20AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 1strategy was used <strong>for</strong> the collection of surface material.Due to their valuable role in functional and behavioralinterpretation, all whole (or nearly whole) vessels,caches, and artifact clusters observed during the investigationswere plotted and recovered. Due to theexceptionally rich archaeological history of Actun Toh,special attention in the <strong>for</strong>m of excavations was appliedto this cave. Similarly, the relatively elaboratecorpus of rock art in Pak Ch’en warranted both itsinclusion in the survey and its expanded treatmentin the dissertation. It should be noted that researchpriorities and logistical factors, as well as ejidal andgovernmental discretion, often dictated the degree orextent to which these field activities could be conducted.Consequently, this is reflected in the nature ofthe descriptions (of both sampled and sub-sampledcaves) in Chapter 4.If we are to hypothesize that many of the waterbearingcaves in the region were reserved <strong>for</strong> ceremonialrather than utilitarian activities, it is important to takeinventory of all fresh water sources that would havebeen available to local residents in the past. Duringmy reconnaissance, I recorded a number of ancientwells, micro-cenotes, aguadas, bajos, and an unreportedsabana. Not included are the eight wells of ElNaranjal reported by Fedick and Winzler (1995), orthe currently used (and probably ancient) wells of themodern Maya communities located within my surveyarea. Similarly, all evidence of ancient settlement observedduring the course of the survey was recorded.Such in<strong>for</strong>mation is critical in identifying direct relationshipsbetween surface structures and caves as wellas the greater influence of caves in the <strong>for</strong>mation ofcultural landscapes.A Brief History of the ProjectAs stated above, the pilot field season of theYalahau Archaeological <strong>Cave</strong> Survey was primarilyconcerned with per<strong>for</strong>ming an opportunistic reconnaissanceof the proposed study area. A number of thecaves identified in 1995 were not revisited during subsequentseasons. There<strong>for</strong>e, in<strong>for</strong>mation presentedhere regarding those caves is knowingly limited. The1996 through 1998 field seasons were highly productiveand substantial amounts of data were collectedfrom the ten caves within the sub-sample (Rissolo1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999; Rissolo and Heidelberg1998).Research tasks during this period largely involvedmapping. <strong>Cave</strong> maps presented in the dissertation takeone of two <strong>for</strong>ms: they are either the results of completesurveys (accomplished with a compass, clinometer,and tape) or they appear as sketch maps and/or profiles.The latter were accomplished with the aid cursorycompass coordinates and distance measurements.Seven of the caves in the sub-sample were surveyedin detail. An accurate profile was produced <strong>for</strong> ActunTsub, though a plan map was not. Akab Ch’en wassketched, while logistical constraints prevented themapping of Actun Xooch. Also during this period,images from those caves that contain rock art weredrawn and photographed.Though minor surface collections were made in1998, the 1999 field season was essentially devotedto the recovery of ceramic material as well as additionalmapping and rock art recordation (Rissolo2001a, 2001b). Collections from eight caves in thesub-sample were produced (the largest being fromActun Toh). Additionally, excavations were conductedin Actun Toh in order to both recover chronologicallysensitive material and determine the nature of particularcave modifications. The combined ceramic collectionswere analyzed (in a collaborative setting) at theCeramoteca of Centro INAH Yucatán (Mérida) duringsummer 2000 (Rissolo and Ochoa Rodríguez 2001;see also Ceja Acosta and Rissolo 2001).The LexiconThe terms “cave” and “cenote” are particularlyproblematic. The extent to which our desire to categorizethese natural phenomena can distract us fromthe study of their cultural appropriation, is discussedin final chapter of the dissertation. The notion of theprototypical cylindrical cenote has been made fast inour mind’s eye thanks to Chichén Itzá. However, thisterm (from the Maya ts’onot) is used to describe arange of watery subterranean environments. AsAntochiw (1999:19) notes, the myriad <strong>for</strong>ms of cenotesin Yucatán presented a challenge to those firstSpaniards who tried to describe them. The popularfour-type scheme <strong>for</strong> Yucatecan cenotes employed byPearse et al. (1936) is useful within certain contexts,however, I choose to apply a less rigid strategy in mydescriptions of karstic features.Native terminology regarding caves and cave-likespaces continues to be an extremely fertile and promisingarea of research and will no doubt provide moremeaningful alternatives to Western geomorphologicalclassifications. The interpretive potential of such in<strong>for</strong>mation,collected in an ethnographic context, wasnot fully realized in this present study. Nevertheless,a few important distinctions were made clear to meduring the course of my investigations. The termts’onot can apply to any cave that provides access to
AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 1 21the water table. The stereotypical “well” (marked bya collar or windlass) is always referred to as ch’en.However, any ts’onot that is regularly used <strong>for</strong> watercollection can also be a ch’en. The most generic term<strong>for</strong> cave is aktun. As a general rule, I used this term inmy cave names unless a different place name alreadyexisted or unless I was instructed otherwise. As I cameto realize, a few of the caves in my survey, that I haddesignated aktun, were referred to by locals as simply“lelo’ ts’onot” or “that cenote.”The term aktun was also applied to rockshelters(without my prompting). When I expressed interest invisiting aktunob, very often I was led to an openrockshelter site. It was immediately apparent that thesetoo were considered “caves.” My use of the term“rockshelter” applies to any “cave” whose entrancediameter is greater than the horizontal length of itsdeepest alcove. The conflated term “cave/cenote” isused in this dissertation <strong>for</strong> the sole purpose of avoidinga cenote’s morphological association with the idealizedsinkhole of Chichén Itzá fame.The OrthographySolely as a matter of personal preference, all placenames in this dissertation (either recorded or created)appear in the colonial orthography. For example: AktunSoots’ appears as Actun Zodz. All other Yucatec Mayanwords are written in the new or modern orthography.The fact that references to the Maya rain god appearin this dissertation as Chaak, Chac, or Chack is notthe result of editorial error, but rather can be attributedto the varied (and sometimes non-discretionary)transliteration of Yucatec Mayan. Certain pluralizedterms which are Mayan in origin, such as haltunes,are occasionally used since they have entered into theYucatecan Spanish vernacular.
Change language