Distribution of Box-like Almena Fragments at the Site of Cihuatan

Ceramic almenas had not previously been reported from any site south of Mexico, and still remain unknown from excavations in El Salvador beyond the limits of Cihuatan. The almenas at Cihuatan, a site dated to ca. a.d. 900–1100 (Bruhns and Amaroli Reference Bruhns and Bertolucci2012; Kelley Reference Kelley1988:14), are several centuries earlier than those known from illustrations in Late Postclassic/late pre-Hispanic Mexico, but long after the earliest known examples of roof ornaments in the Valley of Mexico. Similarities in form and use, however, suggest a linkage between these architectural traditions. Study of the clays, improving upon the work of Sayre and Harbottle (Reference Sayre and Harbottle1978), might be productive.

The epicenter of Cihuatan includes an elevated area generally identified as the “Acropolis” and a nearby area including two ball courts, a large temple-platform, and an elite residential zone that Fowler (Reference Fowler1981) suggests may relate to ritual personnel. Major buildings were made of adobe bricks and an array of local stone types, using a clay (adobe) mortar. The walls appear to be coated with plaster or faced with slabs of talpuja, a very soft volcanic tuff. Floors are smoothed clay or talpuja, or both. Supporting pillars are piers made of adobe. No vaulted constructions are known. All the “stone” roofs of the major buildings are flat, made of beams covered with adobe and then with laja, that is, plastered on the exterior. The almenas appear to have been fixed in place with the final plaster coating on the flat roof.

Toward the northwest corner of the “Acropolis” is the architectural complex identified as Structure Q-1, covering a rectangular area of about 40 by 75 meters (Figure 2). This “Palace” complex includes a series of abutting residential and possibly ritual rooms, or structures, arranged around an open courtyard. A very high density of almena fragments have been recovered during extensive clearing operations along the western side of Structure Q-1. Amaroli (Reference Amaroli2009:4, Figure 3) indicates that clusters of fragments representing at least 19 almenas were located directly on the floor along the 40-meter length of the north-south wall. His plan reveals that many almenas seem to have fallen in pairs; each pair having been mounted in two rows along the roof (see also Amaroli Reference Amaroli2009:6, 10, Figure 12). All of the Cihuatan almenas from Structure Q-1 are of the stepped form (cf. Berrin and Pasztory Reference Berrin and Pasztory1993; Carrizosa and Aguirre Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003:Figure 1b), but are box-like in construction rather than flat (see Figures 6–7). The risers of these “steps” are vertical (Figure 5), as distinct from the “serrated” form in many Aztec examples (Figure 3 left, Figures 8a–8b). Numerous fragments of possible almenas also were recovered from the surfaces immediately to the north of Structure Q-1 (Figure 2, area 7). The restoration of a sample of the almenas from excavations at Structure Q-1 at this site puts us in a better position to discuss the possible numbers that had been used to decorate this major structure, and to determine if they were only at the front edge of the roof.

Figure 6.

Two almenas from an unknown location in the Valley of Mexico; one round and one rectangular in shape, but both with rectangular tenons. Both are now in the Museo Nacional de Antropología (see in Rattray Reference Rattray2001:607, Figure 215). Image courtesy of Linda Manzanilla Naim.

Figure 7.

Corner within the principal patio of the Quetzalpapalotl palace in Mexico with almenas escalonadas bearing the year sign (Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:47, Figure 1). The profiles of these almenas seem to me to be intermediate between “stepped” and “serrated” forms (see Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015).

The Cihuatan Structure Q-1 almena sample includes several different variations of the stepped, hollow form but all have vertical “risers” (see Figures 5a–5f). An astounding number of fragments recovered to date, together with large numbers of pieces that had been left in all of the excavated squares (not yet brought to the laboratory by February 2012), represent at least 50 to 60 examples, and possibly twice that number. One nearly intact example found in the Structure Q-1 area is slightly smaller and more “dense” that the several others found in that area. Most of the almena fragments are large and highly stable, some being fired at temperatures from 1000°F to over 1100°F, probably using a trench type firing system (see Becker Reference Becker2003a, Reference Becker2007, Reference Becker2013). These firing temperatures appear well above those of most local earthenwares (less than 900°F). Some sherds from vessels at Cihuatan seem to have been fired at quite low temperatures, perhaps 800–900 F. As yet there is no confirmed example of an almena of this poor quality ceramic. I suspect that the low-fired sherds may represent another class or category of ceramics, possibly unrelated to the roof ornaments. A number of sherds from this same area were fired at stoneware temperatures (1100–1300°F, gray, semi-vitreous), in shapes similar to the front and/or back surfaces of almenas. They may derive from a yet unknown artifact category.

The backs and fronts of the box-like Cihuatan Structure Q-1 almenas were hand formed from large flat slabs. A pair may have been cut to approximately the same shape by placing one slab over the other. The vertical aspects of the stepped sides, connecting the large front and rear panels, were fashioned from smaller slabs of clay, hand formed and flattened into small “panels.” Some panels were first made as longer pieces that were then bent to form two (or more?) side surfaces. These slabs were formed much like the modern, thick local tortillas that commonly have a diameter of less than 15 centimeters. Of the several hundred individual slabs that I handled, only one had a mat impression on the interior surface. This impression was from a simple mat woven of ordinary marsh reeds. Although molds were used at Cihuatan for spindle whorls, figurine heads (and perhaps bodies), and possibly for adornos decorating censers, there is no evidence for mold use in the construction of these box-like almenas at Cihuatan.

Most of the box-like almenas reconstructed at Cihuatan, in whole or in part, are of the two-level type (Figure 5d). Some are of three levels. Each has one opening or “window” in the front and the back, both of similar shape and roughly the same size. The reconstructed examples reveal that the two windows generally are not in alignment. Some of the partially reconstructed examples seem to have had more than one window on each side, but this remains to be conclusively demonstrated. The variations in “window” shape includes round (N = 2), tall rectangle (N = 4), tall rectangle with rounded corners (N = 2), and tall triangle. These openings probably were cut using a string, if not a wooden blade or an obsidian flake. The newly cut openings were then manually smoothed along the margins. Some almenas that were partially reconstructed in 2012 have horizontal moldings along various lateral edges. Their frequency remains to be determined.

A second location where almenas may have been used at Cihuatan appears to relate to Structure Q-10 (Figure 2). During the course of this 2012 study I made daily tours of the “Acropolis” and other areas of the site in order to gain some familiarity with the relationship between the mapped central area and distribution of structures (cf. Becker Reference Becker, Manzanilla and Chapdelaine2009). During these walks I found significant numbers of flat almena fragments on the surface of the area south of Structure Q-10, located on the southwestern part of the “Acropolis.” This suggests that Structure Q-10 may have been decorated with flat ceramic ornaments, but with stepped outlines. An alternate possible origin for almena pieces found at this location in 2012 may have been a massive ceramic pile of unknown origin discovered there by Boggs in the early 1950s when the forest was cut from this portion of the site (Fowler Reference Fowler1981:41–42). Amaroli (Paul Amaroli, personal communication 2012) pointed out that Boggs (Reference Boggs1973:Figures 12–14) identified this deposit as covering the remains of Structure O-4, now renumbered as Structure Q-14 (see Amaroli Reference Amaroli2011). The hundreds of kilograms of ceramic pieces in that pile, as well as burials found below, are described in a report (Boggs Reference Boggs1973) on the wheeled figurines found in that assemblage. Amaroli (Paul Amaroli, personal communication 2012) told me that these ceramics were transferred to the National University, but that they may have been discarded or lost during the period of political unrest.

A third location where flat almenas may have been used at Cihuatan was on Structure P-42, situated immediately to the southeast of Structure P-7, the largest structure at the site and now known to have talud-tablero architecture (Amaroli Reference Amaroli2015b). Structure P-42, believed to be an elite residence, was the focus of early modern excavations at Cihuatan by Fowler in 1978 and 1979 (Reference Fowler1981:98–116). He identified the area as the Southeast Patio. He did not include the few finds of possible almena fragments in his report, but he now recalls (William R. Fowler, personal communication 2012) that the many thick ceramic sherds found at that location probably represented large flat, modeled roof ornaments. These fragments measure at least 25 by 35 centimeters and from 2 to 3 centimeters thick. In consultation with Boggs, they thought these might be merlons, or rooftop decorations (almenas) similar to those known in Mexico (William R. Fowler, personal communication 2012). There were no examples of nearly intact almenas reported from the original living surfaces of Structure P-42, as was the case in the area around Structure Q-1. If any of these elite residences were decorated with almenas, the history of their termination might be very different from the possibly rapid destruction of Structure Q-1 and its nearby structures. The extensive excavations in the area of Structure P-42 have long been backfilled, but in 2012 I recovered two almena fragments from casual inspection on the surface in that area.

Although Fowler's excavations at the area of Structure P-42 yielded no specific published statement concerning the many thick ceramic sherds that he found, Bruhns (Reference Bruhns1980:93–94) soon after suggested that the known thick ceramic fragments from that area might have been “roof tiles” and that they had been “reported from excavations and from surface contexts for many years. These have now been found in excavations, both in the ceremonial center and in the residential area. These objects are unslipped and of the typical Coarse Ware.”

The crude surface modeling on these thick ceramic fragments from the area of Structure P-42, and their limited numbers, appear to have led subsequent excavators to disregard them. In hindsight, we see that these simple fragments may represent almenas. In addition, special attention should be paid to a possible relationship between the three locations from which almena fragments have been found at the Cihuatan site core and the groups of structures at each of them. Excavations in the area of Structure Q-1, the largest residential grouping known at the site, have yielded the masses of almena fragments that are the focus of this study. Structure Q-1 has the long Structure Q-2 along its western side. The two other areas from which almena fragments are now known have a similar architectural arrangement. Structure Q-10 is bounded along its western side by the elongate Structure Q-11, and Structure P-42 has the long Structure P-8 along its western side (separated by the “West Alley” noted by Fowler Reference Fowler1981:106–112). These three locations, generally considered elite residential areas, may be the sites of large house-complexes such as those known in the Valley of Mexico. At Cihuatan these house-complexes appear less clustered or less contiguous than the compound pattern in Mexico that is often considered to be an “urban” residential form. The Cihuatan pattern seems to resemble certain house groups at Tula (Paredes Reference Paredes1999) as well as those lowland Maya “houses” composed of a series of distinct structures clustered around one or more courtyards (Becker Reference Becker2003a, Reference Becker and Sabloff2003b).

Flat Almenas: Forms found at Three Other Locations at Cihuatan (Structure P-28, San Dieguito, and Structure P-9)

The Cihuatan ceramic fragments believed to derive from flat almenas consistently have one rough (unfinished) side, while the decorated or viewed surface is smoothed and almost always bears a narrow (finger tip-width?) groove parallel to or outlining the edge. Amaroli (Paul Amaroli, personal communication 2014) suggests that these fragments represent a variety of shapes including rectangular and cruciform, and possibly curvilinear. No complete or even partial example has yet been assembled from these sherds, but the pieces may reveal an almena type that is important to expanding this study.

Years after Bruhns had suggested that certain thick ceramic fragments might derive from roof tiles, another set of thick fragments appeared during the Structure P-28 excavations. During the 2004 and 2005 excavations at Structure P-28, one of only four “round” (actually “keyhole” shaped) structures identified from ancient El Salvador (Bruhns and Amaroli Reference Bruhns and Amaroli2009), a number of thick ceramic fragments of what appear to be almenas of the flat form were recovered. A number of keyhole-shaped pyramid bases (yacata) are reported from the Tarascan region west of the Valley of Mexico (Hirshman Reference Hirshman2015:2; Pollard Reference Pollard1993:44–53), but their relationship with the single known example at Cihuatan has not been explored. The flat form of almena found with Structure P-28 at Cihuatan, a type so well-known in the Valley of Mexico, led Amaroli and Bruhns (Reference Amaroli and Bruhns2006:18–19, 25, 27–39, Figures 22–23) to identify these thick fragments as almenas planas (Figures 6 and 8) to distinguish them from the box-like almenas found in the area of Structure Q-1 (see Bruhns Reference Bruhns1980:93). At least 34, and possibly 36, fragments of almenas planas were recovered from excavations at Structure P-28 (Amaroli and Bruhns Reference Amaroli and Bruhns2006:19, Figures 22–23). These fragments of suspected examples of almenas planas at Cihuatan are small, non-descript, and generally from the margins of the pieces.

Figure 8.

Two flat almenas (AC4-173, AC4-174) recovered from the Metro excavations in Mexico City (from Ramírez Reference Ramírez Acevedo1987:Laminas 1 and 2). Pointed out to me by Michael Smith (personal communication 2015) who dates both to the Aztec period and also notes their serrated form. Both of these are three-tiered almenas that have been broken near their bases (tenons?). Both appear to have “windows” or openings piercing their lowest level. (a) The example depicted in Lamina 1 measures 48 by 70 cm, and has a slight lateral curve. (b) The fragment shown in Lamina 2 measures 53 by 58 cm and is perfectly flat. Drawings by Gilberto Ramírez.

The term almena plana used by Amaroli and Bruhns (Reference Amaroli and Bruhns2006:19) to designate these “solid clay” artifacts appears to have been discontinued (Bruhns and Amaroli Reference Amaroli2009:38, Figure 8). Their footnote (Bruhns and Amaroli Reference Amaroli2009:44n2) provides confusing information. Bruhns and Amaroli (Reference Amaroli2011:61) recently identified three thick ceramic fragments as “almenas solidas.” The possible association of Mexican-type flat almenas found around a round or keyhole-shaped structure at Cihuatan warrants further study (Becker Reference Becker and Sabloff2003b). The material excavated from Structure P-28 remains at Cihuatan (Paul Amaroli, personal communication 2012). Almenas from Structure P-28 suggest a fourth possible location at Cihuatan where decorative roof ornaments may have been used.

A fifth location in Cihuatan at which almenas may have been used is within the zone designated as San Dieguito, to the northeast of the site center (see Figure 2). Kelley's excavations there involved four large test areas. No almenas are mentioned or discussed in Kelley's (Reference Kelley1988:176–182) review of the non-vessel ceramic artifacts at Cihuatan. Her report does include illustrations of two small fragments that she cautiously identified as derived from “Roof tiles” (Kelley Reference Kelley1988:176, 107, Plates 25a–25b). She (Kelley Reference Kelley1988:103) also indicated that they might derive from roof decorations, as I believe to be the case:

These two pieces, and the large third fragment (17 × 20 cm) of a more diagnostic form (perhaps an “ear” from a flat type?) that remains to be published, derive from House Platform A at San Dieguito (Kelley Reference Kelley1988:22, Figures 5–6; Jane Kelley, personal communication, 2012). This “house” may have been ornamented with very large flat almenas.

The sixth location from which possible almena fragments have been found is associated with Structure P-9, a small, four-stairway platform situated midway between the two ball courts and nearly due north of Structure P-28. Amaroli (Reference Amaroli2012a:66) variously identifies a few thick fragments of ceramic tablets (e.g., CH11-7) as almenas, almenas solidas and almenas planas. Despite the use of these different terms, Amaroli remained uncertain of their function at that time.

Comparanda: Almenas Beyond Cihuatan, in Time and Space

The possible use of almenas at sites in the region around Cihuatan is not reported in the literature prior to a review of examples by Bruhns and Amaroli (Reference Bruhns and Bertolucci2012:336–337). Several possible finds are mentioned, with those associated with Structure 2 at Carranza (Bruhns and Amaroli Reference Bruhns and Bertolucci2012:337, Figure 12.15) being the best documented. The dates of these sites do not appear as late as Cihuatan, suggesting that further study of this topic is warranted to seek possible relationships.

The simple, stepped form of ceramic almena now known at Cihuatan (both flat and three-dimensional) has antecedents in clay as well as stone, at many locations in the Valley of Mexico (see Carrizosa and Aguirre Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003:Figure 1b; Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:49, Figures 8a–8b). Almenas were first reported from Teotihuacan by Peterson (Reference Peterson1952, see below), but a comprehensive review and typology has just emerged (Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015). Their Type 2, the stepped shape, clearly associated with the form used at Cihuatan Structure Q-1, also is known from some other sites, and often at a location associated with a Teotihuacan connection. While ceramic forms of this Type 2 appear to predominate at Teotihuacan, varieties in stone also are known, including onyx (Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:49, Figure 8b). Through excavations conducted by Manzanilla (Linda R. Manzanilla, personal communication 2012), examples of almenas of the stepped type are known at Teotihuacan from Xalla, a palatial structure to the north of the Pyramid of the Sun. Manzanilla also notes other examples from the Quetzalpapálotl palace (Classic period, not Aztec), one of which bears the year sign (Figure 7). Buildings from Texcoco are not known to have such ornaments (Smith Reference Smith2008:116, Figure 4.9A).

Rattray (Reference Rattray2001:347) dates the earliest examples of almenas at Teotihuacan to the Early Tlamimilolpa period, ca. a.d. 250 (Figure 6). She finds they “are most common in Late Xolalpan and Metepec contexts” (Rattray Reference Rattray2001:347, Figures 215–221). Cook (Reference Cook de Leonard1985:51) dates their beginnings to ca. a.d. 300. Rattray (Reference Rattray1990) had suggested that some almenas utilized fine orange pastes, but later placed all the ceramic almenas at Teotihuacan within a category she termed “Granular Ware” (Rattray Reference Rattray2001:337; cf. Ramírez Reference Ramírez Acevedo1987:Laminas 1–4 for the Mexico City Metro excavations). Rattray (Reference Rattray2001:335) defined these thick, flat objects as made from “highly distinctive” clay of unknown provenance that she believed arrived via foreign “trade.” Rattray (Reference Rattray2001:335, 337, 339) discussed possible origins for Granular Wares, and indicated that finds of similar wares also had been imported “into the Valley of Xochicalco” although almenas remain unknown from that site. Rattray (Reference Rattray2001:339; also Séjourné Reference Séjourné1966b) believed that this category of ware appeared at Teotihuacan in “limited and uncommon forms” and discussed why these large ceramic ornaments “could have been brought from afar” (Rattray Reference Rattray2001:339, citing Séjourné Reference Séjourné1959:Figure 137, Reference Séjourné1966a:Figures 194–196). She offered a brief summary of the varied forms of almena, plus a chronology, history and taphonomy (Rattray Reference Rattray2001:337). Ceramic studies such as those of Rattray (Reference Rattray1990, Reference Rattray2001), however, focus on analytical work done more than 30 years ago by Sayre and Harbottle (Reference Sayre and Harbottle1978). New studies using new techniques and a search for new finds are in order.

Tenochtitlan

Carrizosa and Aguirre (Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003:278–299) identify seven types of almenas from archaeological contexts in Mexico City, and offer a catalogue of examples. They base their review on 81 complete or nearly complete examples plus 46 fragments. Their tables inventory only 78 examples. Carrizosa and Aguirre also discuss various forms known from historical sources but which remain unknown in the archaeological record (Carrizosa and Aguirre Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003:299–301). Extensive pictorial evidence is available in the codices that survive from the period around the arrival of the Spanish. Three examples of the stepped type of almena (see Figure 9), presumably from the same building of the Aztec period in Mexico City, were recovered and published by Ramírez. Ramírez (Reference Ramírez Acevedo1987:49) also published a page from the Codex Vaticano A (Vatican 3738, foja 126) depicting a structure decorated with almenas of the same stepped form as those that he recovered.

Figure 9.

Drummers in the Palace of Xicotencatl in Mexico, from Bruhns and Amaroli (Reference Amaroli2011:421, Figure 10.20). The reconstructed frontal view of the structure depicts ten stepped almenas along the roofline, plus one at each corner. The corner examples in this reconstruction appear specially formed, with a 90 degree bend. Original illustration by Muñoz Carmago (Reference Muñoz Camargo1583); see also Acuña (Reference Acuña1981).

Archaeological evidence for a wide variety of forms of almenas in the Valley of Mexico was gathered by Séjourné in 1966 (reprinted in 2002). Séjourné’s richly illustrated study (Reference Séjourné2002:131–138, Figures 64–66) also includes drawings of these roof ornaments had been depicted in the various surviving codices (Duran, Borbonico, Mendocino [also called the Codex Mendoza], and Borgia) from that region (Figure 10). The codex illustrations reveal a wide range of forms of roof ornaments, ranging from elaborate flame-like examples (Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:49, Figure f; Séjourné Reference Séjourné2002:131, Figure 59) to a more simplified stepped-form similar to those at Cihuatan (Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:Figures 49a and 49b; Séjourné Reference Séjourné2002:132, Figures 60, 64–66). What I describe as the “flame-like” form from the Templo Mayor (Figure 11) is identified by Barrera and López (Reference Barrera Rodríguez and Arenas2008:18) as “con forma de caracol seccionado” and by Atwood (Reference Atwood2014:31) as “spiral roof ornaments, representing snails.” Seven unusually large examples of this type, each more than 2.38 meters (eight feet) tall and 1.2 meters wide, were excavated in 2008 by Raul Barrera from the Calmecac (ca. a.d. 1486–1502) beneath modern Mexico City, about 100 meters from the Templo Mayor. These may have been mold made (Figure 12), as were other types also known from buildings in that area.

Figure 10.

Three very large “flame” shaped almenas with cylindrical tenons from the Templo Mayor (AC4-245), as illustrated in Barrera and López Arenas (Reference Baez Urincho2008:18).

Figure 11.

A Classic-period almena from Cinteop (M-87). Michael Smith (personal communication 2015) suggests that this example, almost intact except for the tenon, derives from unauthorized excavations. Photograph courtesy of Michael E. Smith.

Figure 12.

Aztec structure with almenas, as depicted in the Codex Nuttall (Nuttall Reference Nuttall1902:f. 64). Drawing by the author.

Tula

Diehl (Reference Diehl1983) points out what appears to be a significant chronological gap in the use of almenas in central Mexico, after the decline of Teotihuacan (see Diehl and Berlo Reference Diehl and Berlo1989) and before the rise of the Aztec state. This interval roughly correlates with the period of the rise of Tula (Diehl Reference Diehl1983). Tula was a major capital from which we still have few examples of this type of architectural ornament. This period happens to have a rough correspondence with the lowland Maya early Postclassic period, also the period proposed for occupancy at the site of Cihuatan. Further speculation may not be warranted. Attention might better be directed to the small city-state of Cacaxtla, to the south of Teotihuacan and postdating it. Cacaxtla lies in the Tlaxcala-Puebla Valley and recent excavations have revealed that almena-like designs appear in the impressive murals known from the site (Brittenham Reference Brittenham2015). Whether talud-tablero architecture is common at Cacaxtla I do not know.

The relationship between Teotihuacan and Tula is discussed by Healan and Stoutamire (Reference Healan, Stoutamire and Healan1989:234) with the conclusion that Tula was neither settled nor colonized by Teotihuacan. Diehl's observation (Reference Diehl and Healan1989) regarding the square shapes of houses, or rooms, and the presence of flat roofs, is important in establishing the presence of architecture ideally suited to the use of various types of roof ornaments. Healan (Reference Healan and Healan1989:62) points out that among the decorative elements at Tula are carved stone pieces such as “worked cantera [sic] used as decorative roof trim on the side [of the building] which faced the courtyard.” These have been identified in various forms such as “simple tabular or rectangular pieces, but more complex forms occur as well, including L-shaped pieces, spindles, and discoidal or cylindrical forms commonly called chalchihuitle, believed to be stylized depictions of the eyes of Tlaloc, the rain god” (Healan Reference Healan and Healan1989:63).

The place of Tula in the origin of Cihuatan, which lies in what became a Nahuatl-speaking area, has been discussed at length by Fowler (Reference Fowler and William2011:21–41). Fowler's (Reference Fowler and William2011:48–52) recent focus has been on Cihuatan's ceramic complex, identified as the Guazapa complex. Fowler identifies several strong ties to the Tollan phase of ceramics at Tula, and he concludes that direct contacts are possible, including “colonization” if not simply “independent expansion.” Consideration of Toltec connections with the Pipil migration into western and central El Salvador during the period a.d. 900–1200 are of considerable interest, particularly in connecting traits that are known from the Valley of Mexico with Cihuatan (Fowler Reference Fowler and William2011; see also Arnauld and Michelet Reference Arnauld and Michelet1991; Escamilla Reference Escamilla2011; Healan Reference Healan2012). The dates and the geographical location of Tula plus the close relationship between the ceramic assemblages at Tula (Cobean Reference Cobean1990) and at both Cihuatan and nearby Santa María in El Salvador seem to link these sites (Fowler Reference Fowler and William2011:19–20, 39; Sharer Reference Sharer1978).

Decades ago Acosta (Reference Acosta1942, Reference Acosta1956) excavated a number of stone sculptural fragments at Tula that have generally been identified as almenas, for which the English term “merlon” appears in translations (Jimenez Reference Jimenez Garcia and Williams2010:13). These usually are dated to Tula's Postclassic, although an anonymous reviewer suggests that a recently discovered example is associated with an Epiclassic period structure. The appearance of these items as fragments or single examples is quite distinct from the extensive clusters of finds at other sites. Jimenez (Reference Jimenez Garcia and Williams2010:13) cautiously indicates that the sculptural fragments at Tula that she identifies may have been parts of elements possibly located on “the tops of buildings or rooms, like the merlons” known elsewhere at Tula. She describes those merlons as being shaped like cut conch shells, or shaped like the letter “G.” Jimenez also describes types such as the “head-dress merlon” and others with spikes called “dented merlons.” This latter group may reveal a translation error.

Regarding those “examples” of merlons shaped like the letter “G,” Jimenez (Reference Jimenez Garcia and Williams2010:Photo 70, also see Photo 69; following Acosta Reference Acosta1956:79) specifically identifies an example “in the shape of a cut conch-shell.” This is 75 cm tall, 68 cm wide and 8 cm thick. This also is the shape of the individual elements of the linear roof ornament on the 35 m long serpent wall, or Coatepantli, at Tula (Jimenez Reference Jimenez Garcia and Williams2010:Photo 59; see Jordan Reference Jordan2013). This structure is located parallel to the north side of Pyramid B (Baez Reference Baez Urincho2008:10, Figure 5). Acosta (Reference Acosta1956:79) and others have interpreted these roof ornaments as a series of individual elements, as a variant form of almena, composed of individual cut shells or identical “G” shaped elements that are touching. Thus, the individual slabs appear as a continuous unit rather than separate and separated units such as those documented with the various types of almenas from Cihuatan. In addition, the upper and lower borders of the long frieze on the coatepantli have a generic stepped pattern, called “frets” in the Jimenez description, similar to the Smith and Paz Bautista (Reference Smith and Bautista2015) Type 2 almena. While this does not confirm the use of almenas at Tula in the same way as elsewhere, what we may have is a local form of roof ornament, perhaps relating to the use of stone rather than ceramic. One almena also is known from the Palacio al Este of Tula (Baez Reference Baez Urincho2008:35–37, Figure 27). This single fragment of a stepped form (Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015:118, Tipo 2) may demarcate the nominal front side of this structure.

From the land of the Mixteca, which lies south of Tula and is even closer to Cihuatan than the Valley of Mexico, there have been recovered eight codices that form what is known as the Mixtec Group. Among these is the well-known Zouche-Nuttall example. The Mixtec codices depict numerous examples of structures with almenas as decorations (Figure 13), some perhaps with thatched roofs. The extent of this pictorial information is so great that listing specific examples and placing them in chronological order will be left for others. The belief that at least one of these eight might date to the same time period as Cihuatan, however, should be noted here. Unfortunately, Mixtec archaeology, as that of Cihuatan, is limited in extent and minimally published.

Figure 13.

Reconstruction of Tikal Structure 5D-43 ornamented with almenas of the form known from the one intact example recovered (Jones Reference Jones1996). This drawing is used with the permission of Loten (Reference Loten2017).

In addition to illustrations from various codices, Carrizosa and Aguirre (Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003:277) have assembled Conquest period Spanish descriptions of Tenochtitlan's Templo Mayor and its almenas. Barrera and López (Reference Barrera Rodríguez and Arenas2008:21) point out similar variations in forms of almenas illustrated in the Codex Mendocino (Berdan and Anawalt Reference Berdan and Anawalt1992:f. 61r). Acuña's (Reference Acuña1985) suggestion that almenas are rarely depicted on the various types of buildings in the codices is refuted by these many recent reviews (Figure 13). In addition, a colonial period map of the epicenter of Cholula, a city allied with Tlaxcala in the Late Aztec period and not part of the Triple Alliance (Smith Reference Smith2008:55, 58), depicts four different structures adorned with almenas, none of which resemble the stepped forms now known from Cihuatan (Smith Reference Smith2008:57, Figure 2.14; see also Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015:118, Tipo 2).

The data relating to almenas provided by Carrizosa and Aguirre (Reference Carrizosa Montfort, Molina and Moctezuma2003), together with work by Ramírez (Reference Ramírez Acevedo1987) and others, offers basic coverage of examples from the Aztec period (Figures 8a–8b). Historically, these roof ornaments of the stepped form also are known from an illustration in the Relacion de Tlaxcala (Figure 13; see Acuña Reference Acuña1984). The Lienzo de Tlaxcala (Muñoz Camargo Reference Muñoz Camargo1583) has a depiction of a house complex in which one of the structures, and also two sides of its courtyard walls, are ornamented with almenas of the stepped type (see Mignolo Reference Mignolo1987:469, Figure I, No. 11; also Smith Reference Smith2008:116, Figure 4.9a). The Lienzo de Tlaxcala (Muñoz Camargo Reference Muñoz Camargo1583:f. 239r) also depicts a structure at that location ornamented with six almenas of an unusual and complex form. The illustration from the Relación de Tlaxcala depicts Xicotencatl's palace at Tizatlan, a town that might be called a suburb of Tlaxcala (see Smith Reference Smith2008 and Wake Reference Wake2002). Fargher et al. (Reference Fargher, Blanton, Expinoza, Millhauser, Xiutecutli and Overholtzer2011) distinguish the political structure at ancient Tlaxcallan as distinct from those of surrounding realms (see also Fargher et al. Reference Fargher, Blanton and Expinoza2010, Reference Fargher, Expinoza and Blanton2011). Evans (Susan T. Evans, personal communication 2012) points out that while the Late Postclassic Tlaxcallans may have used almenas, they did not use the disk motif to indicate a palace, as appears to be the case elsewhere in the Basin of Mexico. Almenas were neither discussed in Evans's (Reference Evans, Evans and Pillsbury2004) review of Aztec palaces, nor in a more recent paper by Nichols and Evans (Reference Nichols and Evans2009). Evans (Susan T. Evans, personal communication 2012) reports, however, that thick, flat ceramic fragments from excavations at the Mexican site of Cihuatepec “should be reassessed” with the possibility that they represent almenas (Evans Reference Evans and Evans1988, Reference Evans, MacEachern, Archer and Garvin1989). Her team did find “cone shaped tenons, plastered at the end” that resemble tenons associated with almenas from Late Postclassic sites in Mexico (Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015:120, section entitled “Bases (Fig. 8)”).

Noteworthy is that one of the two almenas from Huexotla illustrated by Batres (Reference Batres1904:14, Figure 14 ) is somewhat similar to the box-like Cihuatan examples (see Figure 3, right). Batres's example consists of a box-like base surmounted by a rounded “point” or top, very much like the tops (points) common on the Cihuatan examples described here. The Cihuatan almenas appear to combine variations of a simple stepped form with a pointed shape of this upper element that is rarely identified in Mexico. I agree with Gendrop (Reference Gendrop1985:50) who had suggested that these “points” are related to the roof combs on lowland Maya Classic period buildings. The roof structure, built with an internal arch, on El Caracol at Cozumel (Schavelzon Reference Schavelzon1985) is remarkably similar in shape to the points on the Cihuatan almenas.

Cook (Reference Cook de Leonard1985), in an article following Gendrop's overview of almenas, reported on examples from Cinteopa, a Classic period site in the municipio of Tepoztlan, just outside the southern border of the Federal District of Mexico City (Figure 12). The Cinteopa examples are extremely complex depictions in ceramic of a goggle-eyed-being shown exiting through a doorway of a house, the flat roof of which is ornamented by five simple, stepped almenas of the step form type found at Cihuatan. One measures 82.5 by 58 cm, has a maximum thickness of only 4 cm, and weighs an estimated 10 to 12 kilograms (Cook Reference Cook de Leonard1985:52–53, Figure 2b). Cook believes that at least six or seven examples could be reconstructed from the sherds recovered around the structure at Cinteopa. The local Museo Cauahnáhuac holds a very similar example, measuring 60 by 40 cm (Cook Reference Cook de Leonard1985:51, 54–55, Figures 2a–2b; Gendrop Reference Gendrop1985:Figure 59j). Séjourné (Reference Séjourné2002:134, Figures 31, 40, 58, 67) illustrates examples from Cempoala, Chichen Itza, and seems to include a wall from “Tula-Hidalgo” in this category. The example from Chichen Itza (Séjourné Reference Séjourné2002:139, Figure 67) is depicted as an ornamental line on the crest at the top of a structure's roof-comb and Séjourné’s “wall” appears to be the linear roof ornament on the Coatepantli at Tula (see Jordan Reference Jordan2013), an ornament discussed above.

Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala

At Tikal, in the center of Peten in the Maya lowlands of Guatemala, excavation of Structure 5D-43, a structure of Teotihuacan form, yielded one intact example of a solid limestone almena (see roofline in Figure 13; cf. Smith and Paz Bautista Reference Smith and Bautista2015:118, Figures 1 and 5). That any of Tikal's soft limestone objects of this type survive is unusual and attests to skillful excavation. Jones (Reference Jones1996:33) had excavated this almena from the debris east of the structure and recognized it as similar, if not “[i]dentical in shape to almenas (merlons or rooftop elements) from Teotihuacan and other western Mesoamerican sites” as illustrated by Gendrop (Reference Gendrop1985:Figures 2, 4b, 5, 8a–8b). The Tikal example is not only similar in form to one of the varieties recognized at Teotihuacan (for an example of this type in the Codex Nuttall see Séjourné Reference Séjourné2002:Figure 65, No. 4), but Tikal Structure 5D-43, on which it was mounted, bears many other common Teotihuacan features (see Loten Reference Loten2013). Furthermore, Tikal Structure 5D-43 was built during the Early Classic period, when Teotihuacan influence at Tikal was particularly strong (Coe Reference Coe1972). The Tikal almena was not catalogued, but Jones (Reference Jones1996:33, Figures 22a, 74a) describes it as a limestone “block” measuring 52 by 30 by 20 cm and “smoothed and plastered on the front and the stepped sides” (Figure 13, cf. Figure 10). The single surviving Tikal almena also has a rectangular “opening”, measuring about 10 by 10 centimeters, centered at the baseline of the face. Jones (Christopher Jones, personal communication 2012) recalls that it passes through the entire block, similar to the windows in each Cihuatan example that allow one to see through them.

In his reconstruction drawing of Tikal Structure 5D-43 Jones (Reference Jones1996:Figure 22a) imagined a series of seven almenas along the roofline, each separated by a space of approximately 60 to 70 centimeters. Jones speculates that L-shaped “examples” or almenas with right angles, were used at the corners. This inference derives from the stepped examples in the Aztec realm that are depicted in two places in the Bodley Codex (Séjourné Reference Séjourné2002:Figure 66, Nos. 5 and 7). Loten's reconstruction of Tikal Structure 5D-43 (Loten Reference Loten2013) also includes right-angled corner almenas (Figures 7 and 9). Evidence for L-shaped examples or “corner” almenas was sought at Cihuatan, but no indication of “corner” types has yet been found among the fragments of 50 or more examples recognized at Cihuatan, Tikal, or in the Valley of Mexico.

Amaroli's (Reference Amaroli2009) reconstruction of Structure Q-1 at Cihuatan does not include theoretical corner types, while Jones's (Reference Jones1996) reconstruction at Tikal employs this theoretical category. The reconstruction of other Cihuatan almenas may suggest how many were used on Structure Q-1 and how they were spaced. Comparisons among the sizes and shapes of each structure that employed almenas may help us to conceptualize the configuration of these buildings for future reconstruction.

Almenas, so widely identified at sites in the Valley of Mexico and from a few sites in the Maya lowlands, remain unknown at Copán or from other Maya sites to the south and west of Tikal. Those few examples that can be verified, as the example from Tikal, appear to have been associated with diplomatic residences, supposedly of emissaries from Teotihuacan. Before we make evaluations at any site, confirmation of presence, form and, if possible, placement will be needed. As seen at Cihuatan over the past 40 years, the absence of reported examples does not mean that almenas are not present. What their presence indicates remains, of course, speculative.

Chichen Itza, Nohmul, and Belize

Despite a great deal of verbal commentary by my colleagues regarding finds of almenas in Yucatan, actual evidence is sparse (see above). Oral reports of almenas found at Tula and Veracruz, as the one reported from Nohmul, cannot be verified.

Ruppert's (Reference Ruppert1943:243) classic report on the Mercado at Chichen Itza provides good evidence for two examples of almenas carved from stone. These two are of different shape, but both are described as “[r]oof decorations from Structure 2D6” as part of the Mercado gallery. Both appear to be flat and have tenons at the base, presumable allowing them to be inserted into the stone roof of a structure (Ruppert Reference Ruppert1943:Figures 4b, 10a, 17d). One of these from the Mercado, an elaborate “G-shape,” is described as 74 cm tall. The other, at 105 cm tall, is quite elaborate with a crossbar near the center through which a triangular hole has been cut. The hole resembles those holes cut in the front and back sides of the box-like stepped almenas at Cihuatan. Repeated claims regarding supposed almenas on the Castillo (“Temple of Kukulkan”) at Chichen Itza fail to view Maudsley's 1889 photograph of the structure that clearly reveals an upper level that had been almost entirely removed in the supposed reconstruction.

Excavations at Structure 20 in Nohmul, suspected to be “of a unique architectural style for northern Belize” and “possibly Postclassic in date” (Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1982:596), revealed “a possible stucco adorno, perhaps from the perishable roof” (Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1982:598). This single element was not described earlier, but the Chases recently suggested that it might have been an almena (Arlen and Diane Chase, personal communication 2012). This single element may be compared with the obvious almena noted above in association with Tikal Structure 5D-43, a structure of Teotihuacan form that also resembles Nohmul Structure 20. Also of interest is that Nohmul Structure 20 is directly opposite Structure 9, a round structure form apparently unique to that site (cf. Cihuatan Structure P-28).

While many almenas may be described as tenoned roof ornaments, all are intended to stand vertically with their bases on or cut into the roof of a building. An entirely different category of ornaments is tenoned horizontally into the façade or roof of structures. This may be the mode of use for a parrot head and reptile head recovered at Nixtun-Ch'ich’, Peten, Guatemala (Pugh et al. Reference Pugh, Rice, Nieto and Rice2016). Pugh (Timothy Pugh, personal communication 2016) also reports a tenoned bird from Zacpeten. These appear to be Itza introductions from the north, not introduced almenas in the Teotihuacan tradition.