Fig 1.
Map of the Pasión River region.
It shows the locations of archaeological sites and the extent of the LiDAR survey. Topographic data from the NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM; https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/SRTM).
Fig 2.
Map of the LiDAR-surveyed arear around Ceibal.
It shows the locations of surface collection, groups, sites, and zones mentioned in the text.
Fig 3.
It shows the locations of the groups, structures, and platforms mentioned in the text.
Fig 4.
Chronology of Ceibal and other Maya sites.
Fig 5.
Vegetation classification based on the LiDAR data.
See [22] for detailed discussion of its procedure.
Table 1.
Archaeological zones in the Ceibal region.
Fig 6.
Chronology of E-Group assemblages.
Whereas the beginning of each E-Group type can be determined based on archaeological evidence, its end point is represented rather arbitrarily. This is because some complexes continued to be used in their original E-Group configurations while their meaning and use pattern likely changed gradually, and new complexes were built in different formats.
Fig 7.
Reconstruction image of the earliest version of the E-Group assemblage at Ceibal.
It represents a La Venta-type E Group, with a linear and flat eastern platform.
Fig 8.
LiDAR images of the E-Group assemblages in the Ceibal region.
(A) El Cruce. (B) El Rodeo. (C) La Nueva Libertad. (D) La Felicidad. (E) Anonal. (F) Ceibal Group A. (G) Unit AI11-48. (H) El Edén. (I) Unit AD16-3. (J) Iberia. Note that all the E-Group assemblages are of the Cenote type in their final forms. While the Group A complex is the largest and the one at Anonal is the second, all others are of similar sizes. In the E Groups located outside of the protected Ceibal Park, looters’ pits are visible.
Table 2.
Ceramics excavated from the surface level (above the final floor) in Ceibal Group A.
Table 3.
Surface collection ceramic frequencies and percentages by periods and phases.
Table 4.
Frequencies of units where Preclassic or Late-Terminal Classic sherds were present.
Fig 9.
Estimated distribution of ceremonial complexes and supporting platforms during the Preclassic period.
(A) MFC pattern with a La Venta-type E Group from the early Middle Preclassic Real 1 to late Middle Preclassic Escoba 1 phase (1000–600 BC). (B) Cenote-type E Groups and eastern winged pyramids, possibly dating to the late Middle Preclassic Escoba 2 to Late Preclassic Cantutse 1 phase (600–300 BC). (C) Pyramidal complexes, possibly dating to the Late Preclassic Cantutse 1 to Early Classic Junco 1 phase (350 BC-AD 300). Units originally classified as “possible E Groups” are included in “pyramid without platform.” (D) Supporting platforms (probable residential complexes during the Preclassic period).
Table 5.
Ground-truthing and estimates of supporting platforms.
Fig 10.
Platform density without non-domestic platforms.
It likely approximates the population distribution of the Late Preclassic period (350–75 BC) if our assumption that the Preclassic population in both in the Ceibal center and in the peripheries reached its peak during this period is correct.
Table 6.
Ranking of structure units.
Fig 11.
Distribution of units by ranking.
It probably reflects the political organization during the Late and Terminal Classic periods.
Fig 12.
The result of hot spot analysis based on the unit ranking.
Cold spots represent statistically-significant clustering of low-rank units, whereas hot spots show statistically-significant clustering of high-rank units.
Table 7.
Ground-truthing results by vegetation types.
Table 8.
Estimates of structure frequencies, populations, and their densities.
Fig 13.
Structure density without non-domestic structures.
It likely approximates the population distribution of the Late and Terminal Classic periods.