Skip to main content

The Land of Blue/Green Water: Yaxha

View of Lake Yaxha, from a pyramid structure
Kicked off 2016 by going to Yaxha, the third largest city known in the region. The thing about Yaxha is that it has a lengthy occupation history and was already a large site during the Early Pre-Classic, with construction of some buildings beginning in the 8th century BC. From about the 4th century BC to 3rd century AD, Yaxha (meaning “blue/green water”) was the largest city in the Petén, though it didn’t reach its peak size until the Early Classic (ca. AD 250–600). It was eclipsed in size around AD 600, but continued to be dominant and had continuous occupation into the 9th century AD, before being abandoned. Like Tikal and other sites in the region, it shows influence from Teotihuacan starting around the 4th century.


First thing you see walking into Yaxha
Yaxha is a lot less excavated and restored than Tikal, but that is normal. The 20% excavated at Tikal is unusually high. About 6% of Yaxha has been excavated, and the norm is between 2–10% of a site—and that is to say nothing about the 95–99% of sites that have gone unexcavated entirely. Still, there was some pretty cool stuff to see at Yaxha. Like Tikal, it has groupings of multiple pyramid structures and you can claim to the top of 130+ feet towers and take in quite the view. Atop one that comes close to 140 feet, built on top of an already elevated space, you can see a beautiful view of the nearby lake (named, appropriately, Lake Yaxha).

Hole in the ruins dug by archaeologists.
You can see the different layers of construction
One of the unique things we saw here was a hole in one of the structures which the archaeologists had dug to get past the Late Classic era construction and down to the Pre-Classic ruins. Thus allowing us to clearly see how structures would be built over top older buildings. Of course, it is a small hole, so when you consider that only 6% of the site is excavated, that generally means 6% of the Classic Period ruins at the site. The small whole penetrating to the Pre-Classic layers is only a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

This is standard fair in Mesoamerica—it was the case at Yaxha, Tikal, and Ceibal, among others—and rarely do archaeologist do so much as dig a whole down to the Pre-Classic layers like that did at Yaxha. It is hard enough to get to the latest construction layers (usually at least Classic, if not Late Classic), let alone dig further into the site to get at earlier stages of construction.  Not to mention getting at earlier layers requires destroying the later layers, something archaeologists are understandably reluctant to do. (Classic, and especially Late Classic, ruins are generally grander, more interesting, and more attractive to tourists, after all.) So much of the Pre-Classic and often even Early Classic remains hidden underneath.
Part of the North Acropolis

This is a problem when it comes to issues related to the Book of Mormon, because the final occupation—and thus, typically, construction—at most sites post-dates the Book of Mormon, usually by several centuries. The implications here are not to be taken lightly. How much “direct” evidence for the Book of Mormon can be expected when so little dating back to Book of Mormon times actually gets dug up?

Coolest temple in North Acropolis,
from the top of the tallest temple in the North Acropolis 
When critics expect direct evidence for the Book of Mormon, they often don’t realize that (a) 95–99% of all Mesoamerican sites remain completely unexcavated; (b) when a site is excavated, usually only about 2–10% of it gets explored, with the rest remaining untouched; (c) the Pre-Classic and sometimes even Early Classic layers very often remain buried under later layers of construction, and hence go unexplored. In bringing this up, I am not suggesting that some smoking gun is waiting to be discovered that will prove the Book of Mormon true once and for all. Rather, I am simply pointing out that, given the state of Mesoamerican archaeology, we cannot have an abundance of direct evidence for the Book of Mormon because we do not have an abundance of data from the right time and place to start with.


Those limitations aside, visiting these different ruins and learning more about them and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica in general has been a real treat, and Yaxha was no exception. Climbing the ruins, taking in the view from the top, and being in awe of the splendor of these sites, gives added appreciation for what these ancient peoples accomplished. Having Dr. Mark Wright share insights into how their cultural practices might inform our reading of the Book of Mormon is just icing on the cake!
Me with Lake Yaxha in the background

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

New Paper on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Joseph M. Spencer, an adjunct professor at the BYU religion department, recently published a paper in the non-LDS peer review journal Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception, titled, “Isaiah 52 in the Book of Mormon: Note’s on Isaiah’s Reception History.” Spencer is a young scholar who is doing exciting stuff on the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective.
The paper is described as follows in the abstract: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of Mormonism to American religion, little attention has been given to the novel uses of Isaiah in foundational Mormon texts. This paper crosses two lines of inquiry: the study of American religion, with an eye to the role played in it by Mormonism, and the study of Isaiah’s reception history. It looks at the use of Isa 52:7–10 in the Book of Mormon, arguing that the volume exhibits four irreducibly distinct approaches to the interpretation of Isaiah, the interrelations among which are explicitly meant to speak to nineteent…