1. Details in the Archaeology of , : An Introduction.

Arlen F. Chase, University of Central Florida Diane Z. Chase, University of Central Florida

Our archaeologicalproject at the Maya site of Carneolin the Vaca Plateauof Belize has been ongoing since 1985. 11risdecade of archaeologicalinvestigation has re- sulted in a much better understanding'of the extensive Maya city we now call "Carncol.'l And the data gatheredby the project within theseten years have helped to augmentour understandingof Classic in the Southernlow- lands. The studiescontained within this volume representbut a small part of the archae. ological data that has been collected at Carncol;it results from the efforts of more than four hundredindividual project memberswho have each spent four or more montbsof their lives living on-site. Taken as a whole the twelve studiespresented hereprovide a brief overview of many aspectsof this oncegreat Maya center,taken individually, however, each study documentsimportant archaeologicaldetails that have applicability not just for Caraeol,but also for our overall understandingof Maya civilization.

Changing Views of Caracol Prior to the first field seasonof the CaracolArchaeological Project in 1985,the site of Caracolwas viewed as a relatively small center with little impact on the Maya world. Carneal'sprinwy significancelay in its supposeddefeat of its neighbor,the Guatemalansite of , after a seriesof wars in the 7th century A.D.(Stone et aI. 1985). By the time the first Caracolmonograph was published(Chase and Chase 1987a)discoveries had been madethat somewhataltered this provincial view of the site. Not surprisingly,beginning fieldwOlk proved the site to be substantiallylarger than had been suggestedby previously published maps (Beetz and Satterthwaite 1981); somewhatunexpected, however. was the discovery of a series of intrasite causewaysradiating out from Carneal'sepicenter, the longestinitially believedto be some 3.5 kilometers in length. Yet, the one find that had the most impact on changing the archaeologicalview of Caracol was the A Group ballcourt marker encounteredin 1986 (Chaseand Chase1987a; Chase 1991). The hieroglyphictext on this monmnent recorded a seriesof historic activities relatingto Caracol'scummt king, Kan II, including Caracci's apparentdefeat of the Guatemalansite of nearly 80 kilometer's distant by Kan II's father, Lord Water (Houston 1987:93; 1991). Nevertheless,opinions about CaracoI'simpact on the Classic Maya world were sharply divided. A generalMesoamerican text referredto Caracol as a "rela- tively small city" and notedthat "the masseddemographic power of a regionalstate like Tikal far outmatchedanything that Caracolcould muster" (Adams 1991:196). On the other hand,another widely readbook statedthat lithe bellicose rulers of this new kingdom, called Caracolby archaeologists,would take not only Tikal but the entirePeten region by storm, eventuallycontrolling the politics of the ClassicMaya . . heartlandfor more than a century" (Scheleand Freidel 1990:171).

~ From an archaeologicalstandpoint, it was not until after the 1987 field season that the real significanceof Carncol relative to other lowland Maya sites began to become apparent.Intensive and extensivework at the site continued on a yearly basis with each seasonadding a new dimensionto our emergingview of Carncol. During 1988 and 1989 the first fonnal settlementstudy was undertaken~this study provided data on the impact of war on the overall Carneolpopulation as well as a tentative population history of the region (Chaseand Chase 1989). It also resulted in the complete mapping of plaza groupsand terracesfor the part of Carneollying betweenthe Conchitaand Pajaro-Ramonalcauseways, pennitting initial population estimatesof between"34,514 and 61,354people" to be madefor the site (Chaseet al. 1990:502)that were substantiallylarger than originally expectedand, in fact, showedCaracol to be more denselyoccupied than Tikal. From 1989through 1993 intensiveexcavations were undertakenon the monumentaland residentialarchitec- ture in the site's epicenter~these investigationsuncovered massive architectural complexesand royal intermentsas well as use-relatedrefuse on floors. Structural penetrationprovided time depth while analysesprovided a fine-tuned chronology. All of thesefield seasonsand the various specializedstudies stenuning from them, many of which are reported on here, have h<:lpedcontribute to the creation of a much changedview of Caraeol. . As it is now known, Caracol is a city with over 36 kilometers of internal site causewaysthat connectt~ epicenterwith a seriesof widely-spacedspecial-fuoction nodes of monwnentaIscale (Figure 1.1). The settlementis continuousand dense within a city radius of at least 4 kilometers;however, transects undertaken in 1994 indicatethat this density continuesoutward for at leastanother 2 kilometers. Cause- ways physically extend the urban radius of Caracol 5.5 kilometers to the southwest and northwest,6.5 kilometers to the southeast,and nearly 8 kilometersto the north- east. Caraeol'scauseways integrate settlement and agricultural fields in t~ site core with the site's epicenter(Figure 1.2). Certaincauseways engulfed previously exist- ing smaller sites (Cabal Pichik. Retiro) into a growing Caracci while others were establishedin conjuncuonwith completelynew tennini (Conchita,Ramonal). Test- ing of causewaysin the southeastsector of the site indicates that these were con- structedduring the early part of the Late ClassicPeriod. Mapping of causewaysand settlementin the Caracol core area has also provided information on the Caracol agricultural system. This work makesit evidentthat fields were extensiveand must have provided substantialagricultural producefor the growing Caracolpopulation. Fields were not organizedaround individual households;mapping instead indicates the existenceof valley-wide systems,undoubtedly created and maintainedby units larger than the nuclearor extendedfamily. While Caracol may have maintaineda small population during the Late Prec1as- sic and Early ClassicPeriods, information from epicentralexcavations indicates that the site was wen integratedinto the generalSouthern lowland Maya ritual system and had fun accessto exotic trade items suchas jadeite and spondylousshell. This is especially evident in a series of cachesfrom Structure A6, The Temple of the Wooden Lintel (Chaseand Chase 1987a,1994a). Subsequentto the 6th and 7th century wars with Tikal and Naranjo, Caraeolexpanded its urban domain spatially by meansof its causewaysystem, and its p<>pulationincreased dramatically. Not only did the number of residentialplaza groups.and public constructionactivities

2

. " ~ ._-

II ...g

Figurrz1.1. Map ofCD~Belize showingextent afmown causewaysystem as of1992 and thecentml squarrz kilometer of thesite as Iorown in 1991.

3

','c,','," .

~ ~ ~ ~\

~

/

l ~ ,- I + Figure 1.2. Cameol Map Quadrangle3G as of 1989 demonstratingthe articulation of senle- ment and terrace systemsat the site; a total of 10 plaza groups and 54 structures are illustrated. No surveywork has beenundertaken to the west of the causeway. The quadran- gle measures500 metersby 500 metersand magneticnorth is to the top afthe page.

. (causeways,tennini, and agricultural terraces) increase substantially during this time. but a large middle statusnevelgroup of people, with accessto tombs and "exotic" artifacts, also is evident~ this raisesquestions about the traditional two-level social systemoften used to describethe Maya (see Chase 1992; Chaseand Chase 1992; and Marcus 1992). Late Classicoccupation at Carncolwas also found to be characterizedby broad participation in a ritual complex of intermentsand caches associatedwith an easternconstruction (Chase and Chase1994b). The archaeologi- caJdata all indicate that Carneolgrew and prosperedduring and immediately after the TikaJ and Naranjowars (Chaseand Chase1989). Current estimatesof Carneol'sLate Classicpopulation place the site among the largestof the known ClassicMaya and Mesoamericancenters. Carneol's population has been estimatedusing the standardmethodology outlined by Culbert and Rice (1990). S1Iueturegroups at Caracol often contain 5 or more structuresper group. In many casesthe Caracolresidential groups are denselypacked on tbe landscape. In an area south of Caracol.0.5 to about 2.0 kilometers distantfrom the epicenter, up to 25 groups oc~ur in a 500 meter by 500 meter area (100 groups per square kilometer),but overall this areaaverages about 70 groupsper squ.arekilometer; such a density can be seenin the partially mappedQuads L, M, N, and 0 publishedin 1987 (Chaseand Chase 1987a). Liepins (this volume) reports an averageof 62.5 occupiedgroups per squarekiiometer for her samplearea along the Conchitacause- way. In this samesoutheastern area, however, at a distanceof 2.0 to 4.0 kilometers from the epicenter,an averagedensity of just over 45 groups per squarekilometer exists; mappingof 4.5 squarekilometers undertaken during 1994 in the northeastern part of the site in extreme karst topography also yielded 45 groups per square kilometer.No drop-offin this settlementdensity occurredin a transectthat ended6 kilometersfrom the epicenterand 4 kilorneters-prior to applying correctionfaetors- would indicate that 135,139Maya lived within this 113square kilometer area. To somethis projectedfigure will appearhigh; however,Caracol's population-like Tikal's-extended even further out from the site epicenter,at least to a distanceof 7.5 kilometers. Assuming a very conselVative(for Caracol) density of 25 groups per sqUarekilometer for the distanceof 6 to 7.5 kilometers from central Caracol could add an additional 39,781 people to the city's population, indicating that 174,920people could have residedwithin a 177 squarekilometer a~a around Cara- col. Culbert and others (1990:116) use an effective figure of 83.35%occupation for the site of Tikal, arguing that 78.5% of Tikal' s moundsserved as residencesat any one time but that use of other residentialpaJace buildings would inflate the overall population figure by 4.85%; thus, they arrive at a population estimate of some 62.000 peoplein the 120 squarekilometers of boundedGreater Tikal. Archaeologi- cal data suggeststhat at least a similar percentageof Caraeol'sstructures were also occupiedduring the Late Classic,translating the "raw" Caracol figure into 145,796 people. What then forms a best guess of Caracol's Classic Period population? Even using the most conservativeestimates (4 structuresper group; 0.2 kilometer radius = 60 groups; 2-6 =.40 groups; 6-7.5 = 20 groups; 83.35% occupation), at least 100,854Maya would have lived within a 7.5 kilometer radius from the epicenterof Caracol. Applying slightly more realistic numbers to the general population for- mula (0-2 kilometer radius with 5 structuresper group and 60 groups per square kilometer; 2-6 with 4.5 and 40; and 6-7.5 with 4.5 and 20; 83.35% occupation),we feel securethat at least 115.032Maya called the city of Caracol "home" during the Late Classic Period. These figures indicate that the total population for Greater Tikal wasonly 65%that of anequivalent area at CaracoI.. CaracoIcontinued to thrive long after ffiaI\y other Maya centershad been aban. doned. Caana,the most massivearchitectural complex. at the site, was apparently rebuilt following AD. 800. Carved monumentswith hieroglyphic texts from the same time indicate renewedwanare and taking of captives (Chase et aI. 1991). -Indicationsof increasedwarfare are also seen in sceneson model~a1Vedpottery (Fig. 13.11m) and in weapons(many stemmedpoints and a possible mace head) found on building floors. Partial human remains are also found with refuse on palacefloors. And the unburied remainsof a child on Caanasuggest that the final abandonmentof Caracolmay have beenquite sudden.Importantly, however,occu- pation at the site continued well beyond the latest calVed monuments (mid 9th century) into the 11th century; these late datesare confirmed both by radiocarbon

5

~ determinationsfrom Caanaand the A Group as well as by the kinds of pottery found in the epicenter(especially in the A Group).

. Current research at Caracol. begun in 1994. seeks to further understand the nature of Caracol's outlying settlement. As noted above, this worle is documentingthe settlementextent and density for a different part of the site than that sampledduring 1988 and 1989. Particular emphasis,however, is being placed on two goals. One goal is to examinearchaeological indications of prosperityrelative to Carneol's two periods of well-.documentedwarfare (A.D. 550-650 and post A.D.800). A second related goal is to better define the nature of Caracors occupationimmediately prior to the site's final abandomnent.

Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol The twelve studiesin this volwne may be loosely groupedinto three sets. The first set of threepapen; is concernedwith Caracol'senvrronmentaJ setting and the impact that this setting had on the Maya who onceoccupied the site as well as on the preservationof the archaeologicalremains themselves. The secondset of four pa- pen; presentsinformation from detailedarchaeological studies undertaken at the site that focused on specific features of archaeologicalinterest (architectural style, causewaysettlement. chultuns, and caves). The third set.of five papers looks at specific archaeologicaldata classes(hieroglyphs, burials, shell. small chert tools. and ceramics)and their distribution at the site through time and/or space. Caracol'sEnvironment: Its Definition andImpact Of clear interestis the environmentin which the Maya lived and understandinghow they exploited and modified that erwiromnentfor their own use. Bruce and Carolyn Miller and their colleagueshave collected extensivedata related to the biological aspectsof Caracoland the surroundingChiquibul Forest. Thesemodem datareveal that the forests around Caracol have been severely impacted by relatively recent hurricanesand that the environmentwas probably significantly different during the height of the ClassicPeriod. Given the substantialsettlement that occursat Caracol, much of the site's terrain would have been devoid of trees; only small islands of forest would have remained. As the site expanded,the Maya would havehad to go further and further into the hinterland in searchof gameand forest products. Cara- col 's many causewayswould have served asconduits for thetransportation of these foodstuffsand raw materials within thecity. . Beneath the presentforest canopy, stone terracesdominate the terrain and are intricately integrated with the ancient Maya settlementof Caracol (Figure 1.2). Most valleys and hills in the region are coveredby regular setsof theseconstructed features. In fact, tenacesmay be consideredas a defining archaeologicalfeature of the Caracol polity. Terracesare assumedto have servedagricultural pulpOses(cf. Lundell 1940; Turner 1979; Healy et aI. 1983). Thus, an understandingof terrace soils is important step in outlining the potential productivity of terracedareas. The paperby C. Lynn Coultas,Mary Collins and Arlen Chasecharacterizes the terrace soils of Caracol relative to non-terracesoils at the site in an attempt to explore matters of fertility and composition. From this data it is clear that most soils at Caracol were extremely fertiIe~ soils were also extensively manipulated by the Maya

6

";" to enhanceand m~ntain productivity both through physical movementand most likely throughthe application of nightshade. . What was producedon the agricultural tenacesof Caracol? Were staplessowed or were other more specializedcrops grown? The archaeologicalpresence of large numbersof spindle whorls throughoutthe site suggeststhe possibility of cotton. It was hopedthat pollen and phytolith analysisof Caracol's soils would help answer these questions. But. unfortunately, as John Jonesdemonstrates, the agricultural soils of Caracolpreserve neither pollen nor phytoliths and thus cannotbe utilized to infer crop productionas they are in other partsof the world. The excavatedbuilding floors of Caraeolwere similarly devoid of phytoliths and pollen, thus also negating this potential avenuefor examining a structure'sfunction.

Detailed Studies of Caracol's Archaeological Features Maya an;hitectureis exceedingly complex with vatying building types as well as distinct styles characterizingdifferent sites and regions. "Palaces,""temples," ball- courts," and "sweatbaths"were all carefully documentedas building types for Pie- dras Niegras by Satterthwaite(1943-54). While variations of thesebasic structUre types occur at many Maya sites, other site or region-specificbuilding combinations have also been noted. For example>Pendergast (1981:35-36) defines a "Lamanai Building Type" that consistsof one or more chamberedstructures set amid the stair of a pyramid that exhibits no summit building. Somearchitectural features may also be sensitiveindicators of building functions and/or specific styles. While palace-typebuildings are viewed as having beenused .' for a multiplicity of purposes(cf. Harrison 1969>1986» bencheswithin palace rooms have been interpretedas sleepingareas and used to calculatethe size of a site>s"elitel' (Adams 1974). Both roundedand squaredcomers arc in evidenceon building substructuresat Caracol. However, all known "palaces"(rnnge buildings with conjoined independentrooms) at the site exhibit squaredcomers. And all raised "temples" (usually a tandem-roomedbuilding with one or three frontal door- ways and only a single interior doorway) at CaraccIhave roundedcomers on their substructurnIleveIs.Thus> the archaeologicalrecovery of a roundedcomer at Cara- col serves to provide someinsight into a given building's function. indicating that it was probably not residential. But not all non-residential buildings exhibited rounded substructurecomers. Structure A38> a building interpretedas a special- functionmausoleum. lias squared substructure comers. Thus, architecturnIstyle is extremely important for interpretation.but needs to be placed within a broader context to be understood. This is precisely what JosephBal1ay attempts for Cara- col's main epicentrnl building complex, Camm. Like Pendergastfor Lamanai (1981:35-36),he has similarly begun to define an architectural style that charac- terizesCameol by focusing on StructureB20> the swnmit of Caana.and the ways in which this buildings hasbeen maintained and modified over time. Besidesteaaces and a specific architecturalstyle, causewaysand vias also typifY the site of Caracol. Eleven causeways,representing an internal road systemof over 36 kilometers,have been identified at Caracol(Figure 1.1); otherswill undoubtedly be found in the future. Only the sites of Mirador (Graham 1967:40)in the Central lowlands and (GardunoA. 1979~Folan 1983:6)in the Northernlowlands have causewaysystems as extensiveas those at Caracol. Researcherslooking at cause- ways in the Northern lowlands have suggestedthat these roadwaysserved to link

7

.' v ~ elite groups (KuJjack and Andrews 1976) or functioned largely as routes for ritual pilgrimages(Freidel 1981). At CaracoIthe causewaysselVed primarily as routesfor intra-site tranSportationand communication. They link the epicenterwith two kinds of termini-large, special-functionnon-residential plazas (Cabal Pichik, Ceiba, Con- chita, Ramona!,Retiro, Sapote)and high-statusresidential groups (Dos Tumbas, Machete, Plaza of the Two Stelae). The special-functiontermini at Caracol are again linked by smaller causewaysto other high-status residential groups. Some vias also connect groups that are not of the highest statusdirectly to a causeway. And at leastone cross-causewayfacilitated movementbetween road systems. In an attemptto characterizethe settlementthat occurredalong one of CaracoI's causeways,Susan LiepiM undertooksulVey and excavationfor 200 metersto either side of the Conchita Causeway. A synopsisof the results of her multiple field seasonsat Caracol are presentedhere. In general, her data support the charac- terization of Caracol's archaeologicalpopulation as being dense and exceedingly complex. Just as was found for sites in the centralPeten of (Haviland et al. 1985; Tourtellot 1988), Liepin's work underscoresthe fact that there are no simple correlations between archaeologicaldata and the prediction of status; this appearsto include accessto the causewayitself. When viewed within a larger context, it also convincingly demonstratesthe existenceof mid-level social groups at Caracol (cC.Chase 1992). As hasbeen notedelsewhere many of thesemid-level groupsparticipated in the same"cult of the dead"that is found in the site's epicenter (Chaseand Chase1994b). Given the heavy focus on the "cult of the dead" that is found in the archaeology of Caracol and the associationof this cult with the Maya underworld, two specific featureswhich form entryways into the ground (or undetWorld)were selectedfor iIwestigation-chultunsand caves. Very few chultuns were known from the site of Caracol until the 1994field seasonwhen scoresof thesefeatures were found in the northeast quadrant of the site. The mapping of the settlementarea between the Conchitaand Pajaro-RamonalCauseways undertaken from 1986 through 1990pro- duced evidence for less than a dozen chultuns. Seven of these chamberswere excavatedby ClarissaHunter-Tate and she recoveredthe remainsof burials in six of them. raising questionsas to their presumedstorage or food-processingfunctions (puleston 1971; Dahlin and Litzinger 1986). In fact, based on the data from the Southeastquadrant of Caracol,the site's chultunswould appearto have constituted the earliesttomb form known at the site and, as such, provide some ti,medepth for Caracol'sdistinctive mortuaJycomplex (Chaseand Chase1994b). . Caves constituted locales for Maya ritual and were closely linked with Maya conceptspertaining to the underworld (MacLeod and Puleston 1978). Cavesthat were of importanceto the Maya are known from elsewherein the Chiquibul region (pendergast1969, 1971). A ruler of Caracol is referencedin a hieroglyphic text within the cave at Najtunich, Guatemala(Grobe, this volume). The sulVeywork at Caraeolrevealed numerous caves within the settlementarea and many of thesewere explored by William Feld. Most of the cavesin the immediatevicinity of Camcol are small and reconnaissance showed that they containedrelatively few artlfactual. remains. Even though the cavesthus far recordedwithin the Caracolsettlement area are not impressive,they surely formed an importantcomponent in Maya ritual at the site. One Caracol cave, in fact, was usedas an ossuaryfor human remainsappar- ently cast into an inner chamberfrom above. Landa (Tozzer 1941:44, 119-200)

8

~ recorded that the Maya placedthe bodiesof sacrificial victims in caves,thus provid~ ing one possible interpretation for this deposit.

Detailed Studies of Caracol Data Subsets Epigraphy,or the study of Maya hieroglyphicwriting, hasbeen closely integrated into the archaeologicalresearch design at Caraeo1.Caracol has a large number of carved monuments(Beetz and Satterthwaite1981) and this cmpushas been ex- pandedthrough the efforts of the cummt project (Chaseand Chase1987a; Houston 1987; Chaseet al. 1991). Nikolai GIUbeprovides drawings and interpretationsof several new monumentsin his chapter. The hieroglyphic corpus that is generally associatedwith carvedstone monuments is also found on stuccoedbuilding facades, on tomb walls and capstones,and on smallerartifacts at Caracol. Grobe hasworked all of these materialsinto a dynastic synthesisand has also attemptedto place the texts of Caracolinto broadercontexts. . Given CaraccI's massivepopulation, it is not surprising that a large number of burials havebeen recovered from both looted and excavatedcontexts. Diane Chase weavesall thesedata into a comprehensivewhole, placing the burials into a broader archaeologicalcontext which helpswith their interpretation. Severalfactors pertain- ing to CaracoI'sburials stand out in comparisonto samplesfrom other sites in the Southernlowlands (cr. Welsh 1988). A high proportion of Caracol'sinterments are of multiple individuals. There is an extremelyhigh percentageof inlaid teeth in the Caracol sample. And, the large number of recordedtombs at Caracol is unknown from most Maya sites. These factors may be combined with other archaeological data to suggestthat Caracol's "cult of the dead"reflects the conscioususe of ethnic- ily at the site as a meansof unifying (and controlling) Caracol'spopulation (Chase and Chase1993a). Given Caracol's inland position, it is surprising to find so much marine shell in the archaeologicalinvestigations. To date, Caracolhas producedone of the largest samplesof marine shell known from a Maya site. Many of Caracol'sburials con- tain objects of shell and a shell workshop that concentratedon strombus is known from one outlying residentialgroup. Carvedshell objectswere used by most mid- status membersof Caracol's population. Rafael Cobos identified the shell recov- ered at Caracol as to speciesand presentsa sununary of these results. His data suggest that most of Caracol's shell was gatheredfrom the Belizean sea coast. When placed in their archaeologicalcontexts, his identifications also suggestthat Preclassic and Early Classic shell frequently derived from Pacific sourceswhile Late Classic shell was almost exclusively of Caribbeanorigin, thus hinting at sig- nificant changesin Caracol'sprocurement relationships over time. Whereasonly one shell workshop has been encounteredat Caracci, almost a dozenchert workshopareas have been identified at the site basedon the presenceof large numbers of certain lithic tool types, usually small drills. Cynthia Pope has studied the lithic materialsthat have been recoveredin nine residentialgroups be- tween the Conchitaand Pajaro-Ramonalcauseways. She notesthat the quality and use patternsof the chert tools differ among residentialgroups, suggestingthat they were either independentlymade, obtained from different sources,and/or used to make different products. None of the workshopareas that Popelooked at servedto make large numbers of tools for broad distribution; rather, most consistedof the remains of broken and reworked tools that had been made for a specific purpose;

9

~ she suggeststhat the original tools (in mostcases, drills) were madein eachresiden- . tial group from either coresor preforms. In 1994a different kind of workshopwas encounteredin the northeastpart of CarneoL It containedthousands of chert flake" andfew tools. suggestingthat this residentiallocale manufacturedfinished tools or prefoons which were then provided to other groups, possibly resulting in some of workshopdebris that Popeexamined. The distribution of shell and chert workshopsat Caracol has important implica- tions for ancientMaya economics. Theseworkshops correlate with specific residen- tial groups scatteredthroughout Caracol's settlementthat are sometimesquite dis- tant from the epicenter,a causeway,or a causewaytermini. There areboth primary workshops.where the basic raw material is turned into tools or preformsfor distri-

bution.are produced, and secondatyused. and workshops, reworkedin where the production large numbersof somethingof standardizedelse. Thesmall distribu- tools .

tion of these workshopsand their archaeologicalcontext suggestthat, in casesof secondatyworkshops, the activities carried out were ancillaty to whatever else a given householddid; whetherthis is also the casewith residentialgroups that func- tioned as primal)' workshop areasis unknown. However, theseare not "attached specialists." The distribution of the identified workshopsin the contextof the over- all settlementresembles what might be archaeologicallyexpected for patternsde- fined in relation to solar marketsin the Guatemalanhighlands (Tax 1953;Reina and Hill 1978). It is tempting to see Caracol's causewaytermini sewing as market- placesboth for the exchangeof raw materials and finished products producedby individual householdsand for the acquisition of other items imported from farther afield, all under the bureaucraticcontrol and taxation of the Caracolstate. Finally, Arlen Chasepresents an outline of Caracol'sceramic sequence, opting to presentthis information in teons of a contextual,rather than a strictly type-variety:- mode. approach The earliestknown ceramicsfrom Caracolcan be datedto around 300 B.C. and the latest from approximatelyA.D. 1050. The sequenceis temporally wen~anchoredby the half-dozencases of datedtombs at Caracolthat co-occurwith mortuary pottery. A contextualapproach to ceramicsis significant in that, besides its use for chronologicalpurposes and for inter-site comparisons,it can place ceram- ics within a behavioralframework. For example,at Caracolthis analysishas dem- onstratedthat most elaborateLate Classicpolychrome ceramics are associatedwith non-tombburials. It has also shown that the occurrenceof broken pottery in tombs, and presumablyin other burials. was not accidental,but was ratherpart of pulpOse- ful ritual. Concentratingon the latest ceramic remains left on building floors has both permitted functional interpretationof thesestructures and revealedsubstantial variability in analogousbuilding types. Thesesame late depositsprovide evidence for continuing occupationat Carneolwell into the 11th century.

Conclusion This volume is intended as an accessibleinterim sourceof infonnation on the ar- chaeological)Vork that we havecamed out at CaracoLIt is to be complementedby a companionmonograph focusing on the epicentraland core excavationsas well as on the mappingprogram undertaken at Camcolbetween 1988and 1993(Chase and Chase1995). Each ofthe following studiesprovides information on a selectedtopic pertaining to the archaeologyof Camcol. Many of the authorsare culTentlyupdat-

10

~ ing analyseswith information from ongoing fieldwork. Further studiesare also being undertakenby other analystson tropical ecology,faunal remains,human diet, and ceramiccomposition and production. Even though the archaeologicalprogram at Caracol IS ongoing, this volume providesvaluable insights into the results of a decadeof researchat the site. Each detailedstudy provides a part of the picture of Caraeol;together they help to teUa complex story of life and deathin this populous ancientMaya city.

11

~