Becker, Marshall Joseph

Digital Commons @ West Chester University

West Chester UniversityDigital Commons @ West Chester UniversityAnthropology & Sociology College of Arts & Sciences1986Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala: size as areflection of economic statusMarshall Joseph BeckerWest Chester University of Pennsylvania, mbecker@wcupa.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpubPart of the Archaeological Anthropology CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ West Chester University. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Anthropology & Sociology by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ West Chester University. For moreinformation, please contact wcressler@wcupa.edu.Recommended CitationBecker, M. J. (1986). Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala: size as a reflection of economic status. Revista española de antropologíaamericana, 16, 81-86. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub/24Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala:Size as a rellection 01 economic status *Marshall Joseph HECRER(The Ulniversily of Penusy/vania)Excavations at Tikal, Guatemala, in 1962 and 1963 demonstratedthe existence of a specific pattern of structures with the householdgroups at the site (Becker, 1971). Similar clusters have been noted atnumerous othcr sites throughout the Maya realm (Becker Ms.). AtMayapan almost every residential group appears to reflect this con-figuration has been demonstrated (Becker, 1982). In fact, not only isthe distribution of groups at Tika] containing a household shrine ap-parently ranclom, but the size of the ritual structure itself vanes great-ly among the building clusters.Recently, an attempt was made to undertake a statistical analysisof thc residential distribution of persons of varying social class (orstatus) at the archacological site of Tikal, Guatemala, based on thesízes of ihe residential units presumed to hace been occupied by theseClassic period Maya (Arnold and Ford 1980; see also Ford and Aixnold, 1982). The authors noted that several previous publicationsabout the Maya have included statements suggesting that the concen-trie zone theory of occupation applies to dic sites noted in these res-pective statements (Arnoid and Ford, 1980: 713-714). Their summaryof these observations is useful in that it shows an historie trend in* ABSTRACT: Excavations at Tikal, Guatemala have identified special fune-tion buildings ~vithin certain household cluslers. Various attributes of tbesebuildings at Tikal suggest that tbey served as household shrines («oratorios»).Some authors recently have attempted a statistical analysis of tbe spacíal lo-cation of structures which were used in Classic period Tikal as a tcst of theurban concentrie zone theory. However, errors in their rnethodology negatetheir conclusions, and correct information should be noted by Mayanists. Notalí of the «shrines» at Tikal are vaulted, nor is the size of tbese structuresuniform. These basic considerations suggest that the size of the householdshrine is directly correlated with the economie position of the occupants, andneed not correlate with distance from the center of the site.Revista Española de Antropología Americana, nY XVI. 1986. Edit. Univ. Compí. Madrid.82 Marshall Joseph .ReckerIhe ways in which scbolars have thought about Maya sites, which atno time appears to have been subjected to objective criticism. Theirdata frum Tikal, however, is seriously flawed and warrants comment.Arnold and Ford (1980: 714) note that Haviland (1963: 517) con-eludes: «Social differences . correlate rou gb/y with distance fromthe center of the site» (italies mine). Ihe authors then proceeded «totest the hypothesis that residential proximity to central civic-ceremo-nial precints correlates with status...». Several points in their articlewarrant discussion and have been reviewed earlier (Haviland, 1982;Folan et al., 1982). One particular set of assumptions may be ofgreat importance in evaluating the entire procedure which Arnoid andher colleague have chosen to test this hypothesis. This specific featurenot only negates the Arnold and Ford thesis, but reflects a meansby which status differences may be shown.Inspection of a map of Tikal (Carr and Hazard, 1961) providesstriking evidence that there are many obvious exceptions to the con-centrie zone theory at this ancient Maya site. In fact, sorne Mayanistsbelieve that this map covers the entire civie-ceremonial precinct of Ti-kal, which in no way seems to reflect a concentric zoned distributionof social class as inferred from size of residential groups. The «Bar-rínger group» in the southwestern sector of the site (Group 6B-2:Becker, 1982) and Group 7F-í in the southeastern sector (Haviland,1981) are quite large and apparently upper status residential complex-es, but located at a considerable distance from the Great Plaza, whichis generally inferred to be at the «center» of Tikal. Ihese and otherobvious exceptions, however, do not invalidate the concentrie zonetheory, as Arnold and Ford (1980) point out. Since house size anddistance from center may occur in varying frequency, a statisticalanalysis definitely was ivarranted. However, errors made by Arnoidand Ford in the basic assumptions regarding structures at Tikal, evenbefore subjecting the data to analysis, have led to conclusions whichcannot, therefore, be considered to be accurate.In their evaluation Arnold and Ford (1980) have relied upon «ab-solute size» of groups as one of the features providing an archacolo-gical manifestation of the status of the occupants. One would assumethat the data on size alone taken from the map of Tikal (Carr andlzlazard, 1961) could be used in their calculations, computed either aslinear or as volumetrie measurements: such as the diagonal lengthof a group or the total mass of stone in alí the structures of thegroup. However, Arnold and Ford (1980: 715-16) include a series ofother factors which generate considerable problems in quantifica-tiori. Of these four other features besides building size which dieseauthors consider, 1 wish only to comment on their use of the <‘Pre-Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala 83sence or absence of shrine ¡ oratory», and their observations relatedto this category of structures.The authors assume thai these spccific ritual buildings at Tikal,always situated on the east side of residential groups, are «usuallyof vaulted masonry construction... o. an inference which is incorrectand wbicb completely distors iheir data base. Their inference does notderive from eitber the map (Carr and 1-Iazard, 1961) nor my work onthe subject (BucLe, t971). This problern is furiher complicated bythc authors erroneous assumption that diese «presumed shrine struc-ture are of nearly uniform size throughout the site» (Arnoid and Ford,1980: 717). Not only are [hese structures not generally vaulted, butthey are by no means uniform in suc. Nor are these shrines signi,li-can/ly better constructed relative to other buildings in their respec-tive groups, as stated by these authors.In fact, the shrines at Tikal vary widely in floor area as well asin the presence of absence of vaulting. The variations which occur inthis class of building are so random in he large sample tested that1 would noÉ consider formulating any hypothesis regarding qualityof construction (see Becker, 1971). Even close examination of the mapfaUs to provide clues as to regularity in the distribution of these struc-tures at Tikal.The error which Arnold and Ford have made concerning the va-ríous construction features of shrines may be related to iheir errorin using Wauchope’s (1938) data as a reference point. From theseearlier data they suggest that about one-third of the «housemounds»at Tikal had masonry superstructures When Wauchope (1934, 1938)was conducting bis pioneering work, housemounds of very small sizerarely werc detected. Tbus, only those structures with the rcmains ofvaulting, higb building platforms, or large mounds resulting frornthe presence of interior benches of masonry generally were recognizedas struetures. The majority of the srnall structures identified by theexperí arel speeiali-zed mappers at Tika3 (Carr ard Hazarel, 1961)would not have been detected by the mappers wbo conducted theUaxactun housemound survey. However, 1 do not wish lo evaluateaspects of the Arnold and Ford paper not related specifically to theirassurnptions regarding tbe shrines at Tikal.The mistaken assumption that the oratorios or shrines located onthe cast of residential groups at Tikal werc uniform in size and vault-ing is the central error in the Arnoid anel Ford (1980) hypothesis. Theyalso incorveeíly inferred thai the qualiíy of construction is betterfor tbese buiidings than for others within tbe same group. Ihere isabsolutely no cfirect evidence available to suggest that groups xvhichinelude shrines were occupied on the wbole by individuaL of higherstatus than groups without shrines. This information can be docu-84 Marsl-zall Joseph Beckermented by an analysis of the map, but would requ~re verificationthrough statistical analysis. Rather than relying on simple linear orvolurnetric measurements, as 1 suggested aboye, Arnold and Ford(1980) have added various other «entena» in an attemps, one mustpresume, to improve their case. The presence of an additional butsubjective factor in their calculations, in the forrn of «labor invest-ment’>, only obseures tbe hard data, which remains as follows: (1) theabsolute size of tbe individual buildings, and the groups of whicbthey are part, as estimated from dic map or provided from excava-tions, (2) dic presence or absence of vaulting; which can be accurate-ly inferred through use of the map but also known via excavations,(3) relative soptistication of construction of specific structures, asevaluated by excavators. These dala do include aspects whicb aresufficiently subjetive to create analytical problems, and raise the veryimportant question of ~<culture-bound» tbeory formulation. At tbispoint Wc should be seeking to improve our data base and our analyti-cal techniques, not seeking to mercase our subjective evaluations ofthese situations.Tite quantification anel evaluations made by Arnoid and Ford in-corporate unecessary effort which detract from tite basic evidence.A more direct anel reliable approach to tlie data xvould be apprecialed.Not only do friese inferences in tJ-wir work tend tu confuse tite issues,but they also create «data» wbich future researchers should realizeare not derived from direct observations. In formulating theories orin testing hypotheses we must maintain close attention to the actualdata base, and not add inferences wbich confuse the basic issues orthe factual information.Ihese concerns lead us to make note of tite wide range of varia-tion in tite size, configuration, and quality of tite architectutal groupsat Tikal. Most of titese clusters of buildings must have been residen-tial compounds for extended family units. The great dilferences amongthese groups to a great degree must reflect differences in social classwithin the site. These dilferences do noÉ appear to be correlated xvithspatial distance from tite center of Tikal which is believed to be atThe Great Plaza.Acknowledgements:My sincere thanks to William A. Haviland for his reading of ancarlier draft of titis comment anel for his many useful suggestions.Thanks also are due D. O. Bryce for editorial assistance. The contentsand interpretations presented, however, are entirely my own respon-sibility.Household Shrines at Tikal, Guaíemala 85Bíníí oGRAI:¡AARNOLD, Jeanne E. aud Anabel FORD1980 A statistical examination of settlement latterns al Tikal, Guatemala.An;ericau Anliquitv 54: 713-726.BFCRLR, Marshall Joseph1971 1 ¿len.! ~fictil ion of a seconó plaza plan al Tikal - Cual e;;;ala and i 1 s i;n -plica!íons for ancient Maya social con ptexit-t. Ph. D. dissertation. Uni-versity of Pensylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.1982 Ancient Maya honses and their identification: an evaluation of archi-tural groups at Tikal and inferences regarding their functions. RevistaEspañola de Antropología Americana XII: 111-129.Ms Plaza plans and settlement patterns: Regional and temporal distri-butions as indicators of cultural interactions in the Maya area. Paperpresented at the XLIII international Congress of Americanists (Van-couver, British Columbia), 16 August 1979.CARa, R. E. and 1. E. HÁZÁRo1961 Map of tbe ruins of Tikal, El Petén, Guatemala. Museum Monograplis.Tikal Rc-por¡ Number 11. University of Pennsylvania.FOLAsi, William 1., Ellen R. Kunz, Laraine A. Fucicnun, and Burma H. HYDE1982 Aa examination of settlement patterns at Cobá, Quintana Roo, Mexico,and Tikal, Guatemala: A reply to Arnold ané Ford. American Anliquily47: 430-436.EoRo, Anabel anó Jeannes E. ARNOLD1982 A reexamination of labor investments at Tikal: Reply to Haviland, andFolan, Kintz, Fleteher and Hyde. American Antiquitv 47: 436-440.HAvILAND, William A.1963 Excavation of small structures in the northeast quadrant of Tikal, Gua-temata. Ph. D. Dissertation, University uf Pennsylvania, University Mi-ci-ofilms, Ann Arbor.1981 Dowe>- houses and rainor eenters at Tika], Guatemala. In, towland MavaSet!lement l>atterns-, edited by W. Ashmore. University of New MexicoPress: Albuquerque. Pp. 89-120.1982 Where tbe ricb folks lived: Deranging faetors in the statistical analy-sis of Tikal settlement. American Antiquíty 47: 427-429.POLIoca, H. E. D.1962 Introduction to Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publicatior 619. Pp. 1-22.WÁÚc nopr, Robert1934 I-Jousen>onnds of [Jaxatún, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washing-ton. Publication 436, Contribution 7.1938 Modere Meya houses: a study of their arehaologica/ significance. Car-negie Institution of Washington. Publicador 502.

English

Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala: size as a reflection of economic status

Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses

Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala:
Size as a rellection 01 economic status *
Marshall Joseph HECRER
(The Ulniversily of Penusy/vania)
Excavations at Tikal, Guatemala, in 1962 and 1963 demonstrated
the existence of a specific pattern of structures with the household
groups at the site (Becker, 1971). Similar clusters have been noted at
numerous othcr sites throughout the Maya realm (Becker Ms.). At
Mayapan almost every residential group appears to reflect this con-
figuration has been demonstrated (Becker, 1982). In fact, not only is
the distribution of groups at Tika] containing a household shrine ap-
parently ranclom, but the size of the ritual structure itself vanes great-
ly among the building clusters.
Recently, an attempt was made to undertake a statistical analysis
of thc residential distribution of persons of varying social class (or
status) at the archacological site of Tikal, Guatemala, based on the
sízes of ihe residential units presumed to hace been occupied by these
Classic period Maya (Arnold and Ford 1980; see also Ford and Aix
nold, 1982). The authors noted that several previous publications
about the Maya have included statements suggesting that the concen-
trie zone theory of occupation applies to dic sites noted in these res-
pective statements (Arnoid and Ford, 1980: 713-714). Their summary
of these observations is useful in that it shows an historie trend in
* ABSTRACT: Excavations at Tikal, Guatemala have identified special fune-
tion buildings ~vithin certain household cluslers. Various attributes of tbese
buildings at Tikal suggest that tbey served as household shrines («oratorios»).
Some authors recently have attempted a statistical analysis of tbe spacíal lo-
cation of structures which were used in Classic period Tikal as a tcst of the
urban concentrie zone theory. However, errors in their rnethodology negate
their conclusions, and correct information should be noted by Mayanists. Not
alí of the «shrines» at Tikal are vaulted, nor is the size of tbese structures
uniform. These basic considerations suggest that the size of the household
shrine is directly correlated with the economie position of the occupants, and
need not correlate with distance from the center of the site.
Revista Española de Antropología Americana, nY XVI. 1986. Edit. Univ. Compí. Madrid.
82 Marshall Joseph .Recker
Ihe ways in which scbolars have thought about Maya sites, which at
no time appears to have been subjected to objective criticism. Their
data frum Tikal, however, is seriously flawed and warrants comment.
Arnold and Ford (1980: 714) note that Haviland (1963: 517) con-
eludes: «Social differences . correlate rou gb/y with distance from
the center of the site» (italies mine). Ihe authors then proceeded «to
test the hypothesis that residential proximity to central civic-ceremo-
nial precints correlates with status...». Several points in their article
warrant discussion and have been reviewed earlier (Haviland, 1982;
Folan et al., 1982). One particular set of assumptions may be of
great importance in evaluating the entire procedure which Arnoid and
her colleague have chosen to test this hypothesis. This specific feature
not only negates the Arnold and Ford thesis, but reflects a means
by which status differences may be shown.
Inspection of a map of Tikal (Carr and Hazard, 1961) provides
striking evidence that there are many obvious exceptions to the con-
centrie zone theory at this ancient Maya site. In fact, sorne Mayanists
believe that this map covers the entire civie-ceremonial precinct of Ti-
kal, which in no way seems to reflect a concentric zoned distribution
of social class as inferred from size of residential groups. The «Bar-
rínger group» in the southwestern sector of the site (Group 6B-2:
Becker, 1982) and Group 7F-í in the southeastern sector (Haviland,
1981) are quite large and apparently upper status residential complex-
es, but located at a considerable distance from the Great Plaza, which
is generally inferred to be at the «center» of Tikal. Ihese and other
obvious exceptions, however, do not invalidate the concentrie zone
theory, as Arnold and Ford (1980) point out. Since house size and
distance from center may occur in varying frequency, a statistical
analysis definitely was ivarranted. However, errors made by Arnoid
and Ford in the basic assumptions regarding structures at Tikal, even
before subjecting the data to analysis, have led to conclusions which
cannot, therefore, be considered to be accurate.
In their evaluation Arnold and Ford (1980) have relied upon «ab-
solute size» of groups as one of the features providing an archacolo-
gical manifestation of the status of the occupants. One would assume
that the data on size alone taken from the map of Tikal (Carr and
lzlazard, 1961) could be used in their calculations, computed either as
linear or as volumetrie measurements: such as the diagonal length
of a group or the total mass of stone in alí the structures of the
group. However, Arnold and Ford (1980: 715-16) include a series of
other factors which generate considerable problems in quantifica-
tiori. Of these four other features besides building size which diese
authors consider, 1 wish only to comment on their use of the <‘Pre-
Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala 83
sence or absence of shrine ¡ oratory», and their observations related
to this category of structures.
The authors assume thai these spccific ritual buildings at Tikal,
always situated on the east side of residential groups, are «usually
of vaulted masonry construction... o. an inference which is incorrect
and wbicb completely distors iheir data base. Their inference does not
derive from eitber the map (Carr and 1-Iazard, 1961) nor my work on
the subject (BucLe, t971). This problern is furiher complicated by
thc authors erroneous assumption that diese «presumed shrine struc-
ture are of nearly uniform size throughout the site» (Arnoid and Ford,
1980: 717). Not only are [hese structures not generally vaulted, but
they are by no means uniform in suc. Nor are these shrines signi,li-
can/ly better constructed relative to other buildings in their respec-
tive groups, as stated by these authors.
In fact, the shrines at Tikal vary widely in floor area as well as
in the presence of absence of vaulting. The variations which occur in
this class of building are so random in he large sample tested that
1 would noÉ consider formulating any hypothesis regarding quality
of construction (see Becker, 1971). Even close examination of the map
faUs to provide clues as to regularity in the distribution of these struc-
tures at Tikal.
The error which Arnold and Ford have made concerning the va-
ríous construction features of shrines may be related to iheir error
in using Wauchope’s (1938) data as a reference point. From these
earlier data they suggest that about one-third of the «housemounds»
at Tikal had masonry superstructures When Wauchope (1934, 1938)
was conducting bis pioneering work, housemounds of very small size
rarely werc detected. Tbus, only those structures with the rcmains of
vaulting, higb building platforms, or large mounds resulting frorn
the presence of interior benches of masonry generally were recognized
as struetures. The majority of the srnall structures identified by the
experí arel speeiali-zed mappers at Tika3 (Carr ard Hazarel, 1961)
would not have been detected by the mappers wbo conducted the
Uaxactun housemound survey. However, 1 do not wish lo evaluate
aspects of the Arnold and Ford paper not related specifically to their
assurnptions regarding tbe shrines at Tikal.
The mistaken assumption that the oratorios or shrines located on
the cast of residential groups at Tikal werc uniform in size and vault-
ing is the central error in the Arnoid anel Ford (1980) hypothesis. They
also incorveeíly inferred thai the qualiíy of construction is better
for tbese buiidings than for others within tbe same group. Ihere is
absolutely no cfirect evidence available to suggest that groups xvhich
inelude shrines were occupied on the wbole by individuaL of higher
status than groups without shrines. This information can be docu-
84 Marsl-zall Joseph Becker
mented by an analysis of the map, but would requ~re verification
through statistical analysis. Rather than relying on simple linear or
volurnetric measurements, as 1 suggested aboye, Arnold and Ford
(1980) have added various other «entena» in an attemps, one must
presume, to improve their case. The presence of an additional but
subjective factor in their calculations, in the forrn of «labor invest-
ment’>, only obseures tbe hard data, which remains as follows: (1) the
absolute size of tbe individual buildings, and the groups of whicb
they are part, as estimated from dic map or provided from excava-
tions, (2) dic presence or absence of vaulting; which can be accurate-
ly inferred through use of the map but also known via excavations,
(3) relative soptistication of construction of specific structures, as
evaluated by excavators. These dala do include aspects whicb are
sufficiently subjetive to create analytical problems, and raise the very
important question of ~<culture-bound» tbeory formulation. At tbis
point Wc should be seeking to improve our data base and our analyti-
cal techniques, not seeking to mercase our subjective evaluations of
these situations.
Tite quantification anel evaluations made by Arnoid and Ford in-
corporate unecessary effort which detract from tite basic evidence.
A more direct anel reliable approach to tlie data xvould be apprecialed.
Not only do friese inferences in tJ-wir work tend tu confuse tite issues,
but they also create «data» wbich future researchers should realize
are not derived from direct observations. In formulating theories or
in testing hypotheses we must maintain close attention to the actual
data base, and not add inferences wbich confuse the basic issues or
the factual information.
Ihese concerns lead us to make note of tite wide range of varia-
tion in tite size, configuration, and quality of tite architectutal groups
at Tikal. Most of titese clusters of buildings must have been residen-
tial compounds for extended family units. The great dilferences among
these groups to a great degree must reflect differences in social class
within the site. These dilferences do noÉ appear to be correlated xvith
spatial distance from tite center of Tikal which is believed to be at
The Great Plaza.
Acknowledgements:
My sincere thanks to William A. Haviland for his reading of an
carlier draft of titis comment anel for his many useful suggestions.
Thanks also are due D. O. Bryce for editorial assistance. The contents
and interpretations presented, however, are entirely my own respon-
sibility.
Household Shrines at Tikal, Guaíemala 85
Bíníí oGRAI:¡A
ARNOLD, Jeanne E. aud Anabel FORD
1980 A statistical examination of settlement latterns al Tikal, Guatemala.
An;ericau Anliquitv 54: 713-726.
BFCRLR, Marshall Joseph
1971 1 ¿len.! ~fictil ion of a seconó plaza plan al Tikal - Cual e;;;ala and i 1 s i;n -
plica!íons for ancient Maya social con ptexit-t. Ph. D. dissertation. Uni-
versity of Pensylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1982 Ancient Maya honses and their identification: an evaluation of archi-
tural groups at Tikal and inferences regarding their functions. Revista
Española de Antropología Americana XII: 111-129.
Ms Plaza plans and settlement patterns: Regional and temporal distri-
butions as indicators of cultural interactions in the Maya area. Paper
presented at the XLIII international Congress of Americanists (Van-
couver, British Columbia), 16 August 1979.
CARa, R. E. and 1. E. HÁZÁRo
1961 Map of tbe ruins of Tikal, El Petén, Guatemala. Museum Monograplis.
Tikal Rc-por¡ Number 11. University of Pennsylvania.
FOLAsi, William 1., Ellen R. Kunz, Laraine A. Fucicnun, and Burma H. HYDE
1982 Aa examination of settlement patterns at Cobá, Quintana Roo, Mexico,
and Tikal, Guatemala: A reply to Arnold ané Ford. American Anliquily
47: 430-436.
EoRo, Anabel anó Jeannes E. ARNOLD
1982 A reexamination of labor investments at Tikal: Reply to Haviland, and
Folan, Kintz, Fleteher and Hyde. American Antiquitv 47: 436-440.
HAvILAND, William A.
1963 Excavation of small structures in the northeast quadrant of Tikal, Gua-
temata. Ph. D. Dissertation, University uf Pennsylvania, University Mi-
ci-ofilms, Ann Arbor.
1981 Dowe>- houses and rainor eenters at Tika], Guatemala. In, towland Mava
Set!lement l>atterns-, edited by W. Ashmore. University of New Mexico
Press: Albuquerque. Pp. 89-120.
1982 Where tbe ricb folks lived: Deranging faetors in the statistical analy-
sis of Tikal settlement. American Antiquíty 47: 427-429.
POLIoca, H. E. D.
1962 Introduction to Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publicatior 619. Pp. 1-22.
WÁÚc nopr, Robert
1934 I-Jousen>onnds of [Jaxatún, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washing-
ton. Publication 436, Contribution 7.
1938 Modere Meya houses: a study of their arehaologica/ significance. Car-
negie Institution of Washington. Publicador 502.


Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala: Size as a reflection of economic status.

Secretaría de Estado de Cultura

https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=anthrosoc_facpub

Household Shrines at Tikal, Guatemala: Size as a reflection of economic status.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ West Chester University

Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses

Secretaría de Estado de Cultura