The archaeological site of Polo1 is located .5 km off the Kalto Savanna, approximately 9 km west-southwest of La Libertad in the central Peten rainforest (Figures 1 & 2). A general description of the area's topography and river drainages was provided by Sylvanus Morley (1938: Vol. 3, 313). He described the area as:
a shallow basin, an interior drainage area between 100 and 200 m above sea level with a chain of small lakes and the comparatively large Lake Peten Itza lying along its principal east-andwest axis .... The divides separating this basin from the several surrounding river drainages are very low and the overflow from the small lakes in the extreme west finds its way into the Rio San Pedro Martir. From Lake Peten Itza eastward, however, there is no outlet, and properly speaking, the central part of the Dept. of Peten is a shallow interior drainage area with its watershed nowhere more than 300 m above sea level. The climate in the West Central Peten is that of year-round high temperatures, high humidity, heavy rainfall from May to December, and a dry season from January to May, which most closely fits Koeppen's "Amw" climate area (Vivo Escoto 1964:187-215). The vegetation is tropical rainforest with intermittent savanna in the West Central Peten and general area of Polol. The rainforest is dominated by large deciduous trees, which form a canopy absorbing 70-80% of the available sunlight, thus eliminating shrubs and ground vegetation, (Simmons 1979:94).
The Site
The site covers approximately I square kilometer, with 73 structures of various sizes and configurations distributed around the Plaza 1 area (Figure 3). The original description by Cyrus L. Lundell (1934:3) is included here for its historical interest.
The locality, bush and savanna where the ruin is located are known as Polol, the name of an aguada (surface waterhole) near the settlement. The aguada derives its name from the aquatic sedges (species of the genus Scirpus), called polol by the Maya. These sedges no longer grow here, but they are said to have been common formerly. The aguada undoubtedly served as one of the chief sources of water for the city. It seems proper therefore that the newly discovered ruin should he known as Polol, a name distinct from that of any other of the Maya cities. . .
The center of the city is a plaza bounded on the south by a great terraced pyramid, Structure E, which dominates the site. At the base the pyramid measures 96 meters east and west and 118 meters north and south. On the steep incline, the total height is approximately 51 meters from the forest level to the highest point. On top of the pyramid there are remains of temples and a sunken court covering an area 31 meters by 30 meters. On the west side of the pyramid about 12 meters above the forest floor there is a cave in which I found a chamber; the entrance had been sealed with stones and mud, but later opened. No remains of any kind were found in the room. The cave appears to be of recent origin and its occupation postdates the occupation of the city. At least the basal portion of the pyramid is a natural knoll, for the cave is formed by a break in a solid limestone stratum.
To the west of the central plaza there is a large mound, Structure A, which measures approximately 66 meters in length, 15 meters in width and 6 meters in height. To the south of the plaza are two small mounds, Structures B and C; each measures about 12 meters square. Leading from these two structures there are remains of what appear to have been two walls, each approximately 150 meters in length, forming the main entrance to the central plaza. Both Nakum and Ixkun have similar approaches. Structure D measures 33 meters in length with a maximum width of 18 meters. The central section of the mound to the east of the plaza, Structure F, measures 18 meters square and I estimate it to be about 10 meters high ....
The structures were all aligned approximately 15 degrees east of north. No standing buildings were discovered in the site. Additional mounds were found as far away as 1 kilometer from the central plaza, so the ruins extend over an area at least 1 kilometer square. There are said to be mounds and a sculptured stela, 4 kilometers from Polo1 which may belong to the same city.
Additional structures were discovered in 1980, and designations were changed from Structures A-E to Structures 1-73. Also, the chamber inside the cave was not sealed in 1980, and Structures 1-5 are aligned with true north, or 7 degrees, 8 minutes west of magnetic north (Figure 2). Most structures to the east and west of the Plaza I area are in approximate alignment with magnetic north.
Plaza I, the main, or ceremonial, plaza is defined by Structures 1-5 and originally contained all the monuments at the site, with the exception of Stela 9, which is located in the Sunken Court on top of Structure 5 (Figure 4). Smaller, nonceremonial, plazas are evident east of Structure 2 and west of Structure 3.
The walls mentioned by Lundell were the walls or parapets of a causeway that extended north from Structures 2 and 3 and probably provided access from the Polol and Kalto Savannas (Figure 3).
Archaeological Research at Polol
Poløl, along with nearby Chakantun, was discovered on April 26, 1933, by Cyrus Lundell, a University of Michigan botanist on the 16th Carnegie Expedition to the Maya region. Lundell surveyed the structures, mapped the site, and photographed the carved monuments with the aid of Don Pancho, an old Indian from Coban, and O.A. Fainter of the Chicle Development Company at Laguna Perdida. From Lundell's photographs it is apparent that the main plaza was cleared and burned in the spring of 1933. The photographs show the original configuration of the carved monuments associated with Structure 3 and the entire face of Stela 2, major portions of which are now missing (Figures 23, 24). He reassembled the broken portions of Stela 2, although major fragments of Stela 4 were left unturned, with only the smaller pieces being moved in order to photograph the glyphic texts. He did not photograph the back side, the side facing Structure 3. Lundell published his information in 1934 in the Carnegie Institution's Publication 436, Contributions to American Archaeology, No. 8.
In the spring of 1936, Edwin Shook, who was obtaining information for Sylvanus G. Morley's monument documentation project, photographed previously unrecorded portions of Stela 4 and the long glyphic text on the back of Stela 2. Unfortunately, the photograph is out of focus, and the badly eroded text is completely illegible. Shook returned to Polol in 1944 and rephotographed Altar 1 and Stelae 3 and 4.
Sylvanus Morley presented the available material on Polol in his 1937-1938 publication Inscriptions of Peten.
Since Morley had never visited the site, he used Lundell's 1934 publication, along with Shook's photographs and interpretations of monument configurations, functions, and nomenclatures.
In the spring and summer of 1963, Merle Greene was tracing the masks on the upper façades at Tikal for the University of Pennsylvania. During this time she made a side trip to Polol to make rubbings of Stelae 2 and 4. These were eventually published in Maya Sculpture of the Southern Lowlands, Highlands & Pacific Piedmont (Greene, Rands and Graham 1972). She mentions (pers. comm.) that the looters had dug a pit and built a fire around the butt and fragments of Stela 4, and chainsaw marks were in evidence.
The looter's pit was there in 1980, although all the carved monuments from the site had been moved to FYDEP (Fomento y Desarollo Economico Peten) in Flores. The monuments from nearby Itsimté were probably moved at the same time, as monuments from both sites were dumped together behind the Administration Building (Figure 20).
In 1979, Gary Pahl, of the Anthropology Department, San Francisco State University, made a brief reconnaisance trip to FYDEP and Polol. He took photographs of Altar 1 (Figure 53) and the group of monuments from Polol and Itsimté. Pahl returned to Polol in the spring of 1980 and directed a crew of San Francisco State students, Earthwatch volunteers, and Guatemalan laborers. Pahl's research objectives included locating the missing portion of Altar 1 and finding evidence of a Cycle 7 occupation, in order to back up a Cycle 7 date for the altar based on stylistic and calendric evidence (Proskouriakoff 1950:110; Graham 1972:113 and 119; Pahl 1982:28-30; Hammond 1986:115). From May through early August, the site was surveyed, mapped, and photographed, and the plaza area was cleared and randomly and non-randomly sampled. Two randomly located 2 x 2 m test pits in Plaza I area yielded nothing that would indicate Cycle 7 occupation. The other half of Altar 1 was not found. Excavation at the plaza level then took place on and around Structures 1-4, 8, 15, 23, and 30, with emphasis on the monuments and substructures to the south of Structure 3. On top of Structure 5, Rooms 1, 3, 5, and 7 were excavated to bedrock (Figure 3). The earliest radiocarbon date from Polol, A.D. 65 +- 140 (UGa-3642), came from a sample taken from inside Sub 2, under Floor 3. (Figures 13, 13a, & 13b.)
Research Objectives and Methods
The objective of this thesis is the description and illustration of the architecture and sculpture of Polol, based both on original research in the field and reference to relevant literature. My description of the architectural remains prior to excavation was based on Lundell's observations in 1933, and the survey and mapping efforts of Patricia Duff and Margaret Rice in 1980. Description, interpretation, and illustration of the excavated architectural features, structures, and configurations, required a synthesis of data from various primary and secondary sources. My photos, field records, plans, and notes made during the 1980 Polol season were my "primary", primary source. Other sources included feature records and sketches by Gregg Brown, survey notes by Patricia Duff, and survey notes and final map by Margaret Rice. I also referred to the original negatives of Lundell, Shook, and Pahl, the most pertinent of which were selected and printed for study and inclusion in this thesis.
For regional comparisons, I referred to excavation reports on the architecture from Uaxactun (Smith 1950, Altar de Sacrificios (Smith 1972), and Seibal (Smith 1982). In reference to the Terminal and possible Postclassic occupations at Polol, I used reports on Topoxté (Bullard 1970), Benque Viejo (Mackie 1961), and Tikal (Satterthwaite 1958, Coe & Broman 1958).
My sources for comparison of monuments were the photographs included in Morley's Inscription of Peten (1937-1938), Proskouriakoff's A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture (1950), and the rubbings by Merle Greene in Maya Sculpture from the Southern Lowlands, The Highlands & Pacific Piedmont (Greene, Rands and Graham 1972). 1 also referred to John Graham's research on Altar de Sacrifcios (1972) and Seibal (1973) monuments. In regard to a specific monument anomaly at Polol, I used Tikal Reports #2, Excavations in the Stela 23 Group (Coe & Broman 1958), and #3, The Problem of Abnormal Stela Placements at Tikal and Elsewhere (Satterthwaite 1958).
In order to describe and illustrate the architecture and sculpture of Polol, I took the following steps:
1. I Assigned structure and monument types based on the information obtained in 1980 (structure/sculpture size and shape, position in Plaza I, and associated artifactual materials recovered); 16th century observations and descriptions of Maya ceremonial centers (Tozzer 1941, Means 1917); and comparisons to other Peten architecture and sculpture
2. I Assigned a function to Plaza I structures and sculptures based on type, associated artifactual material, and regional and temporal comparisons
3. I Assessed change in type and function over time based on comparisons to Uaxactun, Altar de Sacrificios and other nearby sites
4. I Based on the assigned architectural types and functions, changes in types and functions, associated radiocarbon dates, ceramic phase assignments, and the stylistically and calendrically dated monuments, I looked for possible stylistic prototypes, influences or relationships with nearby regional sites.