138AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 7unreported cave just over the border in Yucatán. Here,a beautifully constructed stairway leads past similarfaces (figure 7.7) and terminates at the entrance to awell, deep within the cave (figure 7.8). Such stairwaysare also present in the cenotes of Mayapan (see Smith1953; see also Brown n.d.) and in caves along theQuintana Roo coast (see Martos López 1994a).Perhaps the most impressive expression of thispattern in the Yalahau region can be found at PakCh’en, where a stairway descends into the cave andguides the visitor along an extensive panel of carvedimages (see Chapter 4). Located on a boulder adjacentto the path is a profile of a figure that has beenidentified by Karl Taube as that of God C. Taube’sdescription of God C (1992:30) suggests that thepresence of his image in Pak Ch’en may have beenintended to designate the cave as a sacred place. Theappearance of God C on vessels, as seen on page 100dof the Madrid Codex, might designate the contents assuhuy ha (Karl Taube, personal communication 2001).Nearby is a figure that appears to exhibit both Chaakand Tlaloc features, which Taube describes as a commonLate Postclassic development in rain god imagery(1992:133–136).Surrounding this figure are at least nine distinctvulva motifs. The depiction of female genitalia oftenappears at rock art sites throughout Mesoamerica (seeApostolides 1987:175–177; Stone 1995:74–86;Strecker 1987; Velázquez Morlet 1988:82; see alsoBrady 1989:42–53). Rands (1955:343–344) notes thatwater is conceptually associated with the genital area.The association of rain god imagery with vulva motifsis also found in Dzibichen (Stone 1995:74–86),which contains a similar stairway-pool arrangement.Here, vulva motifs, lightning serpents, and a codexstyledepiction of Chaak appear together on the cavewall. In Pak Ch’en, the pathway terminates at a smallpool. Located directly above the pool is a strikinglyrealistic rendering of a vagina that no doubt marks thespot as a watery, womb-like, and fertile place—thesacred epicenter of the cave.The use of space inside a cave, <strong>for</strong> the purpose offocusing attention on water, reflects a degree of specializedef<strong>for</strong>t that supersedes the strictly utilitarianexploitation of this important resource. This is evidentnot only in the deliberate positioning of stairways androck art, but also in the creation of relatively sophisticatedarchitectural features. Ceremonial architectureis not uncommon in caves in the Maya area. The plat<strong>for</strong>min Cenote X-Coton (Smith 1953) and the miniaturetemples in the Cueva de Satachannah (Martos López1994a:77) and Aktun Na Kan (Leira Guillermo andTerrones González 1986) are telling examples of thetransposition of ceremonial architecture into the caveenvironment as well as the very system of meaningsattached to such an activity.A close evaluation of the terraced structure inActun Toh reveals that it is, in fact, a pyramid. Thoughit makes use of a natural slope and only appears to bepyramidal from a limited range of view, the mound’sterraced façade sufficiently represents the power inherentin such a structure. I would argue that thepresence of the pyramid in Actun Toh is significant<strong>for</strong> two related reasons. Firstly, the structure complementsthe sanctity of this grand underground chamber. Secondly,it harnesses the potency of the humanly controlled,built environment. Just as Stone (1992) describes the“capturing” of natural <strong>for</strong>ces through the constructionof ceremonial architecture, in Actun Toh we see thesymbolic expression of human authority over the naturalenvironment. Perhaps in this conceptual inversion,the cave/temple within the mountain/pyramid becomesthe mountain/pyramid within the cave/temple.I have no doubt that the replication of “cognizedspatial models” (Stone 2001) aptly characterizes thepositioning of cultural features within caves (see alsoMoyes and Awe 1998, 1999). The arrangement ofstructures, pathways, altars, and imagery, as well asthe placement of votive offerings in caves of theYalahau region is noticeably patterned and deliberate.However, I would stress that due to the physicallybounded nature of caves, the imposition or mediationof spatial order is, at some level, categorically differentFigure 7.8. Xca’ca’ Ch’en. Masonry stairway leading topool.
AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 7 139than at the surface. Irrespective of the generalizedconcept of “cave” alluded to earlier, caves do not providetheir human agents with a clean slate or an emptycanvas on which to transcribe cosmic order. More sothan in the less-bounded spaces of the surface world,the physiography or natural layout of a cave will significantlyinfluence, if not dictate spatial ordering. Thediscretionary reading of caves in some way accounts<strong>for</strong> the architectural alteration of water-bearing caveslike Actun Toh but also the placement of shrines orofferings near prominent speleothems in the region’scaves. If to some degree function follows <strong>for</strong>m, thenthe imposition of spatial models as described by Stone(n.d.) is no less meaningful or impacting, but rathermore fluid in nature.Perhaps the ancient Maya perceived an inherentnatural order in caves. In other words, the cave mayhave served as a metaphor <strong>for</strong> the built environment,just as we believe certain ceremonial buildings functionedas metaphorical caves. This can best be understood interms of the reciprocal nature of metaphors as describedby Houston, which “. . . allows us to resolvesuch questions by acknowledging the indissoluble,almost playful associations between semantic domains”(1998:355). The semiotics of modern Westernspeleological terminology can be revealing and providea structuralist conceptual framework in which toexamine the relationships between the ancient Mayaand the cave environment. Our lexicon makes use ofsuch architectural terms as walls, ceilings, terraces,balconies, columns, shelves, or alcoves to describenatural cave features. This may reveal an anthropocentrictendency to define space on a human scale,wherein flat places become floors, enclosed spacesbecome rooms, and constricted spaces becomeentryways. Furthermore, our use of such terminologyis suggestive of an impulse to cognize caves as bothotherworldly and familiar, or perhaps to reconcile thedisparity between realms by finding the familiar inthe otherworldly. Certainly, the architectural enclosureof natural “rooms,” which can be seen in the cavesof the Alta Verapaz (Carot 1989), in Actun Balam(Pendergast 1969), and in Naj Tunich (Brady 1989),indicates that such spaces were at least perceived asinherently room-like in some way.The question emerges of whether caves representthe order of “community” or the chaos of “wilderness”(Stone 1995:15–18). Stone skillfully negotiates theliterature on Mesoamerican sacred geography, andattempts to find the placement of caves within binarymodels of reality. She offers as an example (1995:16)the Yucatecan concepts of kaah “town or inhabitedspace” and k’aax “<strong>for</strong>est” (as described by Hanks1990:306). It would appear that the essentially dichotomousspatial mapping of Maya reality assigns cavesto the realm of wild and disordered space. Stone’sevaluation is compelling and well-supported ethnographically;nevertheless, I would argue that cavesshould not necessarily be considered contradictory orantithetical to ordered space, as Stone suggests(1995:16). I have no doubt that caves were, to a significantdegree, considered wild places, which weresubjected to the reactive imposition of spatial models(as described by Stone n.d.). However, the Maya recognitionand appropriation of a cave’s natural abilityto mimic the built environment suggests that the notionof teleologically conceived space coexisted (butwas not necessarily congruent) with the perception ofcave as wilderness.I should stress that these interpretations are basedon a comparative study in an area that is relativelynew to cave archaeology. The proposal of a more flexiblemodel with respect to the conception of cave spaceis essentially the result of observations conducted incaves within this region.Closing RemarksTo better understand the relationships betweencaves and the ancient Maya, it is necessary to lookbeyond a single cave and to evaluate a range of naturaland cultural features both within caves and acrossthe landscape. Emerging patterns of cave use revealedby research in the Yalahau region underscore the importanceof caves as sacred space. This is particularlynoteworthy in northern Yucatan where attention tendsto focus on cave/cenotes as utilitarian water sources.The high water table in the Yalahau region, which allowedshallow natural and artificial wells to replacethe role of the cenote as the critical water source, enabledthe project to isolate the ritual function of cavesand separate it from the function as a water source.The extensive utilization of the caves <strong>for</strong> ceremonialpurposes documents the fundamental ritual importanceof these landmarks. The findings suggest that similarpatterns of ritual use should be present in caves inother areas as well.While cave water sources do not appear to havebeen critical to the maintenance of human life, theYalahau survey demonstrates that the presence of waterin a cave was a matter of paramount importance. Watersources were the focus of ritual activity even wherelong arduous crawls were required to reach very modestsized pools. In some caves, evidence of regularmaintenance was recorded and many of the pools aremarked by the presence of rock art. Thus, the region’s