ABSTRACT
Data from Maya codices and murals provide important information for interpreting artifacts excavated from cave and cenote contexts throughout the Maya area. The assemblage of artifacts recovered from the chambers of Balankanche Cave in Yucatan, believed to date to the same time period as nearby Chichen Itza, includes ceramic vessels in a variety of forms (including a number with modeled efgies of the Mexican rain god Tlaloc), miniature manos and metates, spindle whorls, and a variety of other objects that had both utilitarian and ritual functions. An analysis of this material indicates that these artifacts may be linked specically to two Yucatecan deities known for their associations with creation, fertility, and rain and water-the male rain god Chaak and the female creator deity Chak Chel. This chapter examines scenes from the Maya codices and Postclassic mural art to propose a scenario by which the Balankanche assemblage might have been created. The study of codices, mural art, and archaeological assemblages that we report on in this chapter is an outgrowth of our ongoing research of Precolumbian Maya codices that E. Wyllys Andrews V supported and encouraged over a period of many years as a mentor to both of us in his role as director of the Middle American Research Institute at Tulane University. Studies of the Maya codices indicate that they were complex documents created by an intellectual elite class of scribes in northern Yucatan who were uent not only in their own regional script, iconography, mythology, and astronomy, but also in that of the wider Maya world and of contemporary cultures living in the central highlands and Gulf Coast regions of Mesoamerica (Vail and Aveni 2004, Part III; Vail and Hernández 2010). Our work builds on earlier understandings of these complex interrelationships to which many scholars, including Will, have contributed (Andrews 1979). The extant Maya screenfolds-the Dresden, Madrid, and Paris codices-date to the century or so preceding Spanish contact, although they contain material originally composed during several different time periods.1 They consist of compilations of calendrical and hieroglyphic instruments called almanacs that include copies of earlier (Classic period) devices, revised and updated versions of almanacs from this earlier time period, and still others relevant to the
Postclassic milieu during which the codices were painted and intended to be used. In this chapter and in Will’s honor, we turn our newly found understanding of codical dating, themes, and iconography to the material record of northern Yucatan, specically that of Balankanche Cave. Our goal is to reconsider previous interpretations of artifact assemblages consisting primarily of ceramic and stone vessels believed to be the result of rainmaking rituals. Balankanche Cave
The cavern of Balankanche lies approximately four kilometers west of Chichen Itza in an area characterized by several Terminal Classic to Early Postclassic platforms (A.D. 800-1050/1100, also called the “Florescent period”). Long known to local inhabitants, as well as to biologists and explorers, the cave was not believed to contain signicant archaeological remains until explorations in 1959 by José Humberto Gómez revealed the presence of a masonry wall that blocked access to an extensive area of the cavern. Scientic excavations directed by E. Wyllys Andrews IV and conducted by William Folan, George Stuart, Victoria Segovia, and others revealed six groupings of artifactual remains within the chambers sealed by the wall (Andrews 1970:5-7). Work within the cave environment was hampered by several factors. At the time the sealed chambers were rst accessed, the passageways were extremely dangerous and navigable only with difculty. Moreover, the hazardous conditions were exacerbated by complete darkness, lack of ventilation, and humidity. It seems clear that such conditions would have been an issue for the ancient Maya who utilized the cavern as well (Andrews 1970:6). Andrews and the Mexican archaeologists in charge of the project determined that, rather than excavating and removing all of the artifacts, they would leave a number of them in situ and create a museum within the cavern. With this in mind, they devoted a considerable effort to enlarging the passageways and improving conditions within the cave. Archaeological work included: (1) mapping the caverns; (2) making detailed drawings of each of the individual groups of offerings, totaling more than 500 artifacts; (3) numbering and cataloging the material as it was exposed; and (4) photographing the large efgy censers and other artifacts left in situ. Smaller items were taken to the lab, where they were photographed, drawn, and catalogued. The unsealed portion of the cave was used primarily as a source of potable water from the Preclassic period until shortly before the Spanish conquest. Andrews (1970:7) notes that at least four of the passages in that part of the cavern lead to underground pools of water. Artifacts recovered from these passages include a wide range of pottery types (although not predominantly water jars), indicating a long period of use. Other categories of artifacts were recovered from contexts deeper within the cave. These include spindle whorls and beads, which Andrews believed to be dedicatory offerings, and large potsherds apparently used to excavate clay and mineral beds to provide materials for making pottery. A total of three walls were found within the cave, all constructed during the prehispanic period. The rst is at the entrance and consists of a circular stonewall that is two meters thick, roughly two meters high, and approximately 35 meters in diameter. It was not excavated, so its age remains unknown. The second wall, 30 meters into the cave along the principal passage, was fashioned of crude stone laid in thick mud, presumably from the cave oor (Andrews 1970:7-8). Most of the 86 potsherds recovered from excavating the wall are described as “Formative monochromes,” with a small sample (18 potsherds) from incised dichrome jars that Brainerd dated to the Formative to Early period transition. In terms used today, this indicates a
date spanning the Late Preclassic to Early Classic period for this feature. The presence of the wall “establishes that, for at least the second half of this long span, from approximately 0 A.D., the cave was used for more than merely a source of water” (Andrews 1970:8). It is to this possible ceremonial function of the cave that we next turn. For reasons that remain unclear, the areas where the artifacts were deposited were sealed off by the prehispanic users. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from deposits within the sealed portion of the cave suggest a date range of A.D. 968 to 1009 (Andrews et al. 2003:152), indicating that its period of most intense use corresponded with that of nearby Chichen Itza.
