This chapter adc-lresses several topics relevant to tire iclentificatiol of thepreserlce of a royal corrrt at Tikal, the physical markers of such a court,and sorne specific examples of the bench type (identified herein as a"throne") as a marker of courtly activity. The importance of the throne asan iclentifier of the presence of the royal court is cliscussed with specificexamples from the Central Acropolis of rikal, incltiding several separatestructures that served as throne rootns.

The reiationship of the Central Acropolis to the ceremonial center of Tikalis ilir-rstratecl in Figures 3.1 zurd 3.2. Although the harcl data inrroked il thischapter are clrar,n mainly frorn this one architecturai c-omplex, a brclacierrange of the throne concept is reviewecl along r,r.ith thoughti on the r.,arietyin form of tl-ris courtly rnarker. The central Acropolis at Tikal represents agror-rping of palace structures fron-r r,vhich a mtrltiplicitl, of evidence (Harri_son 1970) indicates a focus of the ro1,ai court of this city. Although the pri-rnary concern of this chapter is to examile the variety of reception thronesas evidence of court frrnction, a few other relatecl topics aie cliscussed.These include consideration of some markers that iclentify a royal colrrt(r,l'ith a focus upon the throrre), acl,arowledging tirat the terrn ,,tirrone,'isborroived frorn the European base; the role of such a court at Tikal in partic-ular; and identification of rooms anc'l,/or structures where royal ftrnctionstook prlace il the Central Acropolis at Tikal (lvitir thrones sen.ing as the pri-mary indicator). A general clefinition of tl-re royal court is providecl i1 the lir-troduction (Chapter 1)by Inon-rata and Houston in volume t of this series.

At Tikal the seat of tire royal court rnovecl over time from orre locale toanother. Althor,rgh the court per se consistecl of the people r,r,ho occr-rpiedthe positions-political and religior-rs-Lrporl w,hicir- it iepenclecl as partof the sociopolitical structure of the society (see Inomata and Holrston,

Tl r ro t tc s tt t r d Tl t rtt t tc Sf lltclti I t's i t t t I t c C t tt t rtl .Aci tr|p115

aLt-FiLl iji3

'.,- t"fj

FIGURE 3.1 Nlarp of Central Tikal The Centr

tlre center of the city, acljacent to lemples I an

Chapter 1 in Voh-rme 1), tl"rese people reqttire,

sociatecl features of architecture that enable

cl-rties. This settir-rg has been perceived, at Tilto be located indoors ivithin the strr,tctr'rres c

grouping cktsest to the ceremonial cerrter of '

lis, the base datt'r sollrce for this chapter.

Thrones and Throne Structures inthe Central Acropolis of Tikal as an

Expression of the Royal CourtPETER D. HARRISON

rd Throne Structures inAcropolis of Tikal as anon of the Royal Court?ETER D. HARRISON

everal topics relevant to the identification of thet at Tikal, tire pl-rysical markers of such a colrrt,Lples of the bench type (identified lrerein as acourtly activity. The importance of the throne as

nce of the royal court is discussed with specific'al Acropolis of Tikai, including several separatethrone rooms.3entral Acropolis to the ceremonial cetlter of Tikal1 ald 3.2. Aithough the harcl data inr.oked in thisy from this one architectural conrplex, a broaderpt is reviewed along n ith thonghts on the varietyrrker. The Central Acropolis at Tikal represents a

rres from rvhich a multiplicity of eviclence (Harri-s of the royal cor-rrt of this city. Although the pri-rter is to examine the variety of reception thronesction, a few other relt-rted topics are discussed.ion clf sorne markers that iclentify a royal conrttrone), acknowledgirrg that the term "throne" isean base; the role of sr-rch a court at Tikal in partic-Irooms and/or structures r,vhere royal functions\cropolis at Tikal (rvith thrones sen.ing as the pli-ldefinition of the royal court is provided in the In-Inomata and Houston in Voiume 1 of tiris series.royal court moved over time from one locaie to

r,rrt per se consisted of the people who occupiedLnd religious-upolt rvhich it depended as part:ture of the society (see Inon-rata ancl Hcuston,

Tln'tlrts tutLl Tltrttttc Strttctttrcs iu tlrc Ct'rttrLtl Acroltolis oJ Tiknl

FICURE 3.1 lvl;rp of Central Tlkirl. The Central Acropolis is located atthe center of the city, acljacent to Temples I ancl II.

Chapter 1 in Volr-rme 1), these people reqtrired a physicerl settir-rg and as-

sociated features of architectr-rre that enalrled the performance of theirduties. This setting has been perceived, at Tikal, as well as at other sites,to be loctrted indoors rvithin the structlrres called "palaces." The parlace

grouping closest to the ceremonial center of Tikal is the Cer-rtltrl Acropo-lis, the base data source fclr this chapter.

75

-:-.-r.rl-l'-

'},rlnsc]_r.

.\, iY

{r -

-i--'-i'r' l: l,i

.t -

. i'^ \_

\s@;,.! ''

L

,-t

76 Pcter D. Hnrrison

FICURE 3.2 Deiail of the ceremonial center of the city rvith the religioustemples to the north arrd the more secular palaces of the Central Acropolisin close proximity to the south.

Hor,r'ever, we know from archaeology (Laporte 1993) that temple andpalace complexes also were active in the region of the Lost World com-plex at Tikal. Furthermore, other palace groupings occut identified as

Croup F, Croup G, and the Bat Palace, which likely served as seats of theroyal court. As palace groupings, these sets of architecture are also candi-dates fclr royal court activities (Harrison 1999). Fewer excavation data arearrailable from these locales, although I have favored their use as seats ofthe royal collrt elsewhere (Harrison and Aldrer,vs 1998).

Cross-cultural comparisons with several markers of other recognizedroyal courts were examined (Harrison 1996,7998, 7999), including thecourt of Louis XIV in France and the royal Inka court of Cuzco. The mark-ers examined in that study urcluded the Llse of lirrerl, the use of thrones,and the association of church and state. The conclusion was that suclr

Tlu'ottes ottd Throtrc Structtrrcs iu tlrc Ccntrnl Acropo

markers con'rpared far.'orably with the feattsr"rch that the existence of a royal court cou1r

Maya aud tl-rat its plrrposes and functions vcultures. This chapter focuses r-rpon the speciings used exciusively for throne-reception. Tr

to examiue the fluctions of a royai court belTikal. The next steps are to compare the situaforrn of thrones at other sites; the epigraplqualities of spiritualityi the solrrce rnaterial fcas a variable; and decoration (or lack of it) arof tlre portable throne will then be discussedat Tikal and relerrance to sonrce material. Firat Tikal, its clistribution in residential strubuilding, and thrones in nonfamily residence

The Functions of a Royt

Aside from the basic fur-rction of validating a(as describecl in the definition prorrided in {

pertir-rent official appeared in his rrariotrs rolefice-the "throne." Tire rrariety of fr_rnctionrseat are best found depicted on painted vess,riod (a.o. 650-900). The largest repository offound in the Mayn Vtse Book (fir.,e volumesI9B9-1997). This source is particulariy usefiphotographed tising a special roil-out technicobserrre the whclle sceue that f-iad been paidrawback of this solrrce is that many of the r

r,vhich lin-rits their lrsefr-rlness. Most of the ,

Tikal or other knor,r,n sites. The breadth of srallow comparisons l,r,,ith archaeological situalthat are clepicted in architectural settings, ir

outdoors, iuclucle: the reception of tribute gocprisoners invoh..ing the presence of miiitar1977); receyttion of visiting digr-ritaries displal3.3); apparent scenes of ritual divination (Filescelres of accession rittral (File 2695 [from Timestic family scenes (File K5421, Kerr 1992).

Benches, Thrones, and theirthe Lowlands Compared

The topic of benches in general and thrones"type" is not a simple 5s[ject. Benches represmous variet), in form and context, as weil

Pctcr D. Hnrrison

ceremonial center of the citl' r,r.ith the religior-rshe more secular palaces of tire Central Acropolisruth.

)m archaeology (l-aporte 1993) that temple and3re active in the region of the Lost World corn-re, other paiace groupings occLlr, identified as

re Bat Palace, r'vhich likely serl'ed as seats of theupings, these sets of architecture are also candi-ities (Harrison 1999). Fer,r'er excavation data are

es, althorlgh I have farrored their trse as seats of(Harrison and Andrervs 1998).

sons lr,ith several markers of other recognizedned (Harrison 1996, 7998, 1999), including therce alld the royal Inka court of Cuzco. The mark-[y included the use of livery, the use of thrones,nurch and state. The conclusion was that such

Tln'ttrrcs ntrtl Tltrotr StrtrcttLrt's itt tlrc Cctrtral Acropolis o.f Tiknl 77

markers compirred favorably with the feattrres of Classic Maya cultnre,sr-rch that the existence of a loyal cor-rrt could be accepted for the ancientMayt.1 3t1.1 that its ptlrposes ancl furrcticxrs were similar to those clf othercultures. This chapter focuses tlpon the specific role of thrones and builcl-ings r-rsecl exclusively for throne-reception. To proceed, it is r-recessary firstto examine the functions of a roytrl court before anariyzing the thrones atTikal. The next steps are to compare the situation at Tikal witl-r the Lrse andform of thrones at other sites; the epigrerphy that distinguishes thronequalities clf spirituality; the sollrce materiirl fclr the constrtrction of thronesas a variable, and clecoration (or lack of it) and the reirsons for it. Tfie roleof the portable throne r,r,ill then be discr-rssed, with partictriar import.rnceat Tikal ancl relevance to solirce n-raterial. Finaily, we focus on the throneat Tikal, its clistribr-rtion in resicler-rtial strLlctllres, the separate thronebuilding, and thrones in r-ronfamily resiclences followed by conclusions.

The Functions of a Royal Court

Aside from the basic function of vtrlidathg anci consolidirtir-rg the society(as describecl in the c.lefinition provided in Chapter 1 of Volume 1), ttrepertinent offici;rl appearecl in his rrariotrs rclles seated r-rpttn the seat of of-fice-the "throne." The vrrriety of functions dispensed from this royalseat are best for-rncl depicted on painted vessels from the Late Classic pe-riod (,+.o. 650-900). The largest repository of dtrta for this type of scene isfound in the Mtryn Vnst' Boolc (five voh-rmes, publishecl by Justin Kerrf9B9-1997). This source is particularly useful, as the images har.e beenphotogriiphed r-rsing a special roll-or-rt technique that;rllort,s the viewel toobsen,e the u.,hole scene that had been paintecl cylinclrically Tire onedrawback of this source is that many of the l'essels are Llnpro\/enienced,lvhich limits tl-reir usefulness. Most of the \/essels cited here are fromTikal or other known sites. The breadth of sulrject ancl richness of detaila1low comparisons with archaeological siturations. Some of the flinctionsthat are clepicted in architectr-rr;'rl settings, inch,rcling both indoors andoutdoors, incltrde: the receptit'rn of tribute goods (Figure 3.3); receptior-r ofprisoners inr,olving the presence of military guards (File 680 in Kerr1977); reception of visiting clignitaries displaying personal Iivsry (Figure3.3); app.rrent scenes of ritr.ral clivintrtion (File 1453 in Kerr' 1981); possiblescenes of accession ritual (File 26c)5 [from Tikal] in Kerr 1985); ancl clo-mestic family scelles (File K5421, Kerr 1c)97).

Benches, Thrones, and their Forms inthe Lowlands Compared to Tikal

The topic of benches in general and thrones in particular as otle bencl-r"type" is r-rot a simple subject. Benches represent a dataset that has enor-molts variet), in fclrm and context, as \,\,ell trs changes orrer time. Fclr

1'"-"I

I

78 Pctcr D. Hnrrison

FIGURE 3.3 Paintecl scene on a burial vessel from Tikal slror,r,ing presentationof a jagr-rar skin (Kerr, File No. 2697). Note also the livery of the tlibute-giversand the fringed cover of the thlcxre (courtesy of Kerr Associates).

benches, the fr-rnction has a very broad range, from completely unl.:nownto specified interpretirre functions slrch as sleeping platforms and

thron€s. Within the category of thrones, the single unifying element is

that a ruler (or other high official) sat upon them. The range of fttnctionsserved bv a throne is as broad as its forms, althor-rgl"r the relationship be-

tween these two variables is not known. The throne serves to seat a per-

sonage in a symbolically elerzated position at a higher level thau those

who are being received. The range of this function l-ras already been dis-

clrssed by several scholars (Coe and Kerr 1998; Harrison 1996; Hor-rston

1996; Inomata, Chapter 2 in Volume 1) and is snmmarized above.The throne forrn is likewise diverse throughout the Maya lolvlarrds, and

it is appropriate to cite sotne of the better-l..nolt n examples here. Probablythe most straightfonvard statement that can be made here about Tikal'scontribution to the fielcl of throne constructiou is that the1, 31s tl-re sim-

plest, plainest, least-decorated thrones in the loit'lands. Highly decoratedthrones irarre been uncor,ered at rtumerous sites, many of them much

smaller and presumably less powerful than Tikal. Among these are exam-

ples from La Milpa, in northern Belize (Hammond 1998), whele a filelydecorated throne with a carved front panel \vas uncovered in a palace set-

ting. At Dos Pilas, another example was excatrated under the ar-rspices of

Artl-rur Demarest; the throne had sun deities as armrests and dr-rck-bil1ed

(crocodilian?) figures supporting the seat in pseudo-Atlantean fashion.Furthern-Lore, r'l'e have the entire class of throne-benches that are deco-

rated on the seat rim by a sky-band, as ou the bench in Strltctttre 66C at

Copan. This form of decoration provides yet another level of distinctionin the function of thrones (Webster et al. 1998). This particr-rlarr type of

decoration sets the supported persollage aborre the sky$311d, suggestinga cosmological element of both celestial locatior"r and attributes to the

Tlmtnes nrrtl Tltrtttrc Structrrras in thc Ceutrnl Acropolis

seated individual. Benches of this type are mlvith the site of Copan but are also known a

known at Tikarl. The difference between the r

mundane r.arieties is discussed below with rtterminology.

Perhaps the most celebrated example of decc

Throne 3 of Piedras Negras (Baudez and Bequiintricately carved backscreen and legs usingcarving techniques. More recently, the t-rer,vlv

throne in the Cross Croup (Temple XIX) at P

1999) is made of carr,ed limestone and depictrintricacy may rival Throne 3 of Piedras Negrasa feature utterly absent trt Tikal apart from exte

decoration. Whv l,r'as sr,rch a large city with prtand wealth also the location of the plainest thrccials? The answer is lelated in part to the ar-rste

at Tikal and is reflected in the architecture as v

duced the so-called central Peten style of archilcurately the "Tikal style"), the primar), featurwith ernphasis on metric tonnage of fill. Apart I

horizontal and vertical planes to create a boxlarchitectural style is almost as plain as the be

mentary reflects r-rpon the complexity of variethe Tikal thrones, only upolr the apparent abser

The Epigraphy of Thror

Steve Houston has pointed or-rt the knolvn e

terms in the epigraphy of hieroglyphic textrthrones (Houston, personal communication, 19

though rare has turned Lrp at several locations1524 irr Kerr 1989; Robertson 1985:Figure 227).

yet been translated but is found on an irnage(picturecl in Coe and Kerr 1998). This same rareof 96 Glypirs from Palenque. Holrston strggestsa reference to an informal type of throne for t

honorcd position, whereas the untranslated ter,

concept, as described above, invoking the axis r

alted, seated subject. This concept chtrmpions ;tiai versr-rs the mlurclane ir-r the function of throt

One cor-rclusion at this point is that thrones rvariation in form with variables such as region,tical, situartional functions but aiso refiect an imvariable related to mundane verslrs celestial rol

Pctcr D. Hnrrisort Tltroncs ortLi Tltrtlrc Structtrrcs irt tlrc Catttrnl l'svoytolis o.f Tiknl

n a br-rrial vessel from Tikal shon'inEl presentation

2697). Note also the livery of the tlibr'rte-givers

trone (cor-rrtesl' tlf Kerr Associates)'

r very btoad range, from con'rpletely r'rnknou'nr tunctions sr-ch as s\eepr.ng p\atiornns and.

;ory of thrones, the single unifying elernent isofficial) sat upon them. The raltge of functions

road as its forms, although the relationship be-i is not larown. The throne serves to seat a per-elerrated position at a higher level than those

lhe range of this function has already been dis-s (Coe and Kerr 1998; Harrison 1996; Hor,rstonin Volume 1) and is summarized arbove.rise diverse throughout the Maya lolvlands, andne of the better-knon n examples here. Probablystatement that can be made here about Tikal'srf throrre constructicxr is that they are the sim-'ated thrones in the lolvlands. Highly decorated/ered at llrlilrerolls sites, many of them mltchess powerful than Tikal. Among these are exam-rrthern Belize (Hammond 1998), where a finelyrrrred front panel was uncor,ered in a palace set-r example was excarrated under the auspices ofrne had sr-rn deities as armrests and duck-billedporting the seat in pseudo-Atlantean fashion.Lhe entire class of tl-rrone-benches that are cleco-r sky-band, as on the bench in Structure 66C atrration pror.ides yet another level of distit-rctions (Webster et al. 1998). This particular type ofrted personage above the sky-band, suggestingrf both celestiai location ar-rd attributes to the

seated ir-rclividual. Benches of this type are most commonly associatedwith the site of Copan but are also kuowu at Paler-rqure. They are LrIl-

known at Tikal. The difference betweer-l the celestial throne and moremundarle varieties is discussed below with reference to the epigraphiclernrirrologl

Perhaps the most celebrarted example of rlecoration is that exhibitecl onThrone 3 of Piedras Negras (Batidez and Bequilin 1984: plate 61), rvith itsintricately carved backscreen and legs tlsing three-dimensional stone-calving techniques. More recently, the newly discorrered Early Classicthrone in the Cross Gror-rp (Tempie XIX) at Palenclue (Robertson et al.\999) is n.1de of can'ed limestone and depicts a sllccessioll of lords. Itsintricacy nray rival Throne 3 of Piedras Negras for decorative indulgence,a featnre utterly absent tit Tikal apart from exterior monunental bnildingdecoratiorr. Why was sLrch a large city with prolonged politicai influenceand wealth also the location of the plainest tJrrones to seat its highest offi-ciais? The answer is related in part to the ar,rsterity o1 t1tt" that prevaileclat Tikal and is reflected in the architecture .rs well. Despite ha"'ir.rg intro-duced the so-called centrai Peten style of errchitectr-rre (probably more ac-

curately the "Tikal style"), the primary features of this style are heightwith emphasis on metric tonnage- of fili. Apart from the use of alternatinghorizontal ancl vertical planes to create a boxlike series of shadows, thearchitectural style is almost as plain as the benches. None o{ this com-mentary reflects upon the complexity of rrariety of fon.tr and context ofthe Tikal thrones, only upon the apparent absence of decoration.

The Epigraphy of Thrones

Sterre Houstoll has pointed or-rt the known existetrce of two differeutterms in the epigraphy of hieroglyphic texts, both of which refer tothrones (I{or-rston, persotlal conlrrlunication, 1999). One is fs;rrt, i,vhich al-

thor"igh rare has tr-rrnecl Lrp 3f sgvgl;1l locations including Palenque (Fiie1524 in Kelr 1989; Robertson 1985:Figure 227). The second term has rrot

yet been translated but is fotrnd ou eru image of an enthroned figr-rri-ne

(pictured ir-r Coe and Kerr 1998). This same rare glyph occurs in the Tabletof 96 Glypirs frorn P.rlenqtre. Honston sr-rggests that the first terrn (fu:;rrr) is

a Leference to trn informal tltpre of throne for the "high seat," a sociallyhonored position, whereas tlre lurtranslarted term is more cosmological inconcept, as described abot'e, invoking the axis mttudi on behaif of the ex-

alted, searted subject. This concept champions an ctpposition of the celes-

tial versns the munclane in the function of thrones.One conclusion at this point is that thrones r-rot only have a horizontal

variation in form with variables such as regional style and specific, prac-tical, situirtional functions but also reflect an important culturally r,erticalvarierble related to mundane verslrs celestitri roles of tire searted person.

Pctcr D. Hnrrison

Source Material and Time Variables

The time variable that is observable at Tikal in the Centrai Acropolis is

relevarrt here because it pror.okes a consideration of the nature of source

naterials in the constrllction of benches in general and thrones in the

specific. It is krrolvn from other sites (Paler-rque, Copan) that decoratedthrones can'ed in stone were manufactured during the Early Classic pe-

riod. This was not so at Tikal on the basis of admittedly one prominentpiece of evidence from the Central Acropolis. Structure 5D-52-2nd was

an Early Classic palace that was partially razed and whollv burried by the

corrstruction of it successor,5D-52-7st, built by the lord of Tikal namedYik'in Chan K'ar,vil (Ruler B) in the year A.D. 741. The eariier buriedpalace (l:non'n as the Palace of the Recl Dado) exhibited the most com-plex room pattern that uras recorded in the Central Acropolis, the tan-clem-transverse pattern. In the original ar-ralysis (Harrison 1970), this pat-

ten-r qualified the structure as residential in nature, although the type of

residence depended upon other attributes. This Early Classic br,rildingcontained lro masonry benches whatsoer.'er, let alone thrones. Despite be-

ing a single instance,5D-52-2nd does represent a moment frclzen in time,and the inference made possible is that at Tikal masonry-constructedbenches in general were a Late Classic phenomenon. No Early Classic ex-

ample exists in the Central Acropolis. Therefore, it can be argued thatmasonry benches did not exist at Tikal prior to the Late Classic period. Itis not reasonable to argure that neither benches nor thrones were utilizedprior to the Late Classic at Tikal r,t'hen they are known to be such an im-portant cultural item at so rnany other cities in the lowlands. The more

acceptable argument is that benches and royal seats r,r,'ere rnanufacturedof a material other than stone or masonry, and in support of this theorywe can look to the source materials for the respective sites in question.

At Palenque and other sites along the Usr,rmacinta drainage, srich as

Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, native stone with high tensile strengtll is

locally available, such that it can be utilized as lintels spanning r.r'ide

openings and as seats for thrones, such as the prime example fromPiedras Negras. The r-ratirre stone at Tikal did not offer this characteristic.Stone slabs carved from local quarries at Tikal were used onlv for themanufacture of altars and stela; neither fonn had to sustain high tensilestrength when placed in a r.'ertical or horizontally grour"rd-based positionand had to be cut at three or four times the thickr-ress that is required for a

lintel or throne seat in order to avoid breaking. Rather, the tradition at

Tikal for spamring wide spaces requiring tensile strength was to use the

medium o{ wood. The r,r'ooden lintels of Tikal are famous for the intri-cacy of their carvir-rg and also for the availability of the source materialsin tlre imnrediate enrrironment: Chictt zapota and logr'r,'ood from the adja-cent wetlands and its borders were readily available ar-rd have been long

Tlu'ortcs nnd Tltrone Stnrcf rLres in tlrc Certrnl Alopolts t

established as the sor-rrce of Tik;rl's lintel materi

There is a sollrce-material difference, then, betv

porary cities in all directions. Stone suitable

thrones \\,as not available at Tikal, and its abse.

in the Early Classic period, when, apparently,

carvecl stone or masonry. During the Late Ci

suprelne exan-Lples of wood carving in the fol

Great Temples, with all the intricacy and subl

noted in the decorated benches of other contr

br-rt rendered in lapidary-quality stone.

Below I discuss the use oI portable thrones bi

pear in no less than three of the surr,iving car

iintels. These images strongly indicate the pre

carrring indr-rstry that served the furniture nee,

pianting the absence of sr-ritable stone for such

The point here is that the very plainness of T

an expression of medittm availability at the site

was the material r-rtilized for thrones and other

through the Early Classic period and continuthe Late Classic as well.

It may well be that a long tradition of wood r

sity led to reluctance to switch to another medj

riod. The Mayn s1 'fikal rvere adept at stucco dt

their architecture, especially paiaces. This me

have beer-r adaptecl fclr use ou thrones, br-rt it w;examples of stucco decoratior-r on thrones at Til

Sources of Knowledge for Throne Dr

Before leaving this topic, it is useful to conside

oratior-t for which only seconclary evideuce nor

vessels retrieved from burials at Tikal and the

them as imports from other cities' Specific exa

ered by Jr.ran Pedro Laporte in Structure 5C-49

ial 1L6, the burial of Hasalv Chan K'alvil un

both show lords seated upon thrones that exl

The idea that Tikal's thrones were utterly unc

face of what i,r'e knolv of Maya cuiture. 'Ihe diand medium that was employed and how ingists, can be in making the proper trnd approp

case of tl'ie vessei shor,rting a pt'eseutatiolr scr

(Figr-rre 3.3), the throue appears to be covered b

a fringe that hangs over the throne's edge in th

spread. On the r.'essel (or, rather, se'u'eral simik

Ptftt D. Htrri:t,tt

Material and Time Variables

observable at Tikal in the Central Acropolis isrrovokes a consideration of the natr-rre of sourcection of benches in general anci thrones in then other sites (Palenque, Coptrn) that ciecorated,vere manufactr-rred during the Early Classic pe-Tikal on the basis of admittedly one promir-renthe Central Acropolis. Structure 5D-52-2nd wasrat was partially razed trnd wholly buried by the;or,5D-52-1st, built by the lord of Tikal namedler B) in the year t.o. 717. The eariier buriedlace of the Red Dado) exhibitecl the most com-vas recorded in the Central Acropolis, the tan-n the origirral analysis (Harrison 1970), this pat-re as residential in nature, altl"rough the type ofrn other attributes. This Early Classic buildingnches whatsoever, let alone thrones. Despite be-52-2nd does represent a moment frozen in time,possible is that at Tikal nasonry-constructed

r Late Classic phenomenon. No Early Classic ex-ral Acropolis. Therefore, it can be argued thatexist at Tikal prior to the Late Classic period. It

r that neither benches nor thrclnes r,vere utiiizedrt Tikal lr,hen they are known to be such an inr-o rnany other cities in the lowlands. The moretat benches ar"rd royal seats lvere rnanufactnred;tone or masotlry and in support of this theorymaterials for the respective sites in question.sites alorlg the Usunactnttt dratnage, suclt as

rgras, native stone with high tensile strength is

at it can be utilized as lintels spanning vvide

)r thrones, sltch as tire prirne example fronle stone at Tikal did rrot of{er this characteristic'Local qtrarries at Tikal n,ete ttsed onlv for thestela; neither form hacl to sttstain high tensilevertical or horizontally ground-based position)r four times the thickness that is required for a

ler to avoid breaking. Rather, the tradition at

races requiring tensile strength was to use the

roden lintels of Tikal are famous for the intri-rlso for the availability of the sollrce materialsnent: C/ticrr znpota and logwood from the adja-lers were readily available and have been long

Thrtlrcs antl'['ltotta Strttcttrrcs irr tlrc CettrLtl Acrtt1tttlis oiTiltttl 81

establisl-ied as the sollrce of Tik.rl's lintel material soltrces (Lundell 1937).

There is a solirce-material difference, then, betr,veen Tikal and its contem-

porary cities in all directions. Stone sr,ritable for can'ing as lintels or

lhrot-r.t \,\,as not ar.ailable at Tikal, and its absence is particularly notable

in the Early Classic period, when, apparently, no furnitltre $'as nade of

canrecl stone clr fiIasonry. During the Late Classic period we have the

supreme examples of wood carving in the form of the lintels frorn the

Great Temples, with all the intricacy and sr-rbtle artistic delicacy that is

noted in the decorated benches of other coutemporary sites elser"u'here

but rendered in lapidary-c1uality stclne.

Belor'v I cliscuss the r-rse clf portable thrones based upon images that ap-

pear in no less than three clf the sun iving carved wooden Late classic

iintelr. Tll"t" images strongly indicate the presence at Tikal of a lvood-carving industry that served the ftrrniture ueeds of the roynl coLlrt, sllp-plar-rting the absence clf suitable stone for such fttrnitr-tre.

The point here is that the r,.ery plirinness oI Tiktrl's thrones may r,r'ell be

an expression of tnedir-rm ervailability at tl're site. Wood, rtlther than stclne,

was the material utilized for thrones and other furniture sttch as beds up

through tl-re Early Classic period and continuing lvhere necessary intothe Late Ciassic as weil.

It rnay r,r'ell be th.rt tr long tladition of wood carving imposed by neces-

sity led to reluctauce to slvitch to autlther medium in the Late Classic pe-

riotl. rhe Maya of 'rikal r,vere aclept at stucco decoration on the ftrcacles oftheir architecttrre, especially palaces. This medium of ciecoration coulcl

harre beeu adaptecl for use on thrones, bnt it r'vars r-rot. There are I1o ktrolvnexamples of str-rcco clecoration on throues at Tikal.

Sources of Knowledge for Throne Decoration at Tikal

Before leaving this topic, it is useful to consitler some other forms of dec-

oration for which only seconclary evidence Ilow exists. There are painted

vessels retrier.ed from burials at Tikal and there is no reason to interpretthem as imports flotl other cities. Specific exar.nples from a burial recov-

ered by Jrran Peclro L:rporte in structure 5c-49 (Figure 3.3) and from Brir-

ial 116, the buritrl of Hasalv Chan K'awil r-tnder Temple I (Figure 3.4),

both show lords seated ttpon thrones that exhibited certain decoration.

The idea that Tikal's thrones were utterly Lrndecorated lvould fly in the

face of what tve know of Maya cultul:e. 'fhe difference lies in the mauuer

and medilrm that r,vas employed and how iugenic-rtts we, as archaeolo-

gists, can be ir-r making the proper and appropriate interpretaticlus. In the

case of tire vessel shorving a presentatioll scene excavatec-l by Laporte(Figure 3.3), the throne appears to be covered by a material of textile witha fringe tl-rat hangs over the throne's edge in the form of a Europearr bed-

spreacl. C)n tl-re vessel (or, rather, se\reral similar vessels) from Burial 116,

82

FIGURE 3.-t This simple reception scene from Burial 116 (Hasan'Chan I('awil)illustrates a thrcxre type that has not beeu for'rnd at Tikal, unless the decoration is

assumed painted (from Tikal Report No. 25, Part A, Culbert, Figure 69,4;

courtesy of the University of Pennsylr'ania Museum).

the throne is sholr,n as having corner supports that appear to be made of

separate stone. These supports could well be painted to replicate the

stvle of support that was kttott'tt from the \t/estern Peten regions, such as

Piedras Negras and along the Usumacinta. These styles of adomment, by

textile and try paint, would not leave traces of their presence toclay.

When benches and thrones \.vere introduced in solid masonry form at

Tikal, the norm was a plain, solid platforrn, adorned, in the case of a

throne, with side-arms, also of tnasoury and occasionally with a

backscreen of solid br-rt plain masonry. There are a feltr rare exceptions at

Tikal. The most frequent but still rare adorument was the use of an over-

hanging lip on the seat, and this does not correlate perfectly with the ad-

ditional featnres of a throne (the presence of side-arms is the ielentity

marker used here). There is a single example of a bench (not a throne)

that is hollow, that is, constructed of masonry but harring a thin masonry

seat and a small, euigmatic opening at the center of the front of the bench.

This occurrecl in the extreme southern endroom of 5D-54-1st in the Ceri-

tral Acropolis. The interior of the open space was plastered and shor,ved

no signs of interior buming. We remain at a loss for an explanation of this

urrique example of a nonthroue bench.Although the variation in bench-throne form around Tikal is limited to

knolvn excavations, oue other unusual example is worth mentioning,This is the presence in one structure (5E-51) west of Croup G, a palace

group, of a series of benches of unusually high dimension. Teobert Maler,

rvho lr,as the only individual to perform an iurrestigation here, deemed

the structure the Palace of the Great Sone Benches (Maler 1911:13-15).

Pctcr D. Hnrrison Tfuoncs nntl TltrLtrtc Structtrres in tlre Centrnl Acroytolis of

FICURE 3.5 Dralving of a segment of the2 of Temple IiI sht'x,r'ing Nu Bak Chak Ii inport.rble throne. Details fi'om the right end

are clear (iifter'Iikal Report No. 33, Part A,Satterthrvaite, Figure 72; courtesy of tlie UrPennsylvania Museum).

These benches also exhibited overhanging lips r

do not otherlvise conform to the featr"rres of a thr

Portable Thrones

Before proceeding to the disctission of specificobserrrations are in order r'vith reference to ttthrone referred to above in conjr-rnction withwood carrrirrg. Thus far, only nonperishable e

stone thrones that survive in the archaeoiogical r

ered. The nse in ancient times of perishable vers

and is reler,ant to onr earlier discussiou of the sr

:' *6 ':;i@,',.targ :rt,|{:.. ilN r;, *i::rg i,

;gf2";, fj::{.-t:;:-,1'."r;:::ilri':--!,''(::

Pctcr D. Hnrrisrtn

:ception scene from Br-rrial 116 (Hasarv Chan I('arvil)t has noi been found at Tikal, unless the deccxation is

il Report No. 25, Part A, Culbert, Figure 694';

'f Penrts) lr rnia Museum).

rving corner supports that apprear to be made ofrpports could well be painted to replicate theknown from the western Peten regions, sLrch as

g the Usumacinta. These styles of adommer-rt, by:ld not leave traces of their presence toclay.:ones were introduced in solid mersonry form atrlain, solid platforrn, adorned, in the case of a

, also of masorlry alld occasionally with a

lain masonry. There are a felr, rare exceptions atbut still rare adonlment was the use of an over-Lnd this does not correlate perfectly with the ad-rone (the presellce of side-arms is the iclentitye is a single example of a bench (not a throne)rstrllcted of masonry but harring a thin masonry;ic opening at the center of the front of the bench.:me southern endroom of 5D-54-1st in the Cen-or of the open space was plastered and shoi,vedng. We remain at a loss for an explanation of thisthrone bench.Lin bench-throne form around Tikal is lirnited tor other Llnuslral example is worth mentioning.pne structure (5E-51) west of Group G, a palacehes of turusnally high dimension. Teobert Maler,ldual to perform an inrrestigation here, deemedof the Great Sone Benches (Maler 1911:13-15).

Throtrcs nnd T'ltrouc Strrrcttrrcs itt tlrt' Ce ntrnl Acropolis of Tiknl 8.3

FICURE 3.5 Drarving of a segment of the Carvet-l Lintel2 o1'Temple III shor,ving Nu Bak Chak il in front of hisportable thlone. Details fi'om the right end of the throneare clear (after fikal Repolt No. 33, Part A, Jones ar.rd

Satterthvvaite, Figtn'e72; coui'tesy of the University ofPennsylvania N4lrseum).

These benches also exhibitecl overhanging hps on the platform seat butdo not othenvise conform to the features of a throne. They all face south.

Portable Thrones

Before proceeding to the discussior-r of specific thrcrne strltctltres, a fervobserrrtrtions are in order r.vith reference to the perishable variety ofthrone referred to above in conjr-rnction with Tikal's tradition of finewood carving. Thus far, only llonperishable examples of masollry orstone thrones that survive in the archaeological record have been cotlsid-ered. The Llse in ancient times of perishable versions is well-docun"Ientedand is rele\/ant to ollr earlier discussion of the source materials availabie

84 Pctcr D. Hnrrisou

T.V,Rvrc6o6p t/1t

FICURE 3.6 Altist's conception of a reconstruction of the portable throneslror,r,n on three lintels at Tikal (drawn by T.W. Rutledge; scale figure based onLintel 2 of Temple III).

at Tikal. The primary examples at Tikal are royal seats depicted on thewooderl lintels frorn Ternples l, III, and IV (see Tikal Report 33, Part A,1982; Figure 3.5).

These seats are depicted as resting upon the greater structure of a

portable palanquin and have been described by others as portablethrones. The detail o{ the preserrred carving in the wooden lintels invokesan interpretation that these portable thrones \'vere also of perishable ma-terial, presumably wood. In each case there is a cushioned seat atop theelaborately car'\/ed Lrase. On three exampies (two from Temple I ancl onefrom Temple III) the view is of the sicle of the royal seat. The orle examplefrom Temple IV which shows a frolrt vier,r' of the same class of seat, indi-cates that it was proportionately mr-rch wider across the front than theside. From this moderately well preserved glimpse into the royal para-phernalia, we cannot knolv the proportion of royal seats that were nadeof perisl-rable materials known only from secorldary sollrces, such as

tl-rese lintel depictions. Such carved seats may have outntrmbered the ma-sonry orles that have survived. Figure 3.6 shows an artist's reconstructionof the portable royal seat of Tikal.

Close examination of the designs of decoration and form of the portablethrones in tl-re Tikal sample suggest that the same, or at least very similar,seats are depicted on all of the lintels despite a time span estimated at ser-enty-eight vears. The decoration includes repetitions of the royal mat de-sign, humtrn heads, and a more complex, less decipherable design on the

Tlrortcs tutd Tltrctrrc Structtrres in tltt Ccttrril Acropolt

front. The similarity of the er-rd vislvs plovidganci III is most compelling. Shown frorn the vi

the right end of the throne on Lintei 2 of Teml

tel 2 of Temple lIL Because of poor preservat

this type of thror-re is limited on Lintel 3 of Tt

pus of icono5;raphy provides a good idea oftion of the portable throne. It is a loug, narro'and hearrily cart'ec1 base. The likelihood that tl

on the lintels of Ternpies I ar-rd IV mtrst be al

span of about nirre years between the tlvo ca

of the text of Temple IV Y'ikin Chan K'ar,vil iHasaw Chan K'au'il as tolcl orr the lintels of T

using the same portable throne ir-r the telling

conquest and the capture of palanquins. The

lintel of Ternple III is similar btit somewhat d

years separates this can'ing from that of Ten

from Temple I). There may be a nen' rol'al p6

may merely be a remembered image of a rri

even a recarved t'ersion of the same seat. Ye

form is unrleniable. The date for the Ternple I1

ation) r,r,ith Stela 24 at the base of the templewere inrleed being passed on as a treasttrec

have had to surrrive only seventy-eight years

presenration of the lintels. In the texts of botlIV, mention is made of the seizing of the pala

the thrones themselves are not mentioned. Th

the origir-ral of the portable throne alreadlK'avvil beforc \^tis farnotts conflict with Calakm

throne atop the captured palanquin could

dominance: "his" throne resting on "their" 1

this symbolism on Temple IV is clear. The r

same) thrcxre or-r Temple III is intriguing.Examination of the royai reception scenes

the Caranic Wisc series (see also Cloe and Ket

of simple, solid, undecorated bench found ar

Acropolis is riof depicted on these painted

frorn Tikal. What this likely tells us is that 1

quite broad and that this rrariety may reflect

as well as function. The role of medium, stor

rrant to this discussion, as we have argued t

medium at Tikal and tl-rat wood replaced stc

least dr,rring the Early Classic period and lithe Late Classic as er,idenced by the portable

sic lintels.

PctL:r l). Hnrrisou

I'w.tiufLEDaE a/n

rption of a reconstructicxr of the portable thnrnekal (drawn by T.W. Rutledge; scale figure basecl on

:amples at Tikal are roysl seats depicted on thenples l, III, and IV (see Tikal Report 33, Part A,

ted as resting upon the greater structure of a

I have been described by others as portablepresen ecl carr.ing in the r,r'ooden lintels invokes:se portable thrones were also of perishable ma-. In each case there is a cushioned seat atop theOn three exarnples (two fron-r Temple I and oner is of the sicle of the royal seat. The one example:rows a front vierv of the same class of seat, indi-tionately much wider across the frotrt thar-r theely lvell presenred glimpse into the royal para-ri,t the prclportion of royal seats that were madeknown only from secondary sollrces, sllch as

rch carved seats may har,e outnumbered tl-re ma-rived. Figure 3.6 shows an artist's recorrstructiotrof Tikal.

re designs of decoration arld form of the portablerle sr-rggest that the same, or at least very similar,rf the lintels despite a time span estimaterl at serroration includes repetitions of the royal mat de-r more complex, less deciprherable design on the

Throncs Ltttd Tluotte Structrrrcs itr tlrt: Cuttrnl Acrttltolis oJ Tildtl

front. The similarity of the end vielvs provicled on the lintels of rempies Iand III is most compelling. Shown from the viei.r'point of the sitter., \\/e seethe light end of the throne on Lintel 2 of Temple I, ancl the lefi entl on Lin-tel 2 of renrple III. Because of poor presenration, the vielv of the front ofthis tl,pe of tirrone is Iirnited on l,intel 3 of Tbmple IV. However, this cor-pus of icc-inography provides a good iclea of the shape, size, ancl decora-tion of the portable throne. It is a long, rlarrovv bench w.ith a paclcled seatand hear''ily caLved base. The likelilrood that the same actual seat is slrorvnon the lintels of Temples I and IV must be allowed. There is only a tin-respan of about nine years between the two carr.ings. In the sr-rbject matterof the text of Temple IV, Y'ikin Chan K'awil imita-rtes the tale of his fatherHasaw Chan K'ar,r'il as told on the lintels of Temple I. He may actually trer.rsing the same portable throne ir-r the tellilg of his or,r'n, sin-rilar story efconquest and tire capture of palanquins. The portable seat shor,vn on thelurtel of Ternple III is similtrr but somewhat differer"rt. A span of sixtrnineyears separates tl-ris carviug from that of Ternpie IV (seventy-eight 1,ssr-5from Temple I). There m;ry be a l1evlr royal port.rble throne clepicted, or itmay nerely be a remembered image of a rriew differently rendered, orevell a recarved version of the same setrt. Yet the similarity of style andform is r-urrieniable. The date for the Temple III lir-rtel is derived (by assrrci-ation) ll,ith Stela 2,1 at the base of the temple at A.D. Bi0. If the same seatwere incleed being passed on as a treasuretl family heirloom, it r,r,ouldhave had to sunrive only seventy-eight years compared to the 1,200-yearpreservation of the lintels. In the texts of both the linteis of Temples I andIV, mention is made of the seizing of the pal.rnquins of the opponent, butthe thrones themselves are not mentioned. Tl-rus, the possibility is real thatthe oliginal of the portuble throne alreacly belonged to Htrstrr,v ChanK'awil bc/brc his famous conflict r,vith Calakmui in a.n. 692. Use of his orvnthlone atop the captured palanquin could be the crol,vning syn-rbol ofdominance: "his" throne resting on "their" palancluin. The perpetnitv ofthis symbolism on Temple IV is clear. The reappearallce of .r similar (orsame) throrre on Temple III is intriguing.

Examination of the royal rcception scenes pr-rbiished by |ustin Kerr inIhe Ccrtrnic Wrsd series (see alstt Coe and Kerr 1998), reveals that the typeof simple, solitl, undecoratecl bench foturcl ;rrchaeologictrlly in the CentralAcropolis is rrol depictetl on these paiutecl vessels, nclt even on thosefrorn Tikal. What this likely tells trs is that tl-re rrariety of throne seats isqr,rite brotrd and that this rrar:iety may re{lect regional (or site) distributionas well as func'tion. The role of medir-un, stone seats vel'slts lt'ood, is reie-val1t to this discussion, as \,ve have argued that wood lvas the accessiblemedium at Tikal and that wood replaced stone fclr the rlse of fr-rmiture atleast during the Early Ciassic period and likely to a large extent also inthe Late Classic as evidenced by the portable thrones shown on l-ate clas-sic lintels.

86 Pctcr D. Hnrrison

The Throne at Tikal

Benches abound in nurnber in the Central Acropolis; they senred as theprimary data source for this chapter even though they seldom resemblethose depicted on the painted vases for lack of decoration. Analysis ofbench features (Harrison 1970) revealed that there are thirteen differentforrns of masollry bench in the Central Acropolis displaying the threevariables: (1) number of walls cor-rtacted by the bench; (2) presence or ab,sence of masonry elements, sltch as side-arms or backscreens; and (3) theproportional shape of the bench. Of these, the types that correlate bestwith the function of thrones are those that abut only one wall at the rear ofthe bench and possess addecl side-arms. Scenes on the paiuted vessels tellr-rs that very plain benches with no side-arrns were also usecl for formalfunctions; these are also numerously present in the Central Acropolis.

There is a significant difference between benches illustratecl in Kerrand those found archaeologically in the Central Acropolis. The differ-ences lie ir-r the degree of decoration as n ell as the apparent nature of cor-r-

struction. In the Central Acropolis, all benches were constructed secon-darily to the plastering of the floor and walls, and ali but one are of solidmasol1ry. An overhanging lip separating the seat from the base is a rareoccllrrence (but is present, as noted above). Because e\/en painted ce-ramic vessels of Tikal provenierrce dernonstrate a considerably higher de-gree of decoration (Figure 3.3), we must assume that much of this de-picted clecoration r,r,as either painted on the masonry or represents someform of perishable cover. Certainly, the perishabie elements that wouldmake the royal receiving seat comfortable are convillcingly invoked bythe painted scenes. Cushions, cloth, and skin covers, as well as hangingsto the side, front, and rear of the royal throne, are repeatedly depicted(Figr,rre 3.7).

Archaeologically, the erridence for a support system of the drapes andcurtains is found in the presence of sub-spring beam holes placed aroundthe masonry benches in such a way that coulcl have easily suspendecl ei-ther curtains or the ropes and strings that manipulated thern. The empl-ra-sis in the iconography of the painted vessels published by Kerr drawsheavily on drama and theatricality and on the difference of absolute eie-vation that separates the lord from his audience and attendants.

Distribution of Benches:Residential Structures in the Central Acropolis

In the Central Acropolis, there are forty-six structnres of the type cailedpalaces (more lecently redefined as "range-type" structures for greaterobjectivity). Earlier analysis (Harrison 7970) of the floor plans of thesebuildings, compared with a variety of other features, indicated that only

Tlrrorrs nnti Throtte Structttres itt tlrt: CentrLtl Acrolt

FICURE 3.7 Reconstruction of the oprtypical throne room at Tikal, based uporemains. N4any examples of this type lvCentlal AcroL-rolis (drar,r'ing by Amalia

one form suggested fan-rilial residence. Of t

Structure 5D-46 fuifilled all the requiremenla conclusion larter confilmed by the translat;of a cache rressel br,rried by inclusion beneaindicated that the structure (ilc in the textIord of Tikal, Greart jaguar Claw (Figure 3.9)terpretation (i.e., that the ns ar-rd ol ot glyphthan the \/essel on which it is carved) remainsistence (on the trt'isis of archaeologicalfrom several epigraphers. Just as this san-rr

Yaxchilan refers to the building by extensioterpret the glyph on tl-re lidded r,essel to re{,

der which it was included as an archaeologternative explanation could be that the ca

"spirit" of the structure together with the tarresent the blessing of the cache itself. In thisbe referrecl to as the "house" (ttn or of ot) for

This building (5D-a6) contains at least onr

side of the strr-rcture, facing east. Thrones inplex stnrcture are commor-r in the Ceutral Acface e;rst, north, or south. Exceptions to the r

. *t2'18

Pctct'D. Hnrrisotr

The Throne at Tikal

er in the Central Acropolis; tirey sen,ed as thehis chapter even though they seldom resembleinted r,ases for lack of decoration. Analysis of1970) revealed that there are thirteen differentin the Central Acropolis displaying the threeralls contacted by the bench; (2) preser-rce or ab-:s, such as side-arms or backscreens; and (3) the: ber"rch. Of these, the types tl'rat correlate best:s are those that abr-rt or-rly one wall at the rear ofled side-arn-rs. Scenes on the painted vessels tells with no side-anns were also trsed for forrnalrmerously present in the Central Acropolis.ifference between benches ilfi-rstrated in KerrLogically in the Central Acropolis. The differ-ecoration as lvell as the apparent nature of con-tcropolis, all benches were constructecl secon-the floor and walls, ar-rd ali but one are of solidlip separating the seat from the base is a raret, as noted abo','e). Because even painterl ce-enience demonstrate a considerably higher de-: 3.3), lve mLlst assLlnle that much of this de-Ler painted on the rnasonry or represents someCertainly, the perishable elements that wouldseat comfortable are convincingl), inrroked bylns, clclth, and skin covers, as well as hangingsr of the royal throne, are repeatedly depicted

idence for a suprport system of the drapes and:sence o{ sr-rb-spring beam holes placed aror-rndrch a way that could have easily suspended ei-urd strings that manipulated them. The empha-the painted vessels publishecl by Kerr drawsatricality and on the difference of absolute ele-rrd from his audience and attendants.

istribution of Benches:tructures in the Central Acropolis

there are forty-six structures of the type calleddefined as "range-type" structnres for greatersis (Harrison 7970) of the floor plans of thesea variety of other features, indicated that only

Tltroncs orttl Tlrrttrtc Structtrres iu tltc Ceutrnl Acro1tolis of Tiknl

FICURE 3.7 Reconstruction of the opiilgn.. and ct'ama of atypical throne room at Tikal, based upon the archaeologicalremains- \,'lany ex;rnrples of this type were urrcctvered in theCentlal Acropolis (cllarving by Amalia Kenu.ard).

one fclrm suggested familial resiclence. Of the excavated br,rildings, onlyStructr-rre 5D-46 fuifilled ;r11 the requirements of this frurction (Figr-rre 3.8),a coucltrsion later confirmed by the translation of a text incised on tire Iidof a cache t'essel burierl by incltrsion beneatl-r the rvestem stair. This textindicated that the stlucture (nc in the text) belonged to the fourteenthlord of Tiktri, Creat Jaguar Claw (Figure 3.9). lt must be noted that this in-terpretatiorr (i.e., that the na and of of glyphs refer to the building ratherthan the r.essel on r,r,hich it is carvecl) remains this author's interpretiveinsistence (on the Lr;rsis of alchaeological logic) clespite disagreementfrom sei,eral epigraphers. Just as thjs san-re glyph can'ed on a lintel atYaxchilan refers to the building by extension, not to the lintel itsei{, I in-terpret the glyph on the liclded ','essel to refer to the staired strtrctrrre i-ur-

der which it i,t,as incltrded as an archaecllogical dedicatory cache. An al-tematir,'e explanation could be that the cache vessel encapsr-rlates the"spirit" of the strucir-rre together with the tangible sacrecl oLrjects that rep-resent the blessir-rg of the cache itself. Irr this sense, the r.essel itself cotrlclbe referred to as the "house" (tn or ttt o/) for the spirit.

Tiris building (5D-a6) contains at least one throne bench on tire eastemside of the structure, facing east. Thrones in rooms that are part of a conl-plex structure ilre conln-ron in the Central Acropolis and, ntost cornrnouhr,face east, north, or sotrth. Exceptions to the rr,rle are discussed belon'.

ol

88 Peter D. Hnrrison

FICURE 3.8 Structure 5D-46 in its final form. The central core and stair werebuilt by Jaguar Claw the Great who may have founded the royal court in theCerrtral Acropolis in the middle fourth century. The cache r.essel in Figure 3.7was reco\rered from beneath this stair (photo by Harrison 1969).

FICURE 3.9 Drawing of the carved dedicatory cache vessel from Structule5D-46, identifying the building as the "House" (irn) of Jaguar Claw the Great. The"rn" grlyph is highlighted (courtesy of the University of Pennsyh,ania Museum).

Tlrones nntl Tlrone Stnrctttres itt the Centrnl Auopoll

During the original analysis of structure fur

versus specialized forms of residence), it did n'

ing in the group was in fact a family residen(

Nerv l,crolvledge and retrospect allow tts to at

likely family residence: Strncture 5D-57. This I

on three of its exterior facades' The western,

walls were fr-rlly exposed to the extent of their s

excavated and even today awaits to reveal its s

ing it served a resider-rtial ftinction is twofoid;

reveals the signature tandem-trans\/erse roolll

dences; zurd the sctilptures on the exterior and I

that the building (house) glorifies Hasaw Cl

ruler of Tikal and is declicated in conjunction v

conquest. The cornbhed signature of the stru

dential plalr ancl the convenieni location clos

could also have been Hasar'v's perlllanellt Plac

Separate Throne Strur

I also seek to identify separate structr-rres tltions of the royal enthroned reception. The ty

here to identify a throne structure is mani{

bench with masonry side-arms described ab

accompanied by other features that allow fr

drapery of theatric.rl presentation.Because of the frequency of so-called thrr

greater palace strllctures in the Central Acro

rate throne structllres hacl not been consider

Group 10L2 at Copan (Harrison and Andrer'r

tial zone, throne structllres as separate unildential buildings, w'hich apparently alu'ays

found in the Cerrtral Acropolis at Tlkal. Rt

Acropolis data revealed three free-standinl

served as cotnparable separate throne structr

immediately n'est of Strttcture 5D-57;5D-I2of the five-story palarce (5D-52); and 5D-118

ally, one example of an added room as an i

scribed in the throne-structure category. Thir

tion of Structure 5D-61 (Figure 3.10).

Stnrctu'e 5D-59

The location and stratigraphic position of tJ

gestive of its royai fr-rnction. Immediately ar

r*!i.,l

Palcr D. Hnrrisott Tln'orrcs nrttl Thrttuc Stnrctures itt tlrc Catrtrnl Acropolis of Tiknl 89

During the origil.rl analysis of strr-rcturre function (e.g., family residenceversLls specialized forms of residence), it clid not seem thatt any other build-ing in the grollp was i-rr fact a family residence due to lack of excar.aticln.Nelv knor,vledge and retrospect allolv r-rs to arclmit one other br,rilclir-rg as alikely family resiclence: Stmcture 5D-57. This br-rilding was excavatecl onlyon three of its extericlr facades. The westem, soltthern, and eastern outerwalls \,vere fnlly exposed to the exter-rt of their survivai. The interior was notexcarrated iud el,en today ai'y3i15 to rerreal its secrets. The reason for believ-ing it sen'ed a resiclential function is ti,r,ofold: The wall plan is r.isible ;lrdreveals the signature tandem-tralts\/erse room pattem that is basic to resi-dences; ald the sculptures on the exterior and accornpanying text inform trsthat the building (house) glorifies Hasar,r' Chan K'ar,r,il, the twenty'-sixthruler of Tikal and is cledictrted in conjrurctic'rn with his most ftrrnous militar1,conquest. The combinecl signartur:e of the structr-rre's builcier with the lesi-denti;il plal and the convenient location close to Temple I arrgue that thiscor-rld also har..e been Hasar,v's permanent pi;rce of residence.

Separate Throne Structures

I also seek to iderrtify separate strrrctr-rres that are der,oted to the func-tions of the royal enthroned reception. The type of throne-bench acceptedhere to identify a throne structnre is manifested by the solid-rnasonrybencl"r r,vitl-r rnasonry sicle-arms clescribed above (see Figure 3.7), r"rsuallyaccompanied by other features that allow for royal ;rdomrnent ancl thedrapery of theatrical presen tation.

Because of the fi'equency of so-callecl tl-rrone roorrrs contained ivithingreater p;rlace strnctures in the Central Acropolis, the possibility of sepa-rate throne stmctures hatl not been consiCered prior to comparison withCroup 10L2 at Coprrn (Harrison aud Andrelvs 1989). In the latter residen-tial zone, throne structllres as separate r-urits dcr occrrr, adjoilled to resi-dential buildings, u,hich apparently ah.r,ays face sottth, a consistency notfound in the Central Acropolis at Tikal. Ileexamination of the CentralAcropolis data reveaied three free-standing strllctllres that apparentlyserved as comparable sep;rrate throne structures. They are 5D-59, locatedimmediately r,r.'est of Stmcttrre 5D-57;5D-l23,locatecl to the e.rstem sirleof the five-story palace (5D-52); and 5D-118 irr Maler's Court. Acldition-al1y, one example clf an added rooilr as an architectural accretion is de-scribed in the throne-strllctllre category. This is the atppended west addi-tion of Stmctr-rre 5D-61 (Figule 3.10).

Structure 5D-59

The location and stratigraphic position of this structrtle are highly sr-rg-

gestir,e of its royal {r-rnction. Immediately adjacent to the east, Strtrctrire

-46 in its final form The central core aud stair rvere

reat who may l-rave fount-1ed the royal court in the

dclle fourth century Tlre cache vessel in Figr:re 3'7

h this stair (photo by I-larrison 1969)'

he carr,ecl dedicatclry cache vessel from Stlucture

ding as the "House" (rln) of lagual Clar'r' the Creat' The

.ouit"ry of the University of Perrnsyh'ania NIr"rser'rm)'

90 Pctcr D. Hnrrisou

t!rirrl t5l\-

FIGURE 3.10 Part of the map of the Central Acropolis highlighting four thronestructures: from left, 5D-118, 5D-61 (addition), 5D-59 and 5D-123. Structures inquestion are hatched.

5D-57 has been sLlggested to be a holrse, in the sense of residence, of Ha-saw Chan K'awil, the twenty-sixth ruler of Tikal and restorer to povver of

the cian of Jaguar Claw. Such restoration was manifest by the raising of

the first major architectural monuments and inscriptions since the Tikalhiatr-rs (a.o. 557 -692).

Strtrcture 5D-57 bears this hero's image in two knorvu places, togetherwith an inscription that r.erifies his identity, shor'r'ing the act of capture ofa lord of Calakmul depicted on the eastern upper zorle of the building. Inthe latter sculpted carving, Hasaw shows himself in the garb of Teotihua-can, holding the captive prince of Calakmul on a rope. At the other end ofthe building Hasalv again shows himself in the same highly formalizedand stylized apparel in a rare occllrrence of a lower-zone orthostat, once

again car'\red in stone and stucco. This structure,5D-57, hacl to have been

constrrlcted shortly after the lvell-documented conquest of Calakmr"rl byHasaw Chan K'awil in a.p. 592.

Close to the western end of the hottse, a separate building \,vas cotl-structed at a later date-just how much later is uot knowu. Holvevet the

stratigraprhy of the connecting floors establishes a notable time gap. A uar-row alley separated this adjacent throue structure fron-r 5D-57, barely ieav-ing room for human passage (see Figure 3.10). This separation is il con-

Tlu'ones ntrtT Tltrttuc Strrrcttrrts itt tln' Cttttrnl ,4cloprrllr

FIGURE 3.11 Drar,r.ing of the masonry bafftraffic from Cor,rrt 2 to Court 3, immediatelythrone stmcture of 5D-59 on the right.

trast to the more common practice of direct-co

increasilg the ilterior space of structures in tever, in tiris case the separatior-r of the two builc

image of the ortirostat of Hasaw Chan K'awilrather than burying it as a sirnple addition wstructure, 5D-59, sits just inside the confinesr.vestern conler, acljacent to a highly restricted

the sarne vertical ler.'el. The baffle walls that r

Classic acidition, partially blocking the easy pa

3 (Figure 3.11 ; see also Figure 3.10). The effect

fensible where the throrre structure and house

cupying the northern side of the court. The strr

large in proportion for a silgle-room buildinptransverse building, which in the nomenclaturby definition , t'tlt a residence. The spacior"rs, si

such a specialized functiou as a throne strucb

sures 3.56 rneters wide by 6.6 meters long. It co

one centered on the northem rt,all facing the d

rneters in length; ar plain bench ceutered on I

only 2.5 meters ilr lengtir; and a larger bench v

-_ Tr50

Pttcr D. Hnrrisorr Iltr,vtr'.ntt,l fltr,,tttSlttt,ltp:iv lltiCitttrLtl.\tri1,rr/i*,,f f ili,tl 91

nap of the Central Acropolis highlighting four throtre

8, 5D-61 (acldition), 5D-59 and 5D-l23' Strr'rctures in

ed to be a hollse, in the sense of residence' of Ha-

renty-sixth ruler of Tikal irncl restorer to pow'er of

, Sr-rch restoration r'r'as manifest by the raising of

ural monuments ancl inscriptions since the Tikal

; this hero's image in two klror'r''u piaces' together

verifies his icleniity, sholving the act of capture of

cted on the eastern tlpPer zone of the building' In

ng, Hasaw shows himself in the garb of-Teotihua-

, .irir't." of Calaklnr-rl on a rope' At the other end of

o'ir'r sh.',*. hirnself in the sarme l-righ\' formalized

a rare occltrrence of a lower-zone orthostat' once

"rd stucco. This structur e, 5D-57 , hacl to have been

rr the r'vell-documented collqLlest of Calakmul by

^.D.692.. encl of the house, a separate building was coll-

-just how much later is not lt'uor'r'tr' Hol'r'ever' the

recting floors establishes a notable time gap' A nar-

;adjaJent throne structure from 5D-57, barely ieav-

rssage (see Figure 3.10). This separatiolr is ilr cou-

FIGUI{E 3.11 Drawing of the nrasont'y baffles that restrictedtraffic fi'om Court 2 to Court 3, immecliately adjacent to the

throne structure of 5D 59 on the right.

trast to the mclre comnrorl practice of direct-coutact addition as a metrns ofincreashg the interior space of structures in the Cerrtrtrl Acropolis. How-ever, in this case the septrration of the two buildings preserved access to theimage of the orthostat of Hastrr'v Chan K'alvil, keeping the image visible,rather than burying it as a simple aclclition r'voulcl have done. The thronestmcture, 5D-59, sits just inside the confines of Conrt 5D-3 at its north-lvestern corllet adjacent to a highly restricted access from Court 5D-2 on

the same rrertical level. The baffle r'valls that restrict the access .1re a L.ilte

Classic ac{dition, partially blocking the easy passage frorn Court 2 to Cotrrt3 (Figure 3.1i ; see also Figure 3.10). The effect is to make Court 3 more de-

fensible rvhere the throne strttcture and holtse of Hasaw were located, oc-

cupying the nc'irthern side of the cor-rrt. The stl-rcture of 5D-59 is unusualiylarge ir-r proportion for a silgle-room builcling, that is, a nontanclem-non-transverse builclhg, r'r,hich i:r the nomenclatr-rre of the Central Acropolis is,

by definition, irol a residence. The spacior.rs, silgle-room forn-r fits lr'ell forsuch a specialized functit)r1 cls a throne structure. The room interior mea-

sures 3.56 meters n,ide by 6.6 meters long. It conttrins three benches, a plcriu

one centered on the northeln r,r'all facing the cloclnt'ay and measurilg 2.32

neters in lengih; a plain bench centered cxr the rvestern wall meastrringonly 2.5 meters il length; and a larger bench n'ith side-arms filling tire en-

92 Pctcr D. Horrisou

tire eastem wall (3.56 neters in length). This latter is the thror-re bench. It isassumed that this was olle of perhaps several throne structures utilized byHasaw Chan K'an'il; given the time span that separates the construction ofhis house (5D-57) and the throne structure (5D-59), it must be assumedthat other locales, such as throne rooms within otl-rer buildings, likely svsn5D-57 itself, were used prior to constructior-r of 5D-59. It should be notedtl-rat the throne is positioned in this case so that the seated figure would rrot

be r,isible from the exterior, and erren though the throne faces'west there is

no rrie'r^.' outside of the room in that direction. The structr-rre was vaultedand had collapsed. Both scuiptures at the westem aud eastern ends of5D-57 n,ere buried by deliberate constrnction, at later dates, filling the

gaps between 5D-57 and its adjacent buildings.The multiplicity of throne rooms (as opposed to separate throne struc-

tures) in a palace complex as large as the Central Acropolis suggests thatthey lr,ere utilized for different types of court function, that is, a varietyof internal and external administrative functions as described earlier.

Structwe 5D-123

Another structure parallel in form aud orieutation is 5D-723, perchedpartly on the roofs of 5D-51 and 5D-128 (see Figure 3.10). This structurehas no route of access to either of the structllres or-I which it is perched butrather pertains to, and is adjacent to, the space that fronts 5D-52, or-r its im-rnediate u'estern side. The latter is a three-story structure in its final phase

of construction. Stratigraphy places the srnall building later than the stairto the seconcl story of 5D-52. We know that the first story of this complexbuilcling was contmissioned by Y'ikin Chan K'awil, the son of HasawClran K'awil, in n.o. 747. The distance dates for the second and even laterthird stories are not krtolt'n. Therefore, the throne strttcture, 5D-123, couldpertain either to Y'ikilr or one of his descendauts. The architectural settingof 5D-123 differs from that of 5D-59 in two ways. It is positioned to the

eastern instead of the western side of the prilcipally associated building(5D-52). Second, 5D-59 was raised adjacent to a building (5D-57) thatbears the attribr-rtes of a probable permanellt residence, whereas tl'ris is notthe case with 5D-123. The nearest and only adjacent building (5D-52) does

not bear attributes of a permanent residence. Rather, it has been inter-preted as a building of ceremonial retreat or, more specifically, a men's re-

treat house (Harrison 1970). Nonetheless, the location provides this smallbuilding with an unobstructed, splendid view of the palace reservoir to-l,',ard Temple V on the southern side of the tesertroir ravine. Gir.'en theknown chronology, it is probable that Temple V had not yet been builtwhen this particular candidate for a throne structure w,as built.

Structure 5D-123 is very similar to the size and proportions of 5D-59.It measures 6.01 meters in interior length and 3.00 meters in width. The

Tltrttttts nrrrl'l ItrnnL'5llii, liin'- itt lltt Cctttrnl Atropt.

FIGURE 3.12 Ileconstruction drawing of Struchbench with seated a7nar.

throne bench lvith side-arms occupies the nr

rt'ay, that is, facing sottth, and rneasures 4.3

benches occLrpy tire room (Figure 3.12). Tht

but rvtrs badly cleteriorated, possibly due to I

been attached only at the rear to iru earlier I

lapsed rrar-rlting on these structures will be d

The mr.rltiple functions suggested by the i

with throne benches also suggest tl-rat theirthe presence of elite inclividr,rals only. If the

includes the judiciary role, as believed, thenhave to be admitted into these areas. This m

the exterior walls of 5D-57 of fierce warriotof image is consistent with the tradition of clitically oriented monuments at Tikal, spec

rated roof combs of ternples in open public I

versiorrs of the ruler. Sr-rch presentations in Icessible to all social le"'els of the populace, a

vealing ancl intirnate scerles depicted on the

sumt'rbly not rneant to be for public observe

painted vessels, is not only the jr.rdge butscholar, in addition to his other roles (Coe

Pctcr D. Httrristtn

eters i11 length). This latter is the throne bench' It is

ne of perhips several throne strtlctures r-rtilized by,en the tin-Le spzur that separates the coustruction of

ilre tlrrotre striucttrte (5D-59), it nr-tst be assnrned

s throne roorus r'r'ithir other buildings, likell'svs11

:rior to constntction of 5D-59.It shoulcl be rroted

red in this case so that the seated figure lr'ou.ld notot and even though the tl-rrone faces lr'est there is

rom in tl"rat directiou. The structllre \ re1s "';rulted

L sculptures at the rvesteru and eastem ends ofleliberate constnrctiou, at later dates, fiiling the

its adjacent buildings.one rooms (as opposecl to separate throue strltc-rx as large as the Central Acropolis sr-rggests that

fferent types of court fr-urction, that is, a varietyrdn-rinistrative functions as described earlier.

lel in form and orientation is 5D-123, perched)-51 and 5D-128 (see Figure 3.10). This structure

either of the strltctures on which it is perched butadjacent to, the space that fronts 5D-52, on its im-re latter is a three-storv structure in its filal phase

phy places tire small buildirrg later than the stair)-52. We krow that the first story of this complexoned by Y'ikin Chan K'avril, the son of Hasaw, The distance dates for the second and even later

mr. Therefore, the thrclne structttre, 5D-123, cor-ild

r one of his descendants. The architectural settilghat of 5D-59 in two wa\/s. It is positic-rned to tlreestern side of the principallv associated br"rildingI was raised adjacent to a building (5D-57) thatprobable permauent residence, r.vhereas this is not

Le nearest and onl;' adjacent builcling (5D-52) does

permanerlt residence. Rather, it has been inter-eremonial retreat or, more specifically, a men's re-

r70). Nonetheless, the location provicles this small

tructed, splendid rrielt' of the palace reservoir to-

southern side of the reserrroir ra-,'iue. Given the

; probable that Temple V had not yet been builtdidate for a throne strllcture r'vas built.ery sirnilar to the size ar-rd proportions of 5D-59.

in interior ler-rgth and 3.00 meters in n'idth. The

Thrttnts ntul Tltrotttt Structurcs irt tlrc Ccrttrnl Acrttltttlis oJ Tiknl

FICURE 3.12 Ileconstruction drarving of Stnrcture 5D i23 shor,r,ing the thlonebench r.vith seilter'l r?jri irr.

throne bench rvith sicle-arms occupies tlre northern wall facing the door-$ray, that is, facing soutir, and measures ,1.32 rneters in length. No otherbenches occLrpy the room (Figr-rre 3.12). The strtrcttile had been variltedbut r,vas b;idly cleteriorated, possibly due to lack of reinforcement, hai'ingbeen atttrched only at the rear to an earlier structure. The uni{ormly col-lapsed i..aulting or-r these structures lvill be tliscussed below.

The mr"ritiple functions surggested by the iconography to be associatedwith throne benches also suggest that tl-reir precincts were not limited tothe presence of elite inclividuals only If the fr-rnctic'rn of reception tirronesincludes the judiciary role, as belierred, then nonrol'al indir.iduals woulclhave to be ardmitted into tl-rese areas. This migl-rt explain the use of art ontlre exterior wtrlis of 5D*57 of fierce wtrrrior images of Hasaw. This typeof image is consistent with the traclition of other ptrblicly placed and po-liticalll, oriented moni-rments at Tikal, speciiically the stelae and deco-rated roof combs of temples in open public locations that displav warriorrrersions of the nrler. Strch presentations in public pl;rces, presumably ac-

cessible to all social levels of the populace, are in contrast to the more re-vealing and intirn.rte scenes clepicted on the pairrted vesseis-objects pre-sumably not rneant to be for public observation. The ruler, as shon,n cln

painted ",essels,

is not only the judge but also and almost alway5 thgscholar, in ar-ldition to his other roles (Coe and Kerr 1998). This softer,

93

ot

FIGURE 3.13 Structure 5D-118 on the right is the building n'ith almost no frontr,r,all; Maler's Palace is cxr the far left (prhoto by Harrison 1967).

more intellectual role is most {requently presented on the painted vessels.

The point is that althor,rgh the open spaces around these structr-rres in the

Central Acropolis containing thrones are highly corrtrolled rvith re-stricted access, we nevertheless expect that members of a variety of sociallevels cor-rld have access to view these images of the victorious warrior.They are not there just for the consumption of the rnler's fellolr, elite,n'hereas the painted vessels are presumed to carry such a restriction.

Structure 5D-1"18

There remains one other structure in the Central Acropolis that mery haveserved the fr-rnction of a separate thror-re strttcture. This is 5D-118 (Frgr-rre

3.13; see also Figure 3.10), a late building situated in Court 2 betweenstmctures 5D-63 on the northern side of the court and Strncture 5D-60, an

oratorio on the western side of the same court. The tl,r,o flanking struc-tures differ widely in their forrn and undoubteclly in their function. Strttc-ture 5D-60 has the shape of a very sn-rall temple lvith a single room lt'ellelevated abor.'e the cor.rrt. The roont proportion is unusual, as it is extremelywide for a stone vault. However, the presence of a vault was demou-strated in the rernains. The fact that this var-rlt collapsed readily is uot sur-prising given the span of the room. In contrast, 5D-63 is a complex petlace

Tlu'one s Lttttl Tltrttrte Structurcs itt tlrc Cctftrttl Acropolt:

building rvith many roolns formed in a Ll she

bed-benches contained in this unique buildirized, and probably tenporary and ritual, forr

gested elsewhere that this building functionedteam of ballplayers residing in separated an

ballcourt in the Great Plaza below (Harrison a

Structure 5D-118 also has specialized architt

flanking buildings, their disparate functions t

tural environment from those of the other prtready discussed. The first two buildings descr

faces east. This orientation makes the buildingrooms in the Central Acropolis, rvhich are co

with multiple fnnctions. Most such rooms fact

5D-46, and 5D-54), sr,rggesting that an eastern

is ai least an alternative to faciug south. This

tandem rooms rather thar-r the usttal single ror

in the rear. In compensation, there is au except

with r,'irtr-ra1ly no front rvall at all, sttch that ar

room wotrld be quite visible from the exteriortors-orientation, association with a specializ

throne bench-it is conciuded that this stnserved the functior-r of a free-star-rding throne sl

Stratigrapl-ry confirms that 5D-118 couid nc

time of Y;rx Ain II, tl-re twenty-ninth ruler, wfof Maler's Palace in the same cor,rrtyard (Ha

of this building was very late in the seqtienceYet another conclusion emerges. A successi

built throne structlrres in the Ceutral Acropolitain private hor-rseholds in the same compltwhere tl-rat the mlers Y'ikin Chan K'arvil and

their own separate households in the form c

of the Central Acropolis (Harrison 1999).

Grotrps G and F. If this interpretation is cortthe last king to hold residence in the Central Imaintair-i some of the rnaruy court functions r

gestion is that there r,vas an increasing trendprirrate residence from those of the coi-rrt. Suc

tory of Tikal (after t.o. 734) may have been

sonal security or merely the desire and abilitNot all lr'ir,es and children wclr-rld be please

cants, diplornats, and erren criminals or capti

of tl-reir honse and undor.rbtedly sneakrng pet

ments. The h-rxury of royal privacy may not hi

cal) untii il're r,vell-manifested wealth had be

Pcter D. Hnrrison

{m

Pcttr D. Hnrt ison

D-l1B on the right is the builtiing r'r'ith almost no frontlhe far left (photo by Harrison 1967).

most frequently presented on the painted vessels.gh the opren spaces arolnld these structr-rres in the

taining thrones are highiy controlled r,r,ith re-rtheless expect that members of a variety of social

s to view these images clf the rrictoriotts rvarrior.for the consr-rmption of the ruler's fellor'r' elite,

;sels are presumed to carry such a restriction.

r structure in the Central Acropoiis that may haveseparate throne strltctttre. This is 5D-118 (Figure

10), a late building situated in Cor-rrt 2 betweeunorthern side of the court and Structure 5D-60, an

L side of the same court. The two flar-rking struc-eir forrn and undonbteclly irr their function. Struc-re of a very small temple r'vith a single room r,r,'ell

. The room proportion is ttnusual, as it is extremelyHolvever; the presence of a vault was demon-

'he fact that this r-ault collapsecl readily is uot sur-

'f the room. In contrast, 5D-63 is a complex palace

Thrones ttrrd Tlrrouc Structtrres itt tlrc Cuttrttl Acroltolis o.f Til<Ltl 95

building r,r,ith many rooms formed in a LI shape. The high proportion ofbed-benches contained in this uniqr-re building suggests a very special-ized, and probably ten-rporary and ritual, form of residence. I harre sug-

gested elsewhere that this Lrr-rilcling functioned as temporary housing for a

team of ballplayers residing in separated and holy isolation above theballcourt in the Great Plaz;r below (Harrison ancl Andrews 1998).

Structr-rre 5D-118 also has specialized architectural feattires, like tl"re tn'oflanking buildhgs, their dispartrte functions distingr-rishing this architec-tural environment from those of the other proposed throne structures al-ready discussecl. The first two buildings describecl ftrce soltth, but 5D-118faces east. This orientation makes the br-rilding comparable to mauy tirronerooms in the Central Acropolis, which are contained in larger bLrildingswitlr nrultiple functions. Most such roorls face east (e.g., in 5D-65,5D-49,5D-45, ald 5D-54), suggesting that an eastern orientation for this ftinctionis at least an altemative to facilg sor-rth. 'Ihis strurcture (5D-118) contairrstandem rooms rather than the usuarl single room, and the thrclne bench isin the rear. In compensation, tlrere is an exceptionally wide fror.rt doorlvay,witlr i,irtr-rally no front wall at all, strch thtrt an enthroned njatu ir-t the back

room wor,rld be quite visible from the exterior cor-rrtyard. Git'en al1 the fac-

tors-orientation, association with a specialized residence, presence of athlone bench-it is concl-rded that this structule trlso may n ell harte

served the fr-rnction of a free-stzurdi-ng throne strttctttre.Stratigraphy confirms that 5D-118 could not have been built before the

time of Yax Ain II, the twenty-ninth ruler, who is the interpreted builderof Mtrler's Palace in the same courtyarcl (Harrison 1999). Therefore, ttse

of this briilcling \\,r-rs r.ery late in the sequence of Tikal rulers.Yet another conclusion emerges. A st-rccession of kings appears to have

br"rilt throne strr-rctures in the Central Acropolis even if they did not rn.'iin-tain private hor,rseholds in the salne complex. I have interpreted else-

lufiere that the mlers Y'ikin Cheur K'arvil and Yax Ain II did incieecl br-rild

their onn separate households in the form of palace cornplexes or,rtside

of the Central Acropolis (Harrison 1999). These were, respectirrell,,Groups G and F. If this interpretatiou is correct, then Hasaw r'r,as likeiythe last king to hold residence in the Central Acropcllis, but not the last tomair-rtairr some of the rnarny cor-rrt fr-rncticlt-is within this group. The sug-gestion is that there i,rras an increirsing trend to separate the fr-rnctions rlfprivate residence from those of the court. Sucir separation late in the his-tory of Tikal (after A.D. 734) may har.e been motir.'atecl by r-reeds of per-sonal secr-rrit)r or merely the desire and ability to achieve farnily privacy.Not all r,t ives and children would be pleased to har.e troc'lps of suppli-calts, diplomats, and e.,,en crimin;'rls or captives parading thror-rgh partsof their hourse and undoubtedly sneaking peeks into the off-limits apart-ments. The luxury of royal privacy rnay 1s1 have been possible (or practi-cal) r,u-rtil the well-manifested wealth had been achieved that is evideut

96 Pctcr D. Hnrristnt

FICURE 3.1,1 The addition to Structure 5D-61 irr theforeground corrtains a thlone facing left (north).Another throne is located in the room beyond theopen door (photo by Halrison 1959).

after the reign of Hasaw Chan K'awil. This wealth and general prosper-ity, w4rich \vas enjoyed in the latter decades of Tikal's glory, can be attrib-uted to the snccess of his campaigns.

Strtrcture 5D-61 Additiort

There is one fr-rrther architectural element relerrant to this discussion. Thisis the room that l-rad been added to the western side, that is, at the southernend of Structure 5D-61 on the northern sicle of Cor-rrt 2. The original build-ilg was quite early il the Acropolis sequence. A date ciose to the begimingof the Late Classic period is a guess, aird the original building had a soli-tary room at the southern end with a sir-rgle doorway facing west, possiblyserving as an oratorio. The adclition (Figure 3.14) was made at an unknownLrut corrsiderably later date, as attested by the stratigraphy; it faces r-rorth.

Tlu'ortcs ttrrtl Tltrotrc Strrrcfrrres itr tlrc Cettral Auopol

h-rside is a sirrgle, rooln-sparll1ing throne ben,

the doorlvay to the north and totvarc'l a vieuTemple was alreacly built at this time). The Gr

lis r,t'ere certainly in place when this additi<

awkward, gained from a narrow alley betr

5D-62. The interior room that was enclosed b'

throne ber-rcl-r against the eastem r'vall, facin

were constrllcted secondarily at Tikal, there is

the time span between the construction of l

bench is significant or not. In its current state

rior room has a view only into the additiolfreely faces an otttdoor view to the north. Thr

the two throues is not kerol,vn; neither is the

knowledge of this investigator, no thrones har

west in their final configuratic'rn, and it is arg

was c]tosen for cr-rltural reasons, namely,thasurl was reserved, by taboo, for sacerdotal fur

There are several possible expianations fr

found in the southern end of 5D-61. One is

could be the earlier of the t\'vo, so that lvlbench was constructed it enjc'ryed only the irtion. Converselli the r'vest-facing throne cott

intrusive ruler unfamiliar with the Tikal con

tained in the Central Acropolis'

Throne Rooms in Bui

Rooms that contain benches with backscr

marking the throne function are also found

tion btriltl irrgs. Most flequerrtly tlrese are fot

floot although a felv examples of such thron

Thls latter distribution raises an interesting r

uals and groups from outside of the famiceiverl. From the point of t'ier"u' of our cultu

one hand, the occupants of the Central Acro

did gradually move to-"vard increasing restr

courtyards. Second stories, even third storir

change in the demographic configuration o1

necessity later in time. To br-rild a late uppe

one that tutomatically emboc-lied a highly I

then to builcl r,r,ithin it a reception room-alpose. Once again, this may be accounted for

sity and complexity of function in receptior

benefit from extreme remoteness and restrit

juring, involving the use of smoke and mir

Pctar D. Hnrristlt

ilre adclition to Structr.rre 5D-61 irr thelains a thrrxre facing left (north).is located in the room beyorrd thelo by Harrison 1969).

lhan K'ai'r'il. This r'r,ealth and general prosper-:he latter decades of Tikal's glory, can be attrib-arnpaigns.

:ctural element relevant to this discussion. Thrsdded to the rvestem side, that is, at the sottthernthe northern side of Court 2. The original build-.cropolis seqlrence. A date close to the beginningLs a guess, and the original building had a soli-nd with a shgle doorway facing west, possiblyaddition (Figure 3.14) rvas made at an unknownr, as attested by the stratigraphy; it farces north.

Tluottts Luttl Tltrttttc Strttcttrras irt tlrc Cctttrnl Aclopo/l-s of Tikrtl

Insicle is a silgle, room-spallnirrg tirrtlne bench rvith side-arms facing outthe doorw.atV to the north aj1d towtrrd a view of Tempie I (assuming that

Temple was trlread;, built at this time). TI-re Great Plaza and North Acropo-

lis were certainly in place when this acldition \,\'as raised. The access is

awkwarcl, gainecl from a narrow alley between Structures 5D-61 and

5D-62. The interior room that was enck)sed by the addition also contails a

throne bench etgaitrst the eastern lvall, facing west. Becar-lse all benches

were coltstrtlcted secondarily at Tikal, there is often no way to detemrine ifthe time span betn'een the constrllction of the building and that of tirebench is significant or not. In its current state, the throne of the oltler inte-

rior room has ar view only into the acldition, lt hereas the oltter throne

freely faces ;rn otttcloor view to the nortl-r. The seqttence of constrttctiorr of

the two thrones is not knor,r'n; neither is the date of the addition. To tl-re

knowledge of this ilvestigatot no thrones h;rcl a free and open rriew to the

west il their final configurratic'rl1, and it is arguecl l-rere that tl-ris restriction

\,vas chosen for cnltural reasons, nalnely ,that this vierv toward the dying

stlll was reserved, b)t taboo, for sacerdotal functions'There are Set,eral possible explanations for the unltsttal arrangemellt

for-urd in tire sotrthern end of 5D-61. One is that the north-ftrcing throne

cotrld be the e.rrlier clf the tr,vo, so tl-rat r'vhen the west-facing interiorbench was constrltctetl it e'njoyed only the iuterior vien' of the later addi-

tion. Conrrersellr, 16" n'est-facing throne ccluld have been installed by an

intrusirre rtiler unfarniliar u,ith the Tikarl corttrentions that otherr'vise per-

tained in the Centr;rl Acropolis.

Throne Rooms in Buildings

Rooms that contain benches rvith backscreens alld side-arm Screens

marking tl-re thlone function are also forrnd in ntnltiroomed, mtiltifturc-tion br-rildings. Most frequeutly these are found preserved on the grollndfloor, altiror-rgh a fei,r'exclmples of such thrones in second stories do occttr.

This latter clist-ribution raises an interesting question of access, if inclivicl-

uals ancl grorlps from outsicle of the fan-rily hor"rsel-rolcl wele to be re-

ceived. From the point of vierv of our culture, there is a conflict. On the

one hand, the occr-rpants of the central Acropolis, be they farnilial or not,

did gradually rlo\/e tolvarcl increasing restriction of access to the interior

collrtyards. Secorrd stories, even third stories in a few Cases, Iepresellt a

change in the demographic configLtration of the complex, and thev are of

lrecessity later ir-r time. Tcr btiilcl a larte upper story (say, after a'p. 7I0)-one thttt ar-ttomatically enrbodied a highly restricted route of access antl

then to build within it a reception room-appears to be a conflict of pur-

pose. Once again, this may be accounted for in terms of ir"rcreasing diver-sity arrd complexity of flrnction in reception rooms. some functions may

benefit frorn extrerne remoteness ancl restriction clf access. Scelres oi con-

juring, inr,olving the r-rse of smtlke and mirrors, are depicted on p.linted

97

98 Pctcr D. l-Inrristnr

FICURE 3.15 Structure 5D-65 (Maler''s Palace) is a multiroomed structure withseveral throne rooms on botir strxies.

vesseis \,vith a setting that clearly is within a pralace. Such scenes may betaking place in the limited-access throne rooms found in upper stories.Private divinatory ceremorlies or the reception of trusted diplomats con-re

to mind as benefiting from such remote \.eltlles. C)ne example in the Cen-tral Acropolis is ir-r the seconcl-story east-end room of Maler's Palace(5D-65; see Figures 3.15 and 3.16).

There are several things that we do not know frorn excavation or e\renfrom extrapolation from other sources of data. What actually happenedir"r those upper stories? After half a n'rillennium or more of growth, theCentral Acropolis came to have the look of a Middle Eastern city, or teII,

in its own right. This is largely due to the varied levels of the courtyardscletermined originally by the contours of the beclrock of tire hilltop thatthe Central Acropolis shares with the North Acropolis and the GreatPlaza. The highest courtyard, Court 2, is the product of aggressive artifi-cial construction, mostly achieved during the reign of Y'ikin ChanK'ar,r,il. The changes in descending lerrel from Court 2 through Courts 3,

4, and 6 resulted in the necessity for multiple stairways to provide accessroutes (Figr-rre 3.17). The configuration of these stairs and their associatedaccess baffles tells us a lot about the conternporary concepts of allowedand denied access.

Tlu'ottt's nttd Tltrttttc Stnrcturcs itt tlrc Ccttrnl Acn4tolt

FIGURE 3.1(r Artist's reconstruction of the royal ,

sicle of Strr-rcture 5D-65. The iconography of the qfact but is mostly the artjst's conception by T.W Rr

FICURE 3.17 The multiple stails that corrnect difbetween Courts J (belovr') and 3 (above) demonstrof the Central Acropolis and the restriction of acce

rooms (photo by Harrison 1966).

Pcttr D. Hnrristttt Tluttncs rtttd Throuc Strrrctttcs itr tltc Ccrttrnl Acro1tolis o.f likLtl 99

-65 (Maler's Palace) is a multiloomed stlucture r'r'ith

r stories.

; clearly is within a palace. Such scenes may be

d-access throne rooms found in upper stories'mies or the reception of trusted diplomats comen srlch renote Vellties. One exar.nple in the Cen-econd-story east-end room of Maler's Palace

nd 3.16).

s that we do uot kuow frcltn exca\ration or evenother sources of data. What actually happened.fter half a millennium or more of growth, ther have tlre look o{ a Middle Eastem city, or tcll,rgely due to the rraried levels of the courtyardsthe contours of the bedrock of the hilltop that

rares with the North Acropolis and the Greatard, Court 2, is the product of aggressive artifi-y achieved during the reign of Y'ikin Chan:scending level from Court 2 through Cor"rrts 3,

lcessity for multiple stairlvays to provicle access

:onfiguration of these stairs and their associated

rt about the contemporary concepts of allowed

FICURE 3. l6 Artist's reconstmction of the royal court in trction on the northsicle of Strncture 5D-65. The iconography of the uppel zone is based on recordeclfact but is n'rostly the artist's conception by 1.W. Rr.rtledge.

FICURE 3.17 The multiple starirs that cr'rnnect different levels ancl structuresbetlveen Courts I (Lrelovr,) and 3 (;rbove) denronstrate the stmctural complexityof tl-re Central Acropolis alrd the restriction of access to throne structures anrlrooms (prhoto by Harrison 1966).

100 Pctcr D. Hnrrison

Although the directions of south and east seem to have been preferredfor a free-standing building or rooms in complex palaces, both contain-ing thrones, r,tre have already seen that in one of these buildings, 5D-59,the thror-re itself faced u/est but had no exterior vieu/ in that direction. It ismy positior-r that doorways opening to the rvest r,vere related to functionsof religion and afterlife, even where they occur in palaces, at least for the

Central Acropolis at Tikal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the royal seat, as a throne, ser\/es as a major marker clf the

royal court at Tikal and has been considered in a variety of venues in thischapter. Portable thrones allow mobility to certain functions of the ruler,and an argument has been presented here that such objects were suffi-ciently revered to be passed through the generations representing the

wood-carving tradition of Tikal. Examples have been examined of thronebenches in a rrariety of differing architectural environments in the Cen-

tral Acropolis, including in separate, free-standing buildings and in n-rul-

tiroom buildings.Thrones were found facing all four cardinal directions, altl-rough the

r'r'est-facing ones have no operl view to that direction in their final state.

East is statistically the most preferred direction, lvith sotith a close second.

There is indication that the courtly functions of the throne room were at

first associated with the residence of the ruler and that this graduallychanged in two ways. First, the throne fr-rnction was moved into a separatebuilding which was close to the residential structure; second, residencesmoved out of the Acropolis entirely, but the court functions of the thronerooms and buildings continued in the Central Acropolis. A final observa-

tion is that the Acropolis was not by any means the exclusive location ofcourtly functions as identified by throne benches. These occur in othercomplexes around the city. However, the Central Acropolis does seem tohar.'e remained a focal point for such activities for at ieast five centuries"

trt has been suggested that different decoration styles on thrones have

an association with two different lerrels of presentation of the seated hu-man. One of these is celestial, or liturgical, in nature, marked by the pres-ence of the decorative sky-band. Although also decorated at other citiesin the lowlands, other thrones rnayr bs categorized as harring served the

more mundane ceremonial functions such as judiciary, militarl', and trib-r-rte reception events. The kinds of events that would require the form ofthe celestial throne, such as accession to power; are surely more religiousor momentous in the life of the lord involved. Due to the current piain-ness of the Tikal thrones, whose only decoration consists of rare use of anoverhanging seat lip, it must be assnmed that such decoration was per-ishable, pair-rted, or made of textile, drawing limits to assignment of spe-

Tlu^ones nnd Tlrotte StntcttLrcs itt tlrc Cutrttl Ao'opo/is

cific function from the database in the Centr.

limitations, some insights ir-rto the role of thro

been offered.

References

Baudez, Claude F., and Pierre Becquelin l984. lc-s iCoe, Michael D., and Justin Kerr. 1998. Tlrc Art

Halry N. Ablams.Hammond, Norman, and Ben Thomas. 1998. "A

at La Milpa." Cottcrt 14(1): 15-16.

Harrison, Peter D. 1970. "The Central AcropoJis

nary Study of the Ftrnctiorrs of its Structural Compr

Perioc1." PI.r.D. cliss., University of Pennsylvania.

--. 199(:. "Court of Cor:r'ts: Ceremonial, Leg

in Maya Elite Society." Paper presented at the anr

Anthropological Association, San Francisccl.

1999a. Tltt Lttrtls oi Tildtl. Lctnclon: Thame

1999b. "Palaces of the Royal Court at

Christie, ed., MLtyLt PLtlLtces nnd Elite Rc-siiJcriccs:

Austin: Universitv of Texas Press. II-r press.

Harrison, Peter D., and E. Wyllys Andren's V. 1

Copan." Paper prs5glted at symposium Ancier

Folm, Fr-rnction, ancl Meaning, Dumbarton Oaks

tion, Washington, DC.

Jones, Christopher, anrl Linton Satterthn'aite' 19

tions of Tiknl: Tlrc Carted Motutments,Iiknl Rrpolf Nr

versity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Kelr, J ustin. 19E9-97. Tlrc Mnyn Vnse Book: A C

Mnyn Vnscs. Vtrls. 1-5. New Yolk: Kerr Associates

Laporte, Juan Pedro. 1993. "Architecture and

Maya Society: The Evidence from Mundo Perdid

and John S. Henderscxr,eds., Ltnulnttl Mttqn Cittiliz,

pp. 299-317 . Wirsh in gton, DC : Du mbarion Oaks Rr

Lundell, Cyrtrs L. 7()37. Tlte Vcgetntion oi the

Washington Pr.rblication No. 478. Washingkrn, DC.

Maler', Teobert. 1911. Erplorntitttts in tlrt Dcpnrt

Memoirs of the Peabody Museutrr of American Ar

5, no. 1. Cambritlge: l larvarcl UniversityRobertson, Nlet'le Greene. 1985. Tfte Sculpturc

Princetrtl ff11ivg15i[y Press.

Robertson, Merle Greene, Alfonso N{orales, ar

Group Project Dlscovers, Tomb, Throne, and Limt

colttntbirtrr ' rt Rcse nrclt Institrrte Nears/cflcr 28: i-1.Webster, David, Barbara Fash, Randolph Wid

"The Skybancl Grottp: Excavations of a Classic Ma

Copdn, Honduras." ltturttLtl o.f Ficltl Arclneolttgy 25:

Pctcr D. Hnrrtstttt

rs of soutir and east seem to have been preferred.ing or roorns in complex palaces, both cont.rin-eady seen that in one of these buildings, 5D-59,:st brrt had no extericlr viett, in that directior-r. It isLys opening tcl the rvest were related to functiorrs:r,en r,vhere they occur in palaces, at least for the

11.

Conclusion

;eat, as a throne, serves as a majclr marker of the

ras been considered in a variety of t'euues in this; allolt, mobility to certain futrctiorls of the rule4len presented here that such objects r'r'ere sr-rffi-

ssed througlt the generations representing the

'Tikal. Examples have beetr exatrritred of throneffering architectural environntettts in the Cen-

n separate, free-standing builclings ancl in mul-

cing all four carclinal directions, aithough tl-re

open vier,r, to that direction in their fiual state.

;t preferred direction, with south a close second.

e courtly functiorrs of the throne room lvete at

residence of the ruler and that this gradually;, the throne fr-rnction lt'as morted into a separate

to the residential structr-rre; secoucl, resideuces

is entirely, but the court fr-urctions of the throne

mued in the Central Acropoiis. A final observa-

Nas not by any means the exclusive location of

ffied by throne bencl-ies. These occur in otherr However, the Central Acropolis does seern to

rt for such actirrities for at ieast five centuries.

hat different decoratiou styles on throlres have

ifferent levels of presentation of the seated hu-tial, or liturgical, in nature, trrarked by the pres-

z-band. Although also decorated at other cities'ones may be categorized as having sen'ed the

rl frurctions such as jr-rdiciary, military, and trib-kinds of et,ents that would require the form ofrs accessiou to por,r,er, are surely more religiousof the lord involved. Due to the current plain-l"hose only decoration consists of rare ttse of an

rust be assumed that such decoration was per-

of textile, drawing limits to assignment of spe-

Tltnucs nrttl Tltrorrt: Strrrctrrrcs itr thc CcntrLrl Aloltsli5 oJ Tiknl 101

cific fr"urction from the dtrttrbase in the Central Acropolis. Despite theselimitations, some insights into the roie of throires arrrcf throne rooms hat,e

been offered.

References

Baudez, Claucle F., and Pien'e Becqtrelin. .1984.

Lc-s fuInyn.s. Paris: Flditions Callimard.Coe, Michael D., ancl Justin Kerr. 1998. T/re Art of tlrc MLttltt Sliltc. Ner,r' Vrrk:

HarLy N. Abranrs.Hamnrond, Norntan, and Ben Thomas. 199E. "Another May;r 'fhrclne Room at

atLa N4ilpa." Corfc.r.f 14(1 ): 15-16.Harrison, Peter D. 197t1. "The Centlal Acropolis, Tik.rl, Guatemala: A Prelimi-

nary Study of the Ftrnctions of its Structulal Components During the l-ate Classic

Period." Plr.D. diss., Unir.ersity of Pennsylvania.1996. "Court of Courts: Ceremonial, l,egal, and Ilierarclrical Functions

in Maya Elite Society." l'aper plesented at tlre annual meeting of the Amerit-.rnAnthropologicaI Associatiorr, S;rn Fra ncisco.

l.)99a.Tltc Lords oi'fikLtl. Lonclon: Thames and llrrclson1999b. "Palaces of the Royal Court at Tikal, Cluatemala." In Jessica

Cl.rristie, ed., Mnryn Pttlnccs nttd Elitc RcsirTcricc-s: Au lutcrdisciplitrnrq A1tytrttLtclt.

Ar.rstin: University of Texas Press. In press.Harrison, I'eter D., ancl E. Wyllys Anclrer,vs V 1998. "The P.rlaces of Jrkal and

Coparr." P;rper presented at svn'rposium Ancient Palaces of the Ner,r'Wotlcl:Form, Functic)r1, crncl Meaning, Dunrb;rrton C)aks Research Library and Collec-tion, Washington, DC.

Jones, Christopher, and I-inton Satterthr.r'aite. 7L)82.T|rc Motttrttretrts rtrttl lttscri1t-

tions of Tiktl: Th: Cort,t',l Nlttttttntctrts, Tiknl Rcport No. 33, Pnrt A. Philadelphia: Uni-versit). Musetr n-r, Unii'ersi ty of Pennsylvania.

Kerr, Jr,rstin. 1989 97. Tltc Mttltt Vnsc Booh: A Cttrlttrs oJ RollotLt Pltottt;ynylrs oJ

MtyLt Vnscs. Vols. 1-5. Nen'Yot'k: Kerr Associates.Laporte, Juan Pedro. 1993. "Architecture anrl Social Chance in L,ate Classic

Maya Society: The Ei'idence from Mundo Peldido, Tiktrl." In Jeremy A. Sabloffand Jolrn S. Flenderson,eds., Lotulntu.l Mnqt Ciuilizntion itt fltc Eiglttlt Cctrturq ,t.rt.,

pp.299-317. Wtrshington, DC: Dr,rmbarton Oaks Re'search Library .rncl Collecticrn.

Lundell, Cyrr-rs 1.. 1937. Tltc Vcgctntitttt oi tlrt Pctert. C.rnregie Irrstitution ofWashington Publication No. 478. Washington, DC.

l\'laler, Tetrbert. 1911. Erplorotitttts itt tltt Dcltnrttttcrtt o.f Pctt'tr, Gtrntcntnlt: Tiknl.

Niemoils oI tlre Peaboc-ly Mtrseur-n of Americ.in Arclraeology anc-l Ethnologri vol.5, no. i. Ciarnbridge: Ilan'arrl University.

Robertson, N'lerle Creer.re. 1985. The Sctrlptttrrc o"f PnlcrrLltrc, r'ol. 2. Princeton:Pri nceton Urriversity Pr:ess.

Rrrbertson, Merle Gleer-re, Alfonso N,'lorales, and Dar.icl Sttrart. .l999. "Cross

Group l)roject Dlscor-ers, lonib, Throne, arrd [,imestone Panel in Palertque." Prc-

colrrntltiLttt , rt llcst'trrc|t Ittstittrtc Ncios/cllcr 28: I-.1.

Webster, Davir'l, Barbara Fash, Randolph Widmer, and Scott Zeleznik. 1998.

"The Skyband Ciroup: Excavations of a Classic Maya Elite Resicterrtial Complex at

Cop;in, Horrdrras." lttunnl oJ Ficltl Arclnaologrl 25:319-4.11.