Antiquity 2025 Vol.

99 (404): 462–480
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.3

Research Article

A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala: central

Mexican ritual and elite interaction in the Maya
Lowlands
Edwin Román Ramírez1, Lorena Paiz Aragón1, Angelyn Bass2,
Thomas G. Garrison3 , Stephen Houston4,* , Heather Hurst5, David Stuart6,
Alejandrina Corado Ochoa1, Cristina García Leal1, Andrew Scherer4 &
Rony E. Piedrasanta Castellanos1
1
Proyecto Arqueológico del Sur de Tikal, Tikal, Guatemala
2
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA
3
Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas, Austin, USA
4
Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, USA
5
Department of Anthropology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, USA
6
Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas, Austin, USA
* Author for correspondence ✉ [email protected]

The nature and extent of interactions between the

distant regions and cultures of Mesoamerica remain
open to much debate. Close economic and political
ties developed between Teotihuacan and the lowland
Maya during the Early Classic period (AD 250–550),
yet the relationship between these cultures continues
to perplex scholars. This article presents an elabor-
ately painted altar from an elite residential group at
the lowland Maya centre of Tikal, Guatemala. Dating
to the fifth century AD, the altar is unique in its dis-
play of Teotihuacan architectural and artistic forms,
adding to evidence not only for cultural influence
during this period, but also for an active Teotihuacan
presence at Tikal.

Keywords: Mesoamerica, Early Classic period, radiocarbon dating, photogrammetry, talud-tablero, mural
painting, long-distance contact

Received: 22 January 2024; Revised: 16 August 2024; Accepted: 13 September 2024

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is
properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.

462
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Introduction
Several decades of fieldwork point to strong connections between the Maya dynastic seat of
Tikal, in modern-day Guatemala, and the distant hegemonic metropolis of Teotihuacan in
central Mexico. These connections touch on the nature of political ties between distant areas
and systems of quasi-imperial control in Mesoamerica. At Tikal, prior evidence of that con-
tact comes from, among other locations, royal burials in the North Acropolis, a deposit near
that Acropolis and Group 6C-XVI, a buried complex of residential and ceremonial buildings
(Figure 1; Coggins 1975: 171, 177; Iglesias Ponce de León 1987; Culbert 1993: figs. 15, 17;
Laporte & Fialko 1995; Moholy-Nagy 2021). Excavations in the 1980s within Group
6C-XVI, a buried complex of residential and ceremonial buildings (Figure 1), uncovered
talud-tablero mouldings (a distinctive slope-and-panel feature linked to Teotihuacan) and
the Tikal Marcador—a carving similar to the feathered standards at Teotihuacan but embel-
lished with Maya hieroglyphs, perhaps as a depiction of an upright weapon and shield (Stuart
2024: 71–74). Found near an altar at the centre of a 6C-XVI patio, the Marcador mentions
Teotihuacan elites and a probable conquest of Tikal in AD 378: an event labelled the
Entrada, or ‘Arrival’, in Spanish (Proskouriakoff 1993; Stuart 2000, 2024). Since then,
signs of contact and conflict associated with this event have been noted at various sites across
the Maya region (Estrada Belli et al. 2009). For example, the ruins of La Cuernavilla, on
ridges to the north-west of Tikal and the citadels of Bastión and Fortín, in a hilly area south-
west of the city, attest to large-scale fortifications in the region (Houston et al. 2019; Román
Ramírez & Piedrasanta Castellanos 2023). Most such defences date to the fourth and fifth
centuries AD, which was a period of intensive interaction with Teotihuacan but also of
increased population mobility more generally in the Maya region (Braswell 2003; Wright
2012; Scherer & Wright 2015).
New findings can now report further links between Teotihuacan and Tikal. In 2016, lidar
of Tikal revealed a large plaza and pyramid close to Group 6C-XVI and south of the so-called
Mundo Perdido and Seven Temples Plaza with their talud-tablero constructions and burnt
human sacrifices tied to Teotihuacan (Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2015). Between this nor-
thern sector and Group 6C-XVI, a 2016 lidar survey revealed a large plaza and pyramid that
had previously been treated as a natural hill (Houston et al. 2019). Known today as Group
6D-III, this enclosed courtyard with a large temple on its eastern side offers a striking parallel
in plan and orientation to the much larger Ciudadela (‘Citadel’) complex at Teotihuacan.
The main, western-facing building, Structure 6D-105, resembles the layout and location
of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihuacan, as do the buildings and platforms defining
its frontal square, and subsequent excavations by the Proyecto Arqueológico Sur de Tikal
(PAST) identified talud-tableros mouldings embellishing different phases of the structure.
These excavations confirmed the Early Classic date (c. AD 250–550) of the Group 6D-III
Ciudadela (Román Ramírez & Méndez Lee 2020) and also retrieved more than 5000 frag-
ments of ‘theatre incense burners’—so-called because of their flamboyant decoration—that
were locally produced but Teotihuacan in style, along with copious deposits of burned and
shattered Spondylus shell. Almost all of the incense burners correspond to forms found in the
Late Xolalpan period at Teotihuacan (AD 450–550). Close technological analysis by an
expert in central Mexican lithics indicates that dart or atlatl points recovered during the

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
463
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

Figure 1. Layout of relevant sector and architectural groups at Tikal, Guatemala (image by T.G. Garrison & H. Hurst).

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
464
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

excavations were probably crafted at Teotihuacan or by people trained at the metropolis

(Joshua Kwoka, pers. comm. 2021; for comparable lithics see Carballo 2011: 70, 72). Radio-
carbon dating returned a range of cal AD 250–410 (Beta-648278, 95.4% confidence) to cal
AD 255–425 (Beta-648279, 95.4% confidence) for the construction of Structure 6D-105’s
platform, and cal AD 415–545 (Beta-648280, 95.4% confidence) for the deposit of incense
burners and shells (for detail, see online supplementary material (OSM)). There is, therefore,
a probability that Structure 6D-105 post-dated the Entrada of AD 378.
Like the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihuacan, the 6D-105 pyramid was fronted
by an ‘adosado’, a building added to its facade, and it faced a plaza that could be filled
with water (Gazzola 2017: 45, fig. 4.8), its runoff flowing into the Madeira reservoir to
the north (Figure 1). Excavation of the reservoir and its embankment uncovered a ritual
deposit of water vessels, obsidian blades, shell and ash, all dating to the Manik 3A phase
at Tikal (AD 380–480; for Manik 3A dating see Culbert & Kosakowsky 2019: tab. 7.1).
Radiocarbon dates indicate that the reservoir was constructed between cal AD 230 and
390 (14C-8076, 95.4% confidence), possibly in two phases, and that the ritual deposit
dated from cal AD 260–480 (14C-8077, 95.4% confidence, with higher probability
of cal AD 340–480, 75.3% of 95.4% confidence). Construction across the south sector of
Tikal thus concentrated in the later fourth to early fifth centuries AD. Occupation of
Groups 6D-III and 6C-XVI coincided with the Entrada and its aftermath, followed within
a century and a half by large-scale abandonment rituals at the Tikal Ciudadela and the
burial of many buildings in the south sector. Pan-regional events probably played a role in
these developments. The Entrada coincides with the shift from the Tlamimilolpa to the
Xolalpan phase at Teotihuacan (Beramendi-Orosco et al. 2009: fig. 5), just post-dating
the burning of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid and the subsequent emplacement of its
own ‘adosado’ (Cowgill 2015: 146). Similarly, the abandonment of the Ciudadela at
Tikal took place at the same time as the burning and partial depopulation of Teotihuacan
(Clayton 2020).
Three possibilities account for these findings: 1) a ‘soft’ borrowing at Tikal of Teotihuacan
art and building styles, facilitated by trade and visitors; 2) a ‘hard’ intrusion of pan-regional
antagonism, military campaigns and foreign influence; and 3) an oscillation between these
forms of contact (Houston et al. 2021: 1). This article reports on further evidence for a Teo-
tihuacan presence at Tikal: a painted altar from Group 6D-XV, whose panels appear in lay-
out, contents and execution to be close to those created for residential compounds at
Teotihuacan itself.

Excavations at Group 6D-XV

Beginning in 2019, prompted by fresh results from lidar, the excavations at Group 6D-XV
ultimately revealed a painted altar (Structure 6D-XV-Sub3) at the centre of a patio marked by
various construction episodes and associated burials or caches (PAST-Burials 7, 11, 10 and
15). Group 6D-XV lies atop a natural rise levelled to create a larger platform (Figure 2);
located 125m east of the 6D-105 pyramid, this group shares an orientation with Group
6D-III, constructed parallel to its platform. Like the occupation and termination of
Group 6C-XVI (Laporte 1987, 1989; Laporte & Fialko 1995), Group 6D-XV revealed a

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
465
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

Figure 2. Architectural group 6D-XV, tunnels correspond to the level of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, showing the location
(left) and a schematic representation (right) of the murals altar (image by T.G. Garrison, H. Hurst & L. Paiz).

residential patio compound that was buried as part of the termination of Tikal’s southern
sector.
The earliest phase of Group 6D-XV is represented by an ovoid arrangement of post holes
on the eastern side of the mound, 11m beneath the current surface (Figures S15 & S17).
Two atypical interments occur in association with what was probably a structure made
from perishable material. PAST-Burial 10, a tomb with limestone walls, stuccoed floor
and a thick ash stain above it, contained a supine skeleton of a probable male adult, arranged
with hands crossed over the hips, head facing east (Figure 3, see also OSM). Among the grave
goods was a stemmed biface of obsidian (Figure S13a) and a fragmentary biface of green
obsidian, an object closely tied to Teotihuacan in both form and material, was in the fill dir-
ectly above the burial (Figure S13b; cf. Haviland 2014: 415). Other funerary goods under-
score the high status of the deceased, including a rich inventory of two shell needles, a shell
earflare with a stone mosaic, 36 stuccoed Oliva shells, 54 shell beads, a grinding stone and
several ceramic vessels. Two vessels were of local make but anomalous in shape, including
a cream-coloured chalice resembling Late Tlamimlolpa goblet shapes and a slipped vessel
with the image of a macaw (cf. Rattray 1992: pl. XIX).
PAST-Burial 15 consists of a 2–4-year-old child placed in a seated position, knees drawn
to the chest with arms flexed and hands set to the front of the body, inside a 1m-diameter
circular pit (Figure 4); it post-dates PAST-Burial 10, intruding into the earlier phase of

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
466
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Figure 3. PAST-Burial 10 and detail of artefacts found within the burial. The inset box shows an intaglio earspool
covering with shell and jade inlays (42mm diameter) found 100mm above the cranium (figure by S. Levine,
L. Paiz & A. Scherer).

the building, and the bones show signs of fire damage. Found along with the child were a
pierced dog tooth, 46 tubular shell beads, 39 circular shell beads, three greenstone beads,
four burned jade beads, a red bead of uncertain material, and four ceramic vessels. The
vessels, though clearly Maya in terms of their surface finish (Balanza Black, Lucha
Incised, Paradero Fluted, Yaloche Cream), have forms that relate to Late Tlamimilolpa
ceramics at Teotihuacan, including a pinched rim (probably simulating a dried gourd)
and a flat-based fluted body and thick everted rim. The seated position and burning
of PAST-Burial 15 are consistent with mortuary patterns at Teotihuacan during the
Tlamimilolpa and Xolalpan phases (Sempowski & Spence 1994: 181, 208–9). Two radio-
carbon dates place the lower construction between cal AD 205 and 350 (Beta-670812,
95.4% confidence), and the fill above the burials extends from cal AD 380–540
(Beta-670815, 95.4% confidence).

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
467
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

Figure 4. Four ceramic vessels found in PAST-Burial 15 and a plan view of the burial (right). The upper-left and
lower-right vessels were found beneath the pots illustrated on the plan (drawings by H. Hurst & S. Levine).

The fill over the burials and the early oval structure was topped by a single floor that sup-
ported four buildings. These structures delimited the sides of a patio with a central masonry
altar (Figures 2 & S17). In layout, this arrangement corresponds to ‘Plaza Plan 4’, a pattern
restricted to the southern sector of Tikal and “strongly influenced by cultural rules from
Teotihuacan”, with burials and skull caches in central courtyard shrines (Becker 2009: 93,
96). A radiocarbon date of cal AD 360–540 (Beta-670814, 94.9% confidence) was obtained
from the stairway construction fill of the building on the south side of the courtyard, and
accompanying artefacts support a date in the fifth century AD.
At the centre of the patio courtyard is Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, a small talud-tablero
structure (1.1m tall) of rectangular footprint (1.8 × 1.33m), with its long facade facing
west (Figure 5). Precarity of the murals means that it is not possible to excavate within the
structure, and details of its construction are currently unknown. The principal approach
to the altar is defined by a low outset platform extending 0.97m from the west facade; this
platform, burned on its central axis, is painted with red bands and was laid out with a
black line delineated on the floor (Figure S18). Four adjacent caches or burials occur with
the altar (Figure S16). To the north-east, PAST-Burial 11 contained an infant, the bones
were scattered in loose fill but had probably originally been placed atop the Balanza Black
tripod plate found in the burial. A second interment to the north (PAST-Burial 7) was of
a 6–12-month-old baby, and another infant was found on the frontal axis in 2024 (PAST-
Burial 16). At the south-west corner of the altar was an offering without human remains, only
a jar rim. To place the offerings, the underlying floor was broken and the holes were filled,
following the deposition of the bodies and other artefacts, with crushed and compacted
limestone. At Teotihuacan, such infant burials have been recovered from courtyard altars
in the La Ventilla B compound and near residential rooms at the Tlamimilolpa complex
(Rattray 1992: 12, 53).

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
468
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Figure 5. Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, altar with murals photographed from the south-west (above) and rendered from the
north-west (below) (photograph by E. Román; rendering by H. Hurst).

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
469
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

The 6D-XV patio compound and its courtyard altar were buried after a ceremony near the
eastern part of the group that left burnt material spread over 3m; a radiocarbon date from this
material indicates a range of cal AD 550–645 (Beta-670811, 95.4% probability), close to the
rapid decline of Teotihuacan. Except for Structure 6D-81, the lone building still visible on
the surface of the mound, the patio compound was intentionally covered by a non-uniform
fill to create the impression of a natural hill. Several items were retrieved from the fill covering
the altar (Figure 6), including a ceramic, drum-shaped earspool (Figure 6d). Unique in the
Maya area, such ornaments are found at Mexican sites affiliated with Teotihuacan (Cabrera
García 2016; Jimenez Betts 2018: 79–80, figs. 4.9, 4.17).

The altar paintings

The courtyard altar (Structure 6D-XV-Sub3) employs masonry talud-tableros, covered by
earthen and lime-based layers and finished with multiple coats of fine lime plaster (Figures
5, 7–10). The extended platform providing access on the west and the talud element of
the altar were simply demarcated with thick red lines. The four tablero surfaces of the
altar, including the frame and recessed panel of each side, were painted in red, orange, yellow
and black hues (see OSM for details). Each recessed panel displays the frontal image of a per-
son wearing a feathered headdress. Only the face and headdress are shown, and flanking ele-
ments may represent shields or other elements of regalia. Preservation of the plaster and the
images is variable on each side, though overall the designs are faint and the plaster is friable.
Application of photogrammetry, and processing of the high-resolution orthomosaic images
with dStretch software, has aided the documentation and study of the painted panels.
The dStretch digital imaging tool, initially designed for enhancing rock art, uses a decorrela-
tion stretch algorithm to create various false colour images by increasing differences in hue
(Harman 2005). Red and yellow hues were detected in the Tikal altar paintings, which
were then verified and incorporated into on-site drawings of the tableros, thereby confirming
unclear details (Figure S11).
The paintings on the four sides of the altar are highly standardised. Each features a face
framed by a broad headdress and flanking elements of regalia. The faces wear dual stacked
earspools, three-strand necklaces and elaborate headdresses with white banding at the fore-
head and a circular diadem composed of three concentric sections. Behind the circular dia-
dem are four tiers of short, stiff feathers and arching sprays of plumes. Symmetry and
repetition dictate the altar design, with the face and diadem as primary elements.
For example, the west and east panels are 0.46m wider than the north and south panels,
yet the frontal figure maintains the same proportions on all sides. On the shorter north
and south panels, the feathered headdress wraps around the outset of the tablero frame, com-
pleting the image without altering the scale (Figures 8 & 10).
The decoration on the Tikal altar accords with Teotihuacan painting style and techniques.
The use of frontality is typically associated with the representation of deities in Teotihuacan
mural painting and sculpture (Kubler 1967: 7, Pasztory 1992: 293). The distinctive fanged
or pronged mouthpiece of the figure on the Tikal altar suggests it relates to the ‘Storm God’
complex and, perhaps, to the ‘Great Goddess’, a divine entity whose existence is questioned
by some specialists (e.g. Pasztory 1973; Taube 1983; Paulinyi 2006; Mandell 2015; Nielsen

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
470
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

& Helmke 2017). The face has almond-

shaped eyes and wears a nose-bar with
fangs, consistent with depictions of several
deities at Teotihuacan (see Robb 2017a:
fig. 22.5). The repeating mouthpiece
motif, seen along the bottom border of
the tablero frame (Figures 8 & 9), and the
double earspool/feathered headdress com-
bination are both also seen at Teotihuacan,
at the Complex of the Superimposed Build-
ings and the Complex of the Sun, respect-
ively (Cabrera 1995: fig. 3.6; de la Fuente
1995: pl. 20). Yet, in a departure from
commonly cited ‘Storm God’ characteris-
tics (cf. Anderson & Helmke 2013: 166),
the Tikal altar figure lacks eye ‘goggles’.
Hair frames the face, ending in a yellow
bar and white triangular form, possibly
representing paper or cotton. Although no
additional body parts are visible, the figure
is bordered by two identical shields; rect-
angular elements adorned with a star and
feathers along the top edges (Miller 1973:
figs. 137, 197). The style is typical of Teo-
Figure 6. Teotihuacan-related objects found with the altar. tihuacan, where similar shields are depicted
Fragments of incense burners: a) PST-1C-25-11; b) on a wall painting in the Zacuala residential
PST-1C-25-11; c) PST-1C-25-11; and a ceramic
earspool, d) PST-1C-25-10 (photographs by L. Paiz;
compound (Kubler 1967: fig. 27), an
drawings by S. Levine). incense burner lid from the Oztoyahualco
compound (AD 350−550) and at least
one figurine (Manzanilla 2017: 206;
Robb 2017b: 207). No hands are visible on the Tikal altar, yet the position of the shields,
like their sculptural counterparts, suggests they are held by the figure itself.
Some small variation is seen in the design on each side of the Tikal altar. The innermost
circle of the headdress diadem differs in colour: black on the north panel, red on the east and
grey (possibly a faded colourant) on the south. The west panel diadem has a circular socket
(100mm wide, 50mm deep), and the imprint of a disc is still visible in the bordering plaster.
The inset object, possibly a polished mirror, was not recovered during excavations and was
likely removed before the altar was buried. The nose of the figure on the north panel is
black in colour and does not protrude over the nose bar, perhaps depicting a skeletal cavity
(cf. Figures 9 & 10). The north image is also unique in having feathers that ring the diadem.
These variations suggest a quadripartite identity for the Tikal altar figures that may relate to
the cardinal directions.
Each tablero frame surrounding the recessed panel is also painted in polychrome, which
situates or amplifies the iconography of the painted panel (Kubler 1967: 8; Lombardo de

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
471
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

Figure 7. Altar of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, west side, showing an orthomosaic photo (top image by H. Hurst, A. Bass,
L. Paiz & E. Román) and illustration (lower image by H. Hurst).

Ruiz 2001: 21). The vertical sides of the tablero frames are adorned with red rectangular
panels each containing three white rings; the chalchihuites, or ‘precious stone’, motif is asso-
ciated with royal palaces in later Aztec imagery (Evans 2004: 8, fig. 1; Houston & Newman
2021). At Teotihuacan, the motif is found on numerous architectural friezes, such as the
Quetzalpapalotl Palace, and in tablero borders on the Temple of the Feathered Serpent
and the Puma Mural from the Street of the Dead, among others (Miller 1973: figs.
58–62, 86, 146; Robb 2017a: figs. 22.1, 22.3). The bottom section of the Tikal altar
frame has a central rectangle located directly below each frontal figure, flanked by repeated
fanged mouthpieces. Poor preservation makes it unclear if this central element is the same
on all sides or marks another point of variation. The treatment of the Tikal altar tablero
frame in painted chalchihuites and isolated symbols drawn from the central figure conforms

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
472
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Figure 8. Altar of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, south side, showing an orthomosaic photo (top image by H. Hurst, A. Bass,
L. Paiz & E. Román) and illustration (lower image by H. Hurst).

with imagery from the Late Tlamimilolpa-Early Xolalpan phase (AD 300–450) at Teotihua-
can (Magaloni 1996: 219).
Close visual examination and separated colour data from the Tikal altar also disclose the
layered brushstrokes of the fresco secco technique (see OSM for detail). The Tikal altar

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
473
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

Figure 9. Altar of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, east side, showing an orthomosaic photo (top image by H. Hurst, A. Bass,
L. Paiz & E. Román) and illustration (lower image by H. Hurst).

adheres closely to Teotihuacan mural painting style and technique in its use of a pale red
underpainting sketch, flat colour fields and red contour lines on the figure, shields and
frame (cf. Magaloni 1996, 2017; Conides 2018). The deliberate spacing in feather layout,
the rendering of even contour lines and the final feathered-panel outline all depart from
calligraphic lowland Maya painting of feathers (e.g. Bonampak, Structure 1, Room 1 head-
dresses), resembling more the plumage on the frontal figure of Tetitla Portico 11 (de la
Fuente 1995: pl. 45) and the Conjunto del Sol, among other Teotihuacan artworks.
The mixture of red and black contour lines of the Tikal altar diverges from most Teotihua-
can wall paintings, yet it is a technique evident on stuccoed vessels found at that city (Con-
ides 2018: 190). In addition to the imagery itself, these technical elements demonstrate
that the altar murals were made by people well-versed in highly standardised Teotihuacan
painting.

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
474
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Figure 10. Altar of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, north side, showing an orthomosaic photo (top image by H. Hurst, A. Bass,
L. Paiz & E. Román) and illustration (lower image by H. Hurst).

Discussion
The form and painted decoration of the Group 6D-XV altar point strongly to the presence of
artists trained at Teotihuacan. Its talud-tablero profile is a distinctive Teotihuacan trait and

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
475
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

other appearances of this architectural form in the Maya area, at Tikal and elsewhere, are asso-
ciated with material and historical connections to central Mexico. The painted frame of chal-
chihuites and abstracted mouthpieces align the Tikal altar talud-tablero with the Teotihuacan
tradition, not a local Maya variation of it. The panel paintings are also firmly in the metro-
politan style of Teotihuacan in that their execution uses preparatory drawing, heavy contour
lines and the design principles of layered pictorial planes, even line-weight and repetition.
Beyond the absence of Maya iconographic elements, the attribution is further established
by the frontal presentation of the figure, rigid bilateral symmetry, large, feathered headdresses
with central medallions and the fanged mouthpiece, all of which have close parallels at Teo-
tihuacan. The presentation of an adorned head without the body is also found in several simi-
lar Teotihuacan representations. The four painted figures at Tikal resemble images that are
often described in central Mexico as the ‘Storm God’, with some overlap to a being
known as the ‘Great Goddess’. But Teotihuacan imagery is highly opaque, often with
fused personages, and even the presumed gender may be uncertain to specialists. In the mur-
als at Tikal, the four aspects differentiated by colour at least suggest they are deities associated
with the four world directions.
In the Early Classic period, wall painting was a medium for influence and interaction,
as seen in Teotihuacan imagery from murals at Copan, Xelha and Uaxactún, in the Maya
area (Lombardo de Ruiz 2001), and, conversely, Maya-style murals within the Plaza of the
Columns at Teotihuacan (Sugiyama et al. 2020). At Holmul, in the Petén Basin in Gua-
temala, the La Sufricaya palace paintings not only depict the interaction of Maya and Teo-
tihuacan individuals but employ volcanic ash as an aggregate, a method traditionally used
at Teotihuacan (Estrada-Belli et al. 2009; Hurst 2009, in press). Analysis of the Tikal altar
shows a departure from the hybridity of these other examples. Structure 6D-XV-Sub3
incorporates Central Mexican artistic practice, aesthetics and offerings; as part of the
southern sector, it exists within a context notable for its intensity and variety of Teotihua-
can material culture.
The size and placement of the altar, along with its burials and signs of burning, show
clear parallels with courtyard altars found in residential compounds of Teotihuacan—
these were also associated with domestic rituals and were ritually abandoned (Manzanilla
2002: 51; Linné 2003: 47–48; Becker 2009; Houston 2023; see also OSM). As Séjourné
(1966) notes, small altars in residential compounds at Teotihuacan represent miniature ver-
sions of the square platforms in more public plazas. Large, more formal platforms with
overt Teotihuacan-style features were centrally placed at Tikal as well, in the Mundo Per-
dido area (Structure 5C-53) and near the Central Acropolis (Structure 5D-43), all with
talud-tableros. During the fifth century AD, the residential area encompassing the Tikal
altar lay close to most of the major construction occurring in the city. In considering the
attribution of Structure 6D-XV-Sub3, a scenario of either Teotihuacan artists painting
the altar at Tikal or Maya artists painting in a Teotihuacan style, cannot be determined;
Teotihuacan itself had painters fully literate in Maya writing (Taube 2003). Yet the con-
struction and embellishment of the altar, along with ancillary finds, reflect Teotihuacan
architectural ‘grammar’ and a profound immersion in the mural practice of that distant
metropolis.

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
476
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

Conclusions
The 6D-XV compound and its altar add to the growing evidence of Teotihuacan influence in
Maya material culture and imagery, suggesting not just local adoption of artistic styles but
potentially the presence of Teotihuacan-trained painters practising their skills at Tikal in
the fifth century AD. The compound is functionally comparable to the adjacent 6C-XVI
complex, with a distinctive central altar in its small plaza or patio. These areas mixed domestic
and ritual spaces, displaying architectural and organisational links to the residential com-
pounds found at Teotihuacan. Far from loose Maya imitations, the altar murals are expert
examples of a complex, non-local style and likely evidence of the direct presence of Teotihua-
can at Tikal as part of a foreign enclave that coincided with the historic Entrada.

Acknowledgements
Permission for the fieldwork behind this article came from the Dirección General del Patri-
monio Cultural y Natural, Guatemala, with a concession accorded to the Director of PAST,
Dr Edwin Román. Radiocarbon dates are calibrated by INTCAL20. Four reviewers, Scott
Hutson among them, provided useful comments, as did the editors, Robin Skeates and Rob-
ert Witcher. All material remains are stored at the Tikal National Park, Guatemala.

Funding statement
The PACUNAM-Fundación Patrimonio Cultural y Natural Maya and its Director, Mari-
anne Hernández, were generous with funding, as was the Hitz Foundation. Radiocarbon
dates were covered by the Dupee Family Professorship of Social Sciences at Brown University,
travel to the field for various authors came from Skidmore College and the University of
Texas, Austin.

Online supplementary material (OSM)

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.
2025.3 and select the supplementary materials tab.

References
ANDERSON, K.W. & C. HELMKE. 2013. The Mesoamerican urban center of Teotihuacan
personifications of celestial water: the many guises derived from Bayesian statistics of radiocarbon
of the Storm God in the pantheon and cosmology and archaeological data. Quaternary Research 71:
of Teotihuacan. Contributions in New World 99–107.
Archaeology 5: 165–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2008.10.003
BECKER, M.J. 2009. Tikal: evidence for ethnic BRASWELL, G. (ed.) 2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan:
diversity in a prehispanic lowland Maya state reinterpreting Early Classic interaction. Austin:
capital, in L. Manzanilla & C. Chapdelaine (ed.) University of Texas Press.
Domestic life in prehispanic capitals: a study of CABRERA, R. 1995. Conjunto de los edificios
specialization, hierarchy and ethnicity: 89–104. superpuestos, in B. de la Fuente (ed.) La pintura
Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, mural prehispánica en México 1: Teotihuacán, tomo
University of Michigan. 1: catálogo: 27–43. Mexico City: Instituto de
BERAMENDI-OROSCO, L.E. et al. 2009. Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional
High-resolution chronology for the Autónoma de México.

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
477
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

CABRERA GARCÍA, M.T. 2016. Presencia EVANS, S.T. 2004. Aztec palaces and other elite
Teotihuacana en la cultural Bolaños/Teotihuacan residential architecture, in S.T. Evans &
presence in Bolaños culture. Arqueología J. Pillsbury (ed.) Palaces of the ancient new world:
Iberoamericana 27: 3–11. 7–58. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
CARBALLO, D.M. 2011. Obsidian and the Teotihuacan Research Library and Collection.
state: weaponry and ritual production at the Moon GAZZOLA, J. 2017. Reappraising architectural
Pyramid (University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in processes at the Ciudadela through recent
Latin American Archaeology 21). Pittsburgh: evidence, in M.H. Robb (ed.) Teotihuacan: city of
Center for Comparative Archaeology. water, city of fire: 38–47. Berkeley: University of
CHINCHILLA MAZARIEGOS, O., V. TIESLER, O. GÓMEZ California Press.
& T.D. PRICE. 2015. Myth, ritual, and human HARMAN, J. 2005. Using decorrelation stretch to
sacrifice at Tikal, Guatemala. Cambridge enhance rock art images. Presentation at the
Archaeological Journal 25: 187–210. American Rock Art Research Association Annual
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314000638 Meeting, 28 May 2005. Available at:
CLAYTON, S.C. 2020. The collapse of Teotihuacan https://www.dstretch.com/
and the regeneration of Epiclassic societies: a AlgorithmDescription.html (accessed 5
Bayesian approach. Journal of Anthropological December 2024).
Archaeology 59. HAVILAND, W.A. 2014. Tikal report no. 20A:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101203 excavations in residential areas of Tikal: non-elite
COGGINS, C.C. 1975. Painting and drawing styles at groups without shrines: the excavations (University
Tikal: an historical and iconographic Museum Monograph 139). Philadelphia:
reconstruction. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Harvard University. Archaeology and Anthropology.
CONIDES, C. 2018. Made to order: painted ceramics of HOUSTON, S.D. 2023. Tikal, tecali, Teotihuacan.
ancient Teotihuacan. Norman: University of Maya decipherment: ideas on Maya writing and
Oklahoma Press. iconography, 21 December 2023.
COWGILL, G.L. 2015. Ancient Teotihuacan: early https://mayadecipherment.com/2023/12/21/
urbanism in central Mexico. Cambridge: tikal-tecali-teotihuacan/
Cambridge University Press. HOUSTON, S.D. & S. NEWMAN. 2021. Maya creatures
CULBERT, T.P. 1993. Tikal report no. 25a: the ceramics V: the peccary’s teeth, the jaguar’s bone. Maya
of Tikal: vessels from the burials, caches, and decipherment: ideas on Maya writing and
problematical deposits (University Museum iconography, 5 January 2021.
Monograph 81). Philadelphia: University of https://mayadecipherment.com/2021/01/05/
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and maya-animals-v-the-peccarys-teeth-the-jaguars-
Anthropology. bone/
CULBERT, T.P. & L.J. KOSAKOWSKY. 2019. Tikal HOUSTON, S.D., T.G. GARRISON & O.
report no. 25b: the ceramic sequence of Tikal ALCOVER FIRPI. 2019. Citadels and surveillance:
(University Museum Monograph 152). conflictive regions and defensive design in the
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Buenavista citadels of Guatemala.
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Contributions in New World Archaeology 13:
DE LA FUENTE, B. 1995. Zona 5a, Conjunto del Sol, 9–36.
in B. de la Fuente (ed.) La pintura mural HOUSTON, S.D. et al. 2021. A Teotihuacan complex
prehispánica en México 1: Teotihuacán, tomo 1: at the Classic Maya city of Tikal, Guatemala.
catálogo: 58–81. Mexico City: Instituto de Antiquity 95.
Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.140
Autónoma de México. HURST, H. 2009. Murals and the ancient Maya artist:
ESTRADA-BELLI, F. et al. 2009. A Maya palace at a study of art production in the Guatemalan
Holmul, Peten, Guatemala, and the Teotihuacan Lowlands. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Yale
‘entrada’: evidence from murals 7 and 9. Latin University.
American Antiquity 20: 228–59. – in press. Murals and the Maya worldview, in T.G.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1045663500002595 Garrison, J.B. Glover & B.K.S. Woodfill (ed.)

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
478
 A Teotihuacan altar at Tikal, Guatemala

The Oxford handbook of the Maya. Oxford: Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 26: 29–49.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536115000024
IGLESIAS PONCE DE LEÓN, M.J. 1987. Excavaciones en MANZANILLA, L. 2002. Living with the ancestors and
el grupo habitacional 6D-V, Tikal, Guatemala. offering of the gods: domestic ritual at
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad Teotihuacan, in P. Plunket (ed.) Domestic ritual
Complutense de Madrid. in ancient Mesoamerica (Monograph 46): 43–52.
JIMENEZ BETTS, P.F. 2018. Orienting West Mexico: Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
the Mesoamerican world system 200–1200 CE. – 2017. Incensario lid, 250–550, in M.H. Robb
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of (ed.) Teotihuacan: city of water, city of fire: 206.
Gothenburg. Berkeley: University of California Press.
KUBLER, G. 1967. The iconography of the art of MILLER, A.G. 1973. The mural painting of
Teotihuacan (Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Teotihuacán. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Archaeology 4). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Oaks. MOHOLY-NAGY, H. 2021. A reversal of fortune:
LAPORTE, J.P. 1987. El grupo 6C-XVI, Tikal, Petén: problematical deposit 50, Tikal, Guatemala.
un centro habitacional del clásico temprano, in Latin American Antiquity 32: 486–502.
M. de la Garza y Camino (ed.) Memorias del https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2021.13
primer coloquio internacional de mayistas: 221–44. NIELSEN, J. & C. HELMKE. 2017. The Storm God:
Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Mayas, lord of rain and ravage, in M.H. Robb (ed.)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Teotihuacan: city of water, city of fire: 138–43.
– 1989. Alternativas del Clásico Temprano en la Berkeley: University of California Press.
relación Tikal-Teotihuacan: Grupo 6C-XVI, PASZTORY, E. 1973. The gods of Teotihuacan: a
Tikal, Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished PhD synthetic approach in Teotihuacan iconography.
dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Atti de XL Congresso Internazionale degli
México. Americanisti 1: 147–59.
LAPORTE, J.P. & V. FIALKO. 1995. Un reencuentro – 1992. Abstraction and the rise of a utopian state at
con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Teotihuacan, in J.C. Berlo (ed.) Art, ideology, and
Mesoamerica 6: 41–94. the city of Teotihuacan: 281–320. Washington,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536100002108 D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
LINNÉ, S. 2003. Archaeological research at PAULINYI, Z. 2006. The ‘Great Goddess’ of
Teotihuacan, Mexico. Tuscaloosa: University of Teotihuacan: fiction or reality? Ancient
Alabama Press. Mesoamerica 17: 1–15.
LOMBARDO DE RUIZ, S. 2001. Los estilos en la pintura https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536106060020
mural Maya, in B. de la Fuente & L. Staines Cicero PROSKOURIAKOFF, T. 1993. Maya history. Austin:
(ed.) La pintura mural prehispánica en México: University of Texas Press.
área Maya: 85–154. Mexico City: Instituto de RATTRAY, E. 1992. The Teotihuacan burials and
Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad offerings: a commentary and inventory (Vanderbilt
Nacional Autónoma de México. University Publications in Anthropology 42).
MAGALONI, D. 1996. El espacio pictórico Nashville (TN): Department of Anthropology,
teotihuacano: tradición y técnica, in B. de la Vanderbilt University.
Fuente (ed.) La pintura mural prehispánica en ROBB, M.H. 2017a. Space, object, and identity in the
México 1: Teotihuacán, tomo 2: estudios: 187–225. city of the gods, in M.H. Robb (ed.) Teotihuacan:
Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones city of water, city of fire: 158–67. Berkeley:
Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de University of California Press.
México. – 2017b. Figure holding shields, 450–650, in
– 2017. The colors of time: Teotihuacan mural M.H. Robb (ed.) Teotihuacan: city of water, city of
painting tradition, in M.H. Robb (ed.) fire: 207. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Teotihuacan: city of water, city of fire: 174–79. ROMÁN RAMÍREZ, E. & D. MÉNDEZ LEE (ed.). 2020.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Proyecto Arqueológico del Sur de Tikal (PAST):
MANDELL, E.C. 2015. A new analysis of the gender informe final, primera temporada de campo
attribution of the ‘Great Goddess’ of (2019–2020). Report submitted to Dirección

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
479
 Edwin Román Ramírez et al.

General del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural, Mesoamerica’s classic heritage: from Teotihuacan to
Guatemala City. the Aztecs: 465–514. Boulder: University Press of
ROMÁN RAMÍREZ, E. & R.E. PIEDRASANTA Colorado.
CASTELLANOS (ed.). 2023. Proyecto – 2024. Spearthrower Owl: a Teotihuacan ruler in
Arqueológico del Sur de Tikal (PAST): Informe Maya history. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
final, tercera temporada de campo Oaks Research Library and Collection.
(2022–2023). Report submitted to Dirección SUGIYAMA, N. et al. 2020. The Maya at Teotihuacan?
General del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural, New insights into Teotihuacan-Maya interactions
Guatemala City. from the Plaza of the Columns complex, in
SCHERER, A.K. & L.E. WRIGHT. 2015. Dental K.G. Hirth, D.M. Carballo & B. Arroyo (ed.)
morphometric and strontium isotope evidence Teotihuacan: the world beyond the city: 139–71.
for population history at Tikal, Guatemala, in Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
A. Cucina (ed.) Archaeology and bioarchaeology of Library and Collection.
population movement among the prehispanic Maya: TAUBE, K.A. 1983. The Teotihuacan spider woman.
109–18. New York: Springer. Journal of Latin American Lore 9(2): 107–89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10858-2_10 – 2003. Tetitla and the Maya presence at
SÉJOURNÉ, L. 1966. Arquitectura y pintura en Teotihuacan, in G. Braswell (ed.) The Maya and
Teotihuacan. Mexico City: Siglo XXI. Teotihuacan: reinterpreting Early Classic interaction:
SEMPOWSKI, M.L. & M.W. SPENCE. 1994. Mortuary 273–314. Austin: University of Texas Press.
practices and skeletal remains at Teotihuacan. Salt WRIGHT, L.E. 2012. Immigration to Tikal,
Lake City: University of Utah Press. Guatemala: evidence from stable strontium and
STUART, D. 2000. The ‘arrival of strangers’: oxygen isotopes. Journal of Anthropological
Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya history, Archaeology 31: 334–52.
in D. Carrasco, L. Jones & S. Sessions (ed.) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.02.001

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
480