The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season

Jaime Awe; BVAR  Project; Julie A Hoggarth

Th e Be liz e Va lle y Ar ch a e o lo g ica l R e co n n a is s a n ce Pr o je ct A R e p o r t o f t h e 2 0 15 Fie ld Se a s o n Ed ite d by Ju lie A. H o ggarth & Jaim e J. Aw e Vo lu m e 2 1 2 0 16 Institute of Archaeology Baylor University Waco, Texas, United States Editorial Staff of The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Editor: J ulie A. Hoggarth, Departm ent of Anthropology and Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, United States of Am erica, 76798. Co-editor: J aim e J . Awe, Departm ent of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, 5 E. McConnell Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 860 11-520 0 . The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project reports (ISSN 1997-3578) are published annually by the BVAR Project, Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, One Bear Place # 97173, Waco, Texas, United States 76798 (affiliation begin nin g in 20 16). The series publishes progress reports of the archaeological in vestigations and analyses conducted by the project. © 20 16 by the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project. All Rights Reserved. Co ve r: Belize Molded Carved sherd recovered from excavations at Bakin g Pot in 20 15 (photo by S.E. Bednar). Title Page : BVAR Zotz logo (Illustrated by Christophe Helm ke, m odified by Myka Schwan ke). Layout and form atting: J .A. Hoggarth Fonts: Tim es New Rom an and Georgia. Version 1.0 (May 20 16). - ii - TABLE OF CON TEN TS 1. Excavations of Structure G1, Plaza G, and the South Façade of Structure B5, Cahal Pech Christy W. Pritchard, James C. Pritchard, Andrea Zorn, Christopher M. Sims, and C. Mathew Saunders .....................................................................................................................................................1 2. Excavations of Structure G-2, Cahal Pech: 2015 Field Season Nancy Peniche May and Antonio Beardall ..............................................................................................27 3. Plaza H, Cahal Pech: Results of the Fifth January Session John E. Douglas and Linda J. Brown .......................................................................................................52 4. The 2015 Settlement Excavations at Cahal Pech, Belize: Continued Research at Tzutziiy K’in, the Zopilote Group, and the Martinez Group Claire E. Ebert and Steven Fox ................................................................................................................80 5. Cahal Pech Plaza B Vertebrate Fauna (2011-2013 Field Seasons) Martin H. Welker ...................................................................................................................................113 6. 2015 Excavations of the Eastern Triadic Shrine at Xunantunich, Belize Catharina E. Santasilia and Douglas Tilden ...........................................................................................118 7. BVAR 2015 Xunantunich Archaeological Conservation Project Excavations, Operation SC-3, Structures A-20 and A-8 Hannah Zanotto, Dagmar Galvan, and Jaime J. Awe .............................................................................139 8. Welcome to Bedrock: Archaeological Investigations at the Lithic Tool Production Area, the Etz’nab Tunich Group, Cayo, Belize Kelsey J. Sullivan, Jaime J. Awe, and Shane M. Montgomery ..............................................................182 9. Preliminary Investigations at Lower Barton Creek, Cayo, Belize G. Van Kollias and Michael Biggie .......................................................................................................214 10. Lower Dover Site Core Excavations Rafael A. Guerra and Renee Collins ......................................................................................................224 - iii - 11. How it Falls Apart: Identifying Terminal Deposits in Group B to Date the ‘Classic Maya Collapse’ at Baking Pot, Belize Julie A. Hoggarth, Jaime J. Awe, Sarah E. Bednar, Amber Lopez Johnson, Ashley McKeown, Sydney Lonaker, Kirsten Green, Niyolpaqui Moraza-Keeswood, Erin Ray, and John Walden ............240 12. Excavations in Settlement Cluster C at Baking Pot: Results of the 2015 Field Season John Walden ...........................................................................................................................................268 13. Geochemical Characterization of Granite Ground Stones from Baking Pot, Blackman Eddy, Cahal Pech, and Xunantunich, Belize Tawny L.B. Tibbits ................................................................................................................................281 14. Preliminary Catalog and Curation of Figurine Fragments from the sites of Cahal Pech and Baking Pot, Belize Lisa L. DeLance .....................................................................................................................................293 - iv - Editors’ Note The 2015 field season marked the 28th consecutive year (1988-2015) of archaeological investigations in the Belize Valley by the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project, directed by Dr. Jaime Awe. Archaeological investigations were focused at Cahal Pech, Baking Pot, Lower Dover, Xunantunich, Lower Barton Creek, and Esperanza, continuing BVAR’s tradition of using regional scale approaches to explore the long-term processes of cultural change in the Belize Valley. Excavations at Cahal Pech targeted several structures in Group G of the site core. Prichard and colleagues (Chapter 1) excavated Str. G1 and G5 and parts of Plaza G, while Peniche May and Beardall (Chapter 2) supervised excavations on Str. G2. Both of these investigations illuminated the terminal architectural forms, as well as revealed important information about ritual activity in that group. Douglas and Brown (Chapter 3) returned for a January session at Cahal Pech in 2015, continuing their excavations in Plaza H in search of better understanding the Terminal Classic occupation of the site. Ebert and Fox (Chapter 4) report on excavations in Cahal Pech’s settlement, developing a radiocarbon chronology for several large settlement groups (e.g. Zopilote Group, Martinez Group, and Tzutziiy K’in) to better understand the development of craft production and social stratification during the Preclassic and Early Classic periods. Martin Welker analyzed faunal remains from 2011-2013 excavations in Plaza B at Cahal Pech, allowing us to better understand diet and animal exploitation through time. In total, 2015 excavations at Cahal Pech help add to the long history of archaeological exploration at the site by the BVAR project since 1988. A new program of excavations and conservation was initiated at Xunantunich in 2015. These investigations focused on the eastern triadic shrine (Strs. A-2, A-3, and A-4), as well as on Str. A-8 (Santasilia and Tilden, Chapter 6) and on the Castillo at Str. A-20 (Zanotto et al., Chapter 7). All excavations at Xunantunich revealed terminal architecture, with vertical units to establish chronological history for the site. Conservation and consolidation of the terminal architecture was also a central aim of BVAR’s work at Xunantunich, and these structures have been conserved so as to add to the overall aesthetic appeal of the site for tourism. BVAR also initiated research at several new sites or settlement areas during the 2015 field season. These include excavations at the Etz’nab Tunich group at Esperanza were initiated to better reveal the evidence for extensive lithic production at the group (Sullivan et al., Chapter 8). Research also focused at Lower Barton Creek (Kollias and Biggie, Chapter 9), a complex minor center located to the south of Lower Dover identified on the Western Belize Regional Lidar Survey. Excavations at both of these locations add to our understanding of regional dynamics in the Belize Valley. As in previous years, excavations resumed at Lower Dover and Baking Pot, with excavations at both sites focused on the palace complex and associated areas in the ceremonial centers. At Lower Dover, excavations were focused in Plaza C, thought to be a throne room in the palatial acropolis, as well as other plazas in the site core (Guerra and Collins, Chapter 10). Excavations in Group B of the site core at Baking Pot focused -v- excavations in the corners of plazas and courtyards, aimed at identifying terminal deposits to better understand the final activities in the ceremonial center (Hoggarth et al., Chapter 11). Excavations in Settlement Cluster C at Baking Pot were re-initiated at M- 101, a house group originally targeted for excavations in Hoggarth’s (2012) dissertation. The return to this group aimed to identify evidence for Postclassic activity in the settlement (Walden, Chapter 12). Two BVAR research programs focused on analyzing materials from sites across the Belize Valley. Tibbits (Chapter 13) conducted a pXRF analysis of granite artifacts from various sites, identifying the geochemical signature sources these materials to plutons in the Mountain Pine Ridge region. DeLance (Chapter 14) analyzed figurines from Cahal Pech and Baking Pot, recording distinct attributes of the figurines to better understand interrelated changes between ritual and political organization of Belize Valley polities. The BVAR field school relies on the hospitality of several businesses and individuals in San Ignacio. We want to thank Mana Kai Campground and Cabins, Hode’s, Venus Hotel, Pacz Inn, and Lower Dover Field Station for providing accommodations for BVAR students and staff. We thank the staff of Hode’s Restaurant and Lower Dover Field Station for always keeping us fed, as well as for allowing us spaces for meeting and lectures. We also thank the men and women who work at the Cahal Pech and Xunantunich visitors centers, as well as Central Farm, for facilitating our research on the ground at each of those sites. We also thank our local excavation and survey assistants, who always drive the research forward. Finally, we thank the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belize, for granting permission for us to conduct research at these sites. Our greatest honor is to protect Belize’s cultural heritage, as well as to train the next generation of Belizean archaeologists in conjunction with educating students from all over the world who come to learn about Maya archaeology. We thank Doug Tilden and the Tilden Family Foundation for their support of BVAR research. The 2015 research was funded by the Tilden Family Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the BVAR field school. Finally, we want to dedicate this volume to the late Mike Berns, whose enthusiasm and dedication to BVAR has been greatly appreciated over the past few years. Mike became an integral part of the BVAR family and he will be greatly missed. Julie A. Hoggarth Waco, Texas, USA Jaime J. Awe Flagstaff, Arizona, USA - vi - Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project 2015 Staff Dr. Jaime J. Awe, BVAR Project Director Dr. Julie A. Hoggarth, BVAR Assistant Director Myka Schwanke, BVAR Logistical Coordinator Baking Pot staff Lower Barton Creek staff Sarah Bednar Michael Biggie Dr. Julie Hoggarth G. Van Kollias Amber Lopez Johnson John Walden Lower Dover staff Renee Collins Cahal Pech staff Rafael A. Guerra Antonio Beardall Lisa DeLance Xunantunich staff Dr. John Douglas Dagmar Galvan Claire Ebert Catharina Santasilia Steve Fox Doug Tilden Nancy Peniche May Hannah Zanotto AFAR Cahal Pech Staff BVAR Osteologists Christy Pritchard Kirsten Green Jim Pritchard Dr. Ashley McKeown Mat Saunders Christopher Sims Affiliated BVAR Researchers Andrea Zorn Linda Brown Dr. Christophe Helmke Esperanza staff Sydney Lonaker Kelsey Sullivan Shane Montgomery Niyo Moraza-Keeswood Erin Ray Tawny Tibbits Martin Welker - vii - The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project A Re p o rt o f th e 2 0 15 Fie ld Se as o n Vo lu m e 2 1 - viii - EXCAVATIONS OF STRUCTURE G1, PLAZA G, AND SOUTH FAÇADE OF STRUCTURE B5 CAHAL PECH, BELIZE Christy W. Pritchard American Foreign Academic Research James C. Pritchard American Foreign Academic Research Andrea Zorn American Foreign Academic Research Christopher M. Sims American Foreign Academic Research C. Mathew Saunders American Foreign Academic Research ____________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION This report summarizes 2015 excavations conducted by the American Foreign Academic Research (AFAR) field school project that operates in conjunction with the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project at Cahal Pech, Cayo District, Belize. Supervising this excavation was Jaime Awe, Ph.D. with the support of C. Mathew Saunders, the director of AFAR, Christy W. Pritchard and Dr. Marc Zender. James C. Pritchard, Christopher Sims, and Andrea Zorn also assisted with the excavation oversight. The 2015 season’s work focused on the excavation of a plaza unit, and investigation of Structures G1, G2, and B5, centering on the form and function of the structures and the relationship between Structure B5 and the other Structures within Plazas B and G. The AFAR excavations were undertaken in a single, two-week session. Concurrent excavations were ongoing throughout the BVAR summer field season on Structure G2 under the Direction of Nancy Peniche May (Peniche May and Beardall, this volume). BACKGROUND Cahal Pech is a medium-size Maya center located in the Belize Valley region of western Belize. The site core sits on a steep hill overlooking San Igancio, and the Macal branch of the Belize River. The site sits approximately 2 km south of the Macal and the Mopan Rivers. The reasons for investigating Cahal Pech were, and are, developmental and research oriented. Research interests have been concerned with diachronic development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 1-26. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 1 plus a study of the architectural, artistic and socio-political relationship between Cahal Pech and sites in the Belize River Valley region (Awe et al. 1988). Although several scholars (Satterthwaite 1951, Willey et. al. 1965, Schmidt 1969-70, Ball and Tascheck 1986) had previously visited and/or conducted limited and sporadic studies of Cahal Pech, the chronology of the site was still unclear until the mid-1980s when several studies were accomplished in support of regional development in the Belize Valley (Ford 1985, Ball and Taschek 1986). The Cahal Pech Project, which subsequently evolved into the BVAR project in 1992, began its first season of investigations at Cahal Pech in the summer of 1988. During this initial season, the purpose of survey was twofold: a) to produce the first accurate and comprehensive map of the site core, and b) to survey and demarcate an area encompassing the central precinct for development as a national reserve (Awe and Campbell 1988; Awe, Bill and Campbell 1990). Research at Cahal Pech has been on-going to date with an emphasis on the architecture form and function, burial patterns, and settlement patterns within the complex as they relate to regional social constructs and events through time. The AFAR project has conducted excavations at Cahal Pech every summer since 2007. The field school has completed plaza excavations and structural excavations in Plazas B, C, F, G, and H. Beginning in 2010, most AFAR-BVAR excavations have resulted in the consolidation of portions of structures investigated by the field school. The primary driver for this work has been efforts to enhance the visitor experience at Cahal Pech by uncovering, delineating, and consolidating monumental architecture. The reporting herein summarizes the work that field school students completed within a two- week period under the direction of AFAR staff and Nancy Peniche May. METHODOLOGY The general approach to unit placement and excavation was coordinated with Dr. Jaime Awe, the director of BVAR. C. Mathew Saunders, the director of AFAR, Christy W. Pritchard and Dr. Marc Zender supervised the excavations with the assistance of James C. Pritchard, Christopher Sims, and Andrea Zorn. AFAR students participated in the practical work as well as in note-taking every day in order to gain knowledge of the field research process and to complete their field school requirements. Concurrent excavations were ongoing on Structure G2 under the supervision of Nancy Peniche May. Current research on Structures G1, G2, and B5 is centered on the form and function of the structures and the relationship between Structure B5 and the other Structures within Plazas B and G. All units were excavated using cultural levels, that is, from construction episode to underlying construction episode until final excavation for each lot was reached. All matrices were screened through ¼-inch mesh, however, only one in every third or fourth bucket was processed until white marl was encountered overlying architecture. Once white marl was uncovered screening of matrices was completed for all buckets. All cultural material was collected and bagged according to class and unit. All collected material was washed, sorted, counted and re-bagged for future study. Analysis of materials collected is not available at this time and will, hopefully, be included in future publications. Materials removed and saved for later analysis include ceramics, chert, freshwater shell, marine shell, 2 quartzite, and obsidian. Documentation includes plan view photos and plan view maps for the base of each level of excavation. EXCAVATIONS Our 2015 excavations were concentrated in Plaza G, to the immediate south of Plaza B, the largest courtyard at Cahal Pech. Plaza G demarcates the southern boundary of the acropolis and is bound to the south and east by steep slopes, to the west by Plaza F (Structure F1), and to the north by Plaza B (Structure B5). This small plaza measures roughly 21-by 21m and is laid out with very restricted access. (Figure 1) In 2013, Structure G2 was investigated by Norbert Stanchly (2014) with the objective to define the extent of a Terminal Classic midden deposit discovered in the area between Structures G1 and G2, investigate the final use of Plaza G, and expose the terminal phase of construction of Structure G2. Two terraces were recorded (Stanchly 2014:21), and Stanchly concludes that a north-south running wall was added to the southern end of the building with the goal of blocking access into Plaza G from between Structures G1 and G2. Excavations also exposed a terminal deposit resting against terminal architecture that was interpreted as post-abandonment activities. As reported in 2014 (Saunders et al.; Beardall; Peniche May) continued excavations in Plaza G also focused on Structure G2. A terminal phase access stairway of at least five risers was recorded on the west façade, and summit investigations revealed plaster floors and two layers of a low bench-like feature. No architectural features indicating low walls or room enclosures were identified indicative that a temporary perishable structure may have been present on the summit platform. An inconclusive arrangement of large limestone rocks was recorded on the southwest corner of the structure. Collapse of an architectural feature, or a crude post-abandonment structure, consistent with the manner of occupation identified on structure H1 in the H-plaza, are probable inferences from this anomaly. The cultural material recovered from the humic matrix provides more data on the subsistence and occupation of Cahal Pech after Terminal Classic abandonment, as well as the reuse of structures by subsequent human groups. This is a pattern seen across the site. The cultural material recovered in 2014 from a substantial floor deposit of ceramics provides important data for the Terminal Classic phase of the structure’s use. Combined with the data from summit excavations of Structure G2 and from the southern façade excavations of B5, we can tentatively conclude that Plaza G was abandoned in the Terminal Classic but was most likely reentered and reused by subsequent human groups. Building on the previous excavations conducted in Plazas B, F, and G by BVAR and early research at Cahal Pech, 2015 excavations within the Plaza G seek to define intact penultimate architecture along the southern façade of Structure B5, as well as the northern façade and summit of Structure G1 in hopes to eventually compare and contrast the form and function of the B5, G1 and G2 structures. Further, identifying the relationship of G Plaza to adjacent plaza groups is a continued goal of this research. With 3 Figure 1: Plan view sketch of Plaza G AFAR excavation unit placement in 2014 and 2015. the exception of exploratory units excavated in 1989 (Awe, et al.) on G1 and G2 to determine evidence of Preclassic occupation, little research has been done in the G group at Cahal Pech. Plaza G Excavation Unit CHP-PL-G-4 was placed to explore the transition from the eastern façade of Structure F2 to Plaza G and to define the terminal phase construction for this plaza area. Exploring the potential for earlier architecture beneath and immediately adjacent to the 4 Figure 2: Terminal plaza floor plan view photo. construction of Structure F2 was also a goal of the excavation. The unit measured 2 x 2 x 2 x 1.8 meters, abutting the structure F2 at the intersection of structures F2 and G1. A unit datum was set in the northwest corner of the unit at 10 centimeters above ground surface. This unit datum is 80 centimeters below Structure G1 Site Datum Portrero. The first level of soil matrix was characterized as a mix of humic soil and structural collapse from G1. Excavation of CHP-PL-G-terminal phase extended 14-20 centimeters below unit datum at which point partially intact terminal phase plaza floor was uncovered (Figures 2 and 3). This floor intersected with Structure F2 at the base of consolidated materials for the eastern faced of that structure, along the west wall of the excavation unit. It was unclear at this depth if intact wall extended beyond the terminal floor. Materials recovered from this level included an ephemeral scatter of 16 ceramics, one piece of chert and one freshwater shell. 5 Figure 3: Terminal Plaza floor plan view sketch. Figure 4: Penultimate phase plan view photo 6 Figure 5: Penultimate floor plan view sketch Excavation to the penultimate floor extended to depths of 44-58 centimeters below unit datum (cmbd). Three cut stones spanning the length of the west wall of the unit were uncovered approximately 20 centimeters beneath the terminal phase plaza floor. From south to north the surfaces of the three stones were situated at depths of 48 cmbd, 44 cmbd, and 41cmbd respectively. Leaving the stones in place, excavations continued away from the basal molding, from west to east, with the goal of defining an intersecting plaza floor. This level extended approximately 20cm through ballast before reaching the penultimate plaza floor at depths of 59-63 cmbd (Figures 4 and 5). Materials recovered from the penultimate phase increased from that of the overlying terminal phase including approximately 454 ceramics, 36 pieces of chert debitage, nine freshwater shell, one obsidian flake, and two pieces of quartz. Excavations continued into CHP-PL-G-1st with the goal of confirming that the three architectural stones uncovered in the previous level were associated with Structure F2, or 7 Figure 6: CHP-PL-G-1st plan view photo if they were the remains of earlier architecture. Excavation of this level did not extend across the entire unit. CHP-PL-G-1st was excavated as a 1x2-meter area extending the length of the west wall, and 1 meter to the east (Figures 6 and 7). The three cut stones were left in place and a window was excavated abutting the stones. Excavations continued to 88cmbd and confirmed a single course of basal stones associated with Structure F2. Materials recovered were consistent with the previous layer of plaza fill and included approximately 184 ceramic sherds, 27 pieces of chert debitage, nine freshwater shell, and two obsidian flakes. 8 Figure 7: CHP-PL-G-1st 9 Table 1: Artifacts recovered from Plaza unit CHP-PL-G-4. Unit CHP-PL-G-4 Material Class by Phase Terminal Material Class Count Ceramic 16 Chert 1 Freshwater shell 1 TOTAL 18 Penultimate Ceramic 454 Chert 36 Freshwater shell 9 Obsidian 1 Quartz 2 TOTAL 502 CHP-PL-G-1st Ceramic 184 Chert 27 Freshwater shell 9 Obsidian 2 TOTAL 222 CHP-PL-G-4 Conclusions Excavations of this single plaza unit revealed penultimate and terminal G Plaza floors abutting the east façade of structure F2. The terminal course of basil molding was identified congruent with the penultimate plaza floor. The artifact assemblage associated with the floors consisted of primarily ceramic, with the addition of chert, and a miniscule amount of obsidian and quartz. In adjacent unit G1-4 there is evidence of additional architecture, defining a transition in the southwest corner of Plaza G. Poor preservation and extreme bioturbation made careful excavation of that area difficult. Further excavation is needed to interpret the architectural transition from Plaza G to Plaza F where Structures G2, F2, and Plaza G floor intersect. Structure G1 Excavations Excavations on structure G1 took place over a two-week field season in July, 2015. This range structure joins the southeastern corner of structure F2 and extends approximately 20 meters to the east toward structure G2. The highest portions of structure G1 prior to excavations were along the southernmost summit of the range. This structure sloped downward and to the north toward the G plaza, with no apparent stairs or other architectural elements protruding from the northern façade of the structure prior to excavation. The southern façade of structure G1 consists of steep slope extending to the escarpment above the modern town of San Ignacio. Four excavation units (G1-1, G1-2, G1-3, and G1-4) were 10 placed along the entire length of structure G1, spanning along the southern boundary of the G plaza, between structure F2 (to the west) and structure G2 (to the east). Units G1-1, G1- 2, and G1-3 were placed along structure G1 from east to west, and measured five meters (east-west) by four meters (north-south). Unit G1-4 was placed at the western end of the structure, and measured six meters (east-west) by four meters (north-south). Elevations for unit G1-1 were referenced to Site Datum 1; elevations for unit G1-2 were referenced to the southeast corner of the unit (20 cm above ground surface), later correlated with the Portrero site datum; elevations for units G1-3 and G1-4 were referenced to the Portrero site datum. The first level of soil matrix at Cahal Pech is characterized by a high degree of disturbance in the form of bioturbation. This process was visible in excavation units on structure G1 from tree roots and animal burrowing. Additionally, modern refuse (plastic tarp fragments and plastic bags) was removed from the surface of the units. Each unit comprised a humic layer, which contained the roots of many forest understory plants and trees. The humus tended to consist of a dark brown matrix dominated by organic matter and humic loam soils. This uppermost layer was excavated until plaster floor or architectural material was reached. In each unit, a single level (Level 1) was excavated to remove humic overburden. Soils within this level are comprised of loose, heterogeneous humic loam, representing a heavily bioturbated cultural horizon. The level was terminated upon reaching penultimate architecture atop the platform of structure G1 in the eastern portion of unit G1-1 and the eastern portion of G1-4. Excavations in level 1 were terminated throughout all four units upon reaching the south-facing architectural façade, as well as a plaster floor running almost continuously along the southern portions of all four excavation units on structure G1. Due to time constraints, some portions of the G1 summit were not excavated to the level of penultimate architecture, however architectural collapse was identified on the summit of structure G1 in all four units. The brief, two-week field season concluded after reaching the base of Level 1 in each unit. Excavations on structure G1 identified a well-preserved south-facing façade that extends the entire length of the 20-meter long structure, from east to west (Figure 8). Additionally, plaster floor at the base of this low façade wall extends to the north end of each excavation unit along the structure. The plaster was largely intact throughout most of the excavated areas north of structure G1, but some areas presented degraded or disturbed portions where plaster was not visible, as well as some architectural elements that intruded below the main level of the penultimate plaster floor. The plaster floor marks the separation between natural stratigraphy and the underlying cultural units, indicated by different cultural phases. Excavation ceased at the identification of the uppermost phase of construction. However, the presence of cultural material within the humic matrix indicates human activity after the Terminal Classic abandonment of Cahal Pech. 11 Figure 8: Plan view photo unit G1-1. Figure 9: Plan view map unit G1-1. 12 Figure 10: Plan view photo unit G1-2. Map key: 1 81cmbd, 5 42 cmbd 9 122 cmbd 2 121 cmbd 6 87 cmbd 10 21cmbd 3 104 cmbd 7 76 cmbd (unexcavated 4 146 cmbd 8 84 cmbd portion of unit) Figure 11: Plan view map unit G1-2. 13 Figure 12: Plan view map unit G1-3. Figure 13: Plan view map unit G1-3. 14 Figure 14: Plan view map unit G1-4. Figure 15: Plan view map unit G1-4. 15 Table 2: Artifacts recovered from Structure G1. Material Class Unit G1-1 Unit G1-2 Unit G1-3 Unit G1-4 Grand Total Ceramic 681 1038 1216 916 3851 Chert 50 182 224 174 630 Daub 2 2 4 Freshwater Shell 8 19 11 66 104 Granite 2 1 3 Ground Stone 1 1 Limestone 1 1 Marine Shell 1 1 2 Obsidian 1 4 1 6 Quartz/Quartzite 1 8 7 6 22 Slate 1 1 Grand Total 741 1252 1465 1167 4625 Materials Recovered from Structure G1 Cultural material recovered from excavations in level 1 on Structure G1 represents a palimpsest of occupation and site use in Plaza G at the Cahal Pech site. Chert flake fragments, utilized flake tools, bifacial fragments, and projectile points comprise the chert tool assemblage recovered throughout level 1 in each of the excavation units across structure G1. Other cultural materials that characterize the assemblage recovered from level 1 include jute shell (Pachychilus), as well as numerous ceramic sherds. These aforementioned material types constitute the highest counts of the artifact assemblage throughout each of the excavation units on structure G1. Obsidian flakes, blocky quartz and quartzite flakes and cores, daub (low-heat or unfired clay), granite and ground stone, limestone, and slate were also recovered throughout level 1, though in lesser amounts than were chert, jute, and ceramics (Table 2). Several unique finds were recovered from excavations in level 1 of Structure G1 that provide insights to more specific temporal ranges and site functions. A ceramic pedestal-foot from a Teotihuacan-style chocolate vessel, dating to the Early Classic Maya period (ca AD 400-500) was recovered from unit G1-2. Additionally, the lower portion of a ceramic figurine resembling a woman’s hips was recovered in situ at the base of level 1 in the northwest corner of unit G1-2. Excavations in unit G1-3 recovered a ceramic lug handle and a ceramic scroll- decorated sherd (most likely Postclassic Maya). The calcined shell of a conch (Strombidae), a large tropical marine gastropod, was recovered from unit G1-4. 16 Figure 16: Ceramic figurine fragment. Figure 17: Ceramic handle 17 Discussion and Conclusion of G1 Summit Excavations A large number of chert flake fragments recovered from near-surface and throughout the depth of level 1 may suggest repeated short-term visits to the site for stone tool manufacture or retouching. Further research on lithic analyses is necessary to address research questions pertaining to raw material use in the production of stone tools, however observations in the field during excavations suggest that late-stage manufacturing and retouching were the predominant activities taking place on structure G1. This is indicated by the overall paucity of chert fragments containing cortex. The presence of jute (Pachychilus), a freshwater mollusk common throughout Central America, in excavated cultural contexts indicates its importance as a faunal resource (Healy et al. 1990). Studies on ceramic samples from the Late Classic, as well as ethnoarchaeological examples, indicate that ground Pachychilus shells formed the temper paste that predominately comprises Late Classic Maya ceramic technology (Healy et al. 1990). In addition to providing food from the meat of the mollusk, shells from this faunal resource were likely burned and ground to form a lime powder, which was added to boiling water in order to process maize (Healy et al. 1990). The near-surface and post-abandonment archaeological deposits recovered throughout level 1 on Structure G1 suggest hunter-gatherer behavior that may have taken place along with, if not at times in lieu of, advanced horticultural practices. Significant research on other nearby sites in the Belize Valley, as well as throughout the Maya region, has focused on mollusk exploitation and cultural function (see Healy et al. 1990 for a summary). The notable presence of Pachychilus as a near-ubiquitous material in cultural contexts ranging from Late Classic Maya to post-abandonment may offer productive data for further research into faunal exploitation at Cahal Pech. STRUCTURE B5 EXCAVATIONS Str. B-5 has been investigated in previous field seasons (Awe 1992; Peniche May 2013, 2014a, 2014b) (Figure 18). Peniche May’s 2014 work exposed several construction phases and helped to clarify the building sequence and form of this range-type edifice. As many buildings in the acropolis, Structure B-5 was subject of looting during the 1980s (Awe 1992:143). In the early 1990s, Awe (1992:143-148) supervised the clearance of a looter's trench, as well as the horizontal and vertical excavations of the building platform's southwestern section. These operations were conducted in order to investigate Str. B-5’s construction sequence and, particularly, the penultimate phase’s form. Four construction phases were exposed (Figure 19). B-5/1st and B-5/2nd were represented by two consecutive Late Preclassic floors exposed in the adjacent Plaza F (Unit 4). B-5/3rd was constructed between the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods. This phase consisted of a vaulted, range-type building atop of a low platform. Within the building were two or perhaps three rooms. The southern room had an unusually narrow (0.56 m) and low (1.50 m) doorway facing Plaza F and three very high (1.10 m) benches. The benches bordered a short (1.60 m) and narrow (0.56 m) passageway. 18 Figure 18: Location of the different areas excavated in Str. B-5 (after Peniche May 2014b). Figure 19: Cross-section profile of Str. B-5 (after Awe 1992:146). 19 Figure 20: EU B5-6 excavated in 2014 as seen in 2015. It has been suggested that this room functioned as a sweat-bath. The final construction phase (B-5/4th) was poorly understood because it was ill preserved due to the looting. In 2012-13, Str. B-5 was partially investigated during the excavation of Plaza B. As a result, Peniche May (2013, 2014a) exposed five construction phases in the northern section of the range-type building spanning from the Barton Creek to the Tiger Run phase. She also identified several Cunil and Kanluk construction phases. During the 2014 field season, it was decided to continue the exploration of Structure B-5. The goal was to expose the superstructure in order to investigate the form of this range-type building. Importantly, Peniche May found on the southern façade that the last construction phase of Structure B-5 was poorly preserved. Recognizing that preservation of the terminal phase architecture was poor on the southern façade, in 2015, it was decided to further explore the terminal superstructure of Structure B-5, and continue excavations to the immediate west of excavation unit (EU) B5- 6, which had been accomplished during the 2014 field season (Figure 20). EU B5-9 measured 3 x 3.6m and was oriented 10º west of the magnetic north. The excavation encompassed a total area of 10.8 m2. All measurements were taken from two previously established datums: EU1 TDA and a second datum placed on the west side of the tree to the south of EU B5-9 located 64cm. 20 Figure 21: Excavation of collapse in EU B5-9. Figure 22: Completed EU B5-9 excavations. 21 Table 3. Artifacts recovered from EU B5-9 Material Class Total Ceramic 245 Chert 9 Total 254 below EU1 TDA. Both datums are linked to a datum placed in the east wall of Str. F-2 and the same elevation as EU1 TDA. For the purposes of this report, EU1 TDA has been renamed Datum Sultana, while the unidentified datum on the tree has been named Datum Sangre de Jake. From July 14 to 22, 2015, we excavated EU B5-9 in order to expose the penultimate phase of architecture and to complete the southern façade excavations of Str. B-5. Excavations began after establishing the unit as a 3m east-to-west by 3.6m north-to-south unit. A single layer (EU B5-9 Level 1) was removed. Level 1 extended to between 77 and 99cm below datum and consisted of a combination of humus and collapse that overlay plastered terrace architecture of varying degrees of preservation. Excavations did not intrude into any floors or into any structural fill. Excavations revealed a continuation of the penultimate plastered terrace architecture previously exposed in B5-6 (Peniche May 2013, 2014) and presented in Figure 4. The preserved architecture was overlain by significant collapse (Figure 21), but our excavations uncovered a better preserved southern wall profile (Figure 22). A profile (Figure 23) and plan view (Figure 24) also are provided. The terrace measures 70cm north-to-south and 240cm east-to-west. There is a 60cm absence of the terrace where EU B5-9 abuts previously excavated EU B5-6. Intact wall consists of two courses measuring 30cm high from the top of the plastered terrace. Another three poorly preserved sections of the wall extend another 45cm up the south façade of the exposed structure. A total of 254 artifacts, including 245 ceramics and 9 chert were recovered (Table 3). Ceramics included a variety of Late Classic forms and types. Chert specimens were struck from a variety of material types. 22 Figure 23: Profile view of completed EU B5-9 excavations. 23 Figure 24: Plan view of completed EU B5-9 excavations. 24 CONCLUSIONS Our 2015 excavation of EU B5-9 exposes a continuation of the penultimate phase of architecture previously documented in EU B5-6 and it completes the southern façade excavations of Str. B-5. In tandem with the other plan views and profiles generated through excavation of the southern façade of St. B-5, Figures 21 through 24 demonstrate the penultimate form of the structure as seen within the newly exposed and previously consolidated excavations. As no penetrating excavations were accomplished, we have not further refined data regarding the construction sequence or function of this range-type structure. REFERENCES CITED Awe, Jaime J. 1992 Dawn in the Land between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize and Its Implications for Preclassic Occupation in the Central Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London. Awe, Jaime J., Cassandra Bill, and Mark D. Campbell 1989 The Cahal Pech, Belize Project: A Progress Report of the Second (1989) Season of Investigations. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. Bey, George J. III and Rossana May Ciau 2014 The Role and Realities of Popol Nahs in Northern Maya Archaeology. In The Maya and Their Central American Neighbors. Settlement Patterns, Architecture, Hieroglyohic Texts, and Ceramics, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 335-355. Routledge, London and New York. Harrison, Peter 2003 Palaces of the Royal Court of Tikal. In Palaces and Power in the Americas:From Peru to the Northwest Coast, edited by Jessica J. Christie, pp. 98-119. University of Texas, Austin. Healy, Paul F., David Cheetham, Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe 2004 Cahal Pech. The Middle Formative Period. In Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 103- 124. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee. Peniche May, Nancy 2013 Excavations in Plaza B, Cahal Pech. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2012 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Reiko Ishihara-Brito, and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 128-167. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 2014a Excavations in Plaza B, Cahal Pech: 2013 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited 25 by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 1-20. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 2014b The Construction Sequence of Structure B-5, Cahal Pech. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 87-102. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Peniche May, Nancy and Antonio Beardall 2014a Excavations in Plaza G, Cahal Pech: 2014 Field Season in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, Volume 20 (2015), Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize, C.A. 2014b Excavations of Structure G-1, Cahal Pech: 2014 Field Season in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, Volume 20 (2015), Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize, C.A. Peniche May, Nancy and Lilia Fernandez Souza 2004 Surgimiento y desarrollo arquitectónico en el noroocidente de la Península de Yucatán a inicios del Clásico. Temas Antropológicos 26: 265-284. Reents-Budet, Dorie 2001 Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court: An analysis of Rendering on Pictorial Ceramics. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, vol. 1, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen Houston, pp. 195-236. Westview, Boulder. Saunders, C. Mathew, Christy W. Pritchard, James C. Pritchard, Christopher Sims, Andee Zorn, Stanely Guenter, Marc Zender. 2014 Excavations on the Front (West) Face of Structure G2, Cahal Pech, Belize in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, Volume 20 (2015), Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize, C.A. 26 EXCAVATIONS OF STRUCTURE G-2, CAHAL PECH: 2015 FIELD SEASON Nancy Peniche May University of California-San Diego Antonio Beardall Belize Institute of Archaeology INTRODUCTION Plaza G is a small courtyard just south of Plaza B at Cahal Pech, the largest courtyard and the Structure G-2 is a building that delimits Plaza G to the east and abuts the well-known Structure B-4. This construction measures 21 m north-south by at least 7.30 m east-west, standing 1.60-1.80 m from the plaza floor (Peniche May and Beardall 2015). Structure G-2 was first explored in 1989, when Jaime Awe (1992:170) excavated a T-shaped trench (Operation G-2:1) across the medial and primary axes of the building and placed a 1 x 1 m sub-unit into the center of the mound. As result, three construction phases were revealed (Figure 1). G-2/1st consisted of a raised platform that supported at least one superstructure, which may have been a masonry building with a perishable ceiling (Awe 1992:170). G-2/1st was demolished during the construction of the following phase, G-2/2nd, that dates to the Late Classic period. G-2/2nd was represented by a double-vaulted building set above a raised structure with a doorway that led down to Plaza G. Awe (1992) reported that doorways through the walls of the rooms provided access from the western to the eastern side of the building. Sometime after the construction of the building, a second floor and a large bench were added to the eastern chamber. G-2/3rd also was constructed during the Late Classic period and its construction meant the demolition of its precursor. G-2/3rd consisted of a large building platform that most probably supported a perishable building. According to Awe (1992:172), very little of the G-2/3rd architecture remained preserved. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 27-51. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 27 Figure 1: Profile of trench excavated by Awe (1992). Figure 2: Plan view of Str. G-2 based on 2014 excavations (Peniche and Beardall 2015) 28 Figure 3: Excavation units set up at Str. G-2 during the 2015 field season. In 2013, Structure G-2 was again the subject of excavations supervised by Norbert Stanchly (2014). 2013 excavation units (Units 2, 3, and 4) were placed at the southern end of the structure. As a result, it was established that Structure G-2 “consisted of two terraces each likely having 6-7 courses of cut stones originally” (Stanchly 2014:21). At some point, a north-south running wall was added to the southern end of the building with the goal of blocking access into Plaza G from between Structures G-1 and G-2. In addition, the excavations also exposed a refuse deposit resting against terminal architecture that was interpreted as post-abandonment activities. Excavation at Structure G-2 continued during the 2014 field seasons with the goal of exposing the terminal phase of the building. We identified two construction phases, which were interpreted as corresponding to Awe’s (1992) G-2/2nd and G-2/3rd buildings described above (Peniche May and Beardall 2015; Figure 2). In 2015, explorations aimed to further assess the construction sequence of this building and continue exposing the superstructure. 29 METHODOLOGY To further explore Structure G-2, the BVAR team placed twenty three excavation units that were oriented 9º east of magnetic north—following the orientation of the building. The dimensions of the excavation units were diverse because they were established based on the excavation needs (Figure 3). Excavations were conducted using both cultural and arbitrary levels. Context associations followed standards established by the BVAR project (BVAR Supervisor’s Manual n.d.). Artifacts were collected and separated based on unit, level, lot and context. All matrices were screened through ¼-inch mesh. Collected artifacts are in the process of being analyzed and the results will be discussed in future reports. EXCAVATION RESULTS The 2015 excavations showed that the construction sequence of Structure G-2 was more complex than we thought before. We have identified eight construction phases (Figures 4 and 5). An inventory of the recovered materials by construction phase is displayed in Table 1. Construction phase G-2/1st The earliest construction phase exposed so far was located in EU G2-22. This phase consisted of alignments made of at least two courses of large limestone blocks. One of the alignments was running east-west, while the second was running north-south (Figures 5 and 6). Among the materials included in the fill covering this feature were sherds belonging to Sierra and Savana ceramic complexes. The presence of these ceramic materials suggests that this feature was built by the Late Preclassic period. Unfortunately, space and time constrains did not permit full exposure of this feature to establish its architectural traits. Construction phase G-2/2nd During this construction phase, the large limestone blocks were covered by thick layer of sediment consisting of dark brown clay loam (approximately 0.80-0.88 m). Some medium stones were mixed with the sediment. This matrix was covered by a plaster floor named Floor G-2/1 during the excavations (Figure 4). Floor G-2/1 was approximately 0.08 m thick and was found in a good condition. Mixed with the matrix, we recovered several artifacts, including pottery sherds, chert debitage and casual tools, human remains, vertebrate fauna remains, an obsidian prismatic blade, a slate item, and charcoal. In addition, we recovered one drill made of chert. Construction phase G-2/3rd The following construction phase was also exposed in EU G2-22. The construction phase was represented by another stucco floor, called Floor G-2/2 (Figure 4). This plaster surface was located approximately 0.80 m above Floor G-2/1. The matrix used to cover Floor G2/1 consisted of gray clay loam and medium stones (approximately 0.20-0.30 m in length). At the western edge of the excavation unit, we found a possible posthole, 30 31 Figure 4: East-West Profile of Str. G-2 showing the eight construction phases. Figure 5: Plan view of Str. G-2 showing the different construction phases. Figure 6: Str. G-2/1st. 32 Figure 7: North-South profile displaying seven construction phases. approximately 0.18 m in diameter. This possible posthole was characterized by having loose dark gray sediment and charcoal in its interior. Mixed with the matrix, we discovered ceramic sherds, chert debitage and casual tools, cobbles, freshwater shells, granite, marine shell debitage and charcoal. In addition, among the artefactual inventory recovered in this construction phase, there were one bead made of marine shell, one ball made of chert, and a fragmented vessel. Construction phase G-2/4th The senior author believes that Str. G-2/4th may correspond to Str. G-2/1st described by Awe (1992). During the 2015 field season, this construction phase was found in excavation units G2-22 and G2-26. It corresponds to the construction of Structure G-2/4th and Floor G-2/3. In order to build these features, Floor G-2/2 was covered by dry fill created with large stones. Some gray clay loam also was deposited to fill the space among stones. Because of the small dimensions of the excavation unit, Str. G-2/4th was not fully explored. Consequently, its total dimensions were not established. Nevertheless, we still were able to establish some of its architectural characteristics. The exposed section of the building at EU G2-26 consisted of the interior of a room; while at EU G2-22, the exposed section was a doorway (Figure 7). Consequently, Str. G- 2/4th consisted of at least two rooms—a southern room and a central room—although it is likely that there was a third room located northwards. The Str. G-2/4th walls consisted of five courses of well-cut limestone blocks. The upper surface of the top-most stone was covered by a thin layer of stucco, which extended at least 0.40 m westwards. The presence 33 Figure 8: Substructure exposed at EU G2-21, G2-31 and G2-33. The left picture shows the uppermost stones, while the right picture displays the northern limit of a room. The lowermost stone of this wall was at the same level with Floor G-2/5th. of this stucco floor could signify that the original walls were, in fact, low and that the building was not dismantled when the next construction phase was built. Str. G-2/4th was associated with a thick plaster floor (0.08-0.14 m thick) named Floor G-2/3 (Figure 4). Floor G-2/3 was, in fact, lipping and partially covering the low interior walls of the building. It is interesting to note that the plaster flooring of the central room was approximately 0.12 m higher than the southern room surface. Although more data is required to corroborate the hypothesis, it is likely that the substructure exposed in EU G2-33, G2-34, and G2-21 was a rear room of Str. G-2/4th. The lowermost stone of the substructure—exposed at G2-21—was roughly at the same level with Floor G-2/5 (Figure 8). Based on data recovered at EU G2-33 and G2-34, the substructure walls stood at least 1.60 m. Material inventory recovered in this construction phase included ceramic sherds, chert debitage and casual flakes, cobbles, fauna remains, freshwater shells, obsidian prismatic blades, quartzite, and charcoal. In addition, we recovered a ceramic fragment with a Tzolk’in date, a figurine fragment possible displaying a jaguar, a second figurine fragment made of ceramic and a perforated shell. 34 Figure 9: Capstone deposited on top of Floor G-2/4. Construction phase G-2/5th This construction phase was represented by Floor G-2/4, which was discovered in excavation unit G2-22 (Figure 5). This surface was not found at EU G2-26, either because it was destroyed by Terminal Classic modifications or it was a modification carried out at the central room of Str. G-2/4th. Floor G-2/4 was a thin stucco floor constructed 0.44–0.50 m above Floor G-2/3—space filled with gray clay loam (Figures 4 and 7). With the construction of Floor G-2/4, however, Str. G-2/4th was not completely covered as its uppermost stone was left exposed. This plaster surface was identified as a different construction phase but the possibility exists that it was a modification of Str. G-2/4th. The artefactual inventory included ceramic sherds, chert casual tools and debitage, cobbles, freshwater shells, and human remains. The special find inventory included a modified olive shell to create a tinkler. Construction phase G-2/6th Based on the elevations and profiles, it is likely that construction phase G-2/6th corresponds to the construction phase G-2/2nd described in the 2015 report (Peniche May and Beardall 2015). If this hypothesis is true, then, Str. G-2/6th consisted of a basal platform that supported a superstructure. While the basal platform was partially exposed during the 2014 field season, the superstructure was uncovered in the 2015 field season in the EU G2-22 and G2-26. Awe (1992) stated that the superstructure was a double-vaulted building with doorways through the room’s walls, which provided access from the western to the eastern side of the building. We could not corroborate this form as, like the basal platform, the superstructure was only partially exposed. The superstructure’s exposed section during the 35 Figure 10: Granite mano deposited as offering. The mano was placed near the uppermost stone of Str. G-2/6th’s doorway. 2015 field season consisted of a double wall and its associated plaster floor (Str. G-2/6th and Floor G-2/5, respectively). The exposed section of Str. G-2/6th was the southeastern limit of a doorway. The wall was one meter wide. The wall’s foundation was placed on top of Str.G- 2/4th low wall, from which it stood approximately 0.80 m (Figure 7). The wall was made of stones of diverse dimensions, forms and work quality and it was associated to a thick plaster floor (approximately 0.15 m thick), named Floor G-2/5. In order to construct Floor G-2/5, a layer of dark gray sediment and another layer of gray clay loam were placed on top of Floor G-2/4 and the exposed section of Str. G-2/4th. Nevertheless, before the sediments were deposited, a large capstone was placed on top of Floor G-2/4 (Figure 9) at the central room. This event may have caused the floor to partially break. When the capstone was removed during the excavations, however, we found human remains in a bad state of preservation. Based on a preliminary analysis, it was concluded that the human remains belonged to an infant younger than a year old. Consequently, it is also likely that Floor G-2/4 was intentionally broken in order to deposit the infant burial, while the capstone was placed to cover it. The artifact inventory recovered in this construction phase included ceramic sherds, casual tools and debitage made of chert, freshwater shells, human remains and charcoal. In addition, one biface made of chert was recovered. Construction phase G-2/7th (penultimate construction phase) This construction phase was represented by Floor G-2/6, which was exposed at EU G2-19 and G2-25. This surface partially covered Str. G-2/6th. Only the uppermost stone 36 Figure 11: Rear section of Str. G-2/8th's basal platform. was left exposed (Figure 7). Floor G-2/2 was constructed approximately 0.46 m above the previous floor. Although no artifact was associated to this construction phase, we exposed a mano that was deposited on fill, close to the uppermost stone of Str. G-2/6th, where the entrance of the room was (Figure 10). The senior author believes that this mano was a ritual deposit to mark the termination of Str. G-2/6th and the construction of G-2/7th phase. Construction phase G-2/8th (ultimate construction phase) G-2/8th represents the last construction phase, which was described as G-2/3rd in the 2015 report (Peniche May and Beardall 2015). Str. G-2/8th consisted of a basal platform, a superstructure and a staircase. The basal platform was rectangular in shape and it measured 21 m north-south by 9.5 m east-west. It stood between 1.60 and 1.80 m from the plaza floor. At its western side, the basal platform consisted of two terraces with treads approximately 0.60m in width. The lower terrace was approximately 1.26 m tall, while the upper terrace reached a height of 1.60- 1.70 m from the plaza level. The rear or eastern section of the basal platform consisted of at least three terraces. The lowermost terrace rose approximately 0.40 m from the plaster floor of a patio surface and had a tread of 0.46 m. The second terrace stood about 0.50 m and had a tread of 0.80 m. The rising of the third terrace was 0.80 m high and had a tread of 0.80 m (Figure 11). The basal platform’s northern side, alternatively, consisted of a single wall that displayed a basal apron. The total height of this wall was not determined during the 2015 field season (Figure 12). The northern limit, as well as the western basal platform, was made of cut stones of diverse dimensions. 37 Figure 12: Northern limit of Str. G-2/8th’s basal platform. The summit of the platform was reached through a staircase located at the center of the building and facing Plaza G. This staircase was attached to the lower terrace, extended out 2.10 m, and measured 5 m in width. It consisted of five steps with treads that varied in width. The treads of the two lower steps were 0.40 and 0.50 m, respectively. The third tread was 0.90 m width. The treads of the fourth and fifth steps were 0.50 m and 0.40 m width, respectively (Peniche and Beardall 2015). Based on the limited excavations carried out during the 2014 field season, we stated that the superstructure consisted of a L-shaped platform. Nonetheless, we suggested that further excavations at the southern section could expose another constructed area running east-west (Peniche May and Beardall 2015). The 2015 excavations did uncover the southern section of the superstructure. Based on the current data, we can affirm that the superstructure was constructed in a C-shape (Figure 13). It measured about 18 m north south by at least 8.20 m east-west (although it likely measured 9.30 m east-west). The superstructure was defined by a C- shaped bench, approximately 0.40 m high. The northern and central sections measured about 2 m in width. Interestingly, the northern section of the bench did not run along all the platform width. The northern side only measured 3.80 m east-west. 0.90 m westwards, there was another bench, which was only 0.20 m tall. This bench was attached to the northern limit and, likely, to the western upper terrace. Unfortunately, the southern section was destroyed by ancient human activity and by bioturbation. Consequently, it was not possible to establish whether the structure was symmetrical but, based on the ancient Maya 38 Figure 13: General view of Str. G-2/8th. It is possible to observe the basal platform, the staircase and the C-shaped superstructure. architectural tradition, it is likely that it was indeed symmetrical. The bench was accessed through two steps that rose 0.26 m approximately and whose tread was 0.80 m in width. The form and dimensions of the superstructure left a large open space on top of the basal platform. The surfaces of basal platform, treads and steps were all finished with plaster (Floor G-2/7). We did not find evidence of post holes and, consequently, there is not evidence to suggest whether perishable superstructures stood at this structure. A large amount of artefacts were found during the excavation of Str. G-2/8th. The only materials recovered in the construction fill of Str. G-2/8th included ceramic sherds and a freshwater shell. Most of this inventory was found in the matrix that covered the superstructure. In the sediment covering the superstructure, we recovered basalt fragments, ceramic sherds, chert debitage and casual tools, cobble, daub, fauna remains, freshwater shells, limestone fragments, marine shell fragments, obsidian prismatic blades, quartzite, slate fragments and charcoal. Several special finds were also recovered, including an arrow point made of chert, a ball made of chert, two beads made of ceramic and marine shell, a chert biface, three chert drills on flake, and a chert drill on burin spall, one figurine fragment, one mano fragment made of granite, one pendant made of shell, two smoothers, and at least three fragmented ceramic vessels. The fragmented vessels and one granite grinding tool were likely deposited like caches. One mano fragment was deposited at the base of the basal platform, just near the apron of the eastern wall. Alternatively, three vessels were placed outside of the basal platform, near the northeast corner (Figure 14). Two of these vessels were deposited one on 39 Figure 14: Vessels deposited near the northeastern corner of Str. G-2/8th's basal platform. top of the other one, while the third one was placed alone. Likely, the ceramic deposits and the mano marked the abandonment of the building. Construction phase G-2/8th – Modifications As Stanchly (2014) noted during his excavations, G-2/3rd underwent a small modification, perhaps during the Terminal Classic period. This modification consisted of a north-south running wall that was added to the southern wall of Structure G-2’s basal platform and Structure G-1’s southeastern corner. The objective of this wall was to block access into Plaza G. A most significant modification of the building was uncovered on the basal platform summit, particularly where EU G2-25 and G2-26 were set up. During the excavations, we noticed a possible alignment that was interpreted as a Terminal Classic modification. Nevertheless, after removing the humic layer, we noticed that this possible alignment was in fact cut and uncut stones randomly placed (Figure 15). The stones were removed as an attempt to expose the plaster surface of the basal platform summit. Instead we found that the summit was modified after the construction of Str. G-2/8th in order to build a cist. The cist measured 2.16 m (north-south) by 0.70-0.90 m (east-west) and was approximately 0.80 m high. Based on the preliminary analysis of the associated pottery, we concluded that the modification took place during the Terminal Classic period. In order to construct the cist, the Terminal Classic people broke into Floor G-2/7 uncovering the frontal wall of Str. G-2/6th and Floor G-2/6. Floor G-2/2 was in turn cut and 40 Figure 15: Cut and uncut stones randomly placed at the southern section of the superstructure. Figure 16: Cist's eastern wall. This wall was constructed after the area was dug out. 41 Figure 17: Cist and its associated plaster floor. This floor was a replastering of Floor G- 2/5. its construction fill was dug out until uncovering Floor G-2/5. A wall made of cut stones of diverse dimensions was built 0.70-0.90 m east of Str. G-2/6th. This wall rested on Floor G- 2/5 and stood approximately 0.80 m. It was made of cut stones of several dimensions. Spaces between the stones were filled with wedges. Finally, Floor G-2/5 was replastered to create a surface for this feature (Figures 16 and 17). It is thought that a burial was deposited in this feature, but it is likely that it was removed at some point as we did not uncover human remains. After removing the burial, a large amount of broken pottery was placed along with burned dark gray sediment and some burned small stones. Possibly two whole vessels were placed on top of the plaster floor (Figure 18). Some fauna remains were also deposited or left behind after the burial was removed. Among these fauna remains was a long bone belonging to a deer. On top of this deposit, a layer of stones was placed, perhaps to cover the deposit. These stones were somewhat leveled (Figure 19). Above this layer of stones, capstones, slabs and boulders were placed along with dark brown sediment. The capstones and slabs were placed upright and facing downwards (Figure 20). Large amounts of pottery were mixed with the matrix, especially in the southern section of the feature, partially covering Floor G2/2. Faunal remains were also present. This layer of capstones and slabs were in turn covered with large cut and uncut stones, broken pottery sherds and dark brown soil. This layer extended southwards of the cist. These are the stones that we observed before EU G2-25 and G2-26 were set up. 42 Figure 18: Ceramic concentration deposited on top of Floor G-2/5 and inside the cist. Figure 19: Stones placed to cover the ceramic deposit. 43 Figure 20: Slabs placed upright to fill the cist. In this particular feature, we recovered ceramic sherds, chert debitage and casual tools, cobble, daub, fauna remains, freshwater shells, human remains, limestone, marine shells, obsidian prismatic blades, quartzite, slate fragments, and charcoal. A few special finds were recovered during the excavation of the cist. These included a smooth gray stone, a small ball and a biface made of chert, and a bone needle. CONCLUSION As result of the excavations, we have identified a more complex construction sequence that includes at least eight construction phases. As it was mentioned above, the material analysis has not been carried out yet, therefore it is not possible to establish when the different construction phases were constructed. Nevertheless, we can suggest that the earliest construction phase, Str. G-2/1st, was built during the Late Preclassic as it was associated with Barton Creek ceramic materials. It is worth mentioning, however, that as excavations conducted in 2014 have shown, Plaza G was occupied as early as the late facet of the Kanluk phase. Consequently, it is probably that further excavations will uncover even earlier buildings beneath Str. G-2/1st. In addition, if our correlation with Awe’s (1992) sequence is correct, we can propose that Str. G-2/4th was built during the Early Classic period, while Str. G-2/6th and Str. G-2/7th were probably built during the Late Classic. Str. G-2/8th merits more discussion. Awe (1992) pointed out that this construction phase was built during the late part of the Late Classic period, at some moment between AD 750 and 900. Nonetheless, these dates correspond to the Terminal Classic in the Belize Valley. The particular form of Str. G- 2/8th corroborates this statement. 44 As most of the construction phases were uncovered in two test pits, their particular architectural forms were not established during the 2015 field season. The exception was Str. G-2/8th. This particular building consisted of a basal platform with a staircase that connected its summit with Plaza G. The basal platform supported a one-room superstructure delimited by a C-shaped bench. This type of structures, known as C-shaped structures, made its appearance during the Late Classic period in the southern lowlands, although they were more common during the Terminal Classic and Postclassic (Eberl 2007; Rice 1986; Tourtellot 1998). Eberl (2007), for instance, describes four types of C-shaped structures found in the Petexbatun area during the Late Classic period—the “open or closed C-shaped wall on a basal platform,” “open or closed C-shaped wall without a basal platform,” “C-shaped bench on a basal platform” and “C-shaped bench without a basal platform.” Str. G-2/8th roughly corresponds to the “C- shaped bench on a basal platform” type described by Eberl (2007). At the Petexbatun region, these structures were first constructed during the Late Classic period. Their average dimensions were 7.4 m by 4.1 m and 0.5 m high, while the C-shaped benches were up to one meter wide. In Aguateca, the benches were used for sitting, sleeping, storage, food preparation, craft making (Inomata 1995, 1997; Inomata and Stiver 1998; Inomata et al. 2002). Consequently, Eberl suggests that the “C-shaped bench on a basal platform” structures were likely used as dwellings. He supports its statement by pointing out that this structure type were usually part of residential groups. C-shaped structures also have been identified at Seibal (Tourtellot 1988), where they have been divided into “C-shaped platforms on a basal platform” and “C-shaped platforms without a basal platform.” These structures first appeared during the Tepejilote phase (AD 650-830). Nevertheless, they were most frequent during the Bayal phase (AD 830-930)—a phase that corresponds to the end of the monumental construction in the southern lowlands. They were identified as dwellings, with the largest versions of the “C-shaped structures on a basal platform” functioning as the household founders’ houses (Tourtellot 1988). Despite of the similarities with the Petexbatun “C-shaped bench on a basal platform” structures and the largest versions of Seibal “C-shaped structures on a basal platform”, certain architectural characteristics of Str. G-2/8th make it different from them. Str. G-2/8th was a larger and more complex construction. Its basal platform was massive, measuring 21 m by 9.5 m and standing 1.60-1.80 m high. The bench also was bigger and more complex. It measured 2 m wide and was accessed through two steps that extended across the front and side ends. In total, the bench stood 0.92 m above the summit’s open surface. Most importantly, there are three lines of evidence that suggest that Str. G-2/8th was not a private space. First of all, the C-shaped plan with their open front configuration gave no privacy, suggesting that this building perhaps was used as public space (see Rice 1986:313). Second, it has not been established whether Str. G-28th was associated with a residential group. Str. G-1 could have been a private space, but its function has not been established yet. The earlier and slightly contemporaneous Str. B-5 was a large public building that likely served for administrative purposes (Peniche May 2015a). More importantly, with exception of the ceramic deposit recovered at the corner created by the basal platform and 45 the staircase (Peniche May et al. 2015), the artifact inventory recovered from the structure and outside the basal platform is limited. The few grinding tools associated with this building were likely used as ritual deposits. One mano was placed on top of the fill that closed the Str. G-2/6th’s doorway, near the uppermost stone of the wall. Entrances are usually considered as liminal places through which people communicated with the supernatural realm. This suggests that the mano was placed as part of the termination ritual of Str. G- 2/6th. The other grinding tool was deposited at the base of the basal platform of Str. G-2/8th, just near the apron of the eastern wall. It is likely that this granite mano was deposited as part of a termination ritual along with the ceramic vessels mentioned above. Therefore, the artefactual evidence to suggest a domestic function for Str. G-2/8th is quite limited. Based on this evidence, we suggest that the Late Classic Str. G-2/8th held a public function. C-shaped buildings from the northern lowlands have also been regarded as public spaces. According to Bey and colleagues (1997:239), they reflect attempts “to continue administering the polity after the cessation of monumental construction.” This function is proposed because the northern C-shaped platforms are almost identical to the highland Postclassic longhouses identified as popol nah or kingship-based administrative buildings (Bey and May 2014; see Rice 1986). Postclassic C-shaped structures in central Petén could have also functioned as administrative buildings (Rice 1986:313). C-shaped structures from the northern lowlands, however, are slightly different from Str. G-2/8th, both in architectural form and temporality. Bey and colleagues (1997:239) state that C-shaped buildings were horizon markers of the Terminal Classic period (AD 900-1000/1100) at northern Maya sites and they consisted of: “[…] a single long rear foundation wall with short side walls extending from both ends. This foundation undoubtedly supported a perishable structure. The front of the building lacks a foundation wall and was apparently open, although a low step may extend across the front. Inside, a low bench commonly runs partially or completely along the rear wall and may continue along one or both side walls” (Bey et al. 1997:238-239; italics by the authors). Like Str. G-2/8th, the northern C-shaped structures could have been large constructions. Str. G-12 at Ek Balam, for instance, consisted of a large basal platform measuring 45 m by 32 m and 2.5 m high that supported a C-shaped platform (Bey et al. 1997). Nonetheless, these dimensions were obtained because the C-shaped structure was built over a previous Late Classic building. Alternatively, other northern C-shaped structures were constructed without a basal platform (e.g., Uxmal) (Barrera Rubio and Huchim Herrera 1990). In brief, based on the architectural form comparable to certain northern C-shaped structures and the limited artifactual evidence indicating a residential function, we proposed that Str. G-2/8th was a public building of administrative nature. Questions rise with this interpretation, particularly those pertaining to the construction date of the building and whether they are post-monumental construction at Cahal Pech. So far, we do not have charcoal sample or ceramic materials from the construction fill to offer an absolute or relative date for the construction of Str. G-2/8th. Nevertheless, it is likely that Str. G-2/8th was constructed during the Terminal Classic period of the Belize Valley. If this hypothesis is 46 true, the, it is likely that the cist was constructed when Str. G-2/8th was edified and was removed when the site was finally abandoned. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. Jaime Awe for the opportunity to work on Cahal Pech. We also thank to the 2015 BVAR field school students, Galen students, and Belizean high school students who excavated this building. Funding for research at Cahal Pech was granted by the BVAR Field School and the Tilden Family Foundation. REFERENCES CITED: Awe, Jaime J. 1992 Dawn in the Land between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize and Its Implications for Preclassic Occupation in the Central Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London. Bey, George III, Craig A. Hanson and William M. Ringle 1997 Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural and Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American Antiquity, 8(3):237-254. Bey, George J. III and Rossana May Ciau 2014 The Role and Realities of Popol Nahs in Northern Maya Archaeology. In The Maya and Their Central American Neighbors. Settlement Patterns, Architecture, Hieroglyohic Texts, and Ceramics, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 335-355. Routledge, London and New York. Eberl, Markus 2007 Community Heterogeneity and Integration: The Maya Sites of NAcimiento, Dos Ceibas, and Cerro de Cheyo (El Petén, Guatemal) during the Late Classic. PhD Dissertation. Tulane University. Peniche May, Nancy 2015a The Construction Sequence of Structure B-5, Cahal Pech. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 87-102. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 2015b Excavations in Plaza G, Cahal Pech: 2014 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 123-129. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Peniche May, Nancy and Antonio Berdall 2015 Excavations of Structure G-2, Cahal Pech: 2014 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited 47 by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 130-137. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Peniche May, Nancy, Antonio Beardall, James J. Aimers and Jaime J. Awe 2015 Private or Public Space: Form and Function of Structure G-2 at Cahal Pech. Paper presented at the 13 Belize Archaeology and Anthropology Symposium. San Ignacio, Belize. Rice, Don S. 1986 The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement Perspective. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 301-344. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Stanchly, Norbert 2014 The 2013 Excavations of Structure G-2, Cahal Pech, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaisance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 16-23. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Tourtellot, G. III 1988 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Peripheral Survey and Excavation; Settlement and Community Patterns. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 16. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 48 Table 1: Artifacts recovered in the different construction phases of Str. G-2. Construction phase Material Class Artifact type Frequency G-2/2nd Ceramic Sherds 188 Chert Debitage & expedient 31 tools Drill on flake 1 Fauna -- Freshwater shell 18 Human remain 1 Obsidian Prismatic blade 1 Charcoal NA Slate Fragment 1 G-2/3rd Ceramic Sherds 214 Fragmented vessels 1 Chert Debitage & expedient 35 tools Small ball 1 Cobble 4 Freshwater shell 38 Granite Fragment 3 Marine shell Debitage 1 Bead 1 Charcoal NA G-2/4th Ceramic Sherds 468 Painted ceramic sherd 1 Figurine 2 Chert Debitage & expedient 86 tools Cobble 4 Fauna -- Freshwater shell 28 Human remain 1 Marine shell Perforated Shell 1 Obsidian Prismatic blade 2 Quartzite 7 Charcoal NA G-2/5th Ceramic Sherd 162 Chert Debitage & expedient tool 3 Cobble 1 Freshwater shell -- Human remain -- Marine shell Tinkle 1 G-2/6th Ceramic Sherd 4 Chert Debitage & expedient tool 11 49 Biface 1 Freshwater shell 4 Human remains -- Charcoal NA G-2/8th Ceramic Sherd 9 Freshwater shell 1 G-2/8th-B Basalt Fragment 3 Ceramic Sherd 2291 Figurine 1 Vessel 2 Chert Debitage & expedient tool 464 Arrow point 1 Ball 1 Biface 3 Drill on flake 2 Cobble 14 Smoother 2 Daub NA Fauna -- Freshwater shell 135 Granite 2 Mano 1 Limestone Worked 3 Marine shell Fragments 10 Bead 1 Obsidian Prismatic blades 5 Quartzite 35 Slate Fragment 1 Charcoal NA Terminal Classic Ceramic Sherd 2908 Chert Debitage & expedient tool 126 Ball 1 Biface 2 Cobble 4 Smoother 1 Daub NA Fauna Fragments -- Needle 2 Freshwater shell 38 Human remain Fragments -- Limestone 1 Marine shell 13 Obsidian 4 Quartzite 7 Slate 3 50 Charcoal NA G-2/7th-G-2/8th Ceramic Sherd 1197 Bead 1 Chert Debitage & expedient tool 384 Drill on flake 1 Drill on burin spall 1 Cobble 9 Smoother 1 Daub NA Fauna -- Freshwater shell 149 Granite Fragment 2 Mano 1 Smoother 1 Marine shell Debitage 16 Pendant 1 Obsidian Prismatic blades 9 Quartzite 13 Slate Fragment 1 G-2/7th-G-2/8th - Ceramic Sherd 201 backdirt Chert Debitage & expedient tool 59 Cobble 8 Freshwater shell 31 Quartzite 21 51 PLAZA H, CAHAL PECH: RESULTS OF THE FIFTH JANUARY SESSION John E. Douglas University of Montana Linda J. Brown University of Montana INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the fifth season of research at Plaza H, Cahal Pech, Cayo District, Belize conducted by The University of Montana (UM), Missoula, Montana, U.S.A., under the auspices of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance (BVAR) project and with close collaboration with BVAR director Jaime Awe, Ph.D. Between January 5 and 19, 2015, ten UM students worked on the project as part of a winter session course offered by UM and taught by John E. Douglas, Ph.D. and Linda J. Brown, M.A. The ten students were: Jessie Baumgardner, Ashley Jensen, Ali Johnson, Mikayla Lewis, Colin McNeely, Anna Myers, Kelcie Peltomaa, Jennifer Lee Reynolds, Michelle Selander, and Jay Vest. Alex Alvarez and Eduardo Cunil were the local excavators who assisted in the project in numerous roles. Eleven days were spent excavating and processing artifacts; in addition, Douglas and Brown processed and examined artifacts on January 20-21. Rafael Guerra brought the total station to the Plaza to map the season’s work on January 18. In addition, three of the students worked on analyzing a sample of small debitage flakes in the spring of 2015 that had been exported to the University of Montana during the summer of 2014— the results of this laboratory research are summarized in this report. The material was returned on January 3, 2016. UM/BVAR RESEARCH HISTORY AND QUESTIONS We chose to explore Plaza H because of an unexpected discovery in 2006, which changed people’s perspective of this unassuming area that lies in the northeast corner of Cahal Pech’s core, to the immediate north of Plaza C and east of the northern entrance to Plaza B (Figure 1). Although the modest plaza had been easy to overlook, that changed in the summer of 2006 when BVAR excavated in Structure H-1 a high-status burial with 13 ceramic vessels, as well as other socially valuable items, which were associated with Terminal Classic (TC) (Figure 2; also Awe 2013). The subterranean crypt, constructed of massive limestone blocks, was encountered while trenching a TC wall (Awe, personal ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 52-79. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 52 Figure 1: Cahal Pech with Plaza H in the upper right corner. This map does not reflect current knowledge of the Plaza H TC structures (Archaeological.org 2016). Figure 2: Interior of the Burial H-1-1 taken June 2006. 53 Questions concerning the Terminal Classic (TC) in Plaza H: 1. What types and densities of artifacts and features are found that date to the TC use of Plaza H? 2. What activities took place during the TC, as evidenced by the artifacts and features? 3. Can the reconstructed activities be connected to a broader interpretation of plaza function? 4. Did the function of the space change in Plaza H between the Late Classic (LC) and TC? Was the occupation continuous? 5. Can TC construction activities in Plaza H be chronologically ordered? 6. What material is available for absolute dating? What contexts are these materials from? Once dates are available, what date range best defines the TC in Plaza H? 7. What happened in Plaza H after the TC abandonment? 8. Can the TC activities in Plaza H be related to the identity of the users? 9. How does TC use of Plaza H relate to TC materials found elsewhere on the Cahal Pech acropolis? 10. How do the TC patterns seen at Cahal Pech relate to other sites in the Valley and, ultimately, to the entire Mayan lowlands? Figure 3. Current Research Questions for Plaza H. communication, 2011). The discovery of a TC tomb and the remodeling of a Late Classic (LC) platform raised questions about how people were using Plaza H at the end of Cahal Pech’s occupational history. Based on conversations with Awe in 2011, along with knowing the constraints placed on us by a relatively short field season, we decided to work on questions involving the TC in Plaza H. We felt that our endeavors would contribute to the understanding of the TC at Cahal Pech. The 2011 research questions for Plaza H were: What types of activities were occurring in the Terminal Classic (TC) Period? What is the construction history and arrangement of platforms and rooms? These questions are foundational, but have evolved through the five years of excavation and analysis, and the research questions that currently motivate the project are presented in Figure 3. To provide a spatial framework for the UM/BVAR excavations, we present our current reconstruction of Plaza H’s TC features (Figure 4). We began in 2011 with an idea of the platform mound arrangement, and each year the map has been redrawn to reflect a growing understanding of the architecture. This year, we were able to refine the map to reflect the shape of Structure H-3, which led to the most important changes from this year’s research. Despite the improvements based on strategic use of test units to expose architecture, the structures shown in Figure 4 remain partially hypothetical reconstructions because the plaza has not been completely stripped, and because erosion along the hilltop edge on the north and west side may have damaged or removed some of the structures. Topography was used to fill in the gaps in the excavations, and while it is to our advantage that Plaza H is within an area of the Cahal Pech Archaeological Reserve that is routinely maintained for visitors, making the surface easily observed, the TC walls typically stand only about 30 cm high, which can make structural boundaries difficult to infer. Past experience suggests that future excavations will lead to more modifications. 54 Figure 4: Plaza H Terminal Classic structure walls identified by UM/BVAR (black lines) with speculative structure plans shown by hatched areas. General surface trends are from ASTER-GTM. The five-year history of the UM/BVAR project begins with the 2011 season, when units were placed to partially uncover the north (H-3) and south (C-3) structures of Plaza H. Unit 3 (Figure 5) bisected H-3 and Plaza H. From this unit, we recovered a large quantity of lithic debitage close to the surface of the structure and in the portion of the unit that intruded into the plaza. Two parallel 1 by 3 m units (4 and 5) bisected C-3 and Plaza H. The excavators uncovered a series of four well-plastered plaza floors, but only Unit 4 located an obvious east-west platform wall, although we had expected to see a wall running across these closely spaced units. Unit 5, one meter farther east, showed only plaster floors until the fourth floor, when a rock feature was identified in the southwestern corner of the unit, disturbing the floor. The feature was distinctly lower in elevation than the platform wall in Unit 4. Unit 6, placed south of units 4 and 5 on what was believed to be inside the platform, revealed a north-south wall on the eastern side at the same level as the Unit 4 platform wall. In 2012, we explored the stone features in units 4-6 and the eastern edge of the plaza. The subsequent work around Unit 5 demonstrated that the “rock pile” found in C-3 was the northeast corner of a lower TC building foundation, which had been remodeled by replacing it with the near-surface platform wall located the previous year in Unit 4, producing a taller platform with a slightly smaller footprint; simultaneously, the plaza was raised and plastered, covering the earlier, lower TC platform corner. The corner of the last platform, found in Unit 5A, aligned with the perpendicular wall in Unit 6. Thus, we found the northeast corner of TC platform C-3 and that there were two phases of TC construction. 55 Figure 5: Locations of UM/BVAR excavations in Plaza H, 2011-15. Additional work in 2012 looked at the eastern structures, H-1 and H-2. H-2 is near the southeast corner of Plaza H, and the placement of Unit 7 was to see if there were walls or masonry that was related to the structures exposed in the northeast corner of Plaza C. However, the unit simply located a section of the western platform wall of H-2 and a series of plaza floors in front of that, making it clear that H-2, like H-3 and C-3, was a stand- alone structure situated on a plaza floor raised well above the floor of Plaza C. Unit 8 was dug in H-1; the 2 m (E-W) by 3 m (N-S) unit was placed with the intention of crosscutting the west wall of H-1 and Plaza H, with its northeast corner adjacent to the southwest corner of the tomb excavated in 2006. 56 Figure 6: H-1 tomb staircase stone fill as seen in east sidewall and part of the upright stone wall (foreground) in units 8 B and D. Also visible are upper plaza floor (foreground) and lower plaza floor (background). The excavation of Unit 8 located two thick, surprisingly well-preserved plaster floors and two N-S “walls,” as shown in Figure 6. One “wall” consisted of stacked limestone blocks along the eastern edge of the unit, initially thought to be an early phase of the construction of H-1, and a crude wall of upright boulders. Although the stacked stones along the eastern edge of the unit appeared to be a wall, the interpretation was uncertain, and its proximity to the tomb suggested several alternatives: it might be stone fill related to the excavated tomb, or even a second tomb. The upright stone wall incorporated part of the lower plaza floor in its interior, and appeared to have been built to extend H-1 about a meter west, possibly part of a remodeling event that included the raising and plastering the plaza floor and construction of the tomb. The 2013 excavations were focused on H-1, starting from the Unit 8 excavations from the previous year. During that year, field research was conducted in both January and June (the later in conjunction with the first 2-week session of BVAR, with BVAR students). The season included a limited effort (units 12, 19) to examine the long-term construction history of the platform mound, stretching back to at least the LC. Most of our efforts were placed in expanding Unit 8 from its 2012 boundaries. Ultimately, the units added onto the edges of Unit 8 covered about a 35 m² continuous area, excavated into Structure H-1 and in the adjacent plaza area. All the units were terminated before reaching LC materials. The 2013 excavations that expanded from Unit 8 can be grouped into three different categories, each involving different types of deposits. First, expansion to the north and west (i.e., units 10, 11, 15, 16 Trench 10/11, Trench 10/11 interior) are within the plaza. We found two distinct floors (and some localized evidence of additional floors/plastering 57 events) and a series of rock alignments that served as construction pens when the area had been filled when building the TC H-1 structure over the dismantled LC structure. Second, expansion to the east of Unit 8 (i.e., units 14, 14B, 17, and 18) removed deposits within the TC structure, generally down to the level of the earlier TC floor. This operation also found the staircase for the Tomb H-1-1 cut into this floor (the staircase had subsequently been filled with the stacked rock visible in Figure 6). This feature of the tomb had not been uncovered during the 2006 burial excavations. However, this eastward expansion of units, which created a trench across H-1, failed to identify the east platform wall, even though it was expected, given the topography of the ground. Third, the 2012 excavations in Unit 8 were expanded to the south and east (Units 11 and 13), attempting to trace the upright stones to define the southern section of the west wall and the western portion of the south wall. These efforts provided important data, but were difficult to interpret at the time. Unit 11 was rather disturbed, and while it located a credible southwest corner of the structure, the wall was discontinuous and the deposits ambiguous. Unit 13, which caught a sizable boulder in its NE corner that could be a part of wall, also had relatively dense TC deposit of large sherds in its middle levels, different than the more common pattern of the densest deposits near the surface. The 2014 fieldwork reflected efforts to better define the architecture of the plaza. The largest portion of this effort was focused on unambiguously identifying the south and east walls of Structure H-1. This included excavating units 20 and 21 in the northeastern portion of the mound. Excavated to help locate the east wall of the structure, ultimately it was determined that the units were placed entirely within the structure. However, Unit 20 uncovered a feature: a rough pit with a large amount of charcoal that stratigraphically can be placed in the TC before the final building phase of H-1. More successful at defining the boundaries of H-1 were Units 18, 22, 24 and 29, efforts that succeeded in finding the southeast corner of the structure, and confirmed the south wall found in 2013. These units also identified more of the dense sherd deposit found the previous year in Unit 13 along the outside of the south wall. Other 2014 excavation efforts were scattered across the plaza to fill gaps in the outlines of some of the TC structures, especially missing corners. These efforts included definitively relocating the northwest corner of H-2 (Unit 23); tentatively locating the H-2 east wall (units 31 and 32); and tentatively locating the southwest corner of H-3 (unit 26). Finally, the session was used to explore the previously excavated southeast corner of H-3, including the alley with H-1, and some of the surrounding plaza (units 27 and 30). While some of this work simply removed back dirt for mapping, the work in Unit 30 included excavating a series of floors that incorporated dense chert debitage fill. In all, some 19 kg of chert artifacts were removed from this 0.75 m by 1.5 m unit, consisting of thousands of small flakes. Because these deposits are widespread in the northeast corner of the plaza and poorly understood, a 2 kg sample was exported to the University of Montana for study in 2014. This sample was analyzed in 2015 and the results are discussed in this report. 58 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR 2015 The 2014 work, discussed above, was the beginning point for the 2015 excavation program. Specifically, we targeted four excavation areas to test questions and patterns that became evident during previous seasons. First, we wished to better understand the nature and extent of the dense sherd deposit lying at plaza level against the southern wall of H-1, first fully identified in 2014 in units 22 and 29. Second, we wished to consider the source of the dense chipped stone debitage deposit identified from northeast plaza floor fill levels (as documented by units 3 and 30) by excavating on top of H-3 to look for evidence of chipped stone production. Third, we wanted to test for the south and east walls of the H-2 platform, following up on work by Galen University and previous UM/BVAR seasons. Fourth, we wanted to understand how platform wall segments that are partially obscured from the cement slab picnic pavilion might connect with the better preserved eastern portion of H- 3, an effort that followed up on questions developed from the 2014 excavation of Unit 27 and the related surface alignment mapping. METHODS Units were placed to expose various features and deposits based on expectations from surface indicators and/or the results of previous excavations. The units were generally aligned to magnetic north. Excavation units on our project have been given a sequential number within the plaza (starting with number 3); extensions and subdivisions were given letter suffixes. We excavated most deposits with hand picks and buckets, and used trowels for finer work, such as identifying floors. Students worked closely with the experienced members of the crew in evaluating and identifying fill and features. Vertical and horizontal control during the excavation emphasized natural stratigraphy and context. At the start of each level, a level form was begun, including measuring the depth of the unit’s corners with a line level from an arbitrary elevation point. Levels were halted when there was a significant change in the deposits, generally signifying architectural features: fill, walls, or floors in particular. The exception to natural levels was near the surface during the January excavations, where the change from the A horizon to lower levels tended to be gradual; first levels were ended around 10 cm. Once a level ended, closing elevations were noted on the level forms, artifact bags for the level closed, final photographs taken, and summary notes made on the level form. In cases where horizontal differences were identified, units were subdivided using letter designations, with subsequent levels kept separate. The excavation units, elevation stakes and nails, and visible walls, were tied into the site coordinate system by an instrument survey conducted by Rafael Guerra with a Topcon total station. Guerra provided UTM coordinates for northing, easting, and elevation for all surveyed points. A master map has been developed from the five years of work and is kept in the geographical information system QGIS 2.12. All deposits, minus large rocks and ballast stones, were screened through ¼" screen. All cultural materials were collected, with the exception of undecorated ceramic body sherds smaller than 2.5 cm. Ecofacts were also collected, such as animal bones, freshwater and marine mollusks, and charcoal (small flecks or surface finds were not kept). The 59 retained materials were bagged by unit, level, and material type, washed (when appropriate), dried, and then repackaged for later study. Documentation is an important part of the project. Accurate and thorough record keeping was a priority; students were given written instructions on note keeping (Douglas and Brown 2012b) and provided regular feedback on their field notebooks. Douglas and the students kept notebooks with field observations. These notebooks, along with the level forms and profiles, were retained by BVAR as part of the primary record of the excavation; PDF copies were kept by UM. Extensive digital photography, taken with a Pentax Optio WG-3 16 megapixel camera, was also used to document the excavations. The mug board and north arrow placed in the photographs of the units provided information on the unit, level, date, scale, and cardinal direction. The names of the photo jpg files were recorded in student notebooks and level forms to provide the full context of each photograph. While excavating and identifying level changes, students were encouraged to tag floors and distinctive sediments observed in the sidewalls to improve the accuracy of the final profile for the units. Detailed plan maps and profiles were drawn when relevant. More information about field and laboratory procedures, including profiling, can be found in Douglas and Brown 2012b. None of the excavation units reached bedrock or sterile soil. EXCAVATION UNITS AND FEATURES As noted earlier, 2015 excavation units were located south of H-1, within and around H-2, and within and around H-3. Figure 7 illustrates the H-1 and H-2 excavations; Figure 9 illustrates the H-3 excavations. The purpose and results of each excavation unit are discussed below, organized by structure. Structure H-1 The work related to Structure H-1 consisted of three units, from north to south, 34, 35, and 49, that extended south of structure H-1. In aggregate, the three new units represent a 2.5 m (north to south) by 1 m (east to west) area. The excavations demonstrated that the main cultural deposit was about 20 cm thick, located about 10 cm below the ground surface. The deposit tapers off before the south boundary of Unit 49, becoming thinner and surficial near its edge. Units 34, 35, and 49 demonstrated that the deposit extended approximately 2.25 m south of the building. The deposit is noteworthy for its high density of material and large, often flat lying sherds; the deposit is distinct in the density of artifacts as well as having more limestone cobbles than the A horizon above it and a darker matrix color than the layer below it. The additional sample excavated in 2015, totaling about 0.5 m3 of dense trash deposit, provides a more complete understanding of the range of cultural materials associated with the deposit. In the field, we recovered many sherds, chert debitage, chert bifaces, a chert uniface tool, a chert core, a granite hammerstone made from a recycled mano, obsidian blades, a granitic metate and three mano fragments, a slate pendant, marine and freshwater shell, faunal bone, and human bone. The contents of the deposit and its significance are discussed further below. 60 Figure 7: H-1 and H-2 units excavated in 2015 in relationship to walls and speculative platform outlines Units from the 2014 season appear in light color. Structure H-2 Structure H-2 is located in the southeast corner of the plaza. It is the smallest of the platforms in Plaza H, and is of architectural interest because it is transitional with Plaza C and the elevated eastern platform that defines the sunken courtyard of Plaza C. Previous work included trenching along the walls in order to draw a basic map in 2005, work conducted by Galen College students under the direction of Dr. Awe (Awe, personal communication, 2012); UM/BVAR 2012 excavations at Unit 7 that relocated the western wall and defined the plaza floor construction sequence in front of the building; and UM/BVAR excavations in 2014 where the Unit 23 excavators relocated the northwest corner of the structure, the units 31 and 32 excavators identified discontinuous stones that may mark the eastern wall of H-2. 61 During the 2015 season, excavation efforts were intended to address different areas of Structure H-2. Unit 48, a 1 m by 1 m excavation initiated in the last few days of the session was intended to expose the northern wall of the H-2, following up on the corner that had been located in Unit 23. Unfortunately, it was clear by Level 2 that the unit was placed too far south to intersect the wall, and the unit fell entirely within the interior of the structure. The unit was therefore ended at level 2, and a lack of time prevented an extension to the north. The second effort was to the south and east, following up on the 2014 excavations that had attempted to locate the southern segment of the east wall of the structure. This 2014 work was inspired by the 2005 map of the structure, created from Galen University’s trenching effort, which shows only the northern 3 m of the east wall, leaving perhaps 5 m undefined. The key 2014 excavation, Unit 32, exhibited matrix differences between the eastern and western portion of the unit that might correspond to the structure’s interior and its exterior. Further, the excavators found a small cluster of rocks standing on edge near the soil transition (Fig.10 in Douglas and Brown 2014) that was inferred to be a possible trace of the structure’s east wall. Unit 46, immediately south of Unit 32, was opened to look for additional traces of the east wall. The results were negative; tree roots appeared to have thoroughly disturbed the unit, and no evidence of soil differentiation or a structural wall were visible. Either the area was too disturbed to find traces of the wall, or Unit 46 is too far south, possibly within Structure C-3, and the termination of the eastern wall was missed in Unit 32 (see Figure 7). Although the excavation failed to confirm the east structure boundary identified in Unit 32, the overall shape of the structure continues to support the 2014 inferences—suggesting that there was a very low and rough platform wall defining this part of the building that can no longer be identified continuously. We were interested in determining how H-2 terminated in the south along the west, or plaza side, wall. We placed units in an approximately 3 by 2 m area south of Unit 7, where in 2012 the excavation exposed a portion of the H-2 west wall, which has since been stabilized and conserved. Initially, Unit 33, a 2 by 0.5 m unit, was placed to follow the wall; adjacent units 38, 39, 40, and 44 were added sequentially to provide a better understanding of how this structure articulated with C-2 to the south. Excavations in Unit 33 may have located the southwest corner of H-3. Unquestionably, the sturdy stacked stone wall that defined the front of the H-3 in Unit 7 ended 50 cm to the south of the north wall of Unit 33. No obvious corner/south wall was visible. However, the discovery of a small pit immediately below the highest plaster plaza floor just southwest from the potential corner is indicative of a corner cache pit, providing additional evidence that the wall ended with the corner of the structure. The pit was oval in outline, about 30 by 40 cm in area and 15 cm deep, found in Level 2, and contain a large, complete chert biface (Figure 11), two obsidian blade fragments, and possibly a large sherd. The cache pit evidence for a corner is particularly interesting because dense tree roots disturbed the southern half of Unit 33, labeled 33B, making interpretation difficult. 62 Figure 8: Low wall and plaster floor in Level 2 of Unit 39. Two more floor levels were found in front of the H-2 structure wall before Unit 33A was ended, which corresponds to the floor sequences found in 2012 while excavating Unit 7. To the east and south of Unit 33, four more units were placed to find the southern wall of the structure and/or to better understand the south end the structure. None of these units (38 and 39 to the immediate east, 40 to the southeast, or 44 to the immediate south) were dug very deeply, only 10-20 cm on average, and none provided a simple answer to how H-2 terminated to the south. Both units 40 and 44, the farthest south, are ballast filled and likely represents fill of the high platform of Structure C-2—the structure that defines the eastern boundary of Plaza C. This leaves Unit 33B and Unit 39 as critical for understanding how the structural wall of H-2 relates to C-2. Again, tree disturbance makes this area difficult to interpret. However, there are features in Unit 39; a low alignment of modest sized cobbles that runs north-south, abutting to the west a thick plaster floor, which is well-preserved only along the alignment (Figure 8). The construction of a low, poorly constructed, cobble wall—possibly the riser for a step—associated with a surprisingly sturdy plaster floor is typical of the TC architecture of Plaza H. The plaster floor is 18 to 20 cm higher than the floor in front of H-2 excavated in Unit 33a. This suggests that there was at least one more terrace or step placed between the main levels in the southeast corner of the plaza, where the plaza floor, H-2, and C-3 met. Terracing in the eastern portion of Plaza H has been suggested by architectural details found elsewhere and the elevation contours of the ground (Douglas and Brown 2012a; Douglas et al. 2015). How the step or terrace in Unit 39 connected with other surfaces is not clear, but with the low wall or riser in Unit 39 wall about 70 cm farther east than the main H-2 west wall, it appears to be part of a route from the floor of Plaza H that connected both to the living surface of H-2 to the north and to the living surface of C-3 to the south. 63 Figure 9: Structure H-3 units excavated in 2015 in relationship to walls and speculative platform outlines. Structure H-3 Structure H-3 defines the northern boundary of Plaza H (Figure 9). The eastern portion of its southern wall and its short eastern wall, which creates an “alley” between H- 1 and H-3, is well-preserved and extensively, although not continuously, tested: a small test was conducted by the UM/BVAR project in 2011 (Douglas and Brown 2011), with more extensive excavations conducted by Santasilia (2012). More difficult to interpret is the west end of the structure because of the picnic pavilion that was placed over some of the western wall before recognition of the TC structures in Plaza H. The northern wall has been eroded as it is along the slope of the hill. In 2014, we located the possible southwest corner of H-3 just west and north of the pavilion (Douglas and Brown 2014). However, the corner was not included in the reconstruction of H-3 in last year’s report, because the alignments of the walls were not closely matched—either the single platform had variable wall orientations, or there were multiple structures. We took the cautious approach of leaving these newly mapped walls out of the reconstruction until more information was available. To further investigate the western portion of H-3 in 2015, Guerra reshot the points to verify the wall locations (demonstrating consistency), and we excavated two units that intersected the H-3 structure’s west wall: Unit 36, east of the pavilion and Unit 37 north of it. These units verified the structure wall; in the case of Unit 36, it also defined the first plaza floor in front of Structure H-3. As is the case elsewhere, H-3 on its plaza side consists of a low, crude wall of rough boulders and cobbles that is one, or occasionally two, stones high. The mapping suggests that there are two inflection points in wall direction—one just west of where the structure aligns with H-1, and the other lies somewhere underneath the concrete slab of the picnic pavilion. 64 Beyond demonstrating that H-3 was roughly similar in length to C-3, the 2015 work is important in recognizing the construction effort that went into this platform. Rather than building over an area leveled in the Classic Period, the structure was extended onto the slope of the hill. The instrument mapping shows that what appears to be the foundation stones of the north structure wall—once again, rough stone boulders—are downslope at an elevation roughly 75 cm lower than the top of the south wall, suggesting that the north wall must have stood at least this height. This is the tallest TC structure wall known at Cahal Pech, and adds to the impression that the TC architectural efforts in Plaza H were comparatively high (Douglas et al. 2015). However, the construction of a wall built of unshaped stones on the steep incline of the hill must have created a significant structural weakness, leading to the partial destruction of H-3, although presumably that weakness was of no consequence until building maintenance stopped. The visibility of this north structure wall to Cahal Pech visitors should be considered. The north entrance of the Cahal Pech core is located immediately to the west of this wall (Figure 1). Not only could individuals on H-3 monitor this entrance, but also the structure’s relative height and new construction (presumably plastered to hide the rough construction, although this cannot be proven) would indicate a level of settlement vitality that likely would be important to project. By building a structure with a tall wall on the slope of the hill and a short wall at the crest, the structure would make efficient use of construction effort and perspective to impress visitors climbing the hill. This argument for visually effective construction with limited effort is similar to Sabloff and Rathje’s analysis of Postclassic architecture (Sabloff 2007), possibly suggesting TC antecedents. Two other units were excavated into Structure H-3. Units 45 and 47, each 0.75 m2, were placed in the fill of the structure near the southeast corner to assess whether chipped stone production occurred on the structure. Excavation in the nearby plaza found in the fill between floors found extremely dense small debitage flakes, and work on the nearby plaza in the 2014 season had raised questions about the source of that material—how far had it been carried before it was deposited? Was it possible that the material was the result of flint knapping that occurred on the nearby platform? The units, dug in two levels to about 20 cm before large ballast stone prevented further excavation in these small exposures, held elevated quantities of chipped stone production debris (n = 1,076; average piece weight = 0.9 g) compared with areas away from the northeast corner of the plaza. However, the density was far lower than the fill layers in the plaza, and the density was highest near the surface—it quickly tapered off as the excavation proceeded. We conclude that at least some of the flint knapping that produced the dense secondary trash deposits between plastered floors in the plaza likely occurred on the eastern end of H-3, but the area was maintained and cleared as an ongoing process. Matrix samples were taken from these units in order to check for microdebitage to test this inference; however, analysis of these samples has not been conducted. 65 Table 1: Artifacts categories and the number of proveniences (unit and level) where they occur. Material Proven- Comments iences Carbon 1 Ceramics 37 Chert 36 10 pieces, includes antler Faunal remains 2 base, scapula, bird bone (?) Granite 3 4 pieces, all ground stone Human 2 skull fragments (parietal Remains 2 bones) Intrusive, shotgun shell Metal 1 base, nail Collected for microdebitage Matrix 4 analysis from Structure H-3 Obsidian 9 11 pieces Special find 16 17 pieces, see discussion Shell 21 Marine and freshwater Total 132 Table 2: Sherd weight in kilos from excavations of the special deposit south of Structure H-3. Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 34 1.62 2.44 8.08 5.65 35 2.04 7.59 6.72 — 49 1.18 0.34 0.16 — 66 RECOVERED ARTIFACTS AND ECOFACTS The recovered artifacts and ecofacts from the 2015 field seasons were initially washed (when appropriate) and sorted by provenience and material (Table 1). There were 37 proveniences (levels or other subdivisions within units) in 2015 (enumerated in Appendix 1); thus, the number of proveniences indicates the ubiquity of categories, e.g., 100% of the proveniences had ceramics. More detailed examination of some of the artifacts follows. Ceramics The most thorough analysis of the ceramics recovered from the UM/BVAR project was conducted in the summers of 2013 and 2014, summarized in Douglas and Brown 2015. Limited additional analysis of ceramics was conducted this year, specifically reviewing the ceramics from the special deposit found in units 34, 35, and 49. First, the ceramics were weighed (Table 2), which demonstrates that the large quantity of sherds found in units 34 and 35 (each 40 cm deep) extended 2 m south of the structure, with the weight distribution in Unit 49 suggesting it is peripheral to the deposit, perhaps surficial erosion of the deposit downslope. Only the sherds from Unit 34, Level 3 were counted, but this count and the overall weight suggests about 2,260 sherds were recovered from these units. Unit 34, Level 3, was given a preliminary assessment for ceramic variability (Table 3); following procedures in Douglas and Brown 2015, the type-variety system of Gifford (1976) is used for orientation, but the focus is on decorated and slipped ceramics and that are easily distinguished from sherds. The results are similar to the more detailed, earlier evaluations of the sherds from this deposit, suggesting a mixture that included utility wares, including some large storage jars; Belize Red and related types, mainly bowls, comprising the largest portion of the decorated ceramics; Mount Maloney Black as the second largest decorated type; and finally, unidentified red-slipped members of the Pine Ridge Carbonate group a distant third group among the decorated ceramics. These are common TC ceramics in the upper Belize Valley (Gifford 1976), although the high percentage—over 10%—of Mount Maloney is not found in most TC deposits in Plaza H and may speak to increased dominance of Xunantunich at the end of the occupation (cf. LeCount 2010). Special Finds and Artifact Spatial Patterns Out of the 18 special finds, 15 come from the artifact-dense deposit exposed in units 34, 35, and 49. These 15 are comprised of: an incensario frag; ceramic nubbin; another modeled ceramic, likely a vessel foot; a ceramic ball, presumably from a hollow vessel foot; 2 drilled ceramic sherds, one shaped as a spindle whorl or weight; a ceramic pendant/bead consisting of a small drilled sherd; 3 chert bifaces; a chert uniface; a chert core; hammerstone made from a recycled mano; a broken slate pendant; and a small speleotherm. In addition, seven out of 11 obsidian blades, both human skull bones, all 10 pieces of fauna, and all of the granitic ground stone—one metate fragment and three mano fragments—are from the deposit as well. Thus, the special deposit is both the source of most of the items that obviously connect to ritual, prestige, or personal adornment (such as the slate pendant), as well as most of the more uncommon items that are considered prosaic (such as the metate fragment). Outside of this deposit, recovered artifacts were largely flakes, sherds, and river shell. 67 Table 3: Assessment of Unit 34, Level 3 sherds. Count WT Category N % (g) WT % Comments Calcite, undec- 301 59.0% 3849 47.6% Includes large Cayo orated body unslipped jars Calcite, rim/ base 50 9.8% 1307 16.2% No slip Calcite, red 21 4.1% 249 3.1% Form or body—cf. Pine slipped Ridge Carbonates Calcite, red 1 0.2% 9 0.1% Very thin, likely a vase slipped, fluted Mount Maloney 57 11.2% 1060 13.1% Some jars Black Ash temper, body 45 8.8% 595 7.4% Ash temper, body, some with red slip Ash temper, form 34 6.7% 1003 12.4% Rim/ base; Platon incised present; one bowl base with a rectangular foot Benque Viejo 1 0.2% 9 0.1% Gray ash temper, rim, rim Poly? appears black TOTALS 510 100.0% 8081 100.0% 68 Figure 9: Incensario fragment, Unit 34, Level 3, south of H-1, showing nose, eye slits and blackened top (1 cm scale bar). Figure 10: Incensario from burial H-1-1 (photo by C. Santasilia). Figure 11: Chert biface found in a cache pit (Unit 33C, Level 2) below the plaza floor (1 cm scale bar). 69 The single most distinguishable item among the finds from the special deposit is the incensario fragment (Figure 9). Only the top of the vessel is present, and its blacked, saucer-shaped top appears used. The side of this cylindrical vessel had been modeled into a stylized face, with the nose and both eye slits visible. The eyes were created by cutting through the vessel wall before it was fired, with the eye shape recognizable from the smoother vessel wall than found on the broken edges. This unslipped vessel is calcite tempered. The vessel is similar in form to one of the two incensarios found in the tomb in H- 1: Vessel 3 (Figure 10). The two vessels share a basic design and anthropomorphic face; the tomb version has finer paste, a more sharply defined nose, and likely stood taller—by comparison, the sherd found in 2015 has a face closer to the rim and less sophisticated construction. However, the presence of this unusual localized design (Awe and Guerra, personal communications, 2015) both inside the tomb, constructed as part of the final phase of H-1 construction, and in a trash deposit to the south of H-1, which likely related to some of the last TC Maya activities within Plaza H, is the best evidence to date linking the construction of the Plaza with those living in the plaza at the time of abandonment. The three remaining special finds consist of a heavily eroded figurine face from an upper level (Unit 33), presumably a fragmentary Preclassic figurine incorporated into the fill of H-2 and later eroded into the plaza; a fragment of a biface found in the top level of Unit 47, on top of structure H-3; and a complete biface (Figure 11). The complete biface comes from the cache pit found just below the upper floor of the plaza next to the likely corner of Structure H-3. As discussed above, this shallow but well-defined pit also contained two obsidian blade fragments. Chert Debitage Analysis Chert flakes and other debitage were nearly ubiquitous finds during the excavation; these were found in all but one small and low-density context in 2015. Chipped stone recovered in 2015 has not been subject to systematic study. It was noted in the field and lab that there were no high-density deposits of small debitage flakes comparable to those found in plaza- level deposits near Structure H-3 in 2011 and 2014. However, the presence of a quantity of rather uniform, small flakes from the southeast corner of Structure H-3 (Figure 12), denser than most deposits, suggests that more intensive flint knapping occurred on this structure than in most areas in Plaza H. The illustrated debitage was found in Level 1, which averaged 14 cm deep, in a 0.75 m2 unit—making the number of flakes fairly high by Plaza H standards. This would fit a scenario where intensive flint knapping occurred on the structure, the area was routinely regularly cleaned of debris, but a limited amount of chipped stone material lost and worked into the structure’s sediments, reflected by the flakes in Figure 12. If this scenario is correct, then the bulk of the smaller chipped stone waste was later deposited before resurfacing the plaza’s floor three times over the span of the TC occupation. Regardless of location of production, the dense chipped stone deposits suggests that specialized production of chert artifacts was a routine activity in TC Plaza H—the 70 Figure 12: Debitage, Unit 47, Level 1, SE corner of Structure H-3, n = 637 (1 cm block scale bar). only such specialized activity detected by the UM/BVAR excavations. These waste flakes found on the Plaza floor therefore may be important evidence of the organization and economic activities of the Plaza’s occupants. An analysis of chipped stone from these plaza-level deposits, interdigitated between flooring events, was undertaken in 2015. The analysis was conducted on samples from four levels of Unit 30, excavated in 2014, located in the northeast corner of the Plaza. A 500 g sample was removed from each level in an unbiased manner and exported to the University of Montana in the summer of 2014. This 2 kg total sample represents about 10% of all the recovered chert flakes recovered from the levels (total = 18.6 kg). Because the total amount of chert decreases from the lowest to the last level, the sample size relative to the levels varies from 5.4% for Level 4 to 23.6% for Level 1. The study was conducted by three University of Montana undergraduates, Jessie Baumgardner, Ashley Jensen, and Jennifer Reynolds, who excavated in the January 2015 session; the approach to the analysis and their work was closely supervised by Douglas in spring 2015. The discussion draws from the students’ report, but goes further in interpretation. The study relied on geological screens to size-sort the debitage. The geological screens sizes were 2.8 mm, 5.6 mm, 12.5 mm, and 25 mm. Once sorted by size, the flakes were typed by three binary characteristics: fine grain/coarse grain, platform/no platform, and cortex/no cortex. Fine grain chert felt smooth and looks glossy. The platforms were usually small, oval-shaped and formed an acute angle with the exterior of the flake. Cortex is the outside weathering rind of the original cobble. A few rock, bone, and sherd fragments were found among the debitage and removed from the sample. Each sorted group of flakes was counted and weighed with an electronic Ohaus scale that measured to 0.1 gram. The sorted flakes were bagged and labeled separately for future research. Significantly, no tools or flakes with utilized edges were noted. The results of the study are presented in Table 4. 71 Table 4: Analysis of chipped stone from Unit 30. Weights are in grams. Screen Size Material Sum Avg. 2.8 5.6 12.5 25 Plat- Lvl N Wt. Wt. mm mm mm mm Fine Cortical form 1 354 501.9 1.4 1.4% 78.2% 18.9% 1.4% 57.6% 13.6% 23.2% 2 496 462.2 0.9 9.7% 76.6% 13.7% 0.0% 55.8% 12.7% 23.0% 3 949 463.5 0.5 22.3% 72.3% 5.3% 0.1% 56.3% 11.1% 22.0% 4 1,088 453.5 0.4 21.9% 74.3% 3.9% 0.0% 47.9% 10.1% 24.0% Sum 2,887 1,881 0.7 17.4% 74.5% 7.9% 0.2% 53.2% 11.3% 23.1% Before considering what Table 4 may tell us about ancient Maya flint knapping, it is important to recognize that the pattern in flake sizes (especially evident in the 2.8 mm screen size column) was most likely created by a shift in field procedures when the materials were collected, a fact not recognized until the results were reviewed. During the excavation, students conducted the excavations for levels 1 and 2, and it appears that they did not attempt to gather all flakes found in the screen after light shaking. Brown, Cunil, and Alvarez conducted the excavations for levels 3 and 4 with the express intention of collecting as many of the flakes as possible. We believe that the strong trend of smaller flakes in the lower levels is therefore likely a product of collection practice. Further, the collection of small flakes is generally problematic using ¼" screen, which is larger than the last two screen sizes. This points to the need for matrix samples to be collected for any high-resolution research into these deposits, so that flakes can be recovered in a controlled lab environment with fine screens. Despite the collection problems, the careful quantification of a sample from the massive debitage deposit does lead to some useful observations. The first is that the flakes are indeed uniformly small. Out of the 2,887 flakes, only five were found in the 25 mm screen—and four of those are from Level 1, above the final plastered floor, a level that is likely primarily secondary deposition, but it is not capped by construction. Second, the rather uniform presence of cortical flakes—overall, just exceeding 1 in 10—indicates that manufacture of new tools from cobbles, not simply retouching existing tools, was occurring. That, in turn, strongly indicates that these small flakes were part of a larger process of manufacture, albeit one where some stages occurring elsewhere and/or careful segregating of the waste products occurred after manufacturing. While the flakes are obviously from final stages of production, with platforms characteristic of soft hammer and pressure flaking, most are so small that they lack the full range of characteristics associated with “bifacial thinning flakes” as typically defined (Andrefsky 2006); as Andrefsky (2006:120) notes, “small flakes are produced from all kinds of tool production and retouching.” Third, scanning the differences between levels in Table 4 shows a rather substantial (about 8%) difference in fine chert use between levels 3 and 4 that cannot be explained by change in excavators. A chi-square analysis of the raw counts of fine and coarse chert between these two levels demonstrates that the change is significant at the 0.001 level (x2 = 14.27, d.f. = 1, p= .000158). Along with the architectural evidence (Douglas et al. 2015), this pattern shows that some changes within the TC at Cahal Pech 72 are observable from the archaeology of Plaza H. This higher rate of fine materials appears to carry through levels 3 and 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Archaeologists’ interpretation of Plaza H changed in 2006 when the elite TC burial was found. The powerful symbolism and wealth exhibited in this burial is vital to any discussion of the TC Plaza H, but the tomb must to be interpreted in the larger framework of TC plaza- wide activities. The UM/BVAR 2011-2015 research has identified TC events that occurred before, during, and after the tomb construction, strengthening the interpretation of the Plaza (Douglas et al. 2015). Central to our model is the reconstruction of Plaza H as a lineage compound that housed a group occupying the site after the main construction and history had ended—possibly, although not necessarily, related to the original elite occupants. This lineage was powerful enough to claim some of the former glory of Cahal Pech (Awe 2013; Douglas et al. 2015). The work accomplished in 2015 adds to our understanding in several vital areas. The most extensive excavations occurred south of Structure H-1 in the special deposit. The deposit appears to begin about a meter back from the plaza and southwest corner of H-1 along the south wall all the way to the southeast corner. The deposit extends up to 2 m to the south, and is 20-30 cm thick, more or less the height of the stones defining the south wall of the structure. Much of the deposit reinforces what was learned in 2013 and 2014: the deposit is rich in a variety of ceramics, with a large amount of Belize Red and Mount Maloney Black bowls, and a small number of incensario and vase fragments. The deposit is also comparatively “rich” in broken ground stone, faunal remains, chert bifaces, and obsidian blades. Two singular finds from 2015 add more specific information about this deposit. The first is the presence of human skull bone fragments, each about 6 cm across, potentially from more than one individual—the first human remains found from this deposit. The second is the incensario fragment in the same local style as one that was located in the tomb. Because the special deposit borders the final construction of H-1, this deposit post-dates the tomb construction and use—although near-surface, scattered artifacts from across the plaza also may be from the final use of the Plaza, this deposit is the only well-defined deposit that clearly post-dates the construction of the tomb. The incensario style thus connects construction and post-construction use of the plaza. Structure H-2 was subject to additional work to identify its construction history and boundaries. Like H-1 and H-3, the hill slope side is difficult to follow—likely it was less elaborately constructed and shorter than the plaza side, as well as subject to more erosion. Despite our intentions, excavations in Unit 48 did nothing to prove or disprove the possible eastern wall found in 2014. More productive work at H-2 occurred in the likely southwest corner. A possible corner cache offering of a biface and two obsidian blades was found below the most recent plastered plaza floor. The lack of a clear south wall likely was caused by integration of the structure with the higher surface that surrounded Plaza C, which may have involved a low step on either side, but was not separated by a deep alley as seen between H-1 and H-3. The discovery of a well-preserved plaster floor south and slightly west of the H-2 southwest, higher than the plaza floor and only a little lower than the 73 surface of H-2 itself, suggests terraced plaza floors or broad steps connected the lower portion of Plaza H with both H-2 and C-2. Excavations and research at H-3 and the nearby plaza area focused on two separate issues. The first is the overall size of the structure and the connection between the eastern and western wall segments thought to be part of H-3. As shown in this report, it is likely that Structure H-3 was long, about 26 m from east to west, running almost to the ancient entryway to Cahal Pech. Further, the corner aligns neatly with another corner downslope, suggesting that the north wall of H-3 may have been the tallest construction in the TC Plaza H, standing perhaps as much as a meter high. While hardly monumental if judged by the standards of the LC at Cahal Pech, it was strategically located for maximum visibility by any visitor walking up to the main entrance of Cahal Pech, and demonstrates a commitment to the architecture of Plaza H by the TC inhabitants that goes well beyond “ephemeral.” Finally, two units on the east end of H-3 were tested to see if intensive flint knapping occurred at the structure, which might explain the heavy deposits of small flakes that were placed under floor levels in the northeast corner of Plaza H. Tentatively, we think the debitage density found in the interior of the structure is consistent with a flint knapping area that was periodically cleared—but with some loss in the soil. Analysis of the microdebitage density from the matrix samples taken from these same units would be a useful test of this reconstruction. Finally, systematic examination of a representative sample of the dense flake levels found in Unit 30, excavated and exported to the US in 2014 and analyzed at the University of Montana in spring 2015, suggests that this material is derived from largely unvarying, intensive final stage production of chert artifacts. The only change that could be documented was that the oldest level had more chert or a poorer quality than the later levels. Although the work outlined in this report raises numerous questions that should be addressed in the future, we are also able to point to some refinement of our understandings of the archaeology of Plaza H that was made possible by this year’s work. We believe that this demonstrates how long-standing but small-scale projects can provide important data when a larger research framework is established and followed. 74 REFERENCES CITED Andrefsky, William, Jr. 2006 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Archaeological.org 2016 About Cahal Pech - Archaeological Institute Of America. https://www.archaeological.org/interactivedigs/cahalpechbelize/about, accessed January 2, 2016. Awe, Jaime J. 2013 Journey on the Cahal Pech Time Machine: An Archaeological Reconstruction of the Dynastic Sequence at a Belize Valley Maya Polity. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10:33-50. Douglas, John E., and Linda J. Brown 2011 Summary Field Report: Excavations at Cahal Pech, January 2011. Report on file with the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance. 10 pages. 2012a Summary Field Report: Excavations at Cahal Pech, January 2012. Report on file with the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance. 20 pages. 2012b Excavation and Laboratory Procedures for Cahal Pech. Report on file with the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance. 19 pages. 2014 The Terminal Classic Occupations at Plaza H, Cahal Pech, Preliminary Findings: Results of the 2013 January and June Excavations. Report on file with the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance. 31 pages. 2015 The Terminal Classic At Plaza H, Cahal Pech: Preliminary Findings. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Douglas, John E., Linda J. Brown and Jaime J. Awe 2015 The Final Occupation: The Terminal Classic Evidence from Plaza H, Cahal Pech, Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Vol. 12, pp. 217-225. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric pottery analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Cambridge, Mass: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. 75 LeCount, Lisa J. 2010 Mount Maloney People? Domestic Pots, Everyday Practice, and the Social Formation of the Xunantunich Polity. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 209-230. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sabloff, Jeremy A. 2007 It Depends on How We Look at Things: New Perspectives on the Postclassic Period in the Northern Maya Lowlands. Proceedings of The American Philosophical Society 151:11-26. Santasilia, Catharina E. 2012 Terminal Classic Evidence at Plaza H, Cahal Pech, San Ignacio Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Rafael Guerra, and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 97-104. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 76 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF EXCAVATIONS Unit Location Size Horizontal divisions Mean final Levels Comments Excavators that depth (cm) kept notebooks 33 H-2 along 0.5 by Level 2 included 33C, a 43 5 levels Likely found the SW Myers, McNeely, the 2m shallow cache pit with 3 corner of the Johnson, Peltomaa, southern chipped stone artifacts; structure Jayner portion of after Level 2, only 33A, the west the north half, was wall excavated 34 H-1 exterior 1 by 1 None 40 4 levels Part of special deposit Vest, Jensen, along south m along south wall of H- Selander, Johnson, wall 1 Lewis 35 H-1 exterior 1 by 1 None 40 3 levels Part of special deposit Vest, Jensen, along south m along south wall of H- Peltomaa wall 1 36 H-3 along 1 m by Only the south (36A) 16 2 levels Plaza area excavated Selander, south wall 2m plaza side was excavated to the first plaster Reynolds, after level 1 floor Baumgardner `37 H-3 along 0.75 Only the south (37A) 19 2 levels Located north of Selander, south wall by 1.5 plaza side was excavated picnic pavilion; Reynolds, m after level 1 evidence of previous Baumgardner, excavation (sting, Lewis matrix appearance, lack of plaza floor) on the plaza side 38 South of H-2 0.75 Soil differences exposed 20 3 levels Excavators believed Jayner, Myers, by 1.5 in level 2, but not that they might have Peltomaa, McNeely m separated located steps or entry onto H-2 77 Unit Location Size Horizontal divisions Mean final Levels Comments Excavators that depth (cm) kept notebooks 39 South of H-2 0.75 Plaster floor on the west 20 3 levels Well-preserved McNeely, Myers, by 1 m portion, fill on the east; plaster floor on west Reynolds in Level 3, fill area was side, abuts rocky fill excavated as 39A and to the east that could floor was left be platform fill, but no defined wall separating these 40 South of H-2 0.75 None 15 2 levels Plaster floor in McNeely, Reynolds by 1 m adjacent Unit 39 not present; level consists of rocky fill or ballast 41- H-3 Voided units--dug in 43 back dirt 44 South of H-2 0.5 by None 10 1 level Immediately south of McNeely, Myers, 1m Unit 33; level consists Reynolds of rocky fill or ballast 45 Interior H-3, 0.75 None 20 2 levels Excavated to test for Johnson, southeast by lithic production Baumgardner area 0.75 activities; dug into m platform fill 46 Near 1 by 1 None 18 2 levels Follow-up to Unit 32 McNeely, Myers, southeast m (2014) adjacent to Reynolds corner of H- the north, which had 2 evidence of east platform wall—no evidence in this unit 47 Interior H-3, 0.75 None 22 2 levels Excavated to test for Johnson, southeast by lithic production Baumgardner area 0.75 activities; dug into m platform fill 78 Unit Location Size Horizontal divisions Mean final Levels Comments Excavators that depth (cm) kept notebooks 48 Interior H-2 1 by 1 None 19 2 levels A mispositioned unit- McNeely, Myers, platform m -intended to bisect Reynolds along the the north wall, but is north wall interior only 49 H-1 exterior 0.5 by None 27 3 levels Defined the southern Jensen, Vest, south wall 1m extent of the special Myers, deposit along the Baumgardner structure 79 THE 2015 SETTLEMENT EXCAVATIONS AT CAHAL PECH, BELIZE: CONTINUED RESEARCH AT TZUTZIIY K’IN, THE ZOPILOTE GROUP, AND THE MARTINEZ GROUP Claire E. Ebert The Pennsylvania State University Steve Fox University of California, Riverside INTRODUCTION The goal of the summer 2015 Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance (BVAR) project settlement excavations at the site of Cahal Pech was to understand how ancient Maya households affected the emergence, growth, and persistence of social and economic inequality during the Preclassic period (1200/1000 BC–AD 350) periods. The Preclassic represents a critical transition in Maya prehistory, when the appearance of monumental architecture, development of long-distance exchange networks, and the beginnings of craft production signal increased centralization of wealth and power within an emergent elite class. Research at large lowland sites, such as Tikal and Ceibal, indicates that Maya society had become complex and hierarchical by the Late Preclassic period, with centralized cities serving as focal points for civic and ritual activity (Estrada-Belli 2011). Cahal Pech provides a unique case study for understanding the development of social inequality in the Maya lowlands because of its long occupational history spanning from ~1200 cal BC – cal AD 850/900 (Figures 1 and 2; Awe 1992; Healy et al. 2004a). A secondary goal of the 2015 Cahal Pech settlement excavations was to understand changes in material culture from the Preclassic to the Early Classic period (AD 350-500) within hinterland house groups. During the Early Classic period (cal AD 250-600), sites throughout the Belize Valley began to grow in size and complexity. Settlement data documents a substantial increase in population beginning in the Early Classic (e.g., Barton Ramie, Willey et al. 1965; see also Awe and Helmke 2005), and an increase in construction activity within the civic-ceremonial cores at Cahal Pech (Awe and Helmke 2005) and the nearby sites of Buena Vista (Ball and Taschek 2004) and Pacbitun (Healey et al. 2004b). While much of the earliest architecture in the Cahal Pech site core is buried beneath later Classic period monumental construction, Preclassic house groups surrounding the site center are more accessible for excavation and analysis. Over the last 30 years both elite and non-elite residential settlements dating to the Middle and Late Preclassic (900 BC-AD ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 80-112. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 80 Figure 1: Map of Cahal Pech showing site core in relation to settlement groups discussed in this report. Figure 2: Time periods and associated ceramic phases for Cahal Pech (after Ebert et al. 2016: Fig. 2). 350) have been documented to the east and south of the site core (Figure 2). In 2014, BVAR integrated light detection and ranging (LiDAR) remote sensing data into their settlement research in order to document previously unknown settlement in the Belize River Valley (Awe et al. 2015; Ebert et al. n.d.). Over 140 house groups and single mounds with a 29 km2 area have been documented around Cahal Pech, some of which possess evidence for Middle and Late Preclassic occupation (Awe 1992; Awe and Brisbin 1993; Dorenbush 2013; Ebert and Awe 2014; Ebert 2015). Radiocarbon dates and associated ceramic 81 Figure 3: Map of Tzutziiy K’in showing location of excavation units. materials from several of the larger groups indicate that at least six residential groups (Cas Pek, Tolok, Tzutziiy K’in, Zinic, Zopilote, and Zubin) were founded by the end of the Middle Preclassic and occupied through the Classic period (Awe 1992; Cheetham et al. 1993; Iannone 1996; Powis 1996; Ebert et al. 2016). The 2015 settlement at Cahal Pech focused on excavations at three groups peripheral to the civic-ceremonial site core – Tzutziiy K’in, the Zopilote Group, and the Martinez Group – to obtain additional temporal data for the founding and occupation these groups. Excavations also provide a diachronic perspective on social changes in the organization of the economy from the Preclassic through the Classic period across the community at Cahal Pech. TZUTZIIY K’IN GROUP The Tzutziiy K’in Group (roughly translating to “sunset” in Yucatec Mayan) is a large house group located atop a small hill approximately 1.8 km directly west of the Cahal Pech site core. The group was first documented through survey and excavations in 2012 (Ebert and Dennehy 2013). A total of seven structures surround the main plaza of group, many of which have been heavily looted (Figure 3). A second, smaller open plaza is located to the 82 east of the main plaza and is bounded to the north and east by two range structures (structures are not numbered or shown in Figure 3). Stratigraphic excavations were conducted during the 2012 field season in Structures 1, 2, and 3, and also within two areas of the main plaza (Ebert et al. 2016). Structure 1, the northern-most building in the main plaza, was the most heavily looted at the site. Salvage excavations were conducted in looter’s trenches (LT1 and LT2), and profiles exposed by looters were cleared to document the stratigraphy of the construction sequences. Structure 2 is located on the eastern side of the main plaza at Tzutziiy K’in. Three excavation units were placed along the centerline of Structure 2 (Units 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3) and a single unit was positioned on the north side of the summit (Unit 2-5). Salvage excavation was conducted in a looter’s trench located on the west side of the building (LT3) with the goal of recovering additional stratigraphic information about the building. Excavations on Structure 3 consisted of a single 1×3m axial trench placed at the center of the structure and extending into the plaza. Because this structure suffered the least damage from looting at the site, the goal of excavation was to recover chronologically secure contexts (Ebert and Dennehy 2013). Preliminary radiocarbon dating of organic materials recovered from the 2012 Tzutziiy K’in excavations provided an initial framework for understanding the growth of the residential group, and differences between cultural developments within house groups and the civic-ceremonial site core (Ebert et al. 2014, 2016). Charcoal samples (n = 9) for AMS 14C dating were recovered from stratified contexts within Structures 1, 2, and 3 excavations. The results of dating and Bayesian chronological modeling identified three primary phases of occupation for this residential group. Tzutziiy K’in was initially settled by the Late Preclassic (325-110 cal BC) as a small farming household, as population was expanding around Cahal Pech and throughout the Belize Valley. Multiple masonry platforms were constructed in the main plaza at Tzutziiy K’in during the Early Classic period (cal AD 350-650), perhaps in response to changing social and economic conditions in the Cahal Pech site core. Tzutziiy K’in became one of the largest hinterland house groups associated with Cahal Pech during the Late and Terminal Classic periods (cal AD 650- 900). The terminal occupation of the group between cal AD 850-900 may indicate that the political “collapse” of Cahal Pech may have similarly impacted large high-status house groups like Tzuztiiy K’in (Ebert et al. 2016). Excavations conducted at the group in 2015 focused on exposing stratified deposits in Structures 2, 3, and 4 to supplement the radiocarbon dating program begun in 2012. Structure 2 Excavation conducted in 2012 at Structure 2 documented a sequence of several construction events dating from the Early to Terminal Classic periods (Ebert and Dennehy 2012; Ebert et al. 2016). These excavations, however, did not expose the complete construction sequence for the building, and the earliest observed activity at the building dated only to the Early Classic period (cal AD 350-560). The 2015 excavations focused on exposing the earlier components of the Structure 2 sequence, recovering temporally diagnostic materials from these levels, as well as understanding the function of this eastern building. Because much of the southern part of the structure had suffered damage from 83 Figure 4: South profile of Unit 2-4. looting, excavations focused on the northern portion of the structure. Unit 2-4 was a 1.5x5.5 m axial trench placed to run east-to-west perpendicularly to the architecture. After the initial excavation levels 1 through 2, which cleared humus and collapse, the units was excavated in two separate areas, Unit 2-4A in the eastern potion and Unit 2-4B in the western portion exposing Burial TK-2-1 (Figure 4). Unit 2-4A was excavated to bedrock approximately 2 meters below the terminal plaza surface. A total of five construction phases were recorded in this unit: TK-2 1st: The first phase of construction at the building consisted of a soil layer placed on top of a paleosol layer. The paleosol strata has been documented beneath architecture across Tzutziiy K’in (e.g., Structure 3; Ebert et al. 2016) and has been directly dated the end of the Middle and beginning of the Late Preclassic period. Similar Preclassic contexts have been encountered throughout the Maya lowlands and represent the first soils encountered by initial settlers of a region (Beach et al. 2006). Very few artifacts were found within this paleosol matrix beneath Structure 2, and perhaps those present have been vertically displaced from superseding levels through time. TK-2 2nd: The second phase of construction consisted of a masonry stone platform. This building runs at an angle across the unit, and is not part of the Classic period construction of Structure 2. Rather, it may represent an earlier Preclassic period component of the site. Floor 7, a thin plaster floor, abuts the interior portion of the masonry platform, and perhaps 84 Table 1: Diagnostic Ceramics for Lot 2-3-8, corresponding to TK-2 4th. Bowls Jars Plates Sherd Count Listing Total Body Notes Base Rim Base Rim Base Rim Achiote Black 1 1 Alexander's Unlsipped 19 19 Belize Red 20 2 6 3 4 5 Cayo Unlsipped 6 6 Cubeta Black 2 2 possible Gallinero Fluted 4 4 Garbutt Creek Red 4 2 2 Martin's Incised 1 1 Mount Maloney Black 17 17 Platon Puncatated 4 4 Savana Orange 3 3 Yalbac Smudged Brown 4 4 possible was located at the interior of this structure. The fill below Floor 7 contained a few diagnostic sherds dating to the Kanluk and early facet Xakal ceramic phases including several Sierra Red dish rims, one Sierra Red/Polvero Black basal flanges, two Joventud Red jar rims, and 8 Savana Orange bowl rims sherds. Three charcoal samples from this strata produced a date range of cal BC 65-215. TK-2 3rd: The third phase of construction at Structure 2 consists of a series of five plaster floors (Floors 2-6). These floors were only exposed in the eastern portion of the unit. Three of these floors were also recorded in Units 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. A radiocarbon sample collected directly from the surface of plaster Floor 2 produced a date range of cal AD 650- 670 (UCIAMS-121554), placing all subsequent construction activities at the structure within the Late Classic (Ebert et al. 2016). Floors 2 through Floors 5 were thin and located fairly close together, within the same 20 cm level. Floor 6 was thicker (~3 cm), and was located approximately 20 cm below Floor 5. TK-2 4th: The penultimate construction phase at Structure 2 consisted of Floor 1, approximately 6-10 cm thick, running from plaza surface and abutting a wall composed of cut limestone blocks. Associated with this level was an uncarved shaped stone interpreted as an altar that was placed on top the wall (Figure 5). A 1 x 2.5m extension was placed to the east of Unit 2-4 to completely expose the altar stone. A thick masonry wall corresponding to this phase of construction was also exposed on the interior of this structure. The presence of a few Middle Preclassic ceramics (Savana Orange bowls) suggests that fill between the two walls was disturbed, likely during the placement of Burial TK-2-1 (described in more detail below). Ceramics contained in this fill, however, dated primarily Spanish Lookout phase (Table 1). TK-2 4th corresponds with the construction phase TK-2 2nd recorded during 2012 investigations (Ebert and Dennehy 2012). These excavations in Units 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 recorded a sloping apron wall is located in the north side of the unit, associated with Floor 1. Located on the floor in front on the apron wall was a similar large altar stone. 85 Figure 5: Photo of Unit 2-4 showing terminal stairs, western wall, and altar stone. Table 2: Diagnostic Ceramics for Lot 2-3-3, corresponding to TK-2 5th. Bowls Jars Plates Sherd Count Listing Total Body Notes Base Rim Base Rim Base Rim Alexander's Unslipped 18 18 Belize Red 16 1 2 3 2 5 3 Cayo Unlsipped v. Cayo 6 6 Cayo Unlsipped v. Unspecified 16 16 Daylight Orange v. Midnight 1 1 Garbutt Creek Red 1 1 Mt. Maloney Black 1 1 Platon Puncated 3 2 1 86 Figure 6: Plan view of Unit 2-4 showing location of Burial TK-2-1 TK-2 5th: The fifth phase of construction at Structure 2 represents the terminal occupation at the structure, which has mostly collapsed and eroded. Three steps located towards the top of the building, however, remained in situ. Large amount of Late to Terminal Classic ceramic material (Belize Red plates, Cayo Unslipped jars, Alexanders Unslipped jars) were collected from this level (Table 2). Several broken mano fragments were also recovered. This level likely corresponds to phases TK-2 4th and TK-2 3rd recorded during the 2012 excavations at Structure 2 (Ebert and Denny 2013). Burial TK-2-1 Burial TK-2-1 was encountered during excavations in Unit 2-4B, and is associated with construction activity of TK-2 4th. The burial was located within the interior of the structure, behind the eastern most wall of Structure 2 that composed the front of the structure during phase TK-2 4th (Figure 6). The burial was placed inside a simple cist that was excavated into Floor 1, with small stones outlining the shallow (~5-10cm deep) burial pit. The burial itself was resting on top of an earlier plaster floor, which likely corresponded with either Floors 3 or 4 (TK-2 3rd) based on depth below datum measurements. Osteological analysis was performed by BVAR osteologists Ashley McKeown (Texas State University) and Kirsten Green (University of Montana). The remains of a single adult male were present in the burial. The individual interred in this tomb was in an extended, prone position with the head to the south. The cranium was located directly behind the altar, but had been crushed beneath a large stone. The face, however, appears to have been oriented to the west suggesting that the head was resting on its left side at the time of internment. Preservation of many post-cranial elements was poor, and elements of the 87 Figure 7: Woj Pot associated with Burial TK-2-1. thorax were absent. The presence of some in situ phalanx fragments and the right radius suggests that the arms extended along the sides of the torso with the hands lateral to the hips. The legs of the individual were fairly well preserved. The feet were not present, and may have been removed by later construction activity that also cut into the floor upon which the burial was placed. An AMS 14C date of the femur of the individual places the time of death in the Late Classic period between cal AD 645-765 (UCIAMS-164846). Few artifacts were associated with the burial. Some worn undiagnostic sherds were present within the matrix around the individual, but these may have been come from the superseding fill associated with TK-2 5th. A single grave good found with the burial was a small pot in the shape of a frog (Figure 7). This pot has been interpreted as representing a woj frog or toad (Rhinophrynus dorsalis), who’s loud calls are common during the rainy season across the Maya Lowlands. Toad and frogs are also common throughout Maya iconography, and are associated with fertility (Schlesinger 2001: 230). The pot was located on top of the individual’s pelvis, likely corresponding this symbolic nature of the iconography. Two charcoal samples were collected in association with the burial, one from the matrix on top of the legs and a second from beneath the remains, but have not been dated. Structure 3 Unit 3-2 was a 1x3 m axial trench placed parallel to Unit 3-1 excavated in 2012. The goal of excavation was to collect additional datable material from this structure. Both excavations recorded a total of eight distinct construction events for Structure 3 dating from Late Preclassic through Terminal Classic periods (Ebert and Denehy 2013). The earliest direct date (UCIAMS-121552) from Tzutziiy K’in comes from the paleosol level beneath Structure 3 (Unit 3-1), and dates the initial settlement of the group to 350-110 cal BC during the beginning of Late Preclassic (Ebert et al. 2016). The paleosol matrix deposit contained high concentrations of late Middle and Late Preclassic ceramics primarily dating to the 88 Kanluk (Savanna Orange) ceramic and Xakal (Sierra Red, Polvero Black) ceramic phases. The fill also contained household debris including as obsidian and chert used for tools, freshwater shell, and fragments of ground stone tools. The placement of the fill was likely used to level out the uneven hilltop prior to initial construction at the site. Middle to Late Preclassic ceramics from the Kanluk and Xakal phases were found in strata below Floor 3 in both units. Three charcoal samples were collected from these levels. The fill between Floors 2 and 3 contained Floral Park and Mount Hope complex ceramics, representing the Late Preclassic to Early Classic use of Structure 3. A charcoal sample was collected from this context and will be targeted in the future for direct dating. Spanish Lookout and Tiger Run complex ceramics (Belize Red, Mount Maloney Black, Juleki Cream Polychrome) dating from the Late to Terminal Classic (primarily Belize Red types) were recovered in strata above Floor 2. Late and Terminal Classic ceramics are associated with the final construction and use of the structure. Structure 4 Two excavations took place in Structure 4. The first excavation was Unit 4-1 (1.5 x 3.5m east-to-west axial trench), and was placed near the centerline of structure, avoiding large tree roots present on either side of the unit. The second was a salvage excavation of a large looter’s trench (LT4) located on the northern side of the structure. The goal of excavation for in Unit 4-1 was to align strata in the middle section of the structure with those exposed in LT4, which extends further into the center structure. Together, these two units exposed the complete construction sequence for Structure 4. Excavations in Unit 4-1 exposed a series of five floors within the structure (Figure 7). Floor 5 is the earliest construction recorded, and was composed of a fairly thin (~1cm) plaster floor resting on top of the paleosol layer documented throughout the rest of the group (Ebert and Dennehy 2013; Ebert et al. 2016). Floor 4 was located approximately 15 cm above Floor 5, and was composed of a thick (~5cm) plaster floor. No temporally diagnostic ceramics were recovered from these contexts. Floor 3 consisted of cobble floor that likely corresponds to a low platform exposed during the excavations in LT4. This cobble platform is similar in composition to cobble layers exposed in Plaza B in the Cahal Pech site core that date to the Late Preclassic period (Peniche May 2014). The fill below this floor contained Xakal phase ceramics (Sierra Red, Polvero Black), corroborating the early date of the cobble layer. Floor 1 was a highly compact and thick (~6cm) plaster floor, and was placed immediately on top of Floor 2, which was eroded and only visible in profile. Floor 1 is also present in the profile of LT4. The fill below Floor 2 contained primarily Late Preclassic Xakal phase ceramics. The latest activity documented by Unit 4-1 was the terminal use of the structure, which is dated to the end of the Late Classic based on the presence of Spanish Lookout phase ceramics. 89 Figure 8: North profile of Unit 4-1. The excavation of LT4 recorded two construction phases subsequent to placement of Floor 1 (Figure 9). The first was the placement of a masonry wall, which may have served as a construction wall at the front (east) side of the structure. A series of steps were placed on top of this wall, and correspond to a thick plaster floor located at the top of the structure. The LT4 profile records a total of five possible steps. Unit 4-1 records the same five steps, with an additional four leading to the top of the structure in the center of the building. The terminal construction at Structure 4 was the construction on a superstructure on the north side of the building. A fairly thick plaster floor was placed between two low walls. No vault stones were found, suggesting that the walls served as the foundation for a perishable superstructure. A similar superstructure may have also present at Structure 1, and this context was directly dated to the Late to Terminal Classic period (UCIAMS-121550; cal AD 715-880). Ceramics from LT4 were mixed due to looting activity, and dated from the Preclassic to Late Classic periods, though Late Classic Spanish Lookout phase ceramics dominate the assemblage. 90 Figure 9: South profile of LT4. ZOPILOTE GROUP The Zopilote Group is a large terminus group located approximately 0.75 km south of the Cahal Pech monumental core at the end of the Martinez Sacbe (Awe and Brisbin 1993). The Martinez Sacbe was initially constructed in the Late Preclassic period and extends approximately 280 m north of the platform group, and may have extended all the way to the site core in antiquity (Cheetham et al. 1993; Cheetham 2004). First recorded in 1992 by the BVAR project, the Zopilote Group is composed of two primary temple structures (Structures 1 and 2) set atop a raised platform modified from natural bedrock (Figure 10). Structure 1 and 2, in addition to three smaller structures located to the east of the main platform, have all experienced heavy looting activity likely during the 1970s and 1980s. Three large “depressions” are also located around the main platform, and have been interpreted as quarries for construction material at the group (Cheetham 2004). Previous investigations at the Zopilote Group were undertaken by Cheetham and colleagues (1993, 1994; see also Cheetham 2004), and focused on documenting the construction sequence of superimposed temple structures at Structure 1. Test excavation on the front stairway on the north side of the structure, and salvage excavation of a large looter’s trench on the west side of the structure documented a total of 10 construction phases (Figure 11) with estimated dates for construction ranging from the Middle Preclassic (ca. 750-300 BC) through Terminal Classic periods (ca. AD 700-850; Cheetham 2004). The base of a plain stela (Stela 8) associated with Late Classic period terminal construction phase was also encountered at the base of Structure 1 (Cheetham et al. 1994). Cheetham and colleagues (1993) placed an additional test excavation at Structure 2, located on the east side of the causeway north of Structure 1. Results of this work suggested that the building was constructed in a single episode during the Late Classic period. Additionally, Cheetham (2004) suggests that the structure was constructed to house a vaulted tomb, though no cultural materials were recovered. 91 Figure 10: Map of the Zopilote Group showing BVAR excavations from 1993-1994 and 2015. The importance of the Zopilote Group is also supported by the presence of two vaulted tombs located at Structure 1. Tomb 1 was associated with the penultimate construction (ZPL-1 9th), though the tomb itself was dug into Preclassic period levels. Tomb 1 contained the remains of two individuals. The primary burial was of a young adult male, placed in an extended position with the head to the south. This individual was likely high status, as suggested by the presence of several jade inlays located near the cranium. A secondary burial was the cranium of a young adult male placed between two bowls at the feet of the primary burial. Grave goods associated included a small jade human effigy pendant, two jade beads, a stingray spine, two spondylus shell earflares, a disc-shaped shell adorno, a large fresh-water shell, two small stone balls, a stone bead, and elaborately decorated stucco veneer fragments that likely adorned a ceramic vessel at the time of internment (Cheetham et al. 1993: 162). Nine Hermitage and Tiger Run phase (AD 300 - 92 Figure 11: Profile of Zopilote Structure 1, showing ten phases of construction (after Cheetham 2004), and the locations of Tombs 1 and 2. Radiocarbon samples collected from Unit 2015-1 are lettered a-f and correspond to calibrated date ranges. 93 650) ceramic vessels were also recovered from within Tomb 1, including a Dos Arroyos Polychrome plate (Vessel #1) and Saxche Orange Polychrome bowl depicting a scene of a militaristic procession (Vessel #2; Cheetham et al. 1993). Tomb 2 was located beneath the staircase of the penultimate construction episode (ZPL-1 9th). Below a large capstone were the disarticulated remains of at least two infants, and one fetus within a loose dirt fill. A carved stela, Stela 9, was located below the infant remains. Approximately 200 small bowls containing 225 human phalanges were associated with Stela 9. Additionally, 45 mandibular incisors and other fragments of human were located at the base of the stela (Awe et al. 2009). Stela 9 is the only example of a carved stone monument from Cahal Pech, and Awe and colleagues (2009) have argued that the monument dates to the Late Preclassic period based on the style of carving and iconography. They suggest that, “the motif of the Cahal Pech Stela [9], an anthropomorphic figure in a jaguar mouth, may be linked to the old pan-Mesoamerican concept of animal companion spirits,” (Awe et al. 2009: 185) and that it shares elements found on carved monuments associated with the Gulf Coast Olmec culture (Awe et al. 2009; Cheetham 2004). The stela was likely removed from its original location, perhaps associated with ZPL-1 4th (Late Preclassic period) and interred within later Classic period architecture at Structure 1 (Cheetham 2004: 196). Structure 1 In 2015, BVAR archaeologists revisited the Zopilote Group with the goal of recovering materials for AMS 14C dating from stratigraphic trenches to refine the coarser- grained ceramic chronology for the group. Excavations by Cheetham and colleagues at Structure 1 were placed near the top and towards the base of the 11 m tall structure. The front stairway, on the north side of the building, was cleared to locate the extent on these units and expose terminal architecture. A 2x2 m unit (Unit 2015-1) was placed to cover a stair block located in the middle of the structure, and abutting the southern wall of Unit 7 excavated in 1993 (Cheetham et al. 1994). Excavation of Unit 2015-1 uncovered the ten construction phases previously documented. The earliest construction episodes (ZPL-1 1st trough ZPL-1 3rd) encountered by Cheetham and colleagues (1992:159) were associated with ceramics from the Kanluk (900-350 BC) and Xakal (350 BC-AD 350) ceramic phases. These early platforms may have supported perishable superstructures. It was hypothesized, however, that earlier occupation occurred at the Zopilote group prior to the construction of ZPL-1 1st in the Middle Preclassic (Cheetham et al. 1993). Evidence for the growing ideological and ritual importance of the group appears during the Late Preclassic. Large amounts of burnt plaster were documented the base ZPL-1 5th through ZPL-1 7th, which may be associated with frequent burning incense in these area (Cheetham et al. 1993, 1994). Burning was also documented during the 2015 excavations on top of the central stair block associated with the terminal phase of constructions (ZPL-1 10th). Excavation of Unit 2015-1 found an earlier occupational phase at Structure 1 not previously documented by Cheetham and colleagues (1993). Excavations reached a plaster floor (Floor 1a), located above a paleosol layer composed of black clay. Floor 1a represents the earliest construction activity at the group, and does not appear to be associated with the temple platforms that composed later construction episodes. The paleosol layer contained 94 Figure 12: Coyocol Cream gourd pot associated with Cunil/Kanluk levels at Zopilote Str.Figure 1. Note: 11:Vessel CoyocolwasCream completely gourdreconstructed pot associatedinwith January 2016. Cunil/Kanluk levels at Zopilote Str. 1. Note: Vessel was completely reconstructed in January 2016. high frequencies of freshwater shells (n = 445), chert cores and flakes (n = 85), and fragments of utilitarian ceramic vessels (n = 110). This strata likely represents the initial residential occupation at the site. The occupation of this surface is dated by the presence of Cunil and transitional Cunil/Kanluk ceramic materials (Sullivan and Awe 2013). This includes rim sherds of Uck Red and Coyol Cream vessels and a strap handle from a Sikaya Unslipped/Jocote vessel. Additionally, the assemblage contained one sherd with similar shape and surface treatment to Savana Orange (Savana variety, Kanluk phase) with ash temper typical of Cunil ceramics (Sullivan and Awe 2013), further supporting that the level represents a transitional Cunil/Early Facet Kanluk phase (ca. 1000-650 BC). One whole Coyol Cream vessel was reconstructed from this level, and has a smooth cream paste with fire clouding, and a thick oxidized core (Figure 12; see Sullivan and Awe 2013 for type description). The vessel is shaped as a gourd halved lengthwise with stem may have served as a spout, and is a new form for the Cunil phase (J. Awe, personal communication). An intentionally made hole at the base of the vessel has been interpreted as a possible kill hole, perhaps indicating ritual activity early during the beginning of the Middle Preclassic period. 95 Figure 13: Dog figurine associated with Late Preclassic construction phase ZPL-1 1st. To understand the timing and tempo of construction at Structure 1, six samples of charcoal recovered from the stratigraphic sequence of Unit 2015-1 were chosen for AMS 14 C dating. A charcoal sample from below Floor 1b (ZPL-1 1st) yielded a date 2-σ range of 355-175 cal BC (UCIAMS-164873), suggesting that construction of platforms at Structure 1 began during the beginning of the Late Preclassic. This date is later than that originally proposed by Cheetham and colleagues (1993, 1994), which was based the presence of some Kanluk ceramic materials. One special find, a figurine head representing a dog, was documented from this level (Figure 13). The next burst of construction activity took during end of the Late Preclassic. A series of three AMS 14C dates associated with the construction of ZPL-1 5th through ZPL- 1 7th dated between 170-40 cal BC (UCIAMS-164878, UCIAMS-164875, UCIAMS- 164874), suggesting that the construction of these temple platforms during the end of the Late Preclassic was fairly rapid. Late Preclassic construction at the Zopilote Group corresponds with the large-scale construction of the first monumental buildings in the Cahal Pech site center (Plazas A and B; Awe 1992; Healy et al. 2004a). This accelerated architectural activity has also been documented in Plaza A of the site core, where Str. A1 Sub 1 was built to a height of almost 15 meters. Plaza B was also raised and enlarged during this time, and Structure B4 underwent several modifications (B-4\7th – B4\10th) beginning with the construction of a specialized round structure dating to 795-405 cal BC (Beta- 40863; Healy and Awe 1995) used for public ceremonies (Aimers et al. 2000), and terminating with a large, 4m high pyramid that supported a pole and thatch super structure (Awe 1992). The construction of temple platforms at the Zopilote Group suggests ritual activity taking during the Late Preclassic period in the site center was likely connected to similar activities taking place within peripheral architectural groups. Direct dating of deposits from Structure 1 in Unit 2015-1 also lends support for continued growth of Cahal Pech from the Late Preclassic to the Early Classic periods. Two charcoal samples from within the fill of ZPL-1 8th date to cal AD 170-330 (UCIAMS- 96 164877) and cal AD 230-335 (UCIAMS-164876), indicating and that this building was constructed during the beginning of the Early Classic. This represents one of the largest construction episodes at Structure 1, and within the Zopilote group in general, and corresponds to similar site growth occurring within the monumental core of Cahal Pech and expansion of other peripheral house groups (Ebert et al. 2016). At Cahal Pech, several structures within Plaza A were remodeled and the plaza resurfaced; Plazas C, D, F, and G grew substantially through the construction of new buildings; and the first phase of the eastern ball court was erected (Awe 1992; Awe and Helmke 2005: Table 1). Some of the most elaborate royal burials from the site date to the Early Classic (Santasilia 2012; Ishihara-Brito et al. 2013; Awe 2013). More recent settlement research also suggests that some new residential groups were established in the Early Classic (Ebert et al. 2016), indicating continued population growth from the Preclassic into the Early Classic period (Awe and Helmke 2005). Future research will focus on continued dating of deposits from Structure 1 to understand the relationship between construction activities within the Cahal Pech site core and peripheral architectural groups. Structure 2 The 2015 excavations at the Zopilote Group also focused on exploring the form and function of Structure 2 in relation to the rest of the group. This structure was targeted as the possible location of a Terminal Classic period ceramic deposit. One characteristic feature of Terminal Classic contexts in the Belize Valley are large surficial ceramic deposits located in the corners of plazas, in front of stairs, and in the doorways of public architecture and date the final use of a structure. These terminal deposits have been attributed to numerous activities including termination rituals, feasting events, refuse disposal in primary middens, or reoccupation by squatters (Awe 2012; see also Hoggarth et al. this volume). Excavations focused on the western side of Structure 2 as it was least impacted by looting activity. The eastern face of Structure 2 was almost completely destroyed and there was also a larger looter’s trench the structure’s summit. Unit 2-1 was an irregularly shaped, informal unit, and was placed initially to clear humic debris and collapse from the western face of Structure 2, so that a more formal unit could be placed strategically. During clearing, numerous artifacts were recovered that suggested a terminal deposit had been encountered. These included a high frequency of ceramic sherds, chert fragments (worked and unworked), and a large fragment of a mano. Most of the ceramic fragments discovered were from utilitarian vessels dating to the Spanish Lookout ceramic phase. Furthermore, there were several large stones that were interspersed throughout the humus layer. These stones were most likely collapsed from the upper part of Structure 2, perhaps suggesting that many of the artifacts from the surface and collapse may not be in situ. After the humus layer and associated collapsed stones were removed from the excavation unit several architectural elements were revealed. A large wall oriented east-to- west was uncovered that abutted a second wall to form roughly a 90 degree angle (Figure 14). We hypothesize that Structure 2 was a cruciform platform, however, due to the 97 Figure 14: Photo of Zopilote Structure 1 after removal of ceramic deposit. extensive amount of looting this can only be observed on the western side of the structure. Additionally, exploratory test pitting within the looter’s pit at the structure summit confirmed that the building was constructed on top of bedrock within a single episode during the Late to Terminal Classic periods (Cheetham et al. 1993). Around 50 cm in front of where these wall features meet, a semi-circle of stones created a niche feature on the uppermost part of the excavation unit. The purpose of this feature is unknown, but it should be noted that there some ceramic fragments taken from the inside of this feature. Upon the removal of the humus layer and the initial exposure of architectural features, we encountered an extensive ceramic deposit consisting primarily of Terminal Classic ceramics (Figure 14). The deposit extends from the most westerly end of the excavation unit up into the circular niche feature. Over 25,000 ceramic sherds were uncovered, approximately 9% of which were diagnostic (n = 2,344). In some sections the concentration of ceramic sherd appeared to be stacked on top of each other, resulting in a ceramic layer that in some areas was more than 50 cm thick. In many cases the stacked sherds were from the same vessel, and a large number can likely be refits into partial or whole vessels. The sherds were found in higher proportions towards the intersection of the southern and eastern walls of Structure 2, typical of terminal deposits found at other Belize Valley sites (e.g., Cahal Pech and Xunantunich, Awe 2012; Baking Pot, Hoggarth et al. 2014, Hoggarth and Sullivan 2015). Floor 1 is also better preserved in this area, indicating that it was the original location for the deposit. The sheer number of ceramic sherds and thickness of sherds located within the terminal deposit at Structure 2 may suggest that this deposit was not formed in a single event, but was perhaps the result of several episodes of activity. Several other types of artifacts were also recovered from the deposit, including 98 Figure 15: South profile of ceramic deposit at Zopilote Structure 2. chert cores and flakes (n = 787), 4 obsidian blade fragments, and 1 mano fragment. Two special finds included a chert point and a slate tube that was likely the handle for wrench. A low wall was also documented running across the top of the ceramic deposit, but did not compose part of the primary wall of Structure 2. Rather the wall, which was one to two courses thick, was composed of cut stones removed from the top Structure 2. The wall also does not seem to be associated with the placement of the terminal ceramic plausible that this feature may have been used to restrict space in some way, as it resembles similar low walls found at other sites (e.g., Xunantunich, Lower Dover) that are associated with reoccupation of area after the abandonment of Cahal Pech. Because of time constraints preliminary ceramic analysis was also conducted on a small sample of diagnostic sherds from the deposit. Future work during the 2016 BVAR field season will analyze the complete assemblage. Preliminary analysis indicates that many of the sherds date to the Spanish Lookout phase. The following types were identifiable: Alexander Unslipped, Belize Red, Cayo Unslipped, Dolphin Head Red, Monkey Falls Striated (Gifford 1976). Fragments of a Terminal Classic period Pedregal Modeled incensario depicting the right hand portion of the face of the Jaguar God of the Underworld was also found within the deposit (Figure 16; J. Awe, personal communication 2015). This incensario gives insight into what types of activities that may have been taking place at Structure 2. Incensarios were used in ritual burning of incense for various types of religious purposes among the ancient Maya. In addition, Maya epigraphers associate the symbolism of the Jaguar God of the Underworld with fire rituals and the male dynastic lineages. This may suggest that the incensario was associated with some type of act of ancestral reverence conducted by the Terminal Classic Maya (Taube 1992). 99 Figure 16: Photo of Pedregal Modeled incensario depicting the Jaguar God of the Underworld. Excavations continued below the terminal deposit in a 1x2 m unit that ran parallel to the west arm of Structure 2. A plaster floor (Floor 1) was encountered immediately below the terminal deposit. A charcoal sample collected from on top of Floor 1 yielded a date of cal AD 1665-1945 (UCIAMS-164879). This date is much later than expected based on ceramic associations, and is likely attributable to heavy looting activity or bioturbation at Structure 2 that may have displaced the sample vertically. Direct dating of additional samples of organic materials associated with the ceramic deposit may help to clarify its age. A second floor (Floor 2) was located approximately 8-10 cm below Floor 1. These two floors may be the same floors recorded in front of Structure 1 associated with the penultimate and terminal phases of that building. Relatively few artifacts were recovered, all of which were ceramics. The excavation unit ended approximately 50-60 cm below Floor 2 when bedrock was discovered. The northern wall seems to have built on top of bedrock as no other platform was discovered. Excavations at Zopilote Structure 2 revealed the architectural construction sequence and potential domestic/ritual activities that were being conducted by the ancient Maya. This structure is cruciform in shape and seems to have been constructed in a 100 relatively short amount of time. Further research in ceramic analysis, radiocarbon dating, and micro level associated domestic and ritual activity within the site may uncover what the purpose Structure 2 served for the ancient Maya. Our preliminary hypothesis is that the large terminal deposit discovered on the western side could represent ritual activities associated with ancestral worship, but further research is needed to conclude this assertion. Yet the possibility remains that the activities at Structure 2 could indicate a wider cultural pattern when cross compared with other similar discoveries in the Belize Valley and beyond. Only through extensive analysis can these discoveries be cross compared with each other to give archaeologist an adequate view of how these sites may have function through the eyes of the ancient Maya. MARTINEZ GROUP The Martinez Group is a medium sized residential group located approximately 2 km south of the Cahal Pech site core. The group was first recorded in 2014 during ground-truthing survey of lidar data for the Cahal Pech settlement area (Awe et al. 2015; Ebert 2015). The group is located on top of a slightly raised platform, composed of 4 buildings arranged around a central courtyard. Structure 1 is the largest structure, and though heavily looted, resembles an eastern pyramidal structure. Structures 2, 3, and 4 are low platforms. A natural depression in the limestone bedrock located immediately south of the groups was modified to resemble a sunken plaza (Figure 17). Exploratory shovel test pits were placed in both plazas to estimate the depth of bedrock across the group as part of the 2014 BVAR survey program. A total of 14 shovel test pits were dug in the main plaza and the sunken plaza in order to assess the depth of bedrock across the group, as well as to collect diagnostic ceramics. Unfortunately, ceramics recovered from the shovel test pits were highly eroded and burned by recent agricultural activity in the area, though they likely date to the Late Classic period. A 1x1 m test unit (PLZ-1) was placed in front of Structure 4 in plaza, and confirmed shallow depth of bedrock in the area, indicating that the platform upon which the group was built was modified from a natural bedrock outcrop. A second 1x1 m test unit (3-1) placed in the center of Structure 3 encountered two plaster floors located near surface of the structure. Below the floors was a thick midden deposits with a large number of ceramics and chert, which included high frequency of Early Classic period ceramics including Dos Arroyos polychrome plates. A 14C date from organic remains recovered from this deposit dates to cal AD 540-625 (UCIAMS-150915; Ebert et al. 2016). During the 2015 BVAR field season, excavation units were placed in all four structures at the Martinez Group in order to investigate the establishment and growth of pit (LT1) in the center of the structure. While very artifacts were recovered, excavations indicate that the structure’s middle was composed of a cobble fill with no floors present. Unit 1-1 was placed on the north side of Structure 1 where the structure was relatively this domestic group. Excavations at Structure 1 began with the clearing of a large looter’s undisturbed by modern looting activity. Excavations focused on clearing humic debris and collapse in order to document the construction phases of the structure. The first documented construction was of the northern wall, which was placed on top of bedrock and contained a cobble fill which contained Spanish Lookout phase ceramics (Belize Red, 101 Figure 17: Photo of Unit 1-1 showing terraces that composed the penultimate construction phases at the Martinez Group Structure 1. Figure 17: Map of the Martinez group showing location of excavations units and calibrated date ranges for radiocarbon samples from Structures 2 and 3. Mount Maloney Black, and Alexander’s Unslipped). Several Preclassic sherds were also present, including two Polvero Black dish rims with basal flanges. The wall was composed of double-thick limestone masonry, which was plastered. The second phase of construction consisted on an outer wall, with at least two terraces present, though it was mostly collapsed (Figure 18). The second wall was capped by a thick (~15 cm) plaster floor that may represent the summit of the structure. Structure 2 is a low platform located on the south east site of the Martinez Group. A 5x1 m unit, Unit 2-1, was placed bisecting the building north-to-south. The goal of excavations was to collect chronological information regarding the construction of the structure and its relationship to other structures within the Martinez Group (Figure 19). The first construction at Structure 2 was the placement of a plaster floor (Floor 3) above a fill layer the capped bedrock. A 14C date of organic material from within this fill dates between cal AD 435-615 (UCIAMS-164868), indicating initial construction took place during the Early Classic to Early Late Classic periods. Floor 3 abutted a small stone wall located on the north side of the excavation unit, which may have been used to delineate the extent of the structure. The floor was either broken or poorly preserved in the middle of the unit. Floor 2 was placed approximately 50 cm above Floor 3, on top of a layer of ballast fill. The ballast fill contained Spanish Lookout Phase ceramics including Cayo Unslipped jars, Belize Red plates, and crudely shaped jar supports; chipped stone tools; and obsidian blades. A chert eccentric was also recovered from the fill, and have been interpreted as either representing a dog or perhaps the potent iconographic symbol of the flamed eyebrow 102 Figure 18: South profile of Unit 2-1 at Structure 2. Figure 19: Photo of Unit 1-1 showing terraces that composed the penultimate construction phases at the Martinez Group Structure 1. 103 Figure 20: Special finds from Unit 2-1 including A) chert eccentric, B) antler earplug, and C) chert points. (Figure 20a). A 14C date suggests that the fill was placed during the Late Classic period between cal AD 640-760 (UCIAMS-164867). Floor 1 was located approximately 50 cm above Floor 2, and represents the terminal surface of Structure 2. Floor 1 did not extend as far north in the unit as Floor 2, and the presence of several cut limestone blocks in the northern portion of the unit may indicate a series of steps may have composed the north side of terminal architecture at the structure. Several other special finds were recovered from the collapsed architecture above Floor 1, including chert point fragments, a polished hammer stone, and an antler earplug (Figure 20b and 20c). It is unknown whether these artifacts are associated with Structure 2, or were displaced from Structure 1 by looting activity. The 2015 excavation at the Martinez Group expanded upon Unit 3-1 placed in the center of Structure 3. A 1.5x2 m unit (Unit 3-2) was placed so that it ran parallel to the norther wall of Structure 3 and Unit 3-1. The goal of excavations at Structure 3 was to expose more of the Early Classic period ceramic deposit contained within the structures, and to gain a better sense of the architecture that composed the low platform (Figure 21). Excavations encountered two plaster floors (Floors 1 and 2) just below the ground surface. Floor 1 was placed approximately 8 cm above Floor 2. A 14C date from below Floor 1 indicates that the both plaster floors were placed during the Late Classic period between cal AD 605-655 (UCIAMS-164866). These two floors capped the ceramic deposits, which measured approximately 1.5 m in depth and was mixed with ballast to form the shape of the structure. Most of the diagnostic ceramics from the deposit date from the Spanish Lookout (Belize Red and Platon Punctated plates, Garbutt Creek Red bowls, Alexanders Unslipped jar, Mount Maloney Black bowls) through Hermitage ceramic phases (Dos 104 Figure 21: North profiles of Units 3-1 and 3-2. Arroyos Polychrome, Minanha Red, Balanza Black) with some earlier types represented by a few sherds (Sierra Red, Polvero Black). Excavations were undertaken at Structure 4 to understand the architectural elements present in this low-lying platform at the northwestern side of the Martinez Group. Bedrock was located at a shallow depth beneath the structure, approximately 1m below the ground surface. A single plaster floor (Floor 1) was encountered during excavations, located approximately 50 cm above bedrock. Ceramics from this fill date to the Late Classic Spanish Lookout phase, and include Belize Red plates, Cayo Unslipped jars, and supports for vessels. The terminal architecture of the structure was composed of an alignment of large cut stones that formed the south wall of the structure. The alignment was located at a very shallow depth, approximately 20-40 cm below the ground surface. Excavations south of the Cahal Pech site core at the Martinez Group suggests that new residential groups were established in the Early Classic (Ebert 2015) indicating continued population growth from the Preclassic into the Early Classic period (Awe and Helmke 2005). The structures are the Martinez Group consist of between two to three construction phases, perhaps indicating the sites rapid growth begging ca. cal AD 450. Compared to other groups at Cahal Pech (e.g., Tzutziiy K’in), however, the Martinez group experienced a relatively short occupational history of about three hundred years. There is little evidence that the group was occupied through the Terminal Classic period, perhaps 105 suggesting that it was abandoned before the collapse of Cahal Pech ca. AD 850 (Awe 2013). CONCLUSIONS Understanding the development and growth of the ancient Maya community of Cahal Pech from the Preclassic into the Early Classic period is one of several critical research issues addressed by the BVAR project. Continued excavations within the periphery of the Cahal Pech monumental core are helping BVAR researchers to understand the nature and timing of occupation and cultural change within the settlement at the site. Excavations conducted during the 2015 field season focused on three groups: Tzutziiy K’in, the Zopilote Group, and the Martinez Group. Previous excavations and direct dating indicated that the large residential group Tzutziiy K’in was settled by the Late Preclassic (325–110 cal BC) as a small farming household and grew into a large, elite residential group in the Late and Terminal Classic periods (cal AD 650-900; Ebert et al. 2016). The 2015 excavations at Tzutziiy K’in expanded upon this research, focusing on excavations in Structures 2, 3, 4 to collect additional materials for direct dating. Excavations at Structure 2 also uncovered an altar stone and a burial which provide evidence for the growing importance of ritual during the Late Classic Period. Structure 2 resembles an eastern triadic shine, a type of public architecture typically associate with ritual and religious activity at Belize Valley sites (Awe 2008; Awe et al. In Press; Chase and Chase 1995). In 2012, several bone fragments and two human teeth were recovered from Feature 1 (LT3) at Structure 2, which may have functioned as a cache or secondary burial. Additionally, a possible altar associated with Early Classic period construction phases (Ebert et al. 2016) was exposed in excavation in the center of the structure (Ebert and Dennehy 2013). The presence of ideologically significant artifacts and features indicates the social importance of Structure 2 and may also reflect the socio-political status of the residents of Tzuztiiy K’in in the Late Classic Period. The focus of 2015 excavations at the Zopilote Group was to collect organic samples for direct dating of Preclassic contexts. Extensive excavations by Cheetham and his colleagues (1993, 1994) suggests that the group functioned as an important temple complex as early as the Middle Preclassic period. Preliminary results of radiocarbon dating suggests construction of a series of temple structures built at the group at Structure 1 was first initiated in the Late Preclassic between 355-175 cal BC. However, the 2015 excavation also documented possible Middle Preclassic deposits with Cunil ceramic materials below the temple structures. The Cunil strata may represent the first settlement at the group, which was primarily residential in nature. The Zopilote Group remained an important locus of ritual activity through the Late and Terminal Classic periods. Future research concerning the terminal ceramic deposits from Structure 2 at the group will work to test the hypothesis that the deposit represents activities associated with ancestral worship that took place after the site was abandoned (Awe 2012). Comparison to ethnohistoric documentation of ritual acts of ancestor remembrance performed by the Lacandon Maya may provide a modern correlate with this archaeological interpretation. 106 Excavations at the Martinez Group conducted in 2015 were focused on understanding the construction of the group starting at the end of the Early Classic Period (Ebert et al. 2016). The group was first documented by BVAR during the 2014 survey (Ebert 2015). The Martinez Group is a relatively small residential group, though it possessed a large eastern shrine building (Structure 1), perhaps associated with the higher status of its residents compared to neighboring groups. Additionally, several special finds found during excavations of Structure 2 indicate the ability of the residents of the Martinez Group to obtain prestige items. Direct dating of deposits from Structures 2 and 3 indicate that the group was occupied into the Late Classic period. There was limited evidence for occupation of the group during the Terminal Classic period, between cal AD 850–900, which may indicate that the political “collapse” of Cahal Pech may have similarly impacted residential settlements around the site (Ebert et al. 2016). Settlement research from the 2015 BVAR field season and Cahal Pech highlights the need for future excavations in groups around the site. Additional AMS 14C dating at Cahal Pech, both in the site core and house groups, will help to establish a more a precise and accurate chronology for the socio- political development and decline of this important Maya center. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 2015 Cahal Pech settlement research was conducted under the auspices of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance (BVAR) Project directed by Dr. Jaime Awe. Would like to thank Dr. Awe and Dr. Julie Hoggarth (Co-Director, BVAR Project), and Jorge Can their assistance in the field, and the Belize Institute of Archaeology for their assistance and permitting of our fieldwork. We also thank Mr. Martinez for allowing us to conduct research on his property at the Martinez Group. We owe gratitude to our field crew and BVAR students who assisted in field 10 weeks of field work. Financial support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation under a Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant No. DGE1255832, C. Ebert) and a Dissertation Improvement Grant (BCS-1460369, C. Ebert and D. Kennett), and the Penn State Department of Anthropology Hill Fellowship for graduate student research. Additional funding support for the BVAR Project was provided by the Tilden Family Foundation, San Francisco, California. 107 REFERENCES CITED: Aimers, James J., Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe 2000 Formative Round Structures of the Upper Belize River Valley. Latin American Antiquity 11(1):71-86. Awe, Jaime J. 1992 Dawn in the land between the rivers: formative occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize, and its implications for Preclassic development in the central Maya lowlands [unpublished PhD dissertation]. London: Institute of Archaeology, University of London. 2008 Architectural Manifestations of Power and Prestige: Examples from Classic Period Monumental Architecture at Cahal Pech, Xunantunich and Caracol, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5:159-173. 2012 “The Last Hurrah: Terminal Classic Maya Occupation in the Belize River Valley.” Invited Speaker, Second Annual Maya at the Lago Conference, Charlotte, N.C., April 2012. 2013 Journey on the Cahal Pech time machine: an archaeological reconstruction of the dynastic sequence at a Belize Valley polity. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10:33–50. Awe, Jaime J. and Shawn Brisbin 1993 Now You See It, Now You Don't: The Trials and Tribulations of Settlement Survey at Cahal Pech. In Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Progress Report of the 1992 Field Season, edited by Jaime J. Awe, pp. 1-9. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. Awe, Jaime J., Claire E. Ebert, and Julie A Hoggarth 2015 Three K’atuns of Pioneering Settlement Research: Preliminary Results of Lidar Survey in the Belize River Valley. In Breaking Barriers: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference, edited by Robyn Crook, Kim Edwards, and Colleen Hughes, pp. 57-75. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Awe, Jaime, Nikolai Grube, and David Cheetham 2009 Cahal Pech Stela 9: A Preclassic Monument from the Belize Valley. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6: 179-189. Awe, Jaime J. and Christophe G.B. Helmke 2005 Alive and Kicking in the 3rd to 6th Centuries A.D.: Defining the Early Classic in the Belize River Valley. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 2: 39-52. Awe, Jaime J., Julie A. Hoggarth, and James J. Aimers n.d. Of Apples and Oranges: The Case of E-groups and Eastern Triadic Architectural Assemblages in the Belize River Valley. In “Early Maya E-Groups, Solar Calendars, and the Role of Astronomy in the Rise of Lowland Maya Urbanism”, edited by David A. Freidel, Arlen F. Chase, Anne Dowd, and A. Murdock (in press). University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 108 Ball, Joseph W. and Jennifer T. Taschek 2004 Buenavista del Cayo: A short outline of occupational and cultural history at an Upper Belize Valley regal-ritual center. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 149-179. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase 1995 External Impetus, Internal Synthesis, and Standardization: E Group Assemblages and the Crystallization of Classic Maya Society in the Southern Lowlands. Acta Mesoamericana 8:87–101. Cheetham, David 2004 The Role of “Terminus Groups” in Lowland Maya Site Planing: An Example from Cahal Pech. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 125-148. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cheetham, David, Jim Aimers, J. Ferguson, David Leer, L. Delhonde, and Al Jenkins 1994 Return to the Suburbs: The Second Season of Investigations at the Zopilote Group, Cahal Pech. In Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Progress Report of the Sixth (1993) Field Season, edited by Jaime J. Awe, pp. 164-179. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, England. Cheetham, David T., Julian Vinuales, Johanna Y. Carlsson, Tawa Wallis, and Piers Willson 1993 Like in Suburbia: Preliminary Investigations of the Zopilote Group, Cahal Pech, Belize. In Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Progress Report of the 1992 Field Season, edited by Jaime Awe, pp. 152-172. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. Dorenbush, Wendy Rae 2013 Western and Northern Settlement Survey of Cahal Pech. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2012 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Reiko Ishihara-Brito R, and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 168-184. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Ebert, Claire E. 2015 Lidar Mapping and Settlement Survey at Cahal Pech, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 138-167. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Ebert, Claire E. and Jaime J. Awe 2014 “Integrating Airborne Lidar and Settlement Survey at Cahal Pech, Belize.” Paper presented at the 5th annual South-Central Conference on Mesoamerica, October 24-26, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. 109 Ebert, Claire E., Brendan J. Culleton, Jaime J. Awe, and Douglas J. Kennett 2016 AMS 14C Dating of Preclassic to Classic Period Household Construction in the Ancient Maya Community of Cahal Pech, Belize. Radiocarbon 58(1): 69-87. Ebert, Claire E., Julie A. Hoggarth, and Jaime J. Awe n.d. Integrating Quantitative Lidar Analysis and Settlement Survey in the Belize River Valley. ‘Problems and Issues in the Mesoamerican Geospatial Revolution’ Special Issue of Advances in Archaeological Research, in press. Ebert, Claire E. and Timothy Dennehy 2013 Preliminary Investigations at Tzutziiy K’in. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2012 Field Season, edited by J. A. Hoggarth, R. Ishihara-Brito, and J. J. Awe, pp. 185-209. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Estrada-Belli, Francisco 2011 The First Maya Civilization. Ritual and Power before the Classic Period. Routledge, London. Ebert, Claire E., Julie A. Hoggarth, and Jaime J. Awe n.d Integrating Quantitative Lidar Analysis and Settlement Survey in the Belize River Valley. Advances in Archaeological Research, in review. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge. Healy, Paul F., and Jaime J. Awe 1995 Radiocarbon dates from Cahal Pech, Belize: results from the 1994 field season. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season, edited by Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 198-125. Department of Anthropology Trent University, Peterborough. Healy, Paul F., David Cheetham, Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe 2004a Cahal Pech: The Middle Formative Period. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 103- 124. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Healy, Paul F., Bobbi Hohmann, and Terry G. Powis 2004b The ancient Maya center of Pacbitun. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 207-227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 110 Helmke Christophe and Jaime J. Awe 2012 Ancient Maya Territorial Organization of Central Belize: Confluence of Archaeological and Epigraphic Data. Contributions in New World Archaeology 4: 59-90. Hoggarth, Julie A. and Kelsey J. Sullivan 2015 It’s Getting Hot in the Palace: Discovery of a Sweatbath in Group B at Baking Pot. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 22-229. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Hoggarth, Julie A., Christina M. Zweig, and May Mzayek 2014 Preliminary Findings from the 2013 Excavations in the Royal Palace Complex at Baking Pot. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 160-173. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Iannone, Gyles 1996 Problems in the Study of Ancient Maya Settlement and Social Organization: Insights from the ‘Minor Center’ of Zubin, Cayo District, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation. London: University of London. Ishihara-Brito, Reiko, Jorge Can, and Jaime J. Awe 2013 Excavations and Conservation of Structure B1-West Face. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2012 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Rafael A. Guerra, and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 71-89. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Peniche May, Nancy 2014 Excavations in Plaza B, Cahal Pech: 2013 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 24-41. Belize Institute of Archaeology, NICH, Belmopan. Powis, Terry 1996 Excavations of Middle Formative Round Structures at the Tolok Group, Cahal Pech, Belize. Master’s thesis. Peterborough, Ontario: Trent University. Santasilia, Catarina E. 2012 The Discovery of an Elite Maya Tomb: Excavations at the Summit of Structure B1 at Cahal Pech, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Rafael A. Guerra, and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 35-55. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Schlesinger, Victoria 2001 Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya: A Guide. University of Texas Press, Austin. 111 Sullivan, Lauren A. and Jaime J. Awe 2013 Establishing the Cunil Ceramic Complex at Cahal Pech, Belize. In Ancient Maya Pottery: Classification, Analysis, and Interpretation, edited by James J. Aimers, pp. 107- 120. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Taube, Karl A. 1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford JC (eds.) 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 112 CAHAL PECH PLAZA B (2011-2013) – VERTEBRATE FAUNA Martin H. Welker The Pennsylvania State University INTRODUCTION Analysis of the vertebrate assemblage from 2011-2013 excavations in and around Plaza B (n=484) and structure B5 (n=58) at the ancient Maya site of Cahal Pech was performed in the fall of 2015 in preparation for isotopic and AMS radiocarbon dating by Claire Ebert. Excavations were conducted by Nancy Peniche May, and focused on documenting Middle Preclassic period (early and late facet Kanluk ceramic phases; 900-300 BC) contexts believed to span construction phases Plaza B/1-13 (Peniche May 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014). Material recovered from structure B5 is believed to date to the Xakal ceramic phase (300 BC – AD 350). All materials were screened using ¼” mesh. Following isotopic and AMS sampling, the assemblage will be sent to Jaime Awe (Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University). Additional details on this assemblage, and the invertebrate component analyzed by Peniche May, will be provided in her forthcoming dissertation. METHODS Analysis of the Cahal Pech Plaza B assemblage was conducted in the Pennsylvania State University Zooarchaeology Laboratory with the help of two volunteers. Though small, the Penn State reference collection includes examples of several Mesoamerican species including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), armadillo (Dasypus sp.), coati (Nasua sp.), paca (Cuniculus sp.), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and iguana (Iguana sp.) used in this analysis. Species and family identifications were supported using relevant reference manuals and osteological atlases (Elbroch 2006; Gilbert 2003). It should be noted that no example of brocket deer (Mazama americana) was available, and specimens were attributed to this species based on their similarity to a white-tailed deer and small size. Standard zooarchaeological measurements were taken on all identified remains following von den Dreisch (2004). Weights were taken individually for all identified specimens, and by size-sorted group for all unidentified remains from any given context. RESULTS The faunal remains discussed here were heavily fragmentary and badly eroded. However, 59 specimens representing 12 species and genera were identified. These include white- ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 113-117. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 113 Table 1: Identified Specimens from 2011-2013 Plaza B Excavations at Cahal Pech. Identified Specimens NISP MNI White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 16 4 White-tailed deer (cf.) 10 White-tailed deer (?) 1 Brocket deer Mazama americana 4 1 Domestic dog (cf.) Canis familiaris 2 1 Canid* 1 Paca Cuniculus sp. 2 1 Sylvilagus spp. 2 1 Armadillo* Dasyphus sp. 1 1 Coati Nasua sp. 1 1 Iguana (cf.) Iguana sp. 1 1 Large Mammal 230 Medium Mammal 107 Small Mammal 8 Unknown Mammal 18 Bird 4 Bird (?) 2 Turtle 26 Snake 1 Unknown 47 Total 484 11 * Surface Deposits tailed and brocket deer, agouti/paca, armadillo, iguana, coati, parrot fish and three specimens tentatively identified as a domestic dog (Table 1). The majority of the identified specimens (97%), representing eight of the identified species or genera, are mammals. Of these, an armadillo femur and canid humerus were recovered from surface deposits humus and are believed to be modern in deposition. At least five deer, and one agouti/paca, coati, one rabbit, and one dog are attributed to construction phases Plaza B/9 – 12 (Table 2) all of which are associated with deposits dated using ceramics to the Kanluk phase (Peniche May, personal communication). White- tailed and brocket deer are the most abundant species identified, comprising 71.64% (n=34) of the identified specimens. Age estimates based on epiphyseal fusion indicate that these animals were 12-20 months of age or older at their death (Purdue 1983). Birds and reptiles were much less abundant in the assemblage, but are represented by 34 specimens, one of which was positively identified as an iguana and dated to the early Kanluk phase (900-750 BC) using associated ceramics. The remaining specimens include one unidentified snake vertebrae, six specimens tentatively identified as bird bone, and 26 fragments suspected to be plastron or carapace from a large turtle. As these measured 7-8 mm in thickness they are believed to represent a marine turtles, but no comparative 114 Table 2: Identified Specimens from 2011-2013 Structure B5 Construction Phase 16. Identified Specimens NISP MNI White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 8 2 Deer sp. Odocoileus/Mazama sp. 1 Domestic dog (cf.) Canis familiaris 3 2 Canid 1 Sylvilagus spp. 1 1 Parrot Fish Family Scaridae sp. 2 1 Grouper Family Serranidae sp. 1 1 Large Mammal 26 Medium Mammal 2 Small Mammal 4 Fish 7 Unknown 2 Total 58 7 examples were available for reference in the Penn State Zooarchaeology lab collection. The turtle and five of the bird specimens are associated with late facet Kanluk contexts (750-300 BC). An additional two deer, two dogs, one rabbit, and at least one individual of both the marine serranidae (grouper family) and scaridae (parrotfish family) were identified from structure B5, level 16 (Table 2), which is believed to date between 300 BC and AD 350 during the Late Preclassic period Xakal ceramic phase (Peniche May, personal communication). Though Cahal Pech is located over 110 km from the modern Caribbean coast, marine fish including members of scaridae and serranidae have been identified in Preclassic period deposits from the site (Powis et al. 1999; Stanchly 1995) and were perhaps preserved through either salting or smoking prior to transport inland. DISCUSSION The Plaza B assemblage is small, but the range of species identified is not inconsistent with expectations generated from other excavations at Cahal Pech (Powis et al. 1999; Stanchly 1995). The majority of the vertebrate faunal remains, excepting the marine fish found in Late Preclassic phase deposits associated with structure B5 and the tentatively identified marine turtle found in the Kanluk phase deposits, are indicative of native terrestrial fauna. White-tailed and brocket deer are by far the most abundant species, and are represented by at least seven individuals. Paca, rabbits, and other smaller mammals are present, but in lower numbers though whether this is a result of taphonomic processes or reduced exploitation remains in question. 115 Few of the remains were worked or burnt; however, seven white-tailed deer elements (6 humeri, 1 femur) from the late facet Kanluk phase (Level 11, Lot PL-B-235) were scored and cut to separate the diaphysis (shaft), from the metaphysis and epiphysis. Similar processed bone from other lowland Maya sites has been interpreted as stage 1 debitage from bone perforator production (Emery 2008, 2009). At the site of Dos Pilas, in the Petén region of modern-day Guatemala, bone perforators comprise 5.4% (n=185) of the assemblage recovered from context L4-3 (Emery 2008, 2009). Stage 1 debitage is also reported from mixed Middle Preclassic and Late Classic deposits from Xunantunich in the Belize Valley (Freiwald 2009), suggesting conservation of this tool production method through the Preclassic, and perhaps into the Classic. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Penn State undergraduate student Brittany Adams and Dr. Joanne E. Hughes for volunteering their time to this project. Credit is also due to graduate students Nancy Peniche May and Claire Ebert for arranging access to the assemblage and reviewing drafts of this report, and to Dr. Sarah B. McClure for the use of the Penn State Zooarchaeology Laboratory and laboratory supplies employed in the course of this analysis. REFERENCES CITED: Elbroch, Mark 2006 Animal Skulls: A Guide to North American Species Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Emery, Kitty F. 2008 Techniques of Ancient Maya Bone Working: Evidence from a Classic Maya Deposit. Latin American Antiquity 19(2): 204-221. Emery, Kitty F. 2009 Perspectives on Ancient Maya Bone Crafting from a Classic Period Bone-Artifact Manufacturing Assemblage. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 458- 470. Freiwald, Carolyn R. 2010 Dietary Diversity in the Upper Belize River Valley: A Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Perspective. In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by J. E. Staller and M. D. Carrasco, pp. 399-420. Springer, New York. Gilbert, B. M. 2003 Mammalian Osteology Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Peniche May, Nancy 116 2012a 2011 Test Pit Excavations in Plaza C, Cahal Pech, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, Volume 16, edited by Julie Hoggarth, Rafael Guerra, and Jaime Awe, pp. 81-89. Belize Institute of Archaeology (NICH), Belmopan, Belize. 2012b Report of the 2011 Excavations at Structure B-2 at Cahal Pech, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, Volume 16, edited by Julie Hoggarth, Rafael Guerra, and Jaime Awe, pp. 90-96. Belize Institute of Archaeology (NICH), Belmopan, Belize. 2013 Excavations in Plaza B, Cahal Pech. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2012 Field Season, Volume 18, edited by Julie Hoggarth, Reiko Ishihara-Brito, and Jaime Awe, pp. 128-167. Belize Institute of Archaeology (NICH), Belmopan, Belize. 2014 Excavations in Plaza B, Cahal Pech: 2013 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, Volume 19, edited by Julie Hoggarth, Reiko Ishihara-Brito, and Jaime Awe, pp. 24-41. Belize Institute of Archaeology (NICH), Belmopan, Belize. 2016 Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California-San Diego. In progress. Powis, Terry G., Norbert Stanchly, Christine D. White, Paul F. Healy, Jamie J. Awe, and Fred Longstaffe 1999 A Reconstruction of Middle Preclassic Maya Subsistence Economy at Cahal Pech, Belize. Antiquity 73: 364-376. Purdue, J. R. 1983 Epiphyseal Closure in White-Tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4): 1207-1213. von den Driesch, Angela 1776 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge. 117 2015 Excavations of the Eastern Triadic Shrine at Xunantunich, Belize Catharina E. Santasilia University of California, Riverside Douglas Tilden Independent Researcher Introduction In the summer of 2015 the Institute of Archaeology (IOA), in collaboration with Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project (BVAR) and Dr. Jason Yaeger of UTSA, initiated a multi-year project to obtain a better understanding of the central structures of the site of Xunantunich. In 2015, archaeological investigations focused primarily on the Eastern Triadic Shrine, as well as uncovering earlier excavations at the smaller structure A-20 on the western part of Structure A-6 (El Castillo). Both the Eastern Triadic Shrine as well as Structure A-20 will this summer be consolidated and restored for the public. A-20 is furthermore one of the only structures in the Upper Belize Valley with pillars supporting the roof. The majority of the structures at the site core of Xunantunich have been investigated, with archaeological research first undertaken in the 1890s. Since the 1960s, archaeological projects have been conducted at Xunantunich, investigating not only the site core, but also the surrounding landscape. In recent years, the primary investigators have been the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (XAP 1991-1997), The Mopan Valley Preclassic project, and the Belize Tourism Development Project (TDP 2005), which all have contributed to an incredible insight as well as conservation of the site. However, some of the central structures, dating to the Late Classic period, at the site core had yet to be fully investigated, including the Eastern Triadic Shrine. Structure A-3 was the main priority of the 2015 field season. The southern flanking structure (A-4) had been excavated in the early 2000 by PG and the Belize Institute of Archaeology, where they had excavated and conserved a structure that had been built in at least two phases of construction. A smaller substructure had been uncovered below the terminal architecture, containing an elite burial (Audet 2006: 135- 147). At the summit of the structure, a Terminal Classic cache had been found, containing two individuals as well as the skulls of three other individuals. Strontium isotope analysis conducted by Carolyn Freiwald (2014: 123) has indicated that only one of the individuals was of local origin, the four others origin from outside the Belize Valley. An additional excavation was placed at the summit of Structure A-8, as we finished the excavation of A-3 earlier than expected and the excavation of A-8 had been originally planned for the 2016 season. Structure A-8 is in alignment with Structure A- ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 118-138. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 118 Figure 1: Map of Xunantunich site core and our excavation units of 2015 (copyright Angela H. Keller and Jason Yaeger, Yeager 2010:6) 3 which is a common configuration; as Eastern Triadic Shrines or E-Groups will have a corresponding western building (Awe 2014:2). BACKGROUND Xunantunich is an ancient Maya site, located in the upper Belize Valley, only 15 km east of Naranjo, Guatemala, and just 10 km west of Cahal Pech. Xunantunich had been established as a Maya settlement as early as the Early Preclassic period (c. 300 BCE) (LeCount and Yaeger 2010: 69-70). The site core sits on a plateau that overlooks the Belize Valley and the Mopan River, with architecture dating as far back as the Early Preclassic period, however, the majority of the monumental architecture was built during the Late Classic period, and in just a single phase. Presumably, the site core of the Preclassic period was most likely 800 meters east of the current site core in group E (Keller 2010:193). During the Late Classic (600-800 CE), Xunantunich covered an area of approximately 2.6 km² which includes a series of six plazas as well as 26 temples and structures dominated by the Castillo (Structure A-6) which is located on the southern side of the main plaza (Plaza A-1). The Castillo is the second largest Maya structure in Belize, following Caana at Caracol located in the Mountain Pine Ridge directly south of Xunantunich. The Castillo is distinguished by a decorative frieze covering the upper part, identified by A.H. Anderson in 1949 and documented by Linton Satterwaite in 119 Figure 2: The Triadic Shrines prior to 2015 excavations (Photo by C. Santasilia). 1950 (Leventhal et al. 2010: 4). The Preclassic political center at Xunantunich was likely eclipsed by nearby Actuncan and remained a minor site until 7th century CE where Xunantunich rose to great power and continued to flourish during the Terminal Classic period. The population seems to have increased considerably during this time period; however, the reasons for the large increase in population are not fully understood. It has been speculated that one reason for the population expansion could be a direct or indirect effect of an alliance with or conquest by the site of Naranjo (LeCount and Yaeger 2010: 367), as well as the decline of several nearby smaller sites (Yaeger 2010: 248). The inclusion of Structure A-3 in this year’s excavations at Xunantunich was a continuation of the work of BVAR on the Eastern Triadic Shrine at Cahal Pech (structures B-1,B-2, and B-3) over the past four years (BVAR reports: Santasilia 2011 through 2014, Ishahara 2012, Conlon 2012). The work on the Eastern Triadic Shrine was in conjunction with extensive work at Cahal Pech that further defined the architectural and inhabitation history of the site, contributed to the development of a chronology of dynastic internment and conserved several important buildings. OBJECTIVE Our objective for investigations at Structure A-3 (Figure 2) was to investigate possible similarities between the architecture and ritual usage as encountered in Structure B1 at Cahal Pech. Previous excavations at Xunantunich had found the majority of the structures to be from a later period than many other sites with Eastern Triadic Shrines (600-900 CE) (LeCount and Yaeger 2010: 70-72). The excavations of the central triadic shrine at Cahal Pech (Structure B1) revealed a complex construction sequence as well as a rich environment of burials and deposits. Seven burials and three caches were exposed in the four-year period. This was added to the six burials exposed in previous excavations of structure B1. These findings support the argument that some Eastern Triadic Shrine complexes had ritual importance related to ancestor worship. This is in juxtaposition with other "E-Group" structures (Jaime Awe, 2014: 22). The decision to excavate and conserve structure A-3 was intended to determine if similar attributes existed in this late classic structure. 120 METHOD The 2015 season started with 20-30 excavator assistants, clearing the western façade of Structure A-3 (the central structure of the Eastern Triadic Shrine). The three structures which make up the Eastern Triadic Shrine (Structures A-2, A-3 and A-4) are all very steep and their exterior terminal architecture has generally collapsed. Both the humus layer and the collapse were removed and as much as possible of the terminal phase of architecture was exposed for future conservation. Once the western façade was exposed, we started our primary investigations and placed several units on the structure (see Figure 1). The structure, which has five terraces, showed evidence of a burnt floor on the lower southern terrace, next to the central staircase. The first unit (A-3-1) was placed on this floor. Another unit (A-3-3) was started at plaza level (Plaza A-1) behind the main stela located in front of the western staircase. This unit was placed to investigate how many plaza floors we may encounter and to discover if there would be any penultimate architecture. The primary unit (A-3-2) was a large trench, initiated from the summit of the structure and was expanded west as we continued downwards into the structure. The purpose of this unit was to investigate possible different phases of construction of the structure. The steepness of the structure required that many precautions were taken to secure safety of everybody working. The fill of the structure is dry-laid fill as noted above. The fill was very unstable and the unit at the summit was initially set at 6 meters (N-S) by 3 meters (E-W). This enabled us to narrow the unit for stabilization as we excavated downwards. The units were screened for objects, but unit A-3-3 did neither reveal many objects. In unit A-3-1, all the soil was screened as this unit consisted of multilayer deposit. All screens were 1/8 inch mesh. Charcoal samples were taken frequently in unit A-3-1 as large amounts of charcoal were encountered. On Structure A-8, the same methods were applied as on Structure A-3: A unit was placed at the summit. The fill material was dry-laid but the size of stone used for fill was much smaller than that encountered in Structure A-3 with 10-15 cm diameter being common. Screening was conducted throughout the excavation since the matrix was more amenable to screening. Screening yielded a fairly steady stream of chert and ceramic sherds. Furthermore, the use of 3D imaging was initiated this summer. 3D imaging made it possible in many instances to provide a better view of the units, particularly the architecture which in several instances was too large to capture on one 2D image. Several of the images represented in this report are 2D versions of the 3D images produced. 3D imagery can further be used to get a better notion of depth perception within the different levels in a unit. 3D models are ideal for documentation of units for the future, where regular 2D photographs are limiting the accessibility. EXCAVATIONS Structure A-3 is approximately 16 meters tall and 24 meters wide, with a central staircase that is 9 meters wide and with a 7.5 meters flank on either side. On the southern side of the staircase, a balustrade was uncovered between the plaza level and the first 121 Figure 3: The different types of ceramic from the termination deposit (Photos by C. Santasilia). terrace. However, no evidence of a balustrade was found on the northern end of the staircase. This may be the result of the archaeologists having misinterpreted it during previous excavations, or that the Maya deliberately had removed it and used the stones elsewhere, as many lines of stones generally are visible around the plaza level in the vicinity of the structure indicating later modifications. According to Dr. Awe (personal communication, 2015) balustrades are not common in the Maya lowlands and are seldom conserved. The structure has five terraces, which on the southern side show evidence of two small staircases between 2nd and 3rd terrace, and 3rd and 4th terrace, considered part of the original phase of construction. STRUCTURE A-3 Unit A-3-1 During clearing of the façade the excavator assistants had uncovered what appeared to be a terminal deposit (designated deposit 1, see Figure 3) and consequently we decided to start at this location. After the area had been uncovered and humus and collapse removed, the area turned out to be a ‘room’ that had been filled in: the southern wall of the western staircase along with a newer modification/addition to the structures, which consisted of a smaller structure placed somewhat center between Structure A-4 and A-3, with only few remaining walls to attest to its existence. Further evidence to support that the two walls were part of a separate structure was indicated by a low molding c. 35 cm above ground which is to be found on both walls which are c. 5 meters apart. The northern wall (still standing c. 2 meters tall) of this additional structure, along with the western staircase, neatly provided a small enclosure c. 280 cm (N-S) and 410 cm (E-W). The enclosure had been completely filled in, and the top had been embedded into a later modification of the first terrace, and the unit had been covered by a plaster floor, which had been burnt in the center on the surface. We established at unit (c. 250 by 280 cm, Level 2), and we went through the area of the burnt floor. C. 70 cm below the plaster floor, where we reached a deposit 122 (designated Deposit 2) in the western part of the unit extending c. 10 cm downwards. It contained a large amount of ceramic sherds, as well as a mano fragment. After the 2nd deposit, the amount of objects largely ceased, to start again at approximately 135 cm below the plaster floor. This 3rd deposit, however, was not limited to the western area. Several broken pots were spread out, and those were collected in separate bags, in order to possibly glue vessels back together in lab. Many of the sherds were Mt. Malony, which are commonly found at Xunantunich; other sherds were Belize Red, a few polychrome, some with incised grooves, as well as a complete neck of a jar. Furthermore, four large mano fragments were uncovered as well as one small obsidian blade. The deposit extended 20 cm downwards and large quantities of ceramic sherds were removed. Extensive amount of charcoal was present, several samples of which were collected. Only 5-10 cm below the supposed end of the 3rd deposit, another deposit emerged, which was designated deposit 3B, and likewise c. 5-10 cm below 3B, another deposit emerged, designated 3C. Here there seems to more of a difference between the northern and the southern end of the deposits, and more boulders are uncovered on the northern end (closer to the balustrade). We left the boulders in place, and decided to focus on the southern area. Large amounts of charcoal were uncovered, of which samples were collected. The two deposits combined produced 18 bags of objects in one day, including seven obsidian blades. After removal of the 3C deposit, we were close to the plaza floor where we encountered a deposit, designated Deposit 3D, considered to have been placed on the floor. A type of ceramic - red with many spikes (very Late Classic/Postclassic) was uncovered. Possibly many of the pieces in this deposit came from the same vessel, but it proved almost impossible in lab to fit them all together. Pieces of Mt. Malony were also uncovered as well as few pieces of charcoal and three small obsidian blade fragments. The large boulders, which had been left in situ, turned out to be resting on the plaza floor on the northern half of the unit (Figure 4). These boulders turned out to be large square cut blocks, which appear to have been part of the balustrade façade which had collapsed, whether through collapse or as part of a termination ritual is not possible to determine. There were few artefacts among the large rocks. Only one block, further south, was clearly on top of a large amount of the red spiked vessel, which means it either collapsed as the area was being filled up, or they placed the piece there, after having placed the vessel, possibly to level out the area. The collapse was both drawn and photographed for 3D imagery, before being removed. The unit was now levelled with the plaza floor. To finish this unit/area, we placed a 1 by 1 meter unit in the north eastern corner, to do a final investigation of the architecture and if there would be any relation between the balustrade and the terrace façade. We encountered no architecture, and the unit reached bedrock after c. 50 cm (275 cm below original burnt floor surface). Unit A-3-2 This unit is our primary unit, placed at the summit of Structure A-3. It was initially believed that no previous excavations had taken place at the summit of Structure A-3. However, shortly after commencing excavations we found evidence of an earlier excavation unit, which appeared to be formally excavated which suggests that it was placed by archaeologists, and not by looters, as nails and string was encountered. 123 Figure 4: 2D image of the 3D model of the collapse, not to scale, black arrow pointing towards north (model by C. Santasilia) The previous excavation was off center being north and west of the centerlines of the structure as we calculated them and appears to have been abandoned after encountering internal construction walls. The excavation was 1 x 3 meters reduced to 1 x 1 meter with a maximum depth of 1.5 meters. The excavation was modern; within the last 50 years based on debris found in its backfill. However, no written record has been located of the excavation. Given its location, depth and constraint by construction walls we believe it was exploratory and did not expose burial or other material. The southern end, which had not fallen victim to earlier excavations, revealed remnants of a plastered floor. The division of levels at the summit was somewhat a challenge, as the floor was not present in the northern end, and, further, it seemed as more floors were present in the southern end than in the northern end. But this could be a result of the earlier excavations and poor preservation, as the second floor extended westward, and was on top of the western wall of the summit. The first floor was at the same level as the datum. The second floor was c. 45 cm below datum, and a third floor c. 145 cm below datum. The wall began at c. 45 cm below datum and extended for 120 cm westward. A plastered floor was encountered on the outside of the wall on the western façade which did not extend underneath the wall nor was it present behind the wall. We refrained from removing the wall, until we were sure about the definitions of the unit and the extension of the backfill. When we could not continue our excavations without removing the wall, the wall was drawn and removed stone by stone, so it could be conserved later. Below the exterior wall, excavations slowly started to reveal lines of rocks, neatly aligned. The alignment of the construction walls was centered on north/south spine wall. This wall was excavated to over four meters depth without finding the 124 Figure 5: 2D image of a 3D model of the construction pens, not to scale, black arrow pointing towards north (model by C. Santasilia). bottom and other walls and construction pens extended in an east/west direction from the spine wall. A very similar configuration was found in Structure A-8 (Figure 5). It became evident as we uncovered more of these small crude aligned walls and associated tamped floors that they were in fact construction walls and floors, and not earlier phases of architecture. We uncovered as many walls as possible, until it was necessary to make a decision as whether to remove the walls and then face a huge challenge when having to conserve it and rebuilt the structure. Many options were considered. The third unit (A- 3-3) initially had been opened on the basis that it could help us reach possible architecture that we could tie to any architecture at the summit. The lowest part in unit A-3-2 had reached c. 420 cm into the structure. The A-3-2 unit was extended to the west towards the exterior face of the structure. Construction steps were exposed which tied to the construction steps identified in A-3-3. The unit was getting close to the A-3- 3 unit which slowly was reaching up to the unit at the summit. Ultimately, it was decided that it would be difficult to continue excavations of the unit without causing damage to the structure, and as there seemed to be no indication of earlier phases or of ritual burial in the difficult matrix, we closed the unit. Unit A-3-3 This unit was, as indicated above, initiated to investigate the possible phases of architecture of the structure. This unit was initially two meters (N-S) by three meters (E-W), but was extended eastwards as we excavated further into the structure. It further 125 Figure 6: Construction staircase below terminal staircase (Photo by C. Santasilia). appeared that the area directly behind the stela, which supposedly has been moved somewhat during the excavations in the 1990s (personal communication, Yaeger 2015), contained a small cluster of stones. However, this cluster turned out to be mere rumble from the collapse. We did encounter steps, but they appeared to be construction steps, just like all the construction walls at the summit. This was confirmed later as we continued into the structure, and a whole crude construction staircase was uncovered, c. 0.5 -1 meter below the original terminal staircase (Figure 6). We cleaned behind the first original step, which was located on the plaza floor, and found a cache (#1, level 2). It contained 18 objects: nine chert eccentrics and nine obsidian eccentrics (Figure 7 and Appendix 1 for images, drawings and measurements of the eccentrics). The cache was located c. 50 cm behind the stela, and just behind the first step, c. 5 cm below the plaza floor, and c. 30 cm below the top of the step. The eccentrics were pedestalled as they were excavated to get a better idea of the relation between the different objects. Three were located on their own c. 10 cm away, the rest were all clustered together in one big pile. They were carefully inspected, and showed no sign of paint or other marks of decoration, neither were they enclosed with any other objects. According to Zachary Hruby (Personal communication 2015) the cache is typical Late Classic and the eccentrics range between ceremonial and utilitarian shapes which express a combination of utilitarian, iconographic, technological, and material sources. After we had removed the first cache, we continued our excavation into the structure. The many construction steps were drawn before being removed. The fill of 126 Figure 7: Cache 1, unit A-3-3: Chert and Obsidian eccentrics (Photo by C. Santasilia). Figure 8: Cache 2, Unit A-3-3: Shell, Jadeite and Obsidian (Photo by C. Santasilia). the structure, as remarked above was very unstable, and one wrong move or loose rock could make the unit collapse, so it was important to constantly slope the baulks. After having reached c. 280 cm into the structure from the first step, we uncovered a second cache. This cache was neatly embedded into a small pedestalled ‘enclosure’. The second cache contained two large jade beads as well as one perfect obsidian bloodletter, one semele clam, and 62 jute (Pachychilus indiorum) (Figure 8 and Appendix 2). After removal of the second cache we extended the unit another two meters into the structure. No architecture was encountered, and Jorge Can, the conservator of IOA, who was in charge of the whole conservation project, posited that, based on his expertise, it was almost impossible that there would be any other phase of construction as the Maya would place their first steps on a floor below the plaza floor (personal communication, 2015). A quick dig into the floor after removal of the first cache had 127 revealed bedrock to be just below plaza floor, with no evidence of other plaza floors. This concept was supported by the excavations at the summit, which revealed only construction pens at a fairly deep measure. It was eventually decided that Structure A-3 must have been built in just one phase –and that chances of finding earlier evidence of activity, would cause too much damage to the structure. STRUCTURE A-8 Unit A-8-2 Structure A-8 is located on the western boundary of the A Plaza in approximate alignment with Structure A-3 and oriented in a north/south direction. This is a frequent configuration with western buildings aligned with central structures of a triadic complex. (Awe 2014:1) The building is a long, narrow tall structure. The most northern end of the unit had been excavated by the XAP team 1996. Their (XAP) excavations show indication of a plaza on the northern end (Jameson 1996: 61-62). We opened a summit trench which initially was three by four meters. At the same time a separate BVAR excavation team opened a trench at the base of the structure to attempt to find and identify the dimensions of a suspected staircase (Zanotto, this volume). The excavation of the summit of Structure A-8 proceeded in a very similar fashion to Structure A-3 and remnants of the summit floor were located at approximately 45 cm below datum. However, it was soon evident that once again we were working in backfill, like at the summit of Structure A-3. However, like with Structure A-3, we did not find any report that had any indication of previous excavations at the summit; this was verified by Awe (personal communication, 2015). This was not expected and the modern objects found in the backfill informed us of recent activity, but once more, performed by archaeologists, and not looters. As with the previous excavation on Structure A-3 it appeared to be more in the way of a probe of the unit than a major attempt to define the structures architecture. The fill material of A-8 consisted of much smaller stone than that encountered in Structure A-3. It was similar to fill at Structure A-3, as there was very few artifacts in the fill except for chert (including spent cores). XAP reports cite evidence of a chert workshop in Plaza B (Vanden Bosch 2010: 274-278) which is directly behind Structure A-8 and it is likely that the debris pile was used for fill in Structure A-8. As seen in Structure A-3, we identified a north/south construction spine wall approximately one meter below the summit floor fragment (Figure 9). The wall was similar to those found in Structure A-3, also exceeding four meters in length, and other construction walls and floors extended out in an east/west direction from it. We extended the unit more than two meters towards east to in an attempt to pick up any terminal exterior construction architecture including any continuation of the plaza level cited in the XAP report (Jameson 1996: 61-62). We found none as it appears that all exterior facing stones had collapsed or been scavenged. Eventually we closed the unit as we found no evidence of earlier construction episodes or ritual deposits. The excavation unit at the base was unable to define the 128 Figure 9: Construction wall and floor of Unit A-8-2 (Photo by D. Tilden). dimensions of the staircase or pinpoint the centerline of the staircase. Again it appeared that portions of the staircase molding had been scavenged (personal communication, Zanotto, 2015). DISCUSSION The investigations during the 2015 field season revealed significant insight into the people who built the monumental structures in the Late Classic period that distinguishes Xunantunich from other sites in the Belize Valley. The investigations also raised important questions about the Late Classic ritual practices observed at Xunantunich, and the consistency with earlier excavations of structures at Xunantunich (Jameson 2010: 122-135). We found that the construction characteristics of Structure A-3 included dry-laid fill augmented in places by large deposits of marl. We ultimately determined that there was not an earlier phase of construction of Structure A-3, unlike as otherwise often encountered in structures in the Maya area, as well as in Structure A-4 (Audet 2006: 140). Structure A-3 was constructed in a single construction phase, which required a very comprehensive system of retaining walls to ensure the structural integrity of the 16-meter-tall structure. Large boulders, some weighing up to 45kg were used extensively for fill between the construction walls, which bears no resemblance to the fill material of Structure A-4 (personal communication, Awe, 2015). We encountered two caches in unit A-3-3, both of immense importance. The first cache, contained both obsidian and chert eccentrics, which have been found elsewhere at Xunantunich as well and supports the idea of continuity among the people who built the site. The second cache supports the concept of a certain wealth among the elite who resided at the site, due not only to two large jade beads, but also an obsidian bloodletter as well as a clam shell, traded from the Caribbean Sea. In front of Structure 129 Figure 10: Conservation work of Structure A-3 (Photos by J. Can). A-3 a large unadorned stela was erected, which could be indication of ritual intent related to the eccentrics. The very large deposit (Figure 10), found in unit A-3-1, appears to have been a termination ritual between the two structure walls, suggests the very late activity ongoing at the site, which is further supported by the structure (A-20) west of the Castillo, which contains round pillars and appear to be very late and possibly foreign influence (Figure 11). Further, the architecture revealed on Structure A-3 was atypical, as balustrades are uncommon in the Maya Lowlands. Also interesting are the additional structures added in front of Structures A-3 and A-4, and how they had been embedded in later rituals. The questions raised by our excavations relate to the lack of ritual activity in Structure A-3. Ancestor veneration, as well as disinterment and re-interment rituals, remained a vibrant part of the Maya culture through the end of the Terminal Classic period (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 755-756). These rituals would normally take place in a structure facing the main plaza of the polity. The evidence from the four years of BVAR work at Cahal Pech indicates the Cahal Pech equivalent of Structure A-3 fulfilled that function. In the absence of burials and evidence of extensive ritual activity in Structure A-3 the assumption would be that the spectacular structure: The Castillo would have filled that function at Xunantunich. However, numerous excavations of the Castillo have found no evidence of this (Freiwald et al. 2014). In fact, none of the buildings surrounding the 130 Figure 11: 2D image of the 3D model of Structure A-20 after conservation, not to scale, black arrow pointing towards north (model by C. Santasilia). main plaza has yielded burials which would seem to be ritual other than the two burials in Structure A-4. In the period between 1992 and 2004 the XAP, TDP and the Xunantunich Palace Excavation (XPE) excavated 19 individuals from 15 burials (Friewald et al. 2014: 110-118). The burials have all undergone strontium analysis, but have not all been directly 14C dated. Eight of the burials are from Plaza D, an elite residence plaza south east of the main plaza (A-1). Burials in Plaza D would deprive them of public ritual attributes. Within the 19 identified individuals there is no consistency of orientation or body position. Only two of the individuals are in the normal Upper Belize Valley burial position of supine and head to the south. This leaves us with several significant questions: 1. Where are the elite burials from the 600-900 CE period? 2. Is it possible that political structure and related traditions changed in this late blooming Maya cosmopolitan polity such that veneration of ancestors no long fit the needs of the population and the ruling class? So, Structure A-3 became a form without content. These questions are fertile grounds for future research. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to John Morris and the IOA for giving us this opportunity to investigate at Xunantunich. Conservation work was made possible through the continuing support from the Tilden Family foundation. We would also like to extend our gratitude to BVAR for the steady support, and not least to Dr. Jaime Awe, for always trusting us to excavate these incredible structures. Furthermore, this would not be possible without the incredible work of our loyal excavator assistants from Succutz village, just across the river. Every year they provide the main workforce behind the tons of rocks and dirt we remove. A special thank you to Jorge Can (Belize’s best conservator), Alfred (Jimmy) Puc, Eduardo Cunil and many many more, our gratitude is never ending. A very special thank you to Megan James, for her incredible drawings. And a special thank you to Elyse Bromser-Kloeden for 3D guidance, Zachery Hruby for analysis of the eccentrics, and Mike Berns (1944-2016) for running lab on site this summer, may you rest in peace, you will be sorely missed. 131 REFERENCES CITED: Audet, Carolyn M. 2006 Political Organization in the Belize Valley: Excavations at Baking Pot, Cahal Pech and Xunantunich. PhD dissertation. Published by Vanderbilt University Press Awe, Jaime 2014 Of Apples and Oranges: The Case of E-Groups and Eastern Triadic Architectural Assemblages in the Belize River Valley, In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Vol. 11, 2014, Institute of Archaeology, NICH, Belize Freiwald, Carolyn, Jason Yaeger, Jaime Awe, Jennifer Piehl 2014 Isotopic Insights into Mortuary Treatment and Origin at Xunantunich, Belize, In The Bioarchaeology of Space and Place, pp: 107-140, edited by Gabriel D. Wrobel, Published by Springer Press, New York Jameson, Thomas R. 1996 Xunanatunich Archaeological Project field report. pp 61-62 Edited by Richard Leventhal. On File with the Belize Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan 2010 Monumental Building Programs and Changing Political Strategies at Xunantunich. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands pp: 122-145, edited by Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger, Published by University of Arizona Press Keller, Angela, 2010 The Social Construction of Roads. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, pp: 184-208 edited by Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger, Published by University of Arizona Press LeCount, Lisa and Jason Yaeger, 2010 A Brief Description of Xunantunich. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, pp: 67-78, edited by Lisa LeCont and Jason Yaeger, Published by University of Arizona Press Leventhal, Richard, Wendy Ashmore, Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger 2010 The Xunantunich Archeological Project, 1991-1997, in Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, pp: 1-19, edited by Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger, Published by University of Arizona Press Sharer, Robert J. and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya. Published by Stanford University Press Vanden Bosch, Jon C., Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Jaeger 2010 Integration and Independence: The Domestic Chipped Stone Economy of the Polity. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, pp: 272-315 edited by Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger, Published by University of Arizona Press Yaeger, Jason 2010 Landscapes of the Xunantunich Hinterlands. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics; Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, 233-250, edited by Lisa LeCount and Jason Yaeger, Publsihed by University of Arizona Press 132 Appendix 1 133 134 135 136 137 Appendix 2 138 XUNANTUNICH ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION PROJECT EXCAVATIONS AT XUNANTUNICH SITE CORE, OPERATION SC-3 STRUCTURES A-20 & A-8 Hannah H. Zanotto Northern Arizona University Dagmar Galvan Northern Arizona University Jaime J. Awe Northern Arizona University INTRODUCTION This report focuses on the excavations conducted by the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project (BVAR) during the 2015 field season at the Xunantunich epicenter as a part of the Xunantunich Archaeological Conservation Project, Operation SC-3, at Structure A-20 and the base of Structure A-8. During the 2015 field season, excavations at the Xunantunich epicenter were also carried out by Jason Yaeger (Director, Mopan Valley Archaeological Project) at Structure A-2, Catharina Santasilia at Structure A-3 and A-4, and by Doug Tilden on the summit of Structure A-8 (see Santasilia and Tilden, this volume). All research conducted was collaborative in nature and aimed to better understand the decline of Xunantunich. All structures excavated are currently undergoing conservation for the purposes of tourist development and cultural heritage preservation (Figure 1). BVAR 2015 RESEARCH Xunantunich rose to prominence around AD 600-670 during the Samal Phase, although the polity achieved political autonomy during the Late-Terminal Classic period (AD 750- 900) when many other Maya polities were already in decline (LeCount et al. 2002:41; NICH 2015; Yaeger 2005:5). While debate is ongoing, the Classic Maya collapse generally denotes the end of divine dynastic rulership, a shift in cosmological worldview, and the demographic abandonment of many political centers in the southern and central lowlands (Culbert 1973; Shaw 2003). The events leading up to the collapse and the ways in which the various polities responded to growing social tension (Demarest 1996), ecological degradation (Deevey et al. 1979), and drought (Kennett et al. 2012) have been of great interest to both scholars and the general public (Diamond 2005). Xunantunich provides a unique opportunity to examine a polity that endured longer than its peers and can provide insight into how the apical elite of an ancient Maya polity continued attempting ______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 139-181. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 139 Figure 1: Photo showing the conservation of Structure A-20, Xunantunich. to legitimize their power and mediate risk in the face of socio-political disaster (Walden 2016). Archaeological research during the 2015 BVAR field season focused on the final activities at Xunantunich prior to the abandonment of the site (c. AD 900), hereby shedding light on this late apogee and its relevance for understanding the broader regional trajectories of the Belize Valley and the Maya Lowlands. BVAR 2015 Xunantunich Research Questions: A series of research questions were generated with these objectives in mind: 1) What activities were occurring at Xunantunich prior to the abandonment of the polity? 2) How do the final activities and occupation at Xunantunich compare to those at other political centers in the western Belize Valley? 3) How did the political relationships between centers in western Belize and the declining polities in the Petén, and the rising polities in the Yucatán, change during the Terminal-Classic period? 140 Political Power and the Materialization of Maya Cosmology In ancient Maya worldview the ‘natural’ world was infused with and animated by forces or deities that could influence human life (Trigger 2003). As a result, the political, social, and ideological realms of the Maya world were completely bound to one another. These powerful forces could move between realms through mountains, caves and lakes as well as up and down the cosmic world tree (Vogt and Stuart 2005; Trigger 2003). The center of the universe or Axis Mundi was commonly depicted as the cosmic world tree or as the dynastic ruler. As a physical embodiment of the world tree, dynastic Maya rulers were imbued with divine powers that allowed for them to mediate their world through ritual practices which would in turn legitimate their authority as divine ruler of a polity (Freidel 2008). These cultural ideals were transformed into the physical reality of the Maya through the manipulation of space and the performance of ritual activities (Bourdieu 1977; DeMarrais et al. 1996; Inomata 2006). This materialization process allowed for the material embodiment of the ideology to be controlled, manipulated, and ultimately act as a source of social power for the elite members of Maya society. Ritual caching practices and interments represent one way in which ideology was materialized and manipulated by the Classic Maya (Chase and Chase 1998:303; DeMarrais et al. 1996). Therefore, the examination of the context of caches, burials and ritual activities can act as an avenue for archaeologists to understand the nature of important ritual activities and shed light onto how the Maya were attempting to reinforce, transform, or recreate their worldview and source of power during the penultimate phases at Classic Maya civic ceremonial centers (Chase and Chase 1998:303; DeMarrais et al. 1996). Maya civic ceremonial centers within polities included a range of architecture such as temples, palaces, and observatories oriented around a quadripartite plaza (Ashmore 1989). The elite resided in these civic ceremonial centers and conducted important rituals in these spaces. The architecture within this center was deeply influenced by Maya ideology. For example, Maya temples represented Witz (sacred mountains), or the cosmic tree of life that facilitated human communication with the sky world and underworld (Freidel 2008; Trigger 2003:468; Vogt 1964). Furthermore, hieroglyphic and ethnographic data support the idea that ceremonial centers were constructed as mountain-pyramids and cave-temples (Vogt and Stuart 2005:155). These studies support the notion that ceremonial centers represented a built sacred landscape that the powerful upper echelon of Maya society used to reinforce their power. Xunantunich Investigations The intertwined nature of Maya ideology with ancient politics led BVAR field excavations to target spaces in the civic ceremonial center that may have contained ritual deposits to investigate the final activities of the elite at Xunantunich prior to sociopolitical collapse. Previous investigations at Xunantunich suggest that power-related changes at Xunantunich were reflected in the architecture (Neff 1995), therefore construction phases of the structures were also of particular interest. In order to investigate the research questions outlined above, excavation focused on Structure A-20, a small elite shrine atop El Castillo that is believed to be one of the last buildings constructed at Xunantunich, and 141 Figure 2: Map showing the location of Xunantunich in relation to the greater Belize Valley and surrounding regions. (Map courtesy of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project (BVAR) (After Helmke and Awe 2012: Fig. 2). Structure A-8, a large, east facing mound located on the western portion of Plaza A. These structures provided ideal contexts to investigate how the elite were responding to stress and legitimizing their power during a time of socio-political upheaval and changing worldview. Xunantunich Background Xunantunich (AD 600-900) (LeCount et al. 2002) is located along the modern Guatemala-Belize border (Figure 2). The civic-ceremonial epicenter (Figure 3) lies on a defensible ridge (Figure 4) overlooking the immediate hinterlands. Surrounding Xunantunich is the fertile floodplain of the Mopan River and rolling terraced limestone hillsides (Awe et al. 2014; Sharer and Traxler 2006:516). While there is evidence of occupation as early as the Middle Preclassic period (800 BC) (Awe et al. 2014), Xunantunich rose to prominence during the Late-Terminal Classic period (AD 830 – 950), a time which witnessed the sociopolitical collapse of the surrounding polities (NICH 2015; Yaeger 2005:5). Xunantunich subsequently emerged in a competitive political landscape when the surrounding polities of Arenal, Buenavista del Cayo, Cahal Pech, Baking Pot, El Pilar and Pacbitun were at their zenith (Awe 1992; Leventhal and et al. 2010; Yaeger 2005). Interestingly, the powerful Naranjo polity located in the nearby Petén, appears to have been more closely linked to Xunantunich than the neighboring political centers in the Belize Valley (Helmke and Awe 2012; Yaeger 2005). Xunantunich had direct access to the Mopan river, a tributary of the Belize River, which would have provided an important trade connection to the Caribbean (Sharer and Traxler 2006:516). In addition, the rich alluvial 142 Figure 3: Xunantunich epicenter showing location of BVAR 2015 excavations (Adapted from Yaeger 2005). 143 Figure 4: 2.5 LiDAR bare earth rendering of Xunantunich (After Chase et al. 2014: Fig. 10). Note defensible location of polity. Figure 5: Stela 8 Xunantunich (c. AD 820) depicting individual from Naranjo conducting ritual, likely at Xunantunich. Drawing by Ian Graham (1978:2:124), amendments made by Christophe Helmke (After Helmke et al. 2010: Fig. 5.4). 144 Figure 6: Emblem glyph for Xunantunich from Structure A-32, Panel 2 (c. AD 780-820). Drawing by Christophe Helmke (After Helmke and Awe 2012: Fig. 6). soils of the Belize River valley made it far more productive than the surrounding regions. This advantageous landscape may explain why the Naranjo polity desired to either directly or indirectly gain control of this region. Epigraphic data from Xunantunich sheds further light onto the relationships between the two polities. Stela 8 (AD 820, Figure 5) records important ritual acts associated with significant period endings that were officiated by an individual from Naranjo, likely at Xunantunich (Helmke et al. 2010:107-110). However, Panel 2 (AD 780-820) contains a previous unknown emblem glyph (Figure 6) that contains the expression K’uhul Katyaatz Witz Ajaw or ‘Godly Katyaatz Witz King (Helmke and Awe 2012:67-68). The likely meaning of Katyaatz Witz is ‘Clay-bearing Mountain’ which is probably in reference to the hilltop Xunantunich rests on that contains an abundance of clay (Helmke and Awe 2012:67-68). Furthermore, the stucco frieze on El Castillo (Structure A-6) depicts small cosmograms of Witz Monsters and a series of young maize sprouts spelling out witznal or “mountainous place” (Helmke and Awe 2012:68). As previously mentioned, temples represented Witz or sacred mountains in Maya ideology (Vogt 1964), therefore it is likely that El Castillo represented the actual Katyaatz Witz or Clay-bearing Mountain associated with Xunantunich (Helmke and Awe 2012:67-68). Furthermore, epigraphic data suggests that Xunantunich was likely in a subordinate relationship with Naranjo prior to gaining its autonomy (Helmke et al. 2010). Xunantunich then claimed an emblem glyph as Nananjo’s power began to wane (Helmke et al. 2010:120). Stela 8 therefore likely represented an attempt by Naranjo to establish an alliance with Xunantunich thereby creating stability during the Early and Late Classic periods (Helmke et al. 2010:120). The epigraphy at Xunantunich corresponds to a broader shift in political writing during the Terminal Classic period (Helmke et al. 2010:121). Rather than the Terminal Classic texts documenting historical events they instead focus on depicting powerful kings and political independence in an attempt to reinforce stability during a time of intensified social stress (Helmke et al. 2010:121) 145 Table 1. Chronology for Xunantunich (After LeCount 2002) Phase Date Political History Tsak’ AD 780-890 a Balkanization and collapse Hats’ Chaak AD 670-780 Growth of provincial capital Samal AD 600 a-670 Initial construction of Late Classic civic center a Date is tentative. While the exact connection between Xunantunich and Naranjo remains unclear archaeological research suggests that the intense and rapid construction sequence at Xunantunich during the Hats’ Chaak phase (AD 670-780, Table 1) may be the product of rulers connected to Naranjo legitimating their power (Yaeger 2005). However, by AD 800, the breakdown of centralized power at Naranjo led Xunantunich to gain autonomy (Helmke and Awe 2012; Sharer and Traxler 2006). At this time the Xunantunich palace compound (Plaza A-II) was abandoned and dismantled, and El Castillo became the new royal residence (Yaeger 2005; Sharer and Traxler 2006). Yaeger (2005) argues that this event represented a major political event at Xunantunich in which the ruling family was replaced. Deprived of the resources that would have supported a traditional royal lifestyle, the elite of Xunantunich likely developed new strategies to maintain their power (Sharer and Traxler 2006). El Castillo underwent multiple modifications including the addition of the new stucco frieze, and dynastic monuments were erected to celebrate calendrical cycles that ended in AD 820, 830, and 849 (Sharer and Traxler 2006:517). In addition, Structure A-20, a small elite shrine was added to the western portion of El Castillo. Despite these royal attempts to legitimate and maintain their power, by AD 900 the power of the royal court waned and Xunantunich was abandoned. The carved monuments (Sharer and Traxler 2006:517) and the continued architectural investments (Leventhal et al. 2010) in Xunantunich’s civic epicenter indicate that the dynastic lineage continued to declare their power into the ninth century. However, previous work by Yaeger (2010) suggests that the occupation in the surrounding settlement was declining in the Terminal Classic Period. The two diverging lines of evidence calls into question the nature and longevity of Xunantunich’s decline and provides new grounds for additional archaeological investigations. Previous Investigations at Xunantunich The first archaeological research at Xunantunich began when Thomas Gann (1925) conducted limited excavations at the larger structures in Group A in the 1890s. It was not until 1938 that systematic archaeological excavations took place at Xunantunich directed by Sir J. Eric S. Thompson (1940). For the next several decades, field work at Xunantunich focused on architectural consolidation. In 1949, A. H. Anderson rediscovered the stucco frieze first identified by Gann on the eastern façade of Structure A-6 (El Castillo), which 146 was subsequently exposed and documented by Linton Satterthwaite (1951). From 1952 to 1954 Michael Steward conducted excavations in Group A (Willey 1965) and from 1959- 1960 Euan Mackie and the Cambridge University Expedition continued excavation and consolidation at Xunantunich (Mackie 1961). In the 1950s and 1960s Anderson (1966) opened Xunantunich for tourism and consolidated several buildings including El Castillo. In 1968 and 1971 Peter Schmidt (1974) conducted excavations in Plaza A-III and Plaza A- I. Later, in 1979, reports of looting led David Pendergast and Elizabeth Graham (1981) to conduct salvage excavations at Xunantunich. Despite providing valuable glimpses into the past, the short lived and infrequent nature of these excavations hindered archaeologists from forming a cohesive picture of the history of the Xunantunich polity. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the government of Belize received financial aid from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to conserve Xunantunich as a part of their tourist development project. The Belizean Ministry of Tourism and the Environmental and the Department of Archaeology advocated a development approach to solve any possible adverse effects of conservation and as a result, the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (XAP), a multidisciplinary research and conservation program began. XAP excavations were led by Richard Levanthal and Wendy Ashmore between the years 1991 and 1997 and focused on the civic ceremonial epicenter (Leventhal et al. 2010). In addition, an intensive settlement survey around Xunantunich and the smaller site of San Lorenzo was conducted (Yaeger 2000, 2005). Further excavations and consolidation work at El Castillo and the elite palace, Structure A-11, was sponsored by the Belize Tourism Development Project and proceeded under the direction of Jaime Awe and Jason Yaeger. In 2015, the Belize Valley Archaeological Project began the Xunantunich Archaeological Conservation Project, funded by the Tilden Family Foundation, under the supervision of Jaime Awe. CONSERVATION AND EXCAVATIONS AT STRUCTURE A-20 Structure A-20 Background In 1994, XAP excavations of El Castillo (Structure A-6) led to the discovery of Structure A-20 (Neff 1995:39). Structure A-20 (Figure 1,7) is a small (12 N/S x 8 m E/W) structure located on the western portion of El Castillo (Figure 3). The stratigraphic relationships between El Castillo and Structure A-20 indicate that A-20 was one of the latest additions to the civic ceremonial epicenter (AD 850-900). In 1995, XAP excavations led by Linda Neff horizontally exposed and placed subfloor test pits into Structure A-20. These test pits revealed that Structure A-20 underwent four primary construction phases, with multiple modifications in each phase (Table 2). In addition, excavations indicated that Structure A-20 may have served as a small elite shrine during the Terminal Classic Period (c. AD 830 – 950) (Neff 1995). Neff (1995) argues that each architectural modification further served to increase the symmetry and formality of the space within Structure A-20. In addition, the structure shifted from a north-south to an east-west orientation. This shift marked a decline in inter-visibility between the inside of Structure A-20 and Plaza A-1 (Figure 8,9). After the shift, activities inside Structure A-20 were only visible to those in the small western plaza atop El Castillo Figure 8,9). Neff (1995) argues that the architectural modifications of the structure represent a change in the 147 Figure 7: Plan map showing Structure A-20 and courtyard. socio-political organization of Xunantunich. Joyce and Weller (2007) claim that the increasing restriction in access to plaza space and civic ceremonial contexts during this period might have engendered resentment and dissent among the commoner population. In the final phase of construction, Structure A-20 consisted of three rooms, with a small courtyard located to the east. Within Room 2 of Structure A-20 there are two rounded columns located immediately within the doorway. XAP excavations also revealed that the floor of Room 1 of Structure A-20 had “cut marks and peg like holes” that covered an area of 50 cm N/S and 40 cm E/W (Neff 1995). In addition, a doorway into Room 1 had holes that may have been used for curtains. Alexanders Unslipped (Spanish Lookout phase) jar fragments were found in these holes (Neff 1995). A patolli board was carved into the red painted floor of Room 4. All three rooms contained benches (Neff 1995), one of which was incised with a cross type decoration. Structure A-20 appears to have been “ritually buried” and then later used for post-occupational activities (Neff 1995). BVAR 2015 excavations of Structure A-20 were carried out as a part of Operation SC-3 at Xunantunich to confirm the Terminal Classic construction dates assigned by Neff (1995), to conserve the structure, and to investigate the changing political dynamics in the Belize Valley prior to the collapse. 148 Table 2. Construction Phases for Structure A-20 (Adapted from Neff 1995 Excavations) Phase Event Structure Formality /Restriction Orientation Beginning Quetzal Structure Buried X X 1 Room 1 (6.9 m N/S x 2 m E/W), Bench in southern portion of Room 1 and North-South Non symmetrical. western patio (possibly thatched) of El Castillo built. Curtain holes filled Activities in structure with ceramics (Alexander Unslipped: Alexander Variety/ Spanish Lookout visible to audience in Phase: Late Classic). “Cut marks and peglike holes” covering area of 50cm Plaza A. N/S x 40 cm E/W carved into floor. 2 Room 2 (5.5 m N/S x 3m E/W) added to the east of Room 1. Room 2 Shift to East Formality increases. underwent two major refloorings with several plaster patchings and full -West Activities less visible to floor replastering (Deep red paint coated both floors). audience in Plaza A. Room 3 constructed (lost to erosion, possible northern exterior space). Room 4 built (possible exterior space to the south). 3 Bench 2, 3, 4, constructed. Columns added. Walls added to Room 3 and 4. East-West Most formal, and most symmetrical. Visibility of Doors filled: Door 3 (on northern end of Room 1 into Room 3) closed/ filled activity inside of structure and Door 4 (on northern end of Room 2 into Room 3) closed/filled. decreases. Only activities Room 2 modifications: Bench 2 and Bench 3 (30 cm wide 3.8 m long), and at doorway of structure two columns (1.10 m diameters) added to Room 2. visible to audience in Room 3 modifications: Walls added to Room 3 (likely a thatched room, Plaza A. Activities in dimensions 6 m E/W with Bench 4 taking up 2 m). Bench 4 decorated (See Room 2 were visible to Figure 22, 23). audience in Courtyard. Room 4 modifications: Walls added to Room 4 (possible thatched room, dimensions now 2.3 m N/S x 3/6 m E/W). Door 5 for Room 4 now 1.7 m facing south. Red painted floor with a patolli board (90cm x 105 cm) added. (See Figure 25, 26). 4 Ritual Burial of Structure A-20. Post-Occupational Activities. East-West X Modifications partially due to structural instability. Small supports added inside Door 1. Room 4 floor posts removed, and poorly replastered. Thin layer of loam was then laid over floor and cultural fill was intentionally placed in room. 149 Planview Figure 8: Model showing Structure A-20 from various angles (3D Model by Catharina Santasilia). 150 Figure 9: Model of Structure A-20 showing view from the elite courtyard on El Castillo versus Plaza A. Note visibility is very limited from Plaza A suggesting increased restriction of Structure A-20 activities (3D Model by Catharina Santasilia). 151 Figure 10: Structure A-20 plan map showing room designations and unit placements (Adapted from Neff 1995). Structure A-20 2015 Research Questions 1) During which time period was Structure A-20 in use? 2) How were the ancient Maya using Structure A-20? 3) How does Structure A-20 relate to the broader political dynamics at Xunantunich? Methodology 1) Four 1x1m and 1x1.5m excavations units were placed along the center of the western courtyard (EU: A-20-1), Room 2 (EU: A-20-2), Room 1 (EU: A-20-3), and Room 4 (EU: A-20-4) of Structure A-20 to locate possible ritual offerings and 152 Figure 11: Structure A-20 excavation and conversation process. 2) datable materials in Structure A-20 (Figure 10). Excavations were carried out using trowels and hand picks. All excavated material was screened through a ¼ inch screen. All cultural materials were bagged and cataloged (See Xunantunich Artifact Log). 3) Artifacts recovered from excavations at Structure A-20 were analyzed to understand the function of the structure. XUNANTUNICH STRUCTURE A-20 EXCAVATIONS After Neff’s 1995 excavations, the structure was backfilled. In June of 2015, the back dirt was removed to reveal the structure once more. Structure A-20 was completely exposed and all 2015 investigations focused excavation into the plaster floors of the structure and the associated western courtyard (Figure 11). The plastered floors within Structure A-20 and the courtyard were very well preserved. The investigations at Structure A-20 focused on locating artifacts that could date the structure as well as shed light on the final activities occurring in the structure. 153 Chase and Chase (1998) have noted a distinct Classic Maya preference for center-line locations for burials, caches, and deposits on Maya architecture with some temporal and regional variation. For this reason, four 1x 1 m and 1x 1.5 m excavation units were placed along the center of the Courtyard (EU: A-20-1), Room 2 (EU: A-20-2), Room 1 (EU: A-20-3), and Room 4 (EU: A-20-4) of Structure A-20 to investigate caching practices and to date the structure (See Step 1, Methodology). BVAR conducted all excavations at Structure A-20 in cultural levels. XUNANTUNICH STRUCTURE A-20 RESULTS Construction Phases of Structure A-20: The 2015 excavations revealed that Structure A-20 and the affiliated courtyard underwent multiple construction phases (Table 3). Excavations also revealed an E/W running wall of the Quetzal Structure located below Structure A-20 (Figure 12). The E/W wall was visible in the excavation units beneath the Courtyard (EU: A-20-1) and Room 2 (EU: A-20-2). In addition, the nature of the floor break in Room 1 (EU: A-20-2) may be indicative of the E/W wall running below Structure A-20. This confirms XAP excavations, which stated that Structure A-20 overlaid the Quetzal Structure (Neff 1995). At this time, we believe that the Quetzal Wall represents the northern most wall of the Quetzal Structure. Courtyard (EU: A-20-1) Excavations in the courtyard of Structure A-20 (EU: A-20-1) revealed that the courtyard underwent at least two construction phases (Table 3). When constructing Structure A-20’s courtyard, it appears that large rock fill was placed to both the north and south of the E/W Quetzal wall (Figure 12, 13,14). This fill likely represents the ballast of the original/penultimate courtyard floor (Plastered Floor #2), which preserved only to the north of the E/W Quetzal Wall. The terminal construction phase of the courtyard took place when the ballast and the terminal plaster floor (Floor #1) were placed over the penultimate plaster floor (Floor #2). Room 1 (EU: A-20-3) In Room 1 (EU: A-20-3) excavations were limited by a red painted floor that was discovered in the southern portion of the unit that BVAR wished to preserve (Figure 15,16,17,18,19). The E/W Quetzal Wall that was revealed in the courtyard (EU: A-20-1), and Room 1 (A-20-2) ran along the southern edges of the unit (Figure 12). If the E/W Quetzal Wall continued under Room 1 (A-20-3), then the wall would have been located directly below the red floor. In addition, evidence may also suggest that the E/W Quetzal Wall continued under Room 4. 154 Table 3: Constructions Phases of Structure A-20: Courtyard, Room 1, Room 2, Room 4. From BVAR 2015 Investigations. Courtyard Event Figures Construction Phases 1 Large rock fill placed to north and south of E/W Quetzal Wall, 12, 13, 14 original (penultimate) courtyard floor built. 2 Ballast placed over original courtyard floor. Terminal plaster floor X built. Room 1 Event Figures Construction Phases 1 Large rock fill placed to north and south of E/W Quetzal Wall, red 12,15,16,17,18,19 painted floor put in. 2 Ballast placed over original courtyard floor. Terminal plaster floor X built. 3 Red painted floor is replastered. X 4 Ballast and terminal floor put in over red painted floor. X Room 2 Event Figures Construction Phases 1 Large rock fill placed to north and south of E/W Quetzal Wall, 12, 20, 21 original (terminal) plaster floor for Room 2 built. Room 4 Event Figures Construction Phases 1 Large rock fill placed to north and south of E/W Quetzal Wall, 12, 24, 25, 25 original (penultimate floor put in). 2 Ballast and terminal floor put in over original floor. X 155 156 Figure 12: Xunantunich, Structure A-20, plan map showing spatial relationships between Eus: A-20-1, A-20-2, A-20-3, A-20-4. Figure 13: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-1 (Courtyard), LVL: 2 (Below Floor #2), E/W Rock Alignment (Quetzal Structure Wall) and rock fill. View from north (right) and south (left). End of Excavations. 157 Figure 14: Plan map showing Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-1 (Courtyard). Exposed E/W Quetzal Wall. 158 Figure 15: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-3 (Room 1), LVL: 1 (Below Floor #1) Left- Red plastered floor in situ, Right- Red plaster floor sample. Figure 16: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-3 (Room 1), LVL: 2 (Below Floor #2), Plastered Floor #2 and E/W Crack. 159 Figure 17: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-3 (Room 1), LVL: 3 (Below Red Painted Floor #2), Plastered Red Painted Floor #2 preserved in SE corner, N/E Bisect (.35 m x .5 m). Figure 18: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-3 (Room 1), LVL: 3 (Below Red Painted Floor #2), Close up of Plastered Red Painted Floor #2 preserved in S/E corner, N/E Bisect (.35 m x .5 m). 160 Figure 19: Plan Map showing Xunantunich. Str. A-20, EU A-20-3 (Room 1) and red painted floor. Room 1 (EU: A-20-3) In Room 1 (EU: A-20-3) excavations were limited by a red painted floor that was discovered in the southern portion of the unit that BVAR wished to preserve (Figure 15,16,17,18,19). The E/W Quetzal Wall that was revealed in the courtyard (EU: A-20-1), and Room 1 (A-20-2) ran along the southern edges of the unit (Figure 12). If the E/W Quetzal Wall continued under Room 1 (A-20-3), then the wall would have been located directly below the red floor. In addition, evidence may also suggest that the E/W Quetzal Wall continued under Room 4. Room 2 (EU: A-20-2) In Room 2 of Structure A-20 the continuation of the E/W Quetzal Wall was exposed running directly along the southern edge of the unit (Figure 20, 21). Above this wall, there was only one phase of construction for Room 2, Structure A-20 (Table 3). To the north (outside) of the E/W Quetzal Wall large rocks were found throughout the unit that likely acted as the ballast for the terminal plastered floor (Terminal Floor/ Surface of Room #2/ Floor #1). A crack in the floors of Structure A-20 aligns with the northern edge of the exposed areas of the E/W Quetzal Wall and can be seen running E/W down the center of all of the floors in Room 4 and Room 1 (Figure 12). To the north of the crack, the floors were at a 161 Figure 20: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-2 (Room 2), LVL: 1 (Below Floor #1), exposed E/W Rock Alignment (Quetzal Structure Wall). View from north (bottom photo) and south (top photo). End of excavations. slightly lower elevation than to the south. Xunantunich was prone to seismic activity and this is reflected in the architecture of El Castillo (LeCount and Yaeger 2010). Excavations indicated that the E/W crack in Structure A-20 was a result of the fill to the north of the Quetzal Wall giving in during an earthquake and causing the overlaying floors of Structure A-20 to slightly sink. To the south of the E/W crack is where the E/W Quetzal Wall would have underlain the floors of Structure A-20. If seismic activity did occur, then 162 Figure 21: Plan map showing Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-2 (Room 2), Exposed E/W Quetzal Wall. the E/W Quetzal Wall would have supported the later A-20 floor, causing it to stay elevated in the south where the wall supported the floors. Building on this assumption, excavations concluded that the E/W Quetzal Wall continues under Room 1 and that had excavations continued below the red painted floor (Red Painted Floor #2) then the wall would have been revealed. The phases of construction in Room 1 of Structure A-20 will now be discussed (Table 3). It appears that ballast was put in to the north of the E/W Quetzal Wall, followed by a red painted floor (Red Painted Floor #2) that was exposed in the S/E portion of the unit. Following this the red painted floor (Red Painted Floor #2) was plastered (Floor #2). Finally, the ballast and plastered floor (Floor #1) was put in forming the terminal floor/surface of Room 1. In total there were at least two construction events of floors (Red Painted Floor #2 & Floor #1) and one replastering event (Floor #2). Room 3 Room 3 was lost to erosion; therefore no excavations in the BVAR 2015 field season were conducted in the northern portion of Structure A-20. However, previous investigations by Neff 1995 revealed that Room 3 contained an incised bench (Figure 22, 23). 163 Figure 22: Photo of Bench 4 from Room 3 taken during XAP 1995 excavations. (Photo courtesy of Linda Neff). Figure 23: Drawing of Bench 4 from Room 3 (Neff 1995). Room 4 (EU: A-20-4) The Patolli Board revealed by Neff (1995) did not preserve, therefore excavations were conducted in Room 4 (Figure 24, 25, 26). Excavations in Room 4 (EU: A-20-4) finished before any architecture of the Quetzal Structure was revealed due to the problematic nature of conserving the architecture below Structure A-20. However, prior excavations in the N/W corner of the room did reveal the top of a vaulted ceiling of the Quetzal Structure 164 Figure 24: Xunantunich, Str: A-20, EU: A-20-4 (Room 4), LVL: 3 (Below Red Painted Floor #2), Plastered Red Painted Floor #2 preserved in SE corner, N/E bisect (.35 m x .5 m). Figure 25: Photo of Patolli Board from Room 4 taken during XAP 1995 excavations (Photo courtesy of Linda Neff). 165 Figure 26: Drawing of the Patolli Board from Room 4 (Adapted from Neff 1995). Note: Patolli did not preserve. confirming that Room 4 of Structure A-20 did overlay the Quetzal Structure (Neff 1995). The exposed vaulted ceilings acted as a guide for excavation in Room 4 (EU: A-20-4) which was taken down to a level right above the Quetzal Structure (Figure 24). Excavations revealed two construction phases (Table 3) of floors in Room 4 consisting of large ballast and marl for a penultimate plastered floor (Floor #2) as well as large ballast and marl associated with the terminal plastered floor on the surface of Structure A-20 (Floor #1). Artifact Assemblage of Structure A-20 Very few artifacts were recovered from Structure A-20 (~ 20). Artifacts that were recovered include a few ceramic sherds, a piece of chert, a fresh water shell, and a piece of red painted plaster from the red painted floor (Room 1). No cache or deposit was encountered. A few Spanish Lookout sherds were recovered indicating that this final construction episode at Xunantunich dated to the Late/Terminal Classic Period (AD 850- 900). 166 167 Figure 27: Xunantunich, Structure A-20, plan map showing spatial relationships between Eus: A-20-1, A-20-2, A-20-3, A-20-4. Figure 28: Photo of Structure A-8 (photo courtesy of J. Awe). CONSERVATION AND EXCAVATIONS AT THE BASE OF STRUCTURE A-8 Structure A-8 Background Previous archaeological investigations at Structure A-8 were limited and were most likely conducted around the turn of the 19th century by early archaeologists. Structure A-8 is a large, east facing mound with four large trees at its base, and a single large tree at its summit (Figure 28). The location of the mound on Plaza A is suggestive of a temple function. Structures A-2, A-3, and A-4 are a part of a triadic group on the East side of Plaza A. Although we do not believe that the structures were a part of a functioning astronomical observatory as often attributed to an E-group, excavation was undertaken to expose the center of the stairway to see how Structure A-8 aligns with the rest of the structures within Plaza A. Specifically, excavations aimed to answer how Structure A-8 aligned with Structure A-3 and the stela in front of it. Structure A-8 is not completely consolidated at this time but excavations in 2015 began conservation of the structure (Figure 29) and addressed the research goals of the season. Structure A-8 conservation will continue in the 2016 field season. 168 Figure 29: Plan map showing location of Structure A-8 in relation to Test Pit 1. Structure A-8 2015 Research Questions 1) How did Structure A-8 line up with Structure A-3 and other structures in Plaza A? 2) Were there similar caching practices occurring at Structure A-8 as at Structures A- 3 and A-4? 3) During which time period was Structure A-8 in use? 4) What was the function/what types of activities were occurring at Structure A-8 and how does this relate to the broader political dynamics at Xunantunich? Methodology 1) Excavations exposed the central stairway of Structure A-8. 2) A 1 x 2m test unit was placed at into Plaza A in front of Structure A-8 to see if there were datable deposits similar to those found at Structures A-3 and A-4. 3) Hand excavations were carried out using trowels and hand picks. All excavated materials were screened through a ¼ inch screen. All cultural materials were bagged and cataloged (See Xunantunich Artifact Log). 169 Figure 30. A-8 Profile Drawing. Note multiple replastering events. XUNANTUNICH STRUCTURE A-8 EXCAVATIONS On July 16, 2015, excavations at Structure A-8 began. Once the central stairway was exposed, a test unit was placed at the central base of the stairs into Plaza A to see if there were any datable deposits similar to those found at Structures A- 3 and A-4. In addition, excavations recorded all construction phases that Structure A-8 and Plaza A underwent. An excavation unit (EU: A-8-1) was positioned to target the base of the temple’s staircase to uncover the best preserved portion of the staircase and to explore the possibility whether ritual deposition had occurred at the foot of the steps (Figure 29). A 10 m N/S x 4 m E/W unit was strung to encompass the entire base of the staircase. G.V. Kollias and M. Biggie cleared the surface (Figure 29). Three of the larger trees were left as their removal would have likely induced severe structural damage due to root damage. Excavations were dug in cultural levels and began by clearing the overlaying humus and collapse on the structure (Level 1), focusing on the eastern portion of the unit/base of the stairs. Facing stones were exposed running north/south in the eastern portion of the unit as anticipated. Once the central base of the stairs was found excavations moved westward toward the summit of the structure to reveal more collapse and the stairs beneath. At this time approximately six courses of stairs can be seen with collapse (large pieces of limestone) overlaying them. Excavations then turned to focus on exposing the intersection between Plaza A and the base of the stairs and expanded horizontally to uncover the corners of the stairway. A 1x2 m test unit was then placed in front of the center of the stairway and excavations went into the surface of Plaza A (Figure 29). XUNANTUNICH STRUCTURE A-8 RESULTS Structure A-8 Findings Construction Phases of Structure A-8: The architecture revealed from the 2015 excavations and the location of the structure collaboratively indicate that Structure A-8 is a temple. In addition, the 2015 excavations at Structure A- 8 have shed light onto the various construction phases that the structure and the affiliated Plaza A underwent (Figure 30, Table 4). 170 Table 4. Construction Phases at Structure A-8 and Plaza A from BVAR 2015 Excavations Phase Event 1 Ballast placed over bedrock, original plaza floor built. 2 Structure A-8 phase 1 built, replastering event occurs (order unknown). 3 Terminal phase of Structure A-8 is built. 4 Terminal replastering event in Plaza A. 5 Stairs stripped (possible indication of reoccupation). The earliest floor of Plaza A and the subsequent replastering event are both likely affiliated with an earlier construction phase of Structure A-8 that was revealed in the 2015 field season by C. Santasilia and D. Tilden at the summit of Structure A-8. Excavation revealed that the original Plaza A floor and replastering run beneath the terminal phase of Structure A-8, indicating an association with the earlier phase of Structure A-8. A final replastering event took place after the terminal phase of Structure A-8 was built which is evident due to the plaster floor overlaying the terminal phase of stairs of Structure A-8. The edges of Structure A-8’s stairway were never located during the 2015 field season. However, while there is heavy root disturbance throughout the unit, one would still expect to find large facing stones laying out of place if the missing edges were truly disturbed. While excavations did find a few (1-2) facing stones out of place we do not believe that they were numerous enough to constitute the missing edges of the staircase. An alternative may be (especially in the southern portion of the unit) that the stair edges were not just poorly preserved, but that they may have actually been removed at a later time. Jaime Awe has recorded multiple instances of post abandonment reoccupation and stone robbing from architecture at Cahal Pech, and we feel this to be a congruent explanation for the missing facing stones on Structure A-8. Artifact Assemblage of Structure A-8 A low to medium density of artifacts was recovered from excavations at Structure A-8. In the humus/collapse (Level 1) ceramics, chert, quartzite, charcoal, fresh water shell, and faunal remains were recovered. Within the humus/collapse (LVL: 1) layer, ceramics, chert and granite were located overlaying collapse (Special Deposit 1). Ceramics overlaying collapse can be indicative of the reoccupation of a site following abandonment, however this interpretation is questionable due to the substantial evidence of bioturbation in this area. In the terminal replastering of Plaza A (Floor #1, LVL:1b) a few sherds were recovered. 171 Excavations below the terminal Plaza A floor (Floor #1, LVL: 2) recovered more ceramics, chert and fresh water shell. The presence of this meager assortment of artifacts within the floor ballast likely indicates they were some type of fill. Preliminary field analysis with the artifact assemblages found two basal flanges in this level. Basal flanges are characteristic of the Early Classic period providing a rudimentary Early Classic terminus post quem. BVAR 2015 excavations did not find that the caching practices at Structure A-3 and A-4 corresponded to those at Structure A-8. However, this season, C. Santasilia revealed a cache behind the stairs of Structure A-2 (Santasilia and Tilden, this volume). While excavation units at Structure A-8 were placed into the summit of the structure and in front of the structure, there were no excavation units placed behind the stairs. Therefore, further investigation would be required to determine whether caching practices at Structure A-8 and A-2 were similar. Excavation Discussion Structure A-20 Discussion Results from the 2015 excavations largely corroborate the findings of the XAP excavations. Both the stratigraphic relationships and artifacts recovered from Structure A- 20 in the 2015 field season confirm that the structure was built during the Terminal Classic period. No caches were located, however excavations revealed that Structure A-20 underwent numerous architectural modifications including the addition of a red-painted floor, and multiple floor replasterings. When interpreting how the ancient Maya interacted with their environment and created meaning within it, we draw on ideas put forward by Patricia McAnany and Ian Hodder (2009) who provide techniques for conceptualizing archaeological stratigraphy beyond simple geological and cultural processes. Instead they advocate for interpreting stratigraphy in its relationships to “memory, history-building, forgetting, renewing, cleansing and destroying” (McAnany and Hodder 2009). To examine these relationships, McAnany and Hodder use case studies from the Anatolian Neolithic settlement of Çatalhöyük and the Maya settlement of K’axob in northern Belize. When discussing stratigraphy McAnany and Hodder state: "Specifically, we suggest a reorientation in the interpretation of stratigraphy towards the social meaning of this important variant of materiality that is constituted by the piling up of clay and stones, the processing of limestone to create plaster and mortar, or the intrusive disruption of a constructed space for the purpose of burying/storing/retrieving objects or deceased group members – the stuff of built environments. Rather than use the blanket term of cultural stratigraphy for these activities (meant to create an artificial partition between culture and nature), we suggest a focus on social practices – the web of human interaction – that results in built stratigraphic sequence. This approach –that of ‘social stratigraphy’ – helps direct our interpretive efforts towards the agency of those who conceived of and labored to construct the platforms, room complexes, subterranean features and soaring monuments that we so laboriously deconstruct through excavation” [McAnany and Hodder 2009:2] For example, when discussing replastering events we would like to draw attention to practices at Çatalhöyük discussed by McAnany and Hodder: 172 “Wall paintings at Catalhoyuk were always painted over in white plaster – an act that both erased and entombed at the same time. These two social processes – entombment as opposed to erasure – stress two different approaches to transforming a built environment, although, as we have seen, they may be closely and subtly related. The first may be used to stress continuity and remembrance, while the second may suggest a break with the past, perhaps the charting of a new course, but it may also suggest protection and regeneration (resurfacing in fresh white plaster). Again the interpretive challenges must be met with specific contextual data” [McAnany and Hodder 2009:2] Replastering events in various parts of the world, as well as in the Maya Lowlands, have been associated with “renewal” (Awe 2015; McAnany and Hodder 2009). Rather than just assuming the functionality of replastering we instead suggest that the multiple replastering events within Structure A-20 may be indicative of renewal rituals which were embedded with meaning. Furthermore, the continual investment in this structure is most likely reflective of this space being used to convey and possibly even manipulate social meaning. Modifications can also be seen in the addition of rooms including one room with a patolli board. In a previous study a sample of 69 patolli boards from 27 sites in the Maya region showed that 74 percent of all boards were found in spatially restricted ritualistic spaces (Walden and Voorhies 2016). The presence of this patolli board and the ongoing architectural elaboration suggest that Structure A-20 likely served a restricted ritualistic function. Furthermore, it is also possible that both the incised bench in Room 3 (Figure 22, 23) and the patolli board represent games of some type. The assemblage of Structure A-20 was not reflective of wealthy occupants; however, evidence of continued investment and manipulation of the space suggests that the Maya elite were using this structure to legitimize their waning power through modifying the structure, and by participating in ritualistic activities within the structure. Structure A-8 Discussion Excavation and conservation efforts at Structure A-8 have revealed architecture that is indicative of a Maya temple. Both Structure A-8 and Plaza A underwent multiple construction phases. As previously discussed, it is possible that the replastering events in the plaza were simply functional in nature, but it may also be possible that the replastering events represent the symbolic renewal or cleansing of the area (McAnany and Hodder 2009). No caches were found in excavations at Structure A-8, suggesting that the space in front of Structure A-8 was not being treated in the same way as in front of A-3 and A-4 where there were caches in front of the buildings. However, this is not to suggest that it is not possible that caches were not located in other areas around the structure. Finally, the removal of the stairs at Structure A-8 is similar to the post-occupational activities observed at other sites in the Belize Valley (Awe 2015). If the Maya were returning to Xunantunich it may be a result of the later inhabitants identifying the ruins as significant, possibly through shared social practices with the earlier inhabitants or possibly through descent (Barnhart 2002). DISCUSSION The civic ceremonial epicenter of Xunantunich appears to have undergone an intensive building phase, followed by socio-political reorganization (Yaeger 2005). Excavations from the 2015 field season at structures A-20 and A-8 provide us with new insight that 173 contributes to the understanding of the activities occurring at Xunantunich around the ancient Maya collapse. The majority of the construction phases in Plaza A and Structure A-8 likely occurred during the intensive building phase at Xunantunich. During this time Plaza A may have undergone renewal rituals. Structure A-20 was likely a small elite shrine that was built once Xunantunich gained autonomy, sometime after the collapse of Naranjo. The activities occurring in Structure A-20 were originally visible to the public in Plaza A, however through time Structure A-20 became more restricted, and the activities within the structure correspondingly became more private. This season’s excavations at Xunantunich Structures A-20 and A-8 raises the question of why there is a lack of caches and ritual deposits at Xunantunich in seemingly elite contexts. Chase and Chase (2008) discuss two types of caching practices in the Maya world, one that defines a sacred space for a community and the second as a practice that includes ancestor veneration, or the marking of events (Chase and Chase 1998). However, neither structure presented evidence for these practices and the reasons behind this are open to interpretation. It is possible that the Maya beliefs at this time simply did not necessitate these practices in these spaces. Another possible interpretation is that the rulers of Xunantunich did not have as much wealth as their earlier intensive architectural investments may have suggested or that their power was waning at this time. Finally, it is possible that alternative types of ritual activities and practices were occurring at these structures instead. The restriction of access to Structure A-20 may have meant that ritual activities were changing at Xunantunich by the Terminal Classic period. Instead of large public events it is possible that ritual activity was more concentrated in the small shrine of the elite. In addition, the appearance of the patolli board in the restricted elite space may also indicate that ritualistic activities were taking place. It may even be possible that these private elite activities represent the Xunantunich ruler’s last attempts to maintain control of their diminishing power. However, by around 900 AD major centers in the central and southern Maya Lowlands were abandoned, and Xunantunich succumbed to collapse. While the dynastic elite rule was no longer present at Xunantunich, it is still possible that the Maya returned and continued to use it to some extent. The removal and rearranging of stones from the monumental architecture (Structure A-8) may represent such post- occupational activities at the site. Investigating Yucatec Influence at Xunantunich in the Terminal Classic Period Recent archaeological investigations of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project have noted that a number of architectural, iconographic, and ceramic stylistic attributes that are typically more prominent in the Yucatán appear in the Belize Valley during the Terminal Classic period (Chase and Chase 1982; Awe 2015). For example, Awe (2015) has noted that in the Terminal Classic period there appears to be a higher presence of slate ware ceramics in the Belize Valley. In addition, artifacts with representations of Tlaloc, the Central Mexican rain god, have been recovered. Finally, architectural styles including ballcourt rings, ‘dance platforms’, ‘ticket booths’, and ‘fake stairs’ that are found throughout the Yucatán appear to become more prevalent in the Terminal Classic Belize Valley (Figure 31, 32). While the appearance of these artifacts and architectural styles have yet to be quantified, the appearance of this suite of ‘Yucatán’ 174 Figure 31: Map showing archaeology architectural structures at Mayapan in the Yucatán and at Xunantunich, Belize. Note the two columns at the entrance of both structures, and the similar room layout (Photos courtesy of J. Awe) Figure 32: Photos of Xunantunich ballcourt (left) and ballcourt ring (right). Note that while ballcourts appear throughout Mesoamerica, ballcourt rings are far less common in the Central Maya Lowlands compared to the Yucatán. 175 influences should be further investigated. At Xunantunich, atypical architecture of the Belize Valley includes the ballcourt ring and the circular columns in Structure A-20 (Figure 30). These architectural styles, however, are typical of the Yucatán and range in time from the Late-Terminal Classic Period (eg. Chichén Viejo) to the Middle-Late Postclassic (eg. Chichén Nuevo, Mayapan) (Chase and Chase 1982; Awe 2015). Future research will continue to explore possible incoming Yucatec influence in the Belize Valley at the end of the Late Classic period. Future Research Future research will examine ritual practices at Xunantunich through time in areas within the ceremonial center, in order to better understand how the elite were responding to and mediating risk in a time of heightened political and environmental stress leading up to the collapse. In addition, a study comparing the caching/ ritual practices at Xunantunich to other civic ceremonial centers in the Belize Valley may help to explain why this late site does not seem to have some of the same ritual deposits as other nearby sites (e.g. Cahal Pech) (Awe 2013). At this time, it is suggested that in order to investigate this question further other characteristics of Xunantunich should be examined and compared to other sites that either possess or do not possess high concentrations of elite burials and ritual deposits. For example, previous excavations at Cahal Pech have revealed numerous elite burials and ritual deposits (Awe 2013). While Cahal Pech and Xunantunich have both been classified as major centers in the Belize Valley (Awe et al. 2014) it may be worth investigating how these centers deviate from one another to see if there are reasons behind this variation in caching practices. The most obvious aberration between these two centers is the temporal depth of occupation. Cahal Pech was occupied intensively for over 2,000 years (Awe and Helmke 2005; Awe 2013) whereas the majority of the construction at Xunantunich took place over a few hundred years (Late-Terminal Classic period) (LeCount and Yaeger 2010). Could the occupation span of these centers play a factor in the nature of these the ritual deposits? This is just one possible way in which we can further investigate these questions. Finally, it is suggested that future research examines how the findings at Structure A-20 correspond to work done at other centers with similar Yucatán style structures such as those at Chichén Viejo. After the collapse of the major polities in the Petén, a power vacuum may have emerged in the Maya Lowlands allowing influences from elsewhere in the lowlands to become more prevalent in the Terminal Classic Belize Valley (Awe 2015). While many questions still have yet to be answered, this report examines and provides new insight into the ways in which Xunantunich continued to transform itself through the final days of the Classic Maya polities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the Belize Institute of Archaeology for their support of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project. We thank Dr. Jaime Awe, Project Director, for providing us with so many wonderful experiences as well as constant support. We would also like to thank Dr. Julie Hoggarth, BVAR Co-Director, for taking the time to welcome us to Belize and for always bringing such a positive attitude to the project. Thank you to our Xunantunich 2015 excavation students and field crew for all of your hard work. Thank you Emma Messinger, Kristin Shannon, Jack Cavness, Megan Kumorek, Amanda Bermudez, Victoria Izzo, and Bonnie McCormick. Thank you Jim Puc, Tiliko (Jorge Can) 176 and everyone else on site for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences with us. A special thanks to Doug Tilden and Catharina Santasilia for welcoming us to Xunantunich and for constantly watching out for us and again to Doug Tilden and the Tilden Family Foundation for making these excavations possible. Thank you Van Kollias, Michael Biggie, Erin Ray, and John Walden for helping us at Xunantunich on your days off and for always making us laugh. Thank you again to John Walden for taking the time to review and edit this report. Any mistakes made are our own. Finally, our sincerest thanks goes out to the late Mike Burns for putting so much time, effort, and thought into running our lab at Xunantunich. We are grateful we were able to enjoy having you with us for this experience. You will be missed. REFERENCES CITED: Anderson, A.H. 1966 An Ancient Maya Vaulted Masonry Drain and Related Works at Xunantunich Site, British Honduras. In XXXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas: Actas y Memorias, edited by Alfredo Jiménez Núñez, pp. 351-354. ECESA, Seville. Ashmore, Wendy 1989 Construction and Cosmology: Politics and Ideology in Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation, edited by William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, pp. 272-286. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Awe, Jaime J. 2013 Journey on the Cahal Pech Time Machine: An Archaeological Reconstruction of the Dynastic Sequence at a Belize Valley Maya Polity. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 10:33-50. 2015 The Mexican Intrusion: Yucatec Influences in Terminal Classic Western Belize. Paper presented at the 2015 Belize Archaeology and Anthropology Symposium. Awe, Jaime J., and Christophe Helmke 2005 Alive and Kicking in the 3rd to 6th Centuries AD: Defining the Early Classic in the Belize River Valley. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 2:39-52. Awe, Jaime J., Julie A. Hoggarth, and Christophe Helmke 2014 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Belize River Valley and their Implications for Models of Low-Density Urbanism. In Special Edition of Acta Mesoamericana in Honour of Pierre R. Colas, Vol. 11 edited by Christophe Helmke and F.Sachse, pp. 263- 285. Verlag Phillipp von Zabern, Mainz, Germany. 177 Barnhart, Edwin 2002 Residential Burials and Ancestor Worship: A Re-examination of Classic Maya Settlement Patterns. In La organización social entre los Mayas prehispánicos, colonials y modernos: memoria de la tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, edited by Vera B. Tiesler, Rafael Cobos and Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 141-158. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mexico. Bourdieu, Pierrre 1977 Outline of a theory of practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen F. Chase 1982 Yucatec Influence in Terminal Classic Northern Belize. American Antiquity 47:3:596-614. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase 1998 The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 299-332. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, Jaime J. Awe, John F. Weishamped, Glyes Iannone, Holley Moyes, Jason Yaeger, Kathryn Brown, Ramesh L. Shrestha, William E. Carter, and Juan Fernandez Diaz 2014 Ancient Maya Regional Settlement and Inter-Site Analysis: The 2013 West-Central Belize LiDAR Survey. Remote Sensing. 2014, 6 (9): 8671-8695. Culbert, T. Patrick 1973 Introduction: A Prologue to Classic Maya Culture and the Problem of its Collapse. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. Patrick Culbert, pp. 3 – 21. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Demarest, Arthur A. 1996 War, Peace, and the Collapse of a Native American Civilization. In A Natural History of Peace, edited by Thomas Gregor, pp. 215-248. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. De Marrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Timothy Earle. 1996 Ideology, materialization, and power strategies. Current Anthropology 37:15–31. Deevey, E. S., Don S. Rice, Prudence M. Rice, H.H. Vaughn, Mark Brenner, and M.S. Flannery. 1979 Mayan Urbanism: Impact on a Tropical Karst Environment. Science 206:298-306. 178 Friedel, David 2008 Maya Divine Kingship. In Religion and Power: Divine Kinship in the Ancient World and Beyond, edited by Nicole Brisch, pp.191-206. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Seminar No. 4. Gann, Thomas W.F. 1925 Mystery Cities. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Graham, Ian 1978 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Volume 2, Part 2: Naranjo, Chunhuitz and Xunantunich. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Helmke, Christophe, and Jaime J. Awe 2012 Ancient Maya Territorial Organization of Central Belize: Confluence of Archaeological and Epigraphic Data. Contributions in New World Archaeology 4:59-90. Helmke, Christophe, Jaime J. Awe, and Nikolai Grube 2010 The Xunantunich Archaeological Project, 1991–1997. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa LecCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-20. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Inomata, Takeshi 2006 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology, Vol. 47, No. 5 (October 2006), pp. 805-842. The University of Chicago Press. Joyce, Arthur A. and Errin T. Weller 2007 Commoner Rituals, Resistance, and the Classic-to-Postclassic Transition. In Commoner Ritual and Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Nancy Gonlin and Jon C. Lohse, pp. 143-182. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Kennett, Douglas J., Sebastian F. M. Breitenbach, Valorie V. Aquino, Yemane Asmerom, Jaime J. Awe, James U.L. Baldini, Patrick Bartlein, Brendan J. Culleton, Claire Ebert, Christopher Jazwa, Martha J. Macri, Norbert Marwan, Victor Polyak, Keith M. Prufer, Harriet E. Ridley, Harald Sodemann, Bruce Winterhalder, and Gerald H. Haug 2012 Development and Disintegration of Maya Political Systems in Response to Climate Change. Science 338(6108):788-791. LeCount, Lisa J., Jason Yaeger, Richard Leventhal, and Wendy Ashmore 2002 Dating the Rise and Fall of Xunantunich, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 13(1):41- 63. 179 LeCount, Lisa J., and Jason Yaeger 2010 Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Leventhal, Richard M., Wendy Ashmore, Lisa J. LeCount, and Jason Yaeger 2010 The Xunantunich Archaeological Project, 1991–1997. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa LecCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-20. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Neff, Linda S. 1995 Excavations of Structure A-20 on the Castillo, Xunantunich. In Xunantunich Archaeological Project 1995 Field Season, edited by Richard M. Leventhal and Wendy Ashmore, pp. 38-58. Report on file at the Belize Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. McAnany, Patricia A. and Ian Hodder 2009 Thinking About Stratigraphic Sequence in Social Terms. Archaeological Dialogues 16(1):1-22. MacKie, Euan W. 1961 New Light on the End of Classic Maya Culture at Benque Viejo, British Honduras. American Antiquity 27:216-224. National Institute of Culture and History (NICH) 2015 Xunantunich. Electronic Document, http://nichbelize.org/ia-maya- sites/xunantunich.html, accessed January 1, 2016. Pendergast, David M., and Elizabeth Graham 1981 Fighting a Looting Battle: Xunantunich, Belize. Archaeology 34(4):12-19. Satterthwaite, Linton 1951 Reconnaissance in British Honduras. University Museum Bulletin 16:21-37. Schmidt, Peter J. 1974 A New Map and Some Notes on Terminal Classic and Post-Classic Activities at Xunantunich, Belize. Paper presented at the International Congress of Americanists, Sept. 2-7, Mexico City, Mexico. Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, California. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1940 Late Ceramic Horizons at Benque Viejo, British Honduras. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, no. 35. Publication 528. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C. 180 Vogt, Evon Z. 1964 Ancient Maya Concepts in Contemporary Zinacantan Religion. In 6th Congrès International des Sciences Antropologiques, August 1960, Vol. 2, pp. 497-502. Musée de l’Homme, Paris. Vogt, Evon Z. and David Stuart 2005 Some Notes on Ritual Caves among the Modern Maya. In The Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, pp. 155-185. University of Texas Press, Austin. Yaeger, Jason 2000 Changing Patterns of Social Organization: The Late and Terminal Classic Communities at San Lorenzo, Cayo District, Belize. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2005 Revisiting the Xunantunich Palace. The 2003 Excavations. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, FAMSI, Crystal River. 2010 Landscapes of the Xunantunich Hinterlands. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 233-249. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Walden, John and Barbara Voorhies 2016 Ancient Maya Patolli. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, in press. Walden, John 2016 Comparative Perspectives on the Cultural Perception and Mediation of Risk and the Collapse of Complex Societies. In Rethinking Comparison in Archaeology, edited by Ana Vale, Joana Alves-Ferreira and and Irene Garcia Rovira. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, in press. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard Jr., John B. Glass and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlement in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 54. Harvard University, Cambridge. 181 WELCOME TO BEDROCK: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE LITHIC TOOL PRODUCTION AREA, THE ETZ’NAB TUNICH GROUP, CAYO, BELIZE Kelsey J. Sullivan Northern Arizona University Jaime J. Awe Northern Arizona University Shane M. Montgomery University of Central Florida INTRODUCTION The Etz’nab Tunich group is located three kilometers to the southeast of the site of Esperanza (Figure 1). Esperanza is a minor site located in the Belize Valley, seven kilometers east of the modern city of San Ignacio. Driver and Garber (2004:292) identified Esperanza as a “Type 3” site, as it is located equidistant to the major Maya sites of Cahal Pech and Baking Pot. Originally called the Esperanza Workshop, the Etz’nab Tunich Group initially appeared to have some association with the site. However, the association between the two sites is unclear, and the group has now been designated as the Etz’nab Tunich Group. The Etz’nab Tunich Group, a large lithic deposit and a few accompanying mounds, was reported to Dr. Awe and the Institute of Archaeology in 2013. An initial site reconnaissance was conducted in the 2014 field season of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project (BVAR). The survey of the site provided preliminary insight into the activity at the group. Surface collection of a small quantity of debitage allowed for further analysis. Results of this research were presented at the Society of American Archaeology Meetings in San Francisco (Sullivan et al. 2015) and are also detailed in this report. In the 2015 BVAR field season, formal excavations were conducted at the Etz’nab Tunich Group. Features located in the 2014 site reconnaissance – Feature 1, Mounds 2 and 3, and Chultun 1 – were excavated in order to investigate the lithic production at the site, as well as to understand the function of related structures in the group. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 182-212. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 182 Figure 1: Map of Maya centers in the Belize Valley. The Etz’nab Tunich Group is featured in the center (map by Kelsey J. Sullivan). BACKGROUND RESEARCH Research on Lithic Production in Belize Research into large-scale chert-tool production centers has been limited in Belize (Figure 2). Colha, in northern Belize, has been the most extensively researched site (Hester and Shafer 1984; Shafer and Hester 1983). This site is located within the Chert Bearing Zone (CBZ) of northeast Belize, providing access to high-quality raw material used to produce fine utilitarian and ceremonial chert implements. At Colha, substantial evidence of industrial-scale lithic production has been recovered. Over 100 debitage mounds have been identified at the site, often in association with residential plazuela groups (Hester and Shafer 1984; Shafer and Hester 1983; Whittaker et al. 2009). Whittaker et al. (2009) investigated large-scale lithic production at the site of El Pilar in western Belize. This workshop is uniquely positioned adjacent to the ceremonial and civic center. The location has interesting implications for the “nature of industry and political organization,” suggesting the possibility of centralized control or organization at El Pilar (Whittaker et al. 2009:135). General utility bifaces produced from local, medium- quality chert were the primary product. A few laurel leaf bifaces were observed within excavations, indicating the production of a variety of biface types. Additionally, expedient tools made of retouched flakes were recovered in limited amounts from the deposit (Whittaker et al. 2009:139). General utility bifaces are often associated with agricultural 183 Figure 2: Map of Ancient Maya Sites in Belize, with Colha and El Pilar circled in red (map by R. Guerra after C. Helmke 2003). production but can also be employed for forest clearing and woodworking, as well as extraction and processing of limestone (Aldenderfer et al. 1989; Aoyama 2007; Lewenstein 1987; Shafer and Hester 1986, Stemp 2004; Woods and Titmus 1996; Whittaker et al. 2009). The importance of general utility bifaces in Maya lifeways is evident in their wide temporal and spatial distribution. Background Research on Esperanza and the Etz’nab Tunich Group In the BVAR field season of 2000, formal excavations were conducted at Esperanza by Driver and Garber (2004). The small site consists of one plazuela group, situated on top of a rectangular platform and a separate pyramidal structure, Structure B. Structure B was constructed in four phases, all of which date to the Late Classic period (AD 600-800) (Driver and Garber 2004). The site demonstrates a unique position, equidistant from Cahal Pech and Baking Pot. 184 Figure 3: Sketch map of the Etz’nab Tunich Group (map by K. Sullivan and S. Montgomery). 185 A. B. Figure 4: Hillshade maps of the Etz’nab Tunich Group (A), with archaeological features highlighted (B) (maps by K. Sullivan with data supplied by J. Awe). 186 The Etz’nab Tunich Group is located approximately 3.5 kilometers south of the Belize River, in low-lying foothills. The group is comprised of a large lithic debitage feature (Feature 1), two mounds (Mounds 2 and 3), and one chultun (Chultun 1), with the possibility of a second chultun located northwest of Mound 2 (Figures 3 and 4). The cluster is positioned atop two small ridges, overlooking a narrow constricted valley, approximately 30 meters below. This location suggests a nearby raw material source, as it is unlikely that craftspeople would transport large quantities of lithic material up into the hills. Chert cobbles are prevalent in the modern agricultural fields to the west and on the hillsides near the group. Feature 1, the large debitage mound, measures 24.5 meters (east/west) by 17 meters (north/south), and approximately one to two meters in height. The feature extends to the edge of the ridge and has begun slumping on the western end due to post deposition processes such as erosion and modern disturbances. Minimal soil deposition has occurred directly on the feature, limiting vegetation growth and bioturbation. The immediate surroundings and edges of the feature were affected by the recent burning of the surrounding vegetation. In burned areas, many artifacts were substantially patinated on faces exposed to fire. Mound 2 is located just to the north of Feature 1. This small mound covers approximately 13 meters (east/west) by 14 meters (north/south). A large bulldozer cut encircles the mound and modern benches are located on top of the mound. Situated to the south, uphill from Feature 1 and Mound 2, is a small, rectangular platform (Mound 3) and a chultun (Chultun 1). Due to time constraints, no investigation of the possible second chultun was conducted in the 2015 field season (Figures 3 and 4). Site Reconnaissance and Surface Collection Site reconnaissance at the Etz’nab Tunich Group in the 2014 field season provided preliminary information about location, material types present, and activity at the group. Results suggested intensive production of utilitarian chert tools, likely used in agricultural production and other quotidian activities (Sullivan et al. 2015). Within Feature 1, chert material colors include translucent grading to white, blonde to dark honey, red to orange, pink to purple and a range of browns. Additionally, there is a significant presence of translucent and milky white to blue material. Surveyors noted surficial artifacts, including hammerstones displaying battering and a few eroded ceramic sherds, as well as several types of bifaces. Nodules used in the manufacture of bifaces averaged 20-22 centimeters in length, 10-12 centimeters in width, and 6-8 centimeters thick. Average measurements were assessed through the examination of discarded and flawed nodules, as well as nodules exhibiting signs of early stages of reduction. Several thin, oval bifaces were identified in middle to late stages of production. Many of these discarded bifaces displayed signs of bending or snapping fractures, which likely occurred during the manufacturing process. A few long, narrow bifaces were discovered on the surface, also appearing in middle to late stages of production. Voids in the raw material were observed in discarded bifaces in early to middle stages. Several of these tools were manufactured from the distinct milky white to blue chert, which appears to be relatively high quality, homogenous material. 187 Debitage Analysis A small random sample of debitage was collected from Feature 1 in the 2014 field season, allowing for debitage analysis. The primary author randomly sampled 200 flakes from the total sample and conducted detailed analysis. Although the sample was limited in size, it provided preliminary insight into the production activities occurring at the site. Analytical methods were adapted from debitage studies conducted by Andrefsky (1998), as well as Whittaker’s (2009) research at El Pilar. Size attributes recorded include weight, length, width, and thickness at the midpoint and the bulb of percussion. Striking platforms were examined and categorized as flat, complex, abraded, or cortical, and platform lipping and beveling were also noted. Platform metrics, including length and width, were recorded as well. Other flake attributes assessed included the number of dorsal flakes scars and the percentage of cortex present on the dorsal surface. Evaluating these attributes allowed for the development of a heuristic model, in which flakes are categorized into idealized stages of reduction associated with biface manufacture. These flake types include decortication flakes, core preparation flakes, general percussion flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, and bifacial retooling/rejuvenation flakes. Flakes with deliberate retouch and exhibiting signs of possible use-wear were categorized as flake tools. Flakes without distinctive technological attributes, such as a bulb of percussion, as well as fire-cracked rock, were categorized as indeterminate. Indeterminate flakes were found in abundance at the Etz’nab Tunich group, comprising 28 percent of the sample. Results Medium sized, relatively thin, middle stage flakes comprise the majority of the sample. Average size of surficial debitage, based on weight (grams [g]), length, width, and thickness (millimeters [mm]), was comparatively large (Table 1). The range of sizes of flakes, however, is broad. Aside from indeterminate flakes, which comprise the largest portion of the sample, general percussion flakes and bifacial thinning flakes are the most prevalent. These flakes are strongly associated with the middle stages of biface production. Although flake types occur at slightly different proportions, regularity in size ranges for each flake type suggest that production was systematic in nature (Figure 5). These patterns in debitage metrics within flake types indicate production by skilled craftspeople. Several flake tools were recovered in the random surface sample. Unifacial flakes were bimarginally retouched to create graver-type tools (Figure 6). These tools were recovered in fairly high proportions to debitage from the surface of Feature 1 (Table 1). Many of these tools have snapped or worn tips, indicating use. Small blades with striated margins, a clear sign of use-wear, were disposed within the debitage deposit (Feature 1) (Figure 7). The mean weight of flake tools recovered and uniform morphology suggest systematic production. The presence of these multi-functional tools, such as gravers, blades, and microblades within the debitage mounds indicates that minimal production of simple tools was occurring at the site, although not nearly on the scale of biface production. 188 Table 1: Debitage Metrics from Analysis of 2014 Surface Collection n Min Max Mean SD Weight (g) 200 0.1 51.6 5.5 6.9 Max Length (mm) 200 7.5 73.1 30.5 15.6 Max Width (mm) 200 5.7 73.7 25.3 12.6 Max Thickness (mm) 200 0.5 11.0 3.2 1.9 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 A. B. Figure 5: (A) Flake types identified in the random sample collected during the 2014 surface reconnaissance. (B) Boxplot of flake weights, differentiated by lithic tools and flake types (figures by K. Sullivan). Figure 6: Expedient tools recovered from the 2014 surface collection of Feature 1 (photos by K. Sullivan). 189 Figure 7: Small blades recovered from the 2014 surface collection of Feature 1, shown on the left. One blade (on far left in composite photo) displayed use-wear striations, shown on the right. This was captured through a low magnification optical microscope (approximately 40x magnification) (photos by K. Sullivan). These blades, microblades, and gravers were likely locally produced and consumed, finally being discarded in the deposit. EXCAVATION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS Feature 1 Excavation A test unit, 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters, was placed on top of Feature 1, near the apex of the feature (Figures 8 and 9). The test unit was excavated to assess the depth of the deposit, as well as explore if any stratigraphy or architectural features were present. This unit was excavated in arbitrary 20-centimeter levels. Once Level 3 was excavated to 60 centimeters below surface, the unit required an extension in order to excavate lower levels to bedrock. The matrix was composed predominantly all chert flakes and crushed chert, with a small amount of soil in the first level. Excavating in lithic matrix posed a great challenge, due to the unstable nature of the material. Once expanded to a 50 centimeter by 1.5 meter (east/west) unit, the area was excavated to bedrock. Random matrix samples, each weighing between 4000- 6000 grams, were collected from each level. In addition, broken and aborted bifaces not recovered in the random sample were collected in order to further assess the tool types produced at the site. These tools were separated from matrix samples, so as not to skew the samples. Mound 2 and 3 Excavations Units were established in the two mounds in the Etz’nab Tunich Group. In Mound 2, located adjacent to Feature 1, two units explored the southern edge of the mound, facing Feature 1, as well as on the center of the top of the unit (Figure 9). One larger unit was placed in the center of the top of Mound 3, located uphill from Chultun 1. This was to explore the nature of the architecture; a small alignment was slightly exposed and visible prior to excavation in the center of the unit. All units were excavated to bedrock. 190 Figure 8: Profile of Feature 1 and Mound 2 Figure 9: Profile of Feature 1, with unit EWS1-1 unit, is on the left and on the right is the profile of Mound 2, with unit EWS2-1 and EWS2-2 (profiles by K. Sullivan). No architectural features were discovered within Feature 1 or Mound 2. 191 Chultun 1 Excavation Chultun 1 is located uphill from Feature 1 and Mound 2. A small unit was placed inside the chultun. The unit measured 75 centimeters by 75 centimeters, which was the largest possible rectangular unit size. The unit was established in the western portion of the chultun, as this was the location most suitable for excavation, due to the shape and size of the feature. This unit was excavated to bedrock. Artifact Analysis In order to assess basic information from lithic material recovered from Feature 1, material was randomly sampled from each 20-centimeter arbitrary level. This allowed the primary author to observe material quality and color, variation of debitage size, as well as identify formal and expedient tools disposed of within the feature. Debitage recovered from Feature 1 was separated from microdebitage using layered ¼ inch and window screens. Debitage and microdebitage were weighed and tools present in these random samples were documented. Debitage recovered from units on Mound 2 and 3, as well as from the chultun, were size classes and frequencies were recorded. This analysis was conducted in order to assess if production was occurring at these other locales. All ceramics present in units, as well as on the surface of Feature 1, were collected and diagnostic ceramics were typed and seriated with the use of Gifford (1976). Additional artifact types, including groundstone, quartz, daub, freshwater shell, and faunal remains were collected from the excavations. Artifacts were cleaned, documented, and properly stored. Spatial Analysis The presence of limited domestic artifacts and the lack of substantial evidence of habitation at the site suggest settlement was likely occurring in the surrounding areas. In order to better understand the location of the Etz’nab Tunich Group and its relation to surrounding anthropogenic features, a geographic information systems (GIS) analysis was conducted, with the use of high- resolution airborne light detection and ranging (Lidar) three-dimensional point cloud data (Chase et al. 2014). These data were collected and processed by the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM) at the request of the Western Belize Lidar Consortium in 2013. ArcMap and FugroViewer programs provided a means for landscape modeling and topographic and environmental analyses of the surrounding areas, which may have been associated with the lithic production activity at the Etz’nab Tunich Group. To accomplish this, several relief visualization techniques, including Local Relief Modeling, Sky-view Factor, Multidirectional Hillshading, and Slope Classification, were utilized to identify natural and anthropogenic features of interest across the immediate landscape. RESULTS Feature 1 The large debitage mound, Feature 1, provides evidence for large-scale, systematic production of utilitarian chert bifaces. This is most apparent from the discarded and aborted tools that remain on the surface of the feature. Quartz hammerstones with signs of battering were also - 192 - noted on the surface (see Appendix: Figure 29). Bifaces recovered from within the test unit provide additional examples of tools, showing continuity of tool types produced over the course of the activity at the group. These tools include general utility bifaces, thin, leaf shaped bifaces, and long, cylindrical punch bifaces. The feature lacks clear stratigraphy, although two phases of use appear to be present (Figure 10). The terminal phase of use is represented in the top three levels (0-60 centimeters below surface). The matrix shifts from large decortication flakes, core preparation flakes, general percussion flakes, and bifacial thinning flakes to smaller thinning and retouch flakes, with fine, crushed chert near the bottom. Directly below this level, the matrix shifts back to large flakes, primarily bifacial thinning flakes, general percussion flakes, and core preparation flakes. The final 40 centimeters of the unit reflect a similar pattern to the upper levels, grading from large to small, with crushed chert at the bottom. The stark divide between these two groups of flake types most likely represents two episodes of production at the site. The massive amount of microdebitage suggests the production was occurring at the site; however, due to the lack of a structure or floor directly associated with the feature, it is difficult to fully confirm. The lack of architectural features in association with Feature 1 led to the excavation of the mound adjacent to the feature, in search of concrete evidence of the locale of production. Lithic Artifacts While the matrix was composed almost exclusively of debitage, bifaces in various stages of production were recovered from the feature’s surface, as well as from the test unit. Three general biface types were distinguished – thin, leaf-shaped bifaces, cylindrical punches, and general utility bifaces, although other forms, such as wedge-shaped bifaces were noted as well (Figure 11; see Appendix: Figures 27). Tested cobbles often had large voids present, while early to middle-stage bifaces exhibited bending fractures, an indication of production failure (see Appendix: Figures 28 and 22) (Andrefsky 2006; Whittaker 2009). Expedient tools were also present within the feature (Figure 12). Craftspeople produced gravers by retouching flakes and small blades and microblades (Figure 12). These tools have evidence of use-wear, arguing for local production and consumption of the tools. Blades and microblades were exported to Northern Arizona University to undergo further analysis. Microscopic analysis, with the use of a low magnification digital microscope, was conducted in order to identify if use-wear was present on these tools. Of the 25 specimens examined, 13 showed patterns of edge damage and striation, which are signs of use (Andrefsky 2006). These tools were very similar in size and morphology to the small blades observed in the analysis of surface materials (Sullivan et al. 2015). Use-wear patterns also reflected the earlier specimens. Blades and microblades are essential utilitarian tools, similar to general utility bifaces, utilized by the Maya. Debitage from the mound correlates with the debitage recovered in the 2014 site reconnaissance. Flakes from all stages of production are present, including decortication flakes, core preparation flakes, general percussion flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, and bifacial retooling/rejuvenation flakes. Shatter, crushed chert and indeterminate flakes were also identified in the matrix. - 193 - Figure 10: East profile of Feature 1 from test unit, EWS1-1. Two phases of use appear in the stratigraphy (photo and annotation by K. Sullivan). 194 The percentage of microdebitage present in each level varies. The density of microdebitage increases as levels decrease, correlating with the matrix description provided above. In the terminal phase of use, microdebitage is present at 5 percent, 15 percent, and 26 percent, as the levels decrease. At the top of the earlier phase of use, microdebitage is 12 percent of the total sample, increasing at the bottom of the unit. It is likely that the settling of material increases the percentage of microdebitage at lower levels; however, the change in percentages of microdebitage between the two phases of use – 26 percent down to 12 percent – challenges this idea and further suggests a distinction is phases of use at the site. Continuity in raw materials observed in the samples from Feature 1 suggest relatively stable chert sources throughout both phases of use at the group. Material colors are similar to those identified in the original surface collection, including translucent grading to milky white to blue, blonde to dark honey, red to orange, pink to purple and a range of browns. Raw materials vary in quality. The translucent to milky white/blue material appears to be relatively free of inclusions and voids, while the brown and blonde material has many void and inclusions, which inhibit production. Ceramics Ceramic artifacts were limited within Feature 1, primarily recovered from the surface of the feature. This context does not provide solid evidence for association with the mound; however, because of the limited datable material, all diagnostic ceramics were identified, in order to provide relative chronological information for the occupation and phases of use at the group. Ceramics recovered from the surface were all classified in the Spanish Lookout Ceramic Complex, associated with the Late Classic period (AD 700-900) (Gifford 1976). The specific types include Belize Red, Cayo Unslipped, Alexander Unslipped, and Garbutt Creek Red (Awe personal communication 2015; Gifford 1976). Tu-tu Camp Striated ceramics were also identified; this ceramic type spans the Tiger Run and Spanish Lookout Phases. One diagnostic ceramic sherd was recovered from Level 5 (80-100 centimeters below surface). It was a Sierra Red sherd, from the Barton Creek Ceramic Complex of the Late Preclassic period (300-100 BC). This early ceramic date is yet another line of evidence suggesting an earlier phase of use; however, the small sample of ceramics is not sufficient for accurately dating the site. Substantially more evidence is needed in order to illuminate the true temporal span of the site. Mound 2 Excavation of Mound 2 aimed to locate architectural features and test if the mound was associated with the production of chert tools. Although Feature 1 clearly represents debris from large-scale production, more evidence is needed to establish the exact locale of production. The best evidence for production locales comes from the presence of microdebitage imbedded in the plaster of floors (Moholy-Nagy 1990). It is highly difficult for craftspeople to completely remove microdebitage from production episodes and it is often left behind at the location of production. Larger debitage is moved to a debris deposit, removed from the area of production and habitation, as it is highly hazardous. 195 Figure 11: Examples of middle to late stage broken bifaces, recovered from the surface of Feature 1. Two distinct styles have been identified – thin leaf-shaped bifaces (upper left and right), long, cylindrical, punch-style bifaces (lower left), and general utility bifaces (lower right) (photos by K. Sullivan). Figure 12: Composite photo of a sample of small blades from Feature 1 on the left (A. Level 1, B. Level 2, C. Level 3, D. Level 4). Composite photo of tips of broken bifaces (E. Level 1, F. Level 2). These photos provide a sample of tools produced and consumed at the group (photos by K. Sullivan). 196 Figure 13: Bifaces recovered from Mound 2. Late-stage bifaces shown on the left. A large biface preform, in the early stages of reduction, shown on the right (photos by K. Sullivan). Two units, placed on the south edge, at the base, and on the top of Mound 2, yielded no evidence of architectural features. Although a few facing stones were located on the top of the structure, no alignments or architectural fill was uncovered. Bedrock was exposed close to the surface (< 1 meter), on both of the edge and from the top. This suggests that the mound is actually a natural limestone rise. Modern disturbances, including a bulldozer cut that rounded the mound in order to create a driveway for the modern property owner, have clearly influenced the morphology of the mound. Several large trees are growing on top of the mound, which increases soil deposition on top of the rise. The surface of the limestone bedrock appeared to be flattened. In order to verify that is was not plaster, both units were excavated below the surface of the bedrock. The shape and flatness of the limestone suggests the craftspeople may have flattened the bedrock and used this natural topographic feature as a work area, prior to the deposit of the debitage to the south, similar to the production area at El Pilar (Whittaker et al. 2009). More research, however, would be required to verify the proposed use of the area. Artifacts recovered from both units suggest either use or disposal of utilitarian artifacts such as ceramics, daub, and manos in this area. Lithic Artifacts Artifacts, primarily utilitarian in function, were recovered from both units (Table 2). Debitage and bifaces in a range of stages of production could be evidence of production, although these artifacts are also encountered in residential settings. An unusually large amount of debitage and two late-stage bifaces (Figure 13) were recovered from the base of the mound. The top of the mound yielded a more balanced collection of artifacts. At the base, 1468 pieces of chert debitage were collected, while the top of the mound produced 151 pieces of debitage and one large preform (Figure 14). This differential is likely a result of the bulldozer cut, which swept materials from the nearby debitage deposit onto the smaller adjacent mound. It could, however, be additional evidence of production activity. Quartz and granite manos were present in both units (Figure 14). These artifacts are commonly associated with residential settings, as they are utilized in food processing. Both manos 197 Figure 14: Granite mano fragment (A. Side profile, B. Front, C. Back) shown on the left. Quartz mano fragment, front and back, shown on the right (photos by K. Sullivan). Figure 15: Ceramic Spindle Whorl (front and back) recovered from Mound 2. This artifact was classified as a special find and labeled as SF-EWS2-2-1 (photo by K. Sullivan). were broken, but displayed evidence of heavy use. No signs of battering were present, reducing the possibility that they were employed as hammerstones in stone tool production. Ceramics Ceramic artifacts were limited and often incredibly degraded. One complete ceramic spindle whorl was recovered in the excavation (Figure 15). A few diagnostic sherds provided some general temporal information. The ceramics identified include Belize Red, Cayo Unslipped, Gallinero Fluted, Benque Viejo, Dolphin Head Red, Mountain Pine Red, Chunhinta Black, Minanha Red and Vaca Falls Red (Gifford 1976). The majority of these ceramics are from the Late Classic period Spanish Lookout Ceramic Complex (AD 700-900). However, a few of the artifacts present come from earlier phases. The Mountain Pine Red sherd is from the Tiger Run Phase (AD 600-700) and the Minanha Red sherd from the Hermitage Ceramic Complex (AD 300-600); the Tiger Run phase was immediately prior to the Spanish Lookout phase, in the Late Classic, while the Hermitage Phase is associated with the Early Classic period. 198 Figure 16: Plan view of unit EWS3-1. View of cut stone alignment on top of a small platform on Mound 3 (plan view by K. Sullivan). One unusual early sherd was recovered from the top of Mound 2; the Chunhinta Black sherd is affiliated with the Jenney Creek Ceramic Complex, associated with the Middle Preclassic period (1000-300 BC) (Chase 1984; Gifford 1976). This early ceramic sherd was recovered from a similar depth to the early period ceramic sherd located in Feature 1. Similar to Feature 1, the small sample of ceramics recovered in the excavations presents a challenge for the effective use of seriation to suggest a Preclassic occupation at the group. Mound 3 Excavation of Mound 3 revealed a small, low-lying platform. A single alignment of cut stones sat on a layer of small to medium cobble fill, 30 centimeters above bedrock (Figures 16 and 17). A small portion of a poorly preserved plaster floor was identified south of the alignment (Figure 17). The structure is situated on a hilltop overlooking Feature 1 and Mound 2. The location implies that a craftsperson likely resided in the immediate area of the workshop, but slightly removed from the hazardous waste of chert tool production. Artifacts Although this mound contains the only evidence of architectural features in the group, minimal cultural material was uncovered from Mound 3. Diagnostic ceramics recovered from Mound 3 were limited to eight sherds of Belize Red and Cayo Unslipped. Both ceramic types are associated with the Spanish Lookout Phase of the Late to Terminal Classic periods (AD 700-900) (Awe personal communication 2015; Gifford 1976). Chert debitage and a few tested cobbles made up the majority of the assemblage. No formal or expedient tools were identified associated with Mound 3. A single jute (Pachychilus glaphyrus), with a clipped spire was recovered. The artifactual assemblage does not reveal much about the activity at the structure; however, it is most likely that this area served as a residence for the craftspeople or person. 199 Figure 17: Profile of Mound 3. This profile shows the cobble fill underlies a small alignment. A small portion of a plaster floor remained intact, behind the alignment (profile by K. Sullivan). Chultun 1 This small, carved chultun is located on the top of a hillside, near Mound 3 (Figures 18 and 19). The interior surface was fairly clear, although modern faunal remains of a peccary were present on the surface. The west section of the chultun was the most suitable for a rectangular excavation unit. A 75 centimeter by 75 centimeter unit was excavated to bedrock (Figure 20). One facing stone was recovered from the bottom of the unit, resting on the bedrock. Artifacts recovered from the unit included small amounts of ceramic sherds, chert debitage and a small drill, as well as a few small faunal bones. The faunal remains appear to be rat; however, this is currently unverified. Artifacts A minimal quantity of chert artifacts was discovered within the excavation unit in Chultun 1. Small debitage fragments make up the majority of the lithic assemblage. One tool, a small chert drill was discovered in the deposit (Figure 21). Diagnostic ceramics uncovered in the excavations were extremely limited (three sherds). Two ceramic types were recovered from the excavation unit in Chultun 1. Two Cayo Unslipped sherds, a general Spanish Lookout Phase type, dates to the Late to Terminal Classic (AD 700-900). One sherd of Vaca Falls Red was identified, and is specific to the late facet of the Spanish Lookout Phase (~AD 800-900) (Awe personal communication 2015; Gifford 1976). 200 Figure 18: Plan view of the opening of Chultun 1 (plan view Figure 20: Plan view of unit EWS-Ch-1 (plan view by K. by K. Sullivan). Sullivan). One cut stone was discovered, resting on the bedrock. Figure 19: Plan view of the inside of Chultun 1, featuring unit Figure 21: Chert drill with use-wear on the tip (photo by K. EWS-Ch-1 (plan view by K. Sullivan). Sullivan). 201 Figure 22: Map of the area around the Etz’nab Tunich Group (map by K. Sullivan). Several general areas have been identified including the Etz’nab Tunich Group areas, as well as a potential raw material source and settlement area. Spatial Analysis A high potential for the identification of prehistoric structures and ancient land modifications has been demonstrated through recent applications of high-resolution lidar data within the Belize River Valley (Awe et al. 2016). Surface visualization techniques, such as Local Relief Modeling (LRM) and Sky-view Factor (SVF), detect differences in the immediate topography, emphasizing potential cultural features on the landscape. A thorough analysis of the landscape surrounding the Etz’nab Tunich Group demonstrates that the cluster was strategically located to take advantage of local sources of raw material in the form of eroding chert cobbles, less than 500 meters west of the debitage deposit (Figure 22). Visualization techniques also revealed the position of the group in close proximity to a minor settlement area, including a broad, raised platform, and several small structures (Figures 23-25). A 500 meter x 500 meter sample area to the north and west of the Etz’nab Tunich Group was targeted for intensive relief visualization analysis. The area was selected based on the higher potential to support both habitation features and lithic procurement zones, as the topography to the east and south of the group consists largely of more rugged foothills of the Maya Mountains. Four relief visualization techniques — LRM, SVF, Multidirectional Hillshading, and Slope Classification — were performed on the sample area through ArcGIS (vers. 10.2.2) and Relief Visualization Toolbox (vers. 1.2). Feature detection was further supplemented through lidar point cloud analysis within FugroViewer (vers. 2.22), which also allowed for the creation of three- dimensional and profile visualizations (Figure 23). While each visualization technique utilizes a slightly different method to aid in feature detection, all four rely on the one-meter resolution lidar-derived Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 202 A. B. Figure 23: Profile visualizations of the Etz’nab Tunich Group (A) and Feature 1 (B), made in FugroViewer (Visualizations made by K. Sullivan with data from Awe). provided by NCALM to create an enhanced rendering of the local topography. Such techniques are arguably superior to traditional hillshades, which can obscure features based on the illumination angle and fail to differentiate between positive and negative relief, causing optical illusions. LRMs (Hesse 2010, Novák 2014) highlight potential anthropogenic features through analysis of the variation between the immediate and greater local topography within a given sample neighborhood, while SVF (Zakšek et al. 2011) reveals small-scale relief through estimates of sky visible from a given point on the landscape. Multidirectional Hillshading combines a number of different illumination angles, 16 in this model, to extract low-relief, linear features (Figure. Slope classification provides a stretched representation of the landscape based on angle and gradient. Preliminary visualization analyses provided markedly enhanced results of both the natural topography and potential landscape modification of Etz’nab Tunich area. Minor drainage and other low, erosional areas stand out in contrast to the major positive relief of the ridgetops surrounding the valley. The relief visualization techniques also revealed a formal plazuela group situated approximately 300 meters to the north of Etz’nab Tunich. Tentatively described as a settlement area, the habitation group of 5—6 mounds is positioned on a series of wide, low platforms, trending downslope to the west. A potential low relief sacbe travels from the southern end of the bottom platform southwest approximately 100 meters towards another grouping of minor mounds. The features detected likely represent a combined residential-agricultural area and may be related to the individuals responsible for lithic craft production at Etz’nab Tunich. The positive relief of the settlement area features did not normally exceed one meter, demonstrating the high-resolution capabilities of the modeling for the detection of even the most minor Maya constructions. 203 A. B. Figure 24: Results of Local Relief Modeling of the settlement area in the vicinity of the Etz’nab Tunich Group (adapted from Novák 2014). The local relief model is smoothed based on a 25- meter neighborhood (A) and a 5-meter neighborhood (B). A. B. Figure 25: Two views of the settlement in the vicinity of the Etz’nab Tunich Group. DigitalGlobe imagery shows the thick vegetative cover (A) and SVF (B) provide bare earth views of the settlement area, displaying earthworks and several ancient structures (maps by K. Sullivan and S. Montgomery). 204 A. B. Figure 26: Two additional views of the settlement near the Etz’nab Tunich Group. Multidirectional Hillshade (A), Slope model (B) provide supplementary bare earth views of the settlement area, which clearly display the earthworks and ancient structures (maps by K. Sullivan and S. Montgomery). DISCUSSION Although excavations revealed conclusive evidence of large-scale chert tool production, the workshop, or production location, has not been conclusively identified. Additional research would be required to answer that question. The fact that large-scale production was happening near the massive debitage deposit is certain. Mound 2 is possibly an area of actual production, positioned adjacent to the deposit. Similar to the production area at El Pilar, this area appears to have smoothed limestone bedrock, providing an effective workspace, without the need for a formal structure (Whittaker et al. 2009). However, archaeological material recovered from the mound could be a result of accumulation from the modern bulldozer cut. The small formal structure, located on an elevated hilltop, has very few artifacts. While the platform may have served a residential function, it is more likely that activity associated with the production was occurring on the platform. The chultun adjacent to the mound likely served a utilitarian purpose—storage of water. The constricted valley, just to the north of the group, shows evidence of anthropogenic earthworks, individual structures, and one formal plazuela group. This flat plain, bordered by foothills and cut by tributaries of the Belize River, likely served as the primary residential and agricultural area for the craftspeople of the Etz’nab Tunich Group. Further investigations, however, are required to substantiate the relationship between the two groups. Raw material used in the production of utilitarian tools appears to be sourced from a combination of nodules and bedded chert, eroding from the surrounding hillsides. Several cleared fields with cobbles eroding out of the ground can be observed from the road, just downhill from the group. The site has a wide variety of materials, in both quality and quantity, suggesting a 205 . B. Figure 26: Artifacts collected from the surface, on the hill in between Feature 1 and Mound 3 and Chultun 1. These artifacts include a chert blade (A) and two thin, leaf-shaped bifaces and one biface preform (B). assortment of sources. Cortical data suggests multiple sources as well. Chalky, bubbly white cortex is consistent with local bedrock materials, while thin, smooth cortex suggests riverine sources. Local streambeds are abundant in the foothill. The group is located 3 kilometers from the Belize River and 4 kilometers from the Macal River, providing an additional source of riverine materials. CONCLUSIONS The Etz’nab Tunich Group is a hinterland production area, where large-scale utilitarian chert tools were manufactured (Figure 26). The group includes a potential workspace and a very large debris dump, as well as a simple structure and an adjacent chultun. It has been suggested that cross culturally craftspeople’s “living areas [were] not only segregated but also placed so as to be in sight of the source of the stone they worked” (Bennett 2007; Hendon 2007). The Etz’nab Tunich Group is a prime location to extract resources, produce tools, and for the craftspeople or person to reside at or nearby. The terminal phase of use occurred in the Middle/Late to Terminal Classic periods, based on ceramic seriation. Early ceramics recovered from Feature 1 and Mound 2 include material from the Jenney Creek and Barton Creek Ceramic Phases. This ceramic evidence is minimal and does not conclusively represent a Preclassic phase of use at the group. It does appear, however, that a previous phase of use did occurred prior to the Late Classic period, based on the stratigraphy of Feature 1. Despite the limited quantity of early ceramics, their presence further indicates an early phase of use. The group is located in the immediate vicinity of the site of Esperanza, and nearly equidistance from the major centers of Cahal Pech and Baking Pot. Implements produced at this workshop were likely locally consumed by neighboring agrarian populations in the alluvial valley. In total, three workshops have been identified along the foothills south of the Belize Valley (Sullivan et al. 2015). These production areas produced utilitarian chert tools, essential to 206 agricultural production, throughout the valley. Quality biface production requires skilled craft specialists. These workshops produced commodities essential to Maya lifeway. Future research will seek to identify additional workshops throughout the Belize Valley in order to gain a better understanding of their engagement with the complex regional economic system of the valley. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project for their constant support over the last several field seasons. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Julie A. Hoggarth for all of her guidance over the years in the field. Additionally, We want to thank all the staff members of the BVAR project have provided support in research, especially G. Van Kollias and Mike Biggie. We would like to recognize Manuel Mendez and Alex Alvarez for their hard work with the excavations. We would like to acknowledge Dr. W. James Stemp for his assistance with the initial surface reconnaissance and his input in designing methodology for debitage analysis. Finally, thank you to Dr. John Morris and the entire staff of the Institute of Archaeology and the National Institute of Culture and History. REFERENCES CITED Aldenderfer, M. S., L. R. Kimball, and A. Sievert 1989 Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex Society Setting. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:47-60. Andrefsky, William Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. New York City. Cambridge University Press. Aoyama, Kazuo 2001 Classic Maya State, Urbanism, and Exchange: Stone Tool Evidence of the Copan Valley and It’s Hinterland. American Anthropologist, 103:346-360. Awe, Jaime J., Claire E. Ebert, and Julie Hoggarth 2016 Three K’atuns of Pioneering Settlement Research: Preliminary Results of Lidar Sruvey in the Belize River Valley. In Breaking Barrier: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference, edited by Robyn Crook, Kim Edwards, and Colleen Hughes pp. 57-75. University of Calgary, Calgary. Bennett, Gwen P. 2007 Context and Meaning in Late Neolithic Lithic Production in China: The Longshan Period In Southeastern Shandong Province. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 17:52-67. Chase, Arlen F. 1984 The Ceramic Complexes of the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, Lake Peten, Guatemala. Ceramica de Cultura Maya, 13:27-41. 207 Driver, W. David and James Garber 2004 The Emergence of Minor Centers in the Zones between Seats of Power. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research. Edited by J. F. Garber, pp. 287-304. University of Florida Press, Gainsville. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge. Hendon, Julia A. 2007 Production as a Social Process. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 17:163–168. Hesse, Ralf 2010 LiDAR Derived Local Relief Models: a New Tool for Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 17(2):67-72. Hester, Thomas R. and Harry J. Shafer 1984 Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize, Central America. World Archaeology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 157-173. Lewenstein, Suzanne M. 1987 Stone Tool Use at Cerros. University of Texas Press, Austin. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 1990 The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic Workshops. Latin American Antiquity. Vol 1, No. 3, pp. 268–79. Novák, David 2014 Local Relief Model (LRM) Toolbox for ArcGIS. Electronic Document, https://www.academia.edu/5618967/Local_Relief_Model_LRM_Toolbox_for_ ArcGIS_UPDATE_2014-10-7_, accessed December 15, 2015. Shafer, Harry J. and Thomas R. Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 519-543. 1986 An Ancient Maya Hafted Stone Tool from Northern Belize. Working Papers in Archaeology 3. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio. Stemp, W. James 2004 Maya Coastal Subsistence and Craft Production at San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize: The Lithic Use-Wear Evidence. Lithic Technology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 33-73. 208 Sullivan, Kelsey J., W. James Stemp and Jaime J. Awe 2015 Two Newly Discovered Maya Chert Tool Workshops in the Belize Valley: Results of the 2014 Surface Reconnaissance. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco. Whittaker, John C., Kathryn A. Kamp, Anabel Ford, Rafael Guerra, Peter Brands, Jose Guerra, Kim McLean, Alex Woods, Melissa Badillo, Jennifer Thorton and Zerifeh Eiley 2009 Lithic Industry in a Maya Ceter: An Axe Workshop at El Pilar, Belize. Latin American Antiquity. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 134-156. Woods, James C. and Gene L. Titmus 1996 Stone on Stone: Perspectives on Maya Civilization from Lithic Studies. Eigth Palenque Round Table, edited by M. G. Robertson, pp. 479-489. The Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. Zakšek, Klemen, Kristof Oštir, and Žiga Kokalj 2011 Sky-View Factor as a Relief Visualization Technique. Remote Sensing 3:398-415. 209 Appendix A: Additional Tables and Figures Table 2: Artifact Inventory for Excavations at the Etz’nab Tunich Group Structure Unit Operation Level Lot Lot Description Class Total Count Total Weight (g) Comments Feature 1 n/a EWS2015-1 Surface n/a Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 57 Sample of Tools Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 1 EWS1-1 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 4050 Debitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 1 EWS1-1 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 218.66 Microdebitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 1 EWS1-1 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 26 Sample of tools Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 2 EWS1-2 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 4350 Debitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 2 EWS1-2 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 659.73 Microdebitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 2 EWS1-2 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 66 Sample of tools Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 3 EWS1-3 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 4599.97 Debitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 3 EWS1-3 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 1184.2 Microdebitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 3 EWS1-3 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 43 Sample of tools Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 4 EWS1-4 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 4937 Debitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 4 EWS1-4 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 586.03 Microdebitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 4 EWS1-4 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 15 Sample of tools Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 5 EWS1-5 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Chert 5000 Debitage Feature 1 EWS1-1 EWS2015-2 5 EWS1-5 Feature 1: Debitage Deposit Ceramics 2 1 diagnostic: Sierra Red Mound 2 EWS2-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-1 Humus Ceramics 201 20 diagnostic Mound 2 EWS2-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-1 Humus Chert 1466 2 broken late-stage bifaces Mound 2 EWS2-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-1 Humus Daub 14 31.36 Mound 2 EWS2-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-1 Humus Quartz 6 1 Mano fragment Mound 2 EWS2-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-1 Humus Granite 1 Mano fragment Mound 2 EWS2-2 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-2 Humus & Collapse Ceramics 58 17 diagnostics Mound 2 EWS2-2 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-2 Humus & Collapse Chert 152 Large biface preform Mound 2 EWS2-2 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-2 Humus & Collapse Daub 31 20.15 Mound 2 EWS2-2 EWS2015-3 1 EWS2-2 Humus & Collapse Quartz 2 Mound 3 EWS3-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS3-1 Humus & Collapse Ceramics 19 8 diagnostics Mound 3 EWS3-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS3-1 Humus & Collapse Chert 61 Mound 3 EWS3-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS3-1 Humus & Collapse Quartz 2 Mound 3 EWS3-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS3-1 Humus & Collapse Freshwater 1 2.9 Jute: Pachychilus Shell glaphyrus, clipped end Chultun 1 EWS-Ch-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS-Ch-1 Humus Ceramics 29 3 diagnostics Chultun 1 EWS-Ch-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS-Ch-1 Humus Chert 25 1 tool Chultun 1 EWS-Ch-1 EWS2015-3 1 EWS-Ch-1 Humus Faunal 4 Unidentified Remains 210 Figure 27: Wedge-shaped adze, broken in production due to large inclusion, recovered from the surface of Feature 1 (photo by K. Sullivan). Figure 28: General utility bifaces, broken in the early to middle stages of production, recovered from the surface of Feature 1 (photo by K. Sullivan). 211 Figure 29: Quartz hammerstone recovered from the surface of Feature 1. Areas displaying battering (evidence of use) are circled in red (photo by K. Sullivan). 212 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AT LOWER BARTON CREEK, CAYO, BELIZE G. Van Kollias Northern Arizona University Michael Biggie Los Angeles Maritime Institute INTRODUCTION This field report details the research conducted at Lower Barton Creek, Cayo, Belize during the 2015 field-season. This research was conducted as part of the on-going regional settlement survey and research of the BVAR project in the Belize River Valley. Research conducted at Lower Barton Creek during the 2015 field season forms the basis of the first author’s Master’s research project. The primary goal of this thesis is to conduct preliminary investigations of the site core and establish an occupational timeline to understand the chronology for the foundation and decline of the site. The data produced from these excavations primarily relies on chronological information, including ceramic seriation, and radiocarbon dating. For a complete discussion and presentation of this material see the MA thesis produced by the first author of this field report, produced under the Graduate Anthropology Program at Northern Arizona University. Contained within this field-report is a cursory overview of the excavations, recovered archaeological materials, and a brief conclusion summarizing the preliminary inferences of Lower Barton Creek’s temporal and chronological presence in the Belize River Valley. LOWER BARTON CREEK DESCRIPTION The primary purpose of the investigations conducted at Lower Barton Creek during the 2015 field season were to establish a preliminary occupational chronology for the site so that it may be situated within the context of regional settlement data for the Belize Valley. From this context a greater understanding of the site’s socio-political interaction with contemporaneous centers can be understood. This section details the topographic relationship of Lower Barton Creek to other close centers as well as the structural composition and organization of the site core. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp.213-222. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 213 Figure 1: Regional Map of the Belize River Valley, illustrating the relationship of Lower Barton Creek to other centers in the valley (Map by Claire Ebert). Located along the southwestern bank of Barton Creek, approximately 9km south of Blackman Eddy, Lower Barton Creek exhibits the structural characteristics of a minor ceremonial center in the Belize Valley (Helmke et al. n.d.:Table 2). Oriented on a North-south axis the site can be divided into three main areas, Plaza A in the north, Plaza B forming the central component, and Plaza C to the south. Identified in Plaza A are several range structures opposing an Eastern Triadic Group and larger temple at the northeast of the plaza. Plaza B features a ballcourt oriented on a north-south axis, and no other structures. Plaza C comprises the palace complex at Lower Barton Creek, featuring an elevated plaza with flanking range structures and a large structure located centrally along the southern extent of the plaza. SITE CORE INVESTIGATIONS Investigations at Lower Barton Creek focus on this nucleated center. Each plaza was investigated and the major structural features of these plazas are the primary focus of vertical excavations aimed towards developing a chronological record of occupation, activity, and construction in the site core. The excavations are detailed in the following section. 214 Figure 2: Architectural map of the site core at Lower Barton Creek. Plaza A Investigations Plaza A consists of seven identified structures, five of which are low-lying range structures. The primary structures in Plaza A are the northern temple, STR A1, and the eastern triadic group, Str. A2. Due to extensive and traumatic looting in structure A1 excavations were conducted in Str. A2. Three units were placed on this structure, a basal unit (A2-1West), and two units placed at the western and eastern edges of the summit (A2-Summit1 and A2-Summit2, respectively.) All three of these units are oriented along the east-west transverse axis of Str. A2 and are aligned with one another to create a broken profile. Unit A2-1West focused on exposing the basal architecture 215 Lower Barton Creek Site Core Figure 3: Map of the site core at Lower Barton Creek with all 2015 excavations units highlighted in red. of the structure as well as the plaza floor, targeting bedrock this unit’s focus was to provide a complete stratigraphic profile. The basal architecture identified exhibits a ledge and the first three stairs of the central staircase. The summit units exposed architectural alignments identified in surface survey, and A2-Summit1 provided the best architectural preservation at the summit where architecture was identified. A single burial was identified at the summit of Str. A2 and was badly damaged and eroded from the growth of vegetation at the summit of the structure. Located approximately 40cm below the surface, the burial exhibits a north-south orientation, with the head to the south, and flanking stones were set on end to form a crypt lining. No significant archaeological material was identified with this individual. 216 Chultun A single chultun was identified at the western extent of Plaza A, located directly in front of Str. A5 in alignment with the space between structure A1 and A2, as well as the centerline of the ballcourt, creating an intersection of these two axes. Preliminary investigation of this feature reveals the opening to be modified and lined with facing stones. The inside of the chultun is almost completely filled by debris but some evidence of plaster is visible. No excavation took place inside the chultun and no archaeological material was identified. Plaza B Investigations Investigations in Plaza B focused around the ballcourt. A single trench was placed running along the centerline of this structural assemblage (Ballcourt N/S Trench1). Excavation revealed several architectural phases in the plaza floor associated with the ballcourt. Damage to the range structures from looting hindered a proper architectural reconstruction of the buildings. Along the centerline of the ballcourt, an intrusive feature beneath the terminal plaza floor was identified. This feature contained the shattered remains of a limestone marker, partially complete, and featuring an inscribed circle bounding the edge of the object. The marker appears to have been removed and destroyed before being interred, the positioning of the material looked as if the broken pieces had been dumped into the cache, not broken in-situ. Plaza C Investigations Excavations in the palace are focused around the identification of architectural phases in the largest structure, C1, along the southern expanse of the plaza, and the associated range structures (Units C1-1North and C2-1East). Both of the units established in the plaza focused on vertical excavation and exposure of architectural phases. The entire plaza is raised and is higher in elevation than Plaza B by approximately 3m and is bounded on all sides by range structures. It is accessible only via a central staircase located on the northern side of the plaza, leading directly to the ballcourt. Though bedrock was not identified in either unit, materials recovered indicate a possible Late Preclassic construction for the penultimate phase of architecture, overview of the ceramic data relating to this conclusion is provided in the later sections in this report. PRELIMINARY ARTIFACT ANALYSIS This section details a preliminary artifact analysis and basic quantitative reporting for materials recovered from Lower Barton Creek. Tables of artifact quantities and percentages are provided alongside brief description of the archaeological material (Table 1). Ceramics Ceramic artifacts recovered in our excavations reflect a long period of occupation and activity at Lower Barton Creek. The surface and subsurface collapse contexts in all three plazas yielded pottery dating to the Late /Terminal Classic period. Ceramics types recovered from these 217 Table 1. Table of artifact type totals and percentages. Artifact Type Artifact Total Percentage of Total CE 1177 42.81 CH 528 18.92 FS 1045 37.45 CB 5 0.17 GR 2 0.07 QZ 6 0.21 SH 4 0.14 JD 1 0.03 OB 4 0.14 FA 4 0.14 HR 4 0.14 CA 10 0.35 ALL TYPES 2790 100% levels, and especially from Plaza A, include Belize Red, Cayo Unslipped, Dolphin Head Red, Tutu Camp Striated, Sierra Red and Garbut Creek Red. Interestingly, the fill of the terminal architectural phase of Str. A2 contained no Spanish Lookout Phase Ceramics with a predominance of Sierra Red types. The penultimate plaza construction associated with A2 largely features Paila Unslipped, Savannah Orange, and Zapote Striated ceramics. Pottery from Plaza B, associated with the construction of the Ballcourt, are similar in type to those in Plaza A. The topmost stratigraphic level predominantly features Terminal Classic (late facet) Spanish Lookout Complex ceramics, while the architectural fill (Level 2) associated with the ballcourt contained Tiger Run and Jenny Creek Complex types. In contrast to Plaza B, the penultimate architectural phases in Plaza C had pottery from both the Jenny Creek and Barton Creek ceramic complexes, indicating a possible Late Preclassic Construction of the palace area. Lithics Lithic artifacts were recovered in all excavation areas of the site core. A predominance of this material is clearly culturally modified, and contains a breadth of formal and informal tools within the assemblage. While most of the material recovered can be classified as ‘debitage’, Table 2 indicates the presence of all stages of lithic tool production. Of the lithic artifacts recovered only a few may be considered fully refined bifacial tools, namely a large bifacial tool possibly used for agricultural purposes, a single projectile point identified in the earlier strata of Plaza A, and several bifacially worked scrapers. The lack of formal tools identified during these excavations is the result of the research goal, chronology building. It is unlikely that any significant quantity of tools, especially agricultural ones, will be recovered 218 Table 2: Table of artifact totals and percentages from architectural investigations. Lithic Type Total Percentage of Lithic Total Core 65 12.31 Primary Flake 29 5.49 Secondary Flake 214 40.53 Bifacial Thinning Flake 115 21.78 Formal Tool 6 1.13 Informal Tool 4 0.75 Utilized Flake 14 2.65 Shatter 54 10.22 Unidentified Debitage 27 5.11 Lithic Total 528 100% from the site core. None of the lithics objects recovered however can be deemed ceremonial or ornate, they are all practical utilitarian tools. A predominance of the lithic material recovered is debitage, some of which has been clearly repurposed as informal tools. Several of the debitage flakes exhibit edge wear and use. A large number of cores were also identified, combined with the prolific amount of debitage at the site it is clear that lithic manufacture was being practiced through the terminal occupation of the site and site core. Faunal Remains Faunal remains recovered during excavations at Lower Barton Creek were minimal. Almost no animal remains were identified, with the exception of two identifiable objects. The first belonging to the appendage of a deer, part of the metacarpal. The second belonging to a rodent and clearly belonging to a recently deceased animal burrowing into Str. A2. Along with these faunal remains, a large number of jute was recovered and identified in all excavation areas. The majority of shell exhibited the tell-tale puncture at the top of the shell, obviously a product of harvesting the freshwater shells for food. With Barton Creek running to the north and northwest of the site core, it is likely that jute was collected from the immediate area. Of particular note is the presence of shell ornaments identified at Lower Barton Creek, discussed below. Shell & Jade Ornaments Worked shell material was identified alongside a single jade bead and several obsidian blade fragments in a cache located in front of Str. C2. The shell beads and pendants appear to have been placed in a ceramic dish alongside the other objects and several hundred jute. This cache was 219 Figure 6: Shell and jade ornaments and obsidian blades recovered from C2-1East Feature 1. identified in the penultimate plaza floor likely an intrusive event before the construction of the final plaza floor. REPORT SUMMARY Archaeological investigations at Lower Barton Creek have provided information regarding the temporal and spatial relationship of Lower Barton Creek to other centers in the valley. At the time of this report’s publication, samples submitted for radiocarbon data are still in process, however several initial conclusions can be asserted. Lower Barton Creek clearly exhibits the structural features and orientation of a minor civic-ceremonial center, containing a palace, ballcourt, and eastern triadic group. Initial ceramic data indicates that the penultimate construction phases of several of these major features dates roughly to the Late Preclassic. With the addition of radiocarbon data, a more refined and solid assessment of this center’s temporal history will be possible. For further and future information, see Kollias (2016) detailing this research. 220 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A great many thanks need to be given in support of the research conducted at Lower Barton Creek during the 2015 field-season. I would first like to thank Dr. Awe for his guidance and tutorship, as well as the Belizean Government, and Institute of Archaeology for allowing us to conduct archaeological investigations at Lower Barton Creek. Thanks also to Dr. Julie Hoggarth, the Co- Director of the BVAR program for coordinating and supporting the logistical aspects of field research conducted by BVAR. To Claire Ebert who was a great friend and mentor during my research and for processing much of the initial Lidar data that led to the identification of Lower Barton Creek. To Rafael Guerra for his mentoring, friendship, and guidance in mapping the site core. And finally but with utmost importance to my friend and colleague Mike Biggie and the field-crew that worked with us and without whom not one spade full of dirt would have been moved. REFERENCES CITED Awe, Jaime J. 2008 Architectural Manifestations of Power and Prestige: Examples from the Classic Period Monumental Architecture at Cahal Pech, Xunantunich and Caracol, Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5: 159-173. Awe, Jaime J., Julie A. Hoggarth, Christophe Helmke 2015 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Belize River Valley and their Implications for Models of Low-Density Urbanism. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 1: 264-285. Chase, Arlen F., Diane Chase, Jaime Awe, John Weishampel, Gyles Iannone, Holley Moyes, Jason Yager, Kathryn Brown, Ramesh Shrestha, William Carter, Juan Diaz 2014 Ancient Maya Regional Settlement and Inter-Site Analysis: The 2013 West-Central Belize Lidar Survey. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley, Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Press, Volume 18. Helmke, C., C.E. Ebert, J.J. Awe, and J.A. Hoggarth. (In Review). Lay of the Land: A Political Geography of an Ancient Maya Kingdom in West- Central Belize. Submitted to Acta Mesoamericana. Helmke, Christophe, Jaime Awe 2013 Ancient Maya Territorial Organization of Central Belize: Confluence of Archaeological and Epigraphic Data. Contributions in New World Archaeology 4:59-90. 221 Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard Jr., John B. Glass, James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 54:300-309. 222 EXCAVATIONS AT LOWER DOVER, BELIZE: RESULTS OF THE 2015 FIELD SEASON Rafael Guerra University of New Mexico Renee Collins University of California, Los Angeles INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2015, the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance (BVAR) project continued archeological investigations at the site of Lower Dover, Unitedville, Cayo District, Belize. These excavations included test pits in Plaza A, C, E, K and Plaza M of the site core (Figure 1). Lower Dover is on the property of William and Madeline Reynolds in the Village of Unitedville, seven miles east of San Ignacio. It is located on the southern bank of the Belize River directly across from Barton Ramie, approximately 6 km east of Baking Pot and 3 km west of Blackman Eddy. The site is bordered on the north by the Belize River, on the east by Lower Barton Creek and on the west by the Upper Barton Creek (Guerra and Morton 2011; Guerra 2011). The ceremonial center consists of nine formal and two informal plaza groups with 56 structures, including one ballcourt (Figure 1), and a possible aguada just north of Plaza A. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Archaeological investigations have been conducted at surrounding sites as far back as the 1920’s (Ricketson 1929), including Floral Park (Willey et al. 1956), Blackman Eddy (Driver and Garber 2004), and Barton Ramie (Willey et al. 1956, Gifford et al. 1976), but it is unknown what connections and relationships these sites had with Lower Dover. In 2010 the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project initiated archaeological research at Lower Dover. The preliminary research focused on site mapping and developing the site chronology. Previous research at Lower Dover identified two distinct phases of occupation dating to the latter part of the Late Classic period (AD 600-800) at Plazas A and G (Guerra and Arksey 2012). Wolfel et al (2009) identified one scroll foot on the surface of Plaza F, indicating possible Postclassic activity in the plaza and structures. The 2012 and 2013 excavations at Plaza F indicated that the area was built and used in the Late Classic, with abandonment in the Terminal Classic and a partial reoccupation in the Postclassic period (Guerra et al. 2013, 2014). The 2014 excavations were focused on determining the chronological sequence of the structures in Plaza C, E and M of the site ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 223-238. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 223 Figure 1: Lower Dover site core plan with 2015 Excavation units in red. core. These excavations indicated that these plazas and associated structures were built in the Spanish Lookout phase (AD 700-900) in a single construction phase. METHODOLOGY In the 2015 field season excavations were focused in Plaza A, B, C,D, K and Plaza M with the. In Plaza A, the eastern most group at the site, the excavations were carried out at Platform A2, Structure A6 and in the center of the Plaza (Figure 1). At Plaza C, Structure B11, an attached low lying structure to the east was excavated to identify the last use as well as the construction chronology. In Plaza C the excavation of PC-1 was continued below the plaza floor in order to determine the architectural phases of construction. In Plaza K a unit was excavated along the north- south axis of structure K51 in order to investigate the construction sequence at this plaza. In Plaza M, structure M60 was trenched along the east-west axis in order to determine the chronological sequence of the building and to recover possible caches and human remains. The data presented below are the results of the 2015 field season. 224 RESULTS FROM EXCAVATIONS Plaza A Plaza A lies to the east of the site and measures 25m x 30m. This group forms the easternmost visible boundary of the site complex. Three excavation units were initiated at this group identify the terminal phase construction, collect material remains associated with the final occupation period, as well as to identify the construction sequence of the group. Unit A2-1 was placed along the east-west primary axis of structure A2. Unit PA-1 was placed in the center of the plaza over a small rock alignment that may have been a small structure. Unit A6-1 was placed along the base of Structure A6, the eastern structure of the ballcourt, in order to identify the construction sequence at this area. In conjunction with Friends of Lower Dover (FOLD), two conservation projects were carried out in this Plaza. One along the central axis of Structure A2 (Figure 2c) and the second along the west face of Structure A6 of the Ballcourt (Figure 3c). Structure A2-1: A 2 x4 meter trench was excavated along the base of structure A2-6 to expose the terminal architecture of the building and to collect data pertaining to the plaza construction. Three plaza floors were exposed in the western half of the unit. These floors were labeled floor 1-3 starting with the uppermost floor as Floor 1. Floor 3 was the earliest established architectural phase of the plaza and was deemed to be associated with Str. A2-1 3rd. This plaster floor was placed on modified bedrock and was associated with late classic ceramics including dolphin head red and Cayo Unslipped jar fragments. Very little artifact material were recovered from this level and included ceramics and chert. Floor 2 was placed above floor 3 at 8 cm and this level was labeled as Str. A2-1 2nd. Given the distance between the two lower floors it is likely that floor two represent a re-plastering of the plaza surface and not an actual construction phase. No artifact materials were collected from this level. Floor 1 was located at 6cm above floor two and corresponds to the terminal phase occupation of the plaza and the building. This level was labeled as A2-1 1st and represents the final configuration of the plaza and the structure. Within this level a variety of artifacts were collected and mostly pertained to the Terminal Classic period. These included identifiable ceramic sherds of the Alexander's Unslipped, Beaver Dam Variety, Cayo Unslipped Jars, and Belize Red Plates and Bowls. Other artifacts included granite mano and metate fragments, chert tools, and obsidian fragments. Lastly several Postclassic scroll feet were found in this level, above the structural collapse of the building indicating a possible re-visitation or temporary reoccupation of this plaza during the Postclassic. In 2011, there were 2 associated architectural phases associated with structure A2-1. Based on the 2015 excavations, it is very likely that Floor 1 and Floor 3 are representative of these previously identified building programs. Unfortunately due to time constraints, the unit was not excavated below the terminal phase construction in order to confirm this assumption. The 2016 field season intends to excavate this portion of Unit A2-1 in order to confirm this. 225 a b c Figure 2: a.) Profile of Structure A2. b.) Photo of Unit A2-1. c.) Conservation of staircase of Structure A2. 226 a b c Figure 3: Structure A6. a.) Unit A6-6 excavation, b.) Plan with EU. A6-1 in dotted red line, c.) Structure A6 after conservation. 227 a b Figure 4: Plaza A rock feature. a.) Plan drawing of the rock alignment. b.) Excavation photo of Unit PA-2 Structure A6: A single 2x4 unit was excavated on the east-west primary axis of Str. A6-1. This unit indicated that the structure was built in a single construction episode. Large boulder core (approximately 45 cm in diameter were placed on the ancient surface and the structure was built on top of this base (Figure 3a). The architectural veneer of the building was a low platform bench (30cm in height and 125 cm long), extending from the ballcourt alley to the east, with a slanted wall along the eastern edge of the platform (Figure 3b.). This wall was slanted at 10 degrees and measured 50 cm in height (Figure 3c.). Above this wall was likely a vertical wall ascending to the summit of the structure. Unfortunately due to poor preservation, only the backing masonry was present and it cannot be determined with any confidence the height or orientation of this section of the building. Artifacts were only recovered from the uppermost level above the structures final construction episode and included Belize Red plates and bowl fragments as well as Cayo 228 Figure 5: Profile drawing of Structure B15. Unslipped Jar fragments. Based on the regional seriation, this phase of construction dates the latter part of the Late Classic into the Terminal Classic period (AD 700-900). Plaza A Rock feature Initially a 4 x4 meter was excavated to expose the terminal architecture of this rock feature. Once the extent of the rock feature was determined, the unit was resized to 2 x4 meter trench in order to excavate the rock feature. The initial unit exposed a single course 3 x 3 meter structure. The 2x4 meter trench identified a single construction sequence of construction in this feature. The rocks that comprised the building at this location, was placed on the final plaza floor, that corresponded with Floor 1 at the unit on Str. A2-1. However, unlike the unit to the east, this are did not expose any additional floors between floor 1 and bedrock. Limited artifacts were associated with any of the levels of this architectural feature. A few eroded sherds were identified as Belize Red Variety Unspecified, indicating that the structure's last occupation dated to the terminal classic period. No other diagnostic artifacts were collected from this unit. Plaza B The excavation in the Plaza B area was located to the east of the Plaza on Structure B15, a small low lying structure attached to Plaza B proper. The alignment of this structure is unusual and does not match the alignment of other structures throughout the site. This unusual alignment suggested that perhaps the structure was built later than everything else at the site core and may have dated to the early Postclassic. A single 2x4 meter stratigraphic trench was excavated at the center of the longest side of the structure.This unit was excavated from the modern surface to bedrock. The excavation exposed a single construction episode or a poorly preserved single course building (Figure 5). Because of the structures close proximity to the modern surface the artifact material especially ceramics, were poorly preserved. 229 Vaulted Feature a b Figure 6: a.) Above: Profile of excavations. b.) Below: Photo of excavations showing construction below vaulted feature. Plaza C Plaza C measures 8.04m x 20.66m and lies north of the elite palace complex. In 2014, a corbelled feature was exposed in the northwest corner of the plaza. Based on the architecture and the position of this feature, it was assumed that this feature was a passageway, similar to a feature found at Cahal Pech. Unfortunately due to time constraints, this assumption was never investigated. In 2015, Unit PC-1 directly east of this feature was uncovered to the plaza floor and the unit was recommenced to identify the form of the feature below plaza floor as well as to determine the chronological sequence of Plaza C. 230 Unit PC-1 Unit PC-1 was reopened to the original 2 x2 m size and excavations were commenced from the plaza floor down. A total of 4 floors were uncovered in this area. The lowest floor at a depth of 306 cmbd was labeled as C17-4th and is associated with the earliest construction uncovered in the plaza. At this level the only artifacts recovered were a charcoal sample and an animal bone fragment. No ceramics of other identifiable artifacts were recovered from this level. Floor 3, C17- 3rd was exposed at7 cm above Floor 4. This floor was a very poorly preserved plastered surface with no associated artifacts. Floor 2, C17-2nd, was exposed at 20cm below floor 1. This level included diagnostic ceramics such as Belize Red and Cayo Unslipped sherds as well as chert flakes. Due to time constraints and the depth of the unit, neither sterile surface nor bedrock was reached. Plaza D The excavations at Plaza D focused on the northern edge of the Plaza facing Plaza C. This small area is the highest point at the royal palace complex and is believed to have functioned similar to a throne room. These 2015 excavations were in an effort to define the form and extent of the architecture in this group. Three excavation units were opened at this location PD-1, PD-2 and PD-3 (Figure 7a). Each unit was excavated from the modern surface to the ancient plaza surface. PD-1 measured 3 x 2 meters, PD-2 measured 3 x 2.6 m and PD-3 measured 3 x 1.35 meters. These units exposed approximately 1 meter of the interior plaza surface as well as the southern face of the northern extent of Plaza D. A total of 8 meters of the plaza wall was exposed. The plaza wall consisted of a 6 course high wall with an access entrance measuring 1.25 m (Figure 7b). Artifacts recovered from these excavations include but are not limited to one speleothem, one shell bead, one chert drill bit, and one Belize Molded carved ceramic sherd. In the 2016 field season, these excavations will recommence in order to expose the extent of the plaza and surrounding architectural features. Excavations at Plaza M were conducted on Str. K51, the Southern structure of the Plaza (Figure 1). The excavations on this building served to define the architectural chronology of the plaza and structure K51. A single 1.5 x 4 m unit was excavated along the north-south primary axis of the building. Upon excavating the first 15cm of the unit, 4 steps were uncovered for the terminal construction phase (Figure 8). This phase coincided with floor one of the plaza. A second floor in the plaza was uncovered at 5 cm below floor one and is considered the original floor for the plaza, given it close proximity to the floor above it. Only one architectural phase was encountered in this unit and as such indicates that the structure was built in a single construction phase. Artifacts recovered from this unit include ceramics from the Belize Red ceramic complex, Cayo Unslipped Jar Fragments, Chert Flakes and faunal remains. 231 a b. Figure 7: a.) Plan view of excavations. b.) Profile view of Structure E23 c.) Profile view of E24- T1. 232 Figure 8: Profile of Structure K51, E.U. K51-6. Plaza K Excavations at Plaza M were conducted on Str. K51, the Southern structure of the Plaza (Figure 1). The excavations on this building served to define the architectural chronology of the plaza and structure K51. A single 1.5 x 4 m unit was excavated along the north-south primary axis of the building. Upon excavating the first 15cm of the unit, 4 steps were uncovered for the terminal construction phase (Figure 8). This phase coincided with floor one of the plaza. A second floor in the plaza was uncovered at 5 cm below floor one and is considered the original floor for the plaza, given it close proximity to the floor above it. Only one architectural phase was encountered in this unit and as such indicates that the structure was built in a single, rapid construction phase. Artifacts recovered from this unit include ceramics from the Belize Red ceramic complex, Cayo Unslipped Jar Fragments, Chert Flakes and faunal remains. Plaza M Excavations in Plaza M were conducted on Str. M60, the eastern structure of the Plaza (Figure 1). This structure is a small square building similar to other know eastern shrine structures. The excavations on this building served to define the architectural chronology of the plaza. A single 1.5 x 4 m unit was excavated along the east-west primary axis of the building (Figure 9a). Upon excavating the first 15cm of the unit, a small cluster of bones were identified along the eastern edge of the unit and were determined to be human remains. On account of this, the unit was extended to the east as well as the north and the south in order to expose the extent of the 233 burial (Figure 9b). The original 1.5 x 4 m unit was excavated from the modern surface to a dark orange sandy clay. This level was deemed to be sterile on account of past excavations on Str. G31 and Str. M58 (Guerra and Arksey 2012). Unit M60-1 exposed a previous construction episode at 40 cm below the modern surface, M60-2nd. No artifact material was recovered from this construction sequence and as such no temporal designation could be made for this construction sequence. A single human burial was recovered from the summit of M60 and designated as Burial M60-001. This burial was placed directly on the plastered floor of the summit and no formal architecture was associated with it. The bones recovered from this burial were intertwined and no particular arrangement could be discerned. No ceramics were recovered in direct association with the burial. However, 14 shell tinklers (Figure 9c), were recovered from the southern portion of the burial. Preliminary analysis of the human remains indicates that there were at least 4 individuals, based on the number of identifiable femurs. However, this remains tentative until the final osteological report. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The data presented above is as a result of continuing research to define the form, and construction chronology in several plaza of the Lower Dover site core. The vertical excavations in Plaza A, B, K and M (see Table 1 for a list of the lots from the 2015 excavations) allowed for the determination of probable construction episodes in these plazas. Each unit indicated that these structures were built on a single architectural phase with some replastering of the plaza floors. The ceramic recovered from all plazas indicate that the final occupation of these groups date to the Terminal Classic Period. The excavations in Plaza A recovered ceramic material associated with the Late Postclassic period indicating the last use of the plaza dates to this time period. However, these ceramics were found above the collapse indicating a reuse of the space after abandonment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Belize Institute of Archaeology for their support of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project. I would also like to thank Dr. Jaime Awe, Project Director, Myka Schwanke and Julie Hoggarth for their guidance and support. I would like to thank the following staff and students, Claire Ebert, Renee Collins, Tia Watkins, Samantha Olsen, Sasha Romih, and Ahnna Ellingsworth who provided much needed assistance in the field and assisted in the write up of this report. Lastly our gratitude goes out to the Reynolds family and FOLD for allowing the continued research and preservation at Lower Dover during our field sessions. 234 a. b. c. Figure 9: Lithic Small finds recovered from Structure E23. A. Plan view of E.U. M60-1, B. Photo of the human remains recovered, C. Olive Shell Tinklers 235 Table 1: Lot numbers for the 2015 excavation units. Site OP Structure EU Lvl Lot Lot Description Plaza A Humus and LWD SR3 A2-2 1 A2-50 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza A A2-2 2 A2-51 Fill Floor 1 LWD SR3 Plaza A A2-2 3 A2-52 Fill Floor 2 LWD SR4 Plaza A PA-2 1 PA-50 Humus LWD SR5 Plaza A PA-2 2 PA-51 Below Floor 1 LWD SR3 Plaza A PA-2 3 PA-52 Sterile LWD SR3 Plaza A PA-2 4 PA-53 Sterile LWD SR3 Plaza A PA-2 5 PA-54 Sterile LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 1 A6-1 Humus LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 2 A6-2 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 ext A 1 A6-3 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 ext A 2 A6-4 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 3 A6-5 Fill Below Floor LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 4 A6-6 Fill Below Floor LWD SR3 Plaza A A6-1 5 A6-7 Sterile Plaza B Humus and LWD SR3 B15-1 1 B15-1 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza B B15-1 2 B15-2 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza B B15-1 3 B15-3 Fill Floor 1 LWD SR3 Plaza B B15-1 4 B15-4 Fill LWD SR3 Plaza C PC-1 3 PC-6 Fill below Floor 1 LWD SR3 Plaza C PC-1 4 PC-7 Fill Floor 2 LWD SR3 Plaza C PC-1 5 PC-8 Fill Floor 3 LWD SR3 Plaza C PC-1 6 PC-9 Fill Floor 4 LWD SR3 Plaza C PC-1 7 PC-10 Fill LWD SR3 Plaza D PD-1 1 PD-1 Humus LWD SR3 Plaza D PD-1 1a PD-2 Collapse Plaza D Humus and LWD SR3 PD-2 1 PD-3 Collapse Plaza D Humus and LWD SR3 PD-3 1 PD-5-4 Collapse Plaza K Humus and LWD SR3 K51-1 1 K51-1 Collapse LWD SR3 Plaza D K51-1 2 K51-2 Fill below Floor1 LWD SR3 Plaza D K51-1 3 K51-3 Fill below Floor 2 LWD SR3 Plaza D K51-1 4 K51-3 Sterile LWD SR3 Plaza D M60-1 1 M60-1 Humus Plaza D M60-1 LWD SR3 ext.A 1 M60-2 Humus 236 Plaza D M60-1ext. LWD SR3 b 1 M60-3 Humus Plaza D M60-1 ext LWD SR3 A/B 2 M60-4 Burial M60-001 LWD SR3 Plaza D M60-1 2 M60-5 Below Floor 1 LWD SR3 Plaza D M60-1 3 M60-6 Fill LWD SR3 Plaza D M60-1 4 M60-7 Sterile Plaza B Sterile/ Water LWD SR3 B15-1 4 B15-8 Table 237 REFERENCES CITED: Driver, W. David and James F. Garber 2004 The Emergence of Minor Centers in the Zones between seats of Power in The Ancient Maya of the Belize River Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp 287-304. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Guerra, Rafael A., Michael Petrozza and Rebecca Pollet 2013 2012 Excavations at Lower Dover Plaza F in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, and Jaime J. Awe, Volume 18, pp.210-232. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Guerra, Rafael A. and Marieka Arksey 2012 2011 Excavations at the Major Center of Lower Dover in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Rafael A Guerra and Jaime J. Awe, Volume 17, pp.108-120. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Guerra, Rafael A. and Shawn Morton 2012 2011 Survey at Lower Dover in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2011 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth, Rafael A. Guerra and Jaime J. Awe, Volume 17, pp.105-107. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Wilkinson, Patrick and Molly Hude 2011 2010 Excavations at the Major Center of Lower Dover in The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2010 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, Volume 16, pp.7-14. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 18, Harvard University. Ricketson, Oliver G. 1929 Excavations at Baking Pot, British Honduras. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, No. 1. Publication 403. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington DC. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard Jr., John B. Glass & James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 54. Harvard University, Cambridge 238 HOW IT FALLS APART: IDENTIFYING TERMINAL DEPOSITS IN GROUP B TO DATE THE ‘CLASSIC MAYA COLLAPSE’ AT BAKING POT, BELIZE Julie A. Hoggarth* Sydney Lonaker Baylor University Arizona State University Jaime J. Awe* Kirsten Green Northern Arizona University University of Montana Sarah E. Bednar Niyolpaqui Moraza-Keeswood University of Calgary Brown University Amber Lopez Johnson Erin Ray California State University, Los Angeles University of California, Merced Ashley McKeown John Walden Texas State University, San Marcos University of Pittsburgh INTRODUCTION Archaeological research at the site of Baking Pot has focused on the development of a high- precision radiocarbon chronology in order to assess the timing and nature of the ‘Classic Maya collapse’ since the 2013 field season (Hoggarth et al. 2014a, 2014b; Hoggarth and Sullivan 2015; Walden 2016). These efforts are primarily aimed towards building an absolute chronology to precisely date the time frame associated with the end of royal and elite mortuary activity in Baking Pot’s ceremonial center and to contrast these dates with chronometric assays on terminal deposits in the site core to understand the end of all ritual activity. These data may then be used to understand the timing of political collapse, in contrast with direct dates on settlement burials to understand the demographic collapse of the site (Hoggarth et al. 2014a, 2014b; Hoggarth and Sullivan 2015; Kennett et al. 2014). The same research program has been established at Cahal Pech, in order to identify regional chronological patterns of political and demographic collapse in the Belize Valley in relation to recorded severe droughts in the ninth through eleventh centuries AD (Kennett et al. 2015). The 2015 field season focused excavations in Group B of Baking Pot’s ceremonial center (Figure 1) to identify terminal deposits and recover datable material (e.g. faunal/human bone; charcoal) that will form the basis of the high-precision radiocarbon _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 240-267. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 * First two authors are primarily editors of this report. The real author order should start with Bednar and precede through the author list. 240 Figure 1: Map of Baking Pot site core and settlement, showing locations of Group A and B. Map by Julie Hoggarth. chronology. Excavation units were established in the corners of Plaza B, as well as in Courtyards 1, 4, and 5 of the palace complex. BACKGROUND AND METHODS Group B at Baking Pot (Figures 1 and 2) has a long history of archaeological inquiry, beginning with excavations by A.H. Anderson (1929), which was prompted by the robbing of architectural material from the monumental structures in Group B for fill for the western highway. These smaller scale excavations were followed by formal excavations directed by William R. Bullard Jr. and Mary Ricketson Bullard (1965), whose excavations focused on Structure B1, revealing the entirety of the terminal architecture of the eastern shrine. Group B was not excavated for over forty years, when BVAR excavations led by Jaime Awe and Carolyn Audet (Audet 2005) focused excavations in Courtyard 1 and the adjacent palace structures in order to assess the nature of political organization at Baking Pot within the broader Belize Valley (Audet 2006). In 2007 Christophe Helmke re-exposed Bullard and Bullard’s (1965) excavations and targeted key locations in Str. B1 to better understand the sequence of construction and the final use of the eastern shrine (Helmke 2008). Helmke’s excavations in in the adjacent Str. B7 aimed to expose the terminal phase architecture and assess the structure’s layout and function (Helmke 2008). His excavations, placed along the “saddle” of the structure, revealed that this area was actually once the entrance from Plaza B into Courtyard 1 of the palace complex (Helmke 2008). Based on its layout, he surmised that B7 functioned as an audencia structure, or an entranceway structure that fronted the palace complex (Helmke 2008). In 2013, Julie Hoggarth initiated 241 a new research program in the monumental epicenter of Baking Pot that focused on developing an AMS 14C chronology at Baking Pot and in the broader the Belize Valley, to assess the timing of political and demographic collapse across the broader region (Hoggarth et al. 2014a; Hoggarth and Sullivan 2015; Kennett et al. 2015). Developing a precise chronology to understand the occupation and abandonment of Baking Pot requires the use of high-precision radiocarbon dating, as time frames for ceramic phases and complexes span hundreds of years. This makes direct comparisons between archaeological evidence for political and/or demographic collapse with precisely dated climate proxy records (e.g. Kennett et al. 2012) problematic. The excavations in Group B specifically focus on answering questions on the collapse of political rulership and/or activities in the ceremonial center of the site during the Late to Terminal Classic period (AD 700-900). This research is conducted in conjunction with investigations focused on understanding the demographic depopulation of the site (e.g. Hoggarth et al. 2014a; Walden 2016). Baking Pot has been noted as having a strong occupation late into the Classic Period, with evidence for continued renovation and construction in the monumental epicenter into Terminal Classic times (Aimers 2004; Audet 2004; Helmke 2008). However, recent AMS 14C dates from burials in the site core and settlement of Baking Pot revealed surprising dates, with no dates falling into the traditional time frame of the Terminal Classic period (AD 800-900, Aimers 2004:89,113). In fact, one burial excavated by Audet (2006:212) and thought to date to the Terminal Classic due to the presence of a Daylight Orange: Darknight variety vessel, yielded an AMS 14C date between cal AD 660-700 (Hoggarth et al. 2014a). Other Late Classic burials from Baking Pot all fall between cal AD 650-765, showing little evidence for primary interment within the site core or settlement areas during the traditional time frame developed for the Terminal Classic period (AD 800-900). If these dates show the final period of Classic occupation at Baking Pot, this may bring the abandonment of the royal court and the outlying settlement in-line with Cahal Pech, around AD 750-850. This would also mean that the timing of the Terminal Classic period at Baking Pot and Cahal Pech would need to be shifted at least 50-100 years earlier in time. The radiocarbon dating program will focus on two primary lines of evidence to narrow down the timing of the end of political and/or ritual activities in the ceremonial center. The first will be to continue to date a larger sample of burials from Baking Pot’s site core, to reconstruct the history of elite and dynastic interment at the center. The second line of evidence will come from radiocarbon dates from charcoal and/or bone collagen (extracted and purified from faunal or human remains) recovered from terminal deposits in the plazas and courtyards of the site core. A great deal of attention has been devoted towards the discussion of on-floor deposits, often referred to as “problematic deposits” “termination deposits”, and “defacto deposits”. While some scholars view these features as being associated with accumulated trash prior to abandonment or evidence of rapid abandonment, Awe (2012) suggests that these materials represent the remains of ritual activities from post-abandonment populations returning to sites, and notes the 242 Figure 2: Locations of 2015 excavations in Group B at Baking Pot, showing the artifacts recovered from the terminal deposit excavated in 2013, as well as identified terminal deposits in 2015. Figure 2a modified from Helmke’s (2008) map of Group B. presence of complete tools and items to argue against theories of these features being trash middens, as these materials don’t seem to have been extensively used. This pattern is more in-line with ritual activity. In addition, he notes that terminal deposits often lie atop thin lenses of matrix over terminal floors, which suggests that these ceremonial spaces were likely abandoned for some time prior to the events that form ‘terminal deposits’. Given that the radiocarbon chronology will provide temporal data from dates and stratigraphic information, we will be able to test some of these hypotheses. At Cahal Pech, Xunantunich, and Pook’s Hill, terminal deposits were noted in the corners of plazas and courtyards, as well as in front of stairs (Awe 2012). A similar pattern was identified in excavations in Courtyard 4 of Group B at Baking Pot in 2013 (Hoggarth et al. 2014b), where a large (1m+ in height) stratified terminal deposit was identified in the southwest corner where Str. B17 and B1 intersect. Using these spatial patterns, we chose similar strategic excavation locations in 2015, with excavations focused in front of central (outset) stairs of monumental structures, as well as in the corners of plazas and courtyards (Figure 2). Using this information, 2015 excavations at Baking Pot were focused in the northeast and southeast corners of Plaza B, the southwest corner of Courtyard 1, in front of Structure B15 in Courtyard 15, and the southwest corner of Courtyard 5 (Figure 2a). Typical BVAR excavation protocols were followed (as detailed in the BVAR Supervisor Manual), with excavations using cultural levels and matrix being sifted through ¼ inch screen. 243 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Research in Group B at Baking Pot in 2015 focused on four main research objectives: 1. Using the spatial pattern identified by Awe at Cahal Pech and other sites, we aim to identify the spatial pattern of terminal deposits that is specific to Baking Pot. 2. Recover chronological information from the materials recovered in terminal deposits (e.g. polychrome ceramics with hieroglyphic inscriptions and/or calendar dates as well as faunal/human remains and charcoal for 14C dating) to better understand what activities were taking place towards the end of occupation (or post- abandonment) in Group B and when those activities date to in comparison with royal/elite mortuary activity in the civic-ceremonial center. 3. Contrast all chronological data from Baking Pot’s site core with available radiocarbon data in the settlement area of the site to assess the timing of political versus demographic collapse at the site. 4. Compare all chronometric and associated calendrical data from Baking Pot with other major centers in the Belize Valley, especially Cahal Pech, where the timing of political collapse appears to differ. This research will help us to understand the nature and timing of the political and demographic collapse in the Belize Valley, in relation to severe droughts that have been recorded from the ninth to eleventh centuries AD (Kennett et al. 2012; Kennett et al. 2015). EXCAVATION RESULTS Structures B6 and B7 / Plaza B Excavations at Structure B6 and in the corner where Str. B6 and B7 intersect in Plaza B, were supervised by Sarah E. Bednar (June 2015) and Amber Lopez Johnson (July 2015). All of the excavations were initiated in order to expose the terminal architecture and the terminal plaza floor, in order to identify terminal deposits. Five excavation units (E.U. B6-1–B6-5; Figure 3) were placed along the front staircase of Structure B6. E.U. B6-1 was placed at the center of stair and measured 2 m (N/S) by 3 m (E/W). E.U. B6-2 was an “L” shaped unit, which acted as an extension of the southeast corner of B6-1 and measured 1 m on the north side, 2 m on the east and south sides, and 110 cm on its west side. E.U. B6- 3 was placed to the east of B6-2 in order to follow the stair, and measured 1 m N/S by 3 m (E/W). E.U. B6-4 was placed to the east of B6-3 to catch the corner of the staircase and measured 1.5 m (N/S) by 2.5 m (E/W). E.U. B6-5 was placed to the north of B6-4 to follow the staircase back to the wall of the structure, and measured 4 m (N/S) by 2 m (E/W). The five excavations on Structure B6 exposed the lower portion of the structure’s staircase along the plaza floor and the eastern corner of the staircase. The presence of daub indicates that the superstructure on top of B6 was perishable. The eastern corner of the staircase was completely exposed and appears to be outset from the structure. The bottom step was stripped of its facing stones and was subsequently plastered over. The exposed 244 Figure 3: Structure B6 Excavation Plan (drawing and photo by Sarah E. Bednar). Plan view of Group B modified from Helmke’s (2008) map. 245 Figure 4: Profile of Structure B6, with Outset Stair and Talud-Tablero-style Architecture (drawing by Sarah E. Bednar). building also exhibits talud-tablero-like architecture, with an inward sloping panel and a panel perpendicular to the ground (Figure 4). The outset stair and the structure were constructed with small, cut limestone blocks, measuring roughly 10 x 20 cm. Plaza floor was reached approximately 28 cm below surface. Large quantities of ceramic sherds and chert artifacts were found throughout the collapse of Structure B6. In total, 3260 ceramic sherds were collected, 12.83% of which were diagnostic (n=480). Several grey obsidian blades, freshwater shell, faunal bone, and groundstone tool fragments were also found. Several special finds were also found, including figurine fragments (Figure 5), ceramic spindle whorls, Oliva recticularis shell beads, chert points, and a Belize molded-carved ceramic sherd (Figure 6). Belize molded- carved ceramics are typically attributed as a diagnostic of the Terminal Classic period and depict specific scenes. The sherd found in the Structure B6 excavations depicts a lord wearing a warrior’s costume. Though only part of the scene is found on this sherd, we can surmise based on other molded-carved vessels that a captive is being presented to the lord (Helmke, Colas, Awe 1998). One excavation unit was placed in the northeast corner of Plaza B at the juncture of Structure B6 and B7 (E.U. B7-100). E.U. B7-100 originally measured 2m (N/S) by 3 m (E/W) (Figure 7). E.U. B7-100 was extended to the north by B7-100 Ext. A in order to locate the wall of Structure B6. This measured an additional 1 m N/S by 2 m E/W. The excavation at the corner of Structure B7 and B6 yielded significant data for our research. Approximately 195.5 cm below surface two large, cut limestone blocks were discovered protruding from the eastern baulk of the unit. Below these blocks, a dense mix of small limestone cobbles and matrix measuring 16 cm in thickness was excavated, which was very similar in composition to construction fill. Directly below this “fill” like context, a large terminal deposit was uncovered (Feature B7-100-1). The deposit covered almost the entirety of the 2 m x 2 m lot (Figure 8). The deposit seemed to slope from the NE corner 246 Figure 5: Ceramic Figurine Head (Special Find B6-1-1). Figure 6: Belize Molded-Carve Vessel Sherd. 247 Figure 7: Plan view of excavation units associated with E.U. B7-100 (Figure by Amber Lopez Johnson and Julie Hoggarth, with the plan view of Group B modified from Helmke’s (2008) map). 248 Figure 8: Terminal Deposit (Lot B7-100-5a), showing the location of Plaza B Burial 4-2 in the upper left section of the photo (Photo by Sarah E. Bednar). Figure 9: Plaza B Burial 4-1 (Photo by Sarah E. Bednar). 249 Figure 10: Plaza B Burial 4-2 secondary burial (Photo by Ashley McKeown). of the unit with depths in the southern portion as shallow as 4 cm and depths in the northern portion as deep as 15 cm. The deposit consisted primarily of ceramic sherds, but chert points, shell beads, obsidian blades, granite metate fragments, ocarina fragments, and faunal bone were also found. Several sherds exhibited painting as well as glyphs. Within the terminal deposit were three burial contexts, two primary and a secondary human burial. A primary burial (Burial Plaza B 4-1) was found along the south wall of Structure B6, approximately 215.5 cm below surface. Burial Plaza B 4-1 consisted of an almost complete articulated skeleton, with the exception of the cranium (Figure 9). The burial was excavated Ashley McKeown, Kirsten Green, and Sarah Bednar. The skeleton was oriented with the structure, approximately 72 degrees east of north, with the head to the east (if the cranium had been present). The cranium was removed from this body during the postmortem period for use in a secondary burial (Plaza B Burial 4-2, Figure 10). It is clear this event occurred after significant soft tissue decomposition had occurred as the cervical vertebrae, including the first cervical vertebra, are all present and in anatomical position. Additionally, fragments from the mandible and mandibular dentition were recovered from the thorax region indicating that the mandible was displaced when the cranium was removed. Several maxillary teeth were found in the fill around this individual and they do not duplicate maxillary teeth recovered with the cranium in the secondary burial (Plaza B Burial 4-2). 250 As excavated, the body was positioned in an extended and supine position. Nevertheless, the left side is elevated relative to the right side; this is particularly evident in the elements of the left thorax (ribs), shoulder (clavicle and scapula), arm (humerus, radius and ulna), and hip bone (os coxae). The sequence of cervical and thoracic vertebrae curves from the north to the west and the left ribs are elevated. The left arm is straight alongside the thorax with radius and ulna located below the left ilium and proximal femur and the metacarpals and phalanges of the hand located west of the pelvis, indicating that the forearm and hand extended under the os coxae and proximal femur to rest below the pelvis. The right shoulder is more cranially located (to the east) than the left and the right arm is flexed (~36°) at the elbow with the elements of the right wrist and hand located just north of the right shoulder. The femora angled to the north from the pelvis, the right tibia was rotated laterally, and the left tibia and fibula were superior to the right and the bones of both feet were clustered as if the left lower leg and foot were positioned over the right. This suggests the body was originally placed on the right side such that the anterior aspect of the body was facing the south wall of Structure B7 with the left leg on top of the right. During the postmortem period, the body slumped to the south, either due to the settling of the surrounding deposit or the purposeful disturbance that removed the cranium or both, producing what appears to be an extended burial. The undulating appearance of the skeleton is due to the slumping process and the uneven surface of the underlying terminal deposit. Additional human bones not associated with this individual, including a right humerus, right radius, right scapula, and left os coxae, were found above the primary burial. A preliminary assessment of the skeletal remains from Plaza B Burial 4-1 indicates the individual was a teen-aged (15-18 years) male. Both skeletal growth and dental development is incomplete. Several skeletal epiphyses are unfused or partially fused and the roots of the mandibular third molars are approximately 75% complete. The secondary burial (Plaza B Burial 4-2) was found 110 cm south of the primary burial, along the eastern baulk of E.U. B7-100. Plaza B Burial 4-2 consisted of a cluster of bones including a cranium, a right tibia, a right radius, a right distal fibula, and likely femur shaft fragments (Figure 10). The right fibula and femoral fragments were below the cranium, which was resting on its superior surface (top of the cranial vault) with the face to the east. The right radius was at the south edge of the cluster and the right tibia was superimposed on the cranium with the proximal end to the west and the distal end to the east. Ceramic sherds were intermixed with the human skeletal elements below the cranium, and an obsidian blade was located within the bottom layers of the cluster, just above the plaza floor. It is likely that the cranium from Plaza B Burial 4-2 belonged to the skeleton of Plaza B Burial 4-1 as the maxillary and mandibular teeth exhibit a similar degree of enamel attrition (wear), and all third molars have roots that are approximately 75% complete. Based on the stratigraphic depths of the terminal deposit, it appears that the deposit was originally placed on top of the primary burial (located at the bottom of the deposit) (see 251 Figures 11 and 12 to show the excavations prior to the removal of the burial and the end of excavations upon reaching the terminal floor). Amber Lopez Johnson assumed the supervision of the excavation unit following Bednar’s departure. Lopez Johnson continued to record and remove the terminal deposit which continued underneath Burial 4-1 and expose materials above the plaza floor. Portions of intact architecture of Structure B6 were exposed, and our aim was to continue to expose as much of the architectural wall as possible. In order to fully expose the exterior wall of Structure B6, Unit B7-100 ext A was extended 1.5m north. The apron of the wall was initially exposed, consisting of 2-3 courses of nicely cut limestone facing stones. As we continued to expose more of the wall, we could see that it was sloped at a slight angle, built as a stylistic attribute. We were successful at exposing the entire apron and wall of Structure B6 within the unit, and it measured 1.37m in height (from floor to top of apron) (Figure 12). The architectural style was unique and differed from the talud-tablero style area along the outset stair that was previously exposed west of Lot B7-100 ext. A-4 by S. Bednar. Further excavations on Structure B6 in the future should help to clarify the architectural transition between the two stylistic architectural types. Excavations were then moved eastward towards Structure B7 in an attempt to manicure some of the northern baulk of the unit and expose the corner of Structure B6 and B7. Additional extensions were opened in order to uncover the extent of the terminal deposit, as well as remove the collapse and overburden. Unit B7-100 ext. B was initially opened as an “L” shape unit, but was eventually extended further to be 3m (N/S) by 2m (E/W) (Figure 7). Excavations successfully exposed the architectural wall of Structure B6 in Unit B7-100 ext. A. We were also able to uncover the corner of Structure B6 and B7 in the northeastern corner within B7-100 ext. B. The terminal façade of Structure B7 was stylistically similar to that of Structure B6. It displayed an apron consisting of 4-5 coursed faced limestone blocks with the wall consisting of large cut facing stones. While exposing the corner of Str. B6 and B7 and the terminal deposit in B7-100 ext. B, a large ceramic olla was identified facing lip down. The ceramic olla was removed and unarticulated human remains (primarily metatarsals) were uncovered. Excavations revealed Plaza B Burial 4-3, a fully articulated adult skeleton with its feet to the north, head to the south and facing east, with its left arm crossed over its body (Figures 13 and 14). Excavators noted that the lumbar and cervical vertebrae exhibited extensive bony lipping, which will be examined in the upcoming analysis by McKeown and colleagues. The skeletal remains were lying on top of the terminal deposit that was only partially removed, and a number of elaborate polychrome ceramic sherds, several with hieroglyphs, were recovered from this area. The burial was mapped and removed by Erin Ray, John Walden, and Antonio Itza. 252 Figure 11: Excavations along Str. B6 following the removal of Plaza B Burial 4-1. Shows the extent of the in-situ terminal deposit (directly below the location of Plaza B Burial 4-1 and architecture of Str. B6 exposed (Photo by Amber Lopez Johnson). Figure 12: Exterior wall of Str B6 and plaza floor (Photo by Amber Lopez Johnson). 253 Figure 13: Structure B7 architecture and Plaza B Burial 4-3 in-situ, showing the matrix layer directly on the terminal plaza floor. Note the dark stain on the wall of Str. B7, which shows the vertical and spatial extent of the terminal deposit in the unit. Photo by Erin Ray. Figure 14: Plan view of Plaza B Burial 4-3, located in the corner of Str. B6 and B7, in an extended supine position with head to the south. Note that the feet are missing, not because they were removed in antiquity, but because they were removed by excavators prior to the discovery of the primary burial. Photo by Erin Ray. 254 Figure 15: Sherds from the ‘Kokom Vase’ showing the red and black on cream slip polychrome style (photo by Julie Hoggarth, at approximate 1:1 scale). A photographic rollout of the vessel will be included in a forthcoming publication by Helmke et al. (n.d.). Artifacts from Plaza B, Structure B6/B7 Terminal Deposit The terminal deposit in the corner of Plaza B, where Structure B6 and B7 intersect, yielded many artifacts and special finds. Since the full artifact analysis is on-going, the following discussion will be primarily focused on the special finds. However, a plethora of ceramics, including polychrome sherds were included in the terminal deposit and will require further analysis. Within the concentration of ceramic sherds, many unique special finds were recovered in both units B7-100 ext. A and B7-100 ext. B. Two polychrome vessels with glyphs were exposed, one displaying three monkey figures with red paint, and the other was a black and red on cream ware codex-style vessel (Figure 15), similar to vessels identified at Calakmul. The vessel (named by Helmke the ‘Kokom Vase’), is nearly complete (2/3 of sherds present) and bears a long count calendar date and several short count dates, and is currently under study by BVAR epigrapher Christophe Helmke. Other ceramic artifacts also inventoried include two ceramic balls, two small inkpots, two ocarina fragments, a ceramic bead, two figurine fragments, and two pipe fragments. Among the chert special finds, a small chert drill, a broken biface measuring 10cm long, and two round shaped objects identified to be chert hammerstones with evidence of usewear were recovered. The shell items found in the terminal deposit showcased some of the exquisite talent of the ancient Maya craftmanship. A variety of worked shell was found, including: a pendant made from a piece of conch shell with two small drilled holes, adornos made from pieces of iridescent Nephronias sp. freshwater shell, two small olivella shells with drilled holes, and a half piece of an olivella shell with modified designs. A “U” shaped 255 bead with two drilled holes was identified to be a pendant, but further analysis will be needed to identify whether or not it’s modified shell or possibly faunal bone. Three distinct pieces of shell were found with a unique orange coloring, later identified as Oliva porphyria. Ground stone items were recovered within the terminal deposit, including three mano fragments, several metate fragments, and a butt stone. A few pieces of worked faunal remains were found, especially close in proximity to Plaza B Burial 4-3. Those pieces include two different types of teeth with drilled holes for jewelry and two pieces of worked bone, one possibly a bone hairpin. There are a few artifacts within the special finds collection that were especially unique. A broken slate mace, as well as a hand axe made from basalt were also discovered within the deposit. A drilled bead was photographed and inventoried but its material remains unknown. Lastly, what appears to be a spindle whorl, was also found and appears to be made from limestone. In sum, excavations in the northwestern corner of Plaza B along the exterior walls of Str. B6 and B7 identified a large terminal deposit. This feature included remarkable materials that will be used to reconstruct the timing and nature of the final activities in Group B at the end of the Classic period. The dispersed nature of the deposit, coupled with the identification of several polychrome sherds in different spatial and vertical locations throughout the deposit, suggests that the entire feature was deposited at one time. The break pattern, along with the missing sherds, of the ‘Kokom Vase’ suggest that it may have been thrown down from above, with the missing pieces likely landing in the area to the south of the excavations. The last remaining portion of the deposit has yet to be excavated in this area, but is planned for excavation in 2016. There were faunal remains dispersed throughout the deposit, coupled with the elaborate ceramic vessels, this suggests that serving and consumption/presentation of food were prominent activities associated with this final ritual event. Dating the (purified bone collagen from) faunal remains will provide a chronometric measure of when this event took place. We will also directly date bone collagen from the primary and secondary burials identified in the deposit. This will offer additional support to assess whether the timing of the death of the individuals in the burials differs from the timing of the eating/serving activities associated with the faunal remains. The results will help to test hypotheses about the activities associated with terminal deposits, including some that suggest that they are the remains of re-deposited middens or that they are part of ritual events that are post-abandonment rituals in these locations. Finally, we can integrate the calendar dates from the ‘Kokom Vase’ to constrain the radiocarbon distributions from burials and faunal remains. For this, we will use the associated long count calendar date as a terminus post quem, to assume that the deposit must post-date the commissioning of the polychrome vessel. This will help to constrain the 14 C distributions, in an effort to gain a fine-grained chronological view of the timing of activities associated with the terminal deposits, in relation to the end of elite and royal interment in the site core. 256 Structure B2 and Plaza B (Structure B2/B21 corner) Excavations at Structure B2 and in the corner of Str. B2 and B21 in Plaza B (Figure 7) were supervised by Julie Hoggarth and Antonio Itza, with assistance from Hannah Zanotto and Dagmar Galvan during June. Three primary excavation units were set up in these locations. Unit B2-1 was established as a 3m (N/S) x 2m (E/W) unit on the lower area of the outset stair of Str. B2 (later extended to add a 1m x 1m extension unit to the east on the front of the stair). Excavation revealed the lower two courses of the outset stair, as well as the terminal plaza floor (Figure 14). No terminal deposits were identified in this unit. Unit B2-2 was established as a 2 x 2m unit positioned near the proposed location of the corner of Str. B21 with Str. B2 (Figure 14). Excavations quickly uncovered the northern face of Str. B2, although this initial unit missed the corner between B2 and B21. The unit was extended 0.5m to the south to capture the second terrace of Str. B2 (E.U. B2- 2 Ext. A). The extension soon revealed the western face of Str. B21 with a lower and upper terrace. A second extension was placed 0.5m to the north and 1m to the east of the southern baulk of E.U. B2-2 (designated E.U. B2-2 Ext. B). Continued excavations revealed an extensive terminal deposit covering the entirety of the plaza area of Unit B2-2 and extensions (Figure 15). As excavations continued through the deposit, a layer of matrix just above the terminal floor of Plaza B was noted measuring 2-6 cm in depth. Within this layer, and in the southern portion of Unit B2-2 along the exterior face of Structure B2, we identified a primary burial (Plaza B Burial 3). The child (2-3 years) was of indeterminate sex and was in a flexed position and oriented with the head to the west facing south (Figure 16). No grave goods were identified with the burial. The burial is located directly on the terminal plaza floor. At least two different scenarios can be proposed to explain the sequence and nature of the interment and its relationship to the terminal deposit. As the burial was located directly on the terminal plaza floor, within the matrix layer above that floor and below the terminal deposit, it is possible that the burial was placed in this location around the time of abandonment of the site core. Over time, the matrix layer may have accumulated over the burial, and later populations returned to the site and deposited the ceramics and faunal remains associated with the terminal deposit. In that case, we have three separate events/phases that we might be able to identify through our high-precision radiocarbon chronology. We sampled a fragment of the femur of the individual for AMS 14C dating, collected materials from the matrix level, and also collected charcoal and faunal remains from within the terminal deposit itself. In the second deposition scenario, post- abandonment populations might have dug into the matrix layer until they reached the terminal plaza floor and placed the child within a shallow pit, covering the burial with the remains of the terminal deposit. No evidence from the deposit would suggest that it was deposited over a long period of time. Given that the terminal deposit in Unit B6-100 appears to have been deposited as one event, and it is unlikely that post-abandonment populations randomly chose a location where a burial was placed in a very unlikely location below, so we lean towards the second scenario. The AMS 14C dates ought to help evaluate the feasibility of each scenario. 257 Figure 14: Plan view of Group B, showing the locations of excavation units (and associated extension units) on Str. B2 and B21 (Figure by Julie Hoggarth, with Group B figure modified from Helmke’s map (2008). 258 Figure 15: Excavation unit B2-2, showing the intersection of Str. B2 and Str. B21 in the southeast corner of Plaza B, with the uppermost level of the associated terminal deposit visible (Photo by Julie Hoggarth). Figure 16: Unit B2-2, showing Plaza B Burial 3, the remains of a child interred below the matrix layer and the terminal deposit on the plaza floor (Photo by Julie Hoggarth). 259 Figure 17: Location of EU B7-101 within Courtyard 1 at Group B. Plan by Christophe Helmke (2008) based on preliminary survey by Christophe Helmke (2004) as well as plans and surveys by James Conlon (1992-2000). Unit B2-3 (Figure 13) was established along the eastern side of the outset stair of Str. B2, in an effort to expose the corner between the stair and the northern face of Str. B2. It was initially set up as a 1.5m (E/W) by 2m (N/S) unit in the area where we suspected the eastern side of the outset stair met the eastern half of the northern exterior wall of Str. B2 (Figure 13). Excavation revealed some ceramics that we initially thought might signal the uppermost level of a terminal deposit, but it appeared that these materials were simply part of the collapse associated with the structure. Further excavations revealed the side of the outset stair; however, no terminal deposit was identified in this location. The unit was extended (Unit B2-3 Ext A) 1m to the north (the unit measuring 1.5m (E/W) by 1m (N/S). The northeast corner of the outset stair was not identified in excavation and the unit was closed. Courtyard 1 Excavations were placed in in the southwest corner of Courtyard 1 of Group B (Figure 17) and were supervised by Sydney Lonaker. Excavation Unit B7-101 measured 3m (N/S) by 2 m (E/W). The northern façade of Structure B1 was located in the south end of the unit following excavation, and the eastern wall of Structure B7 was encountered in the western baulk of the unit, as expected given the surface topography of the area. The northern façade of Structure B1 was well preserved with an architectural apron present (Figure 18). The eastern wall of Structure B7 was less well preserved, with a number of 260 Figure 18: Excavation Unit B7-101. Photograph by Sydney Lonaker. the stones collapsed. A late addition staircase was also uncovered in the southwest corner of EU B7-101, leading from Courtyard 1 to a possible terrace or room on the northern façade of Structure B1. The staircase was well preserved, with the exception of a large crack located on the face between the top two steps, possibly due to earthquake damage (see similar discussions in Zanotto et al., this volume). Although no terminal deposit was located within the excavation, a variety of artifacts were recovered from the humus, collapse and above floor level. These include ceramic sherds (203 of which were considered diagnostic), chert fragments (debitage and raw material), daub pieces of varying size, faunal remains, freshwater shells, obsidian blades, and quartz fragments (Table 1). Ceramic material featured a variety of Spanish Lookout types, including those diagnostic to the late facet of the complex that is associated with the Terminal Classic period. Seven artifacts considered special finds were also uncovered (Table 2). Although our original objective of locating terminal deposits in Courtyard 1 was not met, the architecture uncovered will serve as a guideline for future excavations in the courtyard as excavation in this area continues. 261 Table 1: Artifacts recovered from EU B7-101 Ce Ch Db Fa Fs Ob Qz SF Lot 1 19 8 5 0 0 2 0 0 Lot 2 1463 301 94 55 46 10 15 7 Total 1482 309 99 55 46 12 15 7 Table 2: Special Find artifacts recovered from Unit B7-100 SF # Class Description B7-101-01 Sh Shell awl B7-101-02 Ce Anthropomorphic figurine head B7-101-03 Ce Spindle whorl B7-101-04 Gr Mano fragment B7-101-05 Uk Possible modified tooth (?) B7-101-06 Ce Flute fragment B7-101-07 Sh Bead fragments 262 Figure 20: Plan view of Group B, showing the locations of Str. B1 (backside) and Str. B15 in Courtyard 4 (Figure by Julie Hoggarth, with Group B plan view modified from Helmke’s (2008) map). Courtyard 4 Excavations in Courtyard 4 of the Group B palace complex in at Baking Pot were focused on the northern end of the courtyard. Excavation Unit B15-2 was opened as a 3m (N/S) by 2m (E/W) unit placed at the base of the stairway excavated in 2014 (Figure 20). These excavations, supervised by Niyo Moraza-Keeswood, revealed the lower 4 steps of the side stair, with an attached balustrade on the southern side of the stair. Excavations on the side of the stair, as well as in front of this area, did not reveal any terminal deposits or other material. The unit was cleared to the terminal courtyard floor, and a drainage excavation unit was dug adjacent to Str. B17 to allow water to drain towards the eastern edge of the courtyard. These excavations did not reveal any architecture on the eastern side of the courtyard, which suggests either: A) Str. B16, as illustrated in Helmke’s (2008) map of Group B, does not exist and should be removed from the map; or B) that the terminal architecture associated with Str. B15 on the northern side of Courtyard 4 turns to the north, forming an L-shaped structure (that may be designated at B16 on the eastern side of the courtyard) that terminates prior to the area excavated as a drainage unit. Both scenarios are possible and excavations in 2016 will explore these possibilities. 263 Figure 21: Plan view of Group B, showing the locations of Str. B21 and E.U. B21-1 in Courtyard 5 (Photo by Amber Lopez Johnson. Figure by Julie Hoggarth, with Group B plan view modified from Helmke’s (2008) map). Courtyard 5 Excavations in Courtyard 5 of the palace complex in Group B at Baking Pot were focused on the southwestern corner of the courtyard. Excavation Unit B21-1 was opened as a 2m by 2m unit placed near the prospected corner of Str. 20 and 21 (Figure 21). Excavations, supervised by Amber Lopez Johnson, did not identify any architecture nor terminal deposits. However, excavations through the humic and collapse levels revealed the terminal courtyard floor (Floor 1). Therefore, since no terminal deposits were located in this corner, the excavation unit was closed. CONCLUSIONS Excavations in Group B at Baking Pot during the 2015 field season focused on identifying terminal deposits in the corners of plaza and courtyards and in front of outset stairs, a spatial pattern identified by Awe (2012) at the sites of Cahal Pech, Xunantunich, Pook’s Hill, and several other sites. As these deposits represent the final activities that occurred in ceremonial areas throughout the Belize Valley and the broader Maya Lowlands, understanding the chronology of these contexts are integral towards building a high- precision radiocarbon chronology to understand the timing of the ‘Classic Maya collapse’ in the region. The development of an independent and absolute chronology are integral towards making direct comparisons between the archaeological and paleoclimate records. Excavations successfully identified two large deposits in the northeast and southeast corners of Plaza B, confirming Awe’s (2012) spatial pattern. No deposits were identified in front of the outset stairs at B2 or B6, nor in Courtyard 1 or 5. Continued 264 excavation in Courtyard 4, where a large stratified deposit was identified in 2013 (Hoggarth et al. 2014b), also failed to identify any additional deposits. The identification of these two new deposits has offered important information on the final activities in the site core at Baking Pot. First, the excavations have revealed a tentative spatial pattern at Baking Pot for terminal deposits that favors the interior corners of plazas and courtyards. Although the northwestern and southwestern corners of Plaza B have not yet been excavated, no terminal deposit was identified in the northeastern corner of Courtyard 4. In addition, no deposits were found in the southwestern corner of Courtyard 1 (and excavations by Audet in 2004 also did not find any terminal deposits in her horizontal exposure of the northwestern and northeastern corners of that courtyard) or in Courtyard 5. This appears to suggest that it is the interior corners, where large structures intersect and that are not adjacent to stairways, that might be preferred locations for terminal deposits at Baking Pot. This proposition will be tested in future research. The terminal deposits that were discovered offer important contextual information that will help in the construction of the high-precision radiocarbon chronology. The deposit located in Unit B7-100 appears to represent a single depositional event. Sherds from two polychrome vessels have been refitted were found dispersed horizontally and vertically throughout the deposit. This, in addition to the lack of any discernible stratigraphic levels within the deposit suggests that it was deposited in a single instance. The three burials found within, including two primary burials and one secondary burial, will provide important chronological information about the timing of the last residents/visitors of Baking Pot (strontium and oxygen isotope measurements will help to determine whether these were locals or non-locals). Direct dates on the human remains, faunal remains, and charcoal found in the deposit will help to narrow the timing of the event, and all AMS 14C distributions should be able to be constrained with the long count calendar date identified on the polychrome ‘Kokom Vase’. Together, these data offer the opportunity to get a very restricted radiocarbon distribution for the event of deposition, and therefore will offer important comparisons with the end of royal and elite interment in the ceremonial center. The terminal deposit located in Unit B2-2 will also offer important chronological information. We will model the two deposition scenarios outlined above, comparing dates from faunal remains and charcoal in the terminal deposit with direct dates on the bone collagen from the child burial. These dates will be compared with those from the deposit in Unit B7-100, as well as from the deposit recovered in 2013 in Courtyard 4 (Hoggarth et al. 2014b). Together, these chronological assays will create a complete dataset to compare with Cahal Pech and other Belize Valley sites where terminal deposits have been recovered. Together, we hope to have a fine-grained chronological view into the processes of political and demographic collapse in the Belize Valley at the end of the Classic period. 265 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to thank the 2015 BVAR Baking Pot field school students who provided the man and woman power to drive the excavation work and the laboratory analysis for this year’s research. Antonio Itza was the foreman for the excavations, supervising the local assistants including Orvin Martinez, Edgar Puc, Manuel Itza, Gerardo Magaña, and O. Perham. We thank the men and women who work with the Department of Agriculture at Central Farm for their assistance and coordination, especially for their help setting up the on-site lab. We especially want to thank the Belize Institute of Archaeology for permission to conduct research at Baking Pot. The 2015 research was funded by the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project and the National Science Foundation (BCS-1460369, Hoggarth). BVAR thanks the Tilden Family Foundation for their generous support of research and conservation efforts that have been focused at the sites of Cahal Pech and Xunantunich in recent years. REFERENCES CITED: Aimers, J.J. 2004 Cultural Change on a Temporal and Spatial Frontier: Ceramics of the Terminal Classic to Postclassic Transition in the Upper Belize River Valley. BAR International Series No. 1325, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Audet, C.M. 2005 Excavations at Structures B and G, Plaza 2, Group 2, Baking Pot. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2004 Field Season, edited by Christophe G. B. Helmke and Jaime J. Awe, pp 1-12. National Institute of Culture and History, Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize. Audet, C.M. 2006 Political Organization in the Belize Valley: Excavations at Baking Pot, Cahal Pech and Xunantunich. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Awe, J.J. 2012 The Last Hurrah: Terminal Classic Maya Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize. Paper presented at the 2nd annual Maya at the Lago conference, Davidson, North Carolina. Bullard, W. R., and M.R. Bullard 1965 Late Classic Finds at Baking Pot, British Honduras (Vol. 8). Royal Ontario Museum. Helmke, Christophe G. B. 2008 Excavations of Structures B1 and B7 at Baking Pot, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2007 Field Season, edited by Christophe G. B. Helmke and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 109–44. Belize Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. 266 Helmke, Christophe G. B., P.R. Pierre Robert Colas, and J.J. Awe 1998 Comments on the Typology, Epigraphy and Iconography of the Actun Tunichil Muknal Vase and Belize Valley Modeled-Carved Vessels. In The Western Belize Cave Project: A Report of the 1997 Field Season, edited by Jaime J. Awe, pp. 97- 144. University of New Hampshire, Durham. Hoggarth, J.A. and K.J. Sullivan 2015 It’s Getting Hot in the Palace: Discovery of a Sweatbath in Group B at Baking Pot. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2014 Field Season, edited by J.A. Hoggarth and J.J. Awe, pp. 222-229. Belize Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. Hoggarth, J.A., B.J. Culleton, J.J. Awe, and D.J. Kennett. 2014a Questioning Postclassic Continuity at Baking Pot, Belize, Using Direct AMS 14C Dating of Human Burials. Radiocarbon 56(3):1057-1075. Hoggarth, J.A., C.M. Zweig, and M. Mzayek 2014b Methodology and Preliminary Findings from the 2013 Excavations in the Royal Palace Complex at Baking Pot. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2013 Field Season, edited by J.A. Hoggarth and J.J. Awe, pp. 160-173. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Kennett, D.J., S.F. Breitenbach, V.V. Aquino Y. Asmerom, J. Awe, J.U. Baldini, P. Bartlein, B.J. Culleton, C. Ebert, C. Jazwa C, M.J. Macri, N. Marwan, V. Polyak, K. Prufer H.E. Ridley, H. Sodemann, B. Winterhalder, and G.H. Haug. 2012 Development and disintegration of Maya political systems in response to climate change. Science 338(6108):788–91. Kennett, D.J., J.A. Hoggarth, and B.J. Culleton 2015 Examining the Disintegration of Maya Polities and Demographic Decline in the Central Maya Lowlands. Grant proposal funded by the National Science Foundation (BCS-1460369, 2015-2016). Walden, J. 2016 Excavations in Settlement Cluster C at Baking Pot: Results of the 2015 Field Season. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by J.A. Hoggarth and J.J. Awe, pp. 268-280. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. 267 EXCAVATIONS IN SETTLEMENT CLUSTER C AT BAKING POT: RESULTS OF THE 2015 FIELD SEASON John Walden University of Pittsburgh INTRODUCTION The Maya polity of Baking Pot is located on the southern bank of the Belize River in Cayo District, western Belize. Baking Pot was first occupied during the Middle Preclassic period (600-300 BC) and was continuously inhabited until the Terminal Classic (AD 800-900), reaching its apogee in the Late Classic (AD 600-800). The Baking Pot monumental epicenter is split into two civic ceremonial groups (Group A and B), surrounding which, lie seven settlement clusters of dispersed residential patio groups (Settlement Clusters A-H) (Helmke and Awe 2008; Hoggarth 2012). Following the Terminal Classic abandonment of the civic ceremonial center, human activity and potentially occupation continued in the surrounding settlement throughout the Early Postclassic (AD 900-1200) and into the Late Postclassic period (AD 1200-1500) (Audet and Awe 2004; Aimers 2002). This interpretation has been questioned in a recent radiocarbon chronology dating human burials at the site, which suggests a hiatus in occupation between cal AD 900-1280 (Hoggarth et al. 2014). Settlement Cluster C is located to the east of Group B at Baking Pot (Figure 1). The primary goal of excavation in the 2015 field season was the excavation of Mound 101 in Settlement Cluster C to investigate possible Postclassic activity and reoccupation at Baking Pot. Mound 101 (M-101) was a prime candidate for investigation as previous fieldwork there uncovered Early Postclassic ceramics and a Late Postclassic burial (Hoggarth 2012; Lamb 2010). While the artifact analysis is ongoing, this report provides preliminary findings from the 2015 M-101 excavations. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Ongoing research has been conducted at Baking Pot under the auspices of the Belize Valley Reconnaissance since 1992. Prior to this, work was conducted in the civic ceremonial epicenter by Oliver Ricketson Jr. (1929) and Gordon Willey (Willey et al. 1965). The onset of BVAR investigation saw a growing interest in the settlement surrounding Baking Pot (Audet and Awe 2004; Conlon and Ehret 2000). BVAR excavation in Settlement Cluster C revealed Middle Preclassic through to Early Postclassic activity amongst the patio groups (Hoggarth 2012; Hoggarth et al 2014). Subsequent dating of bone collagen from supposedly Early Postclassic burials in the M-99 and M-100 groups (found with early and late facet New Town ceramics) revealed that they were actually Late Postclassic in date (cal. AD 1280-1420). ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 268-280. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 268 Figure 1: Baking Pot and Settlement Cluster C (Courtesy of Julie Hoggarth). Collectively, this re-dating of burials suggests an Early Postclassic occupational hiatus and subsequent resettlement of the area in the Late Postclassic (Hoggarth et al. 2014). BACKGROUND Settlement Cluster C is located on pasture land owned by the government of Belize and co-managed by the Belize Department of Agriculture and the Institute of Archaeology (NICH). Currently the land is used to graze cattle and has been plowed in the recent past (Zweig and Russell 2009: 39). M-101 is located 10m southeast from M-100 and collectively, both of these mounds form the Mound 100 group. The M-100 group is a double mound group located on the southern periphery of Settlement Cluster C (Figure 1). M-101 is approximately 1 meter high, 12.5 meters wide (north to south) and 14 meters in length (east to west) (Lamb 2010:48). M-101 was categorized as a medium status commoner household because the construction of the platform would have required a fair degree of labor investment (Lamb 2010: 54; Zweig and Russell 2009: 37). Previous excavations have been conducted on M-101 over the last 6 years (Lamb 2010; Zweig and Russell 2009; Zweig 2011). These excavations targeted the north western side of M-101, revealing an offset central staircase (Lamb 2010:54) and a single Late Postclassic burial found in association with two Postclassic ceramic vessel feet (Paxcaman Red and Augustine Red) (Lamb 2010: 53; Zweig 2011:29) (Figure 2). METHODOLOGY Fieldwork in Settlement Cluster C during the 2015 field season was conducted to identify possible Postclassic burials for dating purposes to refine the chronology of the Postclassic occupation at Baking Pot. An excavation strategy was designed by Julie Hoggarth to target Postclassic/post- abandonment deposits on M-101, this strategy was informed by the presence of Late Postclassic 269 Figure 2: Overview Plan, showing previous excavations and 2015 excavation units. burials and activities along the exterior platform walls of M-101 and M-99 in Settlement Cluster C (Hoggarth 2012; Lamb 2010:55). This established Postclassic mortuary behavior constitutes a shift from earlier Classic Maya burial traditions which involved the interment of the dead on the centerline of structures (Welsh 1988). Additionally, the identification of this divergent pattern offers opportunities to identify more Postclassic burials on residential platforms. The excavation strategy therefore targeted the external walls of the M-101 house platform in order to identify more burials to date the reoccupation of the area during the Postclassic period (Hoggarth el al. 2014; see Hoggarth et al., this volume, for details on the radiocarbon dating program). In terms of excavation, the aim was to identify the eastern wall of the structure and subsequently follow this around the structure (as a handrail) to investigate the presence of further Postclassic burials along the walls. Artifact collection was based on unit, level, and lot, and also feature number when necessary. All matrix was screened through ¼ inch mesh. Excavation was conducted using both cultural and arbitrary levels. MOUND 101 EXCAVATION RESULTS M-101 Western Wall Penultimate The western wall of the platform was about 60cm high from the ground and consisted of three courses of cut limestone blocks (approximately 40cm in length, 20 cm high and 25cm wide) running north/south, beneath this was a layer of river cobble ballast (Figures 3 and 4). Lamb 270 Figure 3: EU 101-100, western wall and missing southern wall. Figure 4: Special Finds from EU 101-100 Western Wall. Left: slate macehead fragment, center: net sinkers, right: spindle whorl. 271 Figure 4: EU 101-100 western wall and missing southern wall. (2010:54) identified a plaster floor on the north side of the platform, however on the western side of the platform there was simply a rough cobble floor (Floor 1) which was primarily evident in the profile of the unit post excavation (Figure 11). The fill of the platform consisted of the same yellow- brown loamy clay (10 YR 3/3) identified in the center of the structure which was mixed with river cobbles and some Late Classic (Spanish Lookout phase) ceramics (Zweig and Russell 2009:39). On the outside of the platform was a more diverse assemblage which included ceramics (Spanish Lookout phase) quartzite, slate, obsidian, chert, ceramic net sinkers, basalt, jute (both Pachychilius glaphyrus and Pachychilius indorium), a spindle whorl and a slate macehead. These artifacts were interspersed in a dark brown loamy soil (7.5YR 2.5/1) which also included elements of structural collapse which might account for the disparity between the three courses evident here and the four courses evident in the northern wall (Lamb 2009:54) (Figure 5). In terms of the assemblage there was no evidence indicative of Postclassic activity and there no post –abandonment/Postclassic deposits present overlaying the western wall of the house platform. M-101 Western Wall Terminal/Post-abandonment Despite the lack of Postclassic activity on the western platform wall, more substantial evidence of post-abandonment reoccupation can be inferred from the absence of the back wall (southern wall) of M-101. The platform must have originally possessed a back wall for several reasons, firstly this is the established norm for Maya house platforms. Secondly, the platform was filled with a dense river clay fill (presumably obtained from the Belize River) and would not have been structurally sound without a back wall. Lastly, the presence of the ballast underlying the western wall in the southwest corner of M-101 indicates the course of the original back wall (Figures 3 and 4). Post-abandonment stone robbing is considered to be the most congruent explanation for the absent back wall because this behavior is common and this is consistent with the abundant evidence of post-abandonment activity at M-101 (Hoggarth et al. 2014; Lamb 2010). Adjacent to the southern corner of the wall was a small pit which was originally considered to be a post-hole but upon excavation was deemed to have been caused by root action (Figure 4). 272 Figure 6: EU 101-101 eastern platform wall 1 (left) and wall 2 (right). M-101 Eastern Wall Penultimate Excavation along the eastern wall of the platform revealed the south-east corner of the M- 101 platform (Figure 6 and 7). The wall consisted of a cut stone alignment running north/south and only the uppermost course of the eastern wall was excavated in its entirety, but the profile (Figure 11) reveals that this wall was also three courses high and consisted of cut limestone blocks (approximately 35cm in length, 20 cm high and 20cm wide). Another similarity with the western wall was the thick layer of river cobble ballast beneath the wall. The eastern wall was also associated with Late Classic (Spanish Lookout phase) ceramics. Inside the platform on the eastern side, was a thick light brown clay matrix (10 YR 3/3) similar to that found elsewhere in the mound (Zweig and Russell 2009:39), this was mixed with river cobbles and some Spanish Lookout phase ceramics. A range of artifacts were found in association with the eastern wall of the structure, these include quartz, ceramic net-sinkers, freshwater and marine shell, faunal remains, human bone, obsidian, chert, a ceramic figurine head and a spindle whorl (Figure 10). 273 Figure 7: EU 101-101 eastern platform wall 1 (left) and wall 2 (right). M-101 Eastern Wall Terminal/Post-abandonment Located 10-15cm to the east of the easternmost wall (wall 1) was another single course of stones (wall 2), these stones were approximately 25cm in length, 15 cm high and 20cm wide. Several of these stones appeared to be cut, which gave the impression they may have been taken from elsewhere (Figure 7). Under laying this stone alignment was a single layer of ballast composed for small river cobbles (Figure 11). Based on the stratigraphic position of this secondary stone alignment (wall 2) it was likely constructed during the Late Classic period either just prior to the abandonment of M-101 or just after it. While this is difficult to assess, several small bone fragments found adjacent to the wall might provide a better date (Figure 6). One interpretation would be that the wall was constructed with the stone looted from the back wall of the structure, this would place the dating of the wall to the early post-abandonment phase, possibly during the Terminal Classic. Over laying both walls was a sizeable post-abandonment use surface. This consisted of a palimpsest of both Late Classic (Belize Red, Cayo Unslipped vessels) and Early Postclassic ceramics (Augustine Red) alongside which was some small fragments of human bone which were collected for dating purposes (the results of which will be provided in a later field report). This post–abandonment assemblage was found approximately 15cm above the course of the wall on top of the collapse debris from the house structure and soil (presumably from a newly established humic layer) (Figure 11). This post-abandonment layer extended across a 6m² area and consisted of two dense cluster of ceramics and was also scattered with flat lying sherds indicating that this layer was once exposed and constituted a use surface (Figure 8). 274 Figure 8: M-101 Post-abandonment deposits on top of eastern wall. Figure 9: EU 101-101 Feat- 1 Post-abandonment ceramic deposit on top of structural collapse. 275 Figure 10: Special Finds from EU 101-101 Southern and Eastern Walls. Left: net sinker, center left: figurine head, center right: spindle whorl, right: net sinker. M-101 Southern Wall Penultimate and Terminal/Post-abandonment Excavation along the southern wall of the M-101 platform substantiated the absence of the back wall, interestingly the ballast underlying the wall also appears to have been removed as well (Figure 11). The rough cobble stone floor which was abutting the western platform wall was evident in the profile but in this instance it was simply abutting the yellow clay matrix which comprised the fill of the platform. In terms of the assemblage associated with the southern edge of the platform, similar artifacts to the east and west platform walls were present. These included Late Classic ceramics (Spanish Lookout phase), chert, obsidian and more net-sinkers (Figure 10). CONCLUSIONS The 2015 excavations have further elucidated the story of M-101, showing that the significance of this mound continued into the Postclassic period following the Late Classic abandonment. The prevalence of Late Postclassic burials and the absence of Early Postclassic burials in Settlement Cluster C suggests a possible occupational hiatus during the Early Postclassic (Hoggarth el at. 2014). However, preliminary ceramic evidence from the 2015 excavation could indicate that the eastern side of the M-101 platform experienced on-going activity following abandonment through the Early Postclassic, if so, this would represent the first evidence of Early Postclassic activity at Baking Pot. The deposits evident on top of structural collapse and the eastern platform wall represent a palimpsest of activity throughout this period with a mixture of ceramics (Late Classic and Postclassic). The tentative temporal sequence based on ceramics might be less indicative of a prolonged hiatus in activity at M-101, but rather ongoing re-visitation occurring with the continual deposition of ceramics on top of the abandoned house platform. Prior to this episodic ceramic deposition was the modification event which saw the construction of the linear cut stone alignment (wall 2) running along the outside of the eastern platform wall (wall 1). Judging by the stratigraphy this probably occurred soon after abandonment. The underlying reason why a second outer wall was deemed necessary or the possible function it served remains ambiguous, however, it is likely that this modification might have involved stone removed from the back (southern) wall of the structure. This suggested temporal sequence for M-101 remains speculative until the radiocarbon samples taken from these deposits are processed. These dates will provide a much clearer temporal picture of the occupational history of M-101. In conclusion, evidence of post-abandonment activity at M-101 might not signify a reoccupation or a hiatus, but rather episodic re-visitations following the abandonment of the household in the Late Classic and on throughout the Early Postclassic and into the Late Postclassic. Radiocarbon dates for the deposits will easily confirm or disprove this initial hypothesis. In the northwest corner of M-101 this involved the interment of an individual (Lamb 2010) whereas in the southeastern corner this primarily involved the placement of ceramics atop the collapsed and presumably overgrown platform. The burial evidence might suggest some form of ancestor veneration on the part of the descendants of the original inhabitants who potentially 276 Figure 11. Profile of M-101 excavations. Top: overall mound profile. Bottom: close up of east and west platform walls (Please note scale break). 277 returned intermittently for ritualistic purposes to honor their ancestors (Barnhart 2002; McAnany 1994). While this remains uncertain it would seem that the house platform certainly represented a place of significance to the Maya after the Late Classic abandonment and into the Postclassic. Barnhart (2002:15) notes that the devotional offerings placed in contexts of ancestor veneration were often overtly quotidian in nature and are often erroneously interpreted as simple domestic refuse. Veneration often involves the placement of food, ceramics, flowers and personal items at a grave site (Landa 1978; Vogt 1961). In this instance, the ceramic deposits placed on the collapsed walls of the M-101 platform likely represent offerings left by people returning to the platform. The presence of the Late Postclassic burial in the northwest corner of M-101 (Lamb 2010), coupled with evidence gathered this field season indicates a long post-abandonment trajectory. Initial re- visitations might have involved the original residents of the household group, while later re- visitations might have involved their descendants. This scenario is not incompatible with the notion that there was post-abandonment re-occupation at Settlement Cluster C but the deposits placed on top of the M-101 platform might have resulted from Postclassic occupants of nearby households or from people traveling from further afield to honor their long dead ancestors. Incoming radiocarbon dates for these deposits will offer a way of confirming or falsifying the preliminary interpretations offered in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks go to the Belize Institute of Archaeology for their support of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project. I also wish to thank Dr. Jaime Awe, Project Director, and Dr. Julie Hoggarth for much appreciated advice and assistance. I would like to thank Edgar Penados, Gerson Uck, Sean Golightly, Abigail Harvey, Genevieve Mielke, Jack McGee, Nicole Annan, Daniel Lopez, Sadie Peckens, Katelynn Ebert, John O’Donnell and Blake Bendel for all their hard work. Thanks go to Hannah Zanotto for proof reading and digitizing. Thanks also go to the Center for Latin American Studies and the International Studies Fund at the University of Pittsburgh for financial support. 278 REFERENCES CITED Audet, Carolyn M. & Jaime J. Awe. 2004 What’s Cooking at Baking Pot: A Report of the 2001 to 2003 Seasons. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, edited by Jaime J. Awe, John Morris and Sherilyne Jones Vol. 1: 49-59. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Barnhart, Edwin 2002 Residential Burials and Ancestor Worship: A Reexamination of Classic Maya Settlement Patterns. In La organización social entre los Mayas prehispánicos, coloniales y modernos: memoria de la tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, edited by Vera B.Tiesler, Rafael Cobos and Merle Greene Robertson pp, 141-158. INAH, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mexico. Conlon, James M. and Jennifer J. Ehret 2000 Ancient Maya Settlement at Baking Pot, Belize: Results of the Continually Expanding Survey Program in the Search for the End of the Final Frontier. The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 1999 Field Season, edited by Cameron S. Griffith, Reiko Ishihara, and Jaime J. Awe, pp.43-54. Department of Anthropology, Occasional Paper No. 3, University of New Hampshire, Durham. Helmke, Christophe and Jaime J. Awe 2008 New Site Description and Structure Designations of Baking Pot, Belize. The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2007 Field Season, edited by Christophe Helmke and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 81-102. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Hoggarth, Julie A. 2012 Social Reorganization and Household Adaptation in the Aftermath of Collapse at Baking Pot, Belize. PhD. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Hoggarth, Julie A., Brendan J. Culleton, Jaime J. Awe, and Douglas J. Kennett 2014 Questioning Postclassic Continuity at Baking Pot, Belize, Using Direct AMS 14C Dating of Human Burials. Radiocarbon 56(3): 1057-1075. Lamb, Celine 2010 Research in Settlement Cluster C, Baking Pot: Preliminary Findings from M-101. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2009 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 70-101. Belize Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Landa, Friar Diego de 1978[1566] Relacion de Las Cosas de Yucatan, translated by William Gates. Dover Publications, New York. McAnany, Patrticia A. 1994 Living With the Ancestors, Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society, University of Texas Press, Austin. 279 Ricketson, Oliver G. 1929 Excavations at Baking Pot, British Honduras, Contributions to American Anthropology and History, No. 1. Publication 403. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C. Vogt, Evon Z. 1961 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Welsh, W. Bruce M. 1988 An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials. In BAR International Series 409. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, John B. Glass, James C. Gifford, and Orville Elliot 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Vol. 54. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge. Zweig, Christina L. 2011 A Report of the 2010 Excavations at Structures M-100 and M-101, Baking Pot, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2010 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 29-44. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Zweig, Christina L. and Ben Russell 2009 Extending Into the Past: A Report of the 2008 Excavations at Structure M-101, Baking Pot, Belize. In The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2010 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 36-49. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 280 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF GRANITE GROUND STONES FROM BAKING POT, BLACKMAN EDDY, CAHAL PECH, AND XUNANTUNICH, BELIZE Tawny L.B. Tibbits University of Iowa INTRODUCTION Portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) is a burgeoning mode of analysis for a wide variety of archaeological artifacts. The vast majority of archaeological work using pXRF has focused on homogeneous materials such as basalt, obsidian, and glass (Barbera et al. 2013; Forster and Grave 2013; Frahm 2012; Liu et al. 2013; Nazaroff et al. 2010; Potts and West 2008). This technique is useful because it provides an immediate and nondestructive chemical summary of an object. Information gathered from pXRF work can inform archaeologists about potential exchange networks as well as determining source locations when outcrop data is available. This study seeks to expand the use of pXRF to heterogeneous materials, specifically granite, in order to determine potential source locations within the Maya Mountains. Granite is an abundant material within the mountains and was widely used to construct manos and metates within Belize (Abramiuk and Meurer 2006; Delu 2007; Shipley and Graham 1987; Ward 2013). Granite ground stone tools from Baking Pot (n=39), Blackman Eddy (n=9), Cahal Pech (n=16), and Thompson’s Balls (n=2) from Xunantunich were analyzed. Ground stone tools such as manos and metates provide an excellent dataset for examining production and exchange as they are ever present in Maya society. Manos and metates in Belize are largely made of basalt that would have been imported from the Highlands, granite from the Maya Mountains or the Highlands, or locally available sedimentary and metamorphic materials (Delu 2007, Spink 1982). This study aims to examine the geochemical signatures of granite ground stone tools in order to determine their point of origin. GEOLOGY OF THE MAYA MOUNTAINS Much of the early geologic work on the mountains was focused on determining whether there are economically viable mineral deposits rather than identifying the internal variation within plutons. The Maya Mountains are comprised of three igneous plutons: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 281-292. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 281 Figure 1: Simplified Geologic Map of Belize. The Maya Mountains are located in the central portion of the country (modified from Cornec 2008). Mountain Pine Ridge, Hummingbird Ridge, and Cockscomb Basin (Figure 1). These plutons are petrographically distinct when analyzed by a petrographic microscope, however they are not always visually distinct (Bateson and Hall 1977; Dixon 1956; Ower 1927, 1928). Mountain Pine Ridge is the most easily accessible pluton with minimal vegetative cover and exposed outcrops. Within the pluton several types of granitoid rocks have been identified: muscovite leucogranite, biotite leucogranite, granodiorite, tonalite, and granite (Jackson et al. 1995). Granite from Mountain Pine Ridge tends to be visually distinct from Hummingbird Ridge and Cockscomb Basin. It was an abundance of pink potassium feldsparwhereas the other plutons are generally white in color. Hummingbird Ridge and Cockscomb Basin have been described as two-mica granites (Bateson and Hall 1977; Dixon 1956). The granites in these plutons are visually identical; they are white with mica inclusions that range from clear to gold to black. Both plutons are covered by dense vegetation, limiting access for sample collection. 282 Geologic outcrop samples from all plutons were collected during the 2013 and 2014 field seasons. Care was taken to attempt to sample all geologic variation within each pluton. In addition to sampling primary outcrops, samples were collected from river ways. It is likely that the Maya were utilizing granite that had spalled from the original outcrop and had been transported away from the pluton. These pieces would likely have been sizes that were closer to a finished mano or metate than the initial boulder would have been, lessening the amount of work that would be needed to produce the tools (Peuramaki-Brown and Tibbits in press). The region between the igneous plutons is dominated by metamorphic and argillaceous sedimentary materials. The metamorphic rocks are largely comprised of quartzite and slate with some phyllites and gneisses present. The sedimentary rocks found within the Maya Mountains are clastic and tend to be dominated by sandstone and conglomerate (Bateson and Hall 1977; Cornec 2008). METHODS To analyze the granite artifacts an Olympus Delta© family pXRF unit was used on Geochem Mode. Due to the coarse-grained nature of granite and the small beam diameter on most spectrometers it was necessary to develop a methodology to accurately assess the bulk geochemistry of each rock (Tibbits in prep). Powdered geologic standards were analyzed prior to any experimental work on unknown materials. These standards have well- established geochemical data available through GeoReM. Samples used in this project are: AC-E, GS-N (from SARM-CNRS, France), JA-1 (from the Geological Survey of Japan), BCR-2, and AGV-2 (from the USGS). These represent granite, basalt, andesite, and rhyolite and encompass the expected range of composition for granitoid rocks. Each sample was analyzed with no fewer than five data points which are then averaged to develop a bulk geochemical signature. Experimental work has shown five points to be the minimum amount needed to approximate powdered composition (Tibbits in prep). After analyzing each artifact with the pXRF, the geochemical signature for each artifact is compared to a dataset with the known geochemical variation for each pluton within the Maya Mountains. Using Rb/Sr and Sr/Y ratios it is possible to determine which pluton (if any) represents the closest geochemical match for a specific artifact. These elements were chosen because they are immobile elements that are not formed by the weathering of other minerals. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The plutonic collections analyzed from all sites contained no tonalite or granodiorite, only granite (Figure 2). The tools analyzed were largely manos and metates. The metates tended to be basin or trough forms with some that may be slab but were missing their edges making identification difficult. The manos were oval, rounded, and square in cross-section. Several samples were left unwashed for future analyses, however this does not interfere with pXRF analysis. Due to the presence of high levels of calcium and iron in the soils of Belize, 283 Figure 2: Typical granite manos (left: oval, right: square) from BVAR (left: Blackman Eddy, right: Baking Pot) showing large potassium feldspar (kspar) grains and dark biotite crystals that are common in Mountain Pine Ridge granite. these elements were not used in the interpretation of geochemical source. The cleanest surfaces on each sample were analyzed to avoid biases in the geochemical signatures based on the soil. A simple bivariate chart best displays the geochemical separation between the three plutons. Data from each site has been added to the outcrop plot in order to determine which pluton the artifact are most similar to as determined by their geochemical signature. Artifacts sampled from Baking Pot tend to have geochemical signatures most similar to those of Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 3). There is a single artifact, identified as a mano fragment, which is nearer to the range of variation for Hummingbird Ridge. The artifacts from Blackman Eddy also fall within the range of variation for Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 4). A single artifact falls slightly below the range of Mountain Pine Ridge variation, however that could indicate variation within the pluton that has not been mapped as of yet by Tibbits. The Cahal Pech assemblage is tightly clustered within the range of variation for Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 5). All artifacts remain within the single pluton. Lastly, the spheres (Thompson’s Balls) from Xunantunich also fall within the range of variation for Mountain Pine Ridge (Figure 6). The spheres were analyzed in situ at Xunantunich, which is different than all other artifacts which were analyzed after excavation. The artifacts from Baking Pot, Blackman Eddy, Cahal Pech, and Xunantunich share similar geochemical signatures, indicating they are all coming from a shared source: Mountain Pine Ridge. 284 Figure 3: Bivariate plot showing the geochemical variation of Mountain Pine Ridge, Hummingbird Ridge, and Cockscomb Basin. Artifacts from Baking Pot are largely within the range of variation for Mountain Pine Ridge. Figure 4: Bivariate plot showing the geochemical variation of the three plutons in the Maya Mountains as well as the variation for artifacts from Blackman Eddy. 285 Figure 5: Artifacts from Cahal Pech most closely plot within the geochemical variation for Mountain Pine Ridge. Figure 6: The two spheres located at Xunantunich have geochemical signatures within the range of variation for Mountain Pine Ridge. 286 CONCLUSIONS The vast majority of artifacts analyzed from Baking Pot, Blackman Eddy, Cahal Pech, and Xunantich are most geochemically similar to the variation found within Mountain Pine Ridge. This is also the closest pluton to the Belize Valley. In order to move large, heavy, breakable metates as well as smaller and easier to transport manos from near Mountain Pine Ridge to the Belize Valley it is likely that waterways were utilized (Drennan 1984). The Macal River runs from the Belize River down into Mountain Pine Ridge and would likely have been utilized for moving goods. Recently it was determined that a granite ground stone tool workshop is present at the site of Pacbitun, located within five kilometers of the Macal River (Ward 2013). Tibbits, Powis, and Harrison-Buck (2015) found that the granite tools being produced at Pacbitun were initially formed in Mountain Pine Ridge. It is impossible to determine if the granite was quarried from the pluton itself, acquired from river deposits, or collected as spall from the outcrop. The amount of tools being produced at Pacbitun, according to Ward’s thesis (2013), allows for the possibility that these tools were being transported beyond the community and exchanged elsewhere. It is possible that the communities in the Belize Valley and the granite ground stone workshop engaged in exchange. Future work is needed to determine the extent to which the Pacbitun workshop was involved (or not involved) in the construction and exchange of the tools that have been recovered at the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project sites. Additional work is needed to determine where quarrying or raw material acquisition took place within Mountain Pine Ridge. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Institute of Archaeology for their support of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project. I would like to thank Dr. Jamie Awe and Dr. Julie Hoggarth for the opportunity to analyze the BVAR collections as part of my dissertation research. I would also like to thank my helpers at the Cahal Pech Bodega. I would like to thank the following funding sources: the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, the T. Anne Cleary Doctoral Fellowship, the Stanley International Travel Award, the Graduate Student Senate Travel Funds Committee, the Post Comps Summer Fellowship, the Littlefield Grant, and the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. 287 Appendix 1. Major elements are shown in percent oxide, minor and trace elements are shown in ppm. Al2O3 Al2O3 +/- SiO2 SiO2 +/- K2O K2O +/- Fe2O3 Fe2O3 +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Baking Pot B2-3-1 12.30 0.21 37.78 0.18 2.55 0.01 2.10 0.02 314.80 3.20 47.00 1.00 93.20 2.20 B2-2-1 13.87 0.22 40.30 0.19 1.90 0.01 2.16 0.02 223.40 2.60 27.40 1.00 45.60 1.80 B6-5-1 9.17 0.21 46.11 0.22 2.57 0.01 1.51 0.01 233.40 3.20 36.20 1.00 38.20 2.00 B2-2-2 13.32 0.22 35.93 0.19 1.71 0.01 2.34 0.02 274.75 3.50 53.50 1.25 36.00 2.00 B2-2-1 11.71 0.21 32.66 0.18 1.65 0.01 2.39 0.02 291.40 3.20 40.40 1.00 44.00 2.00 BKP-2010-263 20.00 0.26 62.71 0.27 4.13 0.02 2.76 0.02 261.20 3.00 39.40 1.00 37.00 2.00 BKP-2010-265 20.70 0.23 64.74 0.26 2.51 0.01 4.21 0.02 169.20 2.40 33.80 1.00 51.60 1.40 BKP-2010-264 21.78 0.23 71.86 0.26 4.02 0.02 3.22 0.02 275.00 3.00 33.20 1.00 117.6 2.00 BKP-2010-266 18.03 0.22 73.26 0.27 1.29 0.01 2.51 0.02 10.25 1.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 15.50 BKP-2010-260 19.83 0.27 58.18 0.27 4.47 0.02 4.14 0.03 455.25 4.25 34.75 1.00 67.75 2.00 BKP-2010-268 22.68 0.26 65.14 0.27 4.93 0.02 2.48 0.02 394.00 4.00 22.50 1.00 71.25 1.75 BKP-2010-262 22.55 0.25 62.74 0.25 3.92 0.02 4.45 0.03 337.50 3.25 56.75 1.25 43.25 2.00 BP 2010 LOT 4027 17.69 0.25 61.75 0.27 3.19 0.02 2.73 0.02 250.80 2.80 26.60 1.00 44.00 2.00 BP 2010 LOT 4026 21.76 0.25 66.68 0.26 4.89 0.02 3.61 0.02 308.40 3.20 51.00 1.20 44.20 2.00 BKP-2010-276 19.33 0.25 56.09 0.24 3.17 0.02 3.69 0.02 294.80 3.20 44.80 1.00 39.60 1.80 BKP-2010-287 20.28 0.26 60.37 0.27 3.33 0.02 3.84 0.02 244.20 3.00 30.80 1.00 143.6 2.40 BKP-2010-282 19.75 0.26 65.96 0.28 4.58 0.02 3.42 0.02 281.40 3.20 36.60 1.20 29.60 1.80 BKP-2010-286 20.98 0.25 61.15 0.26 2.99 0.02 4.35 0.03 229.00 2.60 53.00 1.20 30.20 1.40 BKP-2010-285 21.56 0.25 65.69 0.26 3.75 0.02 3.97 0.02 308.40 3.20 36.00 1.20 41.60 1.80 BKP-2010-270 22.91 0.25 65.05 0.26 4.24 0.02 3.81 0.02 325.00 3.25 82.75 1.50 23.75 1.75 BKP-2010-274 20.10 0.25 61.21 0.26 4.65 0.02 3.98 0.02 377.20 3.80 35.60 1.20 41.80 2.00 BKP-2010-269 19.65 0.27 60.92 0.28 4.88 0.03 3.61 0.02 338.60 3.80 33.80 1.20 67.80 2.40 BKP-2010-276 19.36 0.23 59.27 0.25 2.67 0.01 4.67 0.03 321.80 3.40 63.00 1.20 38.20 2.00 BKP-2010-252 19.82 0.23 67.82 0.26 3.88 0.02 3.08 0.02 262.80 2.60 45.00 1.20 28.60 1.40 288 BKP-2010-253 21.49 0.24 69.88 0.26 4.99 0.02 3.62 0.02 356.20 3.20 38.00 1.20 44.20 1.80 BKP-2010-256 19.76 0.23 70.03 0.26 3.80 0.02 2.58 0.02 323.00 3.20 20.40 1.00 32.20 1.60 Al2O3 Al2O3 +/- SiO2 SiO2 +/- K2O K2O +/- Fe2O3 Fe2O3 +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- BKP-2010-248 20.83 0.24 71.17 0.28 5.30 0.02 2.32 0.02 400.60 3.80 41.40 1.00 34.00 2.00 BKP-2010-258 18.82 0.23 63.72 0.25 4.38 0.02 3.01 0.02 386.80 3.60 41.80 1.00 38.40 1.80 BKP-2010-257 15.24 0.23 70.03 0.30 4.04 0.02 2.55 0.02 251.40 3.00 39.20 1.20 52.40 2.00 BKP-2010-288 20.52 0.26 61.61 0.27 3.67 0.02 3.42 0.02 279.60 3.40 39.80 1.00 34.20 2.00 BKP-2010-289 22.56 0.23 74.91 0.26 5.11 0.02 2.98 0.02 289.40 3.00 33.20 1.00 75.80 2.00 BKP-2010-290 19.93 0.26 59.24 0.27 3.12 0.02 3.67 0.02 275.20 2.80 24.60 1.00 22.60 1.80 BKP-2010-279A 21.66 0.23 66.84 0.25 5.29 0.02 2.47 0.02 435.60 3.60 35.80 1.00 30.00 1.80 BKP-2010-279B 18.50 0.24 59.62 0.26 3.42 0.02 2.54 0.02 284.80 3.00 26.20 1.00 38.20 1.80 BP2-2-4A 7.92 0.18 25.56 0.14 0.79 0.01 1.52 0.01 134.00 2.20 38.40 1.00 48.60 1.40 BP2-2-4B 12.56 0.20 36.39 0.17 2.25 0.01 1.90 0.02 299.60 3.00 44.80 1.00 46.00 2.00 BP2-2-4C 13.42 0.21 42.65 0.19 2.70 0.01 3.64 0.02 281.60 3.00 52.20 1.20 71.60 2.00 B2-2-4D 16.81 0.23 49.03 0.21 4.44 0.02 1.81 0.02 287.80 3.00 35.60 1.00 21.60 1.60 B2-2-4E 11.16 0.21 32.99 0.17 1.98 0.01 2.40 0.02 265.40 3.00 39.00 1.00 41.20 1.80 Blackman Eddy BE-B1-BE1422 10.32 0.21 31.83 0.17 2.25 0.01 1.57 0.01 275.20 3.00 43.60 1.00 48.40 2.00 BE-B1-BE1417 7.09 0.20 22.03 0.14 0.84 0.01 2.08 0.02 302.40 3.60 31.40 1.00 38.60 1.80 BE-B1-BE1657 10.58 0.23 50.57 0.24 3.57 0.02 1.44 0.01 223.40 3.20 38.20 1.00 23.60 1.80 BE-B1-BE1389 7.65 0.21 23.72 0.15 1.34 0.01 1.99 0.02 277.00 3.40 56.20 1.20 48.40 2.00 BE-B1-BE1533 10.75 0.22 47.06 0.23 1.47 0.01 2.30 0.02 134.00 2.40 76.40 1.80 39.00 1.60 BE-B1-BE1416 8.67 0.21 31.72 0.18 1.72 0.01 1.96 0.02 295.00 3.40 39.20 1.20 53.80 2.00 BE-B1-BE1636 15.01 0.21 83.66 0.29 4.82 0.02 1.66 0.01 269.20 2.80 28.80 1.00 37.20 1.40 BE-B1-BE1621 11.83 0.20 50.17 0.21 2.97 0.02 1.88 0.02 255.00 2.80 63.60 1.60 54.40 1.60 BE-B1-BE909 12.84 0.22 48.70 0.22 2.44 0.01 2.28 0.02 298.80 3.00 44.60 1.00 24.80 1.80 289 Cahal Pech Lot C-12-2 5.60 0.20 18.88 0.13 0.88 0.01 1.11 0.01 171.40 2.80 35.60 1.00 33.60 1.60 Lot C-12-3 6.09 0.19 23.45 0.14 1.69 0.01 0.94 0.01 241.00 2.80 38.20 1.00 25.20 1.60 Str H1 Unit 11 lvl 2 11.01 0.23 47.10 0.23 4.35 0.02 1.26 0.01 334.00 3.80 35.80 1.00 89.40 2.20 St H1 Unit 14 lvl 2 8.62 0.20 31.01 0.16 1.93 0.01 1.08 0.01 285.20 2.80 46.00 1.00 42.80 1.80 Str H-1 Unit 11 lvl 5 7.43 0.20 30.57 0.17 1.73 0.01 1.31 0.01 237.60 3.00 41.80 1.20 132.8 2.40 Al2O3 Al2O3 +/- SiO2 SiO2 +/- K2O K2O +/- Fe2O3 Fe2O3 +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- str H-1 Plaza H unit 9 lvl 2 8.69 0.19 40.05 0.19 2.31 0.01 0.91 0.01 337.20 3.00 34.80 1.00 18.40 1.60 Str H-1 9/10 Ext lvl 1 8.36 0.20 33.17 0.18 2.36 0.01 0.73 0.01 263.80 3.20 30.20 1.00 39.00 2.00 HC3 H5A lvl 1 12.42 0.21 66.17 0.26 4.12 0.02 0.84 0.01 239.25 3.00 32.00 1.00 24.50 1.50 Str H-1 Eu 35 lvl 3 12.87 0.19 71.61 0.26 0.84 0.01 0.85 0.01 106.60 1.80 28.40 1.00 40.80 1.20 Str H-1 EU 34 lvl 4 9.92 0.22 36.49 0.20 1.69 0.01 2.52 0.02 235.80 3.00 55.60 1.20 63.00 2.20 Str H-1 EU 34 lvl 3 6.73 0.18 24.18 0.14 1.14 0.01 1.19 0.01 217.00 2.80 33.80 1.00 51.20 1.80 Str B1 EU B1 7west lvl 6 7.68 0.19 38.24 0.18 2.13 0.01 1.21 0.01 292.00 3.00 23.60 1.00 61.40 2.00 Str B1 B1-9 West lvl 2 5.96 0.20 28.47 0.17 1.88 0.01 0.85 0.01 324.80 3.80 40.20 1.20 32.80 1.80 Str B1 B1-7west lvl 7 8.48 0.19 27.53 0.16 1.46 0.01 3.05 0.02 294.80 3.20 59.80 1.20 36.80 1.80 Str B1-7west lvl3a 6.50 0.19 25.23 0.15 1.55 0.01 2.05 0.02 248.80 3.00 45.00 1.20 46.40 2.00 Str B1-7west lvl3b 14.59 0.22 62.98 0.26 4.32 0.02 1.80 0.02 268.00 3.00 51.00 1.20 27.80 1.80 Xunantunich West 9.50 0.23 55.43 0.27 5.85 0.03 1.66 0.01 266.80 3.20 32.00 1.00 40.20 1.40 East 7.24 0.23 52.44 0.27 3.34 0.02 1.67 0.02 194.60 2.40 37.80 1.00 20.40 1.60 290 REFERENCES CITED Abramiuk, Marc A, and William P Meurer 2006 A Preliminary Geoarchaeological Investigation of Ground Stone Tools in and around the Maya Mountains, Toledo District, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 17(3):335-354. Barbera, Giovanni, Germana Barone, Vincenza Crupi, Francesca Longo, Domenico Majolino, Paolo Mazzoleni, and Valentina Venuti. 2013 Nondestructive Analyses of Carbonate Rocks: Applications and Potentiality for Museum Materials. X-Ray Spectrometry. 42:8-15. Bateson, JH, and I.H.S. Hall 1977 Geology of the Maya Mountains, Belize: HM Stationery Off., London. Cornec, Jean 2008 Geologic Map of Belize Delu, Antonina M. 2007 The Ground Stone Tools of Caye Coco, Belize: Dissertation, SUNY at Albany. Dixon, C.G. 1956 Geology of Southern British Honduras with Notes on Adjacent Areas. Belize: Government Printer. Drennan, R.D. 1984 Long-Distance Movement of Goods in the Mesoamerican Formative and Classic. American Antiquity 49:27-43. Forster, Nicola, and Peter Grave 2013 Effects of Elevated Levels of Lead in Ceramics on Provenancing Studies Using Non-Destructive PXRF: a Case Study in Byzantine Cypriot Glazed Ceramics. X- Ray Spectrometry. 42:480-486. Frahm, Ellery 2012 Non-destructive sourcing of Bronze Age Near Eastern obsidian artefacts: redeveloping and reassessing electron microprobe analysis for obsidian sourcing. Archaeometry 54(4):623-642. Jackson, T.A., MJM Duke, PW Scott, F Smith, and FCF Wikinson 1995 Petrology and Inferred Tectonic Setting of the Mountain Pine Ridge Granitoids, Maya Mountains, Belize. International Geology Review, 37:26-38. 291 Liu, S, QH Li, Q Fu, FX Gan, and ZM Xiong. 2013 Application of a Portable XRF Spectrometer for Classification of Potash Glass Beads Unearthed from Tombs of Han Dynasty in Guangxi, China. X-Ray Spectrometry. 42:470-479. Nazaroff, A. J., Prufer, K. M., & Drake, B. L. 2010 Assessing the applicability of portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry for obsidian provenance research in the Maya lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(4), 885-895. Ower, Leslie H 1927 Features of British Honduras. The Geographical Journal 70(4):372-386. 1928 Geology of British Honduras The Journal of Geology 36(6):494-509. Peuramaki-Brown, Meaghan, and Tawny LB Tibbits Granite Extraction and Use Among the Ancient Maya of Belize, in press Potts, Philip J., Margaret Ellis West 2008 Portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry: Capabilities for In Situ Analysis. Royal Society of Chemistry. Shipley, III, Webster E., and Elizabeth Graham 1987 Petrographic Analysis and Preliminary Source Identification of Selected Stone Artifacts from the Maya Sites of Seibal and Uaxactun, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:367-383. Spink, Mary. 1982 Metates as Socioeconomic Indicators During the Classic Period at Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. Tibbits, Tawny LB, Terry Powis, and Eleanor Harrison-Buck 2015 Granites and pXRF: Methodology for Geochemical Sourcing of Granite. (Oral presentation) Society for American Archaeology, National Meeting. Tibbits, Tawny LB XRF and pXRF: A Comparative Analysis of their use on Characterizing Granite Ground Stone Tools, in preparation Ward, Drew T. 2013 Investigations of a Ground Stone Tool Workshop at Pacbitun, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta. 292 PREMILINARY CATALOG AND CURATION OF FIGURINE FRAGMENTS FROM THE SITES OF CAHAL PECH AND BAKING POT Lisa L. DeLance University of California, Riverside INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the preliminary collection, curation, cataloging, and storing of ceramic figurine and musical instrument fragments recovered from the sites of Cahal Pech and Baking Pot. Research was conducted at the Cahal Pech artifact laboratory from July 6, 2015 to July 31, 2015 and was supervised by Dr. Jaime Awe and Dr. Julie Hoggarth of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project (BVAR). Laboratory assistance was provided by E.J. Taylor. BVAR students who assisted with the project were: Daniel Lopez, Annabel Avendano, Amanda Bermudez, Josie Howl, and Cassie Popp. BACKGROUND Archaeological evidence situates the initial occupation of the site of Cahal Pech in the Middle Pre-Classic period, Cunil phase (c. 1000-850 B.C). Figurines associated with this period have been recovered at Cahal Pech. Social stratification, although present during the Cunil phase, began to be more pronounced during the subsequent Middle Pre-Classic Kanluk phase (850-350 B.C.) (Awe 1992). During the Kanluk phase, Cahal Pech experienced a population boom, accompanied by evidence of significant social stratification in the form of differential burial practices and concentrations of exotic goods. During the Late Pre-Classic period, the Xakal phase (350 B.C – A.D. 250), Cahal Pech rose to become one of the major centers in the Belize River Valley, complete with monumental architecture and trade relationships with both southern Peten polities and Caribbean traders. During the early and middle portions of the Classic period (A.D. 250 – 800), figurine production appears to have ceased at Cahal Pech. Ceramic figurines are widely acknowledged to be connected to household ritual (Marcus 1988), and as such, provide a glimpse into how households not only practiced their religion but also understood their role within their ritually based world, both before the rise and after the fall of state sanctioned religion. Although no published studies explain why there is no evidence of ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season, edited by Julie A. Hoggarth and Jaime J. Awe, pp. 293-317. Institute of Archaeology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. © 2016 293 Classic Period figurines at Cahal Pech, it has been hypothesized that the institution of divine kingship laid claim to all ritual practices, effectively eliminating the practice of household religious ritual, to which figurines have been linked (Awe 1992; Brumfiel 1996; Marcus 1998; Marcus 2009). During the Late to Terminal Classic period (~ AD 750-850), the Cahal Pech site core appears to have been completely abandoned by the ruling elite. As evidenced by intrusive burials and ritual deposits, it appears that approximately 50 years after the abandonment of the site core, individuals were returning to Cahal Pech for important occasions (Awe, personal communication), possibly leaving figurine fragments in the process. COLLECTION Although the majority of the figurine fragments from Cahal Pech were processed during the 2014 field season, 161 additional figurine fragments were located in storage. These figurines were predominately recovered during the Belize Valley Archaeology Project (BVAP) excavations of the Cahal Pech site core from 2004 through 2009. Additionally, 91 anthropomorphic and zoomorphic musical instruments recovered during the 2013 BVAR field season at Baking Pot were processed. METHODS Catalog Numbers All figurine fragments were assigned catalog numbers based on the site where they were recovered and the order which they were processed. Each site was assigned a three letter code: Cahal Pech (CHP) and Baking Pot (BKP). The designated catalog number contained the site code as a prefix, followed a 5 digit numerical sequence indicating the order of processing, starting at 00001. The assigned catalog number was then noted on the accompanying artifact provenience card and was printed out on a standard inkjet printer in 6 point font. The number was then cut out from the paper and affixed to each artifact using a 50% concentration Paraloid B-72 compound base coat to which the label was affixed, and a 25% concentration Paraloid B-72 compound applied to the top of the label as a waterproof sealant (Figure 1). Photographs All figurine fragments were initially photographed with the accompanying artifact identification card. All figurines were photographed with a minimum of three views and without the artifact card (Figure 2). Initial photographs containing the provenience card were labeled with the catalog number that was assigned to the artifact and included the suffix –X (for example: CHP-00001-X). Subsequent multi-view photographs were labeled with the catalog number assigned to the artifact in addition to a suffix containing information about the view angle of the photograph. File name suffix 1 denotes a frontal, primary photograph, while suffix 2 indicates a posterior secondary photograph showing the catalog number placed on the artifact. Subsequent suffixes detail right, left, and vertical angles from which the photographs were taken. 294 Figure 1: Numbered Figurine Fragment. Figure 2: Figurine Photographs. Measurements Standard measurements were taken of each figurine fragment. Digital calipers were used to determine length, width, and height of the figurine and measurements were noted down to the hundredth of a millimeter (mm). All measurements were taken with the anterior side of the figurine facing the researcher. The length measurement was determined as the longest portion of the figurine on the horizontal (x) axis. The height measurement was determined as the longest portion of the figurine on the vertical (y) axis. The width measurement was determined as the longest portion of the figurine on the depth (z) axis. All measurements were noted in millimeters. If the figurine was unidentifiable and the anterior side was not able to be determined, the three-dimensional measurements were 295 Figure 3: Figurine Measurements. taken and the largest measurement was used as an indication of the horizontal (x) axis (Figure 3). After measurements were taken, all figurines were weighed on a digital scale. Figurine weight was noted in grams (g) down to the hundredth of a gram. Due to the limitations of the scale, any figurine fragment over 100 grams was not able to be weighed accurately. Future work on the collection will include weight measurements for fragments that were unable to be initially measured. Preliminary Analysis Preliminary analysis of the figurine fragments included an analysis of the following characteristics: form, type, morphology, body part, sex, hairstyle, clothing, position sitting or standing, eye form, ear spool presence, ear spool decoration details, mouth presence, mouth decoration details, the presence of primary sex characteristics, primary sex characteristic details, the presence of secondary sex characteristics, and the details of secondary sex characteristics. Form was assessed by appearance as being hand-formed, mold-formed, or a combination of both. Type was assessed by appearance as being a figurine, an ocarina, or a portion of a vessel. Morphology was assessed as either anthropomorphic or zoomorphic. Primary Sex Characteristics include the presence or absence of defined breasts or genitalia. 296 Figure 4: Figurine Database Form. Secondary Sex Characteristics included widened hips combined with a small waist for females and overall torso shape. Characteristics that merit further exploration were noted in the database as well. Data Entry The provenience information along with the photographs and preliminary analysis were then entered into the Microsoft Access database (Figure 4). Provenience information including structure/area found, operation used, excavation unit, unit level, excavation date, excavation supervisor, excavation personnel along with any comments by the excavators that were noted on the accompanying artifact card, were entered into the database. Context, Context notes, Period, Phase, and Dating Method will be completed in 2016 by analyzing the excavation reports pertaining to the specific figurine fragments. Storage The figurine fragments were then stored in custom cut foam pockets inside a custom metal cabinet in order to keep the fragments both preserved and secure. Each drawer of the cabinet was numbered, and the drawer number for the artifact was noted in the database. Tyvek acid free curatorial paper was used to line the foam pockets for all figurines in the cabinet (including those that were curated during the 2014 field season). 297 Preservation Upon inspecting the cabinet drawers that were used during the 2014 field season, I discovered a white substance growing on figurines in two separate drawers. Using a toothbrush, I gently brushed the white substance away, exposed the figurines to direct sunlight for a single workday, and replaced the foam lining of both effected drawers. I further purchased (10) 45gm Indicating Silica Gel Canisters in an effort to control humidity within the cabinet. These canisters were shipped to Dr. Awe’s home for placement in the cabinet drawers. RESULTS A full list of all of the figurine fragments that were curated during the 2015 field season can be found in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the quantity of figurines by part. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . I would like to thank the Belize Institute of Archaeology for their support of the Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance project. I would like to thank Drs. Jaime Awe and Julie Hoggarth for their enthusiastic support of this project. I would also like to thank Drs. Wendy Ashmore, Christine Ward-Gailey, and Travis Stanton for their guidance as I was preparing for this field season. I would particularly like to thank my lab assistant, E.J. Taylor, whose hard work helped to finish this work on time. I am further grateful to Ceramic Conservators Ellen Salzman Chase from the Freer-Sackler Smithsonian Museum of Asian Art and Emily Kaplan from the National Museum of the American Indian, and Curator of Ceramics and Glass Denise Ling from the British Musem for their expert curatorial advice. I would further like to thank the Center for Ideas and Society at the University of California, Riverside for fully funding this research. All errors are my own. 298 Table 1: Figurine Distribution by Morphology. Total Anthropomorphic 150 Arm 13 Ear Spool 3 Face 7 Flute (Musical Instrument) 3 Foot 1 Forehead 1 Forehead/Hair 1 Hair 1 Head 3 Head/Face 21 Head/Face/Torso 1 Leg 42 Leg/Hip 1 Mouth 1 Ocarina (Musical Instrument) 5 Shoulder 1 Torso 23 Torso/Leg 5 Undefined Appendage 17 Total Zoomorphic 17 Foot 2 Head 8 Ocarina 6 Torso 1 Total Unknown Form 85 Flute (Musical Instrument) 2 Foot 2 Incense Holder (Vessel) 1 Leg 1 Ocarina (Musical Instrument) 16 Undefined Appendage 3 Unidentifiable Fragment 60 TOTAL FRAGMENTS 252 299 CHP FIGURINE PROJECT- CONTEXT INVENTORY CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered BKP-00015 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00016 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 26-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00017 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 1 20-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00018 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00019 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00020 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00021 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00022 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00023 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00024 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 24-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00025 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00026 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00027 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00028 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00029 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 12-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered 300 BKP-00030 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00031 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 30-JULY-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00032 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 30-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00033 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 30-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00034 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 12-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00035 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 12-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00036 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 31-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00037 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 31-JULY-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00038 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 31-JULY-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00039 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00040 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00041 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00042 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00043 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00044 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00045 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 301 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered BKP-00046 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00047 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 16-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00048 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 31-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00049 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00050 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00051 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00052 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00053 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00054 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/20/2015 BKP-00055 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00056 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00057 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00058 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 1 10-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00059 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 16-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00060 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 1 17-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00061 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 302 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered BKP-00062 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 11-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00063 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 26-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00064 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 11-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00065 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00066 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00067 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00068 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00069 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00070 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00071 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00072 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00073 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00074 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 2 24-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00075 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00076 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 11-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00077 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 303 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered BKP-00078 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00079 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 27-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00080 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 11-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00081 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00082 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 30-JUL-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00083 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 12-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J.; RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00084 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00085 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00086 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00087 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 28-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00088 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00089 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 1-AUG-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00090 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 26-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00091 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 15-JULY-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00092 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 24-JUN-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00093 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 18-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 304 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered BKP-00094 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 3 15-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J., RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00095 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 28-JUNE-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/21/2015 BKP-00096 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00097 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 17-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/20/2015 BKP-00098 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00099 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00100 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00101 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00102 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00103 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00104 B-17 SR-3 B17-2 2 5-JUL-2013 HOGGARTH, J. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 BKP-00105 B-1 SR-3 B1-100 3 01-AUG-2013 ZWEIG, C. RETURNED TO J. HOGGARTH 7/22/2015 CHP-00597 B4 N/A 8 4 22-JUL-2006 AWE, J. AWE'S HOUSE 7/9/2015 CHP-00598 B4 N/A 8 4 22-JUL-2006 AWE, J. AWE'S HOUSE 7/9/2015 CHP-00626 B1 N/A B1- 8 24-JUN-2014 SANTASILIA, C. CHP BODEGA- #7 7/9/2015 CHP-00627 B1 N/A B1- 8 23-JUN-2014 SANTASILIA, C. CHP BODEGA- #7 7/9/2015 305 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00639 B3 SR-3 1 4 12-JUL-2012 "BIG JIM" CHP BODEGA #7 7/13/2015 CHP-00640 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00641 PLAZA B N/A 1X-7 5 15-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00642 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 20-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00643 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 20-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00644 PLAZA B N/A 1R-1 1 11-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00645 PLAZA B N/A 1I-5 5 14-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00646 PLAZA B N/A LI-5 5 17-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00647 PLAZA B N/A 4A-13 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00648 PLAZA B N/A 1X-7 5 14-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00649 PLAZA B N/A 4A-1 1 20-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00650 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00651 PLAZA B N/A 2A-6 6 08-AUG-2005 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00652 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 25-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00653 PLAZA B N/A 1U-8 7 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00654 PLAZA B N/A 5A-4 4 20-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 306 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00655 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 11-AUG-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00656 PLAZA B N/A 1V-7 8 18-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00657 PLAZA B N/A 1D-29 5 04-AUG-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00658 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00659 PLAZA B N/A 1Q-5 6 24-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00660 PLAZA B N/A 1D-30 5 26-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00661 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 20-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/17/2015 CHP-00662 PLAZA B N/A 1H-9 5 14-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00663 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 2-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00664 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00665 PLAZA B N/A 1S-5 6 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00666 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 20-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00667 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 13-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00668 PLAZA B N/A 5A-3 3 18-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00669 PLAZA B N/A 4A-5 4 24-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00670 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 307 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00671 PLAZA B N/A 1H-9 5 14-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00672 PLAZA B N/A 1U-5 6 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00673 PLAZA B N/A 1U-8 7 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00674 PLAZA B N/A 3B-4 8 01-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00675 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 17-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00676 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 19- JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00677 PLAZA B N/A 5A-3 3 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00678 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00679 PLAZA B N/A 1P-9 7 26-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00680 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 25-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00681 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 25-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00682 PLAZA B N/A 6B-3 2 3-AUG-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00683 PLAZA B N/A 1Q-11 5 19-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00684 PLAZA B N/A 1P-9 7 25-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00685 PLAZA B N/A 3A-16 9 7-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00686 PLAZA B N/A 3A-16 9 7-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 308 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00687 PLAZA B N/A 3A-11 9 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00688 PLAZA B N/A 1H-12 5 04-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00689 PLAZA B N/A 1P-8 6 25-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00690 PLAZA B N/A 1V-6 7 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00691 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00692 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00693 PLAZA B N/A 1H-12 5 4-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/18/2015 CHP-00694 PLAZA B N/A 1H-12 5 04-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00695 PLAZA B N/A 1X-5 4 14-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00696 PLAZA B N/A 4A-9 6 02-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00697 PLAZA B N/A 1H-12 5 4-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00698 PLAZA B N/A 4A-7 5 25-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00699 PLAZA B N/A 5A-4 4 10-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00700 PLAZA B N/A 3D-9 7 03-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00701 PLAZA B N/A 3A-12 10 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00702 PLAZA B N/A 1A-11 5 19-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 309 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00703 PLAZA B N/A 1S-5 6 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00704 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 16-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00705 PLAZA B N/A 1S-5 6 13-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00706 PLAZA B N/A 6A-1 2 31-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00707 PLAZA B N/A 6E-3 3 31-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00708 PLAZA B N/A 3B-3 7 26-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00709 PLAZA B N/A 5A-3 3 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00710 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 11-AUG-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00711 PLAZA B N/A 3A-12 10 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00712 PLAZA B N/A 1Q-5 6 24-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00713 PLAZA B N/A 3C-13 9 03-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00714 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00715 PLAZA B N/A 3A-15 9 06-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00716 PLAZA B N/A 6C-2 N/A 22-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00717 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00718 PLAZA B N/A 5A-4 4 12-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 310 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00719 PLAZA B N/A 1R-7 6 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00720 PLAZA B N/A 1E-31 1 29-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00721 PLAZA B N/A 3A-10 9 01-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00722 PLAZA B N/A 1I-5 5 17-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00723 PLAZA B N/A 4A-13 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00724 PLAZA B N/A 1A-16 5 20-JUL-2004 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00725 PLAZA B N/A 5A-3 3 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00726 PLAZA B N/A 7H-6 9C 03-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00727 PLAZA B N/A 3C-13 9 03-AUG-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00728 PLAZA B N/A 7K-2 4 30-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00729 PLAZA B N/A 7D-7 5 17-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00730 PLAZA B N/A 7E-9 7 20-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #8 7/20/2015 CHP-00731 PLAZA B N/A 3C-12 9 03-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00732 PLAZA B N/A 3D-6 5 28-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00733 PLAZA G N/A PU-2 6 28-JUL-2008 PUC, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00734 PLAZA B N/A 5A-4 4 19-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 311 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00735 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00736 PLAZA B N/A 5A-6 6 30-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00737 PLAZA B N/A 7M-2 7-9 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00738 PLAZA B N/A 4A-12 7 03-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00739 PLAZA B N/A 3D-10 7 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00740 PLAZA B N/A 3D-10 7 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00741 PLAZA B N/A 1X-10 7 16-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00742 PLAZA B N/A 3A-11 11 06-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00743 PLAZA B N/A 3D-4 4 28-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00744 F2 N/A 21 13 26-JUL-2002? AUDET, C. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00745 F2 N/A 21 13 26-JUL-2002? AUDET, C. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00746 PLAZA B N/A 3D-7 6 29-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00747 PLAZA B N/A 3C-15 11 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00748 B4 N/A 6D-7 6 01-AUG-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00749 PLAZA B N/A 7K-2 4 03-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00750 PLAZA B N/A 3C-15 11 05-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 312 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00751 PLAZA B N/A 1X-6 4 14-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00752 PLAZA B N/A 3D-11 8 06-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00753 PLAZ B N/A 2A-6 6 08-AUG-2005 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00754 H1 N/A 3 1 20-JUN-2015 SCHWANKE, CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00755 PLAZA B N/A 7K-2 4 29-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00756 PLAZA B N/A 7E-1 1 15-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00757 PLAZA B N/A 4A-9 6 02-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00758 PLAZA B N/A 3D-8 6 29-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00759 PLAZA B N/A 5A-5 5 24-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00760 B4 N/A 6C-1 N/A 23-JUL-2008 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00761 PLAZA B N/A 3A-3 7 25-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00762 PLAZA B N/A 1G-1 1 14-JUL-2005 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00763 PLAZA B N/A 3C-9 7 29-JULY-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00764 PLAZA B N/A 1E-60 6 26-JULY-2005 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00765 PLAZA B N/A 3C-14 10 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00766 PLAZA B N/A 3C-14 10 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 313 CATALOG #STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00767 PLAZA C N/A PU-6 2 01-JUL-2008 LEE, D. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00768 B4 N/A N/A 9 0/0/0000 AWE, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00769 PLAZA B N/A 3C-10 8 03-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00770 PLAZA B N/A 3C-15 11 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00771 PLAZA B N/A 3C-15 11 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #9 7/20/2015 CHP-00772 PLAZA B N/A 3C-8 6 28-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00773 PLAZA B N/A 3C-8 6 25-JUL-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00774 PLAZA B N/A PU-12 1 04-JUL-2008 LEE, D. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00775 PLAZA B N/A PU-12 1 04-JUL-2008 LEE, D. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00776 PLAZA B N/A 4A-9 6 02-AUG-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00777 PLAZA B N/A 3C-14 10 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #5 7/20/2015 CHP-00778 PLAZA B N/A 3D-9 7 04-AUG-2009 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00779 PLAZA B N/A 3A-8 7 25-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00780 PLAZA B N/A 3A-8 7 24-JUL-2006 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00781 B4 N/A 10 9 10-MAY-2012 AWE, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00782 B4 N/A 10 9 10-MAY-2006 AWE, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 314 CATALOG # STR/AREA OP EU LVL DATE SUPERVISOR Location Stored Entered CHP-00783 PLAZA B N/A 1S-5 6 13-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00784 PLAZA B N/A 1S-5 6 14-JUL-2007 GARBER, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/20/2015 CHP-00785 PLAZA G N/A PU-2 N/A 23-JUL-2008 JIM CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00786 B3 N/A N/A SURFACE 01-JUN-2012 AWE, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00787 B2 CHP-3 B8 1 13-JUL-2011 PENICHE, N. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00788 PLAZA C N/A PU-6 4 07-JUL-2008 LEE, D. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00789 B1 N/A B1-5 WEST 4 08-JUL-2013 SANTASILIA, C. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00790 PLAZA F N/A 5 5 13-JUN-2008 N/A AVAILABLE CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00791 PLAZA F N/A PU-5 1 10-JUL-2008 LEE, D. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00792 PLAZA G N/A PU-2 6 28-JUL-2008 PUC, J. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00793 B4 N/A 8 10 11-JUN-2012 N/A AVAILABLE CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00794 B4 N/A 8 10 11-JUN-2012 N/A AVAILABLE CHP BODEGA- #10 7/21/2015 CHP-00795 G1 2 G1-2 1 20-JUL-2015 ZOM, A. CHP BODEGA- #10 7/22/2015 315 REFERENCES CITED Awe, Jaime Jose 1992 Dawn in the Land Between The Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize And Its Implications For Preclassic Development in the Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation. University of London: Institute of Archaeology. Brumfiel, Elizabeth 1996 Figurines and the Aztec State: Testing the Effectiveness of Ideological Domination. In Gender and Archaeology. Rita Wright, ed. Pp. 143-161. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cheetham, David 1992 Cahal Pech: Structure B-4 Excavations: 1988-1991. Belmopan: Belize Institute of Archaeology. Iannone, Gyles 1995 From Collection to Comparison at Zubin: Toward the Identification of an Ancient Maya Middle Stratum. In Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project Progress Report on the 1994 Field Season, Volume 1. Gyles Iannone and James M. Conlon, eds. London: Institute of Archaeology. Lee, D. and J.J. Awe 1995 Middle Formative Architecture, Burials, and Craft Specialization: Report on the 1994 Investigations at the Cas Pek Group, Cahal Pech, Belize. In BVPMP Report on the 1994 Field Season, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 10. Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe, eds. Pp. 95-115. Peterborough: Trent University. Levy, Janet E. 1999 Gender, power, and heterarchy in middle-level societies. In Manifesting Power: Gender and the interpretation of power in archaeology. Tracy L. Sweely, ed. Pp. 62-78. Marcus, Joyce 1998 Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum. Marcus, Joyce 2009 Rethinking Figurines. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small Scale Indices of Large Scale Social Phenomena. Christina Halperin, Katherine Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, eds. Pp. 2-12. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 316 Powis, T.G. and B.M. Hohmann 1995 From Private household to Public Ceremony: Middle Formative Occupation at the Tolok Group, Cahal Pech, Belize. In BVPMP Report on the 1994 Field Season, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 10. Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe, eds. Pp. 45-94. Peterborough: Trent University. 317

Log In

The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season

The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Report of the 2015 Field Season

Free Related PDFs

FREE RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS