A GIS-BASED SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF VISIBILITY AND MOVEMENT USING THE ANCIENT MAYA CENTER OF , .

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

© Copyright by Jack Barry 2014

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program January 2015 ABSTRACT

A GIS-BASED SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF VISIBILITY AND MOVEMENT USING THE ANCIENT MAYA CENTER OF MINANHA, BELIZE.

Jack Barry

It has long been hypothesized the location of the ancient Maya center of Minanha was a strategic one based on its ability to control the flow of communication and key resources between major geopolitical zones. Situated in the Vaca Plateau, at the nexus of the Valley, the Petén District of , and the ,

Minanha became a Late Classic polity capital that was tapped into a regional economy as well as long-distance trade networks. In this thesis I present a GIS-based spatial analysis that includes viewshed and cost surface analysis (CSA) to model visibility and movement within the north Vaca Plateau and neighboring regions to address specific questions concerning Minanha’s strategic value. The results indicate that Minanha occupied a visually prominent location in proximity to major corridors of movement that suggest it was strategically, and in fact ideally located, as a polity capital with the ability to monitor the movement of people and resources.

Keywords: Ancient Maya, , GIS, Viewshed, Cost Surface Analysis, Vaca

Plateau, Minanha, Belize.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Let me first start by saying that this brief “Acknowledgements” section will not, and cannot, fully convey the appreciation I have for everyone who has helped, influenced, supported, or in any other way interacted with me during the course of this research project. Such a project is a very large undertaking and without the guidance, mentorship, friendship, and support from the people and organizations mentioned below, it simply would not have come together for me in the end as it has.

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Gyles Iannone, for providing me this opportunity to learn from him and work with his incredible project. I truly consider

Gyles to be one of the best in the business and my experiences both in the field and on the academic side have been invaluable. I will talk hockey and have a drink with you anytime, Gyles!

Second, I need to thank the rag-tag family that is SARP. In 2011 I was a bit intimidated as an outsider from another project to be making the transition to SARP, but everyone has been nothing short of amazing. I have developed friendships with too many individuals to name them all here, but you know who you are. This goes for people not only in Canada and the U.S., but our Belizean SARP family too. A special thanks is in order for Kong Cheong and Lazaro Martinez for being my research partners during the

2012 field reconnaissance. Hey, we survived didn’t we?

Third, I want to thank the Trent University Archaeological Research Centre

(TUARC) for the financial support to facilitate this research. I am also grateful to the many Trent and TUARC professors that have acted as mentors and teachers along the way. A special thanks also goes to Dr. James Conolly for answering a bazillion emails

iii and helping the spatial analysis come to life. Finally, Kendall Hills and Dan Savage have been fantastic over the past couple months in the lab helping this thesis come together, so thank you!

Fourth, I would be remiss not to thank the Institute of Archaeology of Belize, especially Dr. Jaime Awe and Dr. John Morris, for allowing us all to come down to their beautiful country and carry out our investigations. I also worked under Dr. Awe’s BVAR project for my first two years of archaeology and he, and the rest of the BVAR staff, certainly helped cultivate my love for Belize and its cultural heritage.

Finally I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support over the many years of my academic career. I have lived away from home for so long but their encouragement and support have allowed me to pursue my goals without feeling any pressure to be different in any way. This has allowed me to make the transition from mediocre high school student, to college hockey player, to graduate student/archaeologist on my own terms, which nobody, including myself, could have predicted. I feel truly blessed to have had such an amazing cast of characters surrounding me that not only includes my family, but also the many friends I have made along the way. Thanks to all of you!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS...... v LIST OF FIGURES...... vii LIST OF TABLES...... ix CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION...... 1 Geographic and Cultural Setting...... 7 Mesoamerica...... 7 Maya Subarea...... 8 Culture History...... 11 Palaeoindian (before 12,000 – 6000 B.C.) ...... 11 Archaic (6000 – 1200 B.C.) ...... 12 Early Preclassic (1200 – 900 B.C.) ...... 13 Middle Preclassic (900 – 400 B.C.) ...... 14 Late Preclassic (400 B.C. – A.D. 250) ...... 15 Early Classic (A.D. 250 – 550) ...... 17 Middle Classic (A.D. 550 – 675) ...... 19 Late Classic (A.D. 675 – 810) ...... 20 Terminal Classic (A.D. 810 – 900) ...... 21 Early Postclassic (A.D. 900 – 1200) ...... 22 Late Postclassic (A.D. 1200 – 1525) ...... 23 Summary...... 24 Thesis Organization...... 24 CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT MAYA SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION...... 26 Changing Perspectives on Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns...... 26 Summary...... 37 Ancient Maya Sociopolitical Organization...... 38 Decentralized, or Segmentary State...... 39 Centralized State...... 41 Towards A Dynamic Model...... 43 Hierarchy and Heterarchy...... 46 Summary...... 48 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...... 50 GIS, Visibility, and Movement Studies...... 50 Visibility Studies in Archaeology...... 53 Movement Studies in Archaeology...... 56 Summary...... 61 Data and Methods...... 62 Viewshed Analysis...... 63 Reconnaissance...... 67 Cost Surface Analysis (CSA)...... 68 Modified FETE Analysis...... 72 Summary...... 77

v

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS...... 78 Field Reconnaissance...... 78 Oxmuul...... 80 Kolchikiin...... 85 Ixkuk...... 88 Results of the Viewshed Analysis...... 92 Results of the Cost Surface Analysis...... 102 Summary...... 110 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS...... 113 The Rise and Fall of the Minanha Royal Court: A Multiscalar Perspective...... 113 Minanha: A Local Perspective...... 113 A Perspective from the Hinterlands...... 116 Regional and Interregional Perspective...... 122 Summary...... 127 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION...... 129 Addressing the Research Questions...... 130 Closing Remarks...... 135 REFERENCES CITED...... 137 APPENDIX I: VIEWSHED MAPS...... 174 APPENDIX II: CERAMIC ANALYSIS AND NORTH VACA SETTLEMENT GROUP DATA...... 191 APPENDIX III: LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE THESIS...... 196

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Map of the Maya Subarea...... 4

Figure 1.2. Map of the northeastern Guatemala and western Belize border showing the Petén, Vaca Plateau, and Belize River Valley ecozones, as well as Minanha’s projected area of effective control...... 5

Figure 1.3. Map of the Minanha Epicenter...... 6

Figure 3.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) showing the approximate extent of the north Vaca Plateau (red polygon) with selected centers shown for reference...... 52

Figure 3.2 Map showing a single viewshed from Structure 38J in the Minanha Epicenter (see Figure 1.3). Triangle symbols are used to distinguish minor centers from major centers...... 55

Figure 3.3. Map showing an example of least cost paths from Minanha to and ...... 60

Figure 3.4. Map of the north Vaca Plateau showing approximate areas of the four main accessways to and from Minanha (red polygons), as well as the prominent north-south ridgeline (blue polygon)...... 65

Figure 3.5. Connectivity options for point-to-point travel. From left to right: (a) one- to-one, (b) one-to-many, (c) many-to-one, (d) many-to-many (modified from White and Barber 2012:2685)...... 69

Figure 3.6a. Output path network modified from White and Barber’s (2012:2688) FETE model...... 71

Figure 3.6b. Thresholded version of the FETE output. The highest traffic areas are in red...... 71

Figure 3.7. Map showing the north Vaca Plateau with the Minanha (7 km) territory...... 73

Figure 3.8. Map showing the Minaha territory within the expanded interregional (14 km) sampling area...... 74

Figure 4.1. Map showing the locations of target points and minor centers...... 79

vii

Figure 4.2. Post-reconnaissance map showing all new settlement groups, aguadas, springs, caves and terraces...... 81

Figure 4.3. Map of the minor center Oxmuul...... 83

Figure 4.4. Viewshed map for Oxmuul...... 84

Figure 4.5. Photo of KoA: bedrock has been modified to resemble a temple- pyramid...... 86

Figure 4.6. Viewshed map for Kolchikiin...... 87

Figure 4.7. Possible stela monument found in association with Group IkA eastern shrine...... 89

Figure 4.8. Viewshed map for Ixkuk...... 91

Figure 4.9. Viewshed map for Minanha with a territory overlay...... 95

Figure 4.10. Viewshed maps for Mile 4, Martinez, and Camp 6...... 96

Figure 4.11. All centers within the estimated visibility range of Minanha...... 97

Figure 4.12. Output of the modified FETE model within the Minanha territory (7 km scale) ...... 104

Figure 4.13. Thresholded version of the modified FETE model at 7 km scale...... 105

Figure 4.14. Output of the modified FETE model on larger, interregional scale (14 km) ...... 106

Figure 4.15. Thresholded version of the modified FETE model at 14 km scale...... 107

Figure 5.1. Cruciform orientation of Minanha, Waybil, Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk...... 120

Figure 5.2. Map of Ixchel...... 125

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Settlement Typology (redrawn from Iannone 2006:2; Ashmore et al. 1994)...85

Table 4.2. Settlement Typology for Kolchikiin...... 88

Table 4.3. Settlement Typology for Ixkuk...... 90

Table 4.4a. Visibility Index chart for all centers (part 1 of 2)...... 99

Table 4.4b. Visibility Index chart for all centers (part 2 of 2)...... 99

Table 4.5 Visibility Index chart for centers in the Minanha territory...... 100

Table 4.6. Intervisibility Index chart for all visible centers...... 100

Table 4.7. Intervisibility Index chart for all centers in the Minanha territory...... 101

Table 4.8. Number of cells representing each path type that pass through all centers on the 7 km scale...... 108

Table 4.9. Number of cells representing each path type that pass through all centers on the 14 km scale...... 108

Table 4.10. Chi-square statistical test data for 7 km sampling region...... 109

Table 4.11. Chi-square statistical test data for 14 km sampling region...... 110

ix

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Archaeological investigations in the Vaca Plateau began over 80 years ago when the first expeditions set off into the jungle to explore the ruins at Minanha (Gann 1928;

Joyce et al. 1928), Camp 6, and Mountain Cow (Thompson 1931). By all accounts, working in this region proved to be quite difficult given the rugged terrain and lack of surface water for drinking. After the logging industry backed out of the region, taking with them their railroad engines that had transported archaeologists and supplies, investigations virtually ceased until the 1980s. This means the Vaca Plateau is still relatively unexplored and has the impression of a cultural backwater in relation to neighbouring regions. In contrast, from a geographic standpoint, the Vaca Plateau is adjacent to the Belize River Valley and Petén District of Guatemala, two of the most intensively studied regions in all of the Maya Lowlands. The importance of this geographic location was not lost on J. Eric Thompson (1931:229), who suggested that

“communications with the north were probably maintained through the city situated at

Camp 6, Minanha, and Benque Viejo [].” It is understanding the particular location of the ancient -state of Minanha that will be the primary focus of this thesis.

When the Social Archaeology Research Program (SARP), under the direction of

Dr. Gyles Iannone, returned to Minanha in 1998-1999 for the 70th anniversary of the

British Museum’s inaugural expedition, the importance of its location was again attributed in part to its geographic position. Members of the Minanha Regional Survey sub-project expanded upon Thompson’s initial observations and concluded that, “Situated 2 at the crest of two valleys, Minanha overlooks the transportation route from atop one of the highest points in the entire survey region…Using this route, more than 13 kilometers of exceptionally rough karstic topography could have been tread in a relatively short amount of time with minimum energy expenditure” (Connell and Neff 1999:100).

As SARP continued their investigations at Minanha, Connell and Neff’s (1999) observation that two valley passes provided access to the site was ultimately revised to four major accessways (Iannone 2005:29). Iannone (2005:29) further adds:

The center was strategically located not just in terms of the ability to monitor movement of people into and out of the plateau, by way of the aforementioned valleys, but also in terms of its location at the nexus of three different ecozones: the Belize River Valley to the north, the granite-bearing zone of the Mountain Pine Ridge to the east, and the resource rich Petén District of Guatemala to the west.

During the Classic period (A.D. 250-900), these three zones (Figure 1.1 and 1.2) were also recognized as distinct geopolitical regions whose major political centers undoubtedly facilitated and influenced the production and flow of resources into and out of their respective territories. The major centers of and Naranjo were dominant in the Petén, whereas Caracol exerted wide control over much of the Vaca Plateau,

Mountain Pine Ridge, and Maya Mountains (Chase 2004; Martin and Grube 2000). The

Belize Valley, on the other hand, was home to a series of medium-sized political centers that vied for power and control of a riverine trade route throughout the Classic period, but these never eclipsed the size and power of Tikal, Naranjo, or Caracol (Garber 2004).

Minanha itself emerged as a medium-sized city-state during the 8th century A.D., when a fully functional royal court was established through an intensive, century-long building program that resulted in the construction of a 9.5 ha court complex (Iannone

2005:29; Figure 1.3). Research conducted by SARP has suggested that its developmental 3 sequence is intimately related to its geographic location in the context of dynamic local and regional politics (Iannone 2005, 2010). Situated roughly 25 km equidistant from the antagonistic polity capitals of Caracol and Naranjo, Minanha emerged in an area of great economic, strategic, military, and political importance. However, after thriving for roughly a century, Minanha experienced a dramatic turn of events that culminated in the wilful burial of the royal-residential acropolis in nearly 5 m of rubble, followed by the gradual abandonment of the community in its entirety (Iannone 2005).

Given the proposed importance of Minanha’s spatial position on the in relation to hypothesized communication and trade routes, and the ability to visually monitor its own territory, there has been little effort to model visibility and movement across the north Vaca Plateau and explore the associated settlement patterns. Therefore, the subject of this thesis is a GIS-based spatial analysis that will address the hypothesis that Minanha was strategically located by integrating viewshed analysis and cost surface analysis (CSA) to answer the following research questions:

1) Can viewshed models aid in predicting the location of additional settlements in

the Minanha hinterlands?

2) By modeling a network of pathways within the Vaca Plateau and extending into

neighboring regions, can major corridors of movement be detected and how do

these articulate with known settlement patterns?

3) Is Minanha preferentially located in relation to other centers according to the

viewshed and CSA models?

4) Would a system of visual communication be possible between Minanha and other

nearby centers? 4

5) What do these models suggest about the overall strategic value of Minanha’s

location and broader settlement patterns within the Vaca Plateau?

Figure 1.1. Map of the Maya Subarea.

5

Figure 1.2. Map of the northeastern Guatemala and western Belize border showing the Petén, Vaca Plateau, and Belize River Valley ecozones, as well as Minanha’s projected area of effective control. 6

Figure 1.3. Map of the Minanha Epicenter.

7

GEOGRAPHIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

Mesoamerica

The ancient Maya once inhabited a region that includes parts of modern-day

Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, , and (Figure 1.1). Originally coined by Paul Kirchhoff (1943), the term “Mesoamerica” broadly refers to the geographic area between northern and northern Costa Rica—or “middle” America—after the

Greek word meso. Kirchhoff (1943:4) noted that the pre-Conquest peoples of this region shared unique cultural and material traits that distinguished them from their neighbours to the north and south, thereby permitting a formal distinction based on a generalized suite of characteristics. Specifically, these include related linguistic families; the cultivation of corn, beans, squash, and chiles; the construction of stepped pyramids and stucco floors; the presence of ballcourts where a ritual game played with a rubber ball was performed; ritual extraction of blood via auto-sacrifice; hieroglyphic writing and folded, screen-style bark paper books; and a detailed astronomical calendar with short-count and long-count temporal cycles (Kirchhoff 1952:24). While several of these traits are found outside of

Mesoamerica it is hypothesized that they had been developed internally and spread through cultural diffusion, and therefore represent inherently Mesoamerican traditions.

While not all the specific traits named by Kirchhoff are agreed upon, the definition of this region still represents a useful generic framework for studying pre-Columbian cultures.

The Maya subarea of Mesoamerica is generally defined as the unbroken area encompassing Belize, Guatemala, the Yucatan Peninsula, portions of the Mexican states of Tabasco and Chiapas, and the western extremities of Honduras and El Salvador (Coe

2005:11). Again, this subarea is defined by the ubiquity of certain cultural and material 8 traits that imply some level of cultural continuity that spans from approximately 1500

B.C. to the present. Most scholars view linguistic families, art styles and motifs, ceramic production, and agricultural practices as the most viable markers of long term Maya ethnicity.

Maya Subarea

The Maya subarea is generally divided into two major regions with distinct geological histories, , and vegetation patterns—the Highlands and the

Lowlands. Millions of years ago, much of Mesoamerica was submerged in a shallow sea environment, much like the of today. During the Cretaceous period, sediments and organic materials collected, compacted, and hardened to form a vast limestone shelf that now underlies much of the Lowlands. The limestone bedrock transitions to the rugged, mountainous Highland region of central and southern

Guatemala and Mexico, providing a natural boundary between these two ecozones.

The Highlands are formed by tectonic activity deep beneath the surface of the earth, which fuels an active volcanic range where mountain peaks can reach elevations of over 3900 m (ca.13,000 ft). Processes of deposition and erosion have carved deep valleys and narrow ravines with relatively fertile soils for cultivation (Coe 2005:15). Climate patterns in the Highlands are highly variable depending on elevation, soil type, and other local factors. In general, temperatures are mild (15-20° C) at lower elevations, but are considerably colder in the high mountains. Annual rainfall averages increase from south to north, with lows below 1000 mm and highs pushing 3000 mm (Sharer and Traxler

2006:34). The region’s natural mixed-evergreen-and-deciduous forest has been severely impacted by humans clearing vast swaths for agriculture and development, but oak and 9 pine stands can be found at higher elevations. A number of important natural resources and raw materials are found exclusively in the Highlands, including obsidian, andesite, jade, and the colourful feathers of the quetzal bird (Sharer and Traxler 2006:34-41). In antiquity these items were considered exotic trade goods and were moved over great distances, and in great quantities, to the people of the Lowlands. Important Maya centers in the Highlands include Classic period , , , and modern day Guatemala City.

The Maya Lowlands are typically subdivided into southern and northern portions, which are defined primarily by the variability in elevation, topography, access to groundwater resources, and vegetation (Demarest 2004:121-130). The southern Lowlands are made up of a diverse array of environments including rugged karstic uplands, alluvial river valleys and floodplains, seasonal bajos (swampy wetlands), and low-lying coastal plains. In sharp contrast, the granitic Maya Mountains provide the most dramatic relief in the southern Lowlands, where elevations reach over 1000 m above sea level. This is a significant feature in the landscape because the only known sources of raw basalt, granite, hematite, pyrite, slate, and other materials in the Lowlands are found in and around these mountains (Sharer and Traxler 2006:46).

One of the other major distinguishing features of the southern Lowlands is the relative abundance of both seasonally and perennially available surface water in the form of large lakes and rivers. Major rivers such as the Pasión, Usumacinta, San Pedro Martir,

Rio Dulce, Candelaria, Mamantel, Rio Hondo, New River, and Belize River have their headwaters in either the Maya Mountains or the neighbouring Highlands to the south, and high rainfall values (2000-3000 mm annually) cause the rivers and bajos to swell after 10 storms (Demarest 2004:126). For much of the southern Lowlands this equates to seasonal flooding, which has allowed relatively deep and fertile soils to accumulate along river valleys and in low-lying bajos. These rivers and their tributaries also act as veritable highways that would have permitted canoes to easily transport goods and people across the landscape in the past.

The northern Lowlands, on the other hand, are characterized as having very thin soils and a marked decrease in readily available surface water. While the southern

Lowlands are dotted with lakes, rivers, and streams in some areas, these features become noticeably absent north of Guatemala’s Petén District. The underlying limestone shelf that extends throughout the rest of the Yucatan Peninsula provides very little topographic relief, with the exception of the Puuc Hills region (Dunning 1992). As a result, any surface water quickly permeates the soft limestone bedrock and enters underground systems of waterways that are largely invisible to the naked eye. The notable exception to this rule is in places where weakened bedrock has collapsed downward to form sinkholes, or cenotes, which permits access to the water table. In the northern Lowlands, cenotes became very symbolic, ritually charged loci for religious activities during the Classic and

Postclassic periods (Coe 2005:17). Climate is noticeably drier here than in the southern

Lowlands, where the annual mean rainfall is generally less than 2000 mm, and can be as little as 500 mm in northern Yucatan. Vegetation is also far more sparse with low-scrub and savannah environments dominating the landscape, although tropical rainforests are still found in southern areas (Sharer and Traxler 2006:49).

11

CULTURE HISTORY

Palaeoindian (before 12,000 – 6000 B.C.)

The earliest inhabitants of Mesoamerica were migratory bands of hunter-gatherers that collected wild plants and hunted small game, in addition to seasonal herd animals and a variety of the now-extinct megafauna species (Lohse et al. 2006:210). The precise timing of the arrival of these people is not well understood, but it is ultimately tied into two competing theories about the populating of North America in general: an overland migration route via the Bering Strait (Dillehay and Meltzer 1991; Fagan 1987), or a marine-based coastal migration route via the “kelp highway” (Erlandson et al. 2007;

Erlandson 2009).

The most clear evidence we have for Paleoindian people in Mesoamerica are distinctive varieties of fluted stone points that are analogous to those found throughout

North and South America, which date to about 11,000 B.C.. Recovery of specimens in

Mesoamerica has been rather limited to open-air surface contexts and sandy ridges with mixed stratigraphies, which has not been conducive for securing radiocarbon dates to establish strong chronological markers (Lohse et al. 2006:212; Sanchez 2001; Zeitlin and

Zeitlin 2000). More promisingly, however, discoveries of fluted points and faunal remains of extinct species from cave deposits may provide better materials for secure radiocarbon dating in the future (see Griffith and Morehart 2001; Griffith et al. 2002).

Culturally speaking, the data from the Paleoindian period are too limited to suggest any direct affiliations with later cultural groups known from Mesoamerica, and the lack of human skeletal remains has not permitted sufficient DNA testing to confirm the presumed genetic affiliations to later . 12

Archaic (6000 – 1200 B.C.)

Researchers generally recognize that the Archaic period is marked by an increase in the number and distribution of sites across the landscape, particularly in the form of temporary settlements focused in part on key resources including, swamp (bajo) and lagoon margins, coastal areas, river valleys, and uplands near outcrops of high-quality raw stone materials for toolmaking (Lohse et al. 2006:216). Mobile bands of egalitarian hunter-gatherers became semi-sedentary and moved according to seasonal resources

(Hammond 1982:355; MacNeish and Nelken-Turner 1983:77; Voorhies 1996:17). As a result, communities formed around cooperative subsistence strategies that Lohse

(2010:314) refers to as “forager-horticulturalist subsistence”, which set the stage for early agriculture (MacNeish and Nelken-Turner 1983:81). Mary Pohl and colleagues

(1996:363) have demonstrated that by about 2000 B.C. an increase in the distribution of maize, combined with rising levels of deforestation, indicates an emphasis on swidden agriculture and sedentism in the Maya subarea. Creamer and Haas (1985:739) suggest that agricultural production was conducted at the household level with an emphasis on kinship ties, but that a formerly egalitarian way of life had given way to loose hierarchical leadership based on proficient skills in other forms of resource acquisition

(i.e., hunting, trapping, fishing, etc.) and ancestral ties for legitimization.

While these important developments in subsistence and social practices are viewed as precursors to those of the Preclassic and Classic periods, whether Archaic populations can be classified as ethnically Maya or not is still up for debate (see Lohse

2010). 13

Early Preclassic (1200 – 900 B.C.)

The period from 1100 to 900 B.C. has been identified across Mesoamerica as a time when “pan-Mesoamerican” traits and motifs began to appear, signalling unprecedented social and political changes (Clark and Pye 2000; Powis 2005). Along the

Gulf Coast of Mexico the earliest complex chiefdoms and state-level societies in

Mesoamerica emerged at the Olmec centers of San Lorenzo and La Venta, where hereditary rulers presided over hierarchically organized administrative centers with civic- ceremonial architecture and expertly crafted, symbolically rich artwork (Flannery et al.

2005:11219). There is also evidence of long distance trade networks extending into the

Maya subarea during this period in the form of abundant Guatemalan-sourced jade and obsidian artifacts found at most Olmec centers (Coe 2005:56). The Maya-Olmec connection is perhaps strongest in the similarities in Highland art style (sometimes referred to as “proto-Maya”) at centers like Kaminaljuyu (Coe 1968; Quirarte 1977), and in material linkages—for instance caches of “Olmec-oid” jade celts from Ceibal (Willey

1978:96-97). In any case, many aspects of Olmec culture are widely recognized as the progenitors of Classic .

Sometime during this same period, from 1100-900 B.C., the earliest villages in the Maya subarea begin to appear with low, clay and cobble platforms, and the introduction of the first ceramics (Lohse 2010:318). Along with linguistic evidence, these material markers often signal the beginning of the true Maya civilization, although Lohse

(2010) among others (e.g., Iceland 2005) have argued for ethnic Maya precursors dating back into the Archaic. 14

Early villages likely represent dispersed populations or loose chiefdoms with social and political organization based on kinship and ancestral ties.

These communities presumably began to cooperate with neighbours in trade networks to acquire long distance items, which would help to solidify their places in the landscape.

As yet there is no substantive evidence of public architecture or social stratification in this period, and the transition into the Middle Preclassic remains poorly understood.

Environmental conditions and resource distribution were likely major deciding factors for the Maya villagers, and Early Preclassic settlements, which were ephemeral in nature and likely persisted into the Middle Preclassic as they were subsumed by later architecture.

Middle Preclassic (900 – 400 B.C.)

Starting in the Middle Preclassic, our knowledge about the ancient Maya begins to increase exponentially thanks to a relative abundance of archaeological materials.

During this period, the Maya built the first monumental architecture, including large plazas and pyramidal platforms that imply the large-scale mobilization of labour. Of all the known sites with Middle Preclassic architecture, Nakbé in northern Petén boasts the largest public structures, while other sites including , Tikal, , San

Bartolo, and Cival in the Petén; Colha in northern Belize; and in the Belize

Valley have evidence of public constructions, including “E-Groups” (Awe et al. 1990;

Cheetham 2005; Doyle 2012; Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1992; Saturno et al. 2006).

These particular architectural arrangements have most often been associated with the facilitation of observing solar movements that mark important agricultural cycles, and often contain the earliest cultural materials at their respective sites (Aimers 1993; Aimers and Rice 2006; Aveni et al. 2003; Clark and Hansen 2001). 15

Recently, James Doyle (2012) has argued that Middle Preclassic E-Group distributions provide clues to the earliest community organization in the Lowlands based on their placement in specific locations on the landscape. By modeling visibility from the summits of E-Groups, Doyle (2012:370) suggests that “one could perceive the limits of one’s community in relation to neighboring settlements.” The sociopolitical implications of these structures suggest that the presence of an E-Group “speaks to its centrality to the daily lives of settlers, [and] perhaps even a widespread belief that these spaces garnered a sense of belonging to a group identity” (Doyle 2012:369).

Prior to the construction of E-Groups in the late Middle Preclassic, Richard

Hansen (1992:193) has argued that long distance trade provided the necessary foundations for increasing sociopolitical complexity. Long distance trade systems that involved the importation, exportation, and distribution of exotic items including jade, marine shells, and obsidian gave increasing wealth and status to the administrative personnel, who in turn sought to justify the growing disparity in economic and social status through large architectural constructions. These constructions were presumably not limited to E-Groups and temple pyramids in the Middle Preclassic, but evidence for administrative features such as causeways and water collection systems at this time are lacking.

Late Preclassic (400 B.C. – A.D. 250)

The Late Preclassic is characterized by a widespread florescence of many of the social, political, and economic institutions that had developed during the Middle

Preclassic, as well as a dramatic population increase and an explosion in the number and size of centers across the Lowlands (Culbert and Rice 1990; Hammond 1986; Rice, P. 16

1978). The presence of vast communication and trade networks is implied by the homogeneity of high-quality Chicanel ceramics across the Maya Lowlands (Scarborough and Valdez 2003:7). Perhaps the most prescient development was “the institutionalization of ideology over a wide geographical area by an emerging elite” (Hansen 1992:196). This is represented most clearly in public architecture and art styles, household religious constructions, cache offerings and exotic ritual and burial paraphernalia, and the widespread occurrence of principal deities (Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1992, 1998;

Powis 2005). A religious institution that was expressed in all aspects of daily life allowed the ruling elite to maximize their control over resources while providing an inherent stability for the followers.

While Nakbé had been the preeminent Middle Preclassic center, El Mirador became the dominant political center of the Late Preclassic with massive temple pyramids that were never eclipsed in size by Classic period constructions (Clark and

Hansen 2001; Hansen 1991). Besides El Mirador, many other Late Preclassic sites built large temples and E-Groups, but also centrally-located elite residential courtyards, ballcourts, causeways, and large stone monuments—all of which become hallmarks of the Classic period (Awe and Healy 1994; Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1998; Healy 1992;

Iannone 2008b; McAnany 2010:33; Pendergast 1992; Schele and Friedel 1990).

In addition to the archaeological evidence noted above that suggests hierarchically ranked social and economic divisions, there is also the earliest known hieroglyphic writing that provides some clues about sociopolitical organization. A painted stucco block from contains an ajaw glyph and suggests that a central figure was commissioning major architectural projects and finely painted murals (Garrison and 17

Dunning 2009; Saturno et al. 2006:1282). Evidence of agricultural practices during the

Late Preclassic indicate an increase of more intensive strategies related to water management, including the modification of bajos (swampy seasonal wetlands) and aguadas (artificial reservoirs), and the construction of chultunob (underground cisterns)

(Dunning et al. 2002; Hansen 1998; Pohl and Bloom 1996; Puleston 1978; Wiseman

1978:112). The earliest documented construction of agricultural terraces also dates to this period as the Maya began seeking ways to combat soil erosion and the sedimentation of bajos and aguadas (Dunning and Beach 2000; Hansen et al. 2002; Healy 1986:13; Healy et al. 1983:408; Scarborough 1993).

Although the Maya were able to mitigate some of the soil loss due to deforestation, it appears that there was a major political upheaval sometime between 100 and 250 A.D., which is sometimes referred to as the Terminal Preclassic period. Hansen and colleages (2002) have argued that the infilling of bajos surrounding major Late

Preclassic centers such as El Mirador decreased their agricultural potential to the point that they were no longer viable to support large populations. Other nearby centers such as

Tikal actually flourished after the collapse of the , and it subsequently became one of the largest Classic period political centers in the Maya Lowlands while El

Mirador and other lay totally abandoned.

Early Classic (A.D. 250-550)

The transition from the Late/Terminal Preclassic to the Early Classic is muddled by regional differences as well as the fact that many of the traits of Classic period Maya civilization actually developed earlier, as noted above. Traditionally, the Classic period is distinguished from the Preclassic on the basis of cultural and artistic florescence, with the 18 widespread occurrence of carved stone stelae monuments bearing long-count calendar dates and hieroglyphic inscriptions attesting to kingly accessions, acts of warfare, marriages, births and deaths, and events of ritual significance (Coe 1992; Martin and

Grube 2000). Lowland centers such as Tikal, , Copán, Caracol, and Rio Azul all have well documented Early Classic components, and further indicate that warfare became a full-fledged sociopolitical and socioeconomic strategy (Adams 1990; Chase and Chase 1987; Folan et al. 1995; Sharer et al. 1999; Willey 1985).

One of the more enigmatic storylines of the Early Classic is the entrada of

Teotihuacano warriors into the Lowlands led by a character known as Siyaj K’ak’ (‘Fire

Born’) in A.D. 378 (Martin and Grube 2000:29). There has been much debate and speculation about the nature of these events, but it is clear that a new regime of individuals with ties to central Mexico successfully infiltrated the royal Maya dynasties at

Tikal and Uaxactun, and it likely had a hand in the founding of the Copán dynasty, among others (Braswell 2003; Martin and Grube 2000). The effects of this transition were felt throughout the Lowlands, and evidence of Teotihuacano motifs and other

“Mexicanized” imagery appear in the architecture and artwork at a large number of centers (Braswell 2003). During this period Tikal became the largest and most dominant political center in the Lowlands through an aggressive regional expansion driven by the elites, which included a mix of militarism, commercialism, and kinship ties (Demarest

2004:106; Martin and Grube 2000). Such unprecedented expansion has led some researchers to refer to Early Classic Tikal as a hegemonic city-state, or “superstate”

(Martin and Grube 1995, 2000). 19

Middle Classic (A.D. 550-675)

The Middle Classic period is principally defined by a 125-year hiatus (A.D. 557 –

682) of carved or dated monuments being erected at Tikal. Epigraphic decipherments have provided much insight into this period that was once thought to be a “little collapse”

(Martin and Grube 2000:40; Proskouriakoff 1950; Willey 1974), and have since revealed that in fact this was a very dynamic period of time that saw Calakmul, a rival city-state, begin their own hegemonic expansion that would eventually eclipse Tikal following a series of violent conflicts. Evidence for this comes from Altar 21 from Caracol, which describes a “star war” event in A.D. 562 that was carried out against Tikal by an alliance likely led by Calakmul (Martin and Grube 2000:89-90). Having won decisive victories over Tikal, Calakmul aggressively attacked or appropriated centers that had previously been allied with Tikal. These shifting alliances reinforced networks of marriage, trade, and war that now linked centers across the Southern Lowlands under the auspices of

Calakmul.

During the Early Classic, Caracol had been an ally of Tikal, but in an opportunistic and perhaps strategic move, the rulers shifted their allegiance to the lords of

Calakmul sometime after A.D. 556 (Martin and Grube 2000:88-95). After Tikal had been significantly weakened, the general decentralization of regional power structures allowed the Middle Classic rulers of Caracol to elevate their status from a minor capital to a veritable metropolis with a complex system of raised causeways connecting the city’s central core to administrative subcenters (Chase and Chase 2001; Martin and Grube

2000:92).

20

Late Classic (A.D. 675-810)

The Late Classic is perhaps the most intensively studied period of ancient Maya prehistory and is widely recognized as the apogee of this civilization in terms of population growth, construction activity, and artistic achievement. Settlement pattern studies indicate that population densities in urban centers as well as rural areas reach their peak at this time, while public buildings were repeatedly renovated and built up. A fluorescence of Maya art is reflected in regional styles of architecture, carved stelae monuments and altars, and polychrome painted pottery vessels.

While military campaigns and warfare were not new developments of the Late

Classic, there is ample evidence that suggests violence intensified significantly across the

Lowlands during this period (Demarest 2004:110; Demarest et al. 2004; Martin and

Grube 2000). Much of our knowledge about shifting alliances and military campaigns comes from the epigraphic record, but there is also a growing body of archaeological data that demonstrate many Lowland centers took advantage of naturally defensible locations, and in some cases even constructed walls and other defensive features (Demarest 2006;

Demarest et al. 1997; Inomata 2008).

Retribution in the form of a decisive victory for Naranjo over Caracol in A.D. 680 marks a period of political decline at Caracol for roughly 118 years (Martin and Grube

2000:95). Naranjo, on the other hand, sought to reestablish itself as a regional power by making war on nearby centers along its frontiers from A.D. 693 to 710, including Tikal,

Yaxha, , and Bítal (Martin and Grube 2000:76). However, Naranjo’s resurgence was short-lived and its rulers appear to have produced only one carved monument between A.D. 726-780 (Martin and Grube 2000:78-79). 21

The political instability exhibited at Caracol and Naranjo is indicative of regional balkanization that was prevalent across the Lowlands during the Late Classic. As David

Stuart (1993:324, 332, 336, 348) has suggested, the eighth century was a period of decentralization in which the changing political climate led to an expansion in the powers of subordinate lords. Of consequence to this thesis is the fact that during this period of regional instability, a fully functional royal court emerges at Minanha, indicating it became an autonomous, or semi-autonomous city-state at this time (Iannone 2005, 2010).

Terminal Classic (A.D. 810-900)

The political instability during the Late Classic precipitated the infamous

“collapse” of the Maya civilization that extended into the Terminal Classic. The nature of this collapse has been questioned, with many researchers arguing for a reorganization of sociopolitical and socioeconomic structures as opposed to a full-blown collapse

(Demarest et al. 2004; Iannone 2014). Environmental conditions and climate change including drought, deforestation, soil erosion, and heavy stress on natural resources have been described as primary factors leading to the collapse (Diamond 2005; Gill 2000;

Hodell et al. 1995; Hodell et al. 2001). A more likely scenario is that ecological conditions degraded over multiple generations and gradually influenced socio-political structural changes, which is more representative of long-term social processes and cultural cycling (Holling and Gunderson 2002; Iannone 2002a; Marcus 1993).

During the Terminal Classic the institution of divine kingship becomes highly unstable across the southern Lowlands, and evidence confirms that most royal dynasties ceased to erect monuments, construct elaborate buildings, and participate in exchange networks that supplied the high-status exotic materials of the political economy 22

(Demarest et al. 2004). There are some exceptions to this trend, where elite activity continued and even prospered, such as Ceibal, , Caracol,

Xunantunich, Ucanal, and others in the northern Lowlands such as , but in the end even these centers succumbed to the destabilization of political and economic structures and were ultimately abandoned (Demarest et al. 2004:545-572).

Early Postclassic (A.D. 900-1200)

The heart of the Maya political landscape during the Postclassic shifted from the central Petén into the Northern Lowlands, with the largest center emerging at Chichén

Itzá. Throughout the north new styles of art, architecture, and political authority were quite different from the Classic period, which is perhaps suggestive of more distant trade connections with other Mesoamerican societies (Schele and Mathews 1998:253-255).

The intensity and distance of these trade networks emphasize the extent of interregional contacts at this time (McKillop 1996; Robles and Andrews 1986:74). Settlement patterns in the Early Postclassic also indicate that permanent sources of water including rivers, lakes, lagoons, and cenotes were the focus of nearly every successful community (D.

Rice 1996:203; Rice and Rice 1985:166).

While many of the centers in the southern Lowlands were in general disrepair at this time, some larger sites in Belize including , Santa Rita Corozal, and were quite prosperous (Aimers 2007b; Chase and Rice 1985; Graham 2001; Pendergast

1986; Willey 1986), although the majority of activity was concentrated in northern

Yucatán and the Puuc region. A new form of political order was based not on divine kingship, but rather on power-sharing arrangements involving councils of lineage heads

(popol na), local leaders, and rulers alike. This system, known as multepal in the Late 23

Postclassic, may have its origins in the Early Postclassic (Marcus 1993:117). Under this system, Yucatán became a single kingdom under Chichén Itzá—a feat that had never been accomplished by the Maya during the Classic period.

Late Postclassic (A.D. 1200-1525)

The Late Postclassic period is characterized as a shift in power from Chichén Itzá to the walled city of in northern Yucatán. Mayapan is known for the multepal government based on power-sharing amongst lineage heads. However, this proved to be a tenuous form of government, which is reflected by the almost constant squabbling and fighting between the primary families (Marcus 1993:117). Although Yucatán was considered a single “kingdom” or “nation”, the differences between competing lineages proved to be too much, and Mayapan collapsed and Yucatán subsequently broke apart into sixteen provinces (Marcus 1993:117). Importantly, ethnohistoric accounts of this collapse were recorded by the Spanish, which provide modern researchers with a comprehensive vocabulary of emic terminology for territories, polities, cities, rulers, and more that were used by the Maya themselves (Marcus 1983, 1993).

It appears that during the Late Postclassic a splinter group from the north, perhaps following the collapse of Chichén Itzá, migrated south and settled around Lake Petén Itzá near the heart of the Classic period Maya civilization (Marcus 1993:121). Given their remote location in the southern Lowlands, the Itza Maya survived much longer into the

Colonial period (post-A.D. 1524) than the centers to the north, but ultimately this final independent Maya kingdom fell to the Spanish in 1697 after a battle on the modern island of Flores, known to the Itza Maya as Tayasal (Marcus 1993:121-125). 24

SUMMARY

This chapter begins with a brief introduction to the thesis by laying out some of the specific gaps in our data from Minanha that I wish to help fill. I also provide a list of my research questions that will serve as an underlying guide for this thesis from beginning to end. Following this brief introduction I have also presented selected relevant background information about the Mesoamerica and Maya subarea, including a basic description of regional geographies, as well as an overview of culture history and general chronology that are in no way meant to be exhaustive. There are many introductory volumes dedicated to this matter that the reader is referred to for more comprehensive reviews (see Coe 2005; Demarest 2004; Martin and Grube 2000; McKillop 2004; Sharer

2006).

Thesis Organization

The remainder of the thesis is organized into five additional chapters. Chapter 2 includes a discussion and literature review of settlement pattern studies in the Maya

Lowlands over the past 60-plus years. Because many aspects of this thesis are directly related to settlement pattern studies, it is important to review the key methodological and theoretical developments that have changed the way settlement patterns are studied archaeologically. This chapter also reviews the debate between the decentralized and centralized state organizational models that have too often been dichotomized as an either/or problem. A third, “dynamic” model is presented that incorporates aspects of both models and offers a more useful interpretive framework.

Chapter 3 presents the research design and methodology for the actual collection of data for the thesis, which was done in two parts: (1) ground-based field 25 reconnaissance; (2) GIS-based spatial analysis that emphasizes viewshed and cost surface analysis (CSA) to model visibility and movement across the north Vaca Plateau. The methodology I have used in my CSA represents a new approach that has been adapted and modified from similar studies that are also designed to model path networks. I stress that this is not an attempt to model literal pathways across the landscape, but rather a probabilistic representation of low-to-high-frequency corridors of movement in a complex network of pathways.

Chapter 4 is a presentation of the results of the viewshed and cost surface analyses. Appropriate spatial statistics are discussed and presented in table format.

Chapter 5 is a discussion of the results presented in Chapter 4. In order to fully understand the strategic value of Minanha’s spatial location it is necessary to discuss it in the context of the broader sociopolitical climate of the Late Classic period. In particular,

Minanha’s developmental sequence correlates inversely with those of Caracol and

Naranjo. These were much larger, antagonistic centers involved in violent conflicts over time, and Minanha’s royal court emerges at a time when both Caracol and Naranjo were severely weakened. This has great implications for why Minanha emerged when and where it did.

Chapter 6 is a conclusion to the thesis that summarizes my findings. I return to my original research questions and assess how well these were addressed and answered.

26

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT MAYA SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION

CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON ANCIENT MAYA SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Settlement pattern studies in archaeology began in earnest in the 1950s following

Gordon Willey’s (1953, 1956a, 1956b; Willey et al. 1965) pioneering work in the Viru

Valley of Peru, and later at Barton Ramie, Belize. Prior to the 1950s, the majority of archaeological investigations in the Maya Lowlands had focused on the exploration and mapping of ruins, the documentation of carved stone monuments, and the excavation of large temple-pyramids and elite residential compounds with associated tombs. This archaeological bias toward the elite segment of meant that little was known about the Maya commoners, and the archaeological materials and patterns they might be distinguished by.

Notable early exceptions to this trend were studies that focused in part on the small mounds that were believed to be the residential units of the Maya commoners

(Gann 1928; Gordon 1896; Hewett 1912; Thompson 1886, 1892; Tozzer 1913;

Wauchope 1934, 1938). These studies were followed by the first formal survey and excavation reports in the Maya Lowlands by J. Eric S. Thompson (1931) and Oliver and

Edith Ricketson (1937), with the latter being described as “the first ‘full dress’ Maya lowland settlement pattern study” (Ashmore and Willey 1981:9).

While many important discoveries had been made prior to the 1950s, and knowledge about the ancient Maya was growing, archaeology—and more generally—outside of the Maya subarea had begun a major theoretical overhaul. Data of the limited historical-descriptive sort being generated by was increasingly 27 viewed as stagnant and self-serving research, and it became clear that, as Ashmore and

Willey (1981:10) point out, “what was needed was a greater concern with people, society, and behavior—with contextual relationships, function, and process.”

This was not necessarily a rational insight that Mayanists developed independently. Clyde Kluckhohn (1940) and his student Walter Taylor (1948) levelled punitive criticisms against major institutions and their associated research projects, concluding that “the road to Hell and the field of Maya archaeology are paved with good intentions” (Taylor 1948:58). Central to these arguments was the stark absence of theoretical orientation and the limited nature of the classificatory-historical focus of

Maya studies. Furthermore, as most studies had concentrated on the recovery of carved monuments and other high-status materials, Taylor (1948:59) readily pointed out that

“They [had] hardly touched, and then only incidentally, on the cultural remains of the common Maya.” This concern echoed wider criticism of general archaeological theory that had largely heretofore been resolved in the classification of cultural provinces and their material attributes (Holmes 1914; McKern 1939).

Julian Steward (1937), a cultural anthropologist, was among the first to emphasize cultural ecology theory, which hypothesized that if the environment of a particular area was responsible for shaping subsistence economies and social organization, that this would be reflected in settlement patterns within that area. His case study from the

American Great Basin region demonstrated that this approach was viable not only at an ethnographic level, but was particularly applicable to archaeological data on settlement as well. Steward later persuaded his graduate student Gordon Willey to apply a similar approach to an understudied archaeological setting in the Viru Valley of Peru (Willey 28

1953). There, Willey developed a methodology that emphasized extensive field surveys and excavations for the purpose of gaining a more holistic understanding of the ancient culture from the ground up. This settlement pattern approach was well received by colleagues working around the globe, who quickly adopted similar strategies for interpreting data from China (Chang 1963), Mesopotamia (Adams 1965), and Egypt

(Butzer 1976).

Upon completion of his Peruvian research, Willey was appointed to the position of Harvard University’s Bowditch Professor of Mexican and Central American

Archaeology. After two expeditions to Panama, Willey was content on continuing his settlement studies in Costa Rica, but at the behest of his predecessor, Alfred Tozzer,

Willey was encouraged to “stop fooling around down in ‘no man’s land’ and work in the

‘Maya Area’” (Willey 2004:15).

The decision to move his operation would prove to be especially important not only for the development of settlement pattern studies in general, but also for the understanding of ancient Maya households. Horizontal as well as vertical test excavations on the mounds at Barton Ramie produced several key insights about the form and function of these structures. Willey demonstrated that successive building phases and reflooring episodes represented long-term occupational sequences dating from the Middle

Preclassic through the Early Postclassic (Gifford 1976:288; Willey et al. 1965). Artifacts associated with domestic and agricultural activities confirmed that these were the residences of the common Maya, or “peasantry”, as he preferred it (Willey 1956b).

Excavations also revealed burials and caches beneath plaster floors and in construction fill that were associated with exotic materials, which suggested a greater 29 degree of complexity within the non-elite segment of the Barton Ramie Maya (Willey et al. 1965). Willey contemplated what this complexity meant for interpreting site and regional organization, but he did not provide any firm conclusions on the matter. Rather, he believed that Barton Ramie likely represented a small rural village within what he had previously described as “a large but well-integrated network of theocratic stations and substations” that included “ceremonial sites of middling size…[and] one impressive ceremonial center at Xunantunich” (Willey 1956b:778).

The enduring legacy of this study is in the methodological advances it provided for Maya archaeology. By placing a heavy emphasis on detailed excavations and extensive field surveys followed by detailed artifact analyses (e.g., Gifford 1976), the study was multidisciplinary and regional in scope. Willey (2004:16) later stated that this research was designed to integrate the full range of settlement, including “total archaeological site layouts, not only temples, palaces, and public buildings, but residences, their natures, numbers, and distributions.” He further noted that, “In such patterning and their changes through time we inevitably [would find] clues to the ecological adaptations and to the social and political formations of ancient societies”

(Willey 2004:16).

Following the field research at Barton Ramie, Willey’s own graduate student,

William Bullard (1960), published a paper that outlined the first systematic settlement hierarchy for the Maya Lowlands. This three-tiered hierarchy from the bottom up contains clusters of small “house ruins” that are either isolated or nucleated around a

“minor ceremonial center”, which in turn may be one of several minor centers clustered around a “major ceremonial center” of significantly greater size and elaboration (Bullard 30

1960:355-360). This classification, as Willey (1981:402) points out, “suggests that the settlement macropattern model could also be read as a table of political organization.”

Shortly after Bullard’s article was published two critical developments occurred that shed important light on the nature of Maya social and political organization. Tatiana

Proskouriakoff’s (1960) decipherment of glyphs representing actual birth, accession, and death dates for dynastic rulers, and Robert Carr and James Hazard’s (1961) map of greater Tikal, both demonstrated that the complexity of the Classic period Maya had previously been underestimated. Although Heinrich Berlin (1958) had proposed

“Emblem Glyphs” that named specific centers, and Yuri Knorosov (1952, 1958) had made valuable epigraphic contributions that aided in Proskouriakoff’s (1960) decipherments, it was Proskouriakoff’s reading of the Piedras Negras dynastic sequence that definitively demonstrated that carved monuments held actual records of historical figures and events (Martin and Grube 2000:6). Meanwhile, the Carr and Hazard (1961)

Tikal map revealed a density of structures that was believed to be more consistent of a true urban center with highly complex social and political organization (Haviland 1970).

Now faced with more questions than answers, more projects began to adopt approaches following the “new archaeology” movement that employed multidisciplinary and problem-oriented research agendas to address questions of social and political organization through settlement patterns (Binford 1962, 1965, 1968a, 1968b; Willey and

Phillips 1958). The Tikal Sustaining Area Project (Coe, W. 1962, 1965) included extensive excavations of residential compounds (Haviland 1963, 1965), peripheral survey of Tikal (Puleston 1973, 1983), systematic intersite survey between Tikal and Uaxactun

(Puleston 1974), a major test pitting program that accompanied Puleston’s survey (Fry 31

1969), and investigations of the minor center, Navajuelal (Green 1970). Another project, organized by Tulane University’s Middle American Research Institute, demonstrated that the dense settlement and urbanism found at Tikal was also present at in the northern Lowlands (Andrews IV 1965; Kurjack 1974).

Other projects that soon adopted major settlement components were initiated at

Altar de Sacrificios (Willey 1973), Ceibal (Tourtellot 1970, 1982, 1988; Willey et al.

1975), Copán (Willey and Leventhal 1979; Willey et al. 1978), Mayapan (Pollock et al.

1962), and in Quintana Roo (Sanders 1960). As settlement data accumulated, it consistently revealed that dense populations and highly complex social organization in line with Bullard’s (1960) model were the norm across the Lowlands. Gordon Willey, on the other hand, was not yet convinced of a multiple-class hierarchy, and instead remained in favour of a two-tiered model of social organization where the elites were supported by a large peasantry (Willey 1956b). Willey continued settlement-oriented projects in the

Pasión region (Willey and Smith 1969), where he advocated for a regional approach, rather than site-centered investigations like those at Tikal and Dzibilchaltun. In general, there was a growing appreciating for the diversity in regional environments, resource acquisition, trade, population size, and organizational strategies that began to challenge previous models of ancient Maya social, political, and economic systems.

In 1981, after roughly 20 years of Maya settlement studies, a volume edited by

Wendy Ashmore (1981) was published, which was intended to serve as an up to date

“general stocktaking of the subject” (Ashmore and Willey 1981:3). Lowland Maya

Settlement Patterns (Ashmore 1981) presented macroregional syntheses of previous settlement studies, and it also sought to standardize terminology to facilitate regional 32 comparisons. The volume also covered various methods for identifying settlement hierarchies, including volumetric assessments and rank-ordering strategies (Turner et al.

1981) by way of counting the number of courtyards (e.g., Adams and Jones 1981; Adams and Smith 1981) and mapping the distribution of vaulted architecture at sites (e.g.,

Kurjack 1976). Many researchers at this time were also concerned with the patterns and distribution of sites of various sizes across the landscape, and a number of methods were applied in order to understand the structure and organization of the site hierarchies.

Central place theory, in tandem with Theissen polygons, was used to parcel out territories and draw borders between political centers (Flannery 1972; Hammond 1972; Marcus

1973). Concentric circles (Arnold and Ford 1980), hexagonal lattices (Folan 1979; Folan et al. 1995), and more recently, fractal geometry (Brown and Witschey 2003) have also been used to model the distribution of sites across the landscape.

Finally, Ashmore’s (1981) settlement volume also presented three distinct models of sociopolitical organization based on the aforementioned data from settlement pattern studies (Adams and Smith 1981; Freidel 1981; Sanders 1981). Each of these models are based on either analogy or ethnographic comparison to other cultures, such as medieval feudal societies in Adams and Smith’s model (1981), sub-Saharan African societies in

Sanders’ (1981) model, and a myriad of cultures in Freidel’s (1981) “pilgrimage-fair” model. While none of these models are fully considered as accurate representations of the ancient Maya state, they represent early attempts to understand the nature of ancient

Maya sociopolitical organization, which will be discussed in greater detail below.

It was also in the 1980s that the postprocessual critique entered into archaeological thought, which emphasizes an approach to the archaeological record that 33 takes into consideration all aspects of a culture in order to understand each part of it (e.g.,

Hodder 1982, 1985, 1986). Again it was Gordon Willey (1980) who was at the forefront of the field when he called for a more holistic approach to Maya studies by integrating different data sets from subsistence practices, written records, settlement patterns, sociopolitical organization, and ideology. What developed was similar to Taylor’s (1948) original “conjunctive approach”, but as Fash and Sharer (1991) suggest, the influence of both the “new archaeology” and postprocessualism had allowed for greater power to explain cultural processes and change.

Archaeological projects at Copán (Fash 1983, 1988, 1998; Fash and Sharer 1991) were among the earliest that were explicitly designed to be more holistic by integrating multiple data sets, different theoretical perspectives, and by incorporating specialists in iconography and epigraphy in order to make quick interpretations about findings in the field. The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project was another multidisciplinary project that included subprojects on ecology, settlement patterns, subsistence, exchange systems, epigraphy, abandonment, intersite interaction, caves, and cosmology (Demarest

1997). The enduring hallmark of these projects is the standard they set by demonstrating the ability to incorporate a broad range of variables and data sets into flexible, dynamic interpretations of the archaeological record.

This transition toward more holistic, conjunctive projects would continue, with settlement pattern studies providing much of the methodological foundation. Another branch of settlement studies that opened up significantly around this time was related to rural complexity, or middle-level settlements, which Bullard (1960) had previous referred to as minor centers. For much of the 20th century a distinctly urban/rural dichotomy had 34 dominated Maya archaeology, where settlement studies typically implied a focus on the rural, domestic households. The need to bridge this critical gap became apparent when archaeologists began investigating smaller centers across the Lowlands. For example, excavations at Colha, in northern Belize (Hester and Shafer 1984; King and Potter 1994), had demonstrated that this was a nearly industrial-scale lithic tool production center during the Classic period even though it lacked the sprawling palace complexes and massive temples seen at much larger centers. To Potter and King (1995:29) this suggested that "many of the behaviors associated with complex economic systems, such as community-based specialized craft-production and its bulk exchange, occurred not at the large centers but at smaller centers or villages located at or near critical resource locations." Such economic implications were just the tip of the iceberg, however.

An edited volume by Gyles Iannone and Samuel Connell (2003) represents the first publication of its kind to focus exclusively on the archaeology of middle-level settlements, or minor centers. The contributions in this volume highlight the diversity and variability found between the urban and rural extremes of the ancient Maya settlement continuum, while also demonstrating that these middle-level settlements were important not just economically, but socially and politically as well. Perhaps above all, the concept of minor centers as functionally redundant major centers “writ small” is quite clearly refuted, which has helped expose the need to expand settlement research to include rural complexity studies. To quote Iannone (2003:26), “Until such a time as we develop more comprehensive knowledge of rural complexity, our characterizations of ancient Maya society will remain incomplete, and biased by a rather outdated urban/rural dichotomy.”

In the decade since this volume was published, investigations of minor centers and 35 middle-level settlements have certainly increased, particularly in western Belize, with many of them adopting an archaeology of communities approach (Yaeger and Canuto

2000; Yaeger 2000). However, many research projects in Guatemala and Mexico are still primarily concerned with large center investigations and the decipherment of Maya writing (see Golden et al. 2005; and Houston et al. 2006 for a notable exceptions).

While rural complexity studies have proved to be key components to understanding ancient Maya social, political, and economic organization, there have been other methodological and technological advances that have also significantly changed the way settlement data are collected and interpreted. After the initial decipherment of Maya writing, the next major technological breakthroughs for settlement studies were related to advances in aerial photography and remote sensing technologies. Aerial photography had long been used by Maya scholars to locate settlement (Deuel 1969:187-213; Ricketson and Kidder 1930), as well as agricultural features (Dahlin and Siemens 1984; Harrison

1977; Puleston 1977; Siemens and Puleston 1972), but the quality of this technique was rather limited for locating features under the dense jungle canopy covering much of the southern Lowlands (Puleston 1973:68-70).

The development of radar technology through NASA for military reconnaissance purposes presented a more powerful tool for archaeologists once the imagery and technologies became available to the public (Sever 1990:58). R. E. W. Adams and colleagues (1981) were the first to conduct aerial survey using radar technology in the

Maya Lowlands, and although the agricultural canals they reported were ultimately refuted (Pope and Dahlin 1989), this study was a watershed moment for radar-enhanced archaeological survey (Sever 1990:59). 36

Another major methodological advancement for archaeology came in the late

1980s when geographic information systems (GIS) began to appear in archaeological reports. However, Mayanists were rather slow to adopt these tools. The first GIS-based study in the Maya subarea is credited to Francisco Estrada-Belli (1998), who’s dissertation research on settlement patterns along the Pacific Coast of Guatemala was followed shortly thereafter by Armando Anaya Hernandez’ (1999) research in the upper

Usumacinta River drainage. Today, virtually every archaeological project maintains some sort of GIS database whether it is actually used to study settlement patterns or not. A more comprehensive review of the application of GIS to settlement studies, including some of the more explicit methodologies and tools that various software packages offer, will be reviewed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Remote sensing started to advance considerably during the late 1990s and early

2000s and began to revolutionize the ways archaeologists could visualize and manipulate the landscape. Early on, radars mounted on the LANDSAT satellite, and known as

Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM), provided the vast majority of remotely sensed data for Maya archaeologists who continued to search for settlement and linear features such as canals, ditched fields, and causeways (Sever and

Irwin 2003). In 2002, archaeologists began using a new generation of very-high- resolution (VHR) multispectral satellite imagery including IKONOS and Quickbird, which provide up to 15 m spatial resolution (Garrison et al. 2008; Saturno et al. 2007;

Sever and Irwin 2003).

At the forefront of current remote sensing technology is LiDAR imagery, which has been used sparingly in the Maya Lowlands. LiDAR, which stands for “light detecting 37 and ranging”, is fundamentally changing the nature of archaeological settlement research by collecting sub-1 m resolution data over large areas of terrain in just a few hours of flight time, whereas traditional survey and reconnaissance methods would hypothetically take years (Chase et al. 2012). Specialty multispectral lasers are mounted on simple aircraft that fly at low elevations (ca. 1000 feet) while millions of laser beam pulses reflect off of everything on the landscape, including archaeological features, vegetation, and topography. The return pulses are collected as “point cloud data” in 3D (x, y, z) measurements, which allows the archaeologists, after appropriate software rendering, to visualize the landscape in much the same way it is experienced on the ground (Chase et al. 2012:12916).

The overwhelming success of LiDAR not only in the Maya area suggests that this technology represents a fundamental scientific revolution for the future of settlement pattern studies (Chase et al. 2012:12916). The major drawback to this type of research at present is the high cost. However, as with previous remote sensing technologies, the cost over time will eventually become low enough that most archaeological projects will have access to some form of LiDAR imagery (Chase et al. 2011).

Summary

The methodological advances in settlement pattern studies and the way in which they are interpreted have changed quite dramatically over the past 60-plus years.

Settlement pattern studies are very broad and encompass a multidisciplinary suite of tools and interpretive frameworks. These are essential aspects to every archaeological project regardless of their goals and overarching theoretical perspectives. However, settlement studies are not seen as an end to themselves, but rather as a part of a collective, holistic, 38 and conjunctive approach to the archaeological record. As Gordon Willey (1956a:1) aptly points out, settlement pattern studies should not constitute a separate kind of archaeology, but rather that “an awareness of settlement data simply extends the net of archaeological interest to take in a larger and legitimate part of the record.”

ANCIENT MAYA SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION

Inherent within settlement studies is the desire to understand the nature of ancient

Maya social, political, and economic systems. At the heart of this issue is the argument over what forms of political, economic, and territorial organization the Maya employed that allowed for the development of relative cultural homogeneity over a vast area, while also retaining local diversity (Marcus 1993:111). Historically, two competing models have dominated this debate: a decentralized, or segmentary state model; and a centralized state model (Chase and Chase 1996; Demarest 1996; Fox et al. 1996). More recently, however, a third, “dynamic” model (e.g., Iannone 2002; Marcus 1993) has been proposed that appears increasingly well suited to provide a stronger interpretive framework for this debate. It is important to point out here that the end goal in the study of ancient sociopolitical systems is not to discover the true form of the Maya state, but rather to assess the processes, changes, and the historical particularities that define the “instability and variability of Maya politics, the phenomenon of the collapse, and the failure of any of the Classic period’s lowland political formations to give rise to urban, nucleated, and economically powerful Postclassic states” (Demarest 1996:824). 39

Decentralized, or Segmentary State

The decentralized model has its roots in the early view of Classic Maya organization as a peaceful, theocratic society where kinship-based lineage groups were associated with religious centers that were used primarily for conducting ceremonies

(Morley and Brainerd 1956:261; Thompson 1931:334, 1954:77-81). This vacant ceremonial center model would ultimately be refuted in the mid-20th century as data on settlement density (Carr and Hazard 1961; Kurjack 1974), large population estimates

(Haviland 1970; Kurjack 1974), epigraphic information (Berlin 1958; Proskouriakoff

1960), evidence of defensive features (Puleston and Callendar 1967; Webster 1976, 1978,

1979), and intensive agriculture (Harrison and Turner 1978) began to paint a different picture of a much more complex society.

To reiterate, William Bullard (1960) initially lumped settlement pattern data from the eastern Lowlands into a model that hierarchically ordered Maya centers from the top down as “major ceremonial centers”, “minor ceremonial centers”, and hamlets. Norman

Hammond (1975) subsequently split settlement pattern data from a single region in northern Belize and proposed that sites of similar size may be functionally differentiated based on resource specialization (Shafer and Hester 1983, 1986). The key difference between these two models for decentralists is that Bullard’s three-tiered model implies a redundancy in form and function of sites that indicate a shared political system.

Following Aidan Southall’s (1956, 1966) research on Precolonial societies in

Africa and Southeast Asia, the decentralist model regards ancient Maya political organization as a segmentary state in which ritual integrated autonomous kinship groups that were bound to a dominant center (Fox et al. 1996). Local, internally ranked lineages 40 formed a hierarchical power structure that was reflected in the settlement patterns where

“linear regressions in lineage house size, increased numbers of plazas per site, and increased spatial separateness of plazas reflect successively less highly ranked segments of kindred as distance increases from the capital” (Fox et al. 1996:796).

At the top of this hierarchy during the Classic period is the polity capital, or major center, where the local ruler and his kin resided. Decentralists see smaller, replicating administrative roles at the successively less elaborate and complex minor centers that surround the capital. This low-density, dispersed organization creates a kind of

“mechanical solidarity” (Fox et al. 1996:798; Houston 1993:144; Marcus 1993:111), where redundant roles are repeated at each level in the continuum, and a redundancy in power structures from one level to the next reifies the sociopolitical organization.

Decentralists have traditionally borrowed ideas about political organization from other cultures, and have primarily used ethnographic analogy to inform their particular models. This includes the “segmentary state” model (Southall 1956), the “feudal society” model (Adams and Smith 1981), and the “galactic polity” model (Demarest 1992;

Tambiah 1977), which all been applied in various regional contexts to the Maya. What is important to note is that although these models may fit specific regional or chronological data sets, they should not be used as blanket models for the whole of Maya civilization.

For instance, the galactic polity model articulates quite well with the Late Classic socio- political dynamics in the Petexbatun region (Demarest 2014; Houston 1993:145-148), but it simply cannot account for the high degree of socioeconomic centralization exhibited by

Caracol in the Middle and Late Classic (Chase and Chase 1994, 2014).

41

Centralized State

To centralists, one fundamental difference from decentralized models is related to the ways in which the models themselves are constructed. Centralists eschew the primacy placed on ethnohistoric analogy and continuity between the Maya of all time periods, and instead prefer archaeological reconstructions tempered with historical information (Fox et al. 1996:797). Specifically, centralists argue that the temporal disjunction between the end of the Classic period and the Spanish conquest (ca. 600 years) is too wide a gap to rely heavily on ethnohistoric information from this latter period (Chase and Chase

1996:803; Fox et al. 1996:797).

While decentralists emphasize shared religion, ritual practices, and the role of kinship as driving forces for their models, centralists contend that large-scale, populous, and hierarchical organizations are more representative of the Maya state (Fox et al.

1996:797). Proponents of this model view Classic period Maya polities as large, powerful states that controlled numerous territories through bureaucratic, centralized organization of people, activities, and materials. Classic Maya centers are then viewed as urban loci for administered economies that are integrated by “organic solidarity”, or the degree to which social classes and occupational groups displayed mutual interdependence (Fox et al 1996:798).

Epigraphic and iconographic decipherments related to Classic period warfare, secondary elites, bureaucracies, and administrative matters may imply stronger interactions between polities than most decentralist models account for (Martin and

Grube 2000). Archaeological studies of land and water management have revealed raised fields, irrigation channels, and large-scale agricultural terraces (Harrison and Turner 42

1978; Puleston 1978; Scarborough 1991, 1993, 1994; Folan 1992), which, from a centralist perspective, would have been orchestrated by a managerial hierarchy to coordinate labour and facilitate trade and redistribution amongst large populations (Fox

1993b).

Returning to Hammond’s (1975) settlement hierarchy model, he made the important observation that communities of similar size may be functionally differentiated based on occupational specialization. Scarborough and Valdez (2003) have argued, based on archaeological evidence from the Three Rivers region in northwestern Belize, that

“resource-specialized communities” exploited locally available natural resources that could then be traded or exchanged in marketplaces at large administrative centers for goods or materials from other resource-specialized communities. This would not have been limited to purely hierarchical, or vertical flow of resources, but also would have permitted horizontal, or heterarchical exchange between interdependent communities.

In this scenario, different socioeconomic levels and occupational groups enacted market-related roles, which centralists have viewed as a “middle class” (Morley,

Brainerd, and Sharer 1983:226) or “bourgeoisie” (Chase and Chase 1992:11) that was formed through the facilitation of exchange between these interdependent groups (Fox et al. 1996:797). Contrary to the redundancy of roles within decentralized models, these were not strictly producers of materials or food, nor were they political or religious leaders, and therefore the state organizational structure went beyond ideology, ritual, and kinship, and implies substantial administrative and economic control with specialized roles. 43

Among the proponents of a centralized state model, Arlen and Diane Chase

(1996; Chase, Chase and Haviland 1990) have presented compelling evidence from

Caracol that suggests a highly integrated and tightly controlled political economy. There is also evidence from Tikal (Haviland 1970), Calakmul (Folan et al. 1995), (Folan et al. 1983), and Dzibilchaltun (Kurjack 1974), and others, that indicate that these centers experienced periods of centralized, bureaucratic organization, and the formation of regional states. On the other hand, as noted above, the Late Classic Petexbatun region centers never achieved a fully integrated and hierarchically ordered state, but rather display a segmented, pulsating pattern indicative of the “galactic polity” model

(Demarest 1992, 1996). This regional variability and general conflict of opinion between centralists and decentralists has highlighted the need for a more inclusive and representative model.

Towards A Dynamic Model

Much of the debate surrounding the centralized vs. decentralized state has witnessed various authors deconstructing each other’s models and presenting particular case studies that support their own interpretations (compare Chase and Chase 1996 with

Fox et al. 1996). It must be reiterated that the end goal, as Arthur Demarest (1996:824) aptly points out, is not to elucidate the one model that accounts for the whole of the ancient Maya state. At the heart of the dynamic model are two important concepts: (1) integrative cycling, or the oscillation between centralized and decentralized integration, occurred over space and time and across multiple social, political, and economic scales

(see Iannone 2002a); and, (2) while every Maya political center has its own individual and historically particular developmental sequence that is invariably linked to other 44 centers, it does not follow a prescribed sequence. To simply label Caracol a centralized state because it exhibited tight economic and political integration over parts of the Classic period glosses over the fact that it began as a Preclassic community of kin-based households that cooperated in resource production as well as religious and ritual activities. Conversely, the Late Classic Petexbatun centers of and never achieved a tightly controlled and well integrated political organization like Caracol, but this is not to say it would not have if not for widespread political failure in the southern Lowlands.

These examples serve to demonstrate Marcus’ (1993:114) point that the centralized and decentralized models are both static, in that they do not account for long- term processes and changes over time regardless of if they were constructed through ethnohistoric analogy, archaeological evidence, or some combination of the two. Rather than perpetuating the debate over these models by deconstructing their arguments,

Marcus (1993:136) suggests that “both centralizing and decentralizing principals are the periodic breakdown product of the other.” This process of integrative cycling is at the root of the dynamic model (Iannone 2002a). From this perspective, a more accurate representation of the Maya state over time implies that, “Stable but competitive provinces periodically consolidat[ed] into large regional states to reduce competition at the cost of their autonomy, and periodically [broke] down again into autonomous (but warring) provinces” (Marcus 1993:136).

The interpretive framework for some applications of the dynamic model argue that analogies to state models derived “from classical Greece, medieval Italy, or feudal

Europe are less useful than the eyewitness accounts of the Maya from the Spaniards that 45 conquered them” (Marcus 1993:114-115). To construct an emic model for the Classic

Maya state, Marcus draws upon 16th and 17th century ethnohistoric accounts that highlight dynamic changes in political organization at the time of conquest. She also draws upon pepet tsibil “maps” of territories, and terms from Colonial period dictionaries, that the Maya themselves used for their own political and territorial units.

These demonstrate that throughout the Classic and Postclassic periods the Maya state was constantly changing as polities’ political fortunes waxed and waned, and alliances and economic networks shifted.

Importantly, the dynamic model is not a formulaic application of criteria that pigeon holes the Maya state into one fixed category—rather, it highlights the necessity for diversified methodologies and theoretical orientations in order to interpret all related archaeological and epigraphic evidence for each center, and its own historically particular development over time. This makes the model particularly well suited for research that takes a multidisciplinary approach, or conjunctive methodology, to reconstruct local sociopolitical development in a “cross-cutting, self-correcting strategy” (Fash and Sharer

1991:170).

One final aspect of the dynamic model that must be addressed is scale of analysis.

Marcus (1993:170) cautions, “If we are truly interested in Maya political organization, we should not make the mistake of looking at too small a territorial unit.” Her model demonstrates that the Maya state as a whole from A.D. 300 to 1500 is represented by dynamic patterns of peaks and troughs that reflect large-scale changes in political organization (Marcus 1993:168). Recent research, however, has demonstrated that the same dynamic principals of centralization and decentralization can also occur 46 simultaneously at the middle-level of the settlement continuum (Iannone 2002a, 2003a;

Iannone and Connell 2003). In fact, if we recall the Durkheimian concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity (Iannone 2002a:69-70) we can see that there are hierarchical and heterarchical relationships associated with centralized and decentralized models that are constantly operating at different scales, and across the entire range of the sociopolitical spectrum. Therefore, an appropriate model of dynamic sociopolitical organization must be able to account for the various structural hierarchies (e.g., settlement hierarchy) as well as the heterarchical interactions or interdependencies between the social actors that populated the ancient Maya Lowlands.

HIERARCHY AND HETERARCHY

In recent years the concept of heterarchy has entered all manner of discussions and publications concerning ancient Maya social, political, and economic systems. The term itself was first used in an archaeological context by Carole Crumley (1987, 1995:3), who defined heterarchy as “the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for bring ranked in a number of different ways.” This makes it an inherently flexible concept that allows archaeologists to be

“concerned with functional complexity along both vertical and horizontal dimensions”

(Potter and King 1995:17). Demarest (2004:18) applied a similar concept, describing interregional patterns of cultural contact as “a lattice of ongoing exchanges of information, iconography, and scientific knowledge, moving in multiple directions.”

More specifically, Scarborough and Valdez (2003:xiv) have identified heterarchical relationships in Maya Lowland contexts, where they suggest "that not all information or services or material exchange travels along routinized vertical pathways between 47 members of a group…[thus] heterarchy represents a more inclusive umbrella [that] more realistically characterizes the horizontal or crosscutting associations.”

In practice, archaeologists have found heterarchy to be a particularly useful concept when attempting to move away from explicitly top-down or bottom-up perspectives. These “lateral” or “sideways” perspectives (Scarborough and Valdez

2009:210) are designed to emphasize the interdependencies and nuanced relationships between horizontally placed tiers of society. Such an approach developed out of rural complexity studies and investigations in smaller Maya centers, which had identified hierarchical and non-hierarchical forms of exchange. For example, Potter and King

(1995) compared the production and exchange of ritual and utilitarian ceramic and lithic materials from a number of centers across the Lowlands and concluded that utilitarian items were exchanged between members of a community regardless of their social standing, while luxury items moved along a separate, hierarchical elite network.

Scarborough and Valdez (2009) similarly describe heterarchical exchange occurring not only within communities, but between communities that were focused on different resources. A community specializing in agriculture may form an interdependent relationship with a community that specializes in producing stone tools for mutual benefit characterized by lateral exchange, but ultimately they are each subsumed under the hierarchical control of a major center to which goods and information pass vertically.

In more recent applications of heterarchy, Schortman and Ashmore (2012) and

Schortman and Urban (2011:219) have explored the dynamics of political and social networks as they relate to concepts of agency and hierarchy. These authors view societies as networks of people organized into “webs” or “nets”, which represent the links and 48 nodes that structure the various interactions and relationships between agents and communities (depending on scale). This is slightly more complicated than Demarest’s

(1989, 2004:18) lattice-like structure, but it fundamentally represents the same thing, which is that interdependencies exist and overlap on multiple spatial scales. What becomes quite clear is that that hierarchy and heterarchy are very closely related. In fact, if we assume there is a natural hierarchy associated with the Maya in terms of settlement

(e.g., mound, mound cluster, minor center, major center), then the crosscutting heterarchical interdependencies are necessarily part of the fabric holding this structure together. The challenge to archaeologists is then to design appropriate theoretical models to incorporate aspects of both hierarchy and heterarchy.

SUMMARY

In this chapter I have presented a summary of settlement studies in Maya archaeology that discusses the key methodological and theoretical developments over the past 60-plus years. As settlement studies have progressed, so too has the interest in understanding ancient Maya sociopolitical complexity. Two models have traditionally dominated this discussion: the centralized and decentralized state models. However, a more recent, dynamic model has shored up some of this debate to the point that very few scholars truly believe that the Maya had only one of these types of organization. The dynamic model is unique in that it is quite flexible and has the ability to simultaneously account for aspects of centralization and decentralization. Later in the thesis (Chapter 5 and 6) the impact of the processes of centralization and decentralization will become quite apparent through a discussion about the historical development of the ancient Maya city-state of Minanha. Having now provided sufficient background information about the 49

Maya subarea and settlement pattern studies in particular, I will now turn my attention to the current research that the remainder of this thesis is focused upon.

50

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this chapter I present my research design. My focus is on visibility and movement, which are believed to be two critical behaviours that would have influenced the location and development of Minanha. These are deemed important because of

Minanha’s strategic value, given its location on the landscape. Recent applications of viewshed analysis and cost surface analysis (CSA) to model visibility and movement have demonstrated that these are excellent tools, with both predictive and analytical value, for explaining the relationship between settlements and their geographic location.

Therefore, they will be central components to a GIS-based spatial analysis using Minanha and the north Vaca Plateau as a case study.

GIS, VISIBILITY, AND MOVEMENT STUDIES

According to Esri, the largest research institute and commercial software developer that specializes in GIS technologies, "a geographic information system (GIS) integrates hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information. [It] allows us to view, understand, question, interpret, and visualize data in many ways that reveal relationships, patterns, and trends, in the form of maps, globes, reports, and charts" (Environmental

Systems Research Institute [Esri] 2014). Conolly and Lake (2006:11) have identified five basic tasks that can be accomplished with a GIS: data acquisition, spatial data management, database management, data visualization, and spatial analysis. They further believe that, above all, “GIS should be considered an integrated and integrating 51 technology that provides a suite of tools that help people interact and understand spatial information [emphasis original]” (Conolly and Lake 2006:11).

In a GIS, data is usually displayed visually using raster and vector files, where rasters are grid matrices of equally sized cells or pixels, and vectors are points, lines, and polygons that represent features and areas. Generally, the first step before manipulating spatial data is to start with a digital elevation model (DEM), which is a raster grid that assigns values to each cell to create a model of the elevation and topography of the earth’s surface (Figure 3.1). All DEMs must be georeferenced in order to represent an actual land surface in the real world, and then they may be displayed using a number of user-defined map projection systems and geodetic datums. The actual information that is used to create these DEMs and other landscape features is typically derived from topographic and land use maps, ground survey crews, and satellite and other remotely sensed data. An ever-increasing number of hardware and software options exist in both open source and commercial packages to anyone who is interested in operating a GIS.

By nature, a GIS is a readily accessible tool that has some degree of “push-button functionality” (Wheatley and Gillings 2000:2) that allows users of all different backgrounds, skill sets, and specialties to perform basic and complex tasks with relative ease. This has led to a discussion of whether GIS is actually a tool or a true science.

There is ample literature that deals with these questions in more detail (see Conolly and

Lake 2006; Kvamme 1999; McCoy and Ladefoged 2009), but amongst most practitioners in archaeology there is a general consensus that GIS is a powerful tool that, when applied following explicit methodologies, can help answer archaeological questions as part of a larger scientific process. 52

Figure 3.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) showing the approximate extent of the north Vaca Plateau (red polygon) with selected centers shown for reference.

53

Central to this debate is the question of whether GIS is a theory-rich or theory- neutral tool. For instance, basic functionalist interpretations can be made based on simple analyses using stock modules for simulating behaviours like visibility and movement, but can human agency, and how an individual relates to the world, be adequately modeled or represented in these interpretations? Again, there is exhaustive literature that deals with such questions and their theoretical implications in much greater detail (e.g., Conolly and

Lake 2006; Kvamme 1999; McCoy and Ladefoged 2009), but in general, most current archaeological applications of GIS remain cognizant of these criticisms and address them accordingly.

What is clear is that archaeologists now have at their disposal a suite of powerful tools that are most often used for database management, spatial analysis, and predictive modeling. Two of the more common approaches used by archaeologists to investigate the human experience of past include visibility and movement studies, which are typically carried out through viewshed analysis and cost surface analysis (CSA), respectively.

Visibility Studies in Archaeology

Visibility studies have existed for a long time in archaeology, but it is only within the past two decades that largely informal studies have been replaced by more methodologically and theoretically robust attempts at this type of analysis. Before the advent of GIS and other digitally based analytical systems, historians and archaeologists had both knowingly and unknowingly undertaken visibility analyses. These studies ranged in formality, with the most informal being passing references about the visibility from prehistoric hillforts, Roman signal stations, and medieval castle walls (Lake and 54

Woodman 2003:690). With most interpretations being derived from pure observation and common sense, these types of visibility studies lacked explicit methodology.

Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, GIS-based visibility analyses experienced a tremendous increase in popularity in archaeology, but like their pre-GIS counterparts, the majority of the early examples were rather informal and suffered from serious methodological flaws (Lake and Woodman 2003:692). Today, most visibility studies are carried out using a wide range of explicit methodologies that are also designed to explore a number of different theoretical considerations.

In the Maya subarea, the most extensive visibility studies have been carried out in conjunction with archaeological projects at (Tourtellot et al. 2000; Tourtellot et al. 2002), (Estrada-Belli and Koch 2007; Estrada-Belli et al. 2004), Copán (Maca

2002; Richards-Rissetto 2010, 2012), the Buenavista Valley (Doyle 2012; Doyle et al.

2012), and in the western Maya Lowlands (Anaya Hernandez et al. 2003; Golden and

Davenport 2013).

The principal component of all visibility analyses is referred to as a viewshed.

Following Conolly and Lake’s (2006:226) definition, “the viewshed of a viewpoint is the set of target cells that can be seen from the viewpoint [emphasis original].” In practice, lines of sight are established from the viewpoint to all target cells, and the returned collection of the visible and non-visible cells is referred to as the viewshed. There are three main types of viewsheds that range in complexity. A single viewshed (Figure 3.2) is the simplest version and incorporates only one viewpoint from which visibility is calculated. 55

Figure 3.2 Map showing a single viewshed from Structure 38J in the Minanha Epicenter (see Figure 1.3). Triangle symbols are used to distinguish minor centers from major centers.

56

The return is usually in the form of a binary raster map of cells that are marked ‘1’ for visible and ‘0’ for non-visible. A multiple viewshed is the “logical union between two or more viewshed maps” to form a larger coverage area (Conolly and Lake 2006:227). Each visible map cell is marked with a 1, but there is no information regarding how many viewpoints it is visible from. A cumulative viewshed refers to a more complex representation of multiple viewsheds, where rather than merging two or more viewsheds, they are layered over one another and can include color schemes or patterns to display differences in visibility. In addition, each visible map cell also records the number of viewpoints from which it is visible.

Viewshed studies can suffer from a number of pragmatic issues, including the reconstruction of the palaeoenvironment/palaeovegetation, object-background clarity, movement of the observer through their environment, natural lighting effects (i.e., orientation of the sun), view reciprocity/intervisibility, and temporal considerations

(Wheatley and Gillings 2000:5-8). Other procedural issues arise from the actual application of the data to the digital modeling software, and in the built-in computational methods. These include issues in building the DEM, algorithms used to calculate viewsheds, binary nature of standard viewsheds, lack of quantitative rigour, robustness and sensitivity, and edge effects (Wheatley and Gillings 2000:10-11). Given the host of issues inherent in creating viewsheds, the archaeologist must be vigilant and tailor their methodologies to reflect these concerns.

Movement Studies in Archaeology

Much like the visibility studies described above, the genesis of movement studies in archaeology began with informal interpretations and speculative observations made by 57 historians and archaeologists about the use of trails, paths, roads, ways, tracks, and trackways by ancient peoples (Snead et al. 2009). Since then, increasingly complex and formal archaeological studies have been carried out concerning the movement of people, particularly with the aid of GIS tools. The study of all manner of usage of trails, paths, roads and so forth, can be generalized as movement studies following Snead and colleagues’ (2009:1) definition of a "landscape of movement", which refers to the study of the processes and actions of past human mobility that engage not only social, political, and economic questions, but also invoke broader considerations about "engineering, knowledge systems, aesthetics, historical memory, and cosmology." In what these authors have interpreted as a paradigm shift towards the archaeology of landscape, they argue that movement studies are best accomplished by establishing context, "with all the intricate cultural and material details that this implies," including, "a focus on pattern, scale, context, and association, incorporating the fabric of the features themselves"

(Snead et al. 2009:3).

A review of the extensive literature concerning movement studies and past human mobility in archaeological contexts reveals an extraordinary amount of diversity and variability in terms of methodologies and theoretical orientations. Roman roads in the

Old World (Davies 2002; Staccioli 2003; Vermeulen and Antrop 2001) and Inka roads in the New World (Hyslop 1984, 1991) are among the most well documented road and transportation networks in their respective regions. But this is due, in part, to the fact that they have often been historically documented and can be identified based on physical evidence (Snead et al. 2009).

In more ancient cultures, and in regions that have less physical evidence for such 58 roads, archaeologists have to be more creative in the way they study movement. With recent advances in remote sensing and satellite imagery, GIS has emerged as one of the best tools available for archaeologists to locate and model trails, paths, and roads that would otherwise be nearly impossible to identify. This is particularly so in tropical and subtropical regions where there are dense jungles and forests, and the use of ephemeral trails and paths would have been more common than more substantial roads

(Heckenberger 2005, 2008; Sheets and Sever 1991; Silverman and Isbell 2008; Snead et al. 2009:7). Furthermore, a growing number of researchers now believe that studying movement should not be limited to single roads, paths, or trails, but rather networks and corridors of movement (Bell et al. 2002; Bellavia 2002, 2006; Howey 2007, 2011; van

Leusen 2002; White 2012; White and Barber 2012), which better represent the complex way the landscape is actually traversed by both ancient and modern peoples.

In the Maya subarea, movement studies have tended to focus on formal roads or raised causeways, known as sacbeob, because it has been possible to identify them in the field or through aerial photographs and satellite images (Chase and Chase 2001; Folan et al. 2001; Shaw 2001). Although some were quite long and likely functioned as roads leading from one center to another—for example the nearly 100 km sacbe linking

Cobá and Yaxuná (Folan 1992; Villa Rojas 1934)—most of these were actually relatively short and probably represented ritual or integrative pathways that connected areas within, or adjacent to, major centers (Chase and Chase 2001; Folan et al. 2001; Shaw 2001,

2008). The extensive trade networks that connected distant Maya centers and provided elite and non-elite people with exotic materials (Masson and Freidel 2002) would have followed more ephemeral trails and pathways as opposed to the formal sacbeob (McKee 59 et al. 1994). Maya archaeologists have only recently begun to incorporate GIS approaches, such as cost surface analysis, to locate and investigate these networks of pathways, but the results are very encouraging (Anaya Hernandez et al. 2003; Doyle et al.

2012; Estrada-Belli and Koch 2007; Golden and Scherer 2013; Maca 2002; Podobnikar and Sprajc 2010; Richards-Rissetto 2010).

Cost surface analysis (CSA) operates under the governing principal that two locations on the surface of the earth may be the same linear distance from one another but unequal in the amount of time or effort needed to reach the other when traveling (Conolly and Lake 2006; White and Surface-Evans 2012). According to James Doyle and colleagues (2012:793):

A series of GIS methods creates raster images that assign a cost to each pixel, costs that accumulate in the digital elevation model (DEM) from a fixed point of departure. The costs are generally determined by slope, based on the premise that human physiology favours slopes at differential rates. After computing the cost of traveling over each pixel, GIS software generates a line vector representing the 'least cost path' traversing neighbouring cells with the lowest value.

When modeling least cost paths (Figure 3.3), cost (otherwise known as friction, or the difficulty in moving across the surface) can be assigned in one of three ways.

Isotropic costs are independent of the direction of travel. Most ground surfaces do not cause differential friction depending on the direction one is traveling (i.e., friction is the same in all directions whether the underlying material is dirt, gravel, sand, pavement, and so forth). Partially anisotropic costs are dependent on the direction of travel, but the direction of maximum cost is the same for all cells in the map. 60

Figure 3.3. Map showing an example of least cost paths from Minanha to Caracol and Naranjo.

61

For example, “a kayaker incurs a greater energetic cost paddling into a head wind than with a tail wind, but the wind direction itself may be constant across the map” (Conolly and Lake 2006:215). Anisotropic costs are dependent on both the direction of travel and the attributes of individual map cells. This is best exemplified in the difference between walking uphill versus downhill: each map cell reflects variable terrain that is not equal in all directions depending on which direction one is moving across it.

There is no single “right” way to assign cost. Instead, the archaeologist may choose to employ different cost scenarios depending on the questions that are being asked.

Primary considerations must be the mode of transportation (e.g., walking, canoe or boat travel, or using a motor vehicle), whether there are any physical barriers, either natural or manmade (e.g., deep canyons, escarpments, swift-moving rivers, walls, etc.), or other social factors (such as enemy territory), that can potentially impede or facilitate movement.

Summary

In this section I have provided a brief review of visibility and movement studies in archaeology and how the development of GIS technologies have allowed researchers to explore them with great success. Viewshed models estimate the total area that is visible from a specified location on the landscape, whereas CSA and least cost paths are used to assign a cost to traversing the landscape and determine likely paths for travel. The two techniques have been employed in tandem by a growing number of researchers (Doyle et al. 2012; Estrada-Belli and Koch 2007; Madry and Rakos 1996; Richards-Rissetto 2010), with van Leusen (2002:6-1) even referring to them as the “twin tools” because of certain similarities “in methodology and underlying theoretical principles, which express an 62 emphasis on the human experience of being and moving in the landscape.”

In the following section I outline the specific methods I have used to carry out viewshed and cost surface analyses, as well as a field reconnaissance component, with the underlying goal of demonstrating that such analyses and methods are valuable in addressing the impact of communication routes and visibility on ancient Maya settlement and dynamic political landscapes.

DATA AND METHODS

All of the GIS analyses that will be presented in this thesis have used a single

DEM as a base map that was supplied to me by Chris Carleton and Dr. James Conolly of

Trent University. The initial data was acquired from two primary research centers, and

Carleton performed a number of basic and complex procedures to produce a high- resolution DEM for the SARP project, which he has described in this process:

ASTER [advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer] data was acquired from Japan's Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Centre (ERSDAC) and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) along with an SRTM [shuttle radar topography mission] digital elevation model (DEM). Two sensors registering radiation in the visual near-infrared (VNIR) bandwidth, on the ASTER platform were used by ERSDAC to create a high-resolution (15 m) stereoscopic DEM of the data area. However, because the VNIR bandwidth is responsive to cloud-cover, the DEM contained elevation anomalies that represented elevations of clouds over the data area. Despite cloud-cover over less than 10% of the data area, it was desirable to remove the clouds [Carleton et al. 2012:3374-3375].

63

To remove the clouds, Carleton created a cloud-cover isolation algorithm to essentially replace cloudy pixels in the ASTER data with co-local SRTM data. The end product is a

DEM with a spatial resolution of 15 m on the WGS84 datum with a UTM projection.

Viewshed Analysis

The first step in the analysis was to create a single viewshed map for Minanha.

The original goal prior the 2012 field season was to identify target locations in the hinterlands via GIS that maintained intervisibility with Minanha’s highest point (Str. 38J,

Figure 1.3), and then perform reconnaissance on the ground to confirm whether settlements existed in these locations. The thought process behind this was to explore the idea that in a rugged landscape such as the Vaca Plateau, Minanha may have established itself in a position of visual prominence and maintained a network of communication with its subsidiary centers through intervisibility. According to Swanson (2003:756),

“Intervisibility is crucial for documenting signalling systems archaeologically, since there is often no artifactual evidence to support such claims.” This type of organization of minor centers in the Maya subarea has been confirmed via viewshed analysis at La Milpa

(Tourtellot et al. 2000, 2002, 2003), Holmul (Estrada-Belli and Koch 2007; Estrada-Belli et al. 2004), and in the Buenavista Valley of the central Petén (Doyle et al. 2012). In the

Vaca Plateau, such a system of visual communication has also been suggested by

Thompson (1931) and Iannone (2010), although it has not previously been explored with the aid of GIS.

In order to define target locations I looked for high hilltops and ridges that maintain intervisibility with the Minanha Epicenter and would also be suitable for building platforms and structures. Many of the highest and most visible points in the area 64 are very narrow, craggy peaks that would not be suitable for settlement, so using the

DEM and a standard topographic map with contour lines I identified flatter surfaces in areas of question.

Since the viewshed of Minanha is quite extensive (Figure 3.2), it was not practical to identify every suitable location following these guidelines, so the search for target points was further limited to hilltops and ridges along the major accessways (Figure 3.4).

Iannone (2010:7) has suggested that these valley passes that lead north to the Belize

Valley (Figure 3.4a), west toward the Petén (Figure 3.4b), northeast toward the Macal

River (Figure 3.4c), and south toward Camp 6 and Caracol (Figure 3.4d), would have provided natural corridors of movement to and from Minanha, so theoretically there likely would have been higher concentrations of settlement along these corridors.

I also set a buffer with a 3 km radius around Minanha to limit the search for target points. The LAMAP predictive model (Carleton et al. 2012), which was simultaneously being ground truthed by Kong Cheong (Cheong and Conolly 2012), covers a much larger portion of the north Vaca Plateau, so I decided to focus my search on the immediate vicinity of Minanha.

All viewshed maps were created in GRASS using the r.viewshed module. Within this module there are several variables that can be adjusted by the user, including the viewing elevation above the ground, the offset for target elevation above ground, and the maximum visibility radius. I chose to keep all of the default values for each variable. The viewing elevation is set to 1.75 m above the ground to represent the height of an average

North American male observer standing upright. The target elevation offset was left at 65

0.0 m to represent the actual ground surface, which follows the assumption that if the ground is visible then any other person or feature on that same spot would also be visible.

Figure 3.4. Map of the north Vaca Plateau showing approximate areas of the four main accessways to and from Minanha (red polygons), as well as the prominent north-south ridgeline (blue polygon). 66

Finally, the default setting for maximum visibility radius is automatically set to infinity, which is obviously not possible for a human observer. However, it was deemed appropriate to create the viewsheds without a maximum distance range because a simple r.buffer module can be run to effectively limit this distance when necessary. Some researchers have attempted to quantify how far the human eye can see in a variety of atmospheric conditions (see Llobera 2001, 2003; Wheatley and Gillings 2000), but since there is no data of this sort for the Vaca Plateau it was left open ended, with the possibility to subsequently modify maximum distance later on. In my own field observations the maximum viewing distance from Minanha’s Str. 38J was at least 10 km, which was measured by picking out visual landmarks, such as exposed cliff faces that sit above the . However, views further afield up to 15 km or more are possible, but no fixed landmarks could be found to generate an exact distance measure. A visibility range of at least 10 km has also been observed at La Milpa in northern Belize (Tourtellot et al. 2003:107).

It should also be noted that the r.viewshed module calculates visibility based entirely on elevation data and does not account for vegetation on the landscape. This is problematic in a modern context because the Vaca Plateau is heavily forested, but in ancient times, particularly during the Late Classic, this was an intensively modified landscape with an extensive network of agricultural terraces (Iannone et al. 2014; Macrae

2010), meaning tree cover would have been minimal. It is possible that stands of forest may have been maintained in this region in order to cultivate natural resources, such as wood for building and burning, and also for hunting wild game species. However, it is 67 currently impossible to pinpoint the physical locations and temporal fluctuations of these areas, so it was deemed appropriate to model visibility without consideration of vegetation, even if it results in somewhat of an ideal model. This process ultimately led to

22 target locations.

Reconnaissance

Once we arrived in Belize for the 2012 field season, I had roughly three weeks between May 28th and June 18th to complete the reconnaissance. I had received a collaborative grant worth approximately $750 CDN from the Trent University

Archaeological Research Centre (TUARC) to cover my expenses, which included hiring a Belizean guide and a 4x4 vehicle to provide access to the target locations. As mentioned above, another Trent graduate student, Kong Cheong, was also employed by

SARP to do an independent reconnaissance of the LAMAP settlement predictive model

(Carleton et al. 2012). However, we only had access to one vehicle between the two of us. We tried to coordinate our efforts by attempting to visit mutually convenient locations where target points according to each model were nearby one another, but sometimes this was not logistically possible so we alternated days providing assistance to one another’s projects.

On a daily basis we would look at our maps in the evenings and determine which locations to visit on the following day and plan the best route to get there. UTM coordinates for all target points were entered into a handheld Garmin 60CxS GPS device, which was used to follow the signal to their locations. A four-wheel drive Toyota pickup truck was used to take us from our base camp at Martz Farm to as close to our points as possible before becoming stuck in the mud, blocked by debris or fallen trees, or hindered 68 by other natural features such as steep slopes and dangerous terrain that the vehicle could not navigate. Travel times varied considerably, but given the nature of the rugged terrain and poor condition of roads and logging tracks, we spent a large portion of our days just trying to get near our target points.

Once we neared a target point we left the vehicle to approach on foot and make observations about cultural features including mounds, terraces, sacbeob, caves, springs, and aguadas. Because the points were often on remote hilltops and ridges we spent a considerable amount of time chopping through dense bush and climbing the slopes while attempting to follow the GPS signal. After a target point was reached, we spent time clearing and looking around in the 100-200 m radius for any settlement and other prominent features. Notes were recorded in journals, photographs were taken when possible, and GPS readings were made for cultural features. These are reported in the following chapter.

Cost Surface Analysis (CSA)

Following the 2012 field season, the next step was to perform a cost surface analysis to complement the viewshed analysis and field reconnaissance. This was done after the field season because, by the time the research design was finalized in April

2012, there was not enough time to carry it out before leaving for Belize. Another issue complicating the matter is that CSA is much more complex than viewshed analysis, as it is not as simple as choosing a viewpoint and running a basic module for estimating visibility.

One of the primary purposes of standard CSA is modeling least cost paths from one known location to another—for example the route from Minanha to Caracol (Figure 69

3.3). This can be done between any number of known centers or predetermined locations in a one-to-one manner to create a one-to-many path model (Figure 3.5a, b). Least cost paths are often re-run from the target destinations back to the origin point to look for variability, as the cost of movement is often anisotropic. This will produce a many-to-one model (Figure 3.5c). Many-to-many path models (Figure 3.5d) have been created by conflating one-to-one/one-to-many/many-to-one path models, and these are generally believed to be more complex and thus representative of actual networks of pathways between a number of centers (Bell et al. 2002; Bellavia 2002, 2006; Howey 2007, 2011; van Leusen 2002; White 2012; White and Barber 2012).

Figure 3.5. Connectivity options for point-to-point travel. From left to right: (a) one-to- one, (b) one-to-many, (c) many-to-one, (d) many-to-many (modified from White and Barber 2012:2685).

However, there is a fundamental problem in creating path networks in this manner that is related to site bias, because these models create spoke-like networks with known sites as hubs or nodes in the network (White and Barber 2012:2685). The issue is that the software platforms that model least cost paths currently need input coordinates for the two points that a path is being created for. This means that when site locations are not known, or the goal is modeling natural corridors of movement unrelated to site locations, the user must devise a workaround that suits their specific needs. 70

One model that has been developed to combat this issue is White and Barber’s

(2012) “From Everywhere to Everywhere (FETE)” model. The FETE model works by establishing a grid of evenly spaced points on the DEM of the particular study area. A many-to-many path network is created running Djikstra’s (1959) shortest path algorithm from a single point to all the others (similar to calculating a least cost path), and then repeated for each point in the study area. The output (Figure 3.6a) is a travel probability surface with hundreds or thousands of shortest path iterations that “resembles a dense circulatory system or road network” (White and Barber 2012:2687).

White and Barber (2012:2688) have also demonstrated that with some post- processing they can use frequency distributions to find previously unidentified movement corridors by thresholding values to locate high traffic areas (Figure 3.6b). Whitley and

Hicks (2003) generated a similar type of network using evenly spaced points around the perimeter of a study area to generate north-south and east-west paths, but this differs from the FETE model in that it emphasizes pathways that cross through a particular region rather than within it.

The FETE model is a novel approach that articulates quite well with the questions

I am interested in answering about Minanha’s location within a trade and communication network between key geopolitical regions. Furthermore, the success of the FETE results from the authors’ case study in Oaxaca indicate that it can be used as a predictive tool as well as an analytical one. The overall value of this approach is summed up nicely in the following:

For instance, since the output of the model is based entirely on ease of movement without reference to specific settlements, it can be used to generate hypotheses regarding whether a site developed or flourished as a result of proximity to a pre- existing trade route or junction while controlling for the possibility that the trade 71

routes developed as a result of the presence of the site [White and Barber 2012:2693].

Figure 3.6a. Output path network modified from White and Barber’s (2012:2688) FETE model.

Figure 3.6b. Thresholded version of the FETE output. The highest traffic areas are in red. 72

However, as White and Barber (2012:2691) concede, a full application of the

FETE approach is extremely complex “and is so computationally intensive that it cannot be efficiently or correctly executed inside any currently available commercial or open source desktop GIS software package.” For the purposes of my thesis it was therefore necessary to develop a similar model using “cheaper”, less intensive methods.

Modified FETE Analysis. First, two sampling regions were defined in accordance with specific research questions in mind. The first (hereby referred to as “7 km”) was designed following Iannone’s (2010:29) definition of the approximate boundaries of the

Minanha territory (Figure 3.7). These are thought to be between 5 and 7 km from the

Epicenter, and corresponding to natural features such as the Macal River Gorge and the northern edge of the Vaca Plateau. There is ample evidence that suggests indigenous peoples throughout Mesoamerica used natural features such as springs, caves, cenotes, prominent hills, stone mounds, and even distinctive trees to demarcate territorial boundaries (Hodge 1997:211-212; McAnany 1995:89-90; Moyes 2005:291; Restall

1998:95; Smith 2008:81). In terms of territory size, Bruce Trigger (2003:100) notes that city-states are spaced roughly 7 km apart in the Valley of Mexico, and a series of centers along the Belize River Valley are found at distances between 5 and 10 km (Driver and

Garber 2004). A similar territory size for Minanha may be appropriate given that the major centers of Las Ruinas de Arenal and Ixchel are 8.5 km and 10 km away, respectively.

The second sampling region (hereby referred to as “14 km”) was designed to be large enough to encompass several centers from the neighbouring Belize Valley, Petén, 73 and south Vaca Plateau regions to simulate paths within an interregional exchange network (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.7. Map showing the north Vaca Plateau with the Minanha (7 km) territory. 74

Figure 3.8. Map showing the Minaha territory within the expanded interregional (14 km) sampling area.

75

This was accomplished by effectively doubling the size of the first sampling region to produce a polygon with a roughly 14 km radius around Minanha. It is also important to note that the Macal River is traditionally seen as a limiting factor for movement due to the very steep gorge it flows down, which presumably acts a natural boundary. In my model I have not created any buffers for this gorge, and in fact, less than 10 (0.05%) pathways cross to the other side, which suggests it did act as an impediment to movement.

Once the sampling regions were defined, the same process was carried out for both the 7 km and 14 km territories to produce a series of 10,000 paths each (20,000 total) in a many-to-many, non-site based network. The methods are as follows:

1) Random points were generated in ArcGIS using the Random Points tool in the Spatial Analyst Toolbox. The base map DEM was set to a resolution of 30 m with the WGS84 datum and a UTM coordinate projection. 2) Each point was then assigned easting and northing UTM coordinates using the XY Add Data tool. From the attribute table the list of points and their coordinates could then be saved as a text file and re-saved as a .csv (comma separated value) file. 3) Next, each point had to be saved as an individual .csv file with a unique name (e.g., point1_7km; point2_7km; point3_7km…). 4) These files were then imported into GRASS as a script using the v.in.ascii module. 5) Once all the points were imported into GRASS an anisotropic cost surface was created using the r.walk module. One of the inputs calls for a friction surface, and I used the slope as the only friction to represent difficulty in moving across the terrain. This was deemed appropriate because there were no waterways, walls, or other features on the landscape that cannot be crossed on foot. All 100 of the coordinates were entered at starting points, and the ending point was made to be a random point outside of the sampling universe so that all cost surfaces would be large enough to cover the entire region in question and prevent least cost paths from terminating before reaching their destinations. 6) The paths themselves were created using the r.drain module, which traces a path from an input starting point (edge) back to the origin of an input cost surface (center). This means that for each cost surface (n=100), a total of 99 drain simulations had to be run (i.e., 1-to-2, 1-to-3, 1-to-4; 2-to- 1, 2-to-3, 2-to-4…). The result was 10,000 simulated paths for that particular sample region. To expedite the process, scripts were written with Excel and TextEdit rather than having to manually enter 10,000 individual simulations. 7) The next step was to convert all output paths from raster files to vector files using the r.to.vect module with the line output feature specified. 8) The new vector files were then exported from GRASS using the v.out.ogr module. 9) The last step was to find the exported vector files in their folder, delete the .prj files, and then drag each shapefile (.shp) into ArcGIS for visualization.

76

It is important to reiterate what is briefly described in step 5 above, which is that slope was deemed the most important variable for generating cost surfaces and least cost paths. Aside from Macal River gorge, there are no natural or known human-made features in the study area that would have restricted movement in such a way that it would be necessary to account for in my analysis. Therefore, a model based exclusively on slope to derive anisotropic cost surfaces allows the resulting least cost paths to be fairly unrestricted in order simulate natural corridors of movement over the landscape.

The next step was to create a frequency distribution in order to model low, low- medium, medium-high, and high rates of travel across the entire distribution of paths. To do this, a raster map containing all 10,000 paths at each of the two scales were analyzed for their statistical distributions to find threshold values. The process is as follows:

1) First, each data set was exported from GRASS using the r.out.arc module. 2) These were then imported into the R software package for statistical analysis. 3) To find the threshold values for four classes of frequency, the following calculations were performed in the R command line for data sets 7km and 14km: a. mean(7km) = 16.08 b. sqrt(mean(7km)) = 4.01 c. sqrt(mean(7km))*1.96 = 7.86 d. sqrt(mean(7km))*1.96+mean(7km) = 23.94 4) What these values represent are the limits for four classes of frequency, which were created in GRASS by reclassifying the data set as follows a. Low frequency 1-8… b. Low-medium frequency 9-16… c. Medium-high frequency 17-23… d. High frequency 24-150…

With some basic post-processing, the reclassified pathways can then be visualized individually or simultaneously with a color scale reflecting low to high traffic rates. The full results are presented in Chapter 4 (Figures 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15).

The last step was then to analyze the known sites in relation to the path networks.

To determine if any particular center was differentially located on or along the higher frequency paths, a buffer was created for each center with a 1 km radius and a simple 77 r.mapcalc expression would then provide the number of pixels representing each type of pathway that passed through it. These numbers were then exported for statistical analysis

(Chapter 4).

SUMMARY

In this chapter I have discussed visibility and movement studies in archaeology and how they are specifically applied through GIS-based viewshed and CSA. One of the primary goals of this thesis is to address the strategic location of Minanha within the north Vaca Plateau, not only in terms of its spatial location, but also with regard to the dynamic sociopolitical landscape as it changed over time. This means that a spatial analysis that emphasizes viewshed and CSA will provide several models that can be used to form hypotheses and help explain the historical development of Minanha in both a regional and interregional context.

This chapter has presented the research design and methodology that has guided the initial steps in this analysis. In the following chapters I will report the results of the spatial analysis and then discuss them in terms of how Minanha fits into the dynamic sociopolitical history of the greater Vaca Plateau and Eastern Maya Lowlands. 78

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS

In this chapter I present the results of the field reconnaissance and spatial analysis components of the thesis that were described in detail in the previous chapter. First, the results of the field reconnaissance are discussed, including the discovery of the new minor centers Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk. Then the results of the viewshed analysis are discussed, which highlight the fact that Minanha has the highest visibility and intervisibility indexes of all the centers in the study area. Finally the results of the CSA are presented, which again suggest that Minanha’s position was advantageous relative to all other centers because it has the greatest number of high traffic cells passing through it.

The overall results suggest that viewshed and cost surface analyses are not only excellent analytical tools, but they can serve as important predictive tools as well, as indicated by the success of the field reconnaissance component.

FIELD RECONNAISSANCE

One of the primary goals of the reconnaissance aspect of this thesis was to locate additional middle-level settlements in the Minanha hinterlands with the aid of viewshed analysis. The minor center Oxmuul was located by other project members before my field reconnaissance began, but in fact it was found less than 100 m from a predicted location within my own model (Figure 4.1). In addition to Oxmuul, I was able to locate two other minor centers to the north and west of Minanha, which have been named Ixkuk and

Kolchikiin, respectively (Figure 4.1). Each of these was also found less than 100 m from target locations. They are described in detail below.

79

Figure 4.1. Map showing the locations of target points and minor centers.

80

As a byproduct of spending full days traveling on logging roads and cutting new trails in areas that have not been surveyed or extensively explored, Kong Cheong and I attempted to take note of other cultural features and document their locations with a handheld GPS device. Although this was not systematic, we were able to add 34 new settlement groups (NV1-NV34, Table 4 in Appendix II), four sizeable aguadas (two wet, two dry), 13 active springs, six caves, and dozens of terraces to our maps (Figure 4.2).

The 34 mound groups were given North Vaca (NV) designations to distinguish them from the Minanha Regional Survey (MRS) designations assigned to structures and groups discovered during previous investigations led by Samuel Connell (2000b, 2001; Connell and Neff 1999). All new settlement units were given designations following the

Xunantunich settlement typology, which is standard procedure for all SARP investigations (Table 4.1).

Oxmuul

This was the first of three new minor centers discovered by SARP during the

2012 field season. It was given this name, which roughly translates to the Yucatec Maya word for “three hills” because there are three distinct hills with settlement groups on top of them (Figure 4.3). Oxmuul is located approximately 2 km east of Minanha, and right along side of the modern Camp 6 road. The site was first documented by Kong Cheong and his Belizean guides while traveling on foot to reach sampling square 1177 of the site predictive model developed by Chris Carleton, James Conolly, and Gyles Iannone

(2012). The landowner, Rolando “El Grande” Grijales, had recently burned and planted maize on the land that the site sits on, which left most of the structures highly visible.

Coupled with the fact that it is easily accessible by 4-wheel drive vehicle, Cheong was 81 able to return to Oxmuul at the end of the field season to quickly map it (Barry and

Cheong 2012; see also Figure 4.3, this volume).

Figure 4.2. Post-reconnaissance map showing all new settlement groups, aguadas, springs, caves and terraces. 82

Preliminary mapping and investigations at Oxmuul have determined that there are at least eight mound groups, three solitary structures, one active spring, a sinkhole, and an extensive terrace network. The largest mound, structure OxAI, is roughly 5 m in height and sits on an artificially leveled hilltop. A small ancillary structure, OxAII, is less than 1 m in height and together these structures form an orthogonally arranged Type VI group.

There are also two orifices in the patio space in front of OxAI that may represent two individual chultunob (underground chambers), or perhaps two entrances to one large chamber. The size and orientation of group OxA is nearly identical to the main group at

Mile 4, and also MRS 9 (Connell 2001:109). Little is known about the purpose or function of these groups with one large (between 4 and 8 m) structure, but they seem to be set in prominent locations that offer extensive views over the surrounding landscape.

This was confirmed through subsequent viewshed analysis (Figure 4.4). Given their temple-like appearance and the fact that they are rarely associated with other structures of any significant size, these structures may represent hilltop shrines. Future investigations, including proper excavations, will be warranted to strengthen this interpretation.

Ceramics were collected from the looters trenches in structure OxAI, and from the surface of the plaza in front of it (Table 1, Appendix II). Fifteen diagnostic sherds provide little insight into the chronology of the site, but the majority of these (N=8,

53.3%) date to the Late Classic period, which coincides with the fluorescence of the

Minanha royal court.

83

Figure 4.3. Map of the minor center Oxmuul. 84

Figure 4.4. Viewshed map for Oxmuul.

85

Type Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Groups (Ox) (Ko) (Ik) I: isolated mound (less 3 2 0 OxI, OxII, OxIII than 2 m high) KoI, KoII II: 2-4 mounds (informally 2 1 0 OxD, OxH arranged; all less than 2 m KoF high) III: 2-4 mounds 3 4 7 OxB, OxE, OxF (orthogonally arranged; all KoC, KoE, KoG, KoH less than 2 m high) IkD, IkE, IkF, IkH, IkI, IkJ, IkK IV: 5 or more mounds 0 0 0 (informally arranged; all less than 2 m high V: 5 or more mounds (at 1 1 0 OxC least 2 arranged KoD orthogonally; all less than 2 m high) VI: 1 or more mounds (at 2 2 4 OxA, OxG least 1 being 2-5 m high) KoA, KoB IkA, IkB, IkC, IkG VII: 1 or more mounds (at 0 0 0 least 1 being higher than 5 m) Totals: 11 10 11 Table 4.1. Settlement Typology (redrawn from Iannone 2006:2; Ashmore et al. 1994).

Kolchikiin

Kolchikiin is located approximately 2 km west of Minanha on the land of a local

farmer named Miguel Angel Sacul, who had also recently chopped and burned a large

portion of the vegetation covering the site. The name itself roughly translates to “milpa west”, which reflects its position to the west of Minanha as well as the fact that this particular farmer was taking advantage of the ancient agricultural terraces that were still intact at the site. Preliminary investigations here determined that there are eight residential groups, two solitary structures, one possible temple-like structure (KoA), and an extensive terrace network (Table 4.2). While not a free-standing building, KoA is a hill slope of bedrock that appears to have been cut into terraces resembling the stacked platforms of larger temple-pyramids (Figure 4.5). As the highest landform at Kolchikiin it provides a rather extensive viewshed over the surrounding area (Figure 4.6). Although 86 there is no clear monumental or ceremonial architecture, we have categorized Kolchikiin as a minor center because the density of settlement and agricultural features suggest it was a relatively large, integrated community unit (see Ashmore et al. 1994; Yaeger and

Connell 1993).

Figure 4.5. Photo of KoA: bedrock has been modified to resemble a temple-pyramid.

Kolchikiin was actually found on the second-to-last day of the reconnaissance period, so time did not permit us to properly map the site or conduct any excavations.

Again, this means the preliminary chronology for Kolchikiin remains highly speculative at best. A very small number of diagnostic ceramic sherds (N=8, see Table 2, Appendix

II) were collected from inside of exposed construction fill and from surface collection and date primarily (N=5, 62.5%) to the Late Classic, Spanish Lookout ceramic complex

(Gifford 1976). These dates are subject to change pending further investigation. 87

Figure 4.6. Viewshed map for Kolchikiin.

88

Kolchikiin Type Coordinates Associated Features Notes KoI I 275494, 1878366 Terraces Solitary structure; atop KoA at highest elevation; unobstructed view east to Minanha KoII I 275455, 1878173 Terraces Solitary structure KoA VI 275558, 1878271 Terraces Largest “structure”; Possible temple platforms carved into bedrock KoB VI 275512, 1878189 Terraces; Raised platform Patio group; 6 structures KoC III 275573, 1878300 Terraces Informally arranged group with 4 structures KoD V 275366, 1878165 Terraces Largely informal arrangement; 5 structures KoE III 275409, 1878232 Terraces; Platform 2 structures on a low platform KoF II 275400, 1878265 Terraces 2 informally arranged structures on bedrock KoG III 275540, 1878242 Terraces 3 orthogonally arranged structures KoH III 275591, 1878223 Terraces 3 orthogonally arranged structures Table 4.2. Settlement Typology for Kolchikiin.

Ixkuk

Ixkuk is located approximately 3 km to the north of Minanha, which is slightly further away than Waybil, Oxmuul, and Kolchikiin. Although it is farther away, this location was targeted because it had highly suitable characteristics based on visibility and topography. While encountering this site we heard an abundance of birdcalls that, according to our Belizean guides, belonged to resident Nightingales that were nesting in the area. This inspired the name Ixkuk for the site, which is translated as “nightingale” from a collection of Yucatec Maya poems called Los Cantares de Dzitbalché (Barrera

Vasquez 1965).

Ixkuk is a heavily looted site with 11 mound groups (Table 4.2), including a small eastern shrine (Group IkA) with a 1 m limestone block found laying flat in the open plaza space (Figure 4.7). The shape and placement of this stone along the central axis of the eastern shrine suggests it may be an uncarved stela monument. In one of the larger courtyard groups (IkB) we found a looted elaborate crypt (Welsh 1988) that had one 89 modified human tooth, as well as sherds from a Terminal Preclassic jar and a broken

Early Classic dish.

Figure 4.7. Possible stela monument found in association with Group IkA eastern shrine.

This is particularly interesting because there have been relatively few burials from these time periods found at Minanha. Other ceramic sherds from another possible looted crypt context (IkG) date to the Middle and Late Classic periods (Table 3, Appendix II), which suggest Ixkuk may have had a long occupational sequence. However, this interpretation is hypothetical as Ixkuk was located on the last day of the reconnaissance period and there was no time to properly map the site or conduct excavations. Again, the limited ceramic materials came from looted contexts and surface collections.

Although the chronology for the site is highly speculative, it appears that the ancient inhabitants at Ixkuk likely enjoyed some degree of elevated status, given that they 90 were able to construct elaborate burial chambers for their deceased and that they potentially erected the only confirmed stela monument outside of the Minanha epicenter.

Although modified teeth have been observed as indicators of high status individuals at

Caracol (Chase and Chase 1987:61), at Minanha they are not clearly associated with any particular social groups across time (Snetsinger 2012). How well this community was connected to the Minanha Epicenter is unclear at this point, but the available evidence permits the designation of Ixkuk as a “minor center”. Like Waybil, Oxmuul, and

Kolchikiin, Ixkuk also has an extensive viewshed with a direct line of sight to Minanha

(Figure 4.8). However, further investigations will be necessary to refine the settlement history of this community to understand its connections to Minanha.

Ixkuk Type Coordinates Associated Features Notes IkA VI 277634, 1880913 1 m uncarved plain stela Possible “eastern shrine”; 2 monument structures; view south to Minanha IkB VI 277513, 1880831 Looted “elaborate crypt” Formally arranged patio group, 4 structures IkC VI 277446, 1880786 Terraces 2 orthogonally arranged structures IkD III 277560, 1880939 2 orthogonally arranged structures IkE III 277479, 1880947 Possible “range structure” 3 orthogonally arranged structures IkF III 277513, 1881003 3 structures on bedrock IkG VI 277560, 1881001 Possible looted crypt 2 orthogonally arranged structures IkH III 277549, 1880795 Raised platform 3 orthogonally arranged structures IkJ III 277761, 1880937 4 formally arranged structures atop highest hill; excellent view south to Minanha IkK III 277656, 1880710 2 orthogonally arranged structures (unlooted) IkL III 277703, 1880845 Raised platform 2 orthogonally arranged structures on raised platform Table 4.3. Settlement Typology for Ixkuk. 91

Figure 4.8. Viewshed map for Ixkuk.

92

RESULTS OF THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

The first step in the viewshed analysis was to define target points to search for middle-level settlements in the Minanha hinterlands. This was done using a viewshed map for Minanha, and the results of the subsequent field reconnaissance are presented above. The second step was to look at the viewshed maps for Minanha, as well as the other known centers, and make observations related to the original research questions presented in Chapter 1. Those observations are presented here.

The Minanha viewshed maps reveal that the field of view correlates well with the projected territorial boundaries because visibility remains constant until dropping off at the edge of the Vaca Plateau to the north and west (Figure 4.9). To the east there seems to be lots of visible land on the opposite side of the Macal River gorge, but based on my own personal observations from atop Structure 38J (Figure 1.3), the range of daytime visibility could not have extended more than a few kilometers beyond the river. It is difficult to estimate a distance of maximum visibility because of a lack of prominent landmarks for reference, but based on several identifiable cliff faces along the river I estimate that distances of at least 10 km and up to 15 km may have been visible, particularly at nighttime when fire would be more easily seen (e.g., Di Peso et al.

1974:867).

In terms of settlement patterns in the Vaca Plateau we know that there are centers on high hilltops such as Minanha and Waybil, as well as centers on valley floors such as

Camp 6 and Martinez. The viewshed maps for the valley floor centers are significantly smaller than their hilltop counterparts, which is to be expected based on differences in elevation. The same is true for Mile 4, which is on a low hill at the very northern edge of 93 the Plateau (Figure 4.10). There are two possible explanations for this. One is that visibility was not the only determining factor for choosing settlement locations, and that additional factors must be considered. The other is that overall visibility may not have been as important as visibility of a particular valley or in a particular direction. These two explanations will be discussed in more detail following the presentation of the CSA results below.

Another question that was posed in Chapter 1 is about the possibility of a system of visual communication between centers in the Vaca Plateau. For this to be true, we would assume there to be a high degree of intervisibility between centers in order to facilitate non-verbal communication. Similar communication systems have been well documented both archaeologically and ethnographically from northern Mexico

(Hammond and Rey 1928; Swanson 2003) and the U.S. Southwest (Ellis 1991:61), where methods for signaling typically include a combination of smoke, fire, and reflected sunlight depending on the time of day and present weather conditions. By all accounts, the purpose of this type of system or network of communication is decidedly multifunctional with the ability to rapidly transmit messages related to defense and warfare, as well as the coordination of ritual and ceremonial activities and surveillance of agricultural fields (Ellis 1991; Hammond and Rey 1928; Swanson 2003). However, for this type of system to function properly, the assumption would be that all centers were occupied contemporaneously. Currently, all of the centers that are considered in this study follow the general pattern across the north Vaca Plateau of a Late Classic population peak, perhaps with the exception of Ixchel (see Chapter 5). Although chronologies are unrefined for several of these centers, the presence of Late Classic 94 ceramics allows us to hypothesize that they were all active around the same time as the rise and fall of Minanha’s royal court.

Of the seven known minor centers within Minanha’s territory, only Waybil,

Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk are intervisible with Minanha (Figures 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9).

In fact, Martinez and Mile 4 are not visible at all from any known centers and and Camp

6 can only be seen from Oxmuul. This is interesting, considering that Oxmuul is only intervisible with Camp 6 and Minanha, so it’s possible it was strategically utilized as an intermediary node of communication between the two non-visible centers. This is consistent with Knoke and Kuklinski’s (1982:41) definition of a “cut-point” in a network, where if a particular node is “lost” the result is two separate networks. Following

Swanson (2003:763), “Cut-points increase the risk of failed signal transmission and result in more opportunities for a signal to be missed or for the system to be sabotaged by elimination of that cut-point.”

In order to quantify this information, the data from the viewshed maps have been compiled into tables that calculate a visibility index and an intervisibility index. The centers that are included in these analyses include the eight within the Minanha territory, and an additional seven that are within the estimated 15 km visibility range (Figure 4.11). 95

Figure 4.9. Viewshed map for Minanha with a territory overlay. 96

Figure 4.10. Viewshed maps for Mile 4, Martinez, and Camp 6.

97

Figure 4.11. All centers within the estimated visibility range of Minanha.

98

The benefit of this larger scale is that it allows for interregional visibility analysis because several of these centers sit outside of the Vaca Plateau. The visibility index counts how many other centers are visible from each individual center (Table 4.4 and

4.5). This is also expressed as a percentage of the total number of centers within the sampling region. The intervisibility index omits the centers that have no others in their viewsheds because it relies on mutual visibility (Table 4.6 and 4.7). This is a more efficient way for dealing directly with centers that could potentially engage in a system of visual communication by excluding those that cannot.

These tables indicate that Minanha has the highest visibility and intervisibility indexes across both scales, and therefore, the highest degree of network connectivity.

This suggests that Minanha was not only able to see the highest number of individual centers from its particular location, but also that a higher percentage of other centers could see Minanha relative to all other others. In terms of Minanha’s overall visibility some other interesting details must be discussed. On the territory scale, the intervisibility index shows that 4 out of a possible 5 centers are visible, with Camp 6 being the only non-visible center. As mentioned above, the only other center that is intervisible with

Camp 6 is Oxmuul. This means that a line of visual communication between Camp 6 and

Minanha is only one degree of separation away through the “cut-point”, Oxmuul.

99

Minanha Ixchel Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4 Minanha - Y N Y Y Y Y N N Ixchel Y - N Y N N N N N Camp 6 N N - N Y N N N N Waybil Y Y N - N Y N N N Oxmuul Y Y Y N - N N N N Kolchikiin Y N N Y N - Y N N Ixkuk Y N N N N Y - N N Martinez N N N N N N N - N Mile 4 N N N N N N N N - Las Ruinas de Arenal N N N N N N N N N Xunantunich Y N N N N N N N N Buenos Aires Y N N Y N Y N N N El Camalote/Melchor Y N N N N Y N N N Yok'ol Wits Y N N Y N Y Y N N La Provedencia Y N N Y N Y Y N N

Visibility Index 10 3 1 6 2 7 4 0 0 Percentage 71% 21% 7% 43% 14% 50% 29% 0% 0% Table 4.4a. Visibility Index chart for all centers (part 1 of 2).

El Las Ruinas Camalote/ Yok’ol La de Arenal Xunantunich Buenos Aires Melchor Wits Provedencia

N Y N N N N Minanha N N N N N N Ixchel N N N N N N Camp 6 N N N N Y Y Waybil N N N N N N Oxmuul N N N N Y Y Kolchikiin N N N N N N Ixkuk N N N N N N Martinez N N N N N N Mile 4 - Y N N N Y Las Ruinas Y - N N N N Xunantunich Y Y - N N Y Buenos Aires N N N - N Y El Camalote N N N N - N Yok’ol Wits N N N N Y - La Provedencia

2 3 0 0 3 5 Visibility Index 14% 21% 0% 0% 21% 36% Percentage Table 4.4b. Visibility Index chart for all centers (part 2 of 2). 100

Minanha Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4

Minanha - N Y Y Y Y N N

Camp 6 N - N Y N N N N

Waybil Y N - N Y N N N

Oxmuul Y Y N - N N N N

Kolchikiin Y N Y N - Y N N

Ixkuk Y N N N Y - N N

Martinez N N N N N N - N

Mile 4 N N N N N N N -

Total 4 1 2 2 3 2 0 0

Percentage 57% 14% 29% 29% 43% 29% 0% 0% Table 4.5 Visibility Index chart for centers in the Minanha territory.

Las Ruinas Yok’ol La Minanha Ixchel Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk de Arenal Xunan. Wits Provedencia

Minanha - Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N

Ixchel Y - N Y N N N N N N N

Camp 6 N N - N Y N N N N N N

Waybil Y Y N - N Y N N N Y Y

Oxmuul Y N Y N - N N N N N N

Kolchikiin Y N N Y N - Y N N Y Y

Ixkuk Y N N N N Y - N N N N

Las Ruinas N N N N N N N - Y N Y

Xunantunich Y N N N N N N Y N N N

Yok’ol Wits N N N Y N Y N N N - N

La Provedencia N N N Y N Y N N N N -

Total 6 2 1 5 2 5 2 1 2 2 3

Percentage 60% 20% 10% 50% 20% 50% 20% 10% 20% 20% 30% Table 4.6. Intervisibility Index chart for all visible centers (interregional scale).

101

Minanha Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk

Minanha - N Y Y Y Y Camp 6 N - N Y N N Waybil Y N - N Y N Oxmuul Y Y N - N N Kolchikiin Y N Y N - Y Ixkuk Y N N N Y -

Total 4 1 2 2 3 2 Percentage 80% 20% 40% 40% 60% 40% Table 4.7. Intervisibility Index chart for all centers in the Minanha territory.

On the larger, interregional scale (Table 4.6), 6 out of a possible 10 centers (Table

4.6) are intervisible with Minanha, with Las Ruinas de Arenal, Yok’ol Wits, and La

Provedencia joining Camp 6 as the only non-visible centers. Both Yok’ol Wits and La

Provedencia are intervisible with Waybil and Kolchikiin, so again there is only one degree of separation away from a line of sight with Minanha. Las Ruinas is only intervisible with Xunantunich, which again is only one degree of separation away from

Minanha, but perhaps more interestingly is the fact that Minanha and Las Ruinas are relatively close to one another (ca 8.5 km, see Taschek and Ball 1999) and occupy two distinct geographic regions: the Vaca Plateau and the Valley. The lack of intervisibility and different subsistence and resource bases may very well account for why these two centers could function independently as two territorial capitals in close proximity.

In terms of the centers that are omitted from the intervisibility indexes, I offer a few insights. Buenos Aires and El Camalote/Melchor were excluded because they do not have any other centers within their viewsheds. Both of these centers are situated along the banks of the lower Mopan River, which means much of their strategic and economic 102 value may have been in their ability to access and regulate goods moving along the riverine trade route. On the other hand, Mile 4 and Martinez are not situated near rivers, so to understand their strategic value in terms of settlement patterns we have to look at overland trade routes.

Finally, the role of redundancy in a network must be discussed. After Minanha,

Waybil and Kolchikiin have the highest degree of network connectivity based on the visibility and intervisibility indexes. If we presume they were integrated as minor centers under the Minanha royal court, they serve important roles in terms of maintaining network integrity if Minanha ever became compromised as a signaling station. This follows Swanson’s (2003:764) contention that redundancy is an important aspect in a network in that it “reflects a military need to minimize the risk of lost signals” because

“the potential for relatively instantaneous communication would provide a strategic defensive advantage.” In this scenario Minanha represents the hub of this network based on degrees of connectivity, but the most immediate minor centers (Waybil, Kolchikiin,

Ixkuk, and Oxmuul) represent diverse, yet crucial nodes in the network as redundant signaling stations and strategically positioned cut-points.

RESULTS OF THE COST SURFACE ANALYSIS

The modified FETE analysis was successfully able to model two networks of

10,000 pathways each that simulate movement across large geographic spaces. The first network of pathways was created for the 7 km sampling region that correlates with

Minanha’s estimated territory (Figure 4.12). The second was done over a larger geographic region in order to include centers outside of the Vaca Plateau to simulate interregional exchange (Figure 4.14). With some basic post-processing I was able to 103 distinguish between low, medium-low, medium-high, and high traffic pathways that are then used to answer specific research questions (Figure 4.13 and 4.15).

It has been hypothesized that Minanha functioned as a node along a north-south trade and communication network linking Caracol with the Belize Valley and Petén

(Thompson 1931). The results of the CSA do not definitively suggest that there was a one dominant north-south pathway going through Minanha, although the general flow of high traffic routes do appear to be oriented north-south, especially on the 14 km scale (4.15).

A close inspection does reveal a density, or corridor, of high traffic cells just to the west of Minanha that continues north past Ixkuk toward Mile 4. South of Minanha is a string of high traffic cells that passes through Waybil and connects directly with Ixchel. It appears to continue further south where it reaches the end of the sampling region, but its trajectory seems to be directly in line with Caracol. While this isn’t direct evidence of

Thompson’s north-south route, it shows that many north-south paths likely existed and were utilized by the ancient Maya. Further research might include surveying along these high traffic corridors to determine if one was more densely settled than the others.

The next part of the analysis was to create buffers around each center within the two sampling regions and extract the pathway values to determine if they were preferentially located in close proximity to high traffic pathways (Tables 4.8 and 4.9).

Once the values were extracted they were statistically analyzed using a Chi-square tests to determine if significant differences exist in the sample. In this type of test the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between site location and proximity to pathways. 104

Figure 4.12. Output of the modified FETE model within the Minanha territory (7 km scale).

105

Figure 4.13. Thresholded version of the modified FETE model at 7 km scale.

106

Figure 4.14. Output of the modified FETE model on larger, interregional scale (14 km).

107

Figure 4.15. Thresholded version of the modified FETE model at 14 km scale.

108

If the results of the Chi-square test return a p-value of <0.05 then they are said to be statistically significant and the null hypothesis is rejected. I performed Chi-square tests on the data from the 7 km and 14 km sampling regions for the total collection of paths, as well as low (path types 1 and 2) and high paths (path types 3 and 4) (Tables 4.10 and

4.11) and each returned p-values of <0.0001. This means that there is a very strong correlation between the locations of sites in relation to pathways.

Minanha Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4

Low (1) 73 114 74 77 84 83 76 60 Low-medium (2) 48 37 82 57 58 46 35 0 Medium-high (3) 61 19 50 27 46 28 13 2 High (4) 121 47 89 93 64 67 10 24

Table 4.8. Number of cells representing each path type that pass through all centers on the 7 km scale.

El Las Buenos Camalote/ La Minanha Ixchel Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4 Ruinas Xunan. Aires Melchor Provedencia

1 74 67 48 74 64 57 73 90 133 101 72 36 73 17 2 29 27 16 48 26 37 28 35 33 40 10 29 25 0 3 45 28 11 44 33 45 47 29 19 15 11 17 8 0 4 92 81 17 66 72 61 70 38 60 42 32 52 2 0

Table 4.9. Number of cells representing each path type that pass through all centers on the 14 km scale.

109

Path Type Minanha Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4 Total 1 73 114 74 77 84 83 76 60 641 2 48 37 82 57 58 46 35 0 363 3 61 19 50 27 46 28 13 2 246 4 121 47 89 93 64 67 10 24 515

Total 303 217 295 254 252 224 134 86 1765

E xpected values 110.041 78.808 107.136 92.246 91.520 81.351 48.665 31.233 62.317 44.629 60.671 52.239 51.828 46.069 27.559 17.687 42.231 30.245 41.116 35.402 35.123 31.220 18.676 11.986 88.411 63.317 86.076 74.113 73.530 65.360 39.099 25.093

Chi -square # 12.469 15.715 10.249 2.520 0.618 0.033 15.354 26.496 3.289 1.304 7.498 0.434 0.735 0.000 2.009 17.687 8.341 4.181 1.920 1.994 3.368 0.332 1.725 8.320 12.013 4.205 0.099 4.813 1.235 0.041 21.657 0.048

Sum Sum Sum (tot) (1+2) (3+4) 190.702 116.409 74.292

DoF = 21 7 7 Critical X2 = 32.671 14.067 14.067

P -value = <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Table 4.10. Chi-square statistical test data for 7 km sampling region.

110

El Las Buenos Camalote/ La Minanha Ixchel Camp 6 Waybil Oxmuul Kolchikiin Ixkuk Martinez Mile 4 Ruinas Xunan. Aires Melchor Provedencia Total

1 74 67 48 74 64 57 73 90 133 101 72 36 73 17 979 2 29 27 16 48 26 37 28 35 33 40 10 29 25 0 383 3 45 28 11 44 33 45 47 29 19 15 11 17 8 0 352 4 92 81 17 66 72 61 70 38 60 42 32 52 2 0 685

Total 240 203 92 232 195 118 218 192 245 198 125 134 108 17 2399

Expected values 97.941 82.842 37.544 94.676 79.577 48.154 88.963 78.353 99.981 80.801 51.011 54.684 44.073 6.937 38.316 32.409 14.688 37.039 31.132 18.839 34.804 30.653 39.114 31.611 19.956 21.393 17.242 2.714 35.215 29.786 13.499 34.041 28.612 17.314 31.987 28.172 35.948 29.052 18.341 19.662 15.847 2.494 68.529 57.964 26.269 66.244 55.679 33.693 62.247 54.823 69.956 56.536 35.692 38.262 30.838 4.854

Chi square # 5.852 3.029 2.912 4.515 3.049 1.625 2.864 1.731 10.904 5.049 8.636 6.384 18.985 14.595 2.265 0.903 0.117 3.244 0.846 17.508 1.330 0.617 0.956 2.226 4.967 2.705 3.490 2.714 2.719 0.107 0.463 2.914 0.673 44.272 7.047 0.024 7.991 6.797 2.938 0.360 3.885 2.494 8.039 9.155 3.271 0.001 4.784 22.131 0.966 5.162 1.417 3.737 0.382 4.933 26.968 4.854

Sum (tot) Sum (1+2) Sum (3+4) 312.505 134.021 178.483

DoF = 39 13 13 Critical X2 = 54.572 22.362 22.362

P-value = <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Table 4.11. Chi-square statistical test data for 14 km sampling region.

SUMMARY

In this chapter I have presented the results of the field reconnaissance, viewshed analysis, and cost surface analysis portions of my thesis. The results of the field reconnaissance provided tangible evidence that viewshed models can greatly benefit site predictive models, particularly in the north Vaca Plateau. While the work was difficult and much of three week period was spent trying to find ways to reach target points, our 111 team was still able to locate three new minor centers less than 100 m from predicted locations. Out of 22 target points, this translates to a success rate of roughly 14%, which bumps up to 18% when the five southern points towards the previously known minor center Waybil are removed. These low numbers indicate that visibility was not the only factor that influenced ancient settlement patterns.

The remainder of the viewshed analysis suggested that Minanha was located in a prominent position with lines of sight to more centers than any other in the study. It also had a much higher intervisibility index than the other centers, meaning that its location may have been intentionally chosen in order to “keep an eye” on its peers during the Late

Classic. The high intervisibility index also indicates that a system of visual communication may have in fact been feasible, especially between Minanha and the nearby minor centers Waybil, Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk. The other evidence suggesting that visual communication was possible is that Minanha is only one degree of separation away from maintaining a line of sight with all other visible centers in the study. If this number were higher it is less likely that messages could be relayed as quickly and accurately.

However, not all the centers in the study area would have automatically been able to participate in this visual network because of their location in lower elevations. This alone suggests that settlement patterns were not solely conditioned by visibility.

Therefore, CSA was used to model movement and simulate pathways throughout the study area. The CSA was specifically designed to create a network of pathways without including the coordinates of any known centers. By removing the site bias it was then possible to overlay the known centers and analyze settlement patterns objectively. The 112 results show that the largest number of high traffic cells pass through Minanha compared to all other centers across both scales.

Finally, this portion of the analysis is fairly static in nature. Both the viewshed and CSA are only capable of answering questions about Minanha’s visibility and access to pathways relative to the other centers. In order to say something meaningful, however, we must also take into account the fact that Minanha was a short-lived territorial capital in the midst of a much larger sociopolitical drama. Therefore, in order to answer any questions about its strategic location on the landscape we have to put it into context in terms of the long-term settlement history and assess how visibility and path networks affected and were affected by the shifting sociopolitical dynamics throughout the Vaca

Plateau and in neighboring regions.

113

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS

The results of the spatial analysis that were presented in the previous chapter do suggest that Minanha’s location was in a place of visual prominence that allowed the center to maintain intervisibility with a high number of nearby centers. The CSA also indicates that a greater number of high traffic pathways converge and pass through

Minanha relative to all other centers in the study area. If the assumption is correct that these high traffic pathways served as the main overland routes for the movement of people and trade goods, then it appears the inhabitants of the Minanha hilltop would have been strategically positioned to control the flow of information and resources passing through the north Vaca Plateau from neighbouring regions. To understand the significance and meaning of this strategic positioning, it is necessary to discuss

Minanha’s developmental sequence over time, focusing in particular on the rise and fall of the Late Classic royal court and how it is intertwined in the broader political dynamics of the Eastern Maya Lowlands.

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MINANHA ROYAL COURT: A MULTISCALAR PERSPECTIVE

Minanha: A Local Perspective

Over the course of the ancient settlement history of the north Vaca Plateau the most dramatic events were associated with the rise and fall of Minanha’s royal court during the Late Classic period (Iannone 2005). Before the emergence of the royal court,

Minanha was considered a “deep rural” community (Iannone et al. 2006, 2007) with humble beginnings that can be traced as far back as the Middle Preclassic. While no construction activity dates to this period, it is likely that a small population was in the 114 area as evidenced by Middle Preclassic ceramic sherds found in later mixed-fill deposits

(Iannone 2005:29; Iannone et al. 2006:115). Additional evidence from caves (Moyes et al. 2009) suggest that people, likely from the Belize Valley, began making pilgrimages into the Vaca Plateau around this time to perform rituals in these sacred locations, which happen to be abundant around Minanha.

The first clear evidence of architecture at Minanha dates to the Terminal

Preclassic when a tamped earth floor was constructed in Plaza A in the Epicenter (Seibert

2006:111). Macrae (2010) has also shown that the first agricultural terraces in the

Contreras Valley were built at this time as well. Over the course of the Terminal

Preclassic the Minanha population continued to expand gradually before ramping up in the Early and Middle Classic periods as extended family groups established themselves on good agricultural land with access to nearby water sources. Over time these families slowly separated themselves from the lowest-status members of the community by expanding and modifying their houselots. This was most evident at Group S, in the immediate periphery, where the first phase of construction of a formal eastern ancestor shrine was built during the Early Classic (Schwake 2002, 2008).

It was also during the Early Classic period that the Minanha community became firmly embedded in long-distance trade networks. Imported materials including obsidian from the Guatemala highlands and marine shells from coastal regions make up large percentages of the “special finds” artifact assemblages through the Early and Middle

Classic periods (Hills 2012:186). Through an analysis of the Minanha obsidian, Menzies and Stemp (2004; Stemp and Menzies 2008) have suggested that Minanha was at or near the end of an overland trade route and was therefore acquiring obsidian through down- 115 the-line trade systems. Results from the CSA help strengthen the interpretation that this community was tied into interregional, long-distance exchange networks because high traffic routes passing through Minanha clearly extend north and west into the Belize

Valley and Petén, and south towards Caracol (Figure 4.15).

At the beginning of the Late Classic period the entire dynamic of the Minanha community was fundamentally changed by the emergence of a fully functional royal court (Iannone 2005, 2010). At this time construction of a 9.5 hectare royal court complex began in the Epicenter that included a royal residential acropolis that served as the tangible manifestation of the institution of kingship and the physical seat of power for the Minanha city-state (Iannone 2005:29-30). The nature of the emergence of the royal court is not fully understood, in large part because no epigraphic records survive from

Minanha, but it is believed that non-local entities were at least partially responsible for the 8th century fluorescence (Iannone 2005:32, 2010:13). Through architectural and artifactual data, Iannone (2005:31) has argued that the political inspiration for the physical layout of the Epicenter emulates the Calakmul-style civic plan. However, it appears that Caracol likely provided the “ideal” model for kingly conduct at Minanha based on a series of nine traits that are viewed as “unified programs of religious and political praxis at both centers” (Iannone 2005:31).

Based on this evidence, we may infer that the emergence of the royal court may be attributed to a group of elite immigrants who “were not only familiar with the institution of kingship as it was manifest at Caracol, but they also had the political and economic resources to establish a legitimate setting for an autonomous seat of power”

(Iannone 2010:13). However, the success of this royal court was relatively short-lived. 116

Sometime before A.D. 810 the royal residential acropolis was buried under 5 m of rubble in a ritual termination of the physical seat of dynastic power (Iannone 2005, 2010). This appears to have been a dramatic event that may have included violence because buildings were badly burned, stucco friezes were chipped away, and many stelae were broken off and removed from their original positions in an effort to erase the material and symbolic signs of power and authority.

Following these events, the Terminal Classic Minanha community slowly fell into disrepair and the site was ultimately abandoned sometime in the Early Postclassic. The local power structures once again shifted when there was no longer an elite authority to maintain structured hierarchical order. As a result, many of the extended family groups that had been established during the Early and Middle Classic once again became the most active loci in terms of construction expansion and remodeling (Longstaffe 2010).

This may be interpreted as a shift back to the original kin-based power structures based on McAnany’s (1995) “principle of first occupancy.” This Terminal Classic community, like the ones during the Early and Middle Classic, appears to have been inwardly focused and heterarchically organized with interdependencies between extended family groups within a loose hierarchy. It was also during the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic that most overland trade routes were abandoned in favour of rivers and maritime trade meaning Minanha and other inland centers were no longer strategically positioned

(Andrews 1983:125-126; Shatto 1998:137-138).

A Perspective from the Hinterlands

Outside of Minanha, the shifting dynamics associated with the emergence of the royal court have been detected in many of the minor centers within the hinterlands. While 117

Minanha has been characterized as a “deep rural” community from the Terminal

Preclassic to the beginning of the Late Classic, the evidence from Waybil suggests the presence of an emerging elite well before the Minanha royal court came to power. Here there is a Late Preclassic structure (AI-3rd) with a partially preserved ornamental stucco mask abutting the axial staircase (Hills et al. 2012). Although this mask has not been completely exposed, and therefore any anthropomorphic or zoomorphic representations are not fully understood, it is the earliest feature of this type known from the north Vaca

Plateau. Hills and colleagues (2012) have argued that the construction of this building would have been orchestrated by elite individuals with the power to mobilize a sizeable labour force. Furthermore, “the shared experience of many individuals constructing and completing monumental architecture likely would have instilled a feeling of group accomplishment and identity, but also would have made labourers acknowledge the exceptional position of the elite” (Hills et al. 2012:55).

Additional excavations in Group B at Waybil have revealed an occupation history that spans a period of roughly 450 years from the Middle Classic through the Terminal

Classic (Schwake et al. 2012). The main building (Str. BIII) is an eastern ancestor shrine, and while it is not monumental in size, its construction during the Middle Classic indicates its relative importance to the local community. Furthermore, Schwake and colleagues (2012:83) tell us that the presence of non-local materials in the artifact assemblage “holds intriguing implications for the kinds of long-distance reach that the

Waybil Maya held, and indicates that they were tapped into networks of communication and exchange far outside their little valley in the North Vaca Plateau.” Given the early dates of occupation at Waybil, its expansive viewshed (Figure 5, Appendix I), and its 118 location on a prominent ridge in close proximity to high traffic routes (Figure 4.13 and

4.15), it is possible to infer that Waybil was a key ritual center in this part of the north

Vaca Plateau before the emergence of the Minanha royal court.

Approximately 5.5 km south of Waybil is another minor center known as Camp 6, which was partially excavated by J. Eric Thompson in the late 1920’s. Here, Thompson

(1931) recovered pottery sherds from the Holmul V Period (A.D. 633 – 889), and “votive caches” that contained fine jadite items and marine shells associated with long-distance trade. As a site located along the valley floor with at least two 10 m structures, it is likely that Camp 6 developed over time in conjunction with the trade routes passing through the area. Thompson (1931:229) even suggested that “communications with the north were probably maintained through the city situated at Camp 6, Minanha, and Benque Viejo

[Xunantunich].” This is supported by CSA, which has revealed that a number of high traffic routes pass directly through Camp 6 and link it with Minanha and other centers to the north (Figure 4.13 and 4.15).

The only other minor center in the Minanha territory that has been partially excavated is another valley floor site called Martinez. Again, there is some evidence based on CSA that Martinez was also situated along overland trade routes, and in fact, the valley that it sits in connects with Camp 6 nine km to the south. Martinez itself consists of a single eastern ancestor shrine complex with several extended family household groups nearby. Excavations have revealed that this eastern ancestor shrine was constructed during the Middle to Late Classic period (A.D. 650-750), and that it shares material culture and mortuary practice patterns consistent with those at Minanha

(Schwake et al. 2011). The fact that the emergence of Martinez directly coincides 119 chronologically with the expansion of the Minanha royal court has led Schwake and colleagues (2011:91) to believe that “the fates of those at the Martinez minor center were tied to the ruling elites at Minanha… [and that] they were likely part of a top-down expansion strategy enacted by the Minanha rulers.”

The remaining minor centers and settlement areas throughout the Minanha territory have received significantly less attention from archaeologists. Oxmuul,

Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk were only discovered in 2012, and Mile 4 consists of little more than a 7 m structure on a low hilltop at the very northern edge of the Vaca Plateau.

However, even with the limited evidence available, some interesting patterns emerge. For example, ceramic sherds spanning all periods from the Terminal Preclassic to the Late

Classic have been found in surface collections and looters trenches at Oxmuul,

Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk, albeit in very small quantities (Barry and Cheong 2012). Half of all these sherds (Tables 1-3, Appendix II) date to the Late Classic, which follows the general pattern seen in the Minanha area, where this was the period of highest population density.

While it is difficult at this time to say with any certainty, one of the pieces of evidence that suggests Minanha may have played a role in overseeing the expansion of these communities during the Late Classic is their physical layout. One of the design parameters for the reconnaissance portion of this thesis was targeting hilltops along the major valley accessways leading to and from Minanha. These are the main valleys that happen to be generally oriented toward the north, east, and west cardinal directions

(Figure 3.4). When Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk are plotted on a map with Minanha 120 and Waybil, it becomes quite apparent that they make a cruciform pattern and are located at nearly identical distances away from Minanha (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Cruciform orientation of Minanha, Waybil, Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk.

121

This type of orientation of minor centers has been documented elsewhere in the

Maya subarea, most notably at La Milpa (Tourtellot et al. 2000, 2002, 2003). Here, the locations of La Milpa South and La Milpa East were already known, and by using basic viewshed models the locations for La Milpa North and La Milpa West were accurately predicted. The evidence from these minor centers also suggests that they were constructed during the Late/Terminal Classic apogee of La Milpa Centre. Given their particular layout, Tourtellot et al. (2003:107) have suggested that the Late Classic rulers of La Milpa may have orchestrated construction efforts at the “right hilltops that happened to be there to fulfill a cosmic layout reflecting their quincuncial vision of the world.” In terms of function, there is no evidence to prove that these minor centers actually had any “administrative or ‘centralizing’ role rather than a merely ceremonial function” (Tourtellot et al. 2003:107). However, Robichaux (1995:22) suggests that the

“minor centers are the specific loci of oversight and management activities for the intensive agriculture production efforts in the bajo zones” that surround La Milpa.

At this time the data from Minanha’s minor centers are far too preliminary to confirm a similar scenario to the one at La Milpa. However, following Schwake and colleagues’ (2012) interpretation that Martinez was constructed as part of a top-down expansion strategy, it is possible that Minanha’s rulers similarly orchestrated Late Classic building projects at Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk in particular. The limited ceramic materials from these centers indicate that there were likely small populations as early as the Terminal Preclassic, but these reached their peak during the Late Classic like much of the Vaca Plateau. It is also noteworthy that Ixkuk has the only known stela monument 122 outside of Minanha’s epicenter, which may have been a form of gift from the elite rulers to integrate the Ixkuk community into the larger Minanha city-state. Excavations at

Waybil confirm that there was thriving Late Classic community that constructed small temple-pyramids (Str. AIII), possible storage facilities (Str. AV), and modified existing ritual buildings (Str. AI), although it is unclear what role, if any, Minanha’s royal court played in these projects (Hills et al. 2012; Schwake et al. 2013).

While this is a tantalizing scenario, none of it has been confirmed archaeologically. Until excavations at these minor centers can be carried out, this is simply one hypothesis. In order to return to the broader question of why Minanha may have been strategically located we must also look at the settlement data and political history from a broader perspective across the greater Vaca Plateau and neighbouring geopolitical regions.

Regional and Interregional Perspectives

It was suggested above that the emergence of Minanha’s royal court was possibly associated with “a splinter group of disaffected Caracol nobles” from 25 km to the south

(Iannone 2010:13). In order to understand the circumstances in which a splinter group from this center, or from somewhere within its vicinity, would leave and forge a new capital, it is necessary to provide some basic information on Caracol and its political history.

By all accounts Caracol is regarded as one of the largest centers in all of the Maya

Lowlands. As one of the most powerful and antagonistic polities during the Classic period, much of its political history was masterfully carved into a plethora of stone monuments (see Martin and Grube 2000:100-115). The decipherment of these 123 monuments has revealed that Caracol had a tumultuous past that was riddled with violence and warfare as it jockeyed between autonomy and alliances associated with the extremely powerful Tikal and Calakmul dynasties. In particular, Caracol, and Naranjo in the Petén, were involved in intense conflicts during the Middle and Late Classic that resulted in prolonged periods of political decline where few carved monuments were erected. At Caracol this amounted to only one monument being erected between A.D.

680 – 798, and similarly, only one monument at Naranjo was commissioned between

A.D. 726 – 780 (Martin and Grube 2000:78-79, 95). The timing of these events is particularly interesting given that Minanha’s royal court experienced its fluorescence while Caracol and Naranjo were in political decline. The inverse correlation of the developmental sequences of these centers is indicative of the general decentralization of power and rise in political instability that occurred throughout the Maya Lowlands during the 8th century (Iannone 2005; Martin and Grube 2000:211; Stuart 1993:324). Minanha’s location 25 km equidistant from both Caracol and Naranjo also suggests it may have been strategically placed to control the flow of resources between them following models of frontier development (Kopytoff 1987, 1999; Schnepel 2002, 2005). Following these frontier models, Iannone (2010:13) has suggested that, “It seems plausible, therefore, that the power vacuum created by the contraction of Caracol and Naranjo allowed Minanha to emerge as an autonomous city-state in the frontiers between these two polities.”

Minanha is not the only center in this study to have a similar developmental sequence. In the Belize River Valley, the hilltop center Xunantunich emerged as a territorial capital during the Late Classic and thrived through the Terminal Classic period

(LeCount and Yaeger 2010). Whereas Minanha has many architectural and material 124 correlates that link it with Caracol, Xunantunich appears to be an affiliate or ally with

Naranjo (Iannone 2010:11). As Minanha and Xunantunich are situated about 15 km apart, and are intervisible with one another, it’s possible that they reflect similar strategies by

Caracol and Naranjo to control the contested frontier zone.

Ten kilometers south of Minanha, between it and Caracol, is the major center

Ixchel (Figure 5.2). SARP has carried out three short field seasons of investigations at

Ixchel that have revealed some other interesting clues concerning the broader sociopolitical dynamics of the north Vaca Plateau over time (Hills et al. 2013; Iannone et al. 2011, 2012). Ixchel is quite similar in terms of size and architectural plan as Minanha with a large open plaza and eastern ancestor shrine complex beside a ballcourt at the foot of a raised acropolis, but Ixchel’s acropolis is to the south while Minanha’s is to the north. Excavations in Group A at Ixchel have determined that three significant construction phases in the eastern shrine complex (Structures A1, A2, and A3) occurred between the Terminal Preclassic and Early/Middle Classic periods (ca. A.D. 200 – 600).

Interestingly, a major destruction event seems to have occurred around A.D. 600 when very hot, prolonged fires appear to have burned a number of shrines in the epicenter including the eastern shrine complex (Iannone et al. 2011). A Middle/Late Classic burial was later cut into the central shrine (Str. A1) and covered over with the final version of the building (Iannone et al. 2011:8). A broken and defaced stela monument was used as a capstone for this burial, suggesting the individual was likely quite important. The broken and defaced monument may also be indicative of violence and warfare.

125

Figure 5.2. Map of Ixchel.

Excavations in Structure B21 in the Ixchel acropolis have revealed an almost identical construction history as Structures A1-3, with three distinct phases dating to the

Terminal Preclassic, Early Classic, and Middle Classic periods (Iannone et al. 2012:12). 126

This evidence, in conjunction with excavations from Group A, suggests that much of

Ixchel’s monumental building program predates the emergence of Minanha’s royal court, although people still continued to live in and around Ixchel after the Late/Terminal

Classic transition (Iannone et al. 2011). There is also evidence of a heavy burning event in the Level 4c staircase of Structure B21 that dates to sometime during the Terminal

Preclassic/Early Classic transition, making it earlier than the burning in Group A

(Iannone et al. 2012:12). This suggests that Ixchel experienced repeated instances of violence and conflict throughout its history. Furthermore, the fact that both Ixchel and

Minanha have signs of intense destruction events is quite interesting given the context of broader historical events that are known from carved monuments from Caracol and

Naranjo (Martin and Grube 2000:84-99, 100-116).

Inscriptions from these antagonistic centers describe repeated attacks on smaller subordinate centers within the frontier zones between polities that included multiple burning events (Martin and Grube 2000:80). Of particular note is a recurring emblem glyph for a center known as Bítal, whose location has not yet been discovered (Chase,

Grube and Chase 1991:10). Monuments from Naranjo describe attacks on Bítal in A.D.

693, 775, and 777 that included burning (Martin and Grube 2000:80), while Altar 23 from Caracol depicts an event in A.D. 800 where rulers from Ucanal and Bítal have been captured and bound, likely in preparation for sacrifice (Chase, Grube and Chase 1991:8-

9). The fact that the Bítal ruler was captured in the same war event as the holy lord of

Ucanal implies that Bítal’s location “was somewhere between Naranjo and Caracol in a border area of continuous tensions” and furthermore that “the toponym refers to one of 127 the many poorly known sites in the border region of Belize and Guatemala, south of the modern town of Melchor de Mencos” (Chase, Grube and Chase 1991:10).

Currently there is no conclusive evidence to support the notion that Minanha or

Ixchel are actually Bítal, but their locations make them prime suspects (Iannone 2002b,

2003b, 2010:14). The archaeological data also reveals some tantalizing clues as a major burning event at Ixchel has been dated to roughly A.D. 600, which is not too far off from the A.D 693 event recorded on Naranjo Stela 22 (Chase, Grube and Chase 1991:10), and the destruction of the Minanha royal court occurred sometime before A.D. 810 (Iannone

2005, 2010). It is therefore a possibility, given what SARP has learned about the historical sequences of both Minanha and Ixchel, that the original Bítal royal house was initially based at Ixchel, and following the defeat by Naranjo in A.D. 693, they moved their seat of power to Minanha until they ultimately succumbed to the resurgent Caracol polity in A.D. 800 (Iannone, personal communication 2013). Another intriguing clue is that the Minanha Epicenter, which was constructed later than Ixchel’s, is virtually a mirror image of it’s southern neighbor and it’s highest building, Str. 38J, directly faces

Ixchel while maintaining intervisibility. However, it must be stressed that until an emblem glyph or other textual evidence is found at either Minanha or Ixchel, this scenario is simply one hypothesis.

SUMMARY

In this chapter I have discussed the available archaeological and epigraphic data from Minanha, the north Vaca Plateau, and select centers in neighboring regions in an effort to give context to the historical development of the Minanha state over time. By doing so, it provides an opportunity to further evaluate the question of whether Minanha 128 was in fact strategically located. The results of the viewshed and CSA suggest that the founders of the Minanha royal court likely chose this location because of its prominent views to and from a high number of nearby centers, and because of its proximity to high traffic pathways that are believed to be associated with the movement of people and resources. In terms of broader regional and interregional sociopolitical dynamics,

Minanha’s rulers’ desire to visually monitor their territory and control access to resources would have been motivated by the disruptive nature of the decentralizing forces caused by the political decline of major centers such as Caracol and Naranjo. In this sense, an upstart capital such as Minanha would not have needed to control a large territory, but one that had easy access to crucial resources including agriculture, water, and long- distance trade goods to satiate the political economy. From this perspective Minanha would have been ideally located—not only on the local scale with large viewsheds, proximity to high traffic pathways, and evenly spaced minor centers to help oversee and manage agricultural production—but also in terms of its position within the frontier between Caracol, Naranjo, and other Belize Valley and Petén centers.

129

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

No site is, or was, an isolate and no site may be comprehended without a consideration of its possible or probable roles within a network of contemporary sites; whether or not those contemporary sites may still be identified is immaterial [Clarke 1972:848].

This quote from David Clarke is meant to remind the reader that every archaeological site is a dynamic entity that does not exist without context in a broader system of archeological materials, other sites, and the human agents that operate within and drive the system. This thesis revolves around a spatial analysis that has been designed to address several hypotheses about the ancient Maya center of Minanha’s strategic location on the landscape and how it may have been integrated as a node in an interregional trade and communication network. Therefore it is necessary to address several discrete but interrelated scales of analysis from the local site-level and immediate geographic context, to a broader regional and interregional consideration complete with the associated sociopolitical dynamics over time. In doing so I have attempted to integrate GIS-based spatial models with new and existing archaeological and epigraphic data. The results are encouraging, and in the section below I return to each of the research questions that were presented in Chapter 1 and address how they have been answered. As such, this chapter will synthesize much of the information that is presented throughout the thesis and serve as a basic overview.

130

ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(1) Can viewshed models aid in predicting the location of additional settlements in the Minanha hinterlands?

Geographic information systems (GIS), and viewshed analysis in particular, have become important tools for archaeologists who are interested in predictive modeling, especially in rugged terrain where visibility is often limited (Doyle et al. 2012; Lake and

Woodman 2003). It has long been suggested that visibility played a prominent role for middle- and upper-level settlements across the Vaca Plateau (Iannone 2005:29;

Thompson 1931:229), but no formal studies have been carried out to explore this relationship. With this in mind, a viewshed analysis was designed to target specific hilltops in the Minanha hinterlands that maintain intervisibility with Group J in the

Epicenter in order to ground truth them for the presence or absence of settlement features.

In total, 22 target locations were chosen and three new minor centers were located within

100 meters of points generated as a result of the viewshed analysis. The target location where the minor center Oxmuul was found was actually visited by SARP project members prior to my own reconnaissance. The site was not documented explicitly as part of my own project, but it is still presented in this thesis as it falls into my viewshed model. Two other minor centers, Kolchikiin and Ixkuk were also located as a result of the viewshed analysis, while 34 new settlement groups (NV1-NV34, Table 4 in Appendix

II), four sizeable aguadas (two wet, two dry), 13 active springs, six caves, and dozens of terraces were also documented throughout daily reconnaissance over a three weeks period. In summary, viewshed modeling has proven to be quite useful for predicting the 131 location of additional settlements in the Minanha hinterlands, but as discussed in previous chapters, visibility is by no means the sole factor that influences settlement patterns.

(2) By modeling a network of pathways within the Vaca Plateau and extending into neighbouring regions, can major corridors of movement be detected and how do these articulate with known settlement patterns?

Another tool that has made a great impact on the way archaeologists study settlement patterning is the application of cost surface analysis (CSA). Typically CSA is employed by creating least cost paths between known sites and analyzing the routes in relation to other settlement and landscape features (Surface-Evans and White 2012).

However, more recently, a small number of researchers have begun eschewing the site- based models in favour of non-site models in order to eliminate settlement bias when creating path networks (see Bell et al. 2002; Bellavia 2002, 2006; Howey 2007, 2011; van Leusen 2002; White 2012; White and Barber 2012). I chose to emulate this approach because “it can be used to generate hypotheses regarding whether a site developed or flourished as a result of proximity to a pre-existing trade route or junction while controlling for the possibility that the trade routes developed as a result of the presence of the site” (White and Barber 2012:2693).

Again, the rationale behind this aspect of the thesis is tied to previous assumptions that Minanha was strategically positioned along important trade and communication routes passing through the Vaca Plateau and into neighbouring regions. The results of my analysis were highly encouraging because 20,000 individual pathways were created, and these were further processed to reveal four types of pathways according to frequency: low; low-medium; medium-high; and high. Interestingly, these pathways cut across all 132 parts of the north Vaca Plateau including hillslopes and ridgelines in addition to the valleys. This suggests that movement throughout this region may not be as difficult as it often seems today so long as trails are maintained, which we assume they would have been during ancient times when the populations were higher and agricultural production dominated the landscape. Sporadic logging roads and hunting trails, which were used as extensively as possible during reconnaissance, serve as modern analogues.

Another takeaway from this portion of the analysis is that high traffic pathways pass through all known centers within the study area. If these pathways serve as heuristic devices for the major corridors of movement in the past, then it appears proximity to high traffic pathways was a factor in settlement patterning. The strength of this particular interpretation lies in the fact that the path network model was generated without known site locations, so the correlation between high traffic paths and settlement patterns can be analyzed objectively.

(3) Is Minanha preferentially located in relation to other centers according to the viewshed and CSA models?

At the heart of this thesis are two hypotheses that suggest Minanha played an important role as a node in a trade and communication network from Caracol in the south to other centers in the Belize River Valley and Petén regions to the north (Thompson

1931:229), and given this position, “the center was strategically located” with the ability to monitor the movement of people and resources passing through its territory (Iannone

2005:29). Therefore, it is possible to use the viewshed and CSA models to compare

Minanha to other known centers within the north Vaca Plateau, as well as neighbouring regions. The results have indicated that Minanha had the most extensive viewshed and 133 that more high traffic pathways passed through it than any other center in the study. To answer this research question in short, it would seem that yes, Minanha was preferentially located in relation to other centers. However, we must temper this answer with the fact that Minanha is a hilltop center in the Vaca Plateau, and that valley floor sites and centers in neighboring regions have been included that do not adhere to the same settlement strategy as Minanha. Question five addresses this in greater detail.

(4) Would a system of visual communication be possible between Minanha and other nearby centers?

Following Thompson’s (1931:229) hypothesis that “communications with the north were probably maintained through cities situated at Camp 6, Minanha, and Benque

Viejo [Xunantunich],” and that Minanha had the ability to “monitor the movement of people into and out of the plateau” (Iannone 2005:29), it was possible to test the idea of a system of visual communication between centers. In order to do so, viewshed maps were analyzed for intervisibility, which assumes that two sites with mutual visibility would have been able to relay non-verbal messages. Forms of non-verbal messages may include the use of fire, smoke signals, brightly coloured cloths, or even pyrite mosaic mirrors

(Ellis 1991; Healy and Blainey 2011; Southern 1990; Swanson 2003:754). The results showed that Minanha was intervisible with 6 out of a possible 10 centers, which was the highest intervisibility index for all centers within the study (Table 4.6). Furthermore, a series of minor centers including Waybil, Oxmuul, Kolchikiin, and Ixkuk surround

Minanha’s Epicenter in an evenly spaced, cosmologically significant layout (Figure 5.1).

This may indicate intentional efforts by the Late Classic royal court to integrate the hinterland population through the construction of these nodes that could send and receive 134 visual information. Even if the royal court was not involved in a top-down expansion strategy into the hinterlands, as suggested by Schwake and colleagues (2011), these four sites would have at least served a defensive purpose given their ability to relay information to Minanha about incoming threats.

In summary, the viewshed analysis does indicate that an extensive system of visual communication would have been possible given the high number of intervisible centers both within the Vaca Plateau and extending into neighbouring regions.

Specifically, Thompson’s hypothesis that communications were relayed through Camp 6,

Minanha, and onto Xunantunich is possible, but only when Oxmuul is included as a node between Camp 6 and Minanha. However, such a system of visual communication is speculative and has not been confirmed archaeologically, yet it serves as a useful model for assessing the way information might have been passed in a rugged environment where overland travel was costly and time consuming.

(5) What do these models suggest about the overall strategic value of Minanha’s location and broader settlement patterns within the Vaca Plateau?

Perhaps more than the others, this question synthesizes what the main goal from the outset of this thesis project has been. While Thompson (1931), Iannone (2005), and also Connell and Neff (1999) have long speculated on Minanha’s strategic value in its particular location, their hypotheses have been based solely on field observations, albeit well informed ones. This particular study has aimed to take these hypotheses to the next level by applying modern GIS technology to model visibility and movement in order to test the previous observations. On one hand it is difficult to quantify the strategic value of settlement location due to the countless settlement strategies that influence where people 135 decide to live. On the other hand, viewshed and CSA have proven to be very useful tools that have allowed for a more nuanced understanding about the strategic placement of this center to emerge.

My results indicate that many middle- and upper-level settlements were located on high hilltops with extensive viewsheds and in proximity to high traffic pathways.

When centers were not located on hilltops, they are still adjacent to the extensive path network that links all known centers within the study area. The motivations for these choices cannot be truly known because we cannot ask the Maya themselves, but part of it may be due to the fact that most of these centers were established or flourished during the

Late Classic period when political instability and violence were at all-time highs across the southern Lowlands. As conflicts between Caracol and Naranjo intensified to the point where each center was in political decline, the general decentralization of power allowed smaller centers such as Minanha to emerge and capitalize opportunistically on existing trade routes and resources within the frontier regions. It is in this sense that Minanha appears to have been not only strategically, but even ideally located, given the results of my analysis.

CLOSING REMARKS

Many of the conclusions presented in this chapter are not entirely new ones.

Iannone (2010) and Schwake and Iannone (2011) have argued, based on models of frontier development and collective memory, that Minanha was an ideal location for the establishment of a Late Classic royal court in the north Vaca Plateau. However, my research compliments these previous studies by providing new models with which to test 136 settlement patterns and make interpretations that go beyond previous hypotheses.

Furthermore, the research design I employed in the CSA aspect of the thesis represents a new variation on an established methodology that is easily replicated and may benefit future researchers. The results conclusively agree that Minanha’s royal court was established in a strategic location with the ability to monitor its territory and the movement of people and key resources through it. However, it must be reiterated that many of the conclusions I have drawn from my own research are based on models and therefore remain open to interpretation. More extensive archaeological research is absolutely necessary across the Minanha hinterlands and north Vaca Plateau in general in order to tease out a fuller understanding about ancient Maya settlement patterns and sociopolitical dynamics over time.

137

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, R.E.W. 1990 The Archaeological Research at the Lowland Maya City of Río Azul. Latin American Antiquity 1:23-41.

Adams, R.E.W., and Richard C. Jones 1981 Spatial Patterns and Regional Growth Among Classic Maya Cities. American Antiquity 46:301-322.

Adams, R.E.W., and Woodruff D. Smith 1981 Feudal Models for Classic Maya Civilization. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 335-350. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Adams, Robert McC. 1965 Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement of the Diyala Plains. Univeristy of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Aimers, James J. 1993 An Hermaneutic Analysis of the Maya E-Group Complex. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2007a What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:329-377. 2007b Anti-apocalypse: the Postclassic period at Lamanai, Belize. Archaeology International 10:45-48.

Aimers, James J., and Prudence M. Rice 2006 Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of the Maya “E-Group” Architectural Assemblages. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:79-96.

Anaya Hernandez, Armando 1999 Site Interaction and Political in the Upper Usumacinta Region During the Late Classic: A GIS Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Anaya Hernandez, Armando, Stanley P. Guenter, and Mark U. Zender 2003 Sak Tz’i’, A Classic Maya Center: A Locational Model Based on GIS and Epigraphy. Latin American Antiquity 14(2):179-191.

Andrews, Anthony P. 1983 Maya Salt Production and Trade. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV 1965 Progress Report on the 1960—64 Field Seasons. In Archaeological 138

Studies in Middle America, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 31. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Arnold, Jeanne A., and Anabel. Ford 1980 A Statistical Examination of Settlement Patterns at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 45:713-726.

Ashmore, Wendy (editor) 1981 Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ashmore, Wendy, Samuel V. Connell, Jennifer J. Ehret, Chad H. Gifford, L. Ted Neff, and John C. Vandenbosch 1994 The Xunantunich Settlement Survey. In Xunantunich Archaeological Project: 1994 Field Season, edited by Richard Leventhal, pp. 248-288. Xunantunich Archaeological Project, and Los Angeles.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Jeremy A. Sabloff 2002 Spatial Order in Maya Civic Plans. Latin American Antiquity 13:201-216.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Gordon R. Willey 1981 A Historical Introduction to the Study of Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 3-18. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Aveni, Anthony F., Anne S. Dowd, and Benjamin Vining 2003 Reform? Evidence from Specialized Architectural Assemblages. Latin American Antiquity 14:159-178.

Awe, Jaime J., and Paul F. Healy 1994 Flakes to Blades? Middle Formative Development of Obsidian Artifacts in the Upper Belize Valley. Latin American Antiquity 5(3):193-205.

Awe, Jaime J., Cassandra Bill, Mark Campbell, and David Cheetham 1990 Early Middle Formative Occupation in the Central Maya Lowlands: Recent Evidence from Cahal Pech, Belize. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 1:1-15. University College London, London.

Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo 1965 El libro de los cantares de Dzitbalché. Serie de Investigaciones, 9. Insituto de Antropología e Historia, Mexico, D.F.

Barry, Jack, and Kong F. Cheong 2012 Over the Hills and Through the Bush: Reconnaissance in the Minanha Hinterlands During the 2012 Field Season. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourteenth 139

(2012) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Bell, Tyler, Andrew Wilson, and Andrew J. Wickham 2002 Tracking the Samnites: Landscape and Communication Routes in the Sangro Valley, Italy. American Journal of Archaeology 106:169-186.

Bellavia, Gino 2002 Extracting "Natural Pathways" from a Digital Elevation Model: Applications to Landscape Archaeological Studies. In Archaeological Informatics: Pushing the Envelope, edited by G. Burenholt and J Arvidsson, pp. 5-12. 2006 Predicting Communication Routes. In General Issues in the Study of Medieval Logistics: Sources, Problem, and Methodologies, edited by John F. Haldon, pp. 185-198. Brill, Leiden.

Berlin, Heinrich 1958 El glifo “emblema” en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de la Societé des Américanistes 47:111-119.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31:203-210. 1968a Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:267-277. 1968b Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives on Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 5-32. Aldine, Chicago.

Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2004 The Maya and : Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Brown, Clifford T., and Walter R.T. Witschey 2003 The Fractal Geometry of Ancient Maya Settlement. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12):1619-1632.

Bullard, William R. 1960 Maya Settlement Pattern in Northeastern Peten, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:355-372.

Butzer, Karl W. 1976 Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Carballo, D. M., and T. Pluckhahn 140

2007 Transportation Corridors and Political Evolution in Highland Mesoamerica: Settlement Analyses Incorporating GIS for Northern Tlaxcala, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:607-629.

Carleton, W. Chris, James Conolly, and Gyles Iannone 2012 A Locally-Adaptive Model of Archaeological Potential (LAMAP). Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3371-3385.

Carr, Robert F., and James E. Hazard 1961 Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Petén, Guatemala. Tikal Reports, no. 11. Museum Monograph 21. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Chang, K.C. 1968 Toward a Science of Prehistoric Society. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K.C. Chang, pp. 1-9. National Press Books, Palo Alto.

Chase, Arlen F. 2011 Airborne LiDAR, archaeology, and the ancient Maya landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2):387-398. 2004 Polities, Politics, and Social Dynamics: Contextualizing the Archaeology of the Belize Valley and Caracol. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James Garber, pp. 320-344. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase 1987 Investigations at the Classic Maya City of Caracol, Belize: 1985-1987. Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 1992 Mesoamerican Elites: Assumptions, Definitions, and Models. In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase, pp. 3-17. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1996 More than Kin and King: Centralized Political Organization Among the Ancient Maya. Current Anthropology 37(5):803-810. 2001 Ancient Maya Causeways and Site Organization at Caracol, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 12(2):273-281.

Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, Christopher T. Fisher, Stephen J. Leisz, and John F. Weishampel 2012 Geospatial Revolution and Remote Sensing LiDAR in Mesoamerican Archaeology. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 109(32):12916-12921.

Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, and William Haviland 1990 The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering the “Mesoamerican Urban Tradition.” American Anthropologist 92:499-506.

141

Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase. John F. Weishampel, Jason B. Drake, Ramesh L. Shrestha, K. Clint Slatton, Jaime J. Awe, and William E. Carter 2011 Airborne LiDAR, Archaeology, and the Ancient Maya Landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:387-398.

Chase, Arlen F., , and Diane Z. Chase 1991 Three Terminal Classic Monuments from Caracol, Belize. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 36:1-18. Center for Maya Research, Washington, D.C.

Chase, Arlen F., and Prudence M. Rice 1985 The Lowland Maya Postclassic. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cheetham, David T. 2005 Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry G. Powis, pp. 27-38. BAR International Series 1377. Oxford.

Chocón, Jorge E., and Marco Antonio Urbina 1999 Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Chiquibul: Entidad política El Ceibo. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 131-142. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala.

Clark, John E., and Richard Hansen 2001 The Architecture of Kingship: Comparative Perspectives on the Origin of the Maya Royal Court. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, volume 2, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 1-45. Westview Press, Boulder.

Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye 2000 Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

Clarke, David L. 1972 A Provisional Model of Iron Age Society and its Settlement System. In Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 801-870. Methuen, London.

Coe, Michael D. 1968 America’s First Civilization. American Heritage, New York. 1992 Breaking the Maya Code. Thames and Hudson, New York. 2005 The Maya, Seventh Edition. Thames and Hudson, London.

Coe, Michael D., and Kent V. Flannery 1964 Microenvironments and Mesoamerican Prehistory: Fine-Scale Ecological 142

Analysis Clarifies the Transition to Settled Life in Pre-Columbian Times. Science 143(3607):650-654.

Coe, William R. 1962 A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal, Guatemala (1956-1961). American Antiquity 27:479-507. 1963 Current Research: Eastern Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 28:416-419. 1965 Tikal: Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala. Expedition 8(1):5-56.

Connell, Samuel V. 2000 Were They Well Connected? An Exploration of Ancient Maya Regional Interaction from the Middle-Level Perspective of , Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2000b Minanha' Regional Survey: 2000 Field Season at Contreras Camp. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Lisa McParland, Adam Menzies, and Ryan Primrose. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2001 Minanha' Regional Survey: 2001 Field Season Report. In. Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report on the Third (2001) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Ryan Primrose, Adam Menzies, and Lisa McParland, pp. 109-126. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2003 Making Sense of Variability Among Minor Centers: the Ancient Maya of Chaa Creek, Belize. In Perspectives on Ancient Maya Rural Complexity, edited by Gyles Iannone and Samuel V. Connell, pp. 27-41. UCLA Institute of Archaeology Press, Monograph 49, Los Angeles.

Connell, Samuel V., and L. Theodore Neff 1999 Minanha—Regional Survey: From the Ground Up. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report on the First (1999) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jeffrey Seibert, and Nadine Grey, pp. 97-103. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Conolly, James, and Mark Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Conolly, James, and Kong F. Cheong 2012 Field Testing the Probability Model: 2012 Field Season Report. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report on the Fourteenth (2012) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp. 98-103. Social 143

Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Corzo, Lillian S., and Héctor Mejía 1999 Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política Dos Hermanas. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 64-88. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala.

Creamer, Winifred and Jonathan Haas 1985 Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central America. American Antiquity 50(4): 738-754.

Crumley, Carole L. 1987 A Dialectical Critique of Hierarchy. In Power Relations and State Formation, edited by Thomas C. Patterson and Christine Ward Gailey, pp. 155-168. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, edited by Robert M. Ehrenreich, Carole L. Crumley, and Janet E. Levy, pp. 1-6. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 6. American Archaeological Association, Arlington. 2003 Alternative forms of Social Order. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez, Jr., and Nicholas P. Dunning, pp. 136-145. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Culbert, T. Patrick, and Don S. Rice 1990 Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dahlin, Bruce H., and Alfred H. Siemens 1984 Results of the Investigations of Agronomic Potentials in the Bajo de Santa Fe, El Petén, Guatemala. National Geographic Research Reports 16:163-170.

Davies, Hugh 2002 Roads in Roman Britain. Tempus, London.

Demarest, Arthur A. 1989 The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp. 303-344. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992 Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W. Conrad, pp. 135-158. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. 1996 Closing Comment. Current Anthropology 37(5):821-830. 144

1997 The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project 1989-1994: Overview, History, and Major Results of a Multidisciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:209-227. 2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006 The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse. Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology Series, Volume 1. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville.

Demarest, Arthur A., Matt O’Mansky, Claudia Wolley, Dirk Van Tuerenhout, Takeshi Inomata, Joel Palka, and Hector Escobedo 1997 Classic Maya Defensive Systems and Warfare in the Petexbatun Region: Archaeological Evidence and Interpretations. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:229- 253.

Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice 2004 The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Deuel, Leo 1969 Flights into Yesterday: The Story of Aerial Archaeology. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Diamond, Jared 2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking, New York.

Dillehay, Tom D., and David J. Meltzer 1991 The First Americans: Search and Research. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Djikstra, Edsger W. 1959 A Note of Two Problems in Connection with Graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1:269-271.

Doyle, James 2012 Regroup On “E-Groups”: Monumentality and Early Centers in the Middle Preclassic Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 23(4):355-380.

Doyle, James, Thomas G. Garrison, and Stephen D. Houston 2012 Watchful Realms: Integrating GIS Analysis and Political History in the Southern Maya Lowlands. Antiquity 86(3):792-807.

Dunning, Nicholas P. 1992 Lords of the Hills: Ancient Maya Settlement in the Puuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico. Prehistory Press, Madison. 1996 A Reexamination of Regional Variability in the Pre-Hispanic 145

Agricultural Landscape. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 53-68. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Dunning, Nicholas P., and Timothy Beach 2000 Imperfect Balance: Precolumbian New World Ecosystems. In Stability and Instability in Pre-hispanic Maya Landscapes, edited by David Lentz, pp. 179- 202. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, Pat Ferrell, and Sheryl Luzzader-Beach 1998 Prehispanic Agrosystems and Adaptive Regions in the Maya Lowlands. Culture & Agriculture 20:87-101.

Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, and David Rue 1997 The Paleoecology and Ancient Settlement of the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:255-266.

Dunning, Nicholas P., David J. Rue, Timothy Beach, Alan Covich, and Alfred Traverse 1998 Human-Environment Interactions in a Tropical Watershed: The Paleoecology of Laguna , El Petén, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:139-151.

Dunning, Nicholas P., Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach, Timothy Beach, John G. Jones, Vernon Scarborough, T. Patrick Culbert 2002 Arising from the Bajos: The Evolution of a Neotropical Landscape and the Rise of Maya Civilization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(2): 267-283.

Ellis, Andrea 1991 Towers of the Gallina Area and Greater Southwest. In Puebloan Past and Present: Papers in Honor of Stewart Peckham, edited by M.S. Duran and D.T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 57-70. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Erlandson, Jon M. 2009 Early Peopling of the Pacific Coast of North America. In Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 4. edited by F. P. McMannon, pp. 13- 15. Greenwood Publishing.

Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and Robert S. Steneck 2007 The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2(2):161-174.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri) 146

2014 What Is GIS? Electronic document, http://www.esri.com/what-is-gis, Accessed September 29, 2013.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco 1998 The Evolution of Complex Societies in Southeastern Pacific Coastal Guatemala: A Regional GIS Archaeological Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power Before the Classic Period. Routledge, New York.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and Magaly Koch 2007 Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of a Maya City and Its Landscape: Holmul, Guatemala. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology, edited by James R. Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, J. Valle, C. Hewitson, M. Wolf, J. Bauer, M. Morgan, J. C. Perez, J. Doyle, E. Barrios, A. Chavez, and N. Neivens 2004 Teledetección, patrón de asentamiento e historia en Holmul, Petén. In XVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas de Guatemala, edited by J. P. Laporte, H. Escobedo, and Barbara Arroyo, pp. 73-84. Ministerio de Cultura Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociacion Tikal, Guatemala.

Fagan, Brian M. 1987 The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Fash, William L. 1983 Maya State Formation: A Case Study and Its Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1988 A New Look at Maya Statecraft from Copán, Honduras. Antiquity 62:157- 169. 1994 Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 181-208. 1998 Dynastic Architecture Programs: Intention and Design in Classic Maya Buildings at Copán and Other Sites. In Function and Meaning in Classic , edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 223-270. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Fash, William L., and Robert J. Sharer 1991 Sociopolitical Developments and Methodological Issues at Copán, Honduras: A Conjunctive Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 2:166- 187.

Fedick, Scott L. (editor) 1996 The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use. 147

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Feinman, Gary, and Joyce Marcus 1998 Introduction. In Archaic States, edited by Gary Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 3-13. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Flannery, Kent V. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.

Flannery, Kent V. (editor) 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.

Flannery, Kent V., Andrew K. Balkansky, Gary M. Feinman, David C. Grove, Joyce Marcus, Elsa M. Redmond, Robert G. Reynolds, Robert J. Sharer, Charles S. Spencer, and Jason Yaeger 2005 Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for the Olmec “Mother Culture” Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences 102(32):11219-11223.

Folan, William J. 1992 Calakmul, Campeche: A Centralized Urban Administrative Center in the Northern Petén. World Archaeology 24:158-168.

Folan, William J., Armando Anaya Hernandez, Ellen R. Kintz, Laraine A. Fletcher, Raymundo Gonzalez Heredia, Jacinto May Hau, and Nicolas Caamal Canche 2009 Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico: A Recent Analysis of the Social, Economic and Political Organization of a Major Maya Urban Center. Ancient Mesoamerica 20(1):59-70.

Folan, William J., Laraine A. Fletcher, and Ellen R. Kintz 1979 Fruit, Fiber, Bark, and Resin: The Social Organization of a Maya Urban Center, Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Science 204:697-701.

Folan, William J., J. May Hau, Joyce Marcus, William F. Miller, and R. Gonzalez Heredia 2001 Los caminos de Calakmul, Campeche. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:293-298.

Folan, William J., Ellen R. Kintz, and Laraine A. Fletcher 1983 Coba: A Classic Maya Metropolis. Academic Press, New York.

Folan, William J., Joyce Marcus, Sophia Pincemin, Maria del Rosario Dominguez- Carrasco, and Laraine Fletcher 1995 Calakmul: New Data from an Ancient Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 6:310-334.

148

Fox, John W., Garrett W. Cook, Arlen F. Chase, and Diane Z. Chase 1996 Questions of Political and Economic Integration: Segementary Versus Centralized States. Current Anthropology 37(5):795-801.

Freidel, David A. 1981 The Political Economics of Residential Dispersion Among the Lowland Maya. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy A. Ashmore, pp. 371-382. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fry, Robert E. 1969 Ceramics and Settlement in the Periphery of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Gann, Thomas 1928 Maya Cities: Exploration and Adventure in Central America. Duckworth, London.

Garber, James 2004 The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Garrison, Thomas G. 2007 Ancient Maya Territories, Adaptive Regions, and Alliances: Contextualizing the San Bartolo- Intersite Survey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Garrison, Thomas G., Stephen D. Houston, Charles Golden, Z. Nelson, Takeshi Inomata, and J. Munson 2008 Evaluating the use of IKONOS satellite imagery in lowland Maya settlement archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(10):2770- 2777.

Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas P. Dunning 2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bartolo-Xultun Territory, El Peten, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 525-552.

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, vol. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Gill, Richardson B. 2000 The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 149

Golden, Charles W. 2010 Frayed at the Edges: The Re-Creation of Histories and Memories on the Frontiers of Classic Period Maya Polities. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(2):373-384.

Golden, Charles W., and Andrew K. Scherer 2006 Border Problem: Recent Archaeological Research along the Usumacinta River. PARI Journal 7(2):1-16. 2013 Territory, Trust, Growth and Collapse in Classis Period Maya Kingdoms. Current Anthropology 54(4):397-435.

Golden, Charles W., Andrew K. Sherer, and Rene A. Munoz 2005 Exploring the Piedras Negras- Border Zone: Archaeological Investigations in the Sierra del Lancandon, 2004. Mexicon XXVII(1):11- 16.

Golden, Charles W., Andrew K. Scherer, and Jaroslaw Zralka 2013 All of a Piece: The Politics of Growth and Collapse in Classic Maya Kingdoms. Contributions in New World Archaeology 4(1):151-171.

Golden, Charles W., and Bryce Davenport 2013 The Promise and Problem of Modeling Viewsheds in the Western Maya Lowlands. In Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, edited by Douglas C. Comer and Michael J. Harrower, pp. 145-158. Springer, New York.

Gomez, Oswaldo, Lilian A. Corzo, Julio A. Roldán, Carlos Aragón, and Anaitté Benitez 1994 Calzada Mopán: Zona arqueológica en el medio río Mopán. In Reporte 8, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 75-199. Insituto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala.

Gordon, George B. 1896 Prehistoric Ruins of Copán, Honduras. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoirs, volume 1., number 1.

Graham, Elizabeth 2001 Collapse, Conquest, and Maya Survival at Lamanai, Belize. Archaeology International 10:45-48.

Green, Ernestene 1970 The Archaeology of Navajuelal, Tikal, Guatemala and a Test of Interpretive Method. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Griffith, Cameron, Reiko Ishihara, and Sarah Jack 150

2002 Report on the 3rd Year of Archaeological Investigations in Actun Halal. In The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 2001 Field Season, edited by Jaime Awe, pp. 27-50. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 5. University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Griffith, Cameron S., and Christopher T. Morehart 2001 A Preliminary Report on the Excavations and Continued Investigation of Actun Halal, Macal River, . In The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 2000 Field Season, edited by Jaime Awe, pp.190-232. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 4. University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Hammond, Norman 1972 Locational Models and the Site of Lubaantún: A Classic Maya Centre. In Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 757-800. Methuen, London. 1975 Maya Settlement Hierarchy in Northern Belize. In Archaeological Research Facility Contribution 24, ed. J.A. Graham, pp. 40-55. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1982 The Prehistory of Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 9(3): 349-362. 1986 New Light on the Ancient Maya. Man, New Series 21(3):399-413

Hansen, Richard D. 1991 The Maya Rediscovered: The Road to . Natural History 91(5):8-14. 1992 The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Preclassic Architectural Sculpture at Nakbe, Petén, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1998 Continuity and Disjunction: Preclassic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 49-122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 2001 The First Cities: The Beginnings of Urbanization and State Formation in the Maya Lowlands. In Maya: Divine Kings of the Rain Forest, edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 50-65. Konemann-Verlag, Germany.

Hansen, Richard D., Steven Bozarth, John Jacob, David Wahl, and Thomas Schreiner 2002 Climatic and Environmental Variability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A Preliminary Perspective from Northern Peten. Ancient Mesoamerica 13:273-295.

Hare, Timothy S. 2004 Using A Measure of Cost Distance in the Estimation of Polity Boundaries in the Postclassic Yautepec Valley, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:799-814.

Harris, T. 151

2000 Moving GIS: Exploring Movement within Prehistoric Landscapes using GIS. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary R. Lock, pp. 116-130. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Harrison, Peter D. 1977 The Rise of bajos and the Fall of the Maya. In Social Processes in Maya Prehistory, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 469-508. Academic Press, New York.

Harrison, Peter D., and B.L. Turner 1978 Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Haviland, William A. 1963 Excavation of Small Structures in the Northeast Quadrant of Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1965 Prehistoric Settlement at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 7(3):15-23. 1970 Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican Urbanism. World Archaeology 6:186-188.

Heckenberger, Michael J. 2005 The Ecology of Power: Culture, Place and Personhood in the Southern Amazon, AD 1000-2000. Routledge, New York. 2008 Amazonian Mosaics: Identity, Interaction, and Integration. In Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William Isbell, pp. 941-962. Springer, New York.

Healy, Paul F. 1986 Ancient Maya Agricultural Terraces: Recent Evidence from Belize. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. 1992 The Ancient Maya Ballcourt at , Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 3:229-239.

Healy, Paul F., and Marc G. Blainey 2011 Ancient Maya Mosaic Mirrors: Function, Symbolism, and Meaning. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(2):229-244.

Healy, Paul F., John D.H. Lambert, John T. Arnason, and Richard Hebda 1983 Caracol, Belize: Evidence of Ancient Maya Agricultural Terraces. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(4):397-410.

Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer 1984 Eploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize, Central America. World Archaeology 16:157-173. 152

Hewett, Edgar L. 1912 The Excavations at Quirigua in 1912. Bulletin of the Archaeological Institute of America 3:163-171.

Hills, Kendall 2012 A Contextual Analysis of the Artifact Assemblage from the Epicenter of the Ancient Maya Site of Minanha, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Hills, Kendall B., Megan Clarke, and Gyles Iannone 2013 From East Side to West Side: Results from the 2013 Excavations in Group B of the Royal Acropolis. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fifteenth (2013) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp. 27-46. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Hills, Kendall B., Steven James Morgan Moodie, Gyles Iannone, and Jack Barry 2012 Investigations in the Waybil Epicenter: Results from the 2012 Excavations of Group A. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourteenth (2012) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp.33-60. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Hirth, Kenneth G. 1978 Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43:35-45.

Hodder Ian 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1985 Post-Processual Archaeology. In Advances in Method and Theory, 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, New York. 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodell, David A., Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Roger Medina-González, Enrique Ildefonso- Chan Can, Alma Albornaz-Pat, and Thomas P. Guilderson 2001 Climate Change on the Yucatan Peninsula during the Little Ice Age. Quaternary Research 63(2):109-121.

Hodell, David A., Jason H. Curtis, and Mark Brenner 1995 Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. Nature 375(6530):391-394.

Hodge, Mary G., 153

1997 When Is It A City-State? Archaeological Measures of Aztec City-States and the Aztec City-State System. In The Archaeology of City-States: Cross- Cultural Approaches, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Thomas H. Charlton, pp. 209-227. Smithsonian Institution Press, New York.

Holling, C.S., and Lance H. Gunderson 2002 Resilience and Adaptive Cycles. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by Lance H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, pp.25-62. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Holmes, W. H. 1914 Areas of American Culture Characterization Tentatively Outlined as an Aid in the Study of Antiquities. American Antiquity 16:413-446.

Houston, Stephen D. 1993 Hieroglyphics and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Houston, Stephen D., Hector Escobedo, Charles Golden, Andrew Scherer, Rosaura Vasquez, Ana Lucia Arroyave, Fabiola Quiroa, and Juan Carlos Melendez 2006 La Tecnica and El Kinel: Mounds and Monuments Upriver from Yaxchilan. Mexicon 28(5).

Howey, Meghan C.L. 2007 Using Multi-Criteria Cost Surface Analysis to Explore Past Regional Landscapes: A Case Study of Ritual Activity and Social Interaciton in Michigan, AD 1200--1600. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1830- 1846. 2011 Multiple Pathways Across Past Landscapes: Circuit Theory as a Complementary Geospatial Method to Least Cost Path for Modeling Past Movement. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2523--2535.

Hyslop, John 1984 The Inka Road System. Academic Press, New York. 1991 Inka Settlement Planning. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Iannone, Gyles 1999 Archaeological Investigations at Minanha, Belize: A Research Proposal. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau: Progress Report of the First (1999) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jeffrey Seibert, and Nadine Grey, pp. 1-28. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2002a Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: Some Observations on the “Dynamic Model”. American Anthropologist 104(1):68-78. 2002b The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Maya Border Centre. Paper presented at the 35th annual Chacmool Conference, Department of 154

Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary. 2003a Rural Complexity in the Cahal Pech Microregion: Analysis and Implications. In Perspectives on Ancient Maya Rural Complexity, edited by Gyles Iannone and Samuel V. Connell, pp. 13-26. Monograph 49, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2003b The Dynamics of Frontier Identity: A Case Study from the Caracol/Naranjo Borderlands. Paper presented at the 102nd annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago. 2005 The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Maya Petty Royal Court. Latin American Antiquity 16:26-44. 2006 Archaeological Research at Minanha: Summary of the 2006 Investigations. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Eighth (2006) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, pp. 1-26. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2007 Drought and the "Collapse" of the Ancient Maya. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4: 55-65. 2010 Collective Memory in the Frontiers: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya Center of Minanha, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(2):353-371. 2014 The Great Maya Droughts In Cultural Context: Case Studies in Resiliance and Vulnerability. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Iannone, Gyles, Jaime J. Awe, Andrew Bevan, George Brook, James Conolly, Sean Downey, Fred J. Longstaffe, Holley Moyes, Jason S. Polk, Philip P. Reeder, Philip Van Beynen, James W. Webster, and Jocelyn Williams 2010 Socio-Environmental Dynamics in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: A Long- Term Perspective. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Twelfth (2010) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Maxime Lamoureux-St Hilaire, and Matthew Longstaffe, pp. 1-21. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Iannone, Gyles, Arlen F. Chase, Diane Z. Chase, Jaime Awe, Holley Moyes, George Brook, Jason Polk, James Webster, and James Conolly 2014 An Archaeological Consideration of Long-Term Socioecological Dynamics on the Vaca Plateau, Belize. In The Great Maya Droughts in Cultural Context: Case Studies in Resilience and Vulnerability, edited by Gyles Iannone, pp. 271-300. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Iannone, Gyles, and Samuel V. Connell (editors) 2003 Perspectives on Ancient Maya Rural Complexity. Monograph 49, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Iannone, Gyles, Samuel V. Connell, and Adam Menzies 2001 Archaeological Investigations at Minanha, Belize: The 2001 Research Proposal. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, 155

Belize: Progress Report of the Third (2001) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone,, Ryan Primrose, Adam Menzies, and Lisa McParland, pp. 1- 14. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

Iannone, Gyles, Pete Demarte, Andrew K. Snetsinger, Steven James Morgan Moodie, Scott Macrae, and Jack Barry 2012 Preliminary Investigations at the Maya Center of Ixchel: Results of the 2012 Field Season. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourteenth (2012) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp. 10-32. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Iannone, Gyles, Scott Macrae, Maxime Lamoreux St-Hilaire, Andrew Snetsinger, Morgan Moodie, Jack Barry, Kong Cheong, Pete Demarte, and Philip P. Reeder 2011 Preliminary Investigations at the Ancient Maya Center of Ixchel: Results of the 2011 Field Season. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourteenth (201) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Sonja A. Schwake, Jaime J. Awe, and Philip P. Reeder, pp. 30-67. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Iannone, Gyles, Carmen McCormick, and James Conolly 2008 Community Archaeology at Minanha: Some Preliminary Insights from the Phase II Settlement Study. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 5:149-158. .

Iannone, Gyles, Claudia Zehrt, Carmen McCormick, Jeffery Seibert, Matthew Mosher, Scott Macrae, and James Conolly. 2007 The Phase II Settlement Study at Minanha: New Data, New Insights. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Ninth (2007) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone and Scott A. Macrae, pp. 150-162. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Iceland, Harry B. 2005 The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition in Northern Belize: Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of the Preceramic Inhabitants. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry G. Powis, pp. 15-26. BAR International Series 1377. Oxford.

Inomata, Takeshi 2008 Warfare and the Fall of a Fortified Center: Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca. Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Series, Volume 3. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. 156

Joyce, Thomas A., J. Cooper Clark, and J. Eric Thompson 1927 Report on the Expedition to , 1927. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 57:295-323.

King, Eleanor, and Daniel Potter 1994 Small Sites in Prehistoric Maya Socioeconomic Organization: A Perspective from Colha, Belize. In Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Communities, edited by Glenn M. Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer, pp. 64-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kirchhoff, Paul 1943 Mesoamérica: Sus Límites Geográficos, Composición Étnica y Caracteres Culturales. Acta Americana 1(1):1-13

Kluckhohn, Clyde 1940 The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by C.L. Hay, R.L. Linton, H.L Shapiro, and G.C. Vaillant, pp. 41-51. D-Appleton-Century, London.

Knorosov, Yuri V. 1952 (“The Ancient Script of Central America.”) Sovietskaya Etnografiya. Academy of Sciences, Moscow. 1958 The Problem of the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. American Antiquity 23(3):284-291.

Kopytoff, Igor 1987 The African Frontier: The reproduction of Traditional African Societies. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 1999 The Internal African Frontier: Cultural Conservatisim and Ethnic Innovation. In Frontiers and Borderlands: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Michael Rösler and Tobias Wendl, pp. 31-44. Peter Lang, New York.

Kunen, Julie L., T. Patrick Culbert, Vilma Fialko, Brian R. McKee, and Liwy Grazioso 2000 Bajo Communities: A Case Study from the Central Peten. Culture & Agriculture 22:15-31.

Kurjack, Edward B., and E. Wyllys Andrews 1974 Prehistoric Lowland Maya Community and Social Organization. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 38. Tulane University, New Orleans. 1976 Early Boundary Maintenance in Northwest Yucatan, Mexico. American Antiquity 41(3): 318-325. 157

Kvamme, Kenneth L. 1999 Recent Developments and Directions in Geographical Information Systems. Journal of Archaeological Reseach 7(2):153-201.

Lake, Mark W., and Patricia E. Woodman 2003 Visibility Studies in Archaeology: A Review and a Case Study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30:689-707

LeCount, Lisa J., and Jason Yaeger 2010 Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Llobera, Marcos 2000 Understanding Movement: A Pilot Model Towards the Sociology of Movement. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary R. Lock, pp. 65-84. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 2001 Building Past Landscape Perception: Understanding Topographic Prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1005-1014. 2003 Extending GIS-based Visual Analysis: the Concept of Visualscapes. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 17(1):25-48. 2007 Reconstructing Visual Landscapes. World Archaeology 39:51-69.

Lohse, Jon C. 2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin American Antiquity 21(3):312- 352.

Lohse, Jon C., Jamie Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. Rosenwig, and Fred Valdez, Jr. 2006 Preceramic Occupation in Belize: Updating the Paleoindian and Archaic Record. Latin American Antiquity 17(2):209-226.

Longstaffe, Matthew 2010 Ancient Maya Site Core Settlement at Minanha, Belize: Development, Integration, and Community Dynamics. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Longyear, John M. 1952 Copán Ceramics. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 597. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Maca, Allan Leigh 2002 Spatio-Temporal Boundaries in Classic Maya Settlement Systems: Copan’s Urban Foothills and the Excavations at Group 9J-5. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

MacNeish, Richard S., and Antoinette Nelken-Terner 158

1983 The Preceramic of Mesoamerica. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(1):71- 84.

Macrae, Scott 2010 A Comparative Approach to Understanding the Socio-Political and Socio- Economic Organization of the Intensive Terrace Farming at the Ancient Maya Centre of Minanha, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Madry, S.L.H., and L. Rakos 1996 Line-of-sight and Cost-surface Techniques for Regional Research in the Arroux River Valley. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner, pp. 104-126. Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.

Marcus, Joyce 1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180:911-916. 1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1983 Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads. American Antiquity 48: 454- 488. 1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, pp. 111-183. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1995 Where is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? Journal of Archaeological Research 3:3-57. 2003 Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11:71-84.

Madry, Scott L.H. and Lynn Rakos 1996 Line-of-sight and Cost-surface Techniques for Regional Research in the Arroux River Valley. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner, pp. 104-126. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube 1995 Maya Superstates. Archaeology November/December: 41-45. 2000 Chronicles of Maya Kings and Queens. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Masson, Marilyn A., and David A. Freidel (editors) 2002 Ancient Maya Political Economies. Altamira, Walnut Creek.

McAnany, Patricia 1995 Living With the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin. 159

2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McCoy, Mark D., and Thegn N. Ladefoged 2009 New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:263-295.

McKee, Brian R., Thomas L. Sever, and Payson D. Sheets 1994 Prehistoric Footpaths in Costa Rica: Remote Sensing and Field Verification. In Archaeology, Volcanism, and Remote Sensing in the Arenal Region, Costa Rica, edited by Payson D. Sheets and Brian R. McKee, pp. 143-157. University of Texas Press, Austin.

McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.

McKillop, Heather 1996 Ancient Maya Trading Ports and the Integration of Long-Distance and Regional Economies: Wild Cane Cay in South-Coastal Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:49-62. 2004 The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives. Norton, London.

Mejía, Héctor E. 1999a Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política Buenos Aires. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 1-21. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala. 1999b Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política El Camalote/Melchor. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 22-33. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala. 1999c Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política La Provedencia. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 34-51. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala. 1999d Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política Yok’ol Wits. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 52-63. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala.

Mejía, Héctor E., Lillian A. Corzo, and Marco Antonio Urbina 1999 Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Chiquibul: Entidad política El Naranjal. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 111-130. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala.

Mejía, Héctor E., and Marco Antonio Urbina 1999a Reconocimiento en la cuenca baja del río Mopan: Entidad política El Mamey. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueológico de Guatemala, pp. 89-110. Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala. 160

Menzies, Adam C., and W. James Stemp 2004 We’re Back in Black: An Update on the Minanha Obsidian Assemblage (2003). Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Sixth (2004) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Janais Turuk, Derek Paauw, Jason Seguin, and Laura McRae, pp. 125-135. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Morley, Sylvanus G., and George W. Brainerd 1956 The Ancient Maya, 3rd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Morley, Sylvanus G., George W. Brainerd, and Robert J. Sharer 1983 The Ancient Maya, 4th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Morton, Shawn G. 2012 Ritual Procession and the Creation of Civitas Among the Ancient Maya: A Case Study from , Guatemala. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 36:141-165.

Moyes, Holley 2005 Cluster Concentrations, Boundary Markers, and Ritual Pathways: A GIS Analysis of Artifact Cluster Patterns at , Belize. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster, edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, pp. 269-300. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Moyes, Holley, Jaime J. Awe, George A. Brook, and James W. Webster 2009 The Ancient Maya Drought Cult: Late Classic Cave Use in Belize. Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 175-206.

Pendergast, David 1986 Stability Through Change: Lamanai, Belize from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews, V., pp. 223-249. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1992 Noblesse Oblige: The Elites of Lamanai and , Belize. In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, pp. 61-79. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob, Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. deFrance, David L. Lentz, John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. Kathryn Josserand 1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7(4): 355-372.

Pohl, Mary D., and Paul Bloom 161

1996 Prehistoric Maya Farming in the Wetlands of Northern Belize: More Data from Albion Island and Beyond. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 145-164. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Pollock, Harry E. D., Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith 1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Pope, Kevin O., and Bruce H. Dahlin 1989 Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture: New Insights from Ecological and Remote Sensing Research. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:87-106.

Potter, Daniel R., and Eleanor M. King 1995 A Heterarchical Approach to Lowland Maya Socioeconomics. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, edited by Robert M. Ehrenreich, Carole L. Crumley, and Janet E. Levy, pp. 17-32. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 6. American Archaeological Association, Arlington.

Podobnikar, Tomas, and Ivan Sprajc 2010 Spatial Analyses and Maya Cultural Landscape. Mapping Interactivo 139.

Polk, Jason S., Philip E. van Beynen, and Philip Reeder 2007 Late Holocene Environmental Reconstruction Using Cave Sediments from Belize. Quaternary Research 68:53-63.

Powis, Terry G. 2005 New Perspectives on Mesoamerican Formative Cultures. BAR International Series 1377. Oxford.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication No. 593. 1960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:454-475.

Puleston, Dennis E. 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Models. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1974 Intersite Areas in the Vicinity of Tikal and Uaxactun. In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, edited by Norman Hammond. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1977 The Art and Archaeology of Hydraulic Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. 162

In Social Processes in Maya Prehistory, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 449-467. Academic Press, New York. 1978 Terracing, Raised Fields, and Tree Cropping in the Maya Lowlands: A New Perspective on the Geography of Power. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by B.L. Turner and P.D. Harrison, pp. 225-246. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1983 The Settlement Survey of Tikal. Tikal Report 13. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Puleston, Dennis E., and D.W. Callender, Jr. 1967 Defensive Earthworks at Tikal. Expedition 9(3):40-48.

Quirarte, Jacinto 1977 Early Art Styles of Mesoamerica and Early Classic Maya Art. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by R.E.W. Adams, pp. 249-283. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rice, Don S. 1996 Paleoliminological Analysis in the Central Petén, Guatemala. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 193-206. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Rice, Prudence M. 1978 Population Growth and Subsistence Alternatives in a Tropical Lacustrine Environment. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by B.L. Turner and Peter D. Harrison, pp. 35-62. University of New Mexio Press, Albuquerque.

Rice, Prudence M., and Don S. Rice 1985 , Macanche, and the Central Petén Postclassic. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by Arlen F. Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 166- 183. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Richards-Rissetto, Heather M. 2010 Exploring Social Interaction at the Ancient Maya City of Copan, Honduras: A Multi-Scalar Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis of Access and Visibilty. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2012 Social Interaction at the Ancient Maya Site of Copán, Honduras: A Least Cost Approach to Configurational Analysis. In Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies, edited by Devin A. White and Sarah L. Surface-Evans, pp. 109-127.

Ricketson, Oliver, and Alfred V. Kidder 1930 An Archaeological Reconnaissance by Air in Central America. Geographical Review 20(2):177-206.

163

Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson 1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 477. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Robichaux, Hugh R. 1995 Survey in the peripheral zones of the La Milpa and Dos Hombres ancient Maya sites in northwestern Belize: The 1994 season. In The Programme for Belize Archaeological Project: 1994 interim report, edited by R.E.W. Adams and Fred Valdez, Jr., 18-51. University of Texas San Antonio: The Center for Archaeology and Tropical Studies.

Robles Castellanos, Fernando, and Anthony P. Andrews 1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatan. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V., pp. 53-98. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sanchez, M. Guadalupe 2001 A Synopsis of Paleo-Indian Archaeology in Mexico. Kiva 67:119-136.

Sanders, Willam T. 1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 606, Contribution 60. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC. 1981 Classic Maya Settlement Patterns and Ethnographic Analogy. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 351-370. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Saturno, William A., David Stuart, Boris Beltrán 2006 Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Science 311(5765):1281- 1283.

Saturno, William A., Thomas L. Sever, Daniel E. Irwin, Burgess F. Howell and Thomas G. Garrison 2007 Putting Us on the Map: Remote Sensing Investigation of the Ancient Maya Landscape. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology, edited by James R. Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Scarborough, Vernon L. 1991 Archaeology at , Belize, Central America. Vol. 3: The Settlement System in a Late Preclassic Maya Community. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. 1993 Water Management in the Southern Maya Lowlands: An Accretive Model for the Engineered Landscape. In Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehistoric New World, edited by V.L. Scarborough 164

and B. Isaac, pp. 17-69. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 7, Greenwich, CT. 1994 Maya Water Management. National Geographic Research and Exploration 10:184-199.

Scarborough, Vernon L., and Fred Valdez Jr. 2003 The Engineered Environment and Political Economy of the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by V.L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. 3-13. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2009 An Alternative Order: The Dualistic Economies of the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 20(1):207-227.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company, New York.

Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews 1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Schnepel, Burkhard 2002 The Jungle Kings: Ethnohistorical Aspects of Politics and Ritual in Orissa. Manohar, New Delhi. 2005 Kings and Tribes in East India: The Internal Political Dimension. In The Character of Kingship, edited by Declan Quigley, pp. 1-23. Berg, New York.

Schortman, Edward M., and Wendy Ashmore 2012 History, Networks, and the Quest for Power: Ancient Political Competition in the Lower Motagua Valley, Guatemala. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18:1-21.

Schortman, Edward, and Patricia Urban 2011 Networks of Power: Political Relations in the Late Postclassic Naco Valley, Honduras. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Schwake, Sonja 2000 The Second Year of Investigations of Structure 3A, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Lisa McParland, Adam Menzies, and Ryan Primrose, pp.41-56. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2002 The Ritual Sub-Program of Investigations: The 2002 Research in Group S, 165

Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize, edited by Gyles Iannone, Joelle Chartrand, Rachel Dell, Adam Menzies, Adam Pollock, and Barbara Slim, pp. 80-96, Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2008 The Social Implications of Ritual Behavior in the Maya Lowlands: A Perspective from Minanha, Belize. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego, San Diego.

Schwake, Sonja A., Natalie Baron, Megan Clarke, and Kevin Robitaille 2012 Minor Center Investigations in the Eastern Maya Lowlands: The 2012 Excavations in Group B at the Site of Waybil. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourteenth (2012) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp. 61-84. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Schwake, Sonja A., and Gyles Iannone 2011 Ritual Remains and Collective Memory: Maya Examples from West Central Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 21:1-9.

Schwake, Sonja A., Kendall B. Hills, Gyles Iannone, Megan Clarke, Sarah Duignan, Spencer Kawell, Steve Lebrun, and Emma Schlegl. 2013 Investigations in the Waybil Epicenter: Results from the 2013 Excavations in Group A. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fifteenth (2013) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Jaime J. Awe, Sonja A. Schwake, and Kendall B. Hills, pp. 127-144. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough

Schwake, Sonja A., Scott Macrae, Kendall Hills, Esther Beauregard, Pete Demarte, James M. Conlon, and Gyles Iannone 2011 Minor Center Investigations in the Eastern Maya Lowlands: The 2011 Excavations at the Martinez Site. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Thirteenth (2011) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone, Sonja A. Schwake, Jaime J. Awe, and Philip P. Reeder, pp. 68-96. Social Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Seibert, Jeffrey 2006 Classic Maya Range Structures and Socio-Political Organization. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

166

Sever, Thomas L. 1990 Remote Sensing Applications in Archaeological Research: Tracing Prehistoric Human Impact Upon the Environment. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Sever, Thomas L., and Daniel E. Irwin. 2003 : Remote-Sensing Investigation of the Ancient Maya in the Peten Rainforest of Northern Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(01):113-122.

Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519-543. 1986 Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize: Reply to Mallory. American Antiquity 51:158-166.

Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Sharer, Robert J., Loa P. Traxler, David W. Sedat, Ellen E. Bell, and Marcello A. Canuto 1999 Early Classic Architecture beneath the Copán Acropolis. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:217-230.

Shatto, Rahilla Corinne Abbas 1998 Maritime Trade and Seafaring of the Precolumbian Maya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Shaw, Justine M. 2001 Maya Sacbeob: Form and Function. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:261-272.

Sheets, Payson, and Thomas L. Sever 1991 Prehistoric Footpaths in Costa Rica: Transportation and Communication in a Tropical Rainforest. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, edited by C. D. Trombold, pp. 53-65. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Siemens, Alfred H., and Dennis E. Puleston 1972 Ridged Fields and Associated Features in Southern Campeche: New Perspectives on the Lowland Maya. American Antiquity 37:228-239.

Silverman, Helaine, and William H. Isbell (editors) 2008 Handbook of South American Archaeology. Springer, New York.

Smith, Michael E. 2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 167

Snead, James E., Clark L. Erickson, and J. Andrew Darling 2009 Making Human Space: The Archaeology of Trails, Paths, and Roads. In Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson, and J. Andrew Darling, pp. 1-19. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Snetsinger, Andrew K. 2012 Mortuary Behaviour of the Ancient Maya at Minanha, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Southall, Aidan W. 1956 Alur Society: A Study in Process and Types of Domination. Heffer, Cambridge.

Southern, Paul 1990 Signals Versus Illumination on Roman Frontiers. Britannia 21:233-242

Staccioli, Romolo 2003 The Roads of the Romans. Getty Publications, Los Angeles.

Stemp, W. James, and Adam Menzies 2008 Ten Years Later, There are Sermons in the Stones: The Chipped Chert and Obsidian Artifacts from Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Tenth (2008) Field Season, edited by Gyles Iannone and Scott Macrae, pp. 127-149. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.

Steward, Julian H. 1937 Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society. Anthropos 32:87-104.

Stuart, David 1993 Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp. 321-354. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Surface-Evans, Sarah L., and Devin A. White 2012 An Introduction to Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes. In Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies, edited by Devin A. White and Sarah L. Surface-Evans, pp. 1-10. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Swanson, Steve 2003 Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks: A Case Study in the Paquimé Polity. American Antiquity 68(4):753-767. 168

Tambiah, Stanley J. 1977 The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Traditional Kingdoms in Southest Asia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 293:69-97.

Taschek, Jennifer, and Joseph Ball 1999 Las Ruinas de Arenal: Preliminary Report on a Subregional Major Center in the Western Belize Valley (1991-1992 Excavations). Ancient Mesoamerica 10:215-235.

Taylor, Walter 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir Series of the American Anthropological Association 69. Menasha.

Thomas, Ben Samuel 2005 Maya Settlement and Political Hierarchy in the Sibun River Valley, Belize, Central America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston.

Thompson, Edward, H. 1886 Archaeological Research in Yucatan. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 4:248-254. 1892 The Ancient Structures of Yucatan not Communal Dwellings. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 8:262-269.

Thompson, J., Eric S. 1931 Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Cayo District, British Honduras. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series 17(3), Chicago. 1954 The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Tourtellot, Gair 1970 The Peripheries of : An Interim Report. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, edited by William R. Bullard, Jr., pp. 407-419. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 61. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1982 Ancient Maya Settlements at Seibal, Petén, Guatemala: Peripheral Survey and Excavation. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1988 Excavations at Seibal: Peripheral Survey and Excavations. Harvard University, Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 16. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Tourtellot, Gair, Francisco Estrada-Belli, John J. Rose, and Norman Hammond 2003 Late Classic Maya Heterarchy, Hierarchy, and Landscape at La Milpa, 169

Belize. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 37- 51. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tourtellot, Gair, Marc Wolf, Francisco Estrada-Belli, and Norman Hammond 2000 Discovery of Two Predicted Ancient Maya Sites in Belize. Antiquity 74:481-482.

Tourtellot, Gair, Marc Wolf, Scott Smith, Kristen Gardella, and Norman Hammond 2002 Exploring Heaven on Earth: Testing the Cosmological Model at La Milpa, Belize. Antiquity 76:633-634.

Tozzer, Alfred 1913 A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of Nakam, Guatemala. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs 5(3). Harvard University, Cambridge.

Trigger, Bruce G. 2003 Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tschan, André P., Wldzimierz Raczkowski, and Malgorzata Latalowa 2000 Perception and Viewsheds: Are They Mutually Inclusive? In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary Lock, pp. 28- 48. IOS Press, Washington, D.C. van Leusen, Pieter Martijn. 2002 Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. University Library, Groningen.

Vermeulen, Frank, and Mark Antrop 2001 Ancient Lines in the Lanscape: A Geo-Archaeological Study of Protohistoric and Roman Roads and Field Systems in Northwestern Gaul. Peeters, Leuven.

Villa Rojas, Alfonso 1934 The Yaxuna-Cobá Causeway. Contributions to American Archaeology 9:189-208.

Voorhies, Barbara 1996 The Transformation from Foraging to Farming in the Lowlands of Mesoamerica. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 17-29. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 170

Wauchope, Robert 1934 Housemounds of Uaxactun, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 436, Contributions to American Archaeology 7. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C. 1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of Their Archaeological Significance. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 502. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Webster, David L. 1976 Defensive Earthworks at , Campeche, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 41. Tulane University, New Orleans. 1978 Three Walled Sites of the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:375-390. 1979 Cuca, Chacchob, Dzonot : Three Walled Northern Maya Centers. Occasional Papers in Anthropology. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Webster, James W., George A. Brook, L. Bruce Railsback, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Clark Alexander, and Philip P. Reeder 2007 Stalagmite Evidence from Belize Indicating Significant Droughts at the Time of the Preclassic Abandonment, the Maya Hiatus, and the Classic Maya Collapse. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 250:1-17.

Welsh, W. Bruce M. 1988 An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials. British International Series 409. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Wheatley, David, and Mark Gillings 2000 Vision, Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, edited by Gary R. Lock, pp. 1-27. IOS Press, Amsterdam. 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor & Francis, New York.

White, Devin 2012 Prehistoric Trail Networks of the Western Papaguería: A Multifaceted Least Cost Graph Theory Analysis. In Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies, edited by Devin A. White and Sarah L. Surface-Evans, pp. 188-208.

White, Devin A., and Sarah B. Barber 2012 Geospatial Modeling of Pedestrian Transportation Networks: A Case Study from Precolumbian Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2684-2696. 171

White, Devin A., and Sarah L. Surface-Evans 2012 Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Whitley, Tyler G., and Hicks L.M. 2003 A Geographic Information Systems Approach to Understanding Potential Prehistoric and Historic Travel Corridors. Southeastern Archaeology 22:77- 91.

Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1956a Introduction. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 1-2. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York. 1956b Problems Concerning Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maya Lowlands. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 107-114. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York. 1968 Settlement Archaeology: An Appraisal. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K.C. Chang, pp. 208-226. National Press Books, Palo Alto. 1973 The Altar de Sacrificios Excavations: General Summary and Conclusions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 64(3). Harvard University, Cambridge. 1974 The Classic Maya Hiatus: A Rehearsal for the Collapse? In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 417-430. Duckworth, London. 1978 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala. Artifacts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1-3). Harvard University, Cambridge. 1980 Towards a Holistic View of Maya Civilization. Man 15:249-266. 1985 The Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands: An Overview. In A Consideration of the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Gordon R. Willey and Peter Mathews, pp. 175-184. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publication no. 10. State University of New York, Albany. 1986 The Postclassic of the Maya Lowlands: A Preliminary Overview. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews, V., pp. 17-52. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1991 Horizontal Integration and Regional Diversity: An Alternating Process in the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. American Antiquity 56(2): 197-215. 2004 Retrospective. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half A Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 15-24. University 172

of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (54). Harvard University, Cambridge.

Willey, Gordon R., and Richard M. Leventhal 1979 Prehistoric Settlements at Copán. In Maya Archaeology an Ethnohistory, edited by Norman Hammond and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 75-102. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Willey, Gordon R., Richard M. Leventhal, and William L. Fash 1978 Maya Settlement in the Copán Valley. Archaeology 31(4):32-43.

Willey, Gordon R., Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Willey, Gordon R., and A. Ledyard Smith 1969 The Ruins of Altar de Sacrificios, Department of Petén, Guatemala: An Introduction. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 62, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Willey, Gordon R., Alfred L. Smith, Gair Tourtellot, and Ian Graham 1975 Excavations at Seibal. Introduction: The Site and its Setting. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(1). Harvard University, Cambridge.

Wiseman, Frederick M. 1978 Agricultural and Historical Ecology of the Maya Lowlands. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by B.L. Turner and P.D. Harrison, pp. 63-116. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wright, A.C.S.; D.H. Romney, R.H. Arbuckle, and V.E. Vail 1959 Land use in British Honduras: Report of the British Honduras Land Use Survey Team. Colonial Research Publication No. 24, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.

Yaeger, Jason 2000 The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 123-142. Routledge, New York. 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. 173

Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing An Archaeology of Communities. In Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 123-142. Routledge, New York.

Yaeger, Jason, and Samuel V. Connell 1993 Xunantunich Settlement Survey. In Xunantunich Archaeological Project: 1993 Field Season, edited by Richard M. Leventhal, pp. 172-201. Manuscript on file, Xunantunich Archaeological Project, Belmopan and Los Angeles.

Zeitlin, Robert N., Judith Francis Zeitlin 1996 The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica. In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume III, Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Murdo J. Macleod, pp. 45- 121. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

174

APPENDIX I: VIEWSHED MAPS

175

Figure 1. Single Viewshed Map for Minanha.

176

Figure 2. Cumulative Viewshed Map for Minanha (includes Groups J, S, W, R, Q, M, L, I, F, and Structure 53).

177

Figure 3. Viewshed Map for Ixchel.

178

Figure 4. Viewshed Map for Camp 6.

179

Figure 5. Viewshed Map for Waybil.

180

Figure 6. Viewshed Map for Oxmuul.

181

Figure 7. Viewshed Map for Kolchikiin.

182

Figure 8. Viewshed Map for Ixkuk.

183

Figure 9. Viewshed Map for Martinez.

184

Figure 10. Viewshed Map for Mile 4.

185

Figure 11. Viewshed Map for Las Ruinas de Arenal.

186

Figure 12. Viewshed Map for Xunantunich.

187

Figure 13. Viewshed Map for Buenos Aires.

188

Figure 14. Viewshed Map for El Camalote/Melchor.

189

Figure 15. Viewshed Map for Yok’ol Wits.

190

Figure 16. Viewshed Map for La Provedencia.

191

APPENDIX II: CERAMIC ANALYSIS AND NORTH VACA SETTLEMENT GROUP DATA

192

Type: Variety OxAI % Surface % (Looter’s Collection trench) (Plaza OxA) Terminal Preclassic/Early Classic Unidentified jar sherd 0 0% 1 6.7% Total 0 0% 1 6.7%

Middle Classic Mount Maloney Black: Mount Maloney Variety 1 6.7% 1 6.7% Mountain Pine Red: Mountain Pine Variety 1 6.7% 2 13.3% Mountain Pine Red: Old Jim Variety 1 6.7% 0 0% Total 3 20% 3 20%

Late Classic Belize Red: Belize Variety (miniature vessel frag.) 0 0% 1 6.7% Cayo Unsliped: Cayo Variety 0 0% 1 6.7% Garbutt Creek Red: Garbutt Creek Variety 1 6.7% 2 13.3% Garbutt Creek Red: Paslow Variety (Black Paste) 1 6.7% 0 0% Roaring Creek Red: Roaring Creek Variety 0 0% 2 13.3% Total 2 13.3% 6 40%

TOTAL 5 33.3% 10 66.7%

Table 1. Chronological Assessment of Ceramics from Oxmuul.

193

Type: Variety Surface % Exposed % Collection Construction Fill (platform supporting Group KoB) Early Classic Minanha Red: Minanha Variety 1 12.5% 0 0% Eastern Branch Plain: Eastern Branch Variety 1 12.5% 0 0% Total 2 25% 0 0%

Middle Classic Mount Pleasant Red: Mount Pleasant Variety 1 12.5% 0 0% Total 1 12.5% 0 0%

Late Classic Garbutt Creek Red: Garbutt Creek Variety 0 0% 2 25% Mount Maloney Black: Mount Maloney Variety 0 0% 1 12.5% Yalbac Smudged Brown: Yalbac Variety 0 0% 1 12.5% Cayo Unslipped: Cayo Variety 0 0% 1 12.5% Total 0 0% 5 62.5%

TOTAL 3 37.5% 5 62.5%

Table 2. Chronological Assessment of Ceramics from Kolchikiin

194

Type: Variety IkBII (looted % IkGI % “elaborate (possible crypt” looted crypt) Terminal Preclassic Negroman Punctated-incised: Negroman Variety 1 11% 0 0% Total 1 11% 0 0%

Early Classic Balanza Black: Variety Unspecified 1 11% 0 0% Early Classic Dish 1 11% 0 0% Total 2 22% 0 0%

Middle Classic Zibal Unslipped: Zibal Variety 0 0% 2 22% Zibal Unslipped: Variety Unspecified 0 0% 1 11% Total 0 0% 3 33%

Late Classic Mount Maloney Black: Mount Maloney Variety 0 0% 1 11% Alexander’s Unslipped: Beaverdam Variety 0 0% 1 11% Humes Bank Unslipped: Humes Bank Variety 0 0% 1 11% Total 0 0% 3 33%

TOTAL 3 33% 6 66%

Table 3. Chronological Assessment of Ceramics from Ixkuk.

195

North Vaca (NV) Settlement Designation Easting Northing Elevation Type NV1 271173 1883618 119 3 NV2 278311 1882878 463 1 NV3 277501 1882224 359 1 NV4 276714 1882170 333 6 NV5 276631 1881535 334 1 NV6 277232 1881412 360 5 NV7 273245 1881013 281 6 NV8 271101 1880841 236 6 NV9 271798 1880598 304 6 NV10 273440 1880529 294 3 NV11 281239 1880794 331 2 NV12 278996 1880534 399 6 NV13 278670 1880528 401 2 NV14 278383 1880391 480 1 NV15 282113 1880084 400 6 NV16 274053 1879933 309 3 NV17 279312 1879329 352 1 NV18 279561 1879306 406 5 NV19 274275 1879039 319 1 NV20 275641 1877871 459 3 NV21 275611 1877778 440 1 NV22 275651 1877686 459 3 NV23 280469 1877473 459 7 NV24 277855 1876842 474 5 NV25 277793 1876721 492 3 NV26 277277 1876211 462 2 NV27 277188 1876203 484 3 NV28 274367 1876250 366 1 NV29 274552 1876169 377 6 NV30 274677 1876177 384 2 NV31 275168 1876068 401 2 NV32 273511 1875768 455 1 NV33 274404 1875469 398 1 NV34 279502 1872614 363 2

Table 4. North Vaca Groups

196

APPENDIX III: LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE THESIS

197

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ASTER: Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection radiometer.

BVAR: Belize Valley Archeological Reconnaissance Project.

CSA: Cost Surface Analysis.

DEM: Digital Elevation Model.

DoF: Degrees of Freedom.

ERSDAC: Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Centre

ETM: Enhanced Thematic Mapper

FETE: From Everywhere To Everywhere

GIS: Geographic Information Systems

GRASS: Geographic Resources Analysis Support System

LiDAR: Light Detecting and Ranging

MRS: Minanha Regional Survey

NASA: North American Space Agency

NV: North Vaca

SARP: Social Archaeology Research Program

SRTM: Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

TM: Thematic Mapper

TUARC: Trent University Archaeological Research Centre

UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator

VHR: Very High Resolution

VNIR: Visual Near-Infrared.

WGS84: World Geodetic System (1984)