I. MAYA HIGHLAND PREHISTORY; NEW DATA AND IMPLICATIONS Richard E. W. Adams The Maya culture areas of Mesoamerica have always been of special interest to prehistorians due to the fact that the Maya anciently occupied several distinct ecological zones. The highly diverse cultural patterns found within these zones seem to fall into two broad groupings: those associated with tropical highland environments as contrasted to those in tropical lowland surroundings. The Maya are also of special interest in that the tropical forest cultures, although apparently beginning their florescence later, reached a higher degree of complexity than those of the highlands. Prehistorians have generally assumed that civilizations cannot develop independently in tropical forest regions (viz. Sanders and Price 1968:142; also Meggers 1954). Further, it has been known for some time that in the southern highlands of Guatemala, and especially at the site of Kaminaljuyu, there were early and sophisticated cultural achievements (in architecture and sculpture, for example) earlier than those in lowlands (M.D. Coe 1966:63-73). The ecological assumption and the fact of cultural priority led to the conclusion that much of high culture in the lowlands was donated from the highlands. In spite of the weakening of the ecological argument due to recent work, this conclusion has retained its strength as a premise in thinking about Maya prehistory. Another premise was that the Guatemalan Highlands must have been part of the area in which wild ancestors of native American food plants were domesticated and, therefore, in which a settled and agriculturally based life was developed. No evidence was or is available to indicate early pre- historic plant domestication in the tropical forest zones. It was, there- fore, assumed that the Maya lowlands had initially been colonized by agriculturalists from the adjacent Maya highlands (M.D. Coe 1966:39). These assumptions and arguments have not been seriously questioned until recently. However, with the exception of the largely unpublished data from Kaminaljuyu, no significant quantity of intensive work had been done in the highlands which seemed to bear upon these problems. In fact, in no case did we possess a continuous ceramic sequence. -1- 2 A two season program of archaeological excavation in the north Guate- malan highlands was carried on in 1965 and 1966 by a University of Minnesota project headed by the writer (1). The objectives of the project were (i) to define in detail a continuous ceramic sequence for a Maya highland region, and (ii) to detect and define the nature of cultural relationships between parts of the Maya highlands and lowlands, especially on an early (i.e. Preclassic) level. There was also the (unstated, as usual) objective of exploiting unexpected information. For these purposes we selected a small valley in the north Guatemalan highlands through which the Cotzal River runs north and, therefore, down toward the tropical forest lowlands (Figure 1). In ancient times, rivers would be likely to constitute major routes of access from one ecological zone to another and, therefore, our chances of meeting our objectives would be greater by working on such a route. Based on our research, we have established a continuous ceramic sequence beginning about 0 AD and ending about 1550 AD. We have also come to the conclusions (i) that the earliest occupation in the northern Guate- malan highlands generally begins with the Classic period (i.e. shortly before or about the time of Christ), (ii) that early cultural developments of the preclassic period (ca. 900-0 BC) in the Maya highlands and lowlands were largely independent, and (iii) that the Maya lowlands were likely colonized by agriculturalists from adjacent lowlands; i.e. from the Veracruz-Tabasco coastal plain of Mexico. Several implications flow from these tentative conclusions and are presented and discussed below. Ceramic chronology of the Cotzal region. Several archaeological surveys had previously been carried out in the Northern Guatemalan highlands by Robert Burkitt (1930), Franz Termer (1936, 1941), and A. L. Smith (1955), among others. In addition, large amounts of tomb pottery had been excavated and studied by several archaeologists (Butler 1940, R.E. Smith 1952, A.L. Smith and A.V. Kidder 1951). Both the surveys and the excavations included the Cotzal zone. Tentative ceramic sequences had been set up on the basis of this work but necessarily with temporal gaps. Furthermore, since ancient Mesoamerican burials of the more distinguished members of society often utilized exotic and specially made 3 pottery, there is no assurance that the tomb ceramics are representative of the burial period. Nevertheless, this prior work allowed us to pick the sites most likely to give us the longest ceramic sequences in a physically stratified manner. Most of the project's activities were carried out at four sites in the middle Cotzal Valley; Tzicuay, San Francisco, San Francisco del Norte, and Palo Viejo (Figures 1 and 2). Forty-two stratigraphic test pits, four meters square, were dug in these sites and some other excavation done. We also carried out survey and limited excavation at the site of Chajcar about 78 kms. to the east, in Alta Verapaz. Three large private collections com- prising hundreds of intact pottery vessels were utilized for comparative purposes. Sherd collections from sixteen other sites in the Cotzal and nearby regions were studied. Thus, the excavated sample was greatly augmented in quantity and in spatial distribution by both previous work and unpublished material. This perhaps lends a greater degree of confidence to the conclusions. Utilizing the above data, a continuous and unbroken ceramic chrono- logy has been established for the Cotzal Valley running from the time of the Spanish conquest back to about the time of Christ; i.e. ca. 1530 to 0 AD (see table 1). Typological description of the pottery combined with strati- graphic evidence from the test pits has allowed us to establish three ceramic complexes, and to arrange these into a sequence. Without dealing with the details of ceramic types, which will be described fully in a monograph now in preparation, certain observations can be made about the sequence. First, there is an indisputable continuity of types from complex to complex, especially in the types probably used for domestic purposes, i.e., for cooking, carrying water, etc. This continuity in ceramic type would seem to indicate a basic continuity of population within the valley, without significant disturbances due to large-scale migrations. 4 Second, there are few typological linkages through the domestic types with lowland Maya pottery, but many with the pottery of adjacent highland regions. The implication here is that culture flow -- and hence population flow -- is from these adjacent highland regions into the middle Cotzal region. Further, there is no indication on the earliest level, about the beginning of the Christian era, that there is any significant population flow from high- lands to lowlands, or vice versa. Third, there are typological linkages to the lowlands through elaborate and typologically rare tomb pottery (Figure 3). These burial pieces, would indicate that such highland-lowland contacts as there were, were largely restricted to the upper levels of society and to the earliest complex and the period of time thereby represented. Finally, there is the complete and utter lack of pottery that can be classed as Preclassic in either stratigraphic situations, or as anomalous types mixed with later pottery. The implications of this point will be the subject of discussion in the final section of this paper. Natural setting, settlement patterns, and land use. The floor of the middle Cotzal Valley is at an altitude of about 1400 meters with surrounding ridges rising to between 2000 and 3000 meters. These ridges begLn their rise nearly erom th. edge of the river; hence there is very lit-tle flat land in the middle Cctzal region. Archaeological sites of the region fall into two classes; (i) cere- monial centers and (ii) individual habitation sites. Fairly small and compact ceremonial centers are characteristic of the northern highlands. In the Cotzal Valley, ceremcnial center sites are usually located on low spurs running out from the massive ridges (Figure 4), although one site was found on the valley floor. The sites consist of plastered masonry buildings arranged about and oriented inward upon paved courts. The principal type of building in these groups is a rectangular platform which supported one or more structures with perishable roofs and, often, perishable walls. From analogy with other Mesoamerican ceremonial architecture, and from internal 5 evidence, these buildings functioned at least partly as temples. No per- manent, multi-roomed structures of the "palace" type common to other parts of Mesoamerica have been found. However, it is possible that certain of the "temple" platforms may also have supported perishable, elite class housing. Most of the platforms contain masonry tombs when excavated; judging by the relatively sumptuous nature of the grave offerings, these tombs are the burial places of wealthy and important individuals. Perhaps the primary purposes of the ceremonial centers of the Cotzal region were as commemorative burial places for the distinguished dead and as residences for the distinguished living. Small platforms are often found in the courts upon which ritual activities might have been performed. A final and invariable feature of the Cotzal ceremonial sites is a ball-court. These structures, with variations, consist of two parallel masonry walls between which the game was played in a central alley. Spanish accounts say that the game was played with a solid rubber ball and that hitting with feet and hands was disallowed. The same accounts also say that the game had both recreational and divinatory purposes (2). Additional specific functions of the ball game in this region and through time can only be speculated upon at present. However, the presence of important burials in ball court architecture at Tzicuay may indicate that perhaps the ances- tors were expected to express their will through the outcome of the game. Excavation showed that these ceremonial centers changed very little either in composition or, apparently, in function through time. In the Late Classic period, a trend to somewhat larger structures appears, but nowhere do we find the large scale fortified centers characteristic of the later periods in adjacent highland regions. Individual habitation sites were found scattered in an apparently random manner over most of the lower mountain slopes, which today constitute the most desirable agricultural lands. Rainfall probably amounts to over 1000 mm annually with a cloud cover characteristic of most of the year. Subsistence agriculture in the Valley today is a highland variation of the slash-and-burn system, known in Mexico as tlacolol (3). This system 6 requires rotation of fields and consequent dispersion of the population. Presentday native residences are built on small ledges cut into the hill- sides, and sometimes faced with stone. Similar ancient stone-faced terraces were found in association with refuse of domestic origin (potsherds of utility types, metate fragments, obsidian waste flakes, and ashes). Ancient post holes were also encountered in the terraces indicating that, as today, residences were of thatch and wattle construction. The present day pattern of dispersed houses and fields thus seems to be a perpetuation of the archaeo- logical past. A determinant in the location of present day houses in the Cotzal region is closeness to water, i.e. to the river. Our data indicate that the earliest occupied house sites are also the lowest in the valley; in other words, the protoclassic house sites are located closest to the river. Only during the Early and Late Postclassic periods do house sites appear higher up. House sites were located in these periods up to 200 meters above the river. All domestic house sites were occupied in the late phases of the sequence. This would indicate that population reached a maximum during the Postclassic, a demographic high probably maintained until European contact. There is no indication of colonial pottery construction or population in the middle Cotzal. However, in the upper valley a 16th century church of the early colonial period was built in the present major population center of San Juan Cotzal (Colby and van den Berghe 1969:45). We conclude that the middle Cotzal region along with vast areas of Mesoamerica was dras- tically depopulated immediately after the Spanish conquest probably by disease, by the Spanish policy of concentration of native Americans into towns, and by decimation during the conquest. When the coffee plantation of San Francisco was founded in the middle Cotzal in 1910, the European founder encountered only two Indian families in the region; these living at the river junction. Thus, our interpretation is that, after the Spanish conquest, this region may have remained essentially vacant for 360 years. Much of the neighboring region is even today lightly or not at all populated. 7 Implications of the absence of preclassic cultures. Both the Cotzal sites in Quiche and Chaj'car site in Alta Verapaz lacked preclassic components; i.e. anything that could be surely dated back in time beyond about 100 BC. Examination of several hundred vessels in private collections from these regions showed that same lack of preclassic pottery. The surface collections from sixteen additional sites in Quiche also show the same absence. However, a couple of scattered finds from the Alta Verapaz (a pottery head from Coban, for example), hint at the existence of a Preclassic. A recent find of preclassic materials on the lowland slopes of Alta Verapaz at Sakajut has been made by Robert Sharer (personal communication 1971). Our conclusions are that the Alta Verapaz region was occupied by a feebly developed Preclassic and that the northern Quiche Zone was occupied lightly or was vacant prior to the Protoclassic. The northern Quiche and the Alta Verapaz comprise the major head- water areas of the rivers leading to the lowlands from the northern side of the Maya Massif. Based on geographic accessibility and ethnographic data, we think that these rivers were probably the main route of communication in ancient days between highlands and lowlands. Indeed, today's Indian migra- tions from highlands to lowlands take place from the Alta Verapaz, both across country and down the Pasion River (R.N. Adams 1965). Yet these very regions seem to lack very much early cultural development. Thus it appears that contact between the precocious preclassic cultures of the southern highlands and those of the lowlands through these regions is highly lnlikely. Alternative routes of access from the southern highlands of Guatemala to the Maya lowlands would include that across the western plateau, west of the Cotzal zone. This seems a very improbable early route as it is topogra- phically much more difficult than the northern Quiche and the Alta Verapaz routes. No historical migrations from western highlands to lowlands are known. Still further west, archaeological work has shown a similar lack of preclassic occupation in the highlands of Chiapas (R.M. Adams 1961:343-4; Culbert 1965:78). The remaining possibilities are the routes through the Motagua River valley and along the low highland valleys of western Honduras 8 to the east of the Alta Verapaz. Recent work by Robert Sharer has turned up typological linkages between the Chalchuapa region in Fl Salvador and early pottery dating about 900-1000 BC at Altar de Sacrificios and Barton Ramie in the Maya lowlands (Sharer and Gifford 1967). However, the majority of typo- logical linkages of these early Maya lowlands complexes are to Gulf coastal Mexico, rather than to the Pacific side of Central America. Barbara \oorhies' work indicated late Preclassic occupation around Lago Izabal (1972:123). Considering the above data, inferences and hints, the following impli- cations can be drawni. (i) The preclassic vacancy of mu.ch of the north M4aya highlands makes it unlikely that, there was any significant contact between the precocious southern highland cultures and the contemporary lowland pre- classic cultures. Therefore, a donor-recipient relationship between highlands and lowlands no longer seems probable. Contact between the Cotzal sites and the lowlands seems to have been later,, tenuous and confined to the level of foreign trade and luxury goods. In addition, Wm. R. Coe has pointed out the impressive continuiities and long temporal buildup in preclassic lowland culture at sites such as Tikal which argue against significant imposition of highly developed cultural patterns from cutside (1965). On the other hand, that there were at least soome later, protoclassic intrusions into some regions of the Maya lowlands by peoples of sophlisticated cultural level is shown by evidence botA at Barton Ramie and Altar de Sacrificios. (ii) The initial population of the Maya lowlands cannot be 6aerived from the adjacent highlands if these were largely unoccupied in the Preclassic period. One must derive the earliest known agriculturalists of the l-owlands (ca. 900 BC) rom an adjacen t lowland region. It seems tc me, based on admittedly not very strong -eramic linkages, that Veracruz and Tabasco are the most likely origin regions. Indeed, Robert Rands has recently found Xe complex at Trinidad in eastern Tabasco dating probably ca. 800 BC (personal coununica- tion 1969). Moreover, early preclassic cultures of impressive sophistication have now been found in Veracruz dating about 1000 BC, thus predating the earliest Maya lowland material (Coe, Diehl and Stuiver 1967:1399-1401). (iii) Since the Maya Highlands as a whole seem to have been largely unoc- cupied until relatively late in the Preclassic, one must derive the earliest 9 settlers of the highlands from the temporally prior and physically adjacent Pacific coast. The earliest material in the southern highlands is from Kaminaljuyu and is at earliest probably 800 BC and possibly as late as 550 BC (4). Considering that there is well documented occupation on the Pacific coast of Guatemala as early as ca. 1200 BC in the La Victoria zone, it seems possible that the earliest settlers in the highlands came from this coast (Coe and Flannery 1967:68-69). There is also the fact of strong typological ties connect early pottery complexes from the coast and the southern lowlands. In view of the above, and that the earliest material in the northern highlands is thoroughly within the highland ceramic tradi- tions, these northern regions must have been populated initially from adjacent highland regions, i.e. from south to north. (iv) All or most of the affiliations of the early pottery around La Victoria are with early cultures to the West and Northwest in Mexico; i.e. in Oaxaca (Flannery, personal communication 1967), and Chiapas (Coe and Flannery:ibid), and Veracruz (Coe, Diehl and Stuiver op. cit:1400). Even the early Salvadorean material has linkages in that direction (Sharer and Gifford 1970:452). Considering these data, it would seem that the stimulus initial shift to agricultural village life in both the Pacific coast and the southern high- lands of Guatemala should have come from the Mexican lowlands. MacNeish has suggested in an important paper (1966) that the coastal zones of Meso- america may be where initial preagricultural sedentism was established. In other words, village life, based on exploitation of marine and estuary resources, and on wild plants and animals may have been the first form of sedentism in Mesoamerica. Later adaptation of agricultural plants and ideas from the highlands only transformed the kind of sedentism, but did not .establish it. If this hypothetical construction should prove to be the case, the picture becomes one of the flow of ideas and plants through these ini- tial sedentary populations, followed by physical and demographic expansion into zones more favorable for purposes of agricultural exploitation. Summarized into map form (Figure 1), one sees that the initial populating of, and cultural flow into, the Maya areas ran from West to East ans split along the Maya highlands (5). This scheme would fit well with 10 that of Borhegyi's (1965) reconstruction of early highland Maya culture history except for the important feature of the Maya lowlands being colonized from Veracruz-Tabasco rather than from the highlands. There is also the dif- ference of the possible additional later increment of population coming over the low mountain ranges of Salvador and Honduras. Any future research should take account of the following possible routes which have not been touched upon in our work. The first leads from the vicinity of Kaminaljuyu and down the Motagua River Valley. To reach the Maya Lowlands Proper, one must then cross or skirt the Lake Izabal region. No preclassic is surely known from the Motagua, nor would the region have been very inviting to early farmers, if its extremely arid characteristics in some parts represent a prehistoric climatic aspect. However, this is certainly a zone which should be explored inasmuch as later cultural developments are known to have occurred there. A final possible route is that of the Uloa Valley in Honduras in which truly early material has already been found. The question here is whether or not the preclassic material represents an isolated phenomenon or is historically connected with settlement of the Maya Lowlands. This is certainly a matter of importance to be investigated (Strong 1948). A site which is potentially of much importance in this matter of early cultural origins, is that of Dzibilchaltun, in the far northern lowlands which has pottery of an early aspect (Andrews 1968:40). However, this early pottery has no typological ties with any of the presently known contemporary pottery of the 9-600 BC time horizon (Willey, Culbert and Adams 1967:293). The arrow in Figure 1 implying historical ties to the south is therefore highly speculative. Obviously further work along the southwest coast of Yucatan is in order, and Jack Eaton has recently made an intensive recon- naissance in this area. In terms of fulfilling our project objectives we have obviously made only a start-. In addition, certain preconceptions, such as that there would be a preclassic to detect, have had to be discarded. A negative conclusion is obviously a problem of vastly greater magnitude than a positive one and also takes a greater amount of proof. For this reason, and also because the 11 implications are far reaching, the above conclusions have to be regarded as a series of more or less tenable hypotheses. These nevertheless can be combined to make an attractively integrated theory of the origins and sources of some of the early populations and cultures of the Maya areas. 12 Notes 1. Two field seasons were funded by National Science Foundation Grant no. GS-610 to the University of Minnesota for the project entitled: "The Ceramic Chronology of the Southern Maya." The Graduate School of the University of Minnesota also made a grant-in-aid to the project. R. E. W. Adams was principal investigator assisted in the field the first season by Kent Day, University of Minnesota, and in the second season by Ronald J. Nash, University of Alberta. I am indebted to Sr. Carlos Samayoa Chinchilla, former director of the Instituto Nacional de Anthropologia e Historia de Guatemala for official permission to work and for much other aid. I also thank the following persons in Guatemala for invaluable assistance: Srs. Celestino Brol, Edmundo Brol, Srta. Eluvia Brol, Sr. J. Brol, Sra. Bill Cox, Sr. J. Gonzalez, Sr. R. Mata, Dr. G. Mata, Sr. and Sra. Carolos Nottebohm, Lic. A. Molina Orantes, and Dr. H. Quirin. Thanks also go to Drs. P. Becquelin, S. F. de Borhegyi, J. C. Gifford, Lee Parsons, R. Sharer, and G. R. Willey, as well as to Mr. E. Ogan for constructive criticism and other help. Figure 1 is by Gordon Lothson. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association at Pittsburgh in November, 1966. A final report is now in preparation. 2. F. Blom refers to many of these accounts in The Maya ball-game pok-ta-pok (called tlachtli by Aztec) (Mid. Amer. Res. Series, No. 4, Tulane University, New Orleans, 1932). 3. Described in detail in W. Sanders and B. Price, 1968, Mesoamerica, The Evolution of a Civilization New York: Random House, esp. pp. 123-4. 4. These dates are my own estimates based on comparative studies carried out both during the Altar de Sacrificios and Cotzal Projects. There is the possibility that Arevalo, the earliest Kaminaljuyu complex, may con- tain material earlier than 800 BC as it is presently constituted. A project presently under way at Kaminaljuyu under the direction of W. T. Sanders may answer many such questions. 13 5. Figure 1 has been somewhat anticipated by that of Jimenez Moreno in his 1959 synthesis article on Preclassic and Classic Mesoamerican prehistory (May 1). However, Jimenez's map differs in that it outlines the putative cultural movements of the Tenocelome (Olmec) culture into Eastern Mesoamerica, whereas I am not yet prepared to accept the initial population movements and cultural flow as being Tenocelome in origin. In addition Jimenez makes clear in another map (Map 3) that he conceives of the Maya in the Preclassic as having a cultural unity embracing both high- land and lowland zones. W. Jimenez Moreno, 1966 "Mesoamerica Before the Toltecs," in Ancient Oaxaca, (Ed. by J. Paddock) Stanford University Press. Table 1. Correlation of the Cotzal Valley ceramic sequence with absolute time and the major cultural periods of Mesoamerican prehistory. Dates are based on ceramic comparisons with other sites and no C14 dates are available. The sequence names are those of the appropriate ceramic complexes. COTZAL VALLEY MAJOR MESOAMERICAN TINE SEQUENCE PERIODS 1550 1500 CHAJUL LATE 1400 POSTCLASSIC 1300 1200 1100 LATE EARLY 1000 COTZAL POSTCLASSIC 900 800 EARLY LATE 700 COTZAL CLASSIC 600 500 EARLY 400 CLASSIC 300 TUBAN 200 100 PROTOCLASSIC 0 AD 15 EARLIEST KNOWN SITES IN EASTERN MESOAMERICA LAN DS ABOVE THE 100 METER CONTOUR G. L. 19688 Figure 1. Earliest known sites in Eastern Mesoamerica and geographical features. Stippled areas are above the 1000 meter contour. 1. Cotzal sites, 2. Chajacar, 3. Kaminaljuyu, 4. Chalchuapa, 5. La Victoria and Salinas La Blanca, 6. Chiapa de Corzo, 7. Altar de Sacrificios, 8. Seibal, 9. Barton Ramie, 10. Dzibilchaltun, 11. Motagua River, 12. Ulua River. - - - I - - - a - - - - - - - - 17 I a b c Figure 3. Early and Protoclassic lowland polychrome vessels found in a tomb at Tzicuay, by A. L. Smith. I r I I I i i . t I ? I i I "WIll, IMM?MMMMI I 17 I a b c Figure 3. Early and Protoclassic lowland polychrome vessels found in a tomb at Tzicuay, by A. L. Smith. I r I I I i i . t I ? I i I "WIll, IMM?MMMMI I 18 4-) 57) 0 H cC 0 CH 0 0~~~~~ 9~~~~~~ C -c E~~~~~ <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*0 M) < 40 ta~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L U 6 w C L 4 ).0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ic) -E H 4D ti~~~4 0~~~~ LU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C LU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~L F' '3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 19 Bibliography Adams, Richard E. W. 1971 The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 63, No. 1, Harvard University. Adams, Richard N. 1965 Migraciones Internas en Guatemala: expansion agraria de los indigenas Kekchis hacia El Peten. Guatemala: Seminario de Intergracion Social Guatemalteca. Adams, Robert M. 1961 Changing Patterns of Territorial Organization in the Central Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. American Antiquity 26:341-360. Andrews, E. Wyllys 1968 Dzibilchaltun, A Northern Maya Metropolis. Archaeology 21:36-47. Borhegyi, Stephan F. de 1965 "Archaeological Synthesis of the Guatemalan Highlands," in Handbook of Middle American Indians (R. Wauchope, general ed. and G. R. Willey, vol. ed.), vol. 2, pp. 3-58. Austin: University of Texas Press. Burkitt, Robert 1930 Explorations in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. The Museum Journal, University of Pennsylvania 21:41-72. Butler, Mary 1940 "A Pottery Sequence from the Alta Verapaz, Guatemala," Maya and Their Neighbors (ed. by C. L. Hay et al), pp. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company. in The 250-267. Coe, Michael D. 1966 The Maya. New York: Praeger. Coe, Michael D., Richard Diehl, and M. Stuiver 1967 Olmec Civilization, Veracruz, Mexico: Phase. Science 155:1399-1401. Dating of the San Lorenzo Coe, Michael D., and K. V. Flannery 1967 Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal Guatemala. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 3. 20 Coe, Wm. R. 1965 Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Science 147: 1401-1419. Colby, B. N. and Pierre L. van den Berghe 1969 Ixil Country. University of California Press, Berkeley. Culbert, T. Patrick 1965 The Ceramic History of the Central Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. New World Archaeological Foundation, publication 14. MacNeish, Richard S. 1966 Speculations Mesoamerica. istas, Actas About the Beginnings of Village Agriculture in Sevilla: 36a Congreso Internacional de American- y Memorias 1:181-185. Meggers, Betty J. 1954 Environmental Limitation in the Development of Culture. American Anthropologist 56:801-824. Sanders, Wm. T., and Barbara Price 1968 Mesoamerica, The Evolution of a Civilization. New York: Random House. Sharer, R. J. and J. C. Gifford 1967 Preclassic Ceramics from Chalchuapa, El Salvador, and their Relationships with the Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity 35: 441-462. Smith, A. L. 1955 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Central Guatemala. Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication 608. Smith, A. L. and A. V. Kidder 1951 Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. Washington D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication 594. Smith, Robert E. 1952 "Pottery from Chipoc, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala," in Contributions to American Anthropology and History 11:215-233. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication 596. 21 Strong, William D. 1948 "The Archaeology of Honduras," in Handbook of South American Indians (J. Steward, ed.) vol. 4, pp. 72-120. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Termer, Franz 1936, 1941 Zur Geographie der Republik Guatemala, (Parts 1 and 2). Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg 44: 89-294, 47:7-262. Voorhies, Barbara 1972 Settlement Patterns in Two Regions of the Southern Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity 37:115-126. Willey, G. R., T. P. Culbert, and R. E. W. Adams 1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32:289-315.