Household Archaeology in Ancient Maya Studies: Excavations At

Household Archaeology in Ancient Maya Studies:

Excavations at Structure B4, Hun Tun, Belize.

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Anthropology

of the College of Arts and Sciences by

Nicholas J. Arndt

B.A. University of Cincinnati

June 2009

Committee Chair: Vernon Scarborough, Ph.D.

Committee Member: Sarah E. Jackson, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Household archaeology is a relatively new phenomenon in Maya studies. Therefore, this thesis investigates how Maya archaeologists can better identify and differentiate commoner residential structures as opposed to public and elite contexts. Research focuses on a perceived housemound, Structure B4, located at the ancient Maya site of Hun Tun. Excavations at

Structure B4 focus on distinguishing the function and associated status of the structure.

Hun Tun is a modest ancient Maya settlement located in the Three Rivers Region of northwestern Belize near the large center of La Milpa. Research aids in the development of a database regarding architectural and building typologies, artifactual assemblages, chronology, and site layout. Likewise, Hun Tun’s political and economic role within the greater Three Rivers

Region is explored using hierarchical and heterarchical models. Archaeological excavations and comparison, along with ethnographic analogy, demonstrate the importance of distancing ourselves from the strict commoner-elite dichotomy that has dominated household-related theory.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to start by thanking my four biggest academic influences for their inspiration throughout my scholarly journey, which culminated in the completion of this thesis. First, I would like to thank Mr. Chip Hollenback for helping install a love for history. Second, I would like to thank Mr. Phillip Renner for introducing me to the field of anthropology and for encouraging me to pursue it. I would also like to thank Dr. Ken Tankersley for helping me discover my love and passion for archaeology during my time as an undergraduate. Finally, I need to thank Dr. Vern Scarborough. Dr. Scarborough introduced me to the ancient Maya during the final years of my undergraduate studies. His knowledge and expertise, coupled with his contagious passion and enthusiasm, fostered a deep fascination and intrigue with this ancient civilization.

This thesis was made possible by everyone involved with the Programme for Belize

Archaeological Project. I was lucky enough to participate as an archaeological volunteer the field season prior to my thesis research and will never forget the friendships and experiences created over those two years. First, I would like to thank the program director Dr. Fred Valdez Jr. for the opportunity and for his logistical support. I am also extremely grateful to Robyn Dodge for allowing me the opportunity to work alongside her at Hun Tun. I would like to thank her for her guidance, kindness, and willingness to spare working hands from her own research. I would like to thank Dr. Lauren Sullivan and Dr. Maria Martinez for their help with ceramic and lithic analysis. I would also like to mention the workmen and students who assisted in excavations.

Those students were Erin White, Kyle Clark, Cat Sword, and Adam Nelson. Without their help

iii

this research would have been impossible. I am also extremely grateful to Dil Basanti for braving a tropical depression so we could finish mapping and backfilling.

I would once again like to thank Dr. Vern Scarborough for his help throughout this process as my thesis adviser. I would also like to thank the other member of my committee Dr.

Sarah Jackson for all her helpful insights. I also need to thank my good friend Joshua Roflow for helping me digitize my illustrations.

I am extremely grateful to my parents for all their financial and emotional support throughout this process and throughout my entire educational career. They were always there for me through the highs and lows and pushed me to succeed. I love you both so much.

Finally, I need to thank my wonderful fiancée Alexis Marquette. The past two years have been the hardest of my life. We lost her father Tim Marquette, my grandmother Cecilia

Lorenzen, my uncle John Arndt, my two close friends Ian Huffman and Tyler McDonough, and have had to bear my father’s diagnosis and subsequent battle with Sarcoidosis. Without her by my side, I would not have been able to get through this difficult period let alone complete this thesis. I am so thankful and blessed to have her in my life. Therefore, I would like to dedicate this thesis to her, to all the loved ones we have lost, and to my entire family and friends.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...... i

Acknowledgements……………………...... iii

Table of Contents………………...... v

List of Figures…………………………………………...... viii

List of Tables………………………………...... x

Chapter 1…...………………………………...... 1

Introduction………………………...... 1

Chapter 2………………………………………………………………...... 8

Ancient Maya Housholds……...... 8

Historical Background...... 8

Theoretical Perspectives and Framework...... 10

Economic Perspective...... 11

Socio-Political Perspective...... 16

Architecture and Structural Form...... 18

Religious and Ritual Perspective...... 21

Ancient Maya Domestic Units...... 22

Ceren: An Ancient Maya Case Study...... 28

Conclusion…...... 31

Chapter 3……………………...... 32

Environment and Cultural History...... 32

Environment………………………………...…………………...... 32

The Three Rivers Region……...... 35

Chronological Framework...... 40

Cultural History of the Three Rivers Region...... 46

Conclusion…………………...... 49

Chapter 4…………………………………………...... 50

Methodology and Research……………………...... 50

Previous Research at Hun Tun…………...... 50

Methodology………………...... 55

Field Season Synopsis……………………...... 60

Summary of Excavation……...... 63

Suboperations C and D..…...... 63

Suboperation AA…………...…...... 67

Suboperation AB…….…………...... 71

Suboperation AC…...... 74

Suboperation AF…………………...... 79

Suboperation AG…...……...... 82

Suboperation AI………………...... 86

Suboperation AJ……..…………...... 88

Conclusion...………………...... 88

Chapter 5…………………………….……………………...... 90

Analysis, Discussion, and Synthesis…………...... 90

Introduction……………………...... 90

Structure B4…………...... 91

Function………………...... 91

Status……………………...... 102

Hun Tun……...... 111

Architectural Characteristic……………...... 112

Artifact Assemblage…………………...... 112

Site Chronology…………...... 114

Site Layout………………...... 115

Status……………………...... 115

The Three Rivers Region……...... 118

Hierarchical and Heterarchical Organization...... 119

Resource-Specialized Communities……...... 120

Ancient Maya Household Archaeology…………...... 122

Chapter 6………………...... 126

Conclusions and Future Research……………………...... 126

Conclusions……...... 126

Future Research……...... 127

Bibliography……...... 129

Appendix……...... 139

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Reconstructed Ancient Maya House...... 22

Figure 2.2 Ancient Maya Ground Plans...... 24

Figure 3.1 Map of Mesoamerica...... 33

Figure 3.2 Geographic Zones of the Maya Culture Area...... 34

Figure 3.3 Map of the Three Rivers Region...... 36

Figure 3.4 Physiographic Zones of the Three Rivers Region...... 38

Figure 4.1 Map of Hun Tun Groups A-D...... 52

Figure 4.2 Adapted Sketch Map of Structure B4 and Associated Units...... 59

Figure 4.3 North Side of Structure B4...... 61

Figure 4.4 South Side of Structure B4...... 61

Figure 4.5 East Side of Structure B4...... 62

Figure 4.6 West Side of Structure B4...... 62

Figure 4.7 Profile Map of North Wall SubOp C...... 66

Figure 4.8 Profile Map of East Wall SubOp C...... 66

Figure 4.9 SubOp AA Lot 1...... 68

Figure 4.10 SubOp AA Lot 3...... 69

Figure 4.11 Plan Map of Sub Op AA Lot 3...... 70

Figure 4.12 Sub Op AB Lot 1...... 71

Figure 4.13 Sub Op AB Lot 3...... 73

Figure 4.14 Plan Map of Sub Op AB Lot 3...... 74

Figure 4.15 Sub Op AC Lot 1...... 75

viii

Figure 4.16 Water Damage to Sub Op AC...... 77

Figure 4.17 Profile Map of North Wall Sub Op AC...... 78

Figure 4.18 Profile Map of East Wall Sub Op AC...... 79

Figure 4.19 Sub Op AF Lot 2...... 80

Figure 4.20 Profile Map of South Wall Sub Op AF...... 81

Figure 4.21 Profile Map of East Wall Sub Op AF...... 82

Figure 4.22 Sub Op AG Lot 2 Extending North From Sub Op AA...... 83

Figure 4.23 Plan Map of Sub Op AG Lot 2...... 84

Figure 4.24 Plan Map of Sub Op AG Lot 3...... 85

Figure 4.25 Plan Map of Sub Op AI Lot 2...... 87

Figure 5.1 Adapted Ancillary Sketch Map...... 96

Figure 5.2 Roughly Shaped Cobble Wall of Structure B4...... 109

Figure 5.3 Limestone Constructions at Structure A1...... 110

Figure 5.4 Limestone Construction at Structure A1...... 111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Ancient Maya Chronology...... 41

Table 5.1 Ceramic Chronology of the Three Rivers Region...... 115

Table A.1 Lithic Analysis - Flakes ...... 139

Table A.2 Lithic Analysis - Non-Flakes...... 147

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The ancient Maya were a diverse and complex civilization. Therefore, the entire population must be studied in order to better understand them as a whole. The discipline of household archaeology provides such a medium for research. Household archaeology is driven by a fundamental theoretical approach best understood in association with scientific explanation.

The notion of explanation in archaeology generally yields two theoretical approaches. A top- down approach primarily focuses on theories and how they influence the causal mechanics or underlying principles. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach focuses on those fundamental mechanics (Salmon 1992: 251). These same approaches are applicable to the basic practices of archaeology in regards to socio-political and socio-economic study. That is to say, a top-down approach focuses on elites and the heights of cultural achievement, while a bottom-up approach focuses on the commoners as the foundation and catalyst for that cultural achievement. The effects of these opposing approaches are most apparent when studying complex societies, such as the ancient Maya.

While Europe was already aware of the Maya, primarily through colonialism and the documentation by Bishop Diego de Landa (Demarest 2004: 32), Maya archaeology was born in

1841 through the work of John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood. In 1839, Stevens and

Catherwood travelled throughout Central America documenting numerous ancient Maya sites, such as Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal (Sacrre and Fagan 2008: 20; Webster 2002: 22-26).

Likewise, they returned between 1841 and 1842 and documented several sites in the Yucatan

peninsula. Both books, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán and

Incidents of Travel in Yucatán, captured the public’s interest (Webster 2002: 27).

Stephens and Catherwood, and their publications, were the catalyst for what became a mystique that surrounded the Maya civilization. While scholarly work on the Maya civilization would have inevitably been of interest to archaeologists, the interest and curiosity of the public was augmented by the mystical aura surrounding the ruins. The public was fascinated by the beauty, exoticness, and mysterious nature of the civilization. Along with the size and impressiveness of the ruins, the setting of the civilization had a lot to do with the growing fascination. The jungle provided a mystic milieu (Webster 2002: 29). As a jungle civilization, the ancient Maya presented an interesting dichotomy to the public. As a New World civilization the

American public felt a certain closeness to the Maya. However, the jungle provided a barrier. A civilization deep within the jungle was distant or isolated from the public at the same time. The apparent and sudden “collapse” of this great civilization only added to the mystique.

The Maya culture captures popular interest for many reasons. The Maya were literate, were skilled astronomers, artisans and mathematicians, and had interesting cultural practices such as ritual bloodletting and human sacrifice, all of which attract the imagination of the public

(Demarest 2004: 1; Webster 2002: 31). However, since Stephens and Catherwood, the majority of scholarly research has been dominated by monumental architecture and other elite contexts

(Demarest 2004: 213; Lohse and Gonlin 2007: XVII; Marcus 2004: 255; Scarborough and

Valdez 2009: 207; Sheets 2000: 217; Webster 2002: 67). There are several plausible reasons for this elite bias. For instance, the history of archaeology as a discipline probably influenced the bias.

At its inception, archaeologists, though they were not called so at the time, had a biblical mindset using the bible as an index for chronological and spatial contexts. Therefore, the majority of early archaeologists were biblical historians, with the bulk of work focused on authenticating the bible (Patterson 1991: 244-246). Other work focused on the ancient monuments of classical civilizations located in Greece, Rome, and Egypt (Trigger 2006: 61).

Slowly, the biblical influence in archaeology diminished and archaeological study focused on ancient monuments. In other words, ancient monuments became as synonymous with archaeology as the ancient people themselves.

At their respective departures from a biblical perspective, Old and New World archaeology proceeded down divergent paths. While archaeology became a discipline itself in the Old World, in the New World archaeology became tied to, and ultimately a subfield of, anthropology (Renfrew 1980: 292). Although the inclusion of archaeology in the idea of a unified discipline of anthropology pre-dates 1879, Franz Boas is largely credited with the establishment of the four field discipline (McVicker 1992: 146; Pinsky 1992: 163). Under Boas and his successors, archaeology in the New World had a close alliance with anthropology and increasingly used anthropological data, theory and, methods (Pinsky 1992: 164). At the turn of the 20th century, Boas’s academic anthropological archaeology was challenged by the museum movement, which, according to Patterson, institutionalized the collection of objects intended for public display and increased the demand for those objects (1991: 248). However, during the depression and inter-war years academic and museum archaeology combined to form a single entity (McVicker 1992: 157). The combination of anthropological theory, academic inference driven research, and museum-like hording of artifacts without publication formed the backbone

or foundation of New World archaeology. The New World style of archaeology contrasted with that of the Old World, which had remained an autonomous discipline (Renfrew 1980: 292).

While there are methodological and theoretical differences, the worldview of Old World archaeologists is at the center of what Renfrew labels “The Great Divide” (1980: 290).

According to Renfrew, classical archaeologists viewed early civilizations located in the

Mediterranean and Mesopotamia as the antecedent to the modern world, which carried with it an inherent superiority. Likewise, civilizations located in Africa, Asia, and the Americas were considered peripheral and deemed less complex. Furthermore, the majority of civilizations located outside of Europe failed to posses systems of writing, a trait classical archaeologists considered imperative in identifying societal complexity (1980: 290). Even though the Maya possessed a writing system, as well as architecture on a rival scale, they were viewed as inferior and less complex.

While the Maya had a long history, they were not a single-unified state (Sacrre and Fagan

2008: 4). Likewise, the environment of Central America was also used to support their inclusion into the theory of New World inferiority. According to Demarest, “jungles have been perceived by the public as a realm of less complex peoples, such as tribes and savages. Historians and archaeologists have traditionally looked to highland basins or to desert river valleys for the heartlands of civilizations (2004: 4).” While present-day archaeologists do not rank the significance of civilizations based on complexity (Sacrre and Fagan 2008: 4), past views or critiques may have influenced early investigations. It is possible that early Maya archaeologists focused their research on monumental architecture and elite contexts in hopes of exhibiting the true nature of ancient Maya complexity and silencing those critics. Likewise, the focus on 4

monumental architecture in classical archaeology may have dictated its use in the New World as well (Schroeder 2009: 169). As Trigger notes, “archaeologists conduct their research within the context of the dominant paradigm (2006: 7).” Similarly, the social context in which the archaeologist lives may influence research.

For the majority of archaeology’s disciplinary history, its scholars have been predominately educated upper-class men (Sacrre and Fagan 2008: 56; Schroeder 2009: 169;

Trigger 2006: 19). The social status of an archaeologist may affect archaeological questions, interpretations, or research interests. In other words, early archaeologists of an elite social class within their own society are more likely or inclined to study the elite class of their particular subject. In turn, as archaeologists began to diversify, the idea of commoner research became more appealing. However, as archaeologists diversified, the need for external funding increased.

Research topics are influenced by funding opportunities (Killick and Goldberg 2009). In turn, given the popular interest in monumental and elite context as opposed to commoner ones, funding tended to go to scholars working at elite sites and in elite contexts. However, as time progressed, scholars realized the importance of studying the entire population.

The presence and incorporation of anthropological methodology and theory in New

World archaeology aided in the creation of household archaeology. Through an anthropologic lens, archaeologists understand that the household was the locale for economic and social activities, as well as ritual behaviors and ideological expressions. Therefore, as Lohse and Gonlin note, “the household is an important analytical unit for all members of society (2007: XVIII).”

Household archaeology and commoner studies can contribute a lot to our understanding of the ancient Maya. First, the elite class made up only a small minority of the entire population. 5

Therefore, our current understanding of Maya life occurs through a single perspective and biased lens. Second, by studying commoners, archaeologists can better understand the social dimensions and social relationships/interactions between multiple tiers of ancient Maya society

(2007: XXXIV). In turn, aspects of everyday life including resource access, internal and external exchange, specialization, and basic ritual, political, and economic practices will become clearer.

In other words, household and commoner research is imperative in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the ancient Maya.

Belize. The research objective is to distinguish the function and associated status of the structure.

Likewise, research will aid in the development of a database regarding architectural and building typologies, artifactual assemblages, chronology, and site layout. Finally, Hun Tun’s political and economic role within the greater Three Rivers Region will be explored using hierarchical and heterarchical models.

This thesis is organized in six chapters. The first chapter provides a brief introduction and illuminates the research problem and thesis objectives. Following the introductory chapter is a literary overview of ancient Maya households, primarily focusing on the architectural characteristics and production/consumer activities of commoner residencies. The site of Ceren is examined as a case study. Chapter 3 provides a contextual background for the author’s research by exploring the environment and cultural setting of the Three Rivers Region and the entire 6

Maya region in general. Chapter 4 is divided into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the prior archaeological investigations conducted at Hun Tun, which is pertinent to the author’s research. The second section is a discussion of the field methodology utilized during the research process. Finally, the last section describes each excavation unit and their associated data on a lot-by-lot basis. Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive examination and analysis of all the data collected at Structure B4 during the 2010 field season and discusses possible inferences on structural, site, regional, and disciplinary levels. Finally, chapter 6 includes concluding remarks and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2

ANCIENT MAYA HOUSEHOLDS

Historical Background

The household is a theoretical anthropological concept used widely in ethnographic research throughout the world. However, as stated in the previous chapter, historically within archaeological circles it is something that was generally overlooked in favor of monumental architecture and more visible elite contexts. Only recently, especially in Maya archaeology, has commoner and household archaeology came to the forefront as a major focus of archaeological research (Robin 2003: 307). While household and commoner archaeology may be a recent phenomenon, this is not to say it has been completely absent from past scholarly research.

Household orientated archaeology in the Maya area can be traced back to the research of E.H.

Thompson (1892, 1904) in the Yucatan peninsula (Demarest 2004: 38-40; Robin 2003: 309).

Along with the excavation of small mounds, Thompson used ethnographic research from the contemporary Maya populations to determine that the small mounds within the vicinity of the larger urban center of Labná were housemounds, or ancient houses (Robin 2003: 309). Other early investigations concerning housemounds were conducted by scholars such as Gann in northern Belize (1918), Gordon at Copan (1896), and Hewett at the site of Quirigua (1912)

(Demarest 2004: 38-40; Haviland 1985: 98; Robin 2003: 309).

However, Wauchope’s studies (1934, 1938) were arguably the most influential. He is still one of the most cited scholars regarding the identification of ancient Maya residential structures.

Wauchope used an ethnographic research method whereby he compared archaeological data with contemporary Maya examples. Wauchope used this method at the site of Uaxactun and as a 8

result was able to observe consistent idiosyncrasies between ancient and modern domestic structures within the Maya area. This practice, ethno-archaeology, has also been advocated by others, such as Binford (1980).

The archaeological record is defined as the by-product of human behavior. According to

Binford, archaeologists “cannot hope to understand the causes of these remains through a formal comparative study of the remains themselves. Instead, a deeper understanding must be obtained.

Archaeologists must seek to understand the relationships between the dynamics of a living system in the past and the material by-products that contribute to the formation of the archaeological record remaining today (Binford 1980: 5).” Binford argues that this deeper understanding can be acquired through the use of ethno-archaeology. However, the practice of ethno-archaeology and its application to archaeological research has been hotly debated.

In a household context, Haviland argues that using methodology based on ethnographic comparison has the potential to be problematic (1985: 98). First and foremost, there are always questions of validity when using contemporary models on past phenomenon, as those contemporary residential structures could have changed drastically through time from their ancient antecedents. Also, determining the function of a certain structure remains difficult, in that every “housemound” may not actually be a house. As will be discussed below, the presence and abundance of ancillary structures presents the problem that a perceived housemound may actually be a shrine, kitchen or storage structure (Haviland 1985: 98-99).

Much the way Tatiana Proskouriakoff led breakthroughs in decipherment of Maya hieroglyphics, Gordon Willey’s settlement pattern studies in the 1960’s changed the way archaeologists viewed issues of demography, population distribution and ecological adaptations

in the Maya area. In turn, these studies led to further research on domestic residencies and commoner life (Demarest 2004: 48-49). Willey’s work in the Belize Valley initiated the process of a more comprehensive understanding by focusing on a complete settlement analysis compared to the prominently site-centered approach of that time (Demarest 2004: 49; Robin 2003: 310-

311). At present, the increased focus and interdisciplinary approach has led to a more holistic study of the human behavior behind the material remains (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 11).

Theoretical Perspectives and Framework

The household is the smallest, most fundamental unit of social organization within any given culture (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 1; Demarest 2004: 113; Wilk and Rathje 1982: 618). A household is a group of individuals living together within a domestic structure characterized by the shared nature of their decision making and household related activities (Blanton 1994: 5).

However, as a viable social unit it may or may not be recognized by the people within a particular culture (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 6). While the nuclear family is generally regarded as the most common household form, the type of household is usually culturally and/or individually determined (Blanton 1994: 5).

Wilk and Rathje argue that a household is theoretically the result or by-product of a domestic strategy attempting to meet the various needs of its constituents (1982: 618). However, there is also a social dynamic involved. Blanton refers to this dynamic as “household social reproduction,” wherein households enact strategies to either attain or sustain a certain level of social status for themselves and their lineage (1994: 19). In turn, the household consists of three integrally linked components. They include the social, the material and the behavioral (Wilk and

Rathje 1982: 618).

The social component refers to the household in terms of its members and their relationship to each other, as well as their relationship to others within their community. The material component is physical in nature, dealing with the actual residential and associated structures, as well as the activity areas and material culture. The behavioral component includes the day-to-day activities carried out by the household inhabitants (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 618).

In turn, these components allow the household to be viewed from a variety of different perspectives. These include economic, socio-political, and religious/ritual perspectives, along with perspectives regarding architecture and structural form. All of these perspectives will be discussed in further detail below.

Economic perspective

In regards to economic activity, the majority of scholarly literature on the ancient Maya contains an elite bias. This top-down, elite perspective has led many scholars to interpret a centralized, elite-controlled economic system (Sheets 2000: 217). While some scholars would agree that long-distance trade networks, for instance, were controlled and manipulated by the elite, the actual goods traded have also generally been assumed elite in status. These goods, such as jade, obsidian, seashells, and stingray spines, were signature cultural elements in the ancient

Maya world and held significant cultural meaning (2000: 217). Since these culturally significant items were traded under the influence of the elite, it might seem logical to assume those items were therefore associated with an elite context. However, is the assumption valid? From an objective perspective, an elite influence in the acquisition of these items does not necessarily denote solitary use or control over the goods. However, until recently, coinciding with an

increased focus on commoner and household archaeology, the archaeological evidence had supported the elite context of these cultural materials.

An economic perspective regarding ancient Maya households revolves around the production, consumption and distribution of resources and cultural material. There are three different types of prehistoric economies. These are household, village, and regional economies

(Sheets 2000: 218). A household economy is a type of economy in which household members produce items specifically to be used or consumed within their immediate household group. A village economy involves horizontal exchange where households engage in part-time specialization. As a result of the specialization, households share their surplus with other members of their village outside of their own household group. Finally, a regional economy is a type of economy where households obtain materials, generally through elite controlled trade, from larger neighboring sites or secondary centers (Sheets 2000: 218). However, it should be noted that households would have routinely been engaged in multiple economic practices. In other words, it would have been possible for an ancient Maya household to be active in a household, village, and regional economy at the same time. Specifically referring to production, a similar three category model is envisioned.

Production is generally referred to as the modification of raw materials into a functional form of energy or the value enhancement of a certain resource (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 622). The majority of scholarly literature regarding production tends to focus on organization. While the organization of production is an important aspect, it is only one of three integrally linked factors.

These include not only the items produced, but also the labor invested and how the household organizes its production efforts. Items produced by a particular household can vary and include 12

common economic items, subsistence goods, food processing, and the physical structures themselves. Included in these categories are the natural resources and technology used in production.

Labor invested in a particular activity includes the entire production process, from the gathering and procurement of raw materials, to the eventual completion of the task. While the production process can be viewed in its entirety ethnographically, it generally cannot be seen from beginning to end within an archaeological context. In turn, with a few exceptions, such as at the site of Colha (Shafer and Hester 1983), there has been limited archaeological inquiry on the topic. On the other hand, as noted above, the organization of production has been the primary focus of scholarly research.

The organization of production can be broken down into three categories. These are household production, household industry and workshop industry (Braswell 2002: 288). In household production, a single household manufactures particular goods or artifacts based solely on their individual needs. In contrast, a household industry manufactures slightly more than they need, creating a surplus. The surplus is then traded between various households or used in other social occasions. Finally, a workshop industry includes full-time specialists. A household manufactures one specific item and trades it for subsistence or other cultural goods (2002: 288-

290). It is generally argued that specialization is linked to a higher degree of complexity.

Therefore, in theory, workshop industries would tend to be present only at sites exhibiting a relatively high degree of complexity.

In terms of consumption, the structure of demand has a major impact on both the production and distribution of goods. These factors generally work at a site-specific level. They

include the size of a population, the rate of consumption, preferences, and the amount of available alternative sources for possible substitution (Hirth and Andrews 2002: 9). The rate of consumption influences how much of a certain product is produced or imported. If a site uses obsidian, for example, at a rapid pace, they are going to import a higher amount of obsidian than a site with a low rate of consumption. The rate of consumption can be influenced by the failure rate or quality of a certain good or material. For example, if obsidian from a particular source is low in quality, the various sites it exports to will have a higher rate of consumption than sites that import from a higher quality source. Also, if a site is using obsidian, or any other product, for activities resulting in higher consumption/failure rates then their rate of consumption will increase. There is a potential relationship between population size and rate of consumption as well. In theory, the more people at a site, the faster that site will consume or exhaust the same amount of material than a site that has fewer people. However, that is not always the case.

Sites, or individuals at a site, directly influence the amount of imported material.

Therefore, their particular preference is significant. This can influence the type of good and/or from where it is imported. For example, this could explain why some sites import more Pachuca obsidian rather than other Mexican sources. Available alternative goods also influence the production and distribution of goods. For instance, if a site, such as Colha for example, is a major manufacturer of chert artifacts and is located on a major chert quarry, then they have less of a need or demand to import that material.

In a basic economic sense, distribution involves the movement of goods from producers to consumers. Household distribution generally consists of pooling and/or exchange, however the dynamic varies cross-culturally (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 624-625). There are generally three 14

types of exchange. These types are dyadic, polyadic, and market (Braswell and Glascock 2003:

34). Dyadic exchange revolves around two individuals or polities of equal status. On the other hand, polyadic exchange is between an elite and subordinates. Market exchange can be further subdivided into three categories. Those are (1) monopolistic, where politics are dictated by trade,

(2) administrative, where trade is dictated by politics, and (3) competitive, where trade is dictated by supply and demand (Braswell and Glascock 2003: 34-35).

In Maya archaeology, in terms of economic distribution of goods and other materials, long-distance trade networks have been the central focus of scholarly research. However, as

Aoyama states, there was more than one category of exchange present in the Maya culture area.

The other categories include intraregional and interregional exchange. Compared to long- distance trade of obsidian artifacts, intraregional and interregional exchange networks have received far less attention (1999: 237). In order to better understand the entire scale of ancient

Maya economies, all categories of exchange must be taken into account.

According to Sheets, in ancient economies there were generally two types of payment.

These are staple and wealth finance (2000: 219). Staple finance involved compensation in the form of subsistence goods, generally mandatory in nature, to the elite, trader, or state. On the other hand, wealth finance involved payment in the form of a special or culturally significant item (Sheets 2000: 219). For example, some scholars have argued that obsidian may have been used as a form of currency during early periods in the Maya area. However, the practice seemed to disappeared during the Late Classic due to its diminished use and demand (Rice and Cecil

2009: 328).

Socio-political perspective

The household, as a basic building block of human society, is where relationships within and between households can be studied (Robin 2003: 308). Similarly, since the household is a basic social component, it can be studied on all social scales that existed within ancient Maya society. Within the context of the household, two important social events typically occur. First, it is within this social grouping that individuals interface with one another and with the larger social units. Secondly, the household operates at the adaptive level of particular ecological and social settings and is where those adaptations can be directly studied (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:

5-6; Wilk and Rathje 1982: 618).

As noted above, by studying households and commoners in general, we can better understand behavior on all scales. In general, there are two scales of behavior. Long-term behavioral patterns are influenced by environmental and biological pressures. That is to say, a combination of genetics, demography, and the availability of natural resources dictate these types of behavioral decisions. On the other hand, short-term behavioral patterns are subjective to social and psychological processes. Rather than biological and environmental pressures, short-term behaviors are dictated by social rules and relationships, as well as individual goals and motivations (Bailey 1983: 180; Murray 1999: 11).

By studying commoner life, we as archaeologists can gain reliable insight into patterns of behavior on both a long-term and short-term scale. No matter the level of complexity within a group there will always be a commoner population. In other words, commoner populations can exist regardless of a present elite class, whereas the opposite scenario is not necessarily true.

Elite families are often in flux and can change very rapidly. Therefore, the commoner population 16

can present a more accurate measure of behavior on a long-term scale. For example, the commoner class at the Maya site of Copan continued to function regardless of the collapse of the elite class (Aoyama 1999: 245). Likewise, a similar situation has been documented in the

Sacapulas region of Guatemala (Hill and Monaghan 1987: 54-62).

A socio-political perspective on households involves examining how culture and social relationships influence activities, behavior, and the built environment. Culture influences an individual’s worldview, which shapes their values. In turn, an individual’s values influence their lifestyle, which dictates their activities (Rapoport 1990b: 10). Since households are designed to accommodate families rather than individuals (Flannery 1972: 39), the social relationships and the subsequent activities help shape the physical design of the household. Obviously, social distinctions such as class or status, ascribed or achieved, have a large effect on a household.

Cultural and social influences of this nature on architectural and structural form will be discussed further in the next section.

Houses are considered to be a major component of nonverbal communication systems within a particular society, in that they elicit certain cultural behavior and convey rank, power, status, identity, as well as symbolic meaning (Blanton 1994: 8-9; Rapoport 1990a: 61). Social and cultural aspects that influence the household include kin definitions, gender distinctions, and post-marital residency patterns (Blanton 1994: 6). These kinds of social aspects can influence the type of material environment present in a house. According to Blanton, two types of social messages are communicated by the material environment of a house. These are canonical and indexical. Canonical messages, generally furnishings or material goods found within a house, communicate meanings of enduring symbols reflecting concepts held in common by people 17

participating in a common cultural system. On the other hand, indexical messages are information, generally discernable from the exterior of a house, communicated concerning the expression of household status or wealth (1994: 9-10). In other words, the type, size or style of household, as well as the material goods presiding within, convey social messages to the rest of the community. In archaeology, analyzing material culture and architectural remains in terms of communicated information can prove very useful.

Cultural worldviews also influence where structures are placed within a community and within the larger natural landscape. In contrast to most western religions, the majority of indigenous religious beliefs revolve around the sacredness of the earth and the natural environment (Tacon 1999: 42). This idea of a “sacred landscape” is a relatively new phenomenon in archaeology (Knapp and Ashmore 1999: 1). However, its importance within the discipline is significant. Cultural views regarding sacred landscapes can influence the placement of communities, structures within those communities, as well as the behavior and activity of the inhabitants. Therefore, an understanding of these types of cultural views is critical for researchers.

Architecture and Structural Form

As Blanton notes, the floor plan, room dimensions, room functions, decoration, and building materials are all important household variables (1994: 26). However, as noted above, human behavior, influenced by an individual’s culture, can influence the structural form of a household. For instance, social stratification generally has an influential impact on architectural form. Kent argues that “social complexity determines the organization of space and the built

environment, particularly regarding partitioning and segmentation (1990: 127).” Social stratification has similar influences as well. Kent notes that people living within a stratified society mirror their society by structuring their activity areas in similar segmented patterns.

Likewise, they also tend to use functionally discrete objects and more segmented architecture and cultural material (1990: 128). In other words, a household’s use of both architecture and space is an expression of the socio-political organization of its society.

Gender roles also shape the way space within a structure is used. Blanton argues that

“the most salient aspects of social dynamics producing cross-cultural variation in house form has to do with gender-based conflicts within households (1994: 8)”. All societies have and use both gender-specific and non-gender specific areas (Kent 1990: 128). Likewise, all societies have function-restricted and multipurpose areas as well. While all societies may have these areas, their ratio of prevalence varies. In turn, this ratio can be described and analyzed (1990: 128).

In a basic sense, the built environment is created to support a desired behavior (Rapoport

1990b: 11). Aside from function, the form of a house symbolizes certain attributes particular to a specific cultural system. By living in a house, the individuals are continuously reminded of those principles, which are established and then continually reinforced (Blanton 1994: 10). While architectural form is influenced by cultural and human behavior, it is also affected by environmental factors.

Since every plausible building material used in the construction of a given structure has weight, structures, regardless of function, must meet various physical constraints. Therefore, whether a building is successful or not, regardless of construction techniques, is determined by

the laws of physics (Oliver 2007: 69). While a general understanding of the physical principles that influence the structure of a building is crucial, an understanding of the surrounding natural environment is also an important cognitive process in the construction of a house.

The built environment, including residential structures pertinent to this thesis, is fashioned to facilitate a variety of different functions. However, perhaps the most important function is the creation of a “micro-environment”. While a structure can not necessarily control climate, it creates internal conditions that the inhabitants can control, to a relative degree, in order to produce a comfortable living space (Oliver 2007: 130). Unlike other methods of climate control, such as clothing, buildings cannot easily be added or subtracted in order to suit climactic changes. While temporary additions are fairly common, most structures are too permanent. On the other hand, buildings are constructed to meet the demands of a particular climate.

For example, houses built in mountainous regions are generally low to the ground and compact. These are generally built with a flat roof that can retain snow and provide insulation during the winter. Conversely, houses located in tropical settings tend to be more open in order to catch as much breeze as possible. Likewise, desert houses usually have small windows and inner courtyards. These features offer some reprieve from the extreme heat conditions

(Rybczynski 1990: 91).

The building material used to construct a house can be influenced by a number of factors.

Generally, since most commoner household building materials are locally obtained, the availability of certain building materials depends on the surrounding natural environment. Also, the climate may influence an individual’s choice regarding the selection of building material.

However, cultural factors may also influence the type of material used. For instance, the presence of exchange networks, like those present in the Maya area, would have allowed individuals access to non-local building materials. However, other cultural factors, such as social or class status, would have enabled or limited access to those imports. For example, the use of stone or masonry architecture has generally been a characteristic of elite status. Issues regarding building materials and architectural design related to social status will be described in further detail in chapter 5.

Religious and Ritual Perspective

While the household is generally viewed as the locale for domestic activity, in that it provides the physical structure that mediates daily activities, it was also a location for ritual behaviors and ideological expressions (Blanton 1994: 10; Lohse and Gonlin 2007: XVIII). There are three types of household rituals. These are mortuary/ancestor, household dedication, and agricultural/calendrical rituals (Lohse and Gonlin 2007: XXXI). However, outside of iconography present in elite contexts, archaeological data regarding commoner ritual is rare.

Evidence of household ritual is rare due to what Rapoport refers to as non-fixed elements of the built environment. According to Rapoport (1990b), there are fixed, semi-fixed and non- fixed features. The fixed features are buildings, floors, and walls, while semi-fixed features are the furnishings or artifacts. Generally, both the fixed and semi-fixed elements are archaeologically available. On the other hand, the non-fixed elements, the people themselves, along with their associated behavior and activities, are not. Therefore, attempting to understanding household ritual remains difficult.

Ancient Maya Domestic Units

The Yucatec Maya term for house is nah (Plank 2004: 11; Robin 2002: 247). However, the word nah refers to both domestic and work areas. There are also social and religious components as these areas are believed to be sources of knowledge about the world among the contemporary Maya. These encompass sleeping and work related activity areas that occur within and around the physical frame of the house and include yards, fields, or other surrounding spaces

(Plank 2004: 11-12; Robin 2002: 247). Ashmore and Wilk define a dwelling as “the physical structure or area within which residential activities took place. It is the physical setting of the activities of consumption, reproduction, etc., that have been defined as part of the domestic sphere (1988: 6).” These residential structural arrangements or domestic units consist of one or more dwellings and associated ancillaries arranged in various ways around small open spaces

(Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Reconstructed Ancient Maya House (Webster 2002: 143)

Mirroring Maya site planning principles, ancient Maya households shared plazas and formed their own household groups. Generally, several houses, usually individuals belonging to the same family, were constructed around a shared open courtyard. It was common for several of these household groups to form within close proximity to one another, creating a sect or borough of closely related families within a larger village or polity (Demarest 2004: 114).

As mentioned above, many scholars have used ethnographies of contemporary Maya in attempts to better understand the ancient Maya household. Wauchope noted that hearths were a universal characteristic of ethnographic Maya houses. However, they did not always occur within the residential structure (1938: 117). They were generally located in corner areas of the kitchen. Since kitchen locations varied, either within the residential structure or in an associated ancillary, hearth locations also varied based on the physical orientation of the kitchen. Hearths can generally be identified by their characteristic three-stone design, but varied from household to household in terms of number and position (Wauchope 1938: 117).

Aside from hearths, other identifying material characteristics of residencies include food grinding stones along with food items such as bone, a high density of utilitarian artifacts compared to a low density of manufacturing implements, the presence of family related objects and ancestral burials, and associated household middens (Tourtellot 1983: 37). More specifically,

Wauchope notes the presence of pottery griddles, two or three metates and/or manos, and pots for cooking and storage, such as small cooking jars, medium sized jars, pitchers, bowls, and other serving dishes (1938: 117-122). Benches primarily used for sleeping were also common characteristics of contemporary Maya. However, contemporary Maya benches are generally made from perishable materials (Wauchope 1938: 123). Burials are another aspect of dwellings

and domestic groups. Ethnographic accounts have documented the practice in which individuals were buried beneath household floors (Landa 1978; Thompson 1930).

Archaeologically, a popular method of identifying a domestic structure is habitability. In other words, if a structure is too small to accommodate basic domestic functions, generally referring to adequate sleeping space, it could not have been a dwelling (Haviland 1985: 99).

However, how much minimal floor space is generally needed for sleeping? It is widely accepted that a minimum of 20 m², also known as the Minimum Residential Unit (MRU), is necessary for a structure to be considered residential (Ashmore 1981: 47; Gonlin 1993: 17). In terms of floor plans, Wauchope identified four different types (Figure 2.2) considered to be characteristics of residential structures: (a) apsidal or oval-shaped, (b) rectangular with flattened ends, (c) rectangular with square corners, and (d) square (Wauchope 1938: 18).

Figure 2.2 Ancient Maya Ground Plans (Wauchope 1938: 18)

The size and floor plan of ancient Maya residencies varies. As Demarest notes, “Maya households show variability in construction form and details, with different household plans and forms reflecting variability in family size, status, and the craft activities present within the group, as well as regional and temporal variation (2004: 114).” Ethnographic research has shown that

Maya houses were small when compared cross-culturally (Blanton 1994: 50).

According to Miller, “with its very emphasis on mass and the relatively small attention given to interior spaces, Maya architecture is composed of a few relatively simple elements: the house, the volume of platform or pyramid, and the path or steps that animated the first two. At

[the] heart lies the Maya house (1999: 22).” The typical ancient Maya house was built on a low platform, generally between 10-30 centimeters high. This substructure was constructed from a combination of stone, mud, and debris (Abrams 1994: 22). However, the size and number of platforms, as well as the combination of building materials varied from structure to structure and from site to site (Tourtellot 1983: 37).

The platform surface was compressed in order to serve as a functional floor space.

Portions of the platform tended to extend past the actual dwelling interior, as it was common for ancient Maya houses to contain a patio or porch (Abrams 1994: 22). Wattle and daub walls were constructed on top of the platform foundation and were held together by a frame of wooden poles

(Demarest 2004: 113; Webster 2002: 91). The waddle and daub mixture varied, but tended to include materials such as mud, sand, grass and wood chips. Given the perishable nature of these materials, walls were coated with a lime-based mixture in attempts to protect against inevitable deterioration due to weathering (Abrams 1994: 22). The roof was constructed of woven palm

thatch and grass (Demarest 2004: 113; Webster 2002: 91). It was common for the roofs to overhang the wooden frame in order to shade the patio or porch (Abrams 1994: 23).

The ancient Maya typically had separate structures adjacent to the residential structure that were used as kitchens, storage rooms, and areas for the production of necessary goods such as ceramics, stone tools, and textiles (Blanton 1994: 50; Demarest 2004: 114; Tourtellot 1983:

40; Webster 2002: 91). These structures are referred to as ancillary structures. According to

Tourtellot, “all other structures found in domestic units, but not themselves dwellings, are ancillaries (1983: 40).” The entire spectrum of human activity does not occur completely within a single building. Activity areas span a variety of different buildings, as well as both indoor and outdoor spaces (Rapoport 1990b: 12). Therefore, archaeologists cannot focus exclusively on a single structure. As Rapoport notes, “Any given building exists within a wider context to which it is linked through the activities of the occupants (1990b: 12).”

There are two types of ancillary structures. Ritual ancillaries are noted for their social and religious function and tend to be shrines or burial markers located in “principle” or central portions of a plaza/household group. Juxtaposed with domestic structures, ritual ancillaries are built on higher but smaller platforms. The platforms also tend to be more pyramidal in nature.

Mundane ancillaries tend to be utilitarian in function and consist of kitchens, granaries, and workshops. Similarly, mundane ancillaries are generally smaller than residential structures. They also tend to be located in the corner of the household group. While mundane and ritual ancillaries have distinctive characteristics, all ancillaries have distinguishing artifactual assemblages, a smaller overall activity area, and squarer floor plans compared to their adjacent residential structure (Tourtellot 1983: 40-41).

The Maya cultivated relatively small gardens that were generally located within close proximity to the residential and ancillary structures. These gardens were productive and contributed a considerable portion of the ancient Maya annual dietary intake. While the small gardens might have been less productive than the swidden agriculture in the nearby milpas, they were far more sustainable and were harvested year round (Demarest 2004: 132). The presence of chultunes, built-in food storage facilities, can also indicate an ancient Maya dwelling (Tourtellot

1983: 38). Ethnographic and archaeological examples have shown that storage occurred in numerous spots within and around the dwelling including rafters (Sheets 2000: 219; Tourtellot

1983: 38-39). Wauchope noted that modern Maya hung baskets from the walls and suspended them from the thatched roof (1938: 136).

In terms of religion and ideology, ancient Maya daily practices revolved around ancestor worship or the veneration of deceased ancestors. As Demarest notes, the Maya were patrilineal and patrilocal (2004: 176), therefore the veneration of the deceased males were particularly stressed usually in the form of a small shrine, or ritual ancillary as noted above, located near the residential structure or within the plaza group. However, all ancestors were worshiped and usually buried beneath the structures floors (Demarest 2004: 176; Freidel et al. 1993: 204-207,

445-447). Ethnographic evidence has shown that the contemporary Maya residencies tend to exhibit a larger degree of symbolic content compared to other areas of Mesoamerica (Blanton

1994: 101). The symbolic content generally came in the form of altars. Ethno-historical documents have described Maya rooms that specifically functioned around the worship of household deities. However, these types of rooms seem absent from ethnographic accounts

(1994: 101).

Ceren: An Ancient Maya Case Study

Above, I have tried to present various forms of ethnographic and archaeological data regarding Maya households. Used together, they can be very informative. However, given the nature of typical archaeological data and the problems that arise from using ethnographic data to study past phenomena’s, interpretations are never fully conclusive. Therefore, by looking at the site of Ceren, scholars are able to gauge or evaluate their interpretations based on a unique insight. Ceren, located in El Salvador, is an important site regarding household and commoner archaeology. Ceren, a sort of New World Pompeii, was buried by a volcanic eruption around AD

600 (Sheets 2000: 218).

As a result of the eruption, the site was rapidly abandoned by its inhabitants leaving an ideal archaeological assemblage for archaeologist to study. Due to the nature of abandonment, the majority of artifacts remain as they would have been during the everyday life of an ancient

Maya commoner. The volcanic ash also preserved perishable materials such as thatched roofs and cultigens from fields and gardens (Sheets 2000: 218). These in situ, primary context artifacts and preserved perishable materials provide archaeologists a unique opportunity to gain important insights into the ancient Maya commoner world. This remarkably reliable database can be used as a comparative data yard stick for examining the validity and/or accuracy of ethnographic data, as well as archaeological data and its associated interpretations regarding commoner and household archaeology.

According to Sheets, “Each household contained at least three structures. One of these structures was a domicile for sleeping, eating, and other various activities. The second structure

was a smaller building used for the storage of food and artifacts. The third structure was an ancillary kitchen (2000: 223).” Sheets also notes the presence of smoothing tools in every house, which he interprets as evidence that the inhabitants built and maintained their own structures from local resources (2000: 223). The architecture was not lavish or elaborate. The houses were made from waddle and daub and thatched roofs. All the materials, including grass, wood and clay were abundantly available within the surrounding environment. However, the type of grass used to make the houses at Ceren can no longer be found in the area due to environmental changes and human agriculture practices (2000: 224).

Each household grew cultigens from their kitchen gardens and adjacent milpas. In these gardens and fields they produced maize, beans, squash, chilies, and seed and root crops, which would have accounted for the majority of their annual dietary intake (Sheets 2002: 224).

Households also obtained other essential daily items, such as firewood and drinking water, from their surrounding environment. Each house had a part-time specialized task where they would have aggregated a surplus and subsequently traded it within their village to obtain other desired items (2000: 228). Once goods were obtained, either through trade or personal cultivation, they were stored in similar ways. As Sheets notes, “each household stored and processed basic foods and liquids in almost identical manners, and consumed them with polychrome ceramic vessels as well as painted and unpainted gourds. (2000: 224).”

As noted above, inter-site trading was common at Ceren. However, items that could not be obtained locally were acquired through long-distance and interregional trade. Every household excavated to date at Ceren has exhibited evidence of involvement in a regional economy. The goods probably came from the larger neighboring site of San Andres. 29

Nevertheless, the items acquired from the San Andres elite-controlled trade only made up a small proportion of the total household assemblages (2000: 219).

Household assemblages at Ceren included the presence of what Sheets calls “elite” artifacts, such as obsidian scrapers, jade axes, and polychrome ceramics, which were acquired from other sites through a regional trade network (2000: 219). Each house had approximately 6 obsidian prismatic blades and a handful of scrapers and pristine blades. While scholars hotly contest the social status surrounding obsidian, given that it only forms in specific geographic locations within the Maya area and must be obtained through long-distance, elite controlled trade networks, Sheets notes that the blades were carefully curated and stored in the thatched roofs and used for focused utilitarian purposes (2000: 219). Each house also had an un-hafted jade axe

(2000: 221). In terms of storage, each household had roughly 12 gourd vessels and about 70 ceramic vessels (Sheets 2000: 224). While the majority of these vessels were produced locally, polychrome vessels were imported from the Copan Valley (2000: 220). Other notable artifacts included at least one hematite cylinder in every household, shell from the Pacific coastline, and an incensario used for burning copal incense (Sheets 2000).

The prominent method used by scholars for identifying ancient Maya domiciles incorporates a combination of ethnographic comparison and current archaeological and interdisciplinary techniques. The Maya site of Ceren was used as a case study in an attempt gauge the validity of these methods, as well as provide insight into the daily activities of the

Maya. Overall, the findings at Ceren exhibit consistent data sets for comparing the scholarly literature discussed.

Conclusion

This chapter was meant to provide a theoretical framework to support the author’s research, along with providing an overview of the history of household archaeology within the

Maya region. The literature review in concert with the Ceren profile was also presented to demonstrate the inherent importance of commoner and household archaeology in Maya research.

While the elite Maya are a dynamic group, they represent a minority within the larger population. Therefore, to increase our overall understanding of Maya culture and civilization, the majority/commoner population requires a central focus of research. Likewise, the household was the loci for commoner related activities, which also reinforces the importance of commoner and household archaeology. The following chapter provides a specific environmental and cultural backdrop for the author’s research.

CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL HISTORY

Environment

Before examining the research data from Hun Tun presented in this thesis, it is important to briefly describe the surrounding environment. First, on a general scale, the surrounding environment influences the culture and cultural practices occurring within it. While the degree or nature of environmental influence is debatable, there is no denying its involvement. Second, as will be discussed below, due to the micro-environmental nature of the Maya area, it is important to have an environmental awareness when attempting to compare different sites. Finally, because of the household-oriented focus of this thesis, and since all architecture is ultimately a collection of modified and unmodified raw materials, the surrounding environment and its key resources necessary for construction must be described.

The Maya inhabited the eastern portion of Mesoamerica. Mesoamerica (Figure 3.1), anthropologically speaking, is a culture area, which is defined as a region of similar culture traits and features (Demarest 2004: 8). According to Demarest, “For several millennia the various societies and civilizations of most of Mexico and Central America were in constant interaction through trade, migration, conquest, and other forms of contact. These interactions, as well as some common linguistic and ethnic origins, resulted in a sharing of many features across the vast and geographically diverse region (Demarest 2004: 8).” These characteristics were first documented in a list by anthropologist Paul Kirchoff in 1942 and include the ball game, codices,

practices of bloodletting and human sacrifice, as well as the use of calendars (Sacre and Fagan

2008: 400)

Figure 3.1 Map of Mesoamerica (Demarest 2004: 10)

The Maya area is divided into three basic geographic zones, the Pacific coastal plain in the south, the highlands in the center and the lowlands in the north (Sharer and Traxler 2006).

Within each of these zones environmental conditions vary, therefore each of these areas can be further divided into sub-zones (Figure 3.2). Furthermore, these sub-zones can also be divided into smaller areas based on local ecology and physiography. The Maya region is defined as a semitropical setting. As Scarborough and Valdez note, “Semitropical forests are difficult settings in which to make a living. They are frequently environments with great species diversity but

harboring limited numbers of any one species in any particular location- a condition different from most temperate or even semiarid settings (2003: 3).” The variation in topography, as well as the semitropical nature of the environment, led to the emergence of microenvironments where a specific combination of terrain, floral and faunal species, climate, hydrology, and so on, became unique to a certain geographic zone. The microenvironments pertinent to this research will be discussed below in conjunction with the Three Rivers Region, the location of the author’s research.

Figure 3.2 Geographic Zones of the Maya Culture Area (Hunter 1986: 5)

Since the Three Rivers Region is located within the lowlands, the lowlands will be described in greater detail. For instance, the lowlands are generally subcategorized into northern, central, and southern distinctions. In this semitropical environment, yearly rainfall averages about 1,500 millimeters (Bridgewater et al 2002: 424; Dunning and Beach 2000: 181). In the Maya area, the year is divided into wet and dry seasons. The wet season begins in late May lasting into January, while the dry season begins in February and ends in May. The majority of the rain occurs during the wet season. In fact, more than 90 percent of the annual rainfall occurs during the rainy season

(Dunning et al 2003: 14).

In some areas water is available year round, such as near certain rivers and lakes.

However, in others it is scarce and is found primarily in caverns and underground rivers deep below the surface. However, due to the nature of the environment, water is a limited resource. In terms of temperature, the yearly average range is between 24 and 26 degrees Celsius (Dunning et al 2003: 14).

The Three Rivers Region

The Maya lowlands are the largest environmental region within the Maya area, which includes portions of northern Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatan Peninsula (Sharer and Traxler

2006: 42). The Three Rivers Region (Figure 3.3) is located within the central lowlands. The region is geographically delineated by the Booth’s River to the east, the Maya site of Chan Chich to the south, and the Rio Azul and its floodplains define both the northern and western boundaries (Sullivan 2002: 197; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 25).

Water is a vital but limited resource in the Maya area, as noted above, due to the semitropical environment and the scarcity of sizable freshwater rivers and lakes. According to

Dunning et al, “Compounding the seasonal scarcity of water is the karstic nature of the region, like most of the Maya lowlands, with most water quickly entering the groundwater system and thereafter accessible in few places (2003: 14).” However, the presence of three rivers, from which the region obtained its name, influenced the settlement patterns and economic development of the Three Rivers Region. The three tributaries diverging from the Rio Azul, the

Rio Hondo, Rio Bravo, and Booth’s River, undoubtedly provided the inhabitants of the region a unique ecological advantage over their neighbors. While each river diverges from the Rio Azul and is affected by the associated precipitation levels during the varying wet and dry seasons, each watershed has its own unique characteristics (2003: 14).

Figure 3.3 Map of the Three Rivers Region (Scarborough et al 2003: xvii) 36

The Rio Bravo is defined by its erratic nature. Fed by underground springs, the river is nothing more than a calm stream during the dry season. On the other hand, during the wet season, the Rio Bravo increases in size and speed. As a result of the increase in precipitation, large quantities of overland runoff are produced from the associated escarpments and adjacent uplands (Dunning et al 2003: 15).

Much like the Rio Bravo, the Rio Azul is greatly affected by the drought during the dry season. The Rio Azul meanders through a series of interconnected bajos which, during the dry season, become stagnant pools. On the other hand, during the wet season the bajos overflow across a wide floodplain (Dunning et al 2003: 14-15).

According to Dunning et al, “Booth’s River occupies a large structural depression, much of it less than 10m above sea level (2003: 15).” The river flows through wetland areas which, like the Rio Bravo, are fed by underground springs during the dry season. Similar to the Rio

Azul, the Rio Bravo, and the majority of freshwater locales in the Maya region, the Booth’s

River floods during the wet season due to the intense accumulation of rain (2003: 15).

The Three Rivers Region is divided into various zones based on ecological and physiographic variables (Figure 3.4). In other words, the region has been geographically subcategorized based on flora, fauna, geomorphology, hydrology, and so on. According to

Dunning et al, “The various zones of the Three Rivers Region are closely tied to the drainage patterns of the rivers and the uplands that separate them (2003: 15).” Four main zones within the

Three Rivers Region have been identified. These are the La Lucha Uplands, the Rio Bravo

Terrace Uplands and associated escarpment, the Rio Bravo Embayment, and the Booth’s River

Uplands and associated depression (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 3). The majority of

archaeological research in the region occurs within these four zones. Other zones exist, including the Azucar Lowlands and La Union Karst (Dunning et al 2003: 18), however they are not incorporated due to the lack of archaeological evidence and pertinence to the author’s work.

Figure 3.4 Physiographic Zones of the Three Rivers Region (Dunning et al 2003: 15)

The greatest cultural achievement in the Three Rivers Region, in terms of the overall size of ancient Maya sites, occurred within the La Lucha Uplands. For example, notable sites such as

La Milpa and Maax Na are located within the zone (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 4). The site 38

of Hun Tun, while nowhere near the size of previously mentioned sites, also resides within the

La Lucha Uplands.

The La Lucha Uplands are characterized by conical hills, ridges, and bajos. The zone is known for its well-drained calcareous soil and upland forests. Within these upland forests the canopy is generally 15-20 meters high and vegetation ranges from zapotillo (Pouteria reticulate) to sapodilla (Manilkara zapota) (Dunning et al 2003: 16; Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 4).

These forests are dominant in the region covering the majority of the Programme for Belize research area (Bridgewater et al 2002: 424) of the Three Rivers region, which will be discussed in association with the author’s research at Hun Tun.

To the east of the La Lucha Uplands lie the Rio Bravo Terrace Uplands, which, according to Scarborough and Valdez, “drop by way of steep ravines knifing through portions of the escarpments- from an elevational high of 200 meters to a low of 30 meters above sea level

(2003: 4).” The Rio Bravo Terrace Uplands are characterized by the artificial terracing located along the eastern portion of the zone. Like the La Lucha Uplands, the Rio Bravo Terrace

Uplands are well-drained and inhabited by a combination of upland forests and the bajo “scrub swamp forest” (Dunning et al 2003: 16; Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 4). Unlike the upland forests, the bajo vegetation is characterized as a dense forest with a 3 to 5 meter high canopy and dominated by Haematoxylum campechianum and sedges (Dunning et al 2003: 16).

The Rio Bravo Embayment is characterized by its marshes, swamps, lagoons and aguadas, which is undoubtedly why Maya settlement within the embayment is the scarcest when compared to the rest of the Three Rivers Region (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 4). The majority of the Rio Bravo Embayment is defined as a riparian forest. As Dunning et al state,

“This forest type has a broken canopy, abundant liana cover, and sporadic emergent trees such as

Bucida buceras, and Pterocapus hayesiis (2003: 17).”

The Booth’s River Uplands and associated depression lies to the east of the Rio Bravo

Embayment and is the locale for the sizable ancient Maya sites of Dos Hombres and Gran Cacao

(Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 4). The zone is characterized by its horst and graben topography.

The soil within the Booth’s River Uplands varies from shallow, calcareous well-drained soil to poorly-drained saturated soil. Likewise, vegetation varies from upland forests to riparian forests

(Dunning et al 2003: 17-18).

Chronological Framework

Before examining the specific cultural history pertinent to the author’s research, i.e. the

Three Rivers Region (La Milpa and surrounding sites), it is important to provide a general overview of the temporal framework used by archaeologists in the Maya region. While this temporal overview is not site or region specific, it remains important for understanding the site or region specific chronology in a broader context. It is also important when undertaking site comparisons.

In terms of chronology, the Maya culture area is generally divided into three time periods. These include the Preclassic (2000 B.C. – A.D. 300), the Classic (A.D. 300 – 900), and the Postclassic period (A.D. 900 – 1542). However, these categories are further subcategorized into various other periods (Table 3.1). The eras are defined by their associated cultural changes established from the archaeological record. Since the ancient Maya were never a consolidated whole and exhibited a large degree of regional diversity, these time periods are broad approximations because these cultural transformations may have occurred at different times in

different regions. Therefore, the defined chronological framework should not be viewed as a strict one. In fact, defined time periods are subject to continual debate and revision as new discoveries shift the dating of cultural developments.

Chronological Periods Corresponding Dates Paleoindian Period - 6000 BC Archaic Period 6000 - 2000 BC Early Preclassic 2000 - 1000 BC Middle Preclassic 1000 - 400 BC Late Preclassic 400 BC - AD 100 Proto Classic AD 100 - 250 Early Classic AD 250 - 600 Late Classic AD 600 - 800 Terminal Classic AD 800 - 900 Postclassic AD 900 - 1542

Table 3.1 Ancient Maya Chronology (Adapted from Demarest 2004: 13)

The earliest evidence of humans in the Maya area, in the form of Clovis points, dates between 9000 and 8000 B.C. in the highlands of Guatemala and in northern Belize (Sacre and

Fagan 2008: 402; Sharer 2009: 22; Webster 2002: 43). The Maya became increasingly sedentary towards the end of the Archaic, between 6000 and 2000 B.C. Prior to that, the earliest humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers. Evidence of the earliest domesticates are generally found at these Archaic sites (Demarest 2004: 14; Sharer 2009: 22-23; Sacre and Fagan 2008: 402-403;

Webster 2002: 44).

The Early Preclassic (2000 B.C. – 1000 B.C.) was marked by a rise in population, along with the development of agriculture and permanent villages. The Maya were becoming

increasingly complex in the form of chiefdoms. The increased complexity led to the rise of social stratification and the status differences between the have and have nots. Public architecture, monumental art and iconography began to develop during this time period. There was also a fair amount of trade and exchange, of both goods and ideas, during the Early Preclassic (Demarest

2004: 60; Sacre and Fagan 2008: 404; Sharer 2009: 23).

During the Middle Preclassic (1000 B.C. – 400 B.C.) there was a rise in the level of social complexity, as well as a continual rise in population. Society became more centralized and some scholars characterize this period as the origins of complex society within the Maya civilization (Demarest 2004: 14-15; Sharer 2009: 43). Archaeological evidence from this time period links interaction between the ancient Maya and other cultural groups, such as the Olmec.

The Olmec, thought of by many archaeologists as either a mother or sister culture of the Maya, inhabited sites such as San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes (Demarest 2004: 62; Sacre and

Fagan 2008: 404-405).

During the Middle Preclassic, well-defined status and role distinctions appeared and, in turn, specializations emerged. This resulted in the creation of large public works and monumental architecture, as well as an increase in long-distance trading (Sharer 2009: 44).

Likewise, as the Maya became more centralized, warfare began to increase. The main subsistence adaptation during the Middle Preclassic was swidden agriculture, which was supplemented by occasional gathering and household gardens. Some of the larger sites of this period include Nakbe, Uaxactun, Cuello, Cerros, and El Mirador (Sacre and Fagan 2008: 408-

409). Also, some of the earliest examples of Maya writing, in the form of carved stela from the site of El Porton, date back to the Middle Preclassic (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 197).

During the Late Preclassic (400 B.C. – A.D. 100), there was a noticeable increase in population growth as well as the development of state level societies (Demarest 2004: 15; Sharer

2009: 51). During the Late Preclassic, hieroglyphic writing developed alongside calendrical dates. El Mirador was the largest known Maya site during this time period. Other large sites during this time period included Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, Calakmul, Uaxactun, and Lamanai (Sharer

2009: 51-52). While the later Classic periods are often considered the height of Maya civilization, monumental architecture was comparable during the Late Preclassic. In fact, the largest structures ever built by the Maya date back to this time period (2009: 56). The sites that arose during the Middle Preclassic greatly increased in size. There was also more intensive agriculture, which was probably a by-product of the increase in population, and, in turn, the demand to feed more people.

The Proto Classic (A.D. 100 –250) is a period defined by a decline in population, and the subsequent abandonment of sites. However, this phenomenon occurred primarily in the southern half of the Maya area, i.e. southern lowlands, highlands, and Pacific coastal plain. For example,

El Mirador, perhaps the largest and most influential Maya center during the Middle and Late

Preclassic, suffered a decline and subsequent abandonment (Demarest 2004: 103; Sharer 2009:

59). Some scholars suggest a volcanic eruption in El Salvador, sometime around A.D. 260, and its environmental repercussions were an important factor, if not the prime causation, in the decline (Sheets 1979). Others argue that the increase in population at some centers became so large that the site and surrounding environment could no longer be sustained (Demarest 2004:

103; Sharer 2009: 60).

The Early Classic (A.D. 250-600) is characterized by the presence of state-level societies and political organization that continued their development, especially in the lowlands, during this time period. Some sites that arose during the Preclassic periods continued to grow and, with the decline of El Mirador, became dominant centers, such as Tikal, Caracol, and Calakmul.

Other dominant centers that arose during the Early Classic include Palenque and Copan (Sacre and Fagan 2008; Sharer 2009: 89). Overall, there was an increase in site nucleation, in the form of formal plaza groups, and corbelled vaults, a staple of Maya architecture, appeared during this time period (Demarest 2004: 92-94). While divine rulership may have originated in the Late

Preclassic, it became an overarching practice during the Classic (Demarest 2004: 92). In general, the Maya civilization, i.e. architecture, iconography, writing, calendar, economy, trade, and so on, began to reach its climax during the Early Classic.

Teotihuacan, the largest prehistoric city in Mesoamerica, continued to be a dominant center during this time period. Even though the non-Maya site was located in central Mexico,

Teotihuacan had a direct influence in the Maya region (Demarest 2004: 105). A Teotihuacan connection has been documented at a number of sites, including Kaminaljuyu and Tikal. Cultural and architectural evidence of an association with Teotihuacan at these sites includes three-legged

“tripod” ceramics and a form of architecture called talud-tablero, which is unique to Teotihuacan

(Demarest 2004: 105; Spence 1996: 27). However, the nature of the relationship between

Teotihuacan and the Maya, whether it was a mutual relation or direct control, remains a subject for debate.

Much like the previous periods, population continued to increase during the Late Classic

(A.D. 600 – 800). Intensive agriculture and environmental manipulation reached an all-time high

during this period. The major Central Mexican site of Teotihuacan began to decline, which might have affected its Maya counterparts. For example, Tikal, which had become a major power during the earlier half of the Classic, also declined. Cultural forms such as architecture and artwork reached their peak during this period. However, there was a relative reduction in amount monumental construction, decline in trade, and population decrease in the central, and southern lowlands towards the end of the Late Classic. On the other hand, the northern lowlands began to flourish (Demarest 2004: 111-112).

A period designated as the Terminal Classic (A.D. 800-900) is characterized by the continual decline in population and construction in the central and southern lowlands. However, during the Terminal Classic the northern lowlands reached their zenith. For example, the site of

Chichen Itza became a major power (Sharer 2009: 97; Webster 2002: 47). The Terminal Classic is characterized by change, and the popular notion of the Maya “collapse” is associated with the period. While the collapse may have occurred differently at different sites, in terms of causal and temporal distinctions, it was especially prominent in the central and southern regions of the

Maya area.

The notion of a prominent civilization like the Maya collapsing has garnered a lot of public interest. Numerous scholars have tried to explain this phenomenon. There have been theories put forward citing environmental catalysts, such as changes in climate (Spinden 1928), volcanic eruptions (Sheets 1979), and droughts (Hodell et al. 2001), as well as societal issues, such as water control (Lucero 2000), epidemics (Spinden 1928), and overpopulation (Culbert

1974). However, it is more likely that it was a combination of factors that led to the decline of the Maya. While there is no denying the decline suffered by the Maya during this period, the

connotation surrounding the word “collapse” suggests the Maya ceased to exist. However, Maya people continued to inhabit the region and remain there today. In fact, some sites continued on into what is known as the Postclassic.

The Postclassic (900-1542) is delineated by regionalism and conquest. While the majority of the Maya area resembled a fractured shell of its former Classic form, states continued to flourish in the northern Yucatan, central Petén, and the southern highlands (Demarest 2004: 17).

Within these Postclassic states, both economic and political philosophy and practices changed.

For example, the institution of dynastic kingship that dominated the Late Preclassic and Classic periods was no longer implemented during the Postclassic (Sharer 2009: 111). The Postclassic is also the temporal setting for the Spanish Conquest. The Spanish conquered the southern Maya located in the Petén and southern highlands between 1524 and 1527, while the conquest of the northern Maya in the Yucatan occurred between 1527 and 1546 (2009: 125-127). However, much like the collapse during the Terminal Classic, the Maya continued to inhabit the region.

Cultural History of the Three Rivers Region

Since larger sites tend to dominate, or at least influence to a debatable degree, the smaller sites within their periphery, understanding the cultural history of the Three Rivers Region and its major sites is important in order to comprehend the context of Hun Tun, as well as the archaeological material found there. Furthermore, because Hun Tun is in relative proximity to

La Milpa, that site will be the primary focus of this section. As stated in the previous section, the earliest evidence of human occupation in the Maya area dates to around 9000 B.C. However, there seems to be no evidence of Maya occupation within the Three Rivers Region prior to the

Middle Preclassic. Assemblages of Middle Preclassic ceramic sherds have been observed,

primarily from the sites of Blue Creek, La Milpa, and Dos Hombres (Sullivan and Sagebiel

2003: 25). During this period colonization, rapid population increase, and socioeconomic complexity began to accelerate within the Three Rivers Region, as well as the entire Maya lowlands (Sharer and Traxler 2006: 201).

During the Late Preclassic, population, landscape modification, and monumental construction dramatically increased within the Three Rivers Region (Sharer and Traxler 2006:

251-3; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 27). According to Sullivan and Sagebiel, “Data suggests that by the Late Preclassic, sites in the Three Rivers Region were clearly part of the widespread trade and interregional communication networks in place throughout the rest of the Maya area (2003:

27).” Some of the earlier settlements that began to grow during this period included Dos

Hombres, Blue Creek, Rio Azul, and Las Abejas. These sites tended to originate near stable water sources (Sullivan 1997:45). While these settlements increased in size, in terms of population and ceremonial architecture, there was also a dispersed rural population surrounding these nucleated centers. La Milpa was a modest site during the Late Preclassic, with a small population living in the northern portions of the site (Webster 2002: 289).

In the Early Classic, the continual development and increase in population of preceding periods led to the emergence of state-level centers led by dynastic rulers (Sharer and Traxler

2006: 294-5). While there is evidence of this dynastic kingship at La Milpa, in the form of an inscribed stela, overall construction is sparse during the Early Classic (Webster 2002: 289). In fact, only four of the fourteen larger sites in the entire Three Rivers Region display evidence of monumental construction (Sullivan 2002: 203). Data suggests that during the Early Classic, La

Milpa and the other sites within the Three Rivers Region were probably subordinate allies to

some of the larger sites located outside of the region (Sullivan 2002; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003:

27; Webster 2002: 289).

During the early portions of the Late Classic there is little evidence of additional construction, population increase, or even significant greater occupation within the region

(Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 27). It has been theorized by some scholars that this scarcity of activity was associated with the decline at Tikal, which corresponds temporally (Webster 2002:

289). This associated lack of activity in the Three Rivers Region has generally been used as evidence for the aforementioned subordinate ally hypothesis.

In the latter half of the Late Classic, there is a boom in cultural innovation and monumental construction. Population increased and reached its peak during this period.

According to Sullivan and Sagebiel, “Over 80 percent of the ceramics recovered [within the

Program for Belize Archaeological Project area] to date are from this time period. This population increase is reflected in an increase in agriculture-related activities, in associated land modifications, and in the number of communities developed around large centers (2003: 27).” At

La Milpa, the majority of its massive public and ceremonial architecture was constructed between AD 750 and 850. By the end of the Late Classic, La Milpa had become the dominant polity of the region. La Milpa was supported by settlements built in the four cardinal directions as well as numerous other agricultural satellites (Webster 2002: 289-291). The site of Hun Tun has been theorized as one of these satellites. Rural complexity also became more widespread as populations outside of the major polities were also rising (Sullivan 1997:51).

During the Terminal Classic, the Three Rivers region experienced a stark decline. At La

Milpa, for example, there was a drastic decline/abandonment with many structures left

unfinished or constructed using materials from pre-existing structures (Sullivan 2002: 202;

Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 27; Webster 2002: 291). The site of Rio Azul was invaded and burned. Also, other sites such as Blue Creek and Kinal declined (Sullivan 2002: 202). Numerous theories have been proposed pertaining to the Terminal Classic decline in the Three Rivers

Region, citing contributing factors as warfare, internal crises, land exhaustion, and climatic factors (Sullivan 1997:53). Subsequently, there has been little evidence of Postclassic occupation within rural urban contexts. The small amount of data recovered seems to be present mainly around ceremonial structures, suggesting that Postclassic pilgrimages, rather than occupation, may have occurred (Sullivan 2002: 202; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 27-8).

Conclusion

When conducting archaeological investigations it is imperative to examine data within its entire context in order to ascertain meaning behind the material. This chapter attempted to contextualize the author’s research by providing an environmental and cultural backdrop. Since the environment either directly or indirectly influences a culture and the associated cultural activities, therefore influencing households and household activities, they were discussed here in concert. The following chapter contains the author’s research and methodology.

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH

Previous Research at Hun Tun

Hun Tun is a relatively small ancient Maya site located in the Three Rivers Region of

Northwestern Belize on the Programme for Belize property. All archaeological research within the 260,000 acre property operates under the permit for the Programme for Belize

Archaeological Project (Dodge 2010: 1). Although individual researchers working at various sites within the property may conduct their own specific research, they all subscribe to the overarching goals of the project. While the author’s research focus is household oriented, the general research goals at Hun Tun include understanding economic, religious, funerary, and household trends (Dodge 2010: 1). In terms of geography, Hun Tun is located near La Milpa as well as comparable sized sites, such as Say Kah, Medicinal Trail, and La Milpa East (2010: 3).

Hun Tun was initially identified in the summer of 2008 by Robyn Dodge (Dodge 2010:

1), a Ph.D. candidate from the University of Texas. In turn, preliminary research during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons consisted of surveying and mapping of the site, as well as the excavation of test pits in courtyard areas (Dodge 2009; Dodge 2010). Courtyard groups, individual structures and other features were mapped and compiled to form a working site map. A master site grid was established to maintain long-term control over research at the site. Therefore, all measurements, including maps and excavations, were taken in relation to the master grid (Dodge

2010: 7). Having a master site grid helped with measurement consistency, ensuring that the mapping coordinates and dimensions of various units remain constant over time (2010: 7).

As of 2010, six courtyard groups have been identified, mapped and designated as Groups

A-F (Figure 4.1). In turn, those six courtyards currently identify the boundaries of the site

(Dodge 2010: 7). Dodge defines the courtyards in the following manner.

“Group A has five structures and was constructed on a raised platform. Group B has four structures. Group C has four structures, a stone monument and two possible megalith monuments. The authenticity of the cultural monuments has yet to be confirmed. Group D has five structures and was constructed on a raised platform with restricted access. Group E is defined by three structures on the top tier of a terraced platform and includes a depression. Group F is a double courtyard group with of seven structures constructed on a raised platform with restricted access (2010: 7-8).”

Under Dodge’s direction, a total of sixteen units were excavated in 2008 and 2009.

Thirteen of the sixteen suboperations were test pits within courtyard areas, while the other three units were placed to examine enigmatic stone features (Dodge 2010: 9). Two units were excavated in Group A, which revealed the courtyard had been constructed on top of a platform.

The platform had restricted access with only one discernable entrance point (Dodge 2010: 14).

An occupation level was uncovered with a well-defined plaster floor and an artifact assemblage that included lithic tools, obsidian blades, seashells and a piece of greenstone (2010: 9-10).

Additionally, two units were excavated in Group B, which will be described in conjunction with the author’s research in the ensuing section.

Figure 4.1 Map of Hun Tun Groups A-D (Dodge 2010: 23)

A total of nine units were excavated within Group C. Six of the nine suboperations excavated courtyard areas. These units yielded artifact assemblages consisting of ceramics, lithic debitage, lithic tools and obsidian. More imporantly, these suboperations uncovered a compact earthen plaza floor that contrasted with the plaster floor exposed in Group A (Dodge 2010: 12).

The other three units in Group C excavated stone features of unknown function.

Two suboperations exposed a possible limestone monument located between Groups C and D. The two units were exposed to bedrock in order to fully expose the possible monument.

Several lithic tools and pieces of obsidian were collected (Dodge 2010: 12). However, determining whether the feature was a natural or cultural occurrence remained difficult. In this case, to make such a distinction, the chemical composition of the limestone would require assessment as the markers of human manipulation and modification were far too damaged and eroded – if they ever existed. Generally, limestone used in monument construction is of a higher quality than the surrounding bedrock. Currently, samples have been taken from the possible monument, the underlying bedrock, and nearby limestone outcrops in order to make the chemical distinction (2010: 17). The presence of a stela at a small site like Hun Tun would be somewhat unusual, but most helpful in interpreting the material culture and the identity of the former inhabitants. Therefore, whether or not the feature is cultural has significant implications for future research and interpretations at Hun Tun.

One unit was devoted to the excavating of a stone feature located in the center of Group

C. The unit was also exposed to bedrock in order to better delinate the feature. Various obsidian pieces, along with an assemblage consisting of ceramics, lithic flakes, and debitage was encountered. The excavations suggest that the feature was a deteriorated and fragmented limestone monument, although additional chemical tests are likely neccessary (Dodge 2010: 11).

The monument was strategically located in the center of the courtyard and was aligned towards the center of Structures A-1 and C-3. According to Dodge, “this monument most likely represented a perimeter marker and would have been significant in differentiating a functioning courtyard space” (2010: 14-15).

A total of three suboperations were excavated in Group D. These units revealed various courtyard areas. The artifact assemblages encountered consisted of ceramics, lithic flakes, tools, debitage and obsidian pieces (Dodge 2010: 13). An occupational courtyard floor was also uncovered. Like Group A, Group D was constructed on top of a raised platform with restricted access (2010: 14). These platforms were constructed using large limestones, construction fill and plaster (Dodge 2009; Dodge 2010: 14).

Excavations of stone features and courtyards during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons have amassed an analyzed ceramic asssemblage consistent with a Tepeu 2-3 chronology (Dodge 2010:

14; Sullivan 2009). Interestingly, too, excavations have failed to reveal any evidence of multiple construction phases or occupations. Therefore, Hun Tun is currently interpreted as having a restricted Late Classic construction, occupation, and abandonment (Dodge 2010: 14). However, these interpretations remain based on preliminary investigations and are liable to change as a result of further in-depth research.

In terms of site planning principles, the ancient Maya exhibited concepts of directionality.

According to Ashmore, the Maya “postulated articulation of architectural form [by] its inferred cosmological meaning” (1991: 201). At Hun Tun, survey and mapping have revealed that most structures within the multiple courtyards are oriented to magnetic north. In gerneral, Hun Tun is organized on a north/south and east/west axis. The largest structures at the site are located on the eastern edge of their respective courtyards and oriented towards the cardinal directions (Dodge

2010: 16). Since structures had not been excavated prior to the authors research, those presented and discussed in the next chapter may aid in either confriming or refuting these findings.

Methodology

From a public perspective, most any kind of fieldwork is the most exciting aspect of archaeology. However, fieldwork is rarely done without a purpose. Methodology is critical in archaeological research because of the nature of the archaeological record. The archaeological record is highly variable. In other words, it occurs at different scales and in different contexts.

Context is an essential aspect for all archaeological information. In a broad sense, context is the physical setting, location or association of artifacts and features. Its preservation is crucial because it is this setting for the material culture that provides the significance. Without its preservation, analysis and interpretation are irrelevant and the material culture is rendered much less useful.

A general distinction is made between primary and secondary context. An object in its original position of discard is said to be in primary context, otherwise known as “in situ”. On the other hand, objects that have been moved or disturbed from their original place of deposition are in a secondary context. Artifacts of a secondary context are less useful in terms of the information they provide. When artifacts are removed from their original location, especially without proper excavation and documentation, most contextual information is lost. That is why looters are detrimental to the archaeological record.

To preserve the context of the archaeological record, methodology is critical. Therefore, data collection and documentation requires execution in an appropriate manner. Generally, in the scientific realm, this necessitates methodology to be replicable. However, archaeology is a destructive process. Once material culture is excavated, its context is disturbed and destroyed

forever. Therefore, replication is impossible. That places a tremendous importance on precise documentation.

Documentation was completed through the use of standardized forms provided by the

Programme for Belize Archaeological Project. These included lot, lot tracking, lot definition, and lot inventory forms. This documentation allowed for the precise checking and subsequent rechecking of all archaeological information. The form most frequently used was the lot form.

The lot form documented the suboperation, vertical and horizontal measurements, the personnel involved in excavations and recording, chronology, type and number of artifacts observed and collected, associated features, and an overall description of the lot and its contents. In correlation with the standardized documentation, the author kept a personal field notebook to ensure that nothing significant would be missed during the record keeping process. After each field day the author would review the standardized forms and juxtapose the information recorded during the workday with the information in my notebook.

Data collection was primarily completed through excavation. However, information was also obtained through survey and mapping. Excavation was completed using universal archaeological tools, such as trowels, pickaxes, line levels, plumb-bobs, hand-brooms, brushes, tape measures, buckets and dust pans. Soil was sifted using ¼ inch wire mesh screens. Artifacts found during the various surveying, excavating, and sifting processes were placed in cloth bags labeled with the site number, operation number, suboperation number, the excavator’s name(s), and date.

There were protocols for collection based on the type of material culture encountered. For instance, the collection of ceramics had certain limitations imposed through PfBAP lab policy

based on the direction of Dr. Lauren Sullivan. Ceramic pieces smaller than the size of a quarter were not collected due to difficulties associated with identification (Sullivan personal communication). On the occasion that a significant find was encountered, such as a lithic or obsidian tool, or a complete ceramic vessel, a drawing of the item itself and a map where it was found was completed. Also, due to the high volume of land snails, their presence was documented, but they were not collected.

Excavation units were labeled using Programme for Belize Archaeological Project standards. Hun Tun was given the designation of Rio Bravo 70 (RB70). The numerical designation is based on the site’s position within the Three Rivers region and the archaeological work done there. Each site is broken down into operations and labeled numerically. For example, the author’s fieldwork is part of the third operation excavated at the site and is therefore labeled

Operation 3. Operations are categorized into various suboperations, which are the actual units of excavation. These units are given an alphabetical designation based on their order within the excavation sequence. However, the actual size of the suboperations was arbitrary and based on the author’s research design. In order to maintain a high level of organization, these units are divided vertically into lots and numbered accordingly. The decision to terminate a lot at a certain depth was at the discretion of the author. However, it generally occurred when a new soil layer or a feature was encountered so that the context of the material culture could be preserved.

Before initiating excavations, a reconnaissance survey was preformed. This survey examined plaza areas around Structure B4 as well as structure B4 itself, the focus of the author’s work. However, no artifacts were observed or collected on the surface. While no material culture was retrieved, the survey allowed the author to delineate the observable boundaries of the

structure and its association to surrounding structures and plaza areas. This proved useful in terms of planning a research design.

Maps were utilized as a method of gathering data. Three different types of maps were produced including plan maps, profile maps and sketch maps. Each of these maps had a different purpose. A total of five plan maps were completed throughout the field season. The purpose of a plan map is to obtain a horizontal or birds-eye-view of the feature being examined. A tape measure was held level along the wall of a unit, and points were taken using a perpendicular tape measure and a plumb-bob.

A total of four profile maps were completed throughout the field season. These profile drawings were stratigraphic maps made to record the soil deposition of a unit with the purpose of understanding and distinguishing the natural and cultural processes within the soil. This type of map was created by placing stakes on two corners of the same wall and connecting them with string. Using a line level, the string was adjusted accordingly until a level surface could be obtained. A tape measure and marker were used to segment the string into ten centimeter intervals. The tape measure was then held perpendicularly, and points were taken at the beginning and end of various soil layers.

Sketch maps were also used during the field season. These were informal maps drawn by the author at various stages of the excavation process. While these maps were indeed informal, meaning they were not drawn to scale, they proved to be very important to the excavation process. These sketch maps allowed the author to synthesize each lot. These were typically preformed when the delineation of a feature was unclear. The sketch maps also allowed the author to recreate the unit in terms of artifacts removed, which, in turn, enabled an initial

interpretation of associations between various artifacts and features. Sketch maps of Structure B4

(Figure 4.2) and its surrounding structures and plaza also enabled the author to envision a research design and placement of subsequent units.

Figure 4.2 Adapted Sketch Map of Structure B4 and Associated Units

All soil descriptions and classifications, i.e. identified soil horizons, were based on categorical delineations made by Buol et al (2003: 44- 47). The O Horizon was present in all units, however it was thin and poorly discernible to the A Horizon. Therefore, both horizons will be identified and described as one. The prominent sequence encountered consisted of A-B-R

Horizons.

Field Season Synopsis

Excavations took place at Group B of Hun Tun from June 21 to July 9, 2010. Research focused primarily on structure B4 (Figure 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) with aims of identifying and differentiating commoner residencies in contrast with public or elite contexts. The initial goal of excavations included delineating the chronology of the structure related to the rest of the site, determining the function of the structure, and increasing our general understanding of the people who once inhabited the site. Excavations attempted to distinguish the function of the structure by identifying architectural and building typologies as well as examining the artifactual assemblage present. As noted above, prior research was conducted at Hun Tun by Robyn Dodge. While the majority of her research has focused on Group A, Group B had been mapped and two test pits,

SubOps C and D, were excavated in 2008 (Dodge 2010: 10). With her permission, they are incorporated in to the author’s research below.

Excavations at Structure B4 were led by the author, under the guidance and in association with the research of Robyn Dodge. The project was part of the Programme for Belize

Archaeological Project (PfBAP) directed by Dr. Fred Valdez. Research was assisted by hired local workers and students from the University of Texas at Austin field school, including Erin

White, Kyle Clark, Cat Sword, and Adam Nelson. Both the hired workers and field school students assisted the author with excavations, on-site records, and various illustrations.

Preliminary ceramic analysis was conducted by Dr. Lauren Sullivan. Basic lithic analysis was conducted by the author, under the guidance and direction of Dr. Maria Martinez using the project’s standard operations set by Dr. Fred Valdez Jr.

Figure 4.3 North Side of Structure B4

Figure 4.4 South Side of Structure B4 61

Figure 4.5 East Side of Structure B4

Figure 4.6 West Side of Structure B4 62

Summary of Excavations

Seven suboperations were opened and a total of nineteen lots were excavated throughout the field season. The precise location and size of various excavation units were selected based on the type of data being collected. Plans were modified based on time restrictions and research interests as excavations progressed, as well as weather conditions. All excavations at Group B in the 2010 field season were part of Operation 3 and designated suboperation letters AA, AB, AC,

AF, AG, AI, and AJ. Each is will be described in association to Structure B4 and sections of the plaza.

All vertical locations and lot depths were retrieved from local datums associated with the excavation unit. For consistency, these measurements were taken from preexisting datums when practical. The depth for a buried stratum from a datum was recorded at five points: each corner, as well as the center of the unit, taken at the beginning and end of every lot. These measurements provided a general thickness for the entire lot. They also allowed for the accurate documentation of varying slopes and other irregular hindrances, such as rock and root inclusions, that may have occurred at various locations within a single lot. As noted above, Hun Tun is on a grid system.

Therefore, all horizontal measurements in Group B were taken from the central B point within the grid system to the southwestern corner of each suboperation.

Suboperations C and D

As noted above, suboperations C and D were excavated by Robyn Dodge prior to the author’s field research. Since both suboperations are located within Group B, the archaeological data uncovered there is especially pertinent to this thesis. Since suboperation D is located on the opposite side of the group in relation to Structure B4, it will be discussed briefly. On the other

hand, due to the relative closeness of suboperation C, it will be described on a lot-by-lot basis.

All documented information gathered for suboperation C was given to the author by Robyn

Dodge and used under her permission (Robyn Dodge personal communication).

Suboperation D was a 2x1 meter unit located at the base of Structures B-1, B-2, and B3.

The unit uncovered an occupation level in the form of a compact earthen floor. All vertical measurements were taken from datum D. The unit exhibited an artifact assemblage consisting of ceramics, debitage, lithic tools, and a fragmented ceramic figurine (Dodge 2010: 10).

Suboperation C was a 2x1 meter test pit of the plaza area to the south side of Structure

B4. Suboperation C was horizontally located 7 meters east and 10 meters north of the central B point. All vertical measurements were taken below datum C from the northwest corner of the unit, unless noted otherwise.

Lot 1 had a beginning elevation of 93 centimeters below datum and an ending elevation of 105 centimeters below datum for a total lot thickness of 12 centimeters. Lot 1 dug through the humus layer. The soil was a dark brown color with numerous root and organic inclusions. Small limestone inclusions became more prevalent towards the bottom of the lot. The lot was terminated as the soil became more granulated. Lot 1 encountered a low density of lithics and ceramics.

Lot 2 was excavated to a thickness of 9 centimeters, with a beginning elevation of 105 centimeters below datum to an ending elevation of 114 centimeters below datum. The soil in this lot was a dark brown, clay-like soil, which included several root inclusions, however fewer than the previous lot. The lot was ended as limestone intrusions became more and more prevalent.

Lot 3 dug through a dark brown soil and exposed an uneven limestone layer. Five limestone cobbles measuring approximately 8 centimeters in diameter were encountered. There were also two large limestone protrusions, one in the west wall and one in the southern wall. Lot

3, with a beginning elevation of 114 centimeters below datum, had an ending elevation of 126 centimeters below datum for a total lot thickness of 12 centimeters. There was a large ceramic assemblage uncovered, including some as large as 15 centimeters in diameter. These occurred primarily in the western portion of the unit. There was also a small amount of lithics encountered scattered throughout the unit.

Lot 4 proceeded to bedrock at 148 centimeters below datum. Lot 4 had a beginning elevation of 126 centimeters below datum for a total lot thickness of 22 centimeters. Bedrock was extremely fragile, soft and easily broken. The soil remained grey and compact down to the limestone bedrock. An artifact assemblage of about 20 ceramics and 10 lithics was encountered.

At the completion of the lot, two profile maps (Figures 4.7 and 4.8) were completed illustrating the various soil layers.

Bedrock was relatively shallow in suboperation C, approximately 30 to 60 centimeters below the surface. The profile revealed an earthen floor occupying Group B, lying just above the bedrock. Construction fill consisting of a dense artifact assemblage leveled the surface just before compacting with the soil to maintain a level occupation surface. The earthen floor was identified at the same elevation as found in suboperation D (Dodge 2010: 10). The artifactual assemblage was narrow consisting of ceramics and debitage; however, an eccentric lithic was collected.

Figure 4.7 Profile Map of North Wall Sub Op C (Drawing by Robyn Dodge; Adapted by

Nick Arndt)

Figure 4.8 Profile Map of East Wall Sub Op C (Drawing by Robyn Dodge; Adapted by Nick

Arndt) 66

Suboperation AA

Suboperation AA was the first unit excavated by the author. SubOp AA was a 2x2 meter unit located on the south-central side of Structure B4. After the overlying vegetation was cleared and initial observations of the plaza and Structure B4 were made, it was unclear whether the structure was a single entity. Therefore, the main goal of SubOp AA was to delineate the structural layout of Structure B4, i.e. to determine whether B4 was a single structure or not. AA was also used to gain an initial understanding of the structure in terms of its architectural characteristics. These included the type and number of platform(s), how and where the architecture met the plaza floor, and the amount of masonry construction present. SubOp AA was placed along the south-central side of Structure B4 (refer back to Figure 4.2) with the hopes of finding a stairway or entrance to the structure.

AA was horizontally located 0 meters east and 10 meters north of the central B point. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum S from the southwest corner of the unit unless noted otherwise. SubOp AA had a beginning elevation of 130 centimeters below datum.

Lot 1 (Figure 4.9) dug through the humus layer and slightly into the interface. There was a decaying tree stump, roughly 40 centimeters in diameter, located on the north side of the unit approximately 20 centimeters from the northern wall. The stump was hollow, much of which was destroyed during excavation. The soil was dark brown and relatively loose with numerous root inclusions. This matrix was categorized as A Horizon soil, consisting of a friable silt loam that included a high concentration of humified organic matter. A single piece of obsidian was found in the south central area of the unit. Approximately 15 ceramics and 15 lithics were

collected. Land snails were observed but not collected. Lot 1 ended due to a soil change at 139 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 9 centimeters. However, no discernable features were visible at the conclusion of lot 1.

Figure 4.9 Sub Op AA Lot 1

Lot 2 dug through the interface to a depth of 145 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 6 centimeters. The layer of interface consisted of a loose brown soil that contained numerous limestone inclusions, measuring approximately 1 centimeter or less in diameter, as well as 5 large limestone cobbles/tumble, roughly 10-40 cm in diameter. The south end of the lot terminated at a compact earthen floor, while the north end of the lot terminated above a possible

feature constructed of limestone that ran east to west approximately 90-110 centimeters north of the unit’s south wall. Due to the apparent feature located in the northern half of the unit, the majority of excavation occurred in the southern portion of the unit. The hollow tree stump encountered in lot 1 persisted into lot 2. Lot 2 was closed due to the suspected structural feature at the north end of the unit and a new lot was required in order to preserve the context of artifacts located above the feature. A total of 174 ceramics, 46 lithics and 2 obsidian blades were collected, while shell was observed but not collected.

Figure 4.10 Sub Op AA Lot 3

In lot 3 (Figure 4.10), the northern half of the unit was excavated to a limestone feature, which was the underlying platform of the structure. Cobble-sized limestone met the earthen floor

approximately 100 centimeters from the southern wall of the unit. The soil was brown and extremely compact with rooty-organic materials remaining from the tree stump. Due to the narrowed excavation of the unit, a relatively small artifact density was encountered. A total of 21 ceramics and 7 lithics were collected. Since the southwest corner of the unit was not excavated in lot 3, vertical measurements were taken from the northwest corner. The beginning elevation was

112 centimeters and the ending lot elevation was 120 centimeters, giving lot 3 a thickness of 8 centimeters. A plan map (Figure 4.11) of the platform and earthen floor was completed following the conclusion of the lot.

Figure 4.11 Plan Map of Sub Op AA Lot 3 (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Suboperation AB

SubOp AB was a 2x2 meter unit located at the southeast corner of Structure B4. A key component in identifying the function and social context of a structure is its overall size. For example, temples generally are larger than houses and public shrines are typically larger than household shrines. In order to delineate the dimensions of Structure B4, opposing corners had to be unearthed. Therefore, the main goal of SubOp AB was to uncover the southeast corner of the structure. AB was horizontally located 5 meters east and 10 meters north of the central B point.

All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum S and taken from the southwest corner of the unit unless noted otherwise. SubOp AB had a beginning elevation of 105 centimeters below datum.

Figure 4.12 Sub Op AB Lot 1

Lot 1 (Figure 4.12) proceeded through the humus layer. The soil was a loose, dark brown friable silt loam that contained numerous roots and other organic materials. There were several large limestone and chert inclusions located in the northwest corner and along the northern wall of the unit. These inclusions were most likely tumble as the soil in the northwest corner was lighter and portions of the architecture became apparent at the conclusion of the lot. Other smaller, pebble-size inclusions were found throughout the unit. Lot 1 was closed due to a soil change as the soil became lighter and increasingly more compact. The lot had an ending elevation of 116 centimeters below datum for a total lot thickness of 11 centimeters. Only 1 lithic and 2 ceramics were found, while land snails were observed but not collected.

Lot 2 was dug to a depth of 130 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 14 centimeters. Lot 2 excavated through the interface layer of semi-loose brown Bd Horizon soil to the occupation layer. Soil at the occupation layer was very compact and included numerous limestone inclusions. The occupation layer of SubOp AB resembled the earthen floor encountered in SubOp AA and SubOp C. The southeast corner of the unit went slightly below the occupation level and encountered a dense amount of artifacts. Tumble and possible portions of the wall were exposed in the northwest corner, protruding east towards the northeast corner of the unit. Tumble was also prevalent at the southwest corner. A total of 80 lithics and 132 ceramic sherds were collected. Shell was also observed but not collected.

Lot 3 (Figure 4.13) dug through the occupation layer and construction fill along the southern and eastern walls of the unit in an attempt to better distinguish the feature. The platform was discernable and the corner was identified. Figure 4.13, with the pick-axe pointing north, shows the compact earthen floor meeting the aligned platform and the southeast corner of the 72

structure. A possible second platform or masonry architectural form was visible in the northwestern corner of the unit; however, due to weather conditions and time restraints, a unit extending from AB into the interior of the structure was never undertaken. The soil was light brown with numerous pebble-size limestone inclusions present throughout.

Figure 4.13 Sub Op AB Lot 3

As expected, an extremely high artifact density was encountered within the construction fill. A total of 123 lithics, 610 ceramics and 1 obsidian blade was collected. Also, shell was observed but not collected. The lot was arbitrarily terminated when the platform and corner were 73

identified. The ending elevation for lot 3 was 143 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of

13 centimeters. A plan map (Figure 4.14) of the platform and corner was completed following the conclusion of lot 3. The map shows a portion of the platform corner that was dislodged by root inclusion. However, the point where the platform oriented west to east intersects the portion oriented north to south is still relatively discernable.

Figure 4.14 Plan Map of Sub Op AB Lot 3 (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Suboperation AC

SubOp AC was a 1x1 meter midden test pit located on the north side of Structure B4. A key component to identifying the function, as well as the social context, of a structure is the

artifact assemblage located within and around the structure. Middens are sometimes archaeologically accessible within a structure as a generalized floor midden, or behind a structure where artifacts and other waste would have been discarded. To the south of Structure B4 was a documented plaza, where SubOp C was excavated. Therefore, the north side of Structure B4 seemed an ideal location for a midden test pit. SubOp AC was horizontally located 3 meters east and 20 meters north of the central Group B point. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum T and taken from the southwest corner of the unit, unless noted otherwise. SubOp AC had a beginning elevation of 151.5 centimeters below datum.

Figure 4.15 Sub Op AC Lot 1

Lot 1 (Figure 4.15) dug through the humus layer of A Horizon soil, consisting of a relatively loose dark brown matrix. The soil had a clay-like consistency and contained a high concentration of organic materials. Large root inclusions were prevalent in the center of the unit.

The lot contained numerous chert inclusions juxtaposed with a minute amount of limestone fragments. The humus layer contained a large quantity of land snails, however they were not collected. About 10 ceramic fragments were collected, primarily small unpainted pieces. A total of 54 lithics were collected. Lot 1 ended at a depth of 162 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 10.5 centimeters.

Lot 2 dug through the interface layer to the occupation level. The interface layer consisted of a brown clay-like soil. Soil became increasingly compact towards the occupation layer. Small limestone inclusions became more frequent and larger in size. Root inclusions present in lot 1 persisted in the center portion of lot 2. The occupation level uncovered in lot 2 resembled the earthen floor encountered in units on the south side of Structure B4. Shell was observed but not collected. A total of 3 small obsidian blade fragments, 53 ceramics, and 83 lithics were collected. Portions along the eastern wall accidently proceeded into construction fill below the earthen floor, which might explain the potentially inflated artifact density encountered in lot 2. Lot 2 ended at a depth of 180 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 18 centimeters.

Lot 3 dug through construction fill to a depth of 192 centimeters, resulting in a lot thickness of 12 centimeters. Portions of the southern wall encountered bedrock. However, due to inclement weather conditions, there was some water intrusion, unit damage, and wall collapse

(Figure 4.16). Therefore, the lot was closed in order to preserve context. Lot 3 consisted of a 76

semi-loose brown soil with numerous pebble-size limestone inclusions. There were also a few cobble-size limestone inclusions removed from the R Horizon soil. A total of 36 ceramics and 25 lithics were collected.

Figure 4.16 Water Damage to Sub Op AC

Lot 4 was opened because of the change in context as a result of foreign soil, water damage and wall collapse. The units north and east walls were cleaned using a trowel in attempts to restore the wall integrity in an effort to preserve stratigraphy for subsequent mapping. Soil was a grey and very clay-like clumpy loam, partially due to the water intrusion. Several limestone 77

fragments were encountered. No artifacts were found. Lot 4 was excavated until limestone bedrock was encountered throughout the unit. The lot concluded at a depth of 199 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 7 centimeters. Two profile maps (Figures 4.17 and 4.18), one of the north wall and one of the east wall, were completed. These profile maps allowed the author to compare the stratigraphic layers on the north side of the structure with those present in the Group B plaza located on the south side.

Figure 4.17 Profile Map of North Wall Sub Op AC (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Figure 4.18 Profile Map of East Wall Sub Op AC (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Suboperation AF

SubOp AF was a 1x1 meter midden test pit located on the north side of Structure B4.

Since SubOp AC suffered unit and wall damage, subsequent midden test pits were excavated to gather a more reliable artifact assemblage and stratigraphic profile of the northern side of structure B4. Additional midden test pits were laid out in a checkerboard pattern to the west of

SubOp AC. SubOp AF was horizontally located 1 meter east and 19 meters north of the central

Group B point. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum T and retrieved from the southwest corner of the unit, unless noted otherwise. SubOp AF had a beginning elevation of 166 centimeters below datum.

Lot 1 dug through the humus layer to a depth of 174 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 8 centimeter. The soil was dark brown in color and contained numerous root inclusions. The matrix was categorized as A Horizon soil. The lot was closed due to a soil change, as soil became more compact. Land snails were observed but were not collected. A total of 17 lithics and 19 ceramics, varying in size and type, were collected.

Lot 2 (Figure 4.19) dug through the interface layer to a depth of 184 centimeters below datum for a total lot thickness of 10 centimeters. The interface consisted of a dark brown soil.

Lot 2 was closed as soil changed to a brown soil with pebble-sized limestone inclusions prevalent throughout the unit. Soil also became increasingly more compact towards the occupation layer. Soil at the occupation level was consistent with the earthen floor observed at other units in Group B. Land snails were observed within the lot but were not collected. A total of 51 ceramics and 27 lithics were collected.

Figure 4.19 Sub Op AF Lot 2 80

Lot 3 was excavated below the earthen floor through a layer of construction fill. The construction fill consisted of a light-brown, grayish soil that was relatively compact. Limestone inclusions, ranging from pebble to cobble-size and increasing in size towards bedrock, were prevalent throughout the unit. The lot was closed when limestone bedrock was encountered. Lot

3 ended at a depth of 191 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 7 centimeters. A relatively high density of artifacts was encountered with a total of 69 lithics and 117 ceramics collected. Two profile maps (Figures 4.20 and 4.21), one of the south wall and one of the east wall, were completed following the conclusion of the lot. These maps illustrate the major soil changes encountered during excavations.

Figure 4.20 Profile Map of South Wall Sub Op AF (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Figure 4.21 Profile Map of East Wall Sub Op AF (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Suboperation AG

SubOp AG was a 1x2 meter unit extending north from the northwest corner of SubOp

AA to the interior of Structure B4. SubOp AG was located on the south-central side of the structure at 0 meters east and 12 meters north of the central Group B point. SubOp AG was positioned to encounter an artifact assemblage of primary context. Another aim of SubOp AG was to follow the platform into the interior of the structure to gain a better understanding of the overall architecture. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum S and

taken from the southwest corner of the unit unless noted otherwise. SubOp AG had a beginning elevation of 90 centimeters below datum.

Lot 1 dug through the humus layer of A Horizon Soil. The humus consisted of dark brown loose soil with associated organic materials. There were several large roots and remnants of tree fall located in the northeastern corner of the unit, prolonging excavation. Lot 1 was terminated as several large limestones became visible at the bottom of the lot. No lithics or ceramics were present, but land snails were observed. Lot 1 ended at a depth of 98 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 8 centimeters.

Figure 4.22 Sub Op AG Lot 2 Extending North From Sub OP AA

Lot 2 (Figure 4.22) excavated the interface layer, which consisted of a brownish soil that was relatively loose. The matrix was categorized as Bd Horizon soil. There were several large root inclusions protruding along the eastern wall of the unit. Remnants of the tree fall present in

lot 1 persisted in the northeast corner of the unit. Cut limestone was uncovered, which formed some type of structural feature. There was also possible tumble or wall fall located in the northern half of the unit. A total of four ceramics and two lithics were collected, while shell was observed but not collected. Lot 2 ended at a depth of 113 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 15 centimeters. A plan map (Figure 4.23) of the initial structural feature was completed following the conclusion of the lot.

Figure 4.23 Plan Map of Sub OP AG Lot 2 (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

In lot 3 the first layer of stone was pulled, possibly tumble or collapse, and excavation proceeded to the platform. Soil was loose and brown with limestone inclusions ranging in size.

The large root inclusions along the eastern wall were removed; however, a few additional root inclusions were encountered. A possible inner wall of the western half of the structure was identified along the northwestern portion of the unit, however portions of it had collapsed. A second platform was also identified. A small artifact density was encountered with a total of three lithics and four pieces of ceramics collected. Lot 3 ended at a depth of 115 centimeters for a lot thickness of 2 centimeters. A plan map (Figure 4.24) of the second platform and inner wall was completed following the conclusion of the lot.

Figure 4.24 Plan Map of Sub Op AG Lot 3 (Illustrated by Nick Arndt) 85

Suboperation AI

SubOp AI was a 2x2 meter unit located on the northwest corner of Structure B4. The main goal of suboperation AI was to identify the opposing corner to SubOp AB in order to delineate the dimensions of Structure B4. The northern wall of B4 was nicely preserved with masonry alignment intact, which enabled the precise placement of SubOp AI. However, there were several large trees that had displaced the continuity of portions of the wall. SubOp AI was horizontally located 6 meter west and 16 meters north of the central Group B point. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum T and retrieved from the southwest corner of the unit, unless noted otherwise. SubOp AI had a beginning elevation of 137 centimeters below datum.

Lot 1 dug through the humus layer of A Horizon Soil. The layer consisted of dark brown loose soil with a high concentration of humified organic materials. There were numerous root inclusions, including four extremely large roots protruding from the southern wall and nearly extending the length of the unit. Lot 1 was terminated as the soil became lighter and numerous cut limestones became visible. Land snails were observed but not collected. Artifact density was low, with 3 lithics and 1 ceramic collected. Lot 1 ended at a depth of 149 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 12 centimeters.

Lot 2 excavated the interface layer, which consisted of a brown soil with several limestone inclusions ranging from small pebble-size to larger cobble-size. While some of the small root inclusions were removed, several large roots persisted from lot 1. The roots seemed to have pushed a lot of the limestones out of alignment. While the corner of the structure was somewhat distinguishable, the severity of the root intrusions made an accurate assessment nearly

impossible. Land snails were present but were not collected. A total of 10 ceramics and 17 lithics were collected. In an attempt to delineate the corner, the western portion of the unit was excavated to a lower depth than the rest of the unit. Lot 2 ended at a depth of 177 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 28 centimeters. Due to time constraints, as a result of weather conditions, further investigation in the unit was not undertaken. A plan map (Figure 4.25) of the platform and corner was completed following the conclusion of the lot.

Figure 4.25 Plan Map of Sub Op AI Lot 2 (Illustrated by Nick Arndt)

Suboperation AJ

SubOp AJ was a 1x1 meter midden test pit located on the north side of Structure B4. AJ was arranged in a checkerboard pattern to the west of SubOp AC and AF. SubOp AJ was horizontally located 1 meter west and 20 meters north of the central Group B point. All vertical measurements were taken in centimeters below datum T and retrieved from the southwest corner of the unit, unless noted otherwise. SubOp AJ had a beginning elevation of 180 centimeters below datum.

Lot 1 dug through the humus layer to a depth of 183 centimeters below datum for a lot thickness of 3 centimeters. The soil was a loose dark brown and reddish humus with numerous root inclusions. The soil could be categorized as A Horizon soil. Three cobble-size limestone inclusions were encountered in the center portion of the unit. The lot was closed due to a soil change, as the soil became lighter in color. Land snails were observed but were not collected. A relatively low artifact density was encountered with a total of 8 lithics and 5 ceramics collected.

Lot 2 was started but was never completed. Due to inclement weather, SubOp AJ was flooded and underwent critical water damage. The saturated soil failed to dry out in the time allotted, and the unit had to be abandoned. Consequently, the unit was not mapped at this junction.

Conclusion

The 2010 field season was successful in terms of the archaeological information acquired and the professional experience obtained by the author. As noted above, the 2010 season marked the first time in Hun Tun’s short three year excavation history that actual structures were clearly exposed. Therefore, the information gathered is important in developing a chronology and

identifying architectural characteristics of the site, such as construction and occupation phases.

Also, the primary contextualized materials uncovered within these structures will enable researchers to begin to understand the identity of the former inhabitants and how the site of Hun

Tun interacted with the rest of the Three Rivers Region. However, weather conditions and time restraints limited the amount of primary context identified by the author. Plans and schedules were altered to adapt to these conditions.

Although future archaeological research at the site will provide a more precise view of the architectural characteristics of Group B, and Hun Tun in general, preliminary interpretations can now be made regarding architectural characteristics, construction techniques, and building functions. The information discussed above will be further analyzed and interpreted in the following chapter. The direction of future research at the site and regional implications will also be discussed.

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION, AND SYTHESIS

Introduction

This chapter will provide analysis, discussion, and synthesis of the research presented above and the associated data collected at Structure B4 during the 2010 field season. While the thesis objectives have been previously stated, they will be divided into categories based on context for this chapter. Although the objectives and contexts may be linked, they are differentiated here for organizational purposes. First, on a structural level, specifically regarding

Structure B4, the research objective was to distinguish the function and associated social status of the structure. The second goal was site-specific. Given the recently-identified nature of Hun

Tun, in terms of archaeological investigations undertaken, this thesis attempted to facilitate the development of an initial database of architectural and building typologies, artifactual assemblages, chronology, and overall layout of the site. Third, on a regional level, Hun Tun’s proximity to the large center of La Milpa, as well as other similar satellite sites, provides an ideal opportunity to examine both hierarchical and heterarchical organizational models of ancient

Maya society, as well as exploring Hun Tun’s role within the Three Rivers Region. The final research objective, disciplinary in nature, was to investigate how Maya archaeologists can better identify and differentiate commoner residential structures juxtaposed with public and elite contexts. These four research objectives will be further discussed below in concert with the data set.

Structure B4

The research objective regarding Structure B4 revolved around function and status.

According to traditional settlement pattern theory, based on its size and location, Hun Tun would be considered a commoner or rural community. Similarly, Structure B4 would likely be characterized as a potential housemound given its visual dimensions. Therefore, the initial assumptions by both the site researcher Robin Dodge and the author perceived the structure as a commoner housemound. In turn, whether or not Structure B4 was indeed a domestic compound was at the core of the research design.

Function

In order to ascertain the function of Structure B4, both architectural and artifactual characteristics must be examined as discussed in chapter 2. Generally, structural size and shape precede associated assemblage analysis regarding the identification of function. In the Maya realm, architectural criteria pertaining to the identification of dwellings include overall size, number of platforms, floor plan, orientation, abundance, and built-in food storage systems

(Ashmore and Wilk 1988; Tourtellot 1983). However, orientation and abundance have been widely criticized as architectural criteria (Haviland 1985: 98-99; Tourtellot 1983: 39) and will be analyzed here in a supplementary fashion.

As stated in chapter 2, Wauchope (1938) noted the presence of four different types of household floor plans used by the ancient Maya. Those included square, rectangular with square corners, rectangular with flattened corners, and apsidal floor plans. At Structure B4, suboperations AA, AB, AG, and AI identified a rectangular ground plan. However, determining

whether the corners were square or flattened proved difficult given the nature of wall collapse and root inclusions located within suboperation AI at the northwest corner of the structure.

Suboperation AB, located at the southeast corner of Structure B4, yielded a corner that was not square. While it is possible that the small amount of architectural tumble caused the platform corner to become flattened, it remains unlikely. Therefore, Structure B4’s ground plan has been characterized as rectangular with flattened corners. However, since only two corners were exposed, one of which was relatively indiscernible, the delineation cannot be considered definitive.

Suboperations AA, AB, and AI also identified the presence of at least one platform.

Suboperation AG, which extended northward from suboperation AA into the interior of Structure

B4, identified a second platform, as well as a portion of an internal wall. Therefore, it is conceptualized that the structure was a rectangular, two platform-leveled building. In terms of ancient Maya dwellings, floor plans and platforms exhibited a large degree of variation. For instance, dwelling platforms ranging from one, two, and three-levels are common throughout the

Petén and southern lowland regions (Tourtellot 1983: 37). Therefore, the ground plan and number of platforms of Structure B4 correlate with other Maya dwellings documented in scholarly research.

As previously noted, it is currently widely accepted that 20 m² is the minimum space required for a structure to be considered residential. However, the total area is not restricted to a single building. Since ancient Maya domestic compounds consisted of multiple structures, the

MRU is calculated by including the main residential structures as well as the adjacent ancillaries

(Ashmore 1981: 47; Gonlin 1993: 17). The methodology used in determining the dimensions of 92

Structure B4 was through the delineation of opposing corners. While other methods were considered, and may have been more successful, opposing corners were used in order to maintain a methodological consistency with other research at the site.

Suboperation AB attempted to uncover the southeast corner of Structure B4. The southwest corner of the 2x2 meter unit was horizontally located 10 meters north and 5 meters east of the master grid point located in the center of Group B. While tumble and wall collapse initially made delineation difficult, the platform corner was discernable at approximately 100 centimeters north and 140 centimeters east of the unit’s southwestern corner. In turn, the southeastern corner of Structure B4 was horizontally located 11 meters north and 6.4 meters east.

Suboperation AI attempted to uncover the northwest corner. The southwest corner of the

2x2 meter unit was horizontally located 16 meters north and 6 meters west of the master grid point located in the center of Group B. The northern wall of Structure B4 was nicely preserved with masonry alignment intact, which enabled the precise placement of the unit. However, positively indentifying the platform corner was impossible due to massive root inclusions, which had facilitated extreme wall collapse and disrupted the consistency of the platforms alignment.

Therefore, the location of the corner and subsequent calculation of area are approximations.

Given the masonry alignment of the wall, the northwest corner is assumed to be located within the unit. A visual approximation would place the corner near the center of the unit, at 100 centimeters north and 100 centimeters east of the unit’s southwestern corner. Therefore, the assumed horizontal location for Structure B4’s northwest corner was 17 meters north and 5 meters west. However, in order to approximate a possible area range, the northwest and

southeast corners of the unit will be calculated, since they would account for both the highest and lowest area range. The northwest corner of the unit was horizontally located at 18 meters north and 6 meters west while the southeast corner was 16 meters north and 4 meters west of the master grid point located in the center of Group B.

The dimensions of Structure B4 using opposing corners with the estimated northwest corner are 6 meters wide by 11.4 meters long, giving the structure an area of 68.4 m². However, given the indiscernible nature of the northwest corner, an approximate range is necessary. The approximate dimension range for Structure B4 is 5x10.4 to 7x12.4 meters. In turn, the area range for the structure is between 52 and 86.8 m². Therefore, the area and dimensions of Structure B4, even without taking the adjacent ancillary into account, are large enough to be considered a domestic structure.

In terms of built-in food storage facilities, Tourtellot argues that underground storage units were the predominate form (1983: 38). However, Haviland notes that those chultuns were not present at every domestic compound (1985: 101). At Structure B4, no evidence of a chultun has been uncovered. However, that is not to infer that one is not present, but rather that one has not yet been found. As Haviland also notes, built-in storage facilities can also take the form of adjacent ancillaries (1985: 101). While ancillaries varied in terms of function, including ritual and mundane purposes, some functioned as storage units (Tourtellot 1983: 40). Likewise, Sheets

(2000) and Wauchope (1938) noted that the Maya routinely stored items within their thatched roofs. However, Sheets and Wauchope were working with unique data sets that enabled such observations. At Structure B4, as expected, no evidence has been uncovered that would have suggested a roof storage system. On the other hand, an adjacent ancillary was present. 94

The principle of abundance has traditionally been used within Maya archaeology as a tool to help aid in the identification of residential structures. In essence, the principle states that

“since there are so many small mounds, they must be houses (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 10).”

However, subsequent research revealed that the majority of mounds thought to have been houses were in reality ancillary buildings used for functions, while perhaps household related, other than sleeping (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 10; Haviland 1985: 98-99; Tourtellot 1983: 39-40). In turn, the importance of ancillary structures in the identification of dwellings intensified. In other words, the presence of an ancillary structure or structures is a strong indicator of a domestic compound.

The ancillary structure adjacent to Structure B4 (Figure 5.1) was located to the southwest of the structure. However, the initial goal of excavating the ancillary went unfulfilled due to weather and time restrictions. Given those restrictions, along with the author’s focus on Structure

B4 as well as the allocation of workmen related to Robin Dodge’s research at Hun Tun, the ancillary was never cleared to insure a safe excavating environment. In turn, the ancillaries’ architectural components, contents, and function were never obtained.

In terms of compound orientation, Smith noted that Maya houses at Mayapan never faced west (1962: 208). However, this occurrence has been refuted elsewhere in the Maya culture area.

For instance, Tourtellot uncovered dwellings at Seibal that had an equal orientation distribution, while the majority of houses at Tikal faced west (1983: 39). While this orientation phenomena occurred at Mayapan, and perhaps a few other sites across the Maya region, it does not appear to be an overarching trend. At Hun Tun, Structure B4 faces south. However, the orientation does not appear to influence the function of the structure. 95

Discussed in chapter 2, Tourtellot (1983) and Wauchope (1934, 1938) provide an overview of household assemblage characteristics present in and around Ancient Maya dwellings. Arguably the most significant feature of domesticity is the presence of a hearth. As previously noted, every Maya residential structure tended to contain a hearth, unless the kitchen was located in a separate ancillary (Wauchope 1938: 117). A hearth was not uncovered at

Structure B4 during the 2010 field season. However, that is not to infer that a hearth is not present. Unfortunately, the amount of internal space excavated was cut short due to weather and time constraints. Therefore, it remains possible that a hearth exists within the structure or its adjacent ancillary.

Figure 5.1 Adapted Ancillary Sketch Map 96

Another prominent feature of domesticity is the presence of middens. The accumulation of refuse related to household activities would have been deposited within close proximity of the structure and household activity areas. Due to the nature of ancient Maya settlement patterns, the placement or location of middens is somewhat predictable. Since the Maya tended to live in household groups with a shared plaza space, it would not have been ideal to deposit refuse near the entrance of buildings or within the communal plaza itself. The plaza was also the common locale for dedicatory ancestral shrines. Therefore, middens have a propensity to be located behind the structures, or near their corners.

At Structure B4, suboperations AC, AF, and AJ acted as midden test pits and were placed in a checkerboard pattern along the north side of the building for a variety of reasons. First, the

Group B plaza was located to the south of the structure and, as noted above, would not have been an ideal midden location. Second, while possible, it was suggested that the proximity of

Structure B4 to Group A as well as other structures in Group B would not have allowed the adequate space to accompany a typical corner midden. Finally, at the present stage of research,

Structure B4 was the documented northern boundary of Group B. Therefore, the presumed ideal midden locations would have been along the north side of the building.

The midden test pits successfully uncovered a compact earthen floor similar to the Group

B plaza floor located on the southern side of Structure B4. The occupation level exhibits similar composition as well as lot depth when compared with the floor uncovered by Robyn Dodge throughout Group B. The midden test pits correlated with suboperation C, located within the plaza on the southern side of Structure B4, regarding stratigraphy and artifact distribution. In

terms of an archaeological assemblage, the midden test pits exhibited a total density of 577 artifacts, with a breakdown of 283 lithics, 291 ceramics, and 3 obsidian blade fragments.

While the midden test pits were successful in exposing a continuation of the compact earthen plaza floor extending north of Structure B4, the units failed to uncover positive evidence that would have indicated the presence of a midden. With the plaza floor extending northwards,

Structure B4 may not define the northern boundary of the group as originally perceived. It is possible that the plaza continues and additional structures exist. If this were the case, the deposition of refuse on the northern side of Structure B4 would also not have been ideal.

Likewise, the artifact density and distribution within the test units failed to exhibit midden-like assemblages. For instance, 312 artifacts, or 54 percent of the total amount collected from the middens, occurred within the construction fill below the compact floor. While the 3 obsidian blades were found above the occupation level, 134 lithics (47 percent) and 179 ceramics (61 percent) were collected within the construction fill below. Therefore, the nature of the distribution probably accounts for the inflated artifact density.

The lack of a positively identified midden would suggest that Structure B4 was not residential. Since the Maya dwelling was a multifunctional space supporting living, work, and storage activities, it remains possible that dense floor middens exist within the structure.

However, ethnographic and abandonment studies (Pagliaro et al. 2003: 78-80; Stanton et al.

2008: 229) suggest that floors within domiciles were routinely swept and kept surprisingly clean.

Unfortunately due to time and weather restrictions, excavation of the structure floor was unable to be obtained. Therefore, the presence of a floor midden, while unlikely, remains possible. As

noted above, it is also possible that corner middens exist, as well as within or behind the adjacent ancillary.

While the lack of a midden may seem to suggest a non-residential function, Haviland states that, “failure to find middens does not negate an entity’s residential role (1985: 100).” As noted above, the Maya kept their structures relatively void of refuse. Likewise, Gann noted the role of animals, generally dogs, pigs, and vultures, as scavengers who not only eliminated refuse, but also transported it from its original depositional locale (1918: 32). The Maya, especially at

Classic sites, also used refuse as construction fill (Haviland 1985: 100). Therefore, the lack of a midden at Structure B4 would not necessarily negate it from being a domestic compound.

The overall artifactual assemblage obtained from Structure B4, including the midden test pits, seems to be inconclusive regarding the function of the structure. In other words, it neither supports nor refutes the initial interpretation of Structure B4 as a housemound. The overall assemblage included a total of 1,843 artifacts. Ceramic analysis was conducted by Dr. Lauren

Sullivan, while basic lithic analysis was conducted by the author under the direction of Dr. Maria

Martinez and in association with Programme for Belize Archaeological Project protocol. While the assemblage will be discussed briefly in this section, further in-depth analysis will be undertaken in association with the overall site context of Hun Tun in the subsequent section.

One artifactual characteristic of household related activities is the presence of a high frequency of utilitarian pottery and artifacts juxtaposed with a low frequency of manufacturing tools. As previously mentioned, the total amount of artifacts collected was 1,843. The ceramic assemblage (1,260) accounted for 68 percent of the total assemblage. According to Dr. Sullivan

(personal communication), the majority of the ceramics collected were utilitarian. Since the

PfBAP’s primary lithics analyst was not in the field during the author’s field season, only basic lithic analysis was conducted. Of the 577 lithics collected only 136, or 23 percent, were flakes.

However, use-wear analysis was not performed. In turn, distinctions between flakes and utilized flakes for instance were not made. These kinds of distinctions may have proven useful in terms of either supporting or refuting the research objective. On the other hand, it does not appear that the current assemblage represents one of a manufacturing nature.

Other artifactual characteristics related to household contexts include the presence of food related items. These consist of both food preparation implements and consumption byproducts, which generally manifest themselves in the form of food grinding stones, as well as floral and faunal remains (Tourtellot 1983: 37). As stated previously, the midden test pits failed to exhibit midden-like collections. In other words, items such as seeds and animal bone related to food consumption were not encountered. It is possible that if a hearth exists within Structure B4, those kinds of materials may be present. Also, it remains possible that a midden and associated food remains are located within or around the adjacent ancillary. However, preservation wise, those types of materials are not frequently found in the Maya area. No food preparation implements, such as manos and metates, were found either. Those types of items tended to be stored within the structure or within the associated ancillary. Therefore, it remains possible that those kinds of artifacts exist.

Finally, characteristics such as the presence of family items, such as figurines, and ancestral burials are used in identifying Maya houses. The excavations undertaken by the author at Structure B4 revealed no family items. However, Robyn Dodge did uncover an eccentric in 100

suboperation C (Dodge 2010: 10). Nevertheless, whether or not the eccentric can be considered a family item is unclear and open to interpretation. Likewise, no evidence of skeletal material or ancestral burial was encountered during research. Generally the ancient Maya buried ancestors underneath the floor of their homes. However, since minimal interior research was completed in the time allotted, whether or not a burial is present remains undetermined.

Overall, the architectural and artifactual data retrieved during the 2010 field season is inconclusive regarding the function of Structure B4. Architecturally, the structure is large enough to contain the space necessary for household related activities. The number of platforms and ground plan compare well with the household Maya typology. There is an adjacent ancillary that could have provided a food storage facility or other household related space. Artifactually, the lack of an exposed and identified hearth significantly limits the ability to identify the structure as domestic. However, future interior excavations would help to address this question. Likewise, the lack of an indentified midden and burial also fails to facilitate the identification. While both an identified midden and uncovered burial would be helpful, the lack thereof, even with additional thorough and complete structural excavation, is not detrimental. In other words, while a hearth is crucial in identifying a domestic structure, not all Maya houses contained burials and exhibit archaeologically obtainable middens.

Excavations failed to yield any evidence of food preparation and food consumption.

Likewise, no food-related implements were uncovered. However, no manufacturing tools were found either. The assemblage did exhibit a high frequency of utilitarian pottery and artifacts as well. In terms of physical locality, Group B is located at the core of the site and Structure B4 is positioned at the eastern boundary of the group. It sits directly west of the elevated Group A, 101

which is the locale of large public and/or ritual structures. Whether or not other structures located within Group B are domestic compounds is unknown, which could also play a role in determining the function of Structure B4. Likewise, since excavations identified a continuation of Group B’s plaza extending north of the structure, determining the entire constituency of the group may also be important.

In the end, the function of Structure B4 is inconclusive. In order to conclusively determine function, further interior excavations of the structure and its ancillary are needed.

Once completed, the architectural and artifactural criteria discussed in this thesis can be better analyzed. Unfortunately, time and weather restrictions denied the author the opportunity to successfully achieve the initial field season goals. However, this will be further discussed at the conclusion of this chapter.

Status

As previously mentioned, Structure B4 was initially perceived as a housemound.

However, the associated status of the structure was unknown. As noted in Chapter 1, historically archaeological research in the Maya area has been predominately elite-biased. On the other hand, in household archaeology, the majority of scholarly research focuses on commoner-related contexts. Therefore, housemounds tend to elicit commoner connotations.

The notion of status exists in multiple contexts. First, status exists at the site-level. Sites vary in multiple facets. However, larger sites tend to suggest higher degrees of status. That is to say Tikal is theorized to have a higher status than Tulum. Status also occurs on a structural level.

In a household context, differences exist between commoner and elite residential compounds.

102

Finally, status variances occur between the actual inhabitants of those structures as well as the implements and accoutrements they use. These contexts are related in a linear fashion. In other words, the items a person uses effects their social status, while the inhabitants of a house impact the status of the structure. In turn, the statuses of the structures within a site influence its status as well. Therefore, given the nature of the linear relationship, in order to delineate the status of

Structure B4, its inhabitants and their belongings must be considered as well. Status on a site- level will be discussed in association with Hun Tun and the Three Rivers Region in the subsequent section.

If Structure B4 is indeed an ancient Maya house then the structure itself, its inhabitants, and their everyday items influenced its associated status. However, archaeologists do not have access to each context. As noted in Chapter 2, the fixed features of the structure, including the structure itself, its floors, and its walls, are available for study. Likewise, the semi-fixed features, such as the furnishings and artifacts are also archaeologically accessible. However, the non-fixed elements, the people themselves, along with their associated behavior and activities are not accessible (Rapoport 1990b: 13).

The associated status of semi-fixed features is generally delineated by function. A dichotomy exists between utilitarian and non-utilitarian items, with the latter holding a higher relative degree of cultural significance. While utilitarian items still have cultural significance, they are generally associated with subsistence-related activities. On the other hand, non- utilitarian objects tend to be culturally-oriented items. Therefore, the presence of non-utilitarian items elicits an elevated status. However, the multi-functional nature of certain materials or artifacts used by the Maya blurs the dichotomy. Obsidian, for example, was used for a variety of 103

different purposes and in varying contexts. The majority of the volcanic glass was obtained through long-distance trade networks controlled by the elite. Similarly, it possessed explicit cultural significance much like jade, crystal, and turquoise (Saunders 2001: 222). Obsidian was used in ritual and ceremonial contexts. For example, its use in ritual bloodletting and human sacrifice, two central ceremonial practices of the Maya, exemplifies its significance. On the other hand, obsidian was used as a domestic tool and is regularly found in middens and construction fill (Brown 2004: 234; Hirth 2003: 3). Furthermore, it was also used in warfare (Aoyama 2005:

294; Rice and Cecil 2009: 328). Consequently, obsidian illustrates the inherent ambiguous nature of the dichotomy.

At Structure B4, the artifactual assemblage is inconclusive regarding status. As previously stated, the majority of ceramics encountered were utilitarian. Likewise, the majority of lithics collected appear to be utilitarian as well. On the other hand, an eccentric and six obsidian prismatic blade fragments were found. In order to better ascertain status exclusively through artifactual assemblage analysis, a larger sample size is needed. Aside from artifact analysis, the primary means of identifying structural status is through architectural examination.

As Abrams states, “there are two primary means through which architecture has been quantified in archaeological analysis (1994: 5).” The first method occurs at the site level. As stated above, status on a site level typically revolves around size. The architectural volume at one site is calculated and juxtaposed with other sites. At the site level, status is translated into relative political power. The second method occurs on a structural level. This method revolves around labor costs and examines the volume of building materials and its effects on associated labor

104

(1994: 5). In other words, structural status is derived from the type of building materials used and the labor cost involved.

According to Abrams (1994), there are two types of ancient Maya houses. These are the basic form and the improved form (20). The basic form refers to the general wattle and daub structures that were described in Chapter 2, and which have been associated with a commoner status. On the other hand, the improved form involves masonry construction and has been associated with elite residencies (1994: 21).

Aside from the basic difference in building materials, there are several specific variances that distinguish the improved form. Building platforms constructed in elite residencies are generally longer and higher (Abrams 1994: 26). As previously noted, multiple platform houses were common in the Maya area. However, the more platforms present, the larger the house tended to be, which resulted in an elevation of the inhabitants associated status (Tourtellot 1983:

37). In turn, multiple platforms act as steps, a common feature present in variations of the improved form. Platforms, as well as the masonry walls, were typically plastered, as well

(Abrams 1994: 26).

Another characteristic of elite residencies includes the presence of interior limestone benches compared to the perishable ones common in the basic form. Likewise, commoner houses tend to have less internal room variation than the improved form (Abrams 1994: 26).

While the basic form features a perishable thatched roof, some elite residencies contained exhibited roofs. For instance, vaulted roofs supported by corbelled vaults are a common elite marker. It is also common for elite houses to have double-faced walls and for the outer walls to

105

contain sculptural decorations. Finally, the high frequency of stone present in elite construction fill in contrast with the high frequency of earthen matter within commoner fill is another distinguishing characteristic (1994: 26).

There are a number of material and behavioral benefits to the masonry construction present in the improved architectural form. First, with larger, higher, or multiple platforms, the house floor is elevated from the ground surface. This provides several benefits. The elevated floor makes it harder for insects and other pests to enter the dwelling. Similarly, a higher household floor protects the domicile from flooding, particularly important during the rainy season. The elevated floor also enables to house to better acquire local breezes (Abrams 1994:

33).

Second, masonry construction enables the occupants to better create their own microenvironment and control its internal conditions. The thickness of the masonry walls provides a better buffer of the surrounding environment then the wattle and daub used in commoner structures. Also, the thermophysical properties of stone allow it to better regulate the internal temperature. For example, stone walls absorb heat better, which allows the house to remain cool during the day. On the other hand, stone releases heat at a slower rate, which enables the occupants to stay warm during the night (Abrams 1994: 32).

Masonry structures are more permanent than commoner residencies. In turn, they are much more archaeologically visible and accessible. Likewise, perishable structures require greater upkeep and maintenance. Finally, there are several health related advantages to living in masonry structures compared to ones made out of perishable materials. While the majority of

106

elite residencies contain masonry roofs, commoner roofs are made of thatched materials.

Perishable roofs, specifically those covering cooking areas, are more susceptible to catch on fire.

Those thatched materials also house a greater degree of bacteria and other disease carrying agents. Similarly, elite domestic structures contain plaster floors while commoner dwellings generally have compact earthen floors. Earthen floors, much like the thatched roofs, have a greater propensity to harbor insects and bacteria compared to their plastered counterparts. Also, plaster floors provide better water drainage (Abrams 1994: 33).

Since the improved architectural form exhibits a distinctively higher quality of life compared to the basic form, it is logical to contemplate the continual persistence of the basic form. While there are certain benefits to masonry structure, the associated labor costs are high.

Labor costs include the time and energy required throughout the entire construction process. The entire process begins with the initial procurement of raw materials, their transportation back to the building site, manufacturing, the actual structural assemblage, and includes the continual maintenance of the building (Abrams 1994: 43). In turn, the amount of time and energy needed to complete the entire process was not feasible for every household.

The labor cost estimate regarding the time and energy needed to construct and maintain a house is similar to the Optimal Foraging Theory used by ecological anthropologists. The Optimal

Foraging Theory states that organisms attempt to obtain food resources in a way that maximizes their net energy intake (Koster 2008: 935). Likewise, individuals weigh the allocation of time and energy with the potential benefits of a certain residential construction technique. For instance, the majority of ancient Maya commoners were farmers (Dunning 2004: 97). As noted in Chapter 2, commoners relied on their harvest for subsistence and accumulated a surplus, 107

which they traded, typically with elites, for other needed or desirable items. Therefore, the construction and maintenance of the improved architectural form would have resulted in an allocation of time and energy away from those essential subsistence activities. In turn, a commoner household might not have been able to accrue a surplus, therefore preventing them from acquiring other necessities.

Elite households acted under different circumstances. While some elite Maya were also farmers (Dunning 2004: 97), their social standing did not require the accumulation of a surplus.

Their status allowed them to obtain various cultural significant items, which they could trade with commoners and obtain the needed subsistence. Therefore, the elite could afford to spend time building and maintaining masonry structures. Likewise, elite members of society had the resources to gather and employ labor, which not only facilitated the construction of their residential structures, but also enabled the monumental architecture prevalent throughout the

Maya area.

At Structure B4, there is a relatively large amount of masonry construction compared to typical commoner residencies. There are two platforms, both of which are plastered. The northern wall of the structure is nicely preserved with roughly shaped limestone cobbles intact

(Figure 5.2). An interior masonry wall was also uncovered. Therefore, if Structure B4 was indeed an ancient Maya residential structure, its occupants may have had some type of elevated social status. While the artifact assemblage was inconclusive regarding status, the structures location within Group B may also support the possibility of a higher social standing. As

Guderjan notes, structures close to core area or central plazas were inhabited by elites (1007: 43;

54). However, the relative degree of elevated status is uncertain. 108

Figure 5.2 Roughly Shaped Cobble Wall of Structure B4

As will be discussed further in the following sections, the dichotomy between commoners and elites is ambiguous. Variances exist between and within both social groups.

However, those variances have yet to be thoroughly addressed and, as a result, have not been defined. On the other hand, simple discrepancies can be observed. For example, the size and shape of limestone cobbles used at Structure B4 are different than those present at structures located within Group A (Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4). The cobbles from Structure A-1 are larger and more precisely cut when compared to those present at Structure B4, which would have required more time, effort, and resources. As previously mentioned, generally individuals with

109

lower status do not have access to the necessary resources and do not possess the manpower or time required. Therefore, it seems logical to suggest that the structures in Group A have a higher status than Structure B4 and the other structures within Group B Overall, if Structure B4 is a housemound, its inhabitants possessed an elevated social status. The following section examines the author’s research in the broader context of Hun Tun.

Figure 5.3 Limestone Construction at Structure A1

110

Figure 5.4 Limestone Construction at Structure A1

Hun Tun

When conducting archaeological research at the site-level, multiple avenues of inquiry are available. For example, what were the economic resources of the site? Who controlled them?

How did the persons in power interact with each other and with other sites? All these questions are viable. However, as previously mentioned, research at Hun Tun is currently in the preliminary stages. Therefore, given the current stage of research, an in-depth, theoretically driven investigation is not practical. Instead, the author’s site-level research centered on facilitating the development of an initial data base of architectural and building typologies, artifactual assemblages, chronology, and overall layout of the site. Once a sufficient database has

111

been developed, inquiries and inferences can be made concerning the inhabitants of the site, their economic practices, the site’s status in comparison with neighboring sites, and the site’s relationship with the Three Rivers Region in general.

Architectural Characteristics

The 2010 field season marked the first time actual structures were excavated at Hun Tun.

Therefore, excavations at Structure B4 were significant in terms of identifying architectural characteristics at the site. As mentioned above, Structure B4 contained two plastered limestone platforms. It was a masonry structure built from roughly shaped limestone cobbles and contained a rectangular ground plan with flattened corners. Subop AG, the only unit located entirely within the structure, failed to exhibit any evidence suggesting multiple construction sequences, which correlates with other investigations undertaken at Hun Tun (Robyn Dodge personal communication). Therefore, at the current stage of research, structures at the site of Hun Tun are assumed to have been built in a single construction phase.

Artifact Assemblage

In terms of an artifact assemblage, a database has been accumulating since the initial investigations of Hun Tun began. For instance, excavations of plaza and courtyard areas have provided insights into the layout of the site (Dodge 2010). However, the recovery context of a given artifact aids in determining its archaeological significance. Therefore, the structural investigations undertaken during the 2010 field season and the associated assemblage collected not only increase the overall assemblage sample size, but also add another context in which new avenues of archaeological inquiry emerge. The artifact assemblage obtained by Robyn Dodge

112

prior to the 2010 field season contained an interesting compilation. All excavations encountered the anticipated inclusion of ceramic sherds, lithic flakes, and lithic debitage. However, the majority of units also exhibited lithic tools, as well as obsidian blades and obsidian blade fragments. The ceramic assemblage was designated as a Tepeu 2-3 classification. Other interesting artifacts uncovered included an eccentric lithic in Group C, a fragmented ceramic figurine in Group D, and sea shells and a polished/partially drilled green stone in Group A

(Dodge 2010).

As previously mentioned, the total number of artifacts collected at Structure B4 was

1,843. The artifact breakdown consisted of 1,260 ceramics, 577 lithics, and six pieces of obsidian. The ceramic analysis was conducted by Dr. Sullivan. According to Sullivan and

Sagebiel, ceramic analysis at the Programme for Belize Archaeological Project is done using variety-mode analysis, in which ceramic sherds are divided into categories based on characteristics such as surface treatment, decoration, and paste (2003: 25). Variety-mode analysis of the ceramic assemblage present at Structure B4 elicited a Tepeu 2-3 designation (Dr. Sullivan personal communication). Therefore, the classification of ceramics from Structure B4 correlates with the assemblage present throughout the rest of the site.

The breakdown of lithic artifacts consisted of 136 flakes, four cores, and 437 pieces of shatter. Lithic analysis was conducted by the author under the direction of Dr. Martinez and in association with PfBAP protocol. The artifacts were first distinguished as either flakes or non- flakes. Subsequently, non-flakes were subcategorized into shatter and cores. They were documented collectively in terms of reference number, grouped by provenience and categorical form (i.e. shatter or core), and quantified by quantity and weight. Flakes were documented 113

individually by reference number and provenience and were measured in terms of length, width, height, thickness, and bulb thickness. Flakes were also analyzed by basic features as defined by

Andresfsky (2005: 86-94). These features included material type and quality, cortex, platform, and termination. Lithic analysis tables are included in the appendix.

The presence of obsidian at Structure B4, as well as at Hun Tun in general, presents an interesting dilemma. First, it was a multi-functional, yet culturally significant item. Therefore, determining the function of the various pieces will help to better identify the inhabitants of Hun

Tun, as well as their activities. Second, obsidian was not a local resource within the Three Rivers

Region. Therefore, its presence, regardless of what it may have been used for, means it must have been acquired through some type exchange system. In turn, the infrastructure of that network, specifically pertaining to the Three Rivers Region, and Hun Tun’s role within it are interesting questions and will be addressed in association with the regional context.

Site Chronology

In terms of chronology, initial investigations by Robyn Dodge suggested the site had a restricted Late Classic construction, occupation, and abandonment (Dodge 2010: 14). At

Structure B4, excavations failed to provide any evidence of that would have suggested multiple construction phases. Likewise, ceramic analysis also yielded a Tepeu 2-3 chronology. Therefore, the author’s research at Structure B4 supports the interpreted Late Classic construction, occupation, and abandonment (Table 5.1).

114

Dates Time Periods Ceramic Phases 800-600 B.C. Middle Preclassic Swasey 600-400 B.C. Middle Preclassic Mamon 400-100 A.D. Middle to Late Preclassic Chicanel(Early-Middle) 100-300 A.D. Protoclassic Chicanel(Floral Park) 300-450 A.D. Early Classic Tzakol 1-2 450-600 A.D. Early Classic Tzakol 3 600-700 A.D. Late Classic Tepeu 1 700-850 A.D. Late Classic Tepeu 2 850-900 A.D. Terminal Classic Tepeu 3

Table 5.1 Ceramic Chronology of the Three Rivers Region (adapted from Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003: 28)

Site Layout

The layout of Hun Tun was originally recorded prior to the 2010 field season. Currently there are a total of six plaza/courtyard groups and each group has been roughly defined.

However, prior to the author’s research, Structure B4 was the perceived boundary of Group B.

As previously mentioned, the midden test units placed on the northern side of the structure failed to identify a midden. Instead, they uncovered the compact earthen plaza floor of Group B as it extended northward. Therefore, it appears that Structure B4 is not the northern boundary of the group. Furthermore, it is possible that Group B extends further north and additional structures exist.

Status

As previously noted, status at the site-level translates into political power within a particular region. Also, site-level status is generally based on size and derived from architectural

115

volume. However, there are particular site features that are viewed as elite characteristics or markers. These include pyramids, plaza and courtyard areas, acropolis groups, sacbes, ball courts, and stelae and other monuments.

Pyramid-shaped structures in the Maya area were usually temples. They were generally the largest structures at a site and were built on top of multiple-stepped platforms. They also contained vaulted rooms and corbelled arches (Houk 1996: 25). Pyramid structures were associated with ritual and ceremonial functions, such as sacrifice and communal feasting, which indicates the presence of some kind of centralized organization (Robichaux 1995: 170).

The exterior areas between a group of buildings are generally referred to as either courtyard or a plaza areas. They are surrounded on two, three or four sides by single or multiple buildings. Plaza and courtyards are distinguished based on their general size and the functional nature of the surrounding buildings. For instance, plaza areas are larger and are usually surrounded by at least one large structure, such as a temple pyramid. On the other hand, courtyards are smaller and tend to be surrounded by smaller residential structures (Houk 1996:

326-7). Plaza and courtyards are public areas, which would have required some type of planning prior to construction. Likewise, large elite sites have multiple plaza and courtyards, which creates a complex network of activity areas that would have required a relative degree of centralized organization.

Acropolis groups are generally located in the core or center of a site. They are plaza groups surrounded by large structures, such as palaces and temples, and built upon a raised platform with restricted access (Houk 1996: 324). Structures located within acropolis groups

116

tend to have religious and administrative functions and represent the presence of religion, power, and centralized-authority (Guderjan 2007: 19). Sacbes were causeways or roads used to connect portions of a site, generally the acropolis groups to other major plaza areas. Sacbes were also used to connect various sites and have been associated with regional trade networks, as well as political relationships. The causeways were generally linked linear platforms with low limestone walls (Loten and Pendergast 1984: 5).

Ancient Maya ball courts are also an elite site marker (Guderjan 2007: 21). They typically consisted of stone masonry with court markers, hoops, and benches built in. Likewise, they were decorated with ballgame scenes and mythological motifs (McKillop 2004: 214). The ball courts also appear to have been multifunctional. As Demarest notes, Maya ball courts were also used for religious and ritual purposes (2004: 205). Monuments such as stelae and alters also represent the presence of an elite population. Similarly, these monuments appear to be multifunctional as well. While they both are generally decorated, the glyphs typically relay historical information, such as dates or royal lineages, or ritual practices.

Several of these elite markers are present at Hun Tun. For instance, three of the six documented groups, Group A, Group D, and Group F, were all built upon raised platforms with restricted access. Likewise, they were surrounded by several large pyramid-like structures. There are two stone monuments, a possible stela and altar, located in Group C. However, as previously mentioned, their authenticity as cultural monuments has not been confirmed at the present stage of research. Furthermore, variations exist between plaza floor construction in that some are compact earthen floors while others are plastered limestone platforms (Dodge 2010: 7-8). These

117

discrepancies suggest the existence of some type of social segregation or internal hierarchical organization.

As previously noted, if Structure B4 was a domestic structure, its occupants may have had some kind of elevated status. In turn, it could be theorized that some type of elite population inhabited the site. If Structure B4 was not an elite dwelling it would most likely have been a public building. However, while Hun Tun may be smaller compared to other sites within the

Three Rivers Region, the presence of the elite markers suggests some type of centralized organization and the presence of an elite population. The implications of these features on Hun

Tun, in relation to the Three Rivers region and specifically pertaining to hierarchical or heterarchical organization, will be discussed in the following section.

The Three Rivers Region

At the current stage of research, Hun Tun has shown data suggesting the possible presence of elites and centralized organization. However, how that compares or contrasts with other sites in the region should provide an indication as to its political role within the Three

Rivers Region. As noted, there are several elite characteristics at the site-level acknowledged throughout the Maya culture area. However, Houk has identified the shared site planning principles present at the major sites within the Three Rivers Region. These include the presence of at least one stela, a ball court, a north-south architectural directionality, two distinctive sacbes

(an internal causeway and one connecting the periphery), a large rectangular main plaza, an acropolis group, and a quadrangle group (2003: 54). While Hun Tun contains a few of these characteristics, it does not share the entirety. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as having the same level of influence or power within the region. However, the presence of some of these

118

features distinguishes it from smaller hinterland sites. In order to attempt to conceptualize Hun

Tun, in terms of its role within the Three Rivers Region, hierarchical and heterarchical models of organization will be discussed briefly.

Hierarchical and Heterarchical Organization

Historically, complex societies such as the ancient Maya have been envisioned under a strict political and economic hierarchical model. In other words, political economies have had an inherent linear relationship. As Scarborough et al. states, the relationship was perceived to have been “principally affected by the requests and demands of an elite- an implicit emphasis on top- down decision making with interpretive license to assess relationships developing from the bottom up (2003: XIV).” In the Three Rivers Region, the site of La Milpa has been the assumed hierarchical “top”. Descending from La Milpa, the linear model continues to large sites such as

Dos Hombres, to mid-level sites like Say Kah, and ends at the small hinterland farming settlements located throughout the region (Tourtellot et al. 2003: 43).

Heterarchical models, on the other hand, while acknowledging a relative degree of vertical movement, stress the presence and significance of horizontal relationships. In other words, sites, regardless of size, exhibited an interdependent relationship (Scarborough and

Valdez 2003: 5). The ancient Maya environment was diverse. As discussed in Chapter 3, the semi-tropical environment could only sustain a limited population of a given species. Mimicking the surrounding environment, Maya settlement was dispersed. Therefore, each site had a unique micro-environment and landscape setting. Likewise, resources were highly localized (Kunen and

Hughbanks 2003: 92; Scarborough and Valdez 2009: 211-212). In turn, various sites display

119

different or specialized production practices. These communities include bajo communities, terrace communities, and aguada communities (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 5).

Resource-Specialized Communities

At the core of the heterarchical model is the idea that sites within a region had unique micro-environments and in turn, resource and production specialization. According to

Scarborough and Valdez, these resource-specialized communities were “highly interdependent and grounded on the economic benefits of unique sets of goods and services differentiating one community from another (2009: 211).” An example of theorized resource-specialized community is the site of Colha (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 7). Colha is located in the north- central portion of Belize. It is a large Maya center with ball courts, several large plazas and a central acropolis group. However, Colha was a prominent lithic producer primarily due to its location within the NBCZ, or the Northern Belize Chert-bearing soil Zone (Barrett and Scherer

2005: 101). While Colha exhibits specialization in terms of manufacturing and distributing stone tools, specialization also occurred in other forms, including agriculture and water storage/distribution (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 7).

Specialization has arguably been the central focus of the heterarchical approach. In terms of identifying its presence archaeologically, three conditions must be identified. These include access to a limited resource, the presence of skilled production, and an uneven distribution of production across a community or region. However, as Tourtellot et al. note, specialization also fits a hierarchical model (2003: 44). On the other hand, other factors seem to support the heterarchical approach. According to Sullivan and Sagebiel, data accumulated through the

Programme for Belize Archaeological Project suggests that sites located within the Three Rivers 120

Region were not only involved in trade and communication networks throughout the entire Maya culture area, but also exhibited a high degree of interregional exchange as well (2003: 27).

Likewise, population demographics at rural sites have yielded the presence of elite populations.

Like other organisms, the ancient Maya were forced to adapt to their surrounding environment. Given the nature of the environment, as polities grew and population pressures peeked, they were forced to disperse and create descendent communities (Houk 2003: 61;

Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 6). However, the population creating these communities appears to have been elite members. As Scarborough and Valdez note, several rural sites within the

Three Rivers Region have contained elaborate elite households. Furthermore, architectural and material assemblages present at these rural elite residencies appear to rival if not surpass those located within the larger centers (2003: 7). In turn, a fluid and interdependent relationship between sites emerges. Scarborough and Valdez argue that the hived elites at the descendent sites would have maintained an influence at their “parent” site. Likewise, the may have also continued to reside at the former site on a seasonal basis (2003: 9). In addition, the descendent communities would have been supported in various ways, especially during the initial colonization, which would have been reciprocated in other forms (Houk 2003: 61).

An example of a resource-specialized community exhibiting this elite presence within the

Three Rivers Region is the mid-level site of Say Kah (Scarborough and Valdez 2003: 10). Hun

Tun is conceptualized in a similar fashion. The elite features present at Hun Tun have been described above. While the site may not share the entirety of elite markers found within the region, it contains enough to be considered a mid-level site. Given the preliminary nature of research at Hun Tun thus far, the lack of evidence regarding production specialization is to be 121

expected. However, the data suggesting the presence of an elite population and centralized organization may qualify it as a possible resource-specialized community. Nevertheless, given the current stage of research, the conceptualization of Hun Tun as a resource-specialized community remains conjecture.

Ancient Maya Household Archaeology

The research objective regarding household archaeology, and Maya archaeology in general, focused on how archaeologists can better identify and differentiate commoner residential structures juxtaposed with public and elite contexts. Excavations at Structure B4 during the 2010 field season highlighted several difficulties associated with archaeology in the

Maya area. As previously mentioned, the author’s initial field aspirations were unable to be completely fulfilled and plans underwent impromptu changes due to time and weather restrictions. This is a common occurrence for anyone who has attempted fieldwork in this part of the world. First, the semi-tropical environment presents several challenges. As Scarborough and

Valdez state, “the lack of well-persevered surface debris, frequently hidden in vegetal ground cover, coupled with high rates of organic decay prevents total surface survey coverage of any region of the Maya lowlands (2009: 209).” Second, scheduling and time restraints magnify those environmental challenges. As noted in Chapter 3, the semi-tropical environment is divided into wet and dry seasons. However, given the academic calendar and the associated responsibilities, the majority of research is conducted between late spring and early summer, which is on the cusp of the wet season. Consequently, archaeologists generally have a short window in which to complete their annual fieldwork. Therefore, our methodology and theoretical framework must be sound in order to counteract those environmental constraints. 122

As noted in Chapter 1, household archaeology is relatively new within Maya archaeology. While our methodological paradigm, when applied in the proper manner, appears to be sound, our theoretical framework could be improved. Household archaeology was initiated because scholars recognized the need to study the entire population rather than the elite minority.

Therefore, the commoner population, approximately 90 percent of the Maya population (Marcus

2004: 255), has dominated the majority of household related research. However, a strict dichotomy between elites and commoners was born as a result, although it can be argued that such a dichotomy has existed in all contexts of archaeological theory since the disciplines inception (Trigger 2006: 17-20).

The problem with a strict dichotomy between commoner and elites is that neither population was a homogenous group (Lohse and Gonlin 2007: XXI; Marcus 2004: 259).

Likewise, a characteristic of complex societies is the presence of full and part-time specialization. Since specialists manufacture different products, and given that variances exist between the ascribed statuses of certain products, it is logical that differences exist within the groups themselves. Furthermore, as Lohse and Gonlin state, “kinship, gender, age and economic ties incorporated individuals into factions along multiple lines (2007: XXI).” Therefore, a theoretical framework revolving around a strict commoner-elite dichotomy is impractical and illogical. However, facilitating the development of a new theoretical framework remains difficult.

The ancient Maya were a diverse cultural group. Cultural, economic, political, and religious practices varied from region to region and from site to site. Consequently, the social structure at one site may be different than the one present at another. In other words, a lithic

123

manufacturer at Colha may have enjoyed a higher status than one at La Milpa. Therefore, as

Lohse and Gonlin state, “criteria need to be operationalized on a site-by-site basis (2007: XXV).”

In order to better identify and distinguish particular subcategories, certain characteristics and features must be delineated. However, defining such features remains difficult. Identifying distinctions between these categories using material data is a difficult due to the variances present within them. For example, a high-ranking commoner and low-ranking elite may exhibit similar assemblages. Similarly, the functional nature of elite residencies may have an impact as well. As Abrams notes, elite residencies were considered to be somewhat public structures

(1994: 91). Therefore, a new theoretical framework is needed to help aid in the identification of status related to the household context.

Under the current framework, the type of inferences that can be made is limited. For example, Structure B4 has been conceived as an elite residence. Using the strict dichotomy, the primary inference made is the presence of an elite and, in turn, an elite population at the site. On the other hand, with a theoretical approach focused on identifying characteristics of various subcategories, more inferences can be made. For instance, features suggesting the residence belonged to a low-level elite would elicit the presence of an elite population as well other characteristics that would lead to a better understanding of the inhabitants, the levels of social organization, the presence of resource specialization, and so on.

In order to better identify and differentiate residential structures from nonresidential structures, as well as commoner from elite contexts, a new theoretical framework is needed. A framework that avoids the use of a dichotomy, or at least uses a flexible dichotomy that incorporates various subcategories, is ideal. Once it is applied and a reliable sample size is 124

accumulated, common features pertaining to the different subcategories can be assembled as defining characteristics. Likewise, a continuation of the increased focus on household archaeology, along with the new framework, will aid in identifying residential from nonresidential structures. As Lohse and Gonlin state, “research integrating multiple scales of analysis starting at the household and extending up to the community is particularly promising in helping researchers recognize and understand how both rulers and ruled managed and defined their social roles on a daily basis (2007: XXXII).” The next chapter will provide a brief conclusion and possibilities for future research.

125

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Conclusions

The primary focus of this thesis revolved around the issue of identification pertaining to function and status at the household level by examining features such as architectural characteristics and production and consumption activities. Excavations at Structure B4, a perceived housemound at the site of Hun Tun, were inconclusive in terms of function. However, research was more successful concerning status. Regardless of function, Structure B4 exhibits some elite architectural characteristics. Nevertheless, excavations highlighted the importance of distancing ourselves from the strict commoner-elite dichotomy that has dominated household- related theory. By conducting research under a looser framework that includes various subcategories of commoners and elites, archaeologists in the Maya area will be better able to identify and differentiate commoner residential structures juxtaposed with public and elite contexts.

The secondary focus of this thesis was to increase the overall archaeological data set at

Hun Tun. In turn, the increased database and associated information allows current hypotheses to be tested. Furthermore, new avenues of inquiry are created as well. In that respect, excavations during the 2010 field season were successful. Possibilities for future research will be discussed briefly in the following section.

126

Further Research at Hun Tun

In order to definitively identify Structure B4 as a domestic compound, further excavations are needed. These investigations would focus on the internal parts of the structure, the adjacent ancillary, and the possibility of corner middens. The information derived from those excavations would also be useful in further delineating status. Likewise, examining other housemounds throughout Hun Tun would also help in further defining the status of Structure B4.

In terms of better understanding Hun Tun as a whole, continuing research is needed.

According to Dodge, future research at the site will be conducted with a household focus (2009:

209). By focusing on households, a better understanding of the entire population of Hun Tun will be possible. However, the author’s research demonstrates the need for future research to address the overall layout of the site. As noted, Group B appears to extend north of Structure B4.

Likewise, by examining the periphery of the site, further housemounds or household groups may appear. While the research focus at Hun Tun may be household driven, the presence of elite markers throughout the site necessitates attention as well.

At the present stage of research, Hun Tun has exhibited several elite characteristics.

Therefore, hypotheses can be made about the status of the site and its role within the Three

Rivers Region. While household archaeology may aid in uncovering specific production practices and resource specialization, the core of the site must be investigated as well. For instance, the authenticities of the possible altar and stela may have significant implications.

Therefore, further research should also focus on testing those features as well as examining the rest of the core structures. These further investigations will not only enable a better

127

understanding of Hun Tun, but also facilitate a better understanding of the political organization of the entire Three Rivers Region.

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Elliot M. 1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Andrefsky, William 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Aoyama, Kazuo 2005 Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear, Dart, and Arrow Points of Aguateca and Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(2): 291-304.

Aoyama, Kazuo, Toshiharu Tashiro, and Michael D. Glascock 1999 A Pre-Columbian Obsidian Source in San Luis, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 10(2): 237-249.

Ashmore, Wendy 1981 Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by W. Ashmore, pp. 37-69. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1991 Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2(3): 199-226.

Ashmore, Wendy and Richard R. Wilk 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R.R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 1-28. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bailey, G.N. 1983 Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 165-192.

Barret, Jason W and Andrew K. Scherer 2005 Stones, Bones, and Crowded Plazas: Evidence for Terminal Classic Maya Warfare at Colha, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(1): 101-118.

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiqutiy 45(1): 4-21.

129

Blanton, Richard E. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. Plenum Press, New York.

Braswell, Geoffrey 2002 Praise the Gods and Pass the Obsidian?: The Organization of Ancient Economy in San Martin Jilotepeque. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, edited by M. Masson and D. Freidel, pp. 285-306. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Brasewell, Geoffrey and Michael D. Glascock 2002 The Emergence of Market Economies in Ancient Maya World: Obsidian Exchange in Terminal Classic Yucatan, Mexico. In Geochemical Evidence of Long- Distance Exchange, edited by M Glascock, pp. 33-52. Bergin & Garvey, West Port, CT.

Bridgewater, S., A. Ibanez, J.A. Ratter, and P. Furley 2002 Vegetation Classification and Floristics of the Savannas and Associated Wetlands of the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area, Belize. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 59(3): 421-442.

Brown, David O., Meredith L. Dreiss, and Richard E. Hughes 2004 Preclassic Obsidian Procurement and Utilization at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 15(2):222-240.

Buol. S.W., R.J. Southard, R.C. Graham, and P.A. McDaniel 2003 Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State Press, Ames.

Culbert, T. Patrick 1974 The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya. Harper and Row, New York.

Demarest, Arthur 2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Dodge, Robyn L. 2009 Report on 2009 Field Season at Hun Tun. In Programme For Belize Archaeological Project: Report of Activities from the 2009 Season, edited by F. Valdez Jr., Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory: The University of Texas at Austin.

2010 Research Report on Archaeological Investigations at Hun Tun. Masters Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

130

Dunning, Nicholas 2004 Down on the Farm: Classic Maya “Homesteads” as “Farmsteads,” In Ancient Maya Commoners, edited by J. Lohse and F. Valdez Jr., pp. 97-116. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

Dunning, Nicholas and Timothy Beach 2000 Stability and Instability in Prehispanic Maya Landscapes. In Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americans, edited by D.L. Lentz, pp. 179-202. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dunning, Nicholas, John G. Jones, Timothy Beach, and Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach 2003 Physiography, Habitats, and Landscapes of the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V.L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp.14-24. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Flannery, Kent 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. Archaeology 25: 23-53.

Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. William Morrow and Company, New York.

Gann, Thomas W.F. 1918 The Maya Indians of Southern Yucatan and Northern British Honduras. Bureau of American Ethnology, bulletin 64, Washington.

Gonlin, Nancy 1993 Household Archaeology at Copán, Honduras. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

Gordon, George B. 1896 The Prehistoric Ruins of Copan, Honduras. In Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 1(1). Harvard University, Cambridge

Guderjan, Thomas H. 2007 The Nature of an Ancient Maya City: Resources, Interaction, and Power at Blue Creek, Belize. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

Haviland, William A. 1985 Excavations in Small Residential Groups Of Tikal: Groups 4F-1 And 4F-2. Report No. 19. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

131

1988 Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with Reconstructing Household Composition. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R.R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 121-134. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hewett, Edgar L. 1912 The Excavation of Quirigua, Guatemala. International Congress of Americanists, Session 18: 241-248, London.

Hill, Robert M. and John Monaghan 1987 Continuities in Highland Maya Social Organization: Ethnohistory in Sacapulas, Guatemala. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Hirth, Kenneth 2003 Experimentation and Interpretation in Mesoamerican Lithic Technology,” In Mesoamercian Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, edited by K. Hirth, pp. 3-9. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hirth, Kenneth and Bradford Andrews 2002 Pathways to Prismatic Blades: Source of Variation in Mesoamercian Lithic Technology. In Pathways to Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican Obsidian Core- Blade Technology, edited by K. Hirth and B. Andrews, pp. 1-14. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hodell, David A., Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, and Thomas Guilderson 2001 Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands. Science 292: 1367- 1370.

Houk, Brett A. 1996 The Archaeology of Site Planning: An Example from the Maya Site of Dos Hombres, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

2003 The Ties that Bind: Site Planning in the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V. L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. 52-63.The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Hunter, C. Bruce 1986 A Guide to Ancient Maya Ruins. The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Kent, Susan 1990 A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by S. Kent, pp. 127-152. Cambridge University Press, New York

132

Killick, David and Paul Goldberg 2009 A Quiet Crisis in American Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 9(1): 6-10,40.

Knapp, Bernard and Wendy Ashmore 1999 Archeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and B. Knapp, pp. 1-32. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Koster, Jeremy M. 2008 Hunting with Dogs in Nicaragua: An Optimal Foraging Approach. Current Anthropology 49(5): 935-944.

Kunen, Julie L. and Paul J. Hughbanks 2003 Bajo Communities as Resource Specialists: A Heterarchical Approach to Maya Socioeconomic Organization. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V. L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. 92-108. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Landa, Diego de 1978 Relación de las cosas de Yucatán. Dover Publications, New York.

Lohse, Jon C. and Nancy Gonlin 2007 Preface. In Commoner Ritual and Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by J. C. Lohse and N. Gonlin, pp. xvii-xxxix. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Loten, H. Stanley and David M. Pendergast 1984 A Lexicon for Maya Architecture. Archaeology Monograph 8. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.

Lucero, Lisa J. 2000 The Collapse of the Classic Maya: A Case for the Role of Water Control. American Anthropologist 104(3): 814-826.

Marcus, Joyce 2004 Maya Commoners: The Stereotype and the Reality. In Ancient Maya Commoners, edited by F. Valdez Jr. and J. C. Lohse, pp. 255-28. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

McKillop, Heather 2004 The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives. ABC-CLIO Incorporated, Danbury.

133

McVicker, D.E. 1992 The Matter of Saville: Franz Boas and the Anthropological Definition of Archaeology. In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology, edited by J. E. Reyman, pp. 145-159. Avebury, Aldershot.

Miller, Mary Ellen 1999 Maya Art and Architecture. Thames & Hudson, London.

Murray, Tim 1999 A Return to the Pompeii Premise. In Time and Archaeology, edited by Tim Murray, pp.8 -27. Routledge, London.

Oliver, Paul 2007 Dwellings. Phaidon Press, New York.

Pagliaro, Jonathan B., James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton 2003 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual and Conflict. In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, edited by K. M. Brown and T. W. Stanton, pp. 75-89. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Patterson, T.C. 1991 Who Did Archaeology in the United States before There Were Archaeologists and Why? Preprofessional Archaeologists of the Nineteenth Century. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. W. Preucel, pp. 242-250. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Pinsky, Valerie 1992 Archaeology, Politics, and Boundary-Formation: The Boas Centure (1919) and the Development of American Archaeology during the Inter-War Years. In Rediscovering our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology, edited by J.E. Reyman, pp. 161-189. Avebury, Aldershot.

Plank, Shannon E. 2004 Maya Dwellings in Hieroglyphs and Archaeology: An Integrative Approach to Ancient Architecture and Spatial Cognition. John and Erica Hedges Ltd., Oxford.

Rapoport, Amos 1990a The Meaning of the Built Environment. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

1990b Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-cultural Study, edited by S. Kent, pp. 9-20. Cambridge University Press, New York.

134

Renfrew, Colin 1980 The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology? American Journal of Archaeology 84: 287-298.

Rice, Prudence and Leslie Cecil 2009 Sources of Obsidian at Zacpeten. In The Kowoj, edited by P. Rice and D. Rice, pp. 327-339. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Robichaux, Hubert R. 1995 Ancient Maya Community Patterns in Northwestern Belize: Peripheral Zone Survey at La Milpa and Dos Hombres. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Robin, Cynthia 2002 Outside of Houses: The practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2): 245-268.

2003 New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(4): 307-356.

Rybczynski, Witold 1989 The Most Beautiful House in the World. Penguin Books, New York.

Sacrre, Christopher and Brian Fagan 2008. Ancient Civilizations. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Salmon, Wesley 1992 Explanation in Archaeology: An Update. In Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers, edited by L. Embree, pp. 243-253. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Saunders, Nicholas J. 2001 A Dark Light: Reflections on Obsidian in Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 33(2): 220-236.

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, edited by V.L. Scarborough, F.Valdez Jr., and N.Dunning, pp. 3-13. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009 An Alternative Order: The Dualistic Economies of the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 207-227.

135

Scarborough, Vernon L., Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas P. Dunning 2003 Introduction. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V.L. Scarborough, F.Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. XIII-XX. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Schroeder, Sissel 2009 Thinking About a Public and Multidisciplinary Archaeology. Reviews in Anthropology 38:166-194.

Shafer, Harry and Thomas Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519-43.

Sharer, Robert 2009 Daily Life in Maya Civilization. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Sharer, Robert and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Sheets, Payson 1979 Environmental and Cultural Effects of the Ilopango Eruption in Central America. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, edited by P.D. Sheets and D.K. Grayson, pp.525-64. Academic Press, New York.

2000 Provisioning the Ceren Houshold: The Vertical Economy, Village Economy, and Household Economy in the Southeastern Maya Periphery. Ancient Mesoamerica 11(2):217-230.

Smith, A. Ledyard 1962 Residential and Associated Structures at Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 619, pp. 165-320. Washington.

Spence, Michael W. 1994 Commodity or Gift: Teotihuacan Obsidian in the Maya Region. Latin American Antiquity. 7(1):21-39.

Spinden, Herbert J. 1928 Ancient Civilization of Mexico and Central America. American Museum of Natural History, Handbook Series, no. 3.

Stanton, Travis W., M. Kathryn Brown, and Jonathan B. Pagliaro 2008 Garbage of the Gods? Squatters, Refuse Disposal, and Termination Rituals Among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 7(3):227-247.

136

Sullivan, Lauren A. 1997 Classic Maya Social Organization: A Perspective from Las Abejas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

2002 Dynamics of Integration in Northwestern Belize. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, edited by M.A. Masson and D.A. Freidel, pp. 197-222. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

2009 Preliminary Ceramic Analysis of RB 70, Hun Tun (Chronology). Manuscript on file at Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory: The University of Texas at Austin.

Sullivan, Lauren A., and Kerry L. Sagebiel 2003 Changing Political Alliances in the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V. L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. 25-36. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tacon, Paul 1999 Archeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational, In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and B. Knapp, pp 33-57. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Thompson, Edward H. 1892 The Ancient Structures of Yucatan not Communal Dwellings. Proceedings of the American Antiquarians Society 8: 262-9.

1904 Archaeological Researches in Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 3(1). Cambridge.

Tourtellot, Gair 1983 An Assessment of Classic Maya Household Composition. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by E.Z. Vogt and R.M. Levanthal, pp. 35-54. University of New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 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, Belize. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya, edited by V.L. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, pp. 37-51. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Trigger, Bruce 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, New York.

137

Wauchope, Robert 1934 Housemounds of Uaxactun, Guatemala. In Contributions to American Archaeology, Publication 436. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C.

1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of their Archaeological Significance. In Contributions to American Archaeology, Publication 502. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C.

Webster, David 2002 The Fall of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, London.

Wilk, Richard R. and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25:617-639.

138

APPENDIX

Table A.1 Lithic Analysis – Flakes

Key: Material Type Material Quality Cortex Platform 1 – Chalcedony 1 - Very Bad 1 - > 50% 1 – Cortical 2 – Chert 2 – Bad 2 - < 50% 2 - Flat 3 – Limestone 3 – Intermediate 3 – 100% 3 - Complex 4 – Granite 4 – Good 4 – None 4 - Abraded 5 – Unknown 5 – Very Good 5 – Indeterminate

Termination 1 – Feathered 2 – Stepped 3 – Hinged 4 – Plunging/Overshot 5 - Indeterminate

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

1 3-AA-1 49.67 26.32 17 9.5 N/A 4 5 1 1 5

2 3-AA-1 37.91 15.66 5 7.89 N/A 3 2 2 4 1

3 3-AA-1 15.61 3.86 4 8 N/A 2 4 2 1 5

4 3-AA-1 18.51 11.21 N/A 5.13 N/A 2 4 4 2 5

5 3-AA-1 10.31 4.42 N/A 2.69 N/A 2 3 2 1 5

6 3-AA-2 55.26 32.38 15 10.14 N/A 2 3 1 2 5

7 3-AA-2 63.65 32.18 26 10.12 N/A 2 4 2 1 5

8 3-AA-2 72.34 57.98 63 12.16 9.62 2 2 2 1 3

9 3-AA-2 17.02 15.85 1 3.1 N/A 2 3 4 1 2

139

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

10 3-AA-2 17.9 17.98 2 3.78 N/A 2 1 1 1 5

11 3-AA-2 26.01 17.47 5 7.43 N/A 2 4 4 1 2

12 3-AA-2 18.9 18.29 1 2.11 N/A 2 3 4 2 2

13 3-AA-2 16.49 22.52 N/A 3.74 N/A 2 3 4 2 5

14 3-AA-2 15.56 23.41 N/A 3.95 N/A 2 4 4 1 5

15 3-AA-2 26.71 23.09 1 4.09 N/A 2 4 2 3 2

16 3-AA-2 42.06 17.59 2 6.04 N/A 2 2 1 1 1

17 3-AA-2 31.67 20.87 3 3.84 N/A 1 4 2 1 3

18 3-AA-2 37.3 29.46 8 7.71 N/A 2 3 3 1 5

19 3-AA-2 42.35 23.44 8 7.33 N/A 2 4 2 1 1

20 3-AA-2 45.03 33.08 16 11.54 10.36 2 3 2 3 2

21 3-AA-2 48.79 36.69 28 14.49 13.51 2 4 2 2 2

22 3-AA-3 62.66 30.28 31 11.19 N/A 2 4 3 1 5

23 3-AB-2 49.22 32.43 18 11.45 9.16 2 1 1 1 2

24 3-AB-2 30.32 12.51 3 5.27 N/A 1 3 2 1 1

25 3-AB-2 22.42 16.69 3 5.35 N/A 1 4 4 1 5

26 3-AB-2 21.09 22 4 10.29 N/A 2 3 4 1 5

27 3-AB-2 27.38 18.64 3 2.68 N/A 1 3 2 1 2

28 3-AB-2 25.98 9.27 2 6.28 N/A 2 2 1 1 1

29 3-AB-2 17.24 11.35 N/A 3.76 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

30 3-AB-2 33.79 16.04 4 5.73 N/A 2 2 1 1 1

140

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

31 3-AB-2 30.49 20.29 4 6.38 N/A 2 3 2 1 2

32 3-AB-2 43.66 28.76 8 4.35 N/A 2 4 2 1 3

33 3-AB-2 15.29 13.16 N/A 4 N/A 2 3 1 1 5

34 3-AB-2 16.88 10.73 N/A 2.57 N/A 2 3 4 1 5

35 3-AB-2 16.39 9.49 N/A 3.14 N/A 2 3 1 1 1

36 3-AB-2 23.54 14.32 3 4.36 N/A 2 3 4 1 3

37 3-AB-2 46.38 16.2 8 14.4 10.17 2 2 2 1 4

38 3-AB-2 26.74 20.57 4 5.65 5.44 2 3 2 2 2

39 3-AB-2 32.78 23.1 6 9.04 N/A 2 1 2 4 3

40 3-AB-2 39.93 28.32 20 10.13 12.39 2 4 4 3 2

41 3-AB-2 34.16 29.3 10 8.41 5.74 2 4 2 1 5

42 3-AB-2 28.54 10.98 3 5.26 7.22 2 3 1 1 1

43 3-AB-2 22.67 12.02 1 3.49 N/A 2 1 1 1 5

44 3-AB-2 20.1 8.51 N/A 3.8 N/A 2 3 2 1 5

45 3-AB-2 25.57 7.36 N/A 4.72 N/A 2 4 4 1 5

46 3-AB-2 16.35 7.94 N/A 4.47 N/A 2 3 4 2 1

47 3-AB-2 24.37 16.12 3 4.31 N/A 2 2 1 1 5

48 3-AB-2 16.82 8.3 N/A 2.9 N/A 2 1 1 1 5

49 3-AB-2 25.8 8.52 2 6.86 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

50 3-AB-2 18.59 8.68 N/A 2.47 N/A 2 2 2 1 5

51 3-AB-2 19.27 13.4 1 4.57 N/A 2 3 1 1 2

141

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

52 3-AB-3 68.24 23.89 19 9.22 7.86 1 4 2 1 1

53 3-AB-3 43.27 35.8 22 9.06 N/A 2 3 2 2 2

54 3-AB-3 43.7 27.31 30 13.95 N/A 2 1 3 3 2

55 3-AB-3 58.78 17.53 8 6.11 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

56 3-AB-3 31.98 21.49 4 4.8 N/A 3 3 1 2 5

57 3-AB-3 42.3 17.65 6 7.7 N/A 2 4 2 3 1

58 3-AB-3 34.59 27.61 12 10.97 N/A 2 3 2 1 2

59 3-AB-3 45.16 35.02 19 10.4 N/A 2 3 2 1 2

60 3-AB-3 23.82 8.52 N/A 4.12 N/A 2 4 4 1 1

61 3-AB-3 23.65 11.21 1 3.01 N/A 2 4 4 1 5

62 3-AB-3 21.97 15.44 3 6.27 N/A 2 3 2 2 2

63 3-AB-3 23.95 8.3 N/A 3.04 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

64 3-AB-3 26.13 26.28 5 7.74 8.4 2 3 4 3 2

65 3-AB-3 41.28 31.56 12 9.1 N/A 2 3 1 2 2

66 3-AB-3 31.18 12.49 7 10.38 N/A 1 4 4 3 5

67 3-AB-3 36.14 16.33 5 6.59 N/A 2 3 1 1 5

68 3-AB-3 50.72 31.82 18 8.97 7.77 2 3 3 3 3

69 3-AB-3 15.18 14.84 2 2.37 N/A 2 3 4 2 2

70 3-AB-3 25.3 15.88 2 4.81 N/A 3 3 1 1 5

71 3-AB-3 20.35 12.55 2 4.17 N/A 2 3 4 2 5

72 3-AB-3 20.42 16.44 2 4.34 N/A 2 3 2 1 5

142

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

73 3-AB-3 25.46 16.97 1 2.16 N/A 2 2 2 1 1

74 3-AB-3 26.59 19.3 5 8.28 N/A 2 4 1 1 2

75 3-AB-3 25.71 20.94 4 5.43 5.88 2 3 2 4 2

76 3-AB-3 17.96 8.36 N/A 3.27 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

77 3-AB-3 18.71 11.97 N/A 3.89 4.64 2 4 2 2 1

78 3-AB-3 19.87 17.67 2 5.11 5.32 2 4 2 3 5

79 3-AB-3 25.99 11.29 N/A 5.7 N/A 2 3 4 1 1

80 3-AB-3 20.25 8.93 N/A 3.83 N/A 2 3 4 1 1

81 3-AC-1 58.63 18.59 7 7.29 N/A 2 2 1 1 1

82 3-AC-1 60.53 38.85 36 8.89 14.06 2 5 2 1 2

83 3-AC-1 32.62 36.72 17 12.38 N/A 2 4 2 1 5

84 3-AC-1 26.46 28.1 5 7.24 6.37 1 3 4 2 2

85 3-AC-1 29.69 17.71 3 9.13 N/A 2 3 1 1 5

86 3-AC-1 36.78 19.38 5 4.98 4.66 2 4 2 2 1

87 3-AC-1 17.12 12.78 1 6.43 N/A 2 3 2 3 2

88 3-AC-1 18.48 18.91 2 6.14 N/A 2 3 2 3 2

89 3-AC-1 16.88 9.88 N/A 3.63 N/A 2 2 4 2 2

90 3-AC-1 19.24 13.56 1 5.15 N/A 2 2 2 1 2

91 3-AC-1 18.11 12.42 N/A 3.02 N/A 2 3 2 1 2

92 3-AC-1 23.78 13.26 2 10.43 N/A 2 5 3 2 4

93 3-AC-2 40.87 13.26 4 7.53 N/A 2 3 4 1 4

143

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

94 3-AC-2 29.58 16.18 3 4.62 N/A 2 3 3 2 5

95 3-AC-2 42.36 28.68 9 9.18 9.35 2 4 2 2 5

96 3-AC-2 25.71 28.91 5 6.16 8.49 2 4 4 2 2

97 3-AC-2 28.72 21.69 4 6.99 6.68 1 4 4 2 5

98 3-AC-2 25.36 9.14 1 4.08 N/A 2 3 1 2 1

99 3-AC-2 34.23 18.49 4 5.12 4.99 2 4 2 3 1

100 3-AC-2 28.08 12.42 2 4.76 5.77 2 4 1 2 1

101 3-AC-2 31 33.05 9 7.23 N/A 2 4 2 3 2

102 3-AC-2 42.28 15.15 15 10.47 N/A 2 3 3 1 2

103 3-AC-2 21.03 14.85 N/A 3.49 N/A 2 3 2 2 2

104 3-AC-2 22.16 10.27 2 6.34 N/A 2 3 2 3 1

105 3-AC-3 60.85 19.67 16 12.12 N/A 2 2 3 3 1

106 3-AC-3 40.46 33.24 15 10.51 N/A 1 4 4 2 5

107 3-AC-3 44.89 14.3 4 6.19 N/A 2 3 2 1 1

108 3-AC-3 39.95 26.9 6 4.31 6.25 2 4 4 3 5

109 3-AC-3 48.53 19.17 8 8.25 N/A 2 3 1 1 3

110 3-AC-3 27.56 19.61 4 8.77 N/A 2 2 3 1 5

111 3-AC-3 35.72 15.88 4 5.31 N/A 2 3 3 2 1

112 3-AC-3 30.83 21.44 4 6.02 N/A 2 3 2 1 5

113 3-AC-3 19.59 17.4 3 7.5 N/A 2 4 4 1 5

114 3-AF-1 41.26 21.52 6 3.77 N/A 2 4 2 1 1

144

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

115 3-AF-1 28.63 17.74 3 3.74 N/A 2 4 2 1 5

116 3-AF-1 19.96 17.55 3 7.25 N/A 2 2 3 1 4

117 3-AF-1 24.07 30.74 4 4.89 N/A 2 4 2 2 5

118 3-AF-1 45.33 23.5 14 11.17 N/A 2 1 3 3 5

119 3-AF-2 28.09 22.02 5 4.34 N/A 2 4 2 2 2

120 3-AF-2 19.63 14.53 2 6.45 N/A 2 3 2 2 2

121 3-AF-2 21.56 11.31 N/A 3.69 N/A 2 1 3 3 1

122 3-AF-2 20.17 14.7 2 5.98 N/A 2 3 2 2 2

123 3-AF-2 41.82 20.41 4 5.54 N/A 2 4 2 2 1

124 3-AF-3 25.6 10.62 2 7.12 N/A 2 3 1 1 1

125 3-AF-3 24.2 15.06 1 3.47 N/A 2 3 2 2 5

126 3-AF-3 22.91 17.7 2 3.42 N/A 2 4 2 2 2

127 3-AF-3 32.57 16.28 5 10.13 N/A 2 5 4 4 4

128 3-AF-3 34.2 10.75 7 10.14 N/A 1 4 4 4 1

129 3-AF-3 32.35 12.84 2 4.78 N/A 1 4 4 4 1

130 3-AF-3 24.7 16.12 2 4.15 N/A 2 4 2 2 2

131 3-AF-3 15.4 12.96 N/A 3.44 N/A 1 3 2 2 2

132 3-AF-3 21.87 14.06 1 5.13 N/A 2 3 2 2 5

133 3-AF-3 30.63 40.97 13 8.69 N/A 2 3 1 1 2

134 3-AF-3 26.03 10.85 2 5.34 N/A 2 4 2 2 5

135 3-AF-3 23.3 10.69 2 4.95 N/A 2 4 2 2 1

145

Bulb Ref Length Width Weight Thickness Material Material Provenience Thickness Cortex Platform Termination # (mm) (mm) (g) (mm) Type Quality (mm)

136 3-AG-2 39.57 21.8 4 6.55 N/A 1 3 3 2 1

146

Table A. 2 Lithic Analysis – Non-flakes

Ref # Provenience Categorical Form Quantity Weight (g)

1 3-AA-1 Shatter 10 26

2 3-AA-2 Shatter 30 67

3 3-AA-3 Shatter 6 60

4 3-AB-1 Shatter 1 N/A

5 3-AB-2 Shatter 51 185

6 3-AB-3 Shatter 94 103

7 3-AC-1 Shatter 42 69

8 3-AC-2 Shatter 71 97

9 3-AC-3 Shatter 16 19

10 3-AF-1 Shatter 12 35

11 3-AF-2 Shatter 19 29

12 3-AF-2 Core 3 49

13 3-AF-3 Shatter 57 92

14 3-AG-2 Core 1 9

15 3-AG-3 Shatter 3 5

16 3-AI-1 Shatter 3 6

17 3-AI-2 Shatter 17 21

18 3-AJ-1 Shatter 8 19

147