University of Cincinnati

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

Ancient Maya Water Management: Archaeological Investigations at Turtle Pond, Northwestern Belize

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research 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 McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

July 2005

Jennifer A. Chmilar

B.Sc., University of Calgary, 2002

Committee: Vernon L. Scarborough, Chair Alan P. Sullivan, III Nicholas Dunning

ABSTRACT

Water is a critical resource for human survival. The ancient Maya, inhabiting an environment with a karstic landscape, semi-tropical climate, and a three month dry season, modified the landscape to create water catchments, drainages, and reservoirs within and surrounding settlement. Water management techniques have been demonstrated in the Maya

Lowlands extending back into the Preclassic, approximately 600 BC, at sites such as El Mirador and Nakbe. Into the Classic period, 250 AD – 900 AD, water management features have taken a different form than in the Preclassic; as seen at Tikal and La Milpa.

In this thesis, Turtle Pond, a reservoir located on the periphery of the core of La Milpa, is evaluated for modifications to it by the ancient Maya. Turtle Pond was a natural depression that accumulated water for at least part of the year. The ancient Maya then modified it to enhance its water holding potential. Specifically, this thesis investigates a possible channel and berm, an anomalous surface exposure on the south side of the reservoir, as well as sediment deposition and pollen accumulation. Excavation and sediment analysis were the prime methods used to determine anthropogenic modification. Although all indicators of human modifications are not verified, that the ancient Maya were using and modified Turtle Pond is illustrated by the presence of a channel as well as other water management related features and a pollen sequence that suggests human-environment interactions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It seems I have a habit of meeting wonderful people. Although I would like to name each

person whom I’ve met in my past two years in Cincinnati, on my last two trips to Guatemala and

Belize, everyone associated with my undergraduate degree, and everyone I’ve known stretching

back to my early days, it would be impractical so I limit the names I include to those who have

aided directly in the production of my Master’s thesis. First on the list is Dr. Vern Scarborough,

who I expressly came to the University of Cincinnati to learn from. He has seemed as excited to

work with me -a devoted and enthusiastic student- as I have been to work with him, has

encouraged me all the way, and provided academic and personal advice even when on sabbatical

this past year. Next, I must thank Dr. Alan Sullivan. Even though -and probably because- he is

not a Maya archaeologist he has offered insightful and logical critique of my work as well as

provided both theoretical and quantitative underpinnings. I also must thank Dr. Nick Dunning

who I have only gotten to know in the past year. He has instructed me in sediment analysis, soil

coring techniques in Guatemala, and answered many questions covering a wide range of

subjects. All the staff at Programme for Belize Archaeological Project particularly Dr. Fred

Valdez (director), Dr. Lauren Sullivan, Dr. Stan Walling, Peter Davis, and Tammy Watkins, as

well as Jason Fenton and Kevin Magee who accompanied me from Cincinnati, are to credit for

the success of a short field season in Belize. Additionally, the Taft Memorial Fund of the

University of Cincinnati is appreciated for the grant that allowed my work to take place.

Unfortunately, the naming of names must stop here. However, I thank all of my family and friends, young and old, who have faith in me to follow this path that calls to me. As I have only

just begun, I look forward to working in Maya archaeology for a long time and meeting many more inspirational people along the way.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... iv CHAPTER 1: Introduction ...... 1 CHAPTER 2: Background ...... 4 Preclassic Water Management ...... 7 Cobweb Swamp ...... 8 Cuello ...... 8 Nakbe ...... 8 Edzna ...... 8 Cerros ...... 8 El Mirador ...... 9 Classic Water Management ...... 9 Tikal ...... 11 La Milpa ...... 12 Kinal ...... 13 CHAPTER 3: Environmental Setting ...... 16 Geographic Location ...... 16 Weather and Climate ...... 16 Geology ...... 16 Physiology ...... 17 Soils ...... 18 Water Availability ...... 18 Vegetation ...... 19 Turtle Pond ...... 19 CHAPTER 4: Methodology ...... 25 Excavation Units ...... 25 Sub-operation A ...... 25 Sub-operation B ...... 25 Sub-operation C ...... 26 Sub-operations D and E ...... 26

Sub-operation F ...... 27 Sediment Analysis ...... 28 CHAPTER 5: Excavations ...... 32 Sub-operation A ...... 32 Sub-operation B ...... 44 Sub-operation C ...... 47 Sub-operation D ...... 56 Sub-operation E ...... 59 Sub-operation F ...... 63 CHAPTER 6: Discussion ...... 71 Sub-operation A ...... 71 Sub-operation B ...... 73 Sub-operation C ...... 74 Sub-operation D and E ...... 75 Sub-operation F ...... 76 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions ...... 79 References Cited ...... 82 APPENDIX A: Soil Analysis ...... 87

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Contour map of Turtle Pond...... 24 Figure 4.1. Photo of Sub-op A...... 29 Figure 4.2. Sub-op B and the anomalous surface exposure of chert cobbles. . 30 Figure 4.3. Subops D and E...... 31 Figure 5.1. East wall of Sub-op A...... 37 Figure 5.2. Profile of the east wall of Subop A...... 38 Figure 5.3. Profile of the north wall of Subop A...... 39 Figure 5.4. Graph of percent organic matter in Subop A. . . . . 42 Figure 5.5. South wall of Subop B...... 46 Figure 5.6. Photo of Subop C...... 50 Figure 5.7. Profile of the north wall of Subop C...... 51 Figure 5.8. Graph of organic matter content in Subop C. . . . . 54 Figure 5.9. Subops D and E, bottom of Lot 2...... 61 Figure 5.10. Subop D (Lot 4) and E (Lot 2)...... 62 Figure 5.11. Photograph of the sediment core in half sections. . . . 65 Figure 5.12. Graph of organic matter content in Subop F, Lot 2. . . . 68 Figure 5.13. Pollen diagram for Turtle Pond...... 70

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1. Artifact counts in Subop A...... 36 Table 5.2. Description of soil horizons in Subop A. . . . . 40 Table 5.3. Percent organic matter in Subop A...... 41 Table 5.5. Texture of sediments in Subop A...... 43 Table 5.5. Artifact counts in Subop B...... 45 Table 5.6. Artifact count in Subop C...... 49 Table 5.7. Description of sediments in Subop C...... 52 Table 5.8. Organic matter in Subop C...... 53 Table 5.9. Texture of sediments in Subop C...... 55 Table 5.10. Artifact count in Subop D...... 58 Table 5.11. Artifact count of Subop E...... 60 Table 5.12. Description of the sediments in Subop F, Lot 2. . . . 66 Table 5.13. Organic matter content in Subop F, Lot 2. . . . . 67 Table 5.14. Sediment texture in Subop F, Lot 2...... 69 Table 6.1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates...... 78

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Water management played a significant role in the overall development of the ancient

Maya. In an environment where the soils are not always productive, seasonal drought is

imminent, and a karstic landscape prohibits natural accumulations of perennial water sources, the

management and control of water attest to its powerful organizing force (Ford 1996;

Scarborough 1998; Scarborough et al. 1995). Not only does the storage of water allow for a

perennial drinking source, it also guarantees irrigation water for agriculture. For ancient Maya

settlements to thrive, organization of water resources was integral. Therefore, it is not surprising

that drought and the inability to store reserves of water through consecutive years was a

contributing factor to the downfall of the Classic period Maya (Beach and Dunning 1997; Beach

et al. 2003; Dunning and Beach 2000; Dunning et al. 2002; Dunning et al. 1998; Gill 2000;

Harrison 1977; Hodell et al. 2000; Kunen 2004; Lucero 1999; Peterson and Haug 2000;

Scarborough 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003abc; Scarborough et al. 1995; Scarborough and

Gallopin 1991).

In this thesis, I examine a small reservoir feature within the settlement zone of La Milpa but outside its site center, at the Programme for Belize, Central America. The reservoir is called

Turtle Pond and is a natural low-lying depression, approximately 25 m north-south and 40 m east-west, hypothesized to have been modified in order to collect, hold, and distribute water for

the nearby population. To test this proposition I studied the following crucial indicators: the

presence of channels exiting the reservoir, the interior of the reservoir for a sequence of natural

and anthropogenic sediment accumulation, the interior of the reservoir for water management

related features such as a silting tank, as well as anomalous surface exposures in the vicinity of

the reservoir. Whether the purpose of the reservoir was agricultural or for promoting the

development of a potable drinking source will also be examined.

Evidence of channels, produced by the ancient Maya, exiting the reservoir verifies that

water was being directed out of the reservoir. Water potentially was distributed to a population,

either for drinking or for agriculture. Channels might also have been put in place to direct excess

water out and to another location such as another reservoir or agricultural fields. The absence of channels would suggest that the reservoir was internally-draining.

Accumulations of sediments within and surrounding the reservoir as well as changes in

the type of sediments are key factors in determining the depositional history of Turtle Pond.

Sediment, here, includes not only the sand, silt, and clay, but also organic matter and pollen.

Changes in sediment accumulation due to human activities would be evident by a change in the

type or frequency of sediment deposited. A potential problem is that the reservoir would have been dredged, thus destroying the sequence of sediment build up.

The presence of a silting tank would be verified in both the depositional sequence of

sediments, within and outside of the silting tank as well as by the presence of features such as a

berm. Sediments within the silting tank would be coarser in texture than those outside the tank

but within the interior reservoir because a berm would contain an area of the reservoir that

accumulated water at a high velocity. Coarse sediments would be contained within the silting tank while still water, from the silting tank, would crest and recharge the reservoir.

Finally, other anomalous features surrounding the reservoir may highlight other functions of the reservoir or the areas surrounding it. Features that are not naturally occurring, or do not appear to be naturally occurring, deserve investigation so as to understand their origins and possible functions in relation to the reservoir.

The presence of all four crucial indicators would strongly suggest ancient Maya use and

modification of Turtle Pond. Other factors that would contribute to such an interpretation

include cultural artifacts such as ceramics and lithic tools and debitage that can be associated

with ancient Maya activity.

In addition to the aforementioned indicators, another question to be addressed in this thesis is whether the reservoir held agricultural or potable water. The presence of specific pollens from cultivated plants can indicate agricultural fields in the vicinity and a possible agricultural purpose for the reservoir. Due to deforestation associated with agriculture, pollen from local trees would decline with time. No change in pollen or phytolith may indicate an absence of agricultural fields in close proximity. The presence of water lily pollen would imply that the reservoir contained potable water. Water lilies indicate the absence of toxic substances in water and thus, that it was potable (Ford 1996; Lucero 1999). Pollen may be considered as an indicator of what purpose the reservoir had: agricultural use, potable drinking source, or both.

In an attempt to answer the question of water management at Turtle Pond, this thesis will

cover a few crucial points. First, I will discuss previous research done on the subject of water

management in the Maya area to understand chronological and spatial variability in water

management systems. Next, I will describe the environmental and geographic setting of Turtle

Pond. Third, I will outline my research methods including placement of units, soil profiling, and

soil analysis. Fourth, data arrived at through excavation and preliminary analysis will be

presented. Fifth, the analysis of the composition of excavation units and soil samples will be

discussed. To conclude, I will review the crucial indicators in relation to the data recovered and

recreate the aguada as the ancient Maya used it.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND

Distribution of natural resources has been cited (Dunning 1996; Fedick 1996; Fedick [ed]

1996; Fedick and Ford 1990; Ford 1996) as a major influencing factor in the settlement patterns

of ancient human groups. An area of abundant resources generally attracts settlers in contrast to

areas of scarce resources. When resources are concentrated in a single area, it is frequently

easier for centralized controls to develop over a population in terms of production and labor access (Ford 1996). Conversely, when resources are not concentrated, populations are more disperse and the focus of any formal control is comparatively reduced. The location of population settlement, as well as its size, form, and type, is related to the distribution of resources

(Ford 1996).

Fedick and Ford (1990) describe four areas associated with different land resources in the

Maya area: terrain, available water, soil type, and vegetation. The first of the areas is the well- drained uplands. Rolling limestone hills contain shallow but productive soil and it naturally supports a broad-leaved closed canopy forest. Slow-drained lowlands are the second zone identified by low-lying areas within the uplands that may grade into swamps or bajos. Bajos are seasonally inundated low-lying wetlands that do not hold water throughout the dry season. Here, the soils can be fertile but contain a high percentage of clays that hinder drainage. The natural vegetation is a spotty high marsh forest with a variety of palms (Fedick and Ford 1990:21). The third environmental zone is the riverine-associated swamps. This land resource area is comprised of fertile and workable soils supporting a rush-sedge vegetation as well as related vegetation types depending on the water available at a particular location. The final area is the closed-depression seasonal swamp, characterized by deep clayey soils that hold water, a perched

water table, great seasonal variation from wet to dry and consequently xerophytic vegetation.

Each area required the ancient Maya to adapt to take advantage of available resources.

Resources available to humans in an environment include foodstuffs - plants and animals,

raw materials - stone, non-edible plants, specific animal species, soils, and various landforms.

Critical resources are those that are fundamental for subsistence and survival (Ford 1996:297).

Naturally, resources are concentrated at various locations on a landscape and they are variously

distributed across it (Fedick [ed] 1996). Patterning of resources is dependent on a myriad of

factors, though geomorphological considerations may be chief among them.

Resources in the tropics exhibit high floral and faunal species diversity but they are

juxtaposed with low concentrations of any one species in any one area (Scarborough 2000,

2003a). Not only are the plants and animals dispersed but so are the soils that support specific

vegetative regimes. Water availability too, is affected by topography and soils (Fedick and Ford

1990). Water is the most critical resource undergirding human survival (Scarborough 1993,

1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003abc). The environment of the ancient Maya fits into the

semitropical environmental type: high species diversity, low concentration of any one species in

a particular microenvironment – and seasonal availability of water with a three month period of

drought.

In order to productively inhabit the environment in which they lived, the ancient Maya

were required to essentially tame it. They did this in two ways: first, by slowly and accretionally

modifying the environment so that it responded in the most productive way (Dunning et al. 1999;

Scarborough 1993, 2003a), and secondly, by gaining control of critical resources (Fedick and

Ford 1990; Ford 1996; Tourtellot 1993). Managing water was a key to resource control.

Although resources were dispersed in the Maya area, they were managed so that the landscape could support a large population (Fedick and Ford 1990). Water in the Maya area was not a constant resource. Its availability was determined by the season, topography, as well as underlying soils and bedrock. Additionally, climate change and associated drought further minimized potential water availability (Dunning and Beach 2000; Dunning et al. 1998; Dunning et al. 2002; Gill 2000; Hansen et al. 2000; Hodell et al. 2000; Jacobs 1995; Peterson and Haug

2005). Storage and management of water resources allowed for the amassing of people at the same location.

Following Scarborough (2003a), Ford (1996), and Lucero (1999), in a semitropical regime with water availability determined largely by the seasons, one of the primary factors that influenced the aggregation of population was the storage and management of water resources at a time when water was not generally available. The ancient Maya developed methods to collect, hold, and redistribute water. Methods generally differed from the Early Preclassic Period (1000

BC – 400 BC), the Late Preclassic period (400 BC – AD 150) and the Classic period (AD 150-

930). Basically, the dominant Late Preclassic water management system initiated the use of a concave microwatershed. Water was directed to low-lying areas where it was collected and consumed (Scarborough 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003a). The Classic water management system, on the other hand, was a convex microwatershed; it collected and stored water at an elevated point to be redirected to fields and reservoirs below (Scarborough 1993, 1994, 1996,

1998, 2000, 2003a).

PRECLASSIC WATER MANAGEMENT

Concave landscape modification likely developed at the margins of bajos where a form of drained- field and raised- field agriculture may have been practiced (Harrison 1977, 1993).

Presently, little evidence has been confirmed to warrant a definitive statement (Dunning 1996;

Jacob 1995; Matheny 1982). However, the ubiquity of bajos nearby most large ancient Maya sites has been noted by numerous scholars (Beach et al. 2003; Hansen et al. 2002; Harrison 1977,

1993; Dunning et al. 1999; Dunning et al. 1998; Scarborough 2003a). Bajos had some resource advantages such as organic muck, an abundance of chert cobbles that appear when the limestone dissolves, plentiful wildlife, hardwood lumber, fibers, and seasonal water that was likely utilized in drained or raised field agriculture (Jacob 1995).

The earliest known examples of agriculture in the Maya Lowlands come from Albion

Island, Belize and Cobweb Swamp, Belize where the wetlands were perennial as early as 1000

BC. Ditches were dug at the margins of swamps and marshes, and agricultural plots were placed

on the high land between them (Fedick and Ford 1990; Pyburn 1996). During the rainy season,

the water table would have lowered but the ditches likely held water into and throughout the dry

season (Jacob 1995). Agricultural techniques were able to slowly support an increasing number

of people (Scarborough 1994).

General features of the concave microwatershed include central reservoirs or canals,

drainage canals oriented toward the center of a site in order to catch runoff and precipitation, and

causeways built across bajos for both transportation and possibly agriculture. By 600 BC, water

management was practiced at Cuello and Nakbe, and by the Late Preclassic, 300 BC to AD 250,

water management features existed at the sites of Edzna, Cerros, and El Mirador. Earlier than

Cuello and Nakbe was water management at Cobweb and Pulltrouser Swamps.

Cobweb Swamp: The site of Colha is located on the margins of Cobweb swamp and was

occupied as early as 800 BC with continued occupation until approximately AD 1200 (Jacob

1995). Agriculture may have been practiced on upper slopes as early as 2000 BC but creating

ditches and raised fields within the swamp likely began at the beginning of the Common Era

when Colha was undergoing substantial growth (Jacob 1995).

Cuello: The Preclassic site of Cuello has some of the earliest cisterns in the Maya area

(Scarborough 1993). A cistern is an underground basin that can hold water. Cuello displays two

of the main, early characteristics for water management: canalizing and ditching.

Nakbe: Nakbe is located in the central southern lowlands and may have been one of the earliest sites to deliberately construct reservoirs. The evidence suggests early monumental architecture at and around the site. Quarrying for stone to create monuments would have left depressions in the ground that subsequently functioned as reservoirs (Scarborough 1993).

Edzna: As described by Matheny (1978) and Scarborough (1993), Edzna had a huge

water storage capacity in the Late Preclassic. By the Middle Preclassic, settlement at Ednza had

become permanent due to a dense concentration of aguadas surrounding the site. Hydraulic

engineering is evident by the Late Preclassic period. In all, this site contained more than 20 km

of canals as well as 84 reservoirs. Canals converge in the center of the city and were aligned

with the physical layout of the site. Surrounding a portion of the city is a moat. The main canal

is 12 km long, 1.5m deep, and 50m wide, and it connected the moat as well as radial channels

designed to catch runoff. Total storage capacity is estimated to have been 2, 000, 000 m3.

Cerros: Cerros is a prime example of the Late Preclassic concave microwatershed. The

site is located in northern Belize on the coast of Chetumal Bay and was occupied throughout the

Late Preclassic. The central precinct of Cerros was positioned at the lowest elevation of the

terrain around it. The lower elevation facilitated gravity flow from the surrounding slope so that

water from runoff and rains would fill canals and migrate to the center. A main canal surrounded

the central precinct of the site, 1.2km long, 6m wide, and 2m deep. It could collect 14, 400 m3

water during the rainy season and held it throughout the dry season. An elevated causeway

separated water used for agricultural ends from that for private domestic usage (Scarborough

1993, 1994, 2003a).

El Mirador: El Mirador is the largest site of the Preclassic period. It was abandoned

between AD 150 and AD 200 but El Mirador is identified with the largest temple complex

known in the Maya area. Quarry scars, for obtaining limestone with which to build structures,

were used as reservoirs. In all, approximately 1.75 million m3 of fill had been removed leaving a

number of reservoirs of sizable combined capacity (Scarborough 1993). In addition to the

quarried reservoirs, El Mirador was on the edge of a bajo. Across the bajo are four elevated

causeways radiating from the center of El Mirador outwards. These were likely for ease of

transport but also served an agricultural purpose (Matheny 1982; Scarborough 1993).

CLASSIC WATER MANAGEMENT

Although the concave microwatershed landscape adaptation was able to support an increasing population, its dynamics ultimately affected the environment negatively. Because lands surrounding the microwatershed were cleared for slash-and-burn agriculture, deforestation led to greatly increased soil erosion. The growing population coupled with slash-and-burn agricultural success, created a cycle whereby more land was required for farming which induced both soil erosion and sedimentation into the low-lying bajos. In turn, and also due to climate change, the bajos were transformed from shallow lakes or civales to seasonal swamps. Because

bajos no longer were as productive, the development of different water management techniques

associated with water conservation was necessary (Dunning et al. 1999, 2002; Hansen et al.

2002; Scarborough 2003a).

Consequently, the convex microwatershed emerged between AD 400 and AD 900. No

drastic alteration was made to the landscape even though the type of water management system

changed (Scarborough 2003a). Essentially, instead of locating communities at the base of hill slopes and flanking depressions, hilltops and their borders were selected as the ideal location for

residential occupation and civic monuments. Plazas, pyramids, and related architecture were

heavily plastered and canted so that water was directed into hilltop reservoirs – former quarry

scars. During the dry season or when needed, water was deliberately released from reservoir

catchments downslope to residential groups and agricultural plots (Scarborough 1993, 1994,

1995, 1996, 2000, 2003a).

The convex microwatershed allowed large amounts of water to be stored and directed as

required, and allowed a larger population to be supported (Scarborough 1996). However, the maximum availability of water, and therefore the maximum population it could support, was

determined by the size of the tank (Scarborough 2000). When population increased, the quantity

of water stored needed to be increased accordingly. More water could be stored either by

increasing the size of reservoirs or the number of reservoirs.

General features of the convex microwatershed include paved catchments that directed

water towards a reservoir, the reservoir, silting tanks to remove accumulating sediment,

diversion weirs and check dams to minimize erosion, and channels leading water to its ultimate destination. These features are present in varying combination at the Classic period sites of

Tikal, La Milpa, and Kinal.

Tikal: Water management at the site of Tikal has been explained by Harrison (1993),

Scarborough (1993, 1994, 1996, 2003a), and Scarborough and Gallopin (1991). Tikal exemplifies Maya water management of the Classic period and is probably the most complex example of Maya water management known. Tikal is located in the Peten of Guatemala away

from any permanent water sources but is surrounded on all sides by bajo. Building began around

250 BC and by AD 450 much of the central precinct was constructed.

At the center of the site were six major water catchment areas. Surrounding architecture

and open surfaces were plastered and made impervious to water loss through infiltration with

slopes designed to direct it into reservoirs. Causeways often served as dams to delineate

reservoirs while also linking areas of the central precinct. The central precinct catchment area at

Tikal covered an area of 62 ha, other reservoirs and catchment areas being smaller. Each central

precinct reservoir collected between 100, 000 and 250, 000 m3 of water for an overall 900, 000

m3 based on 1500mm of rain annually. From these reservoirs, water was released in a controlled

manner to households and fields below.

Residential reservoirs were located among the densest populated areas of the site,

immediately below the central precinct. The reservoirs were smaller and usually in association

with a household group. Although others exist, the three reported residential reservoirs have a

combined capacity of approximately 40, 000 to 135, 000 m3. In addition to these larger

residential reservoirs, there were pozas, or diminutive household reservoirs. Neither the residential reservoirs nor the pozas appear to have been replenished by the central precinct reservoirs.

At the base of the hill where Tikal is situated, lie the bajo-margin reservoirs, four in total,

one in each cardinal direction. The combined capacity of these four reservoirs was between 50,

000 and 172, 000 m3. Water received by these tanks was used for agricultural purposes and considered dirty or ‘grey’ water. Agricultural use seems likely though limited evidence for raised or drained fields has been found. From the bajo-margin reservoirs, water would pass into the aguadas and out-lying swamps.

La Milpa: A second Classic period site that has extensive evidence of landscape manipulation for water management is La Milpa (Scarborough 1993, 1994; Scarborough et al.

1992; Scarborough et al. 1995). La Milpa is located in the northwest corner of Belize, 9 km from the nearest river and on the largest hillock in a 2 km radius. Construction of the hilltop structures began in the Late Preclassic but primary use of the upper hilltop reservoirs was not until the Early Classic period, though occupation and use continued through the Late Classic period.

Four principal drainages and three reservoirs comprise the water management system at

La Milpa. The first drainage is not associated with a reservoir, however it defines the edge of the main plaza. The channel associated with this drainage is steep and deeply incised. Along its course eighteen possible check dams were placed to curb the erosion. Little runoff, however, was likely transported to a large bajo, 3 km northeast of the central precinct.

The second drainage is a primary one, draining a central precinct reservoir and much of the water from the main plaza. A diversion feature in the main plaza may have served to reduce the amount of sediment introduced into the second drainage by erosion. Further along the course, a dam creates a reservoir, the water then continues along the channel before combining with another two drainages.

Drainage 3 issues from Reservoir A by means of a sluice gate. Reservoir A has an area of 4240 m2 and a maximum depth of over 2m. From Reservoir A the channel bifurcates into two

channels, 3a and 3b. Drainage 3a pools behind a reservoir before leveling out on fields, drainage

3b continues a shorter distance until it too levels out.

The final drainage channel, Drainage 4, is also two drainages, 4a to the west and 4b to the east. Reservoir B supplies water for Drainage 4 from its 5975 m3 capacity. Water in these channels joins with that from Drainage 3 and empties into the La Milpa aguada. In addition to these four drainages, there is the Far West Drainage that linked the central reservoirs to potential agricultural fields on flat areas below the site (Scarborough et al. 1995).

Along the course of the drainages, there were flat areas that may have been agricultural fields. Thus, it is likely that water was used for agricultural purposes. Water passed through these fields before reaching some residential areas, so it is likely that this water was not used for domestic purposes as it would have been polluted. However, as some of this water passed through an aguada, it may have been partially purified through the removal of sediments and impurities. It must be noted that since only 3000 m3 of potable water was available from reservoir sources during the dry season, it is likely that there were other methods by which to obtain water for domestic purposes.

Kinal: Water management systems at the site of Kinal, as documented by Scarborough

(1993, 1994, 1996) is somewhat different than that at both Tikal and La Milpa. Kinal is located in the eastern portion of the Peten, Guatemala, only 25 km southwest of La Milpa. Its size is comparable to that of La Milpa which is approximately one fifth the size of Tikal. Also, Kinal is occupied during and later than both Tikal and La Milpa, dating to the Late or Terminal Classic,

AD 700-900.

One of the major differences in this water management system is that there is no central precinct reservoir. Instead, the central plaza and related structures were paved and canted so as

to direct water into a channel leading to a reservoir that resembles a bajo-margin reservoir (see

Tikal). Another difference is the steep slope associated with the channel, there is a 25 m drop along the 300 m of channel. To counter the erosional effects of a steep gradient, there were two check dam features and a large diversion stone placed along the course. Once the water reached its low-lying reservoir, a diversion weir directed it to a silting tank so that accumulated sediments settled out of the water. A final difference in the Kinal reservoir system was the presence of a

sluice gate that was as deep as the reservoir so the entire contents of the reservoir could be

emptied if necessary.

In essence, control of critical resources, especially water, was vital to the ancient Maya.

Population growth from the Preclassic to the Classic was predicated on the control of water in an

area where seasonally water was not available naturally in significant quantities. Management of

water was not uniform through time because the demands of a growing population base changed

and climate change caused a reduction in available water. Changes in water management

techniques reflected change in use and appropriation of resources.

The reservoir of Turtle Pond is important because it represents a landscape feature that

was modified and used by the ancient Maya for water management in a semi-rural setting, in an

area outside of a site center but still under its influence. When the ancient Maya encountered

Turtle Pond, it was a natural depression lined by clay that held water at least seasonally, an

aguada. The modifications to Turtle Pond transformed the aguada into a reservoir, increasing

the available water retention properties. Presently, Turtle Pond is an aguada that had natural

origins, ancient modifications, and continues to hold water. Excavations at Turtle Pond aid in

illustrating the use of a water management feature in a way that has not been explicitly

investigated. An examination of the Turtle Pond reservoir will add to the expanding understanding of ancient Maya water management systems.

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This section describes the many diverse environmental settings of the ancient Maya and

specifically the qualities of Turtle Pond. According to Dunning and Beach (2000:181), the main

factors responsible for the diverse patterning of microenvironments in Mesoamerica are

“variation in rainfall, soil, geomorphic processes, and the slope gradients and drainage caused by structural hydrology” (Dunning and Beach 2000: 181). I will begin by delimiting the greater area, and then discuss variability in climate, geology and geomorphology, water availability, and vegetation.

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

The Maya Lowlands covers five states of Mexico including portions of Chiapas, Tabasco,

all of Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo, Belize, the department of the Peten in Guatemala,

northern Honduras, and northern El Salvador. It extends from 14º N to 22º N and 87º W to 93º

W, an area approximately 900 km north to south and 550 km east to west (Gill 2000). Generally,

the area is divided in two sections; the Northern Lowlands and the Southern Lowlands. The

northern lowlands cover most of the Yucatan peninsula while the southern lowlands cover the

department of the Peten and extend through Tabasco, southern Campeche and Quintana Roo,

Belize, Río Motagua in Guatemala and into a small portion of western Honduras (Coe 1999;

Harrison 1993).

WEATHER AND CLIMATE

Due to its location towards the northern edge of the Intra-Tropical Convergence Zone, the

Maya area exhibits a hybrid tropical/ semitropical climate. Throughout the year, temperature

variation is minimal and consequently, seasonality is determined by distinct wet and dry seasons.

Total annual rainfall varies between 1500 – 2000 mm, with extremes of 400 mm and 2500 mm, rainfall is higher in the south and decreases north (Dunning 1996; Gill 2000; Jacob 1995;

Scarborough 2003a). Approximately 90% of the rainfall occurs June through January. Between the months of January and June near drought conditions persist and as little as 10% of the annual expected rain may fall. The months of March through May are the driest. However, Gill

(2000:167) notes that the annual extent of rain and drought cannot be predicted; where some areas may face severe drought, others will have an abundance of water. The following years are not dependent on the previous, the resulting pattern of rainfall and drought is random.

GEOLOGY

Limestone and karstic developments define the geology of the Maya area. The Gulf

Coast and coastal areas around the Yucatan peninsula consist of recent alluvium and marine deposits. Most of the interior Yucatan peninsula is of Tertiary limestone while south of that is

Mesozoic limestone. The younger northern limestone is flatter and has less relief than that in the south. South of that is an area of mostly inactive volcanic highlands. The Maya Mountians in central and southern Belize are of granites, similar in some ways to the more volcanic

Guatemalan highlands (Gill 2000; Jacob 1995).

PHYSIOLOGY

Terrain is strongly influenced by the underlying geology of the region. With tectonic movement, the limestone has become fractured creating horst ridges and graben valleys, up- thrusted and sunken areas. These faults produce large escarpments and valleys with elevation

differences up to and in excess of 100m (Dunning et al. 2003; Beach et al. 2003). Wetlands are

karstic features, with presently about 40% of the southern lowlands occupied by bajos (Jacob

1995:55; Scarborough 2003a).

Within some limestone layers are chert nodules (Beach et al. 2003), extensively used by

the Maya for stone tool production. Chert nodules frequently concentrate in low areas where

water has dissolved the limestone matrix to create bajos or aguadas (Jacob 1995).

SOILS

The distribution of soil types is in part determined by terrain. The soils in the northern

lowlands are calcareous, shallow and well-drained while in the southern lowlands the calcareous

soils are deeper and more poorly drained. In sunken areas where there has been deposition of

sediment, more soil formation is apparent. In this way, there are a variety of soil types scattered

across the Maya landscape. Generally, soils are thin, but fertile on hills and well-drained areas,

but thick clays identify low-lying areas (Dunning 1996; Dunning and Beach 1994, 2000;

Dunning et al. 1999; Fedick and Ford 1990; Scarborough 2003a).

WATER AVAILABILITY

Due to the dominance of karst topography, little surface water is maintained year-round

in the Maya area. There are few rivers and minimal additional surface drainage. Water is available seasonally in bajos and aguadas and generally year round in civales (Hansen et al.

2002; Jacob 1995; Scarborough 2003a).

Bajos, civales, and aguadas, are karstic landscape features that occur throughout the

Maya Lowlands. Bajos cover between 40 and 60 percent of the interior southern Maya lowlands

and occur in depressions relative to the general terrain of the area. During the rainy season, the

clay soils in bajo swell and flood, while during the dry season the ground cracks as it dries out.

Civales are perennial wetlands located within and or on the margins of bajos (Dunning et al.

2002; Hansen et al. 2002; Hodell et al. 2000; Jacob 1995; Scarborough 2003a). Aguadas, though

there are multiple origins for such features, are ponds that offer a dependable water source

through consecutive years (Nicholas Dunning, personal communication, 2005).

The primary river systems of the Southern Maya Lowlands are the Rio Hondo and Belize

River on the east, and the Usumacinta and San Pedro Rivers in the west (Jacob 1995;

Scarborough 2003a). Minimal drainage exists in the elevated, interior lowlands where groundwater may be upwards of 100 m beneath the surface, approaching the surface near the

coast.

Some of the water available in the Maya area percolates down through the limestone and

collects in underground caverns as lakes. When the roof of a cavern collapses, the exposed water

formation is called a cenote (Jacob 1995; Scarborough 2003a). When water does collect

seasonally on the surface it is frequently contained in the form of bajos (Scarborough 2003a).

Cenotes are more prevalent in the northern lowlands while bajos are more widespread in the

central lowlands. The few riverine marshes are most common in the southern lowlands (Jacob

1995).

Some scholars, such as Beach et al. (2003), Dunning and Beach (2000), Dunning et al.

(2002), Gill (2000), Hansen et al. (2002), Hodell et al. (1995, 2000), Jacob (1995), Peterson and

Haug (2005), and Scarborough (2003a), have cited climate change and drought as factors that reduced the amount of water available to the ancient Maya. Both the fall of sea level and a decline in annual precipitation caused water to be increasingly scarce. Additionally,

paleoecological studies by the some of the same scholars have demonstrated that climate change is partly responsible for altering the environment, in particular the distribution of bajos and civales, so that its present form is not what the ancient Maya had to work with.

VEGETATION

As a result of varied surface topography and water availability, the vegetation in the

Maya area is a variable mosaic across the landscape. In the semitropical jungles of the Maya area, there is high species diversity but a low concentration of any given species in a localized area (Dunning et al. 2003; Kunen and Hughbanks 2003; Scarborough 1996; Scarborough and

Valdez 2003).

Four distinct zones characterize the Maya area, each with a unique vegetative regime.

Broad-leaved closed canopy forest dominates in the well-drained uplands, while marsh vegetation including a variety of palms and hardwoods thrive in the low-lying bajos. Riverine swamps, on the other hand, are comprised of rush-sedge vegetation. Finally, closed depression seasonal swamps support mostly xerophytic vegetation (Fedick and Ford; 1990).

TURTLE POND

Turtle Pond is located in northwestern Belize, on the Programme for Belize lands. The climate is the same as the rest of the Southern Lowland Maya area, semi-tropical, with a pronounced wet and dry season with 90% of the 1500-2000 mm annual rainfall falling between

June and December – the dry season extending from January through May. The climate is hot and humid throughout the year with temperatures ranging from 26.5- 31.5ºC and precipitation

associated with bimodal peaks in June and September (Beach et al. 2003; Dunning et al. 1999,

2003).

Numerous ancient Maya sites are in the vicinity of Turtle Pond. Most notably is La

Milpa, of which Turtle Pond is part, which is less than 3 km to the east. Less than 100 m to the west, there are agricultural terraces that were the subject of another University of Cincinnati

Master’s thesis (Fernand 2002). Many of the ancient Maya sites in the PfB area were occupied in the Classic through the Terminal Classic, AD 300-900 (Dunning et al. 1999; Scarborough,

Valdez, and Dunning [eds] 2003).

Although Turtle Pond is not located within the site core of La Milpa, it is within its settlement area (Hammond et al. 1998; Tourtellot, Clark, and Hammond 1993; Tourtellot et al.

2003; Tourtellot, Rose, and Hammond 1998). La Milpa is a mid-size city that was occupied from the Preclassic and Early Classic with a subsequent population fluorescence in the Late

Classic and continued occupation into the Post Classic before abandonment. By 700 AD the population is estimated at 50, 000 people. Population was not confined to the site center of La

Milpa and spread out in a radius perhaps exceeding 3 – 5 km (Tourtellot, Rose, and Hammond,

1996; Tourtellot et al. 2003), and for at least one kilometer east of Turtle Pond before settlement density declines (Nicholas Dunning, personal communication, 2005).

As there were few reservoirs in La Milpa, the available stored water would not have supported the entirety of the population. Turtle Pond would have been a valuable water resource. Large agricultural fields may not have been prevalent due to lack of open space

(Tourtellot et al. 2003). Instead, garden plots associated with house groups, were likely utilized

(Lohse and Findlay 2000; Tourtellot 1993). Household garden plots serve to supplement food

supply as well as provide an economic source for individuals and families. The density and

dispersion of population at La Milpa likely necessitated the use of household gardens.

Turtle Pond is located in the Three Rivers Region, an area heavily influenced by limestone faulting (Dunning et al. 1999, 2003; Kunen 2004). Scarborough and Valdez (2003:3) describe four ecological zones as defined by Brokaw and Mallory (1993). The first is the La

Lucha uplands – the same limestone plateau that continues west into the Peten of Guatemala and north to Mexico. Second, to the east, are the Río Bravo Terrace Uplands. It includes the escarpment as well as the drop to the Río Bravo. Third is the Río Bravo Embayment, east of the

Río Bravo Embayment. It is comprised of a seasonally inundated floodplain of the Río Bravo.

Finally, and still further east, are the Booth’s River Uplands.

The lowest point in the vicinity is Booth’s River at elevations of less than 20m above

mean sea level (msl) while the height exceeds 200 msl along the La Lucha Escarpment (Beach et

al. 2003). Within the graben valleys as well as localized low points on the upland horsts, water

accumulates and forms bajos and aguadas (Beach et al. 2003).

Karst topography dominates Belize with a number of upward thrusted and sunken blocks.

No exception, Turtle Pond is on a thrusted block but in a localized depression. The area

surrounding the reservoir is generally flat and so ideally suited for agriculture and settlement.

However, along the topography in the vicinity of Turtle Pond, the soils grade through Lithic

Rendolls, Rendolls, Cumulic Rendolls, Vertic Rendolls, and Vertisols, depending primarily on

water movement through the soils (Dunning, personal communication 2005). The primary

differences between each of the soils is the amount of rock and clay; Lithic Rendolls are

comparatively elevated and will have more rock and less clay whereas Vertisols are in an area

that is low-lying and seasonally inundated so has a higher clay content and less rock. Nearest to

Turtle Pond the soils are Vertisols, grading into Vertic Rendolls with Cumulic Rendolls to the

west (Dunning, pers. comm. 2005).

There are three local rivers that drain the area, however none are near to Turtle Pond.

The first, and closest, is the Río Bravo which flows from Guatemala southwest to northeast, locally called Chan Chich Creek. It is located 9 km southeast of La Milpa (Scarborough et al.

1995). Booth’s River is to the east and is joined by Chan Chich Creek. Río Azul, Blue Creek in

Belize, flows eastward from Guatemala, and joins the other two rivers to form the Río Hondo

(Dunning et al. 2003; Kunen 2004).

Local vegetation is a subtropical moist forest with a medium-high, broadleaf, evergreen

forest and a few dry-season deciduous trees. The interior canopy of palm species include corozo

and hardwoods like mahogany and cedar (Beach et al. 2003; Dunning et al. 2003). Much of the

vegetation surrounding Turtle Pond has been disturbed, however there is a cohune palm forest

immediately to the south.

One complication in the analysis of this landscape is that in the past 3000 years the

ancient Maya were not the only group manipulating the environment. In the 1930s, a chiclero

camp for the extraction of chicle resin camped in the vicinity and used the water of Turtle Pond.

In the 1950-70s the Mennonites used the land for farming, but in attempting to enlarge the agauda they displaced some of the basal clays and subsequently the reservoir became less water retentive. Afterwards, the land was bought by Coca Cola and in 1988 the Programme for Belize was established. As the main PfB camp is less than 50 m away, and because an interpretive garden beside Turtle Pond and a bridge across Turtle Pond encourage visitors, the aguada is continually affected by human activity.

Figure 3.1. Contour map of Turtle Pond showing the location of sub-operations.

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

Excavations at Turtle Pond, Belize took place mid-June through early July 2004. Each

subop was excavated with a specific purpose, as described below. The main tool used for excavation was a pick-axe. Due to the massive and cohesive properties of the clay sediment, a wire screen was inefficient so screening was done by hand. Artifacts were collected in the field and counted in the lab. At the close of excavations, all subops were backfilled. Additionally, points on the landscape were taken with a transit so that a topographic map could be constructed.

EXCAVATION UNITS

Sub-operation A: Subop A was located on the northwest side of Turtle Pond in a slight

depression (Figure 4.1). It was placed to investigate aspects of the depression, specifically, was

there an exit canal for water in the reservoir. The size of the unit was 2mx2m and is oriented

north south. Excavations proceeded in arbitrary levels for 2 m below datum (BD) to basal clay.

Sub-operation B: Subop B was situated at the south and west end of Turtle Pond atop a

rock pile (Figure 4.2). This rock pile was investigated for several reasons. An initial hypothesis

suggested that this was a diversionary feature directing water into the aguada. Subsequent

thinking posited an activity platform, a collection point for chert cobbles, or a French drain (see

Lohse and Findlay 2000). The land surface around Subop B slopes down rather steeply to the

aguada, Turtle Pond, in the north. Land rises gently to the east and is rather flat immediately to

the south and west but has a slight upward slope. The unit was 2mx2m oriented north-south.

The surface exposure of the rock pile was not continuous; the central third of the unit, a line

running approximately north-south, was nearly 100% rock. However, the eastern third had very

little rock coverage, and a section in the northwest had approximately 5% rock coverage. The

final southwest section had approximately 80% rock coverage. The east side of the unit was

slightly raised above the western side with a slope of approximately 20%. Excavations

proceeded in arbitrary levels to a depth of 80 cm BD.

Sub-operation C: Subop C was placed east of Subop A within the basin of the aguada

and near the present –day water line. The purpose of this subop was to investigate the possibility

of an exit gate, as hypothesized for Subop A, and to obtain a general soil profile to best

understand the changes and modifications that occurred within the aguada. Subop C was

1mx2m, its long axis oriented east-west. Excavations proceeded in arbitrary levels to a depth of

1 m BD.

Sub-operations D and E: Subops D and E were placed next to each other at the south

portion of the Turtle Pond down slope from Subop B (Figure 4.3). They were in an area that was

potentially a silting tank. Excavations of Subops D and E intended to investigate the possible

presence of a berm which would lend credence to the hypothesis that this area was a silting tank.

Each unit was 1mx2m, creating a 1mx4m trench with the long axis oriented north-south.

Excavations proceeded in arbitrary levels to a depth of 80 cm BD in Subop D and to 60 cm BD

in Subop E.

Sub-operation F: In addition to the above excavations, one sediment core from the center

of the pond provided, sediment analysis, a pollen profile, and two radiocarbon dates. The core

sample offers a greater sediment, and therefore time depth than the excavations. Because the

core was from the now submerged interior of the aguada, it illustrates a different sedimentation

environment than that apparent from the excavated pond margins. Due to the fact that the

sediments in Turtle Pond were continually wet and rich in organics, pollen was preserved and

shown to date back to the ancient Maya occupation as attested to by radiocarbon dates on organic

matter.

SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

Sediment analysis was performed on three sets of samples: Subop A, Subop C, and

Subop F. All three sets underwent organic matter content and textural analysis. Organic matter

is highest at the surface (Gerrard 2000). Organic matter content is an indicator of past

environment as well as human occupation and human activities will alter the percentage of

organic matter in the soil (Stein 1992). Likewise, soil texture analysis illustrates changes with

depth relating to formation processes. Assessment of both organic matter content and texture

allow inferences about the natural and anthropogenic formation processes affecting the soil, both

in the present and in the past.

The core was sampled in two locations for radiocarbon dates. Because sediments in the

core are high in organics, a bulk humate date is acceptable. There are, however, some problems

associated with bulk humate dating, primarily the admixture of younger and older carbon thereby

skewing the resultant age (Stein 1993). Nevertheless, it is appropriate to date the organics in the sediment because it provides a range of dates that allow inferences about the rate of deposition and the possibility that the reservoir was dredged by the Maya. Also, the two date ranges can be correlated with the pollen analysis permitting relative ages to be assigned to a reconstruction of local vegetative history.

A count of pollen grains was performed on samples taken from the core. Because the

sediment was kept wet almost constantly, pollen was well preserved and found dating back to the

ancient Maya occupation. A reconstruction of the vegetation in the area surrounding Turtle Pond

permits an examination of the past vegetation, how the Maya altered it, and any subsequent changes. However, the core did not reach pre-Maya sediments so it only elucidates the vegetation as lived in by the Maya and how it changed after they abandoned it.

Figure 4.1. Location of sub-op A, a 2mx2m excavation unit. The photograph is facing north and the dip to the reservoir is to the east (right ).

Figure 4.2. Sub-op B and the anomalous surface exposure of chert cobbles. The photo is facing north and the excavation unit measures 2mx2m.

Figure 4.3. Subops D (background) and E (foreground). Each excavation unit measures 1mx2m for a total of 1mx4m. Photo is facing south and upslope.

CHAPTER 5 EXCAVATIONS

SUB-OPERATION A

Lot 1 of Subop A excavated a 2mx2m unit to a depth of 30 cm BD. The surface of the

unit was covered by grass and the humus was minimal to non-existent. Root penetration was not

deep, extending only a few centimeters. The dominant sediment matrix was a dark grey clay with approximately 10% unworked chert nodules, pebble to cobble size. Twenty four pieces of lithic debitage and two stone tools were collected and catalogued (Table 5.1). Debitage includes only flakes and flake fragments whereas the description of tools includes cores and bifacially worked flakes.

Lot 2 extended the full 2mx2m unit to a depth of 50 cm BD. The dark grey clay

continued downwards but was replaced by mottled grey clay ranging from dark grey to bright

medium grey to light grey. Mottles of reddish brown, probably oxidized iron appear in the

medium grey clay indicating periodic dessication. Throughout the clay matrix there was

considerable well-preserved, minimally decomposed organic matter including twigs, roots, and

leaves. Chert nodules of pebble to cobble size were also throughout the clay. Many unworked

chert nodules were identified in Lot 1, but most had minimal evidence for working such as the

removal of a single flake. Five ceramic sherds, 47 pieces of lithic debitage and 16 tools were

collected and catalogued.

Lot 3 extended the 2mx2m unit to a depth of 70 cm BD. The mottling of the clay

continued but graded into light grey clay that was less sticky than the above darker clays.

Minimally decayed organic matter such as leaves and seeds were present in greater quantities in the light and medium grey clay. Thirteen pieces of lithic debitage and five tools were collected.

Lot 4 extended the 2mx2m unit to 100 cm BD. The mottling of clays and the presence of

organic matter continued through Lot 4. A number of un-worked, fist-sized chert cobbles were located on the top surface of the light grey clay. Fourteen ceramic body sherds, 66 pieces of lithic debitage and two tools were collected.

Lot 5 divides the 2mx2m unit in half with only the east 1mx2m section excavated. Lot 5

descended to a depth of 125 cm BD. The same grey mottled clay matrix continues. A single

ceramic body sherd, 51 pieces of debitage and three tools were collected.

Lot 6 was excavated as a 1mx1.78m to a depth of 150 cm BD. The grey mottling

continued into Lot 6 but became dominated by a very light grey clay containing no cultural

artifacts and a dark grey clay containing few artifacts. Only six pieces of lithic debitage were

collected.

Lot 7 consisted of the northeastern 1mx1m portion of Subop A. It was excavated to a depth of 175 cm BD. The dark and light clays that appeared in Lot 6 continued in an interfingering pattern. No artifacts were collected.

Lot 8 extended the 1mx1m unit to a depth of 200 cm BD. Only the light grey clay was

present and no cultural artifacts were found.

Both the east and north walls of Subop A were profiled (Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). The

profiles showed basal clay with a subsequent introduction of dark organic rich clay until a depth of approximately 120 cm BD. Between the depths of approximately 50 cm BD and 120 cm BD the clay is gleyed. Above the gleyed clays is a brown clay that conforms generally to the present-day surface. The latter matrix is approximately 20cm thick and has the highest artifact concentration. Above the brown layer are the A horizons. Soil samples were taken only from

the east wall at intervals of 10 cm below the surface for a total of 18 samples. Each sample was described (Table 5.2) and tested for organic matter content, as well as its texture.

Analysis of organic matter in Subop A revealed that it can be divided into four sections

(Table 5.3, Figure 5.4). The first includes Samples 1-4 and corresponds to the present surface as well as the hypothesized surface that was modified by the ancient Maya. The second group is representing Samples 5-11 and represents a gleyed portion of the profile. Group 3 ranges from

Samples 12-14 and is an ancient surface. The final group encompasses Samples 15-18 and is representative of a basal clay.

Organic content at the surface is at its highest level. Throughout the first four samples organic matter decreases and increases again. Samples 3 and 4 may be representative of an older surface as evidenced by both the increase in organic matter and a bright brown speckling.

Organic matter content is variable through the gleyed samples, ranging from a low of zero to a high of 4.65%. Such variation is expected because argilloturbation, the shrinking and swelling and subsequent movement of clays, distributes organic matter variously throughout

Samples 5-11. Argilloturbation is clearly evident in the pushing up and pulling down of soil horizons and in the abundance of slickensides (contraction/ expansion pressure surfaces) within the clay horizons.

Organic matter peaks again in Samples 12-14, the buried soil. That organic matter peak correlates with a darker color and verifies that this is a buried soil. It is possible that this surface was buried by erosion initiated by nearby deforestation.

Essentially no organic matter is present in the basal clay. Samples 15-17 have zero and sample 18 has a negligible 0.9% organic matter.

There are minimal variations in sediment texture throughout the entire profile (Table 5.4).

The majority of grain size in each sample, from 94.74- 99.94%, is clay. There is a peak in the second sample at 99.94% clay, an increase of between four and five percent from the samples above and below it. The higher clay content in Sample 2 suggest that it was at a lower point that held still water because clay particles settled out.

Table 5.1. Artifact counts in Subop A by lot.

Lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Debitage 24 47 13 66 51 6 0 0 Tools 2 16 5 2 3 0 0 0 Ceramics 0 5 0 14 1 0 0 0 Total 26 68 18 82 55 6 0 0

Figure 5.1. East wall of sub-op A at the bottom of Lot 8. The unit measures 2mx2m on the surface and extends to a maximum depth of 2 m in the northeast corner.

Figure 5.2. Profile of the east wall of Subop A.

Figure 5.3. Profile of the north wall of Subop A.

Table 5.2. Description of soil horizons in Subop A.

Horizon Color Texture Structure Other Features i 7.5 YR 2.5/1 clay subangular blocky minimal but visible black histic matter ii 2.5 Y 4/1 clay weak subangular claier than the two dark grey blocky surrounding horizons iii 2.5 Y 4/1 clay weak subangular oxidized orange-red dark grey blocky (7.5 YR 4/6) flecks throughout iv 10 YR 4/1 clay massive with the extensively gleyed dark grey exception of area Gley 1 3/N slickensides very dark grey Gley 2 3/10B very dark bluish grey Gley 1 5/5GY greenish grey v Gley 1 2.5/N clay massive with the buried A horizon black exception of high organic clay slickensides vi Gley 1 7/10Y clay massive with the basal clay light greenish exception of grey slickensides

Table 5.3. Percent organic matter in Subop A.

Sample 1 2345678 9 depth cm below surface 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 sediment before burn (g) 3.8 7.1 2.9 3.5 3.3 4.3 5.1 4.9 4.1 sediment after burn (g) 3.5 6.9 2.8 3.3 3.3 4.1 5 4.7 4.1 difference (g) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 % organic matter 7.89 2.82 3.45 5.71 0.00 4.65 1.96 4.08 0.00

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 4.5 5.3 6.1 6.5 5.7 6.8 5.8 7.1 5.5 4.45 5.275 5.9 6.4 5.5 6.8 5.8 7.1 5.45

0.05 0.025 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0.05

1.11 0.47 3.28 1.54 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00 (%) (%) 4.00

Organic Matter Content Organic 3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 123456789101112131415161718 Sample Number

Figure 5.4. Graph of percent organic matter in Subop A.

Table 5.5. Texture of sediments in Subop A by percent frequency.

Coarse Sample Depth Clay Silt Fine Sand Sand cm below 0.375 - 2.011 - 20.71 - 194.2 - surface 2.010μm 20.70μm 194.1μm 2000μm 1 0 95.16 4.826 0.013 0.001 2 10 99.94 0.061 0.000 0.000 3 20 95.93 4.068 0.002 0.000 4 30 95.06 4.936 0.007 0.000 5 40 95.20 4.799 0.005 0.000 6 50 95.54 4.458 0.005 0.000 7 60 96.26 3.733 0.004 0.003 8 70 97.14 2.850 0.009 0.001 9 80 95.96 4.038 0.004 0.000 10 90 94.98 5.129 0.008 0.000 11 100 95.16 4.830 0.010 0.000 12 110 96.89 3.099 0.012 0.000 13 120 96.45 3.544 0.005 0.001 14 130 97.05 2.941 0.006 0.003 15 140 95.09 4.897 0.009 0.004 16 150 96.01 3.983 0.010 0.000 17 160 94.74 5.253 0.006 0.001 18 170 95.58 4.406 0.017 0.000

SUB-OPERATION B

Lot 1 consisted of the eastern third of a 2mx2m unit, an area that had virtually no rocks

on the surface, east of the central third that had total rock coverage. Beneath the surface,

especially pronounced in the northern section, rock volume approached 100%. The matrix was

dark brown, at the very surface it was crumbly but became more clayey with depth. The final

depth of Lot 1 was 30 cm BD. Nine pieces of debitage and four tools were collected (Table 5.5).

Lot 2 consisted of the western and lowest third of the unit, and it was excavated to a depth of 50 cm BD. Rock coverage ranged from 5% in the northern section to 80% in the southern section. Beneath the surface, there were many large chert cobbles and the sediment matrix mirrored that of Lot 1, dry and crumbly near the top increasing in clay content with depth.

A total of 88 pieces of debitage and 19 tools were collected.

Lot 3 consisted of the central third of the unit as well as the eastern portion, all to a depth of 50 cm BD. The density and size of rocks as well as the sediment below the surface of Lot 3 was exactly the same as both Lots 1 and 2. A total of 72 pieces of debitage and five tools were collected.

Lot 4 consisted of the entire 2mx2m unit to a depth of 80 cm BD. The matrix became

more clayey with depth, and the rocks did not decrease in density or size (Figure 5.5). Lithics were recovered, but they had not been catalogued by the end of the 2004 season.

Neither a profile nor soil samples were taken from Subop B because there was not

enough differentiation of sediment to warrant it.

Table 5.5. Artifact counts in Subop B by lot.

Lot 1 2 3 4 Debitage 9 88 72 / Tools 4 19 5 / Ceramics 0 0 0 / Total 13 107 77 /

Figure 5.5. South wall of Subop B at the bottom of Lot 4, 80 cm BD. The excavation unit measures 2mx2m.

SUB-OPERATION C

Lot 1 consisted of the entire 1x2m unit excavated to a depth of 30 cm BD. There was

minimal surface vegetation though roots penetrated the Lot. The unit sloped gently eastwards,

approximately a 7% slope, towards the water. The sediment was a dark brown becoming dark

grey, crumbly and viscous towards the surface and increasing in clay content with depth. Seven pieces of lithic debitage were collected (Table 5.6).

Lot 2 extended the 1mx2m unit to a depth of 50 cm BD. With increasing depth, the clay

became wetter than Lot 1. Roots continued downwards, but fewer were present than in Lot 1.

Some ceramic sherds were believed to have been found but because they quickly degraded could

not be collected. A single piece of lithic debitage as well as a piece of manufactured glass were

collected.

Lot 3 extended the 1mx2m unit to a depth of 75 cm BD. The sediment in this Lot

became very wet and sticky. Very few roots were present but decaying organic matter and

associated worms were noted. No ceramics were recovered but one lithic and one tool were

collected.

Lot 4 extended the east 1x1m section of the unit to a depth of 100 cm BD. Wet, dark

grey clay continued to the base of the unit with many roots and decaying organic matter. Four

ceramic body sherds were recovered in Lot 4.

The north wall of Subop C was photographed, profiled and soil samples were taken

(Figure 5.6 and 5.7). The lowermost level, extending from 70 cm BD to the base, was dark grey

and gleyed. Above that was a dark grey clay layer approximately 20 cm thick. From

approximately 30 cm BD to 40 cm BD was a mottled grey clay corresponding roughly to the

brown layer above the gleyed clay in Subop A. The surface horizon of Subop C was a dark grey

clay.

Organic matter content in Subop C shows little variation (Table 5.7, Figure 5.8). The

range is from a high of 1.79% in Sample 6 to a low of 0.30% in Sample 7. There is no obvious pattern in the distribution of organic matter through the profile, so it is likely of a natural, as opposed to anthropogenic, origin. It is possible that excavations did not proceed deep enough to reveal a substantially different horizon.

Similar to the organic matter readings, there is minimal variation in texture of the

sediments through the profile (Table 5.8). The sediments are predominantly clay ranging from

95.53-96.26%. Clay accumulation in these layers is expected for two reasons. First, limestone bedrock produces clay when it decomposes. Second, the unit’s placement in a depression would have accumulated clays when the water was still. The high clay content is not necessarily indicative of anthropogenic modifications. Again, excavations may not have proceeded deep enough to reveal a substantially different horizon.

Table 5.6. Artifact count in Subop C by lot.

Lot 1 2 3 4 Debitage 7 1 1 0 Tools 0 0 1 0 Ceramics 0 0 0 4 Total 7 1 2 4

Figure 5.6. Subop C, bottom of Lot 4, excavations complete. The excavation unit measures 1mx2m and the photo is facing north.

Figure 5.7. Profile of the north wall of Subop C.

Table 5.7. Description of sediments in Subop C.

Horizon Color Texture Structure Other Features i 2.5 Y 3/1 clay massive visible histic and fibric very dark grey material small white inclusions moist ii 2.5 Y 3/1 clay massive oxidized orange-red (5 YR very dark grey 5/8) flecks throughout moist iii 10 YR 3/1 clay massive some roots very dark grey moist iv 5 YR 4/1 clay massive moist dark grey

Table 5.8. Organic matter in Subop C.

Sample 1 234567 depth cm below surface 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 sediment before burn (g) 7.4 6.3 7.5 6.6 5.6 7.55 8.45 sediment after burn (g) 7.3 6.2 7.45 6.5 5.5 7.5 8.425 difference (g) 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.025 % organic matter 1.35 1.59 0.67 1.52 1.79 0.66 0.30

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00 (%)

0.80 Organic Matter Content Organic

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 1234567 Sample Number

Figure 5.8. Graph of organic matter content in Subop C.

Table 5.9. Texture of sediments in Subop C by percent frequency.

Coarse Sample Depth Clay Silt Fine Sand Sand cm below 0.375 - 2.011 - 20.71 - 194.2 - surface 2.010μm 20.70μm 194.1μm 2000μm 1 10 95.83 4.157 0.010 0.003 2 20 95.53 4.455 0.010 0.005 3 30 95.98 4.096 0.011 0.000 4 40 96.21 3.784 0.006 0.000 5 50 95.94 4.056 0.005 0.000 6 60 96.01 3.989 0.004 0.000 7 70 96.26 3.734 0.004 0.002

SUB-OPERATION D

Lot 1 consisted of a 1mx2m unit on approximately an 8% slope towards Subop E and the

bottom of the aguada. It was excavated to a depth of 40cm BD because the lowest point in the

sloping unit was already below 30 cm BD. Almost no humus covered the Lot but roots from

nearby trees crossed and penetrated the ground. The dominant sediment was a dark grey clay

with approximately 30% rock of both chert and limestone. Nineteen pieces of lithic debitage

were recovered (Table 5.10).

Lot 2 excavated the 1mx2m unit to a depth of 60 cm BD except where a concentration of

rocks was present. Large rocks and clusters of rocks were maintained in place in order to discern

any feature that might not have been naturally formed (Figure 5.9). Dark grey clay continued

throughout the Lot. Lithics and ceramics were recovered as was a plastic toothbrush but nothing

had been catalogued by the end of the 2004 season.

Lot 3 consisted of the 1mx3m unit excavated to a depth of 60 cm BD. The rocks that were left from Lot 2 were not densely packed and had the same dark grey clay matrix as was present in Lot 2 between them. Lithics were collected but none had been catalogued by the end

of the 2004 season.

Lot 4 consisted of the southern 1x1m section of Subop D, bordering on Subop E, to a depth of 80 cm BD (Figure 5.10). Rocks became frequent and uniformly tightly packed through the Lot. Stones range in size from 5-15 cm. The clay matrix began the same as in above lots but became a mottled light greenish grey and yellowish red. Few lithics were recovered and none were catalogued by the end of the 2004 field season.

Neither a profile nor soil samples were taken due to the minimal differentiation of horizons. Also, time did not permit further excavation which may have been of great benefit at

this subop.

Table 5.10. - Artifact count in Subop D by lot.

Lot 1 2 3 4 Debitage 19 / / / Tools 0 / / / Ceramics 0 / / / Total 19 / / /

SUB-OPERATION E

Subop E was a 1x2m unit adjacent and to the north of Subop D. Lot 1 sloped to a lesser

extent than Subop D, only 4-5%. Surface cover was minimal with Lot 1 mirroring Lot 1 of

Subop D. It was excavated to a depth of 40 cm BD. The dominant sediment was a dark grey clay with many chert nodules ranging in size from 5 cm to upwards of 20 cm in diameter. In the northeast corner, there was a concentration of large cobbles with small limestone pebbles mixed

within. A total of 31 pieces of lithic debitage from all stages of reduction were collected.

Lot 2 was excavated to a depth of 60 cm BD except in areas where stones clustered.

Stones, as in Subop D Lot 2, were left in place in order to discern any patterning (Figures 5.9 and

5.10). The sediment was a dark grey clay. Some lithics, ceramics, and a plastic bag were

recovered but none were catalogued by the end of the 2004 field season.

Neither a profile nor soil samples were taken due to the minimal differentiation of

horizons. Also, time did not permit further excavation which may have been of great benefit at

this Subop.

Table 5.11. Artifact count of Subop E by lot.

Lot 1 2 Debitage 31 / Tools 0 / Ceramics 0 / Total 31 /

Figure 5.9. Subops D and E at the bottom of Lot 2. The photo is looking south and upslope.

Figure 5.10. Subop D at the bottom of Lot 4, Subop E at the bottom of Lot 2. The photo is looking south and upslope.

SUB-OPERATION F

Subop F consists of three soil cores, Lots 1, 2, and 3, taken from the center of Turtle

Pond. Only Lot 2 was examined. Lot 2 consists of 43 cm of sediments which compressed to

approximately half the original length during extraction (Figure 5.11, Table 5.12). Organic

matter content, textural analysis, radiocarbon dating, and pollen analysis were performed on

samples of the core.

Organic matter in the sediment core declines steadily with depth (Table 5.13, Figure

5.12). The top portion of the core contains 10.34% organic matter, and it drops to a low of

0.78% organic matter in the lowest level. A steady decline of organic matter is expected from

within the extraction site of the core. In the still water environment of the pond, organic matter

settled on the surface of the sediment where it decomposed and was slowly incorporated into

deeper sediments. No anthropogenic alterations are discernable in the organic matter of the soil

core.

Sediment in the core is primarily clay ranging from 96.38 - 97.40% (Table 5.14). As this

area is a concave basin that only contains still water, a high clay content is expected. Again,

there are no anthropogenic modifications implied by the high clay content in the core.

Two ages were obtained with radiocarbon dating. The first (Beta 202717) was from a

sample taken at 30-35 cm into the depth of the core. The resultant age is 1740 +/- 40 BP (Cal

AD 220-400). The second sample (Beta 202718) was taken from 15-18 cm into the depth of the

core and it returned an age of 960 +/- 50 BP (Cal AD 990 – 1190). Neither date is associated

with peak ancient Maya occupation, but demonstrates the range of time between depositions. If

the time range were wide, extending from the earliest Maya occupation known in the area

(approximately 0) to a period only a few centuries ago, then it would have to be assumed that

sediments are missing because the Maya dredged the reservoir. However, if the time range

spanned a shorter period, from known Maya occupation to within the past few centuries, then it

can be assumed that the base of the reservoir contains a continuous deposition of sediments throughout occupation and that pollen would have been preserved. Because of this latter situation, pollen analysis was performed on the core sediments.

Pollen analysis illustrates that the early period was dominated by grasses and weeds

including a small amount of maize pollen (Figure 13). Some species of trees that were

economically viable for the ancient Maya also appear. Following that is a reforestation of the

area, indicated by the increase in fern and arboreal pollens. Because of the presence of water lily

and other pollens from aquatic plants, that Turtle Pond was an aguada and remained constantly

wet is strongly suggested (John Jones, personal communication to Nick Dunning, 2005).

Figure 5.11. Photograph of the sediment core in half sections.

Table 5.12. Description of the sediments in Subop F, Lot 2.

Depth cm Color Texture Structure Other Features 0-2.5 10YR 2/2 clay massive, visible histic material, very dark organic structureless, some leafy matter brown clay compressed 2.6-11 2.5Y 3/1 clay weak subangular no visible organics except very dark grey blocky for a few small root hairs, small snail shell 11.1-19 2.5Y 4/1 clay weak subangular small snail shells dark grey blocky no visible organics, few root hairs small, faint red-orange mottles 19.1-24 2.5Y 3/1 clay weak subangular few root hairs very dark grey blocky, becoming faint mottling continues weaker and slightly platy due to smaller compression 24.1- 2.5Y 2.5/1 clay massive with the red inclusions 38.5 black exception of decomposing roots slickensides micro slickensides 38.6-43 2.5Y 3/1 clay massive and few limestone pebbles very dark grey dense, few small, widely scattered, slickensides red-orange mottles absent

Table 5.13. Organic matter content in Subop F, Lot 2.

Sample 1 23456 11.1- 19.1- 24.1- 38.6- depth cm 0-2.5 2.6-11 19 24 38.5 43 sediment before burn (g) 2.9 3.8 5.3 6.6 6.6 6.4 sediment after burn (g) 2.6 3.6 5.2 6.5 6.5 6.35 difference (g) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 % organic matter 10.34 5.26 1.89 1.52 1.52 0.78

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00 (%) Organic Matter Content Organic 4.00

2.00

0.00 123456 Sample Number

Figure 5.12. Graph of organic matter content in Subop F, Lot 2.

Table 5.14. Sediment texture in Subop F, Lot 2 by percent frequency.

Sample Clay Silt Fine Sand Coarse Sand 0.375 - 2.011 - 20.71 - cm into core 2.010μ 20.70μ 194.1μ 194.2 - 2000μ 0 - 2.5 / / / / 2.6 - 11 96.59 3.409 0.004 0.000 11.1 - 19 96.77 3.228 0.006 0.000 19.1 - 24 96.75 3.246 0.050 0.000 24.1 - 38.5 96.38 3.608 0.007 0.005 38.6 - 43 97.40 2.598 0.004 0.000

Figure 5.13. Pollen diagram for Turtle Pond.

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION

SUB-OPERATION A

Subop A was excavated to investigate the possibility of an exit canal from Turtle Pond.

The depression in the area of Subop A, compared to the slightly elevated land a few meters on the north and south sides, suggests an exit canal. The stratigraphy, number of cultural artifacts, and sediment analysis were used to elucidate a function for the depression in Subop A.

Within the stratigraphy of Subop A, there is a dip on the east wall that generally conforms to the surface, visible as a brown horizon approximately 10 cm below the surface with a vertical extension of 15 cm. On the north wall profile, the same horizon dips at the same depth westwards. The fact that the dip appears as a distinct horizon in both the east and north walls of

Subop A supports the hypothesis that there was canalization of Turtle Pond.

Artifact counts peak twice throughout Subop A, first in Lot 2, then in Lot 4. A total of 68 artifacts occur in Lot 2. Lot 2 corresponds to the dipped surface, minus the lowest portion of the dip. Again, the hypothesis that Subop A represents an exit canal is supported by the high count of artifacts in Lot 2. One of the artifacts was a bifacial tool interpreted to be a hoe and used for agricultural purposes.

The second peak of artifacts, 84, occurs in Lot 4. Lot 5 also has a high number of artifacts at 55. Lots 4 and 5 correspond roughly to the bottom of the gleyed section and the buried organic soil horizon. Although it is possible that argilloturbation is responsible for transporting artifacts up and down, the high count of artifacts in Lots 4 and 5 suggest that the buried soil horizon may also have been a basal surface that was used by the ancient Maya. The fact that no artifacts occur in Lots 7 and 8, and only six pieces of debitage occur in Lot 6, suggest that occupation does not occur below Lots 7 and 8.

Textural analysis and organic matter analysis also suggest two occupational levels within

Subop A. Sample 2 of the textural analysis identifies a high clay content at 99.94%, and a low silt content at 0.06% with no significant fine and coarse sand components. Because clay only settles out of suspension when water is very still, the high clay content suggests that water accumulated in this depression for some time in the past.

Organic matter analysis shows a high reading on the surface, as expected. A second

relative peak occurs in samples 12-14, in horizon v that is dark in color and at the deepest limit

of artifact retrieval. Samples 12-14 horizon v represent a paleosol, a past surface that is likely

associated with ancient Maya activity. According to many scholars (ex, Dunning and Beach

1994, 2000; Dunning et al 2002; Dunning et al. 1998), ancient Maya occupation increased

deforestation and sedimentation. As a depression, sediments accumulated in and around Turtle

Pond burying what was the surface. The water levels in the aguada also increased at least

seasonally as evidenced by the gleyed section between horizon v and horizons i and ii.

SUB-OPERATION B

The chert cobble exposure upon which Subop B was situated was investigated to further

elucidate ancient Maya water management at Turtle Pond. Another identical surface exposure of

chert cobbles occurs slightly east and around the upper margins of the aguada, approximately 10

m to the north. Possibilities include a diversionary feature, a platform, a collection point for chert cobbles, or a French drain (Lohse and Findlay 2000). Sediment analysis was not performed on sediments in Subop B due to a lack of matrix differentiation.

Excavations revealed a tight mass of chert cobbles intermixed with a high number of

lithic debitage and tools; in Lot 1 there was a total of 13, Lot 2 had 107, and Lot 3 had 77. The presence of numerous chert cobbles in the vicinity of an aguada is not unexpected as chert forms in limestone and when weathered, chert cobbles emerge. Because chert was a prime material in tool manufacutre, it is not unexpected to find many pieces of debitage associated with the testing of cobbles (Kunen 2004; Kunen and Hughbanks 2003).

There is, however, one explanation that may give credence to the placement of the chert

cobbles both at Subop B as well as to the east of the operation although, because no sediment

samples were taken from Subop B, it cannot be tested empirically. Both outside and into the

aguada from Subop B the slope increases downward. During heavy rains water would have

rushed into the aguada, gaining velocity and eroding the ground as it flowed down slope. The

excess sediment accumulation flowing into the aguada would otherwise settle on the bottom.

However, with chert cobbles blanketing the area where flowing water gained the greatest

velocity, significant erosion could not take place. Water would have been slowed down and any

sediment it had acquired is posited to have been dropped. Water would enter the aguada

relatively sediment free.

SUB-OPERATION C

Subop C was excavated to verify the presence of a channel at Subop A and ideally

provide a record of sedimentation in the aguada. Sediment samples were taken from Subop C in

to provide information about the depositional history. However, neither the organic matter

content nor the textural analysis provided substantial insight into the anthropogenic

modifications of Turtle Pond. Artifact counts are the best indicator that the ancient Maya were

in the vicinity and using Turtle Pond.

Organic matter content within Subop C does not have a great range of variation, the

highest reading comes from the surface at 1.79% and the lowest organic matter content is at the

base of the unit at 1.79%. The range is only 1.49% and does not show significant variation.

Likewise, the texture does not change radically with depth, clay content is maintained around

96%. No human modifications can be deduced from the organic matter content or the textural

analysis of Subop C.

Artifacts that were recovered from Subop C confirm that the ancient Maya were in the vicinity of Turtle Pond. The majority of the artifacts – seven pieces of debitage – were in Lot 1 which could have been washed in from above more recently. A bifacial tool was found in Lot 3 and four ceramic sherds were found in Lot 4. The presence of artifacts in Subop C confirm that the ancient Maya were in the area, however, excavations in did not proceed deep enough to verify the presence of a channel.

SUB-OPERATIONS D and E

Subops D and E are considered jointly because their excavation proceeded with the same goal; to determine if the area was used as a silting tank. The excavations did not reveal a stone alignment or other features indicative of a berm boundary for a silting tank. Nor were artifact counts particularly illustrative. Samples were not taken for organic matter content or textural analysis and a profile sketch was not performed because the excavation did not proceed deep enough.

SUB-OPERATION F

Subop F Lot 2, a sediment core, was exhumed to examine a more extensive sediment depositional history than was available from excavation alone. In addition, samples were taken for organic matter content, textural analysis, radiocarbon dating, and pollen analysis.

Analysis of the sediments, both organic matter content and textural analysis, demonstrated natural accumulations. The organic matter content in Subop F is to be expected; it is significantly higher on the surface and steadily decreases with depth. Because organic matter accumulates on the bottom surface of the aguada and is transported in lesser amounts downwards, there is no necessary evidence of anthropogenic alterations. Likewise, the textural analysis does not show any abnormalities or signs of anthropogenic activity. Clay dominates the sediment at approximately 96% throughout the entirety.

Two radiocarbon ages from the upper and lower portions of the core are 960 +/- 50 BP

(Beta 202718) and 1740 +/- 40 BP (Beta 202717). Each date has been calibrated to two sigmas to AD 990-1186, 1201-1205 for the upper portion of the core and AD 176-190, 212-409 for the lower portion of the core (see Table 6.1). Neither date is directly associated with ancient Maya occupation and the use of Turtle Pond, but when correlated with the pollen data they provide an approximate range of occupation in the vicinity of Turtle Pond.

The oldest sections of the pollen diagram, from approximately 22cm and deeper, illustrate a predominance of grass pollen and a single grain of maize pollen. Grass pollen in such quantity and the paucity of arboreal pollens are indicative of clearing, likely for settlement and agriculture. Above 22cm, there is evidence of reforestation as the grass pollen subsides, fern pollen increases, and arboreal pollens dominate. Reforestation would occur when the ancient

Maya abandoned the use of Turtle Pond (John Jones, personal communication to Nick Dunning,

2005). Using the radiocarbon ages, the abandonment of Turtle Pond occurred before AD 990 –

1190. The time period is generally consistent with abandonment of other Maya sites in the area.

Table 6.1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates (Calib 5.0 2005).

Sample Radiocarbon Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates AD Age BP 1 Sigma Probability 2 Sigma Probability Beta 202717 1740 +/- 40 243-345 0.986 176-190 0.012 374-375 0.014 212-409 0.988 Beta 202718 960 +/- 50 1022-1053 0.299 990-1086 0.995 1079-1153 0.701 1201-1205 0.005

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS

In this thesis, I have provided evidence that Turtle Pond, an aguada in northwestern

Belize, had been used and modified by the ancient Maya. Three of four crucial indicators were verified; the presence of a channel, a distinctive sediment accumulation, and an unusual surface exposure of chert cobbles on the north and east sides of the reservoir all strongly suggest that the ancient Maya took advantage of a natural topographic low and modified it to provide a consistent water supply for their nearby population. Another crucial indicator, water management related features on the interior surface of the reservoir, was not verified but does not negate the hypothesis.

The presence of a channel was verified repeatedly in Subop A. First, the dip of the land towards the aguada demonstrates that there may have been an ancient channel. The relatively flat land to the west of Turtle Pond is a likely place for settlement and agriculture and would demonstrate a need to direct water in the aguada this direction. Secondly, a distinctive dip in the horizon corresponded to the dip on the surface. The dip had reddish flecks that were not present in other horizons. There was an extension of the A horizon only in the area above the dip, an area containing the highest percentage of clay. That clay settled out there verifies that it was a depression that held still water in the past. Also, the lot that contained the dip had the highest artifact counts in the excavation unit. Among the artifacts was a bifacial tool, likely for an agricultural purpose. The dip as well as artifacts in Subop A prove that the ancient Maya were in the vicinity and using Turtle Pond for water.

A distinctive sedimentary sequence validates that Turtle Pond was a water bearing feature on the landscape. Both organic matter content and textural components of Subops A and C as well as Subop F Lot 2, are expected. The organic matter content in Subop A shows evidence of

a paleosol but in Subop C and F Lot 2 the organic matter content is not out of the ordinary.

Similarly, the textural analysis does not demonstrate an environment unexpected for an aguada.

Pollen analysis, however, exemplifies an anthropogenic sequence in and around Turtle Pond.

What is illustrated is a period dominated by grass pollen followed by a period dominated by

arboreal pollen; the latter a reforestation of the area. Although climate change can cause changes

in vegetation, at Turtle Pond it is more likely that the pollen sequence was affected by human

settlement, demonstrating that the ancient Maya were in the vicinity of Turtle Pond.

The surface exposure of chert cobbles appeared anomalous initially but may be related to

the functioning of Turtle Pond. Subop B, as well as another area to the north and around Turtle

Pond, were of interest because of the surface exposures of numerous chert cobbles. The south

and southeast margins have the steepest slope into the aguada. If water were rushing downhill, it would erode the slope and contribute to the siltation of Turtle Pond. The placement of chert cobbles, naturally available in and close to the aguada, surrounding the steep portions of Turtle

Pond, would decrease erosion by slowing the velocity of the running water and encourage sedimentation before reaching the reservoir. Additionally, the chert cobbles provided an accessible natural resource for tool manufacture. Due to the high number of artifacts within the chert cobble feature, it is unlikely that it originated naturally and therefore demonstrates that the ancient Maya were modifying Turtle Pond.

The final crucial indicator that the ancient Maya used and modified Turtle Pond was the presence of water management features on the interior of the reservoir. None, however, were

definitively located by excavation. Subops D and E were placed so as to recover such data.

They were situated in an area that had a steep slope into the aguada and associated with the point

of greatest sediment infilling. It was posited as a likely place for a silting tank. Excavations did

not proceed far enough to discern the presence of a berm, the wall of a silting tank. The present

lack of a silting tank does not contradict the ancient Maya presence at Turtle Pond.

Pollen does not demonstrate definitively whether Turtle Pond held potable or agricultural water. The presence of pollen from Zea mays demonstrates that there was cultivation of maize in the general area but does not confirm that the destination of the water was for agricultural fields. Similarly, the presence of water lily pollen does not substantiate that the water held in the reservoir was potable. Ultimately, the purpose of the water in Turtle Pond is debatable.

The environment illustrated by the data is that of an area that had been cleared by the

ancient Maya for settlement and agriculture. Turtle Pond was a natural depression in the area

surrounding the core of La Milpa that collected water. In addition to providing water, natural

resources such as chert cobbles were readily available in and around the aguada and

agriculturally productive soils were close by. The aguada was modified to collect and divert

water as needed. Fields and houses to the west needed water so a channel was cut to bring water where it was required. The southeast portion of the reservoir was steep and eroded sediments collected in the reservoir so chert cobbles were used to roughen the slope and discourage erosion.

Chert cobbles on the surface also allowed easy access to a necessary resource. After

approximately five centuries of settlement the area was abandoned.

In this thesis, I have studied Turtle Pond, an aguada that was used as a reservoir by the

ancient Maya and demonstrated how it had been used and modified. As water is a vital necessity

for life, the examination of water resources at ancient Maya sites illuminate the ways in which

the Maya adapted to and tailored the environment to accommodate an ephemeral water supply.

REFERENCES CITED

Beach, Timothy and Nicholas Dunning 1997 An Ancient Maya Reservoir and Dam at Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 8: 20-29.

Beach, Timothy, Nicholas Dunning, Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach, and Vernon Scarborough 2003 Depression Soils in the Lowland Tropics of Northwestern Belize: Anthropogenic and Natural Origins. In The Lowland Maya Area: Three Millenia at the Human-Wildland Interface, edited by A. Gómez-Pompa, M.F. Allen, S.L. Fedick, and J.J. Jiménez- Osornio, pp. 139-174. Food Products Press, New York.

Beckman Coulter 2005 Product Information. Electronic document, http://www.beckman.com/products/instrument/partChar/pc_ls230.asp, accessed March 31, 2005.

Brokaw, Nicholas V.L. and E. P. Mallory 1993 Vegetation of the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area, Belize. Manomet Bird Observatory, Mass., and the Programme for Belize, Belize City.

Calib 5.0 2005 Radiocarbon Calibration Program Calib Rev 5.0.1. Electronic document, http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/calib/, accessed July 13, 2005.

Coe, Michael D. 1999 The Maya, 6th edition. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Dunning, Nicholas P. 1996 A Reexamination of Regional Variability in the Pre-Hispanic Agricultural Landscape. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 53-69. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Dunning, Nicholas P. and Timothy Beach 1994 Soil Erosion, Slope Management, and Ancient Terracing in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 5: 51-69. 2000 Stability and Instability in Prehispanic Maya Landscapes. In Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas, edited by David 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: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 14-24. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

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

Dunning, Nicholas, David J. Rue, Timothy Beach, Alan Covich, Alfred Traverse 1998 Human-Environment Interactions in a Tropical Watershed: The Paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(2): 139- 151.

Dunning, Nicholas, Vernon Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr, Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach, Timothy Beach, and John G. Jones 1999 Temple Mountains, Sacred Lakes, and Fertile Fields: Ancient Maya Landscapes in Northwestern Belize. Antiquity 73: 650-660.

Fedick, Scott L. [editor] 1996 The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Fedick, Scott L. 1996 An Interpretive Kaleidoscope: Alternative Perspectives on Ancient Agricultural Landscapes of the Maya Lowlands. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 107-131. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Fedick, Scott L. and Anabel Ford 1990 The Prehistoric Agricultural Landscape of the Central Maya Lowlands: An Examination of Local Variability in a Regional Context. World Archaeology 22(1): 18- 33.

Fernand, Danica Marie 2002 Origins and Formation Histories of Prehistoric Terraces of the Medicinal Trail Site, Northwestern Belize. MA thesis. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

Ford, Anabel 1996 Critical Resource Control and the Rise of the Classic Period Maya. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 297- 303. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Gerrard, John 2000 Fundamentals of Soils. Routledge, New York.

Gill, Richardson B. 2000 The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hammond, Norman, Gair Tourtellot III, Sara Donaghey, and Amanda Clarke 1998 No Slow Dusk: Maya Urban Development and Decline in La Milpa, Belize. Antiquity 72: 831-838.

Hansen, Richard D., Steven Bozarth, John Jacob, David Wahl, and Thomas Schreiner 2002 Climatic and Environmental Variability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A Preliminary Perspective from Northern Peten. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 273-295.

Harrison, Peter D. 1977 The Rise of the Bajos and the Fall of the Maya. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory: Studies in honour of Sir Eric Thompson, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 469-508. Academic Press, New York. 1993 Aspects of Water Management in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In Research in Economic Anthropology: Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehispanic New World, Supplement 7, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough and Barry L. Issac, pp. 71- 119. JAI Press, Greeenwich, Connecticut.

Hodell, David A., Mark Brenner, and Jason H. Curtis 2000 Climate Change in the Northern American Tropics and Subtropics since the Last Ice Age: Implications for Environment and Culture. In Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas, edited by David L. Lentz, pp. 13-38. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hodell, David A. Jason H. Curtis, and Mark Brenner 1995 Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of the Maya Civilization. Nature 375: 391- 394.

Jacob, John S 1995 Archaeological Pedology in the Maya Lowlands. In Pedological Perspectives in Archaeological Research, pp. 51-79. Special Publication 44. Madison, Wisconsin, Soil Science Society of America.

Kunen, Julie L. 2004 Ancient Maya Life in the Far West Bajo: Social and Environmental Change in the Wetlands of Belize. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Number 69. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

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: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 92-108. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Lohse, Jon C. and Patrick N. Findlay 2000 A Classic Maya House-Lot Drainage System in Northwestern Belize. Latin American Antiquity 11(2): 175-185.

Lucero, Lisa J. 1999 Water Control and Maya Politics in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In Complex Polities in the Ancient Tropical World, edited by Elisabeth A. Bacus and Lisa J. Lucero, pp. 35-49. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 9.

Matheny, Ray T. 1978 Northern Maya Lowland Water-Control Systems. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, edited by Peter D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, pp. 185-210. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1982 Ancient Lowland and Highland Maya Water and Soil Conservation Strategies. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis Puleston, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 157-203. Academic Press, New York.

Peterson, Larry C. and Gerald H. Haug 2005 Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization. American Scientist 93: 322-329.

Scarborough, Vernon L. 1993 Water Management in the Southern Maya Lowlands: An Accretive Model For the Engineered Landscape. In Research in Economic Anthropology: Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehispanic New World, Supplement 7, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough and Barry Issac, pp. 17-69. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. 1994 Maya Water Management. National Geographic Research and Exploration 10(2): 184-199. 1996 Reservoirs and Watersheds in the Central Maya Lowlands. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, edited by Scott L. Fedick, pp. 304-314. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1998 Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 9(2): 135-139. 2000 Resilience, Resource Use, and Socioeconomic Organization: A Mesoamerican Pathway. In Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, edited by Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft, pp. 195-212. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 7. 2003a The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes. SAR Press, Santa Fe. 2003b Ballcourts and Reservoirs: The Social Construction of a Tropical Karstic Landscape. In Espacios Mayas: Representaciones, Usos, Creencias, edited by Alain Breton, Aurore Mondon Becquelin, and Mario Humberto Ruz, pp. 77-92. Centro de Estudios Mayas, México. 2003c Physical and Cultural Properties of Ancient Water Management. Electronic document, UNESCO, http://greenplanet.eolss.net, accessed January 13, 2003.

Scarborough, Vernon L., Matthew E. Becher, Jeffrey L. Baker, Garry Harris, J.D. Hensz, Nicholas P. Dunning, and Fred Valdez Jr. 1992 Water Management Studies at La Milpa, Belize. Report submitted to National Geographic Society, Department of Archaeology, Government of Belize, Programme for Belize. Manuscript on file in the Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.

Scarborough, Vernon L., Matthew E. Becher, Jeffrey L. Baker, Garry Harris, and Fred Valdez Jr. 1995 Water and Land at the Ancient Maya Community of La Milpa. Latin American Antiquity 6(2): 98-119.

Scarborough, Vernon L. and Gary G. Gallopin 1991 A Water Storage Adaptation in the Maya Lowlands. Science 251: 658-662.

Scarborough, Vernon L. and Fred Valdez Jr. 2003 The Engineered Environment and Political Economy of the Three Rivers Region. In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 3-13. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Scarborough, Vernon L., Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning [editors] 2003 Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stein, Julie K. 1992 Organic Matter in Archaeological Contexts. In Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation, edited by Vance T. Holliday, pp. 193-216. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Tourtellot, Gair III 1993 A View of Ancient Maya Settlements in the Eighth Century. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 7th and 8th October 1989, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp. 219-241. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C.

Tourtellot, Gair III, Amanda Clarke, and Norman Hammond 1993 Mapping La Milpa: A Maya City in Northwestern Belize. Antiquity 67: 96-109.

Tourtellot, Gair III, 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: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 37-51. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tourtellot, Gair III, John R. Rose, and Norman Hammond 1996 Maya Settlement Survey at La Milpa, Belize, 1994. Mexicon 18: 8-11.

APPENDIX A SOIL ANALYSIS

Soil analysis was conducted on sediments excavated from Subops A and C as well as one

of three cores, Subop F Lot 2, taken from the center of Turtle Pond. Two analyses were

performed; organic content and texture. In addition to both sets of analyses, two samples from

the core received AMS dates. The core was also sampled per horizon to and analyzed for pollen

content.

Hodell et al. (2000) note that when interpreting environmental change, both natural and geochemical proxy indicators should be used. Natural indicators include pollen grains, minerals, diatoms, and animal microfossils of both gastropod and ostracod shells. Fluctuations in the abundances of natural indicators demonstrate some environmental change but it can be induced either by natural and anthropogenic factors. Geochemical indicators, such as stable isotope and trace element ratios of fossil shell carbonate, are generally unaffected by anthropogenic change

and illustrate environmental trends. In order to demonstrate conclusively anthropogenic induced

change, it is important to look at both natural and geochemical proxies.

Organic matter content was determined by loss-on-ignition. A small amount was removed from each sample and baked dry. It was then crushed using a mortar and pestle and

weighed. Approximately 5 mL, or enough to make the entire sample damp, of ethanol was

added and the sample was ignited. The flame was allowed to burn until no more ethanol or

organic matter remained. The sample was weighed again and the difference was used to

calculate the percentage organic matter.

Particle size was determined by use of a Beckman Coulter LS230 Series Laser

Diffraction Particle Size Analyzer. The LS230 works by passing a laser beam through a sample

of sediment in a water solution. It uses reverse Fourier lens optics and a binocular lens system to

accurately interpret the light scatter. The Fraunhofer model is used to determine the number of each size particle. A total of 126 optical detectors allow it to account for a wide range of particle size (Beckman Coulter 2005). The associated software prepares graphs of particle size and percent of each volume, frequency, and surface area. It does not classify particles according to clay, silt, and sand, instead using a graph the percentage of particles under the curve of a given particle size range can be interpolated.

Clay sediments were deflocculated by the addition of a 30% hydrogen peroxide solution.

Addition of the acid did not alter the sediments in any way. Not only did the hydrogen peroxide aid in getting the mass of sediments into a mixture and the clay particles into solution, it also got rid of much of the organic matter present in a sample. In some cases, particularly for Subop C samples, it was necessary to manually remove pieces of root that were in the mixture.

Before each sample was run, the LS230 was automatically rinsed, the background and loading checked, the offsets and alignment were checked once an hour. All these measures were taken to ensure that each sample would be analyzed accurately and consistently.

Each sample was run three times. During each run a sonicator was in the solution, it acted to break up aggregates of sediment that still remained. An average of the three runs, as well as the data from each run, was saved. The data presented here are an average of three runs.

Particles were classed according to clay, silt, fine sand, and coarse sand using the

International schema for particle size distribution (Gerrard 2000:23). Clay particles are less than

2 micrometers (μm, 1 μm = 1/1000 mm), silt ranges from 2 μm to 20 μm, fine sand ranges from

20 μm to 200 μm, and coarse sand ranges from 200 μm up to 2000 μm. The LS230 software did not provide these exact ranges. By the software the closest ranges possible were, for clay particles 0.375-2.010 μm, silt from 2.011-20.70 μm, fine sand from 20.71-194.1 μm, and coarse

sand from 194.2-2000 μm. Even though particle size was measured up to 2000 μm, it rarely peaked above 400 μm.