The following structure and monument summaries are based on the material presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis.

The five structures that define the plaza all date to the Late Classic and are ceremonial in type and function, with the exception of Structures 1 and 5, which were primarily residential but had ceremonial trappings, or monuments associated with them. Structures 2 and 3 are more easily identified as purely ceremonial platforms due to their size and position on the plaza at the end of the Causeway and their associated monuments and ceramics. An assignment of ceremonial temple to Structure 4 is tentative, since very little architectural information beyond size,. shape, and position is available. In regard to change in type and function of the above structures, very little, if anything, can be said, since in each case only the Late Classic structure was excavated. The substructure (on the primary NS axis) of Structure 3 cannot be dated, since it produced no datable artifacts or carbon samples. It may be that the looters' pit in the core of the structure penetrated into this substructure area. If it was a burial, all the associated artifacts were removed.

In the case of Structure 5, more information is available. The Late Classic structure encompasses a hill and cave. Since the cave is of importance in Maya religion and ceremonial life, it may well have been the original focus of social and ceremonial activity at the site and there may have been early structures adjacent to the cave entrance. Although its provenience is in the context of Late Classic structures and monuments, the presence of Altar 1 seems to corroborate some sort of early ceremonial activity during this earliest period at Polol, and this activity may have been in the cave area.

The earliest evidence of habitation or structure found so far at Polol is on top of Structure 5 and was probably one of three temple platforms, if Late Preclassic and Early Classic temple configurations from El Mirador and Uaxactun are any indication (Smith 1950; Smith 1982; Matheny 1980, 1982 & 1986; Hammond 1986). This earliest occupation dates to the Terminal Preclassic, with two radiocarbon dates of 1825 +110 B.P. (or A.D. 125), and 1885 +- 140 B.P. (or A.D. 65). Both carbon samples and Chicanel sherds were found inside the earliest substructure (Sub 2) in Room 3 of Room Complex A (Figure 13). Classic period structures are as yet undefined, since masonry types and ceramics are mixed. The Late Classic palace structure is built over and completely encompasses the earlier structures. An assignment of elite residential with supporting service residential structures can be made for the Palace Complex and Sunken Court based on structure size and type, and artifact assemblages (Harrison 1968:168-172). The evolution of the Main Stairway and North Platform is not clear, although they appear to have been Late Classic additions, based on masonry types and masonry breaks at the northwest corner. In regard to the Late, or Terminal Classic, phase of building construction, monument erection, and subsequent abandonment of Polol, the absence of Mayapan, Chichen Itza, or Puuc-type columned, engaged columned, round, or C-shaped structures such as those found at Seibal (Smith 1982:239), Topoxte and Macanche (Bullard 19709 1973; Rice and Rice 1985), and a corresponding absence of Peten Postclassic Tradition ceramics, red-slipped Augustine, Paxcaman, and Topoxte (Bullard 1970, 1973; Rice and Rice 1985). along with the presence of Stela 4. a late, non-classic and non-Maya style figure, places the abandonment of the Palace Complex in the Terminal Classic. The final abandonment by the residual population at Polol was clearly sometime after this period, as evidenced by the shoddily constructed walls and floors built on .5 to 1 m of rubble fall from the Late Classic Palace Complex on Structure 5 (Smith 1950:43-44; Culbert 1974:107; Adams and Trik 1961:130; Coe 1962:482-487; Mackie 1961:217-218). Bullard (1973) regarded these populations as."Rump Classic" and comments that:

These populations made pottery which continued the Late Classic ceramic traditions: Tepeu 3 at Uaxactun, Eznab at Tikal .... Trade wares and stylistic evidence show these populations lasted into what in area-wide terms is called the Early Postclassic. But these people did not last long, and the old Classic traditions in pottery making and other crafts faded with them. The traditions which replaced them in Peten were quite distinct.

Postclassic occupation is not indicated at Polol, although the savanna area and the nearby sites of Tayasal and Topoxte (Rice and Rice 1985; Bullard 1970, 1973) were occupied by the Itza well into the Spanish period. Polol's place in the Maya settlement pattern and site hierarchies of Bullard, Hammond, and Marcus is difficult to assess since there are problems or irregularities in each case. In all regards, except the presence of 16 monuments and a palace "compound", Polol would fit into Bullard's "Minor Ceremonial Center" classification (one large building, small vaulted buildings of "palace" type, one or more pyramidal structures arranged in company with lower buildings around two or three adjacent plazas, no stelae, altars or ball courts) (Bullard 1960:359-361). Although Polol does not possess a ball court, and Hammond's site classifications are specific to Belice and do not include larger sites the size of Seibal or Tikal, Polol would seem to fit best into his "Level 7" or "Small Major Ceremonial Center" category (possesses at least one pyramid over 10 m high, at least one ballcourt, stone monuments, circumambient settlement concentrated around the ceremonial precinct) (Hammond 1975:41-43). Polol's place in Marcus' hierarchy of Maya sites is practically impossible to-assess due to the absence of emblem glyphs for Polol and the regional centers of Tikal (although the glyph at E3 on the back of Stela 4 resembles the Tikal glyph), Seibal, and Motul de San Jose on the badly eroded and fragmented monuments. Based solely on Polol's position along a major communication route between the ranked sites of Tikal and Seibal, Polol might rank as a tertiary center (Marcus 1976).

A "style" of architecture is not discernable at Polol since only general configurations of substructures and basal portions of superstructures are in evidence. Similar Palace/Court configurations exist at Seibal and as far away as Copan so it is doubtful that this courtyard configuration is a manifestation of a Seibal-Polol relationship. Also, the placement of wall panels at both sides of the stairway of Structure 1, and two ornamental frieze pieces on Structure 5 (Figure 19), are not enough evidence for stylistic ties to any particular area.

The excavations at Polol were able to confirm Terminal Preclassic occupation at Polol and the possibility of Altar 1 being carved at Polol is now confirmed. It's calendric date is still a matter of speculation, however, although stylistic and calendric rendering similarities with other early monuments are fairly abundant. There are stylistic similarities, if not ties, with the Leiden Plate, Uaxactun's Altar 26, Tikal's Stela 29 and early South Coast monuments at Abaj Takalik (Stela 2), El Baul (Stela 1). In terms of bar-and-dot calendric rendering, Polol's Altar 1 is similar to Stela 2 at Abaj Takalik (7.16), Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo (7.16), Stela 1 at El Baul (7.19), Stela C at Tres Zapotes (7.16), and the Tuxtla statuette (8.6).

The presence of Altar 1 at Polol and the absence of Cycle 7 and 8 monuments at most sites in the Peten, has generated speculation in regard to the possibility of cyclical ritual destruction of monuments in the Maya area. Whether the monument mutilation and destruction was a cyclical ritual or not, other early Peten monuments in the have been found buried in the rubble of structures at Tikal, Uaxactun and El Mirador. What sets Altar 1 apart is that it was reset with a Late Classic dedicatory cache in the context of Late Classic monuments and structures.

The gap between late Cycle 7 (Altar 1) and late Cycle 9 (Stelae 1, 2, and 4) monuments at Polol can be explained by a corresponding paucity of Tzakol, Tepeu I and 2 sherds, and the absence of Classic architectural remains, although the latter is less certain since masonry types were mixed in the Palace Complex on Structure 5. Population at Polol during the Early Classic was small and it was only during the Late Classic that major construction activity, and monument carving and erection took place.

The style and configuration of pectoral and headdress ornamentation on the front of Stela 4 is present on monuments at Machaquila and Aquateca, which date to 9.19. The back of Stela 4 is an aberrant and late (10.1 or 10.3) carving of the monument. The foreign figure in non-Maya attire is significantly different in style and motifs from the front of the monument and probably represents a change in culture or a foreign intrusion into the Polol area, similar to changes evidenced at Seibal on Non-Classic Facies B monuments. Also, the glyphs on the associated side of the monument are carved in a rougher, more cartoon-like manner.

Like its place in hierarchial settlement models, Polol is an "in-between" site. For a small I km2 site with 73 small structures, it has too many carved monuments, and the I km causweway leading to a large out-of-scale pyramid with an elite palace complex on its upper platform, seems incongruous. Although the 1980 survey and excavation answered basic questions concerning the earliest and latest occupations, there are questions remaining about the origins, size and extent of Late Preclassic, Early Classic, and Late Classic populations and their associated architecture and sculpture. With this in mind, the following Polol scenario is tentatively offered.

A small settlement utilizing non-masonry type structures arose in the vicinity of the cave and Structure 5 during the Middle or Late Preclassic. The top and sides of Structure 5 were terraced and stairways were built leading to the small masonry temple structures on the upper platform. Stelae and altars were set up in ceremonial plazas near the cave and on top of the pyramid. Early Classic construction activity was limited to repaving and remodeling existing structures. During the Late Classic, or from 9.18 thru 10.0 (790-830 A.D.), the ruler (or rulers) depicted on Stelae 2 and 4, constructed the causeway and built (or rebuilt) all the structures defining Plaza I. Structure 5 was rebuilt to include a Palace Complex and Sunken Court that encompassed the temple structures on the upper platform. Six traditional stela/altar combinations were erected in Plaza I and one stela was erected in the Sunken Court. A foreigner, or Toltec, depicted on the back of Stela 4, took power at Polol sometime between 10.1 and 10.3 (856-908 A.D.), and ruled for an undetermined period, after which the site was abandoned by the elite population.

Subsequent occupations utilized the destroyed and deteriorating structures for building materials and built defensive walls around Room Complex A. Also, these post-elite abandonment populations probably inhabited what was left of the palace if the benches contructed on mural fragments in Room 7 are any indication. Those "rump" populations eventually abandoned the site and Structure 5, although the cave at it's base was probably utilized by local populations.

Perhaps Polol's history has more to do with what is not present at the site. than what was found in 1933, 1936, 1944 and 1980. The absence of any historical glyphic texts on the monuments (aside from the calendrics) or on the polychrome vase fragments, seems to fit into an overall effort to destroy the architecture and monuments and leave absolutely nothing in the way of historical texts at Polol.