):4&43. Merida.
ANDKEWS i v .
E. WYLLYS
A N D A. P.
ARIAS GARCIA.
JUAN JESUS
1972 El Grupo Domestic0 en una Localidad Henequenera de Yucatan. Tesis Profesional. Escuela
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
~ R I G U N A C APEON.
JOAQUIN
1967 History of the Montejo House. The Oldest Private Mansion in America. Merida.
ENRIQUE
1947 Historia de la Industria Henequenera desde 1919
hasta nuestros dias. Enciclopediu Yucatanense,
III:727-87.
BALL.
1978 Mani Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropoldgicus de la Universidad de Yucatan 6(33):
32-39. Merida.
1979 La Artesania y Las Artesanias Yucatecas. Un
Panorama Historico. Enciclopediu Yucatanese
X : 161-72.
A. P. ANDREWS
1979 Ecab. Poblado y Provincia del Siglo XVI.
Cuadernos de 10s Centros Regionales. Centro
Regional del Sureste. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
BENAVIDES CASTILLO. ANTONIO AND
B E R N A L . ICNACIO
1962 Bibliografia de Arqueologia Y Etnografia de
Mesoamerica y Noce de Mexico. Memorias del
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia,
VII. Mexico.
PABLO
1894 Apuntes para la Historia, Ceografia y Estadisticu del Partido de Izamal, en el Estado de
Yucatan. Merida.
bNFlL
BATALLA.
GUILLERMO
1962 Diagnostic0 sobre el Hambre en Sudzal, Yucatan. Departamento de lnvestigaciones Antropolugicus, No. 1 1 . Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Mexico
BUSHROMERO.
PABLO
E.
1971 Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan Potters:
Ethics and Emics. American Antiquity 36( )l2:@40.
AZNAK MENDOZA.
1978a Arqueologia e Historia. Novedades de Yucatan,
March 19. Merida.
197813 Las Trincheras, vestigio de una fortificacion del
siglo XVIII. Novedades de Yucatun, February
26. Merida.
BOLIO.
ANDREWS
1975 A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of Xcaret,
Quintana Roo, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Pub. 40. Tulane University,
New Orleans.
ARNOLD. DEAN
BARRERA
Rtisro. ALFREDO
BARREKA
VASQUEZ.ALFKEDO
REFERENCES
ANDKEWS. ANTHONY
1943 La Ciudad Heroica: Historia de Valhdolid.
Merida.
JOSEPHW.
1978 Archaeological Pottery of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. Middle American Research Institute, Pub. 46:69-146. Tulane University, New
Orleans.
I96 I
Nuce la Arqueologia Submarina Mexicana.
Mexico.
1964a Bajo Ius Aguas de Mexico. Mexico.
1964 Under the Waters of Mexico. New York.
CALDEKON
QUIJANO.
JOSE
ANTONIO
1968 Las Murullas de Campeche. Campeche.
CALENDARIO
ESPINOZA
185 I- Compiled and published annually. Merida.
1942
CAMAKA
ZAVALA.
GONZALO
1946 Historia del Teatro Peon Contreras. Mexico.
1947 Historia de la Industria Henequenera hasta 1919.
Enciclopedia Yucatanese, III:657-725.
1950 Catulogo Histdrico de MPrida. Merida.
1977 Catalogo Historico de MPrida. Merida.
15
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
C A N T O h P E Z . ANTONIO
1946 Historia de la Imprenta y del Periodismo. Enciclopedia Yucatanese, V:5-108.
ROSAW.FRANCISCO
CANTON
1942 La Catedral de MPrida en el aizo de 1942.
Merida.
CASTELLS.
F. DE
P.
1904 The Ruins of Indian Church in British Honduras.
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal
26(2):32-39.
C A T A L O G O DE
CONSTRUCCIONES
RELIGIOSAS
DEL
ESTADO
DE
YUCA
TAN
CHARWN.
ROLAND
P. E.
1961 Some Geographic Aspects of Plantation Agriculture in Yucatan. Ph.D. dissertation. University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
TABOADA.
WGUEL
1968 Crdnicas de la Isla del Carmen. Campeche.
1974 Tekax: Cuna e Inspiracidn de Ricardo Palmerin.
Mexico.
CLINE.
HOWARD
1947a Regionalism and Society in Yucatan, 1825-1850.
Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1947b The ”Aurora Yucateca” and the spirit of enterprise in Yucatan. 182 1-1847. Hispanic American
Historical Reviebv 27( 1):3@60.
1948a The henequen episode in Yucatan. Inter-American Economic Affairs, 2.
1948b The sugar episode in Yucatan. 1825-1850. InterAmerican Economic Affairs, I .
1972- ( E d . ) Guide to Ethnohistoric Sources. Hand
1975 book of Middle American Indians. vols. 12-15.
DAVIDSON. WILLIAM
ESCALONA
RAMOS.
ALBERTO
1943 Algunas construcciones de tipo colonial en Quintana Roo. Anales del Instituto de Inuestiguciones EstPticas 3( IO): 1740. Universidad Nacional Autcinoma de Mexico, Mexico.
1946 Algunas ruinas prehispanicas en Quintana Roo.
BoIet;n de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografia y
Estadistira 61(3):513-628. Mexico.
EscoFiri.
CARLOS
1932 Mhrida Viejo. 1831-1931. Merida.
1945 Prepared by Luis Vega Bolanos, J. I. Rubio
Mane, J. Garcia Preciat, A. Barrera Vasquez and
J. Fernandez. 2 Vols. Mexico.
ClVElRA
1957 Quintana Roo: Mexico’s Empty Quarter. M.A.
thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
v.
1967 A Study of Settlement Patterns, Cozumel Island.
Quintana Roo, Mexico. M.A. thesis. Memphis
State University, Memphis.
EATON.
JACKD.
1978 Archaeological Survey of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. Middle American Researck Institute, Pub. 46:1-67.
E H A N O V E TRUJILLO. CARLOS (ED.)
1944- Enciclopedia Yucatanese. 9 Vols. Mexico.
I95 I
1977 Enciclopediu Yucutenese. 9 Vols. 2nd edition.
Mexico.
EDWARDS.
CLINTON R.
1954 Geographical Reconnaissance in the Yucatan
Peninsula. Ms. Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.
FARRISS.
NANCY
M.
1978 Nucleation vs. dispersal: the dynamics of population movement in colonial Yucatan. Hispanic
American Historical Reuieic. 58(2):187-2 16.
FERRER
DE MENDIOLEA.
GABRIEL
1938 Nuesfru Ciudad. MPrida de Yucutdn (15421938). Merida.
1940 liumal. Monogrujia Histdrica. Merida.
1946a Historia de la Historiografia. Enciclopedia Yucatanese, V:81546.
1946b L a Ciudad de Merida. Enciclopediu Yucutunese.
VI:5 17-72.
1947 Historia de las Comunicaciones. Enciclopediu
Yircatenese, III:507-62.
FOLAN.
WILLIAM J.
1970 The Open Chapel of Dzibilchaltun. Yucatan.
Middle Americun Research Institiitr, Publ. 26:
18 1-99. Tulane University, New Orleans.
GARCIA
CALUL.
ANTONIO ET AL. IEDS.)
1979 Enciclopedia Yucutanese. Actiidizuci6n y A n pliucicin. Tomo X. Merida.
GARCIA
PRECIAT.
JOSE
1935 L a catedral de Merida. Archivo Espatiol de Arte
y Aryiieo1og;a I1:73-93. Madrid.
1944 Historia de la Arquitectura. Enciclopedia Yirccitunesr. IV:409-506.
CbGGIN.
JOHNM .
1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: an introductory study.
Yule Uniuersit?; Piihlicutions in Anthropology,
62. New Haven.
1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: types of the
sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Yak Unicersit?; Publications in Anthropology, 72. New
Haven.
mMEZ
RUL.FRANCISCO
1923 Handbook of Yiicatun. Merida.
~ M E UGARTE.
Z
ELENA
AND
A. PAGAZA
1937 Bibliograjk Sumariu del Territorio de Quintana
Roo. Mexico.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
16
GONZALEZ
NAVARRO.
MOSES
1970 Raza y Tierru. La Guerru de Custas y el Henequen. El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico.
GUSSINYER. JORDt
1972 Segunda temporada de salvamento arqueolcigico
en la presa de “La Angostura,” Chis. ICACH,
2nda epoca, 5441-56. Mexico.
HANDLER.
JEROME
S. A N D F. W. LANGE
1978 Plantation Slavery in Barbados: A n Archaeological and Historical Incestigation. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
HANSEN.
ASAELT.
1934 The Ecology of a Latin American City. In Race
and Culture Contacts (E. B. Reuter, ed.): 12442.
New York.
1946 Merida y el Interior del Estado. Enciclopedia
Yucatenrse, VI:423-54.
HARRISON.
MARGARET
A. L.
1976 Sources cited. Handbook of Middle American
Indians, 16:3-255.
HARRISON,
PETER
1979 The Lobi1 Postclassic Phase in the southern interior of the Yucatan peninsula. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory (N. Hammond and
G. R. Willey, eds.): 189-207. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
HERNANDEZ
FAJARDO.
JOSE
1944 Historia de las Artes Menores. Enciclopedia
Yucatanese, IV:823-99.
HIJUELOS.
FAUSTO
A.
1942 (Ed.) Mhrida. Monografia. Merida.
1946 MZrida Antigua y Moderna. Merida.
LRABIEN DE
ROSAW.
MANUEL
DE
1928 Historia de /os Ferrocariles de Yucatan. Merida.
IRIGOYEN.R E N A N
1979 Los Frontones en la arquitectura de Merida.
Novedades de Yucatan, April 15. Merida.
KUBLER.
GEORGE
1948 Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth Century.
2 Vols. Yale University Press, New Haven.
LEE.THOMAS
A., JR..A N D S. MARKMAN
1977 The Coxoh Colonial Project and Coneta, Chiapas, Mexico: A Provincial Maya Village under
the Spanish Conquest. Historical Archaeology
I1:5646.
LEE.THOMAS
A. JR.
1979 Coapa, Chiapas: A sixteenth-century Coxoh
Maya village on the Camino Real. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory (N. Hammond and
G. R. Willey, eds.):20%22. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
LEY FEDERAL
SOBRE MONUMENTOS
Y ZONAS
ARQUEOLOGICOS. ARTISTICOS,
E HISTORICOS
1972 lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia,
Mexico.
LISTER.
FLORENCE
C. A N D R. H. LISTER
I969 Majolica, Ceramic Link between Old World and
New. El Palacio 76(2).
I974 Maiolica in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 8 : 17-52.
I975 Non-Indian Ceramics from the Mexico City
Subway. El Palacio 81(2):2548.
1976a Distribution of Mexican Maiolica along the
Northern Borderlands. Papers of the Archaeolonical Society. sf. New Mexico 3: 11340.
1976b A Descriptive Dictionary for 500 Years of Spanish Tradition Ceramics, 13th through 18th Centuries. Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series 1.
1976c Italian Presence in Tin Glazed Ceramics of Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 10:2841.
1978 The First Mexican Maiolicas: Imported and Locally Produced. Historical Archaeology 12: 1-24
LOPEZCERVANTES.
GONZALO
1976 Ceramica Colonial en la Ciudad de Mexico. Coleccidn Cientlj(ica, Arqueologia 38. Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
MALDONADO
CARDENAS.
RUBEN
1976 Enfoques particulares del salvamento en arqueologia. In Las Fronteras de Mesoamerica. XIV
Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia (Tegucigalpa, 1975), 2:283-87.
Mexico.
MANERO
PEON. ENRIQUE
1966 La Anarquia Henequenera de Yucatan. Merida.
MARTINEZ
H.. VICTORM.
1936
1941
1943
1946
Geogrufia Moderna de Yucatan. 3rd ed. Merida.
Geografin Moderna de Yucatan. 7th ed. Merida.
Geografin Moderna de Yucatan. 8th ed. Merida.
Geografia Politica, Demografica y Economica de
Yucatan. Enciclopedia Yucatanese, VI:455-5 16.
MARX.ROBERT
F.
I97 l a Nuujrugios en Aguas Mexicanas. Mexico.
197 I b Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere, 14921825. New York.
1972 Sea Fever. New York.
MCANDREW.
JOHN
1965 The Open-Air Churches of Sixteenth Century
Mexico. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
MESSMACHER.
MIGUEL
1966a Capilla abierta en el Camino Real de Campeche.
Boletin del I.N.A.H., 24:13-21. Mexico.
1966b El fuerte de San Felipe de Bacalar. Boletin del
I.N.A.H., 23: 19-22. Mexico.
17
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN YUCATAN: A PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK
MILLER,
ARTHUR
G . A N D N. M . FARRISS
1979 Religious synchretism in Colonial Yucatan: the
archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence
from Tancah, Quintana Roo. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory (N. Hammond and G.
Willey, eds.):22340. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
MOLINA
MONTES.
AUGUSTO
1975 La Restauracion Arquitectonica de Edificios Arqueologicos. Coleccidn Cient$ca, 2 I . Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
NOVELO
EROSA.
PAULINO
1950 Esrudio sobre el Conaento de San Fruncisco y la
Ciudadela. Merida.
PACHECO
BLANCO.
MARIA
1928 Geografia del Estado de Campeche. Merida.
PACHECO
CRUZ.
SANTIAGO
1958 Geografia del Territorio de Quintana Roo. Boletin de la Sociedud Mexicana de Geograjh y
Estadistica 85( 1-3): 159-3 18. Mexico.
PATCH,
ROBERT
1975 Yucatan y Merida en el siglo XVII. Boletin de la
Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Uniuersidad de Yucatan 3( 13):9-23. Merida.
1976 La formacion de estancias y haciendas en Yucatan durante la colonia. Boletin de la Escuela de
Ciencias Antropologicas de la Uniaersidad de
Yucatan 4( 19):21-6 I. Merida.
1977 El mercado urbano y la economia campesina en
el siglo XVIII. Boletin de lu Escuela de Ciencias
Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan
5(27):5246. Merida.
PATRON
PENICHE.
PRUDENCIO
1959 Espita. Su historia desde la epoca mas remota.
Espita.
PEREZ MARTINEZ. HECTOR
1943 Bibliografia del Estado de Campeche. Campeche.
PINA
CHAN.ROMAN
1977 Campeche durante el Periodo Colonial. Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
PRESS. k W l N
1975 Tradition and Adaptation: Life in a Modern
Yucatan Maya Village. Westport, Conn.
PRIEGO
DE ARJONA.
MREYA
1944 Bibliografia General Yucatanese. Enciclopedia
Yucatanese. Vol. VIII.
QUINTAL
MARTIN.FIDELIO
1961 Merida y su Palacio Municipal. Historia Mexicans V (4). El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico.
RAM~REZ
AZNAR,
LUIS
1977 Cisteil. El Historico Drama de Jacinto Cnnek.
Merida.
REDFIELD.
ROBERT
1941 The Folk Culture of Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1946 Los Mayas actuales de la peninsula Yucatanese.
Enciclopedia Yucatanese, VI:7-30.
1950 A Village that chose Progress: Chan Kom Reoisited. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
, AND A. VILLA
ROJAS
1934 Chan Kom. A Maya Village. Curnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 448. Washington.
RELACIONES
DE YUCATAN
1 8 9 g In Coleccion de Documentos Iniditos Rela
1900 tivos a1 Descubrimiento, Conyuista y Organizacion de las Antiguas Posesiones Espanolas de
Ulframar. 2nd Series. vols. 1 1 (1898; RY vol. 1)
and 13 (1900; RY vol. 2). Madrid.
RENDON.
SYLVIA
1947 Notas sobre la alfareria indigena de la peninsula
de Yucatan. Reoista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 9: 107-23. Mexico.
RIVERA,
MARIE-ODILE
1976 Una Comunidad Maya en Yucatan. Mexico.
ROSALES
DE BENAVIDES.
MARGARITA
1976 Analisis de la situacion socioeconomica en
Coba, Quintana Roo. Cuadernos de 10s Centros,
26: 128-74. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia, Mexico.
Rous. RALPH
L.
1952 Conquest Sites and the Subsequent Destruction
of Maya Architecture in the Interior of Yucatan.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 596,
Contr. 9. Washington.
1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 613.
Washington.
Rue10 M A N E .
JORGE
IGNACIOA N D M. TOUSSAINT
1941 La Casu de Montejo en MPrida. Mexico.
Ruz MENENDEZ,
RODOLFO
I%I
El antiguo edificio de la Universidad de Yucatan.
Merida.
I976 Ensayos Yucntanenses. Merida.
RYDER.
JAMES W.
1977 Internal Migration in Yucatan: Interpretation of
Historical Demography and Current Patterns. In
Anthropology und History in Yucatan (Grant D.
Jones, ed.): 191-231. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1
18
SABLOFF,
PAULAL. W.
1975 Changing patterns of dwelling distribution (18471972). In A Study of Changing Pre-Columbiun
Commercial Systems. The 1972-1973 Seasons at
Cozumel, Mexico ( J . A. Sabloff and W. L.
Rathje, e d s . ) : 2 9 4 . Monographs of the Peabody
Museum, No. 3. Harvard University, Cambridge.
&HOLES.
FRANCE
V . A N D R. L. ROYS
1948 The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel.
Carnegie institution of Washington, Publ. 506.
Washington.
SEIFERT.
DONNA
J.
1975 Archaeological Majolicas of the Teotihuacan
Valley. Actas del XLI Congreso Intemacional
de Americanistas (Mexico 1974) I :23%5 1. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
Mexico.
1977 Archaeological Majolica of the Rural Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Iowa, Iowa City.
SIERRA
O'REILLY.
JUSTO
1845 La Catedral de Merida. Registro Yucateco, 11:
13 1 4 2 . Merida.
SOLIS PRECIAT.
FRANCISCO
1969 Coleccidn de Estitdios Econcimicos Regionales.
Yucatan. Campeche. Quintana Roo. Sistema
Bancos de Comercio, Mexico.
STRICKON. ARNOLD
1965 Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan. America
Indigena XXV ( 1):35-63.
SUAREZ
MOLINA.
VICTOR
1956 Fichas bibliograficas de visitantes a Yucatan.
Boletin Bibliograjko de la Secretaria de Hacienda y CrPdito Publico. Mexico.
1977 La Evolucion Economica de Yucatan a traves
del Siglo XIX. Universidad de Yucatan. Mexico.
1974b Aires de Progreso: Cambio Social en un Pueblo
Maya de Yucatan. Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mexico.
THOMPSON,
PHILIPc
1978 Tekanto in the Eighteenth Century. Ph.D. dissertation. Tulane University, New Orleans.
TRUEBA
URBINA.
ALBERTO
1960 L a Muralla de Campeche. Biblioteca Campechana, 14. Campeche.
TRUJILLO.
NARCISA
1947 Las Primeras Maquinas Desfibradoras de Henequen. Enciclopedia Yucatanense, III:627-56.
VALENCIA
BELLAVISTSA.
JUAN
1978 Maxcanu. Tesis Profesional. Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan. Merida.
VEGAC.. JUAN RAMON
1967 Geografia Novisima de Yucatan. Merida.
VILLAROJAS.ALFONSO
1945 The Maya of East Central Quintana Roo. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 559.
Washington.
1946 Los Mayas del Actual Territorio de Quintana
Roo. Enciclopedia Yucantanense, VI:3 1 4 2 .
1969 The Maya of Yucatan. Handbook of' Middle
Americun Indians 7:244-75.
WAUCHOPE.
ROBERT
1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of their Archaeological Significance. Carnegie Institittion of
Washington, Publ. 502. Washington.
1964- Handbook of Middle Americun Indians. 16
1976 Vols. University of Texas Press. Austin.
YADEUN.
JUAN
1978 Arqueologia de la Arqueologia. Reaistu Mexicanu de Estudios Antropoldgicos 24(2):152-9 I .
THOMPSON,
RAYMOND
H.
1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Society f o r American Archaeology, Memoirs, No.
15.
THOMPSON.
RICHARD
A.
1974a The Winds of Tomorrow. Social Change in a
Maya Town. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
ANTHONY
P. ANDREWS
DEPARTMENT
O$ANTHROP~LOCY
HAMILTON
COLLEGE
CLINTON.
NEWYORK 13323