BEAST Mode: Two Seasons of Archaeological Survey on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca Property in Northwestern

by

David Sandrock, BA

A Thesis

In

Anthropology

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Brett A. Houk, PhD Chair of Committee

Tamra Walter, PhD

Marisol Cortes-Rincon, PhD

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

August, 2017

Copyright 2017, David Sandrock Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would be completely remiss if I didn’t extend my first thanks to my mother and father, Denise and David Sandrock. Without those two, there is literally no me; without their love, support, and figurative smacks upside the head, I wouldn’t be anywhere near where I am today.

Very special thanks goes to my partner, my Ix Naab Bahlam, and my love Lily, for putting up with my sentence in Lubbock and my various archaeological adventures. Te amo, mi liria bella.

A huge deal of gratitude goes to my advisor, Dr. Brett A. Houk, for all of his help in every phase of this project, even before I was his student at Texas Tech. His helpful, insightful, and slightly smart-aleck nature meshed extremely well with my own. In general, he made my time in Lubbock far more productive (and the locale far more palatable) than they would have been otherwise. Thanks to him, I’ll never forget to put a co-author’s name on a title slide again.

No matter where I go in archaeology, my family from the Dos Hombres to Gran Cacao Archaeology Project (née Settlement Survey Project) and Programme for Belize will always hold a special place in my heart. Dr. Marisol Cortes-Rincon, mi madre Colombiana, has been just that since I arrived at Humboldt State more than seven years ago. My little big sister Sarah Boudreaux has been there for me since my first day in Belize, ready to give advice, support, and scoldings when necessary.

Many thanks go to Dr. Jaime Awe, Dr. John Morris, the Belize Institute of Archaeology, and all of Belize’s National Institution of Culture and History for the well-wishes and official permits that enabled BEAST to undertake this task. BEAST also owes a great deal of gratitude to Leroy Lee and American Seismic. The work carried out by American Seismic granted us with a somewhat unique opportunity for rapid survey coverage, and the financial assistance provided by Mr. Lee ensured that this project could be undertaken successfully. Without Leroy, there is no BEAST, and I cannot thank him enough for this opportunity.

ii Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Dr. Fred Valdez, Jr. has given countless archaeologists their first (and second, and third) chances during his time overseeing The University of Texas’ La Milpa Field Station on Programme for Belize property, myself included. “Papa” Fred is one of the most generous individuals I have ever had the privilege of working with, and even his most stern looks of disapproval were made with the best of intentions.

BEAST was immeasurably assisted by Jerry Serminia and Josimar Magaña, my friends and guides. Jerry worked with BEAST for the duration of the 2013 field season and one glorious day in 2014. Without Jerry, BEAST and the students brave enough to join in on survey would have been at the mercy of a Californian and his GPS to navigate them safely through the bush. Luckily, I realized quickly that Jerry knows best when it comes to the jungles of Belize (and a little bit of ). During the 2014 field season, Josimar Magaña managed to keep us out of harm’s way (for the most part). Like Jerry before him, Josi was a significant help and awesome friend in the field, even when we were both going a bit off the rails.

Additionally, I will be forever grateful of the rest of the Chan Chich Lodge staff. Everyone at Chan Chich made us feel welcome every day we resided in our beautiful accommodations. These amazing folks assisted us in every way, including providing sharp chainsaws, a trio of world-class meals every day, a place to watch the FIFA Confederations Cup and World Cup, and cold Belikin after hard days of survey work. Leticia Martinez acted as a second mother to us all, and I’ve never seen a frown on her face. For better or worse, we saw Migde Perdomo almost every day, including the day he notched two beautiful goals for Chan Chich FC. I’ve never enjoyed being heckled by a waiter (or heckling one back) more than at my time at Chan Chich. The cooks, Maritsa Montuy and Rosario Vasquez, kept us full to the brim with amazing food, and aided greatly in our heckling of Migde. Emil Flota, the world’s best bartender, kept our spirits high every evening and afternoon.

Marc and Carly DiBrita made sure all of our needs were taken care of, including a place for me to scream for my Gunners’ 2014 FA Cup victory and a massively long cable to watch World Cup matches from the comfort of the Looters’

iii Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Trench. Alan Jeal, Hector Gomez, and the employees of Gallon Jug Agribusiness were tremendously helpful, providing us with tender care for La Dinosauria and GPS information on potential sites. Many thanks also go to Jeff Roberson of Yalbac Ranch, who granted our vehicle permits and provided us with a high-quality GEOPDF map of the property, showing the logging roads used extensively by BEAST.

Working with Mark Willis on BEAST’s UAV survey and recording was a great experience, and his in-field help with all things GIS was much appreciated. I also am grateful for all of the students that were brave enough to come along on survey with BEAST. These students were great sports in the field, never faltering when we dragged them perilously through dense and painfully abrasive vegetation and up steep, muddy hillsides.

iv Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

ABSTRACT ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. PROJECT SETTING ...... 6

Introduction ...... 6 Physical Environment ...... 6 The Three Rivers Region ...... 6 Climate ...... 9 Physiography ...... 10 Vegetation ...... 12 Ecozones ...... 14 Summary ...... 17 Cultural History ...... 18 The Maya of the Three Rivers Region ...... 18 Historical Background: Belize, From Colony to Country ...... 22 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 28

Theoretical Background ...... 28 Previous Investigations near Gallon Jug and Laguna Seca ...... 34 Previous Investigations on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca Property ...... 36 Programme for Belize Archaeological Project ...... 36 Chan Chich Archaeological Project and Belize Estates Archaeological Survey Team ...... 36 Punta de Cacao Archaeology Project ...... 37 Other Settlement Surveys in Northwestern Belize...... 37 Methodology ...... 39 Transect Survey Methodology ...... 39 Site Revisits ...... 45 UAV Survey, Targeted Reconnaissance, and Informant-Based Survey .. 45 IV. SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...... 47

v Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Transect Surveys ...... 47 American Seismic Line 1 ...... 54 American Seismic Line 3 ...... 57 American Seismic Line 6 ...... 58 American Seismic Line 7 ...... 61 American Seismic Line 8 ...... 62 Targeted Surveys and Site Revisits ...... 64 UAV Mapping ...... 66 V. SITE INVENTORY ...... 72

VI. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ...... 102

Survey Findings by Survey Type ...... 103 Population Density Estimation ...... 105 Group Typology Makeup ...... 107 Ecozone Analysis ...... 111 Size Comparison ...... 114 VII. CONCLUSION ...... 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 119

vi Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

ABSTRACT To address the lack of systematic survey in their permit area and record archaeological evidence of prehistoric and historic occupation, the Chan Chich Archaeological Project (CCAP) formed the Belize Estates Archaeological Survey Team (BEAST) before the 2013 field season. During the 2013 and 2014 field seasons, BEAST conducted pedestrian and UAV survey across the project’s permit area, which spans the Gallon Jug and Laguna Seca Ranches in northwestern Belize. Although archaeologists have studied the southern Maya lowlands for more than 100 years, the project area has been subject to limited archaeological survey, and this project represents the largest-scale systematic survey project ever undertaken on the property.

BEAST’s surveys completed over 80 km of linear survey, covering an area of over 2.1 km². Survey crews, led by the author, recorded 275 structures along American Seismic Lines, 356 total features, and 4 new sites (Ix Naab Witz, La Luchita, Montaña Chamaco, and Sylvester Village), and revisited six previously- recorded sites.

This thesis compares data recovered from these surveys with data from nearby sites such as Dos Hombres, La Milpa, and Guijarral. Various aspects of the recorded Maya settlement are examined, including ecological setting, structure size, and group type. An updated site inventory for the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property is included, as are maps of all revisited sites and surveyed areas.

vii Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Transect Survey Overview ...... 40 4.1 Transect Survey Summary ...... 48 4.2 AS1 Summary ...... 55 4.3 AS3 Summary ...... 58 4.4 AS6 Summary ...... 59 4.5 AS7 Summary ...... 62 4.6 AS8 Summary ...... 64 6.1 BEAST Survey Statistics ...... 103 6.2 Findings by Survey Type ...... 104 6.3 Population Estimation Comparison...... 107 6.4 Group Types and Descriptions ...... 108 6.5 Comparison of BEAST and Boudreaux (2013): Group Levels by Ecozone ...... 110 6.6 Ecozone Comparison ...... 112 6.7 Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman (2004), Length ...... 115 6.8 Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman (2004), Width ...... 115 6.9 Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman (2004), Height ...... 116

viii Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Belize and Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca Properties...... 2 2.1 Map of Large Maya Site Centers ...... 7 2.2 The Three Rivers Region ...... 8 2.3 Flooded bridge near Sylvester Village in May 2014 ...... 9 2.4 View of jungle vegetation and American Seismic Lines ...... 14 3.1 Map of American Seismic Lines ...... 39 3.2 La Dinosauria takes a lunch break by Laguna Verde...... 41 3.3 David Sandrock explains BEAST’s recording methods to a student...... 43 4.1 Surveyed portions of American Seismic Lines ...... 47 4.2 Map of AS1 ...... 55 4.3 Map of Dense Settlement Area DS-1...... 56 4.4 Map of AS3...... 57 4.5 Map of AS6 ...... 59 4.6 Map of Wall Feature ...... 60 4.7 Map of surveyed portion of AS7 ...... 62 4.8 Map of AS8 ...... 63 4.9 Map of El Infierno investigations and relocated sites ...... 66 4.10 UAV mapping overview ...... 68 4.11 UAV mapping detail ...... 69 4.12 UAV Structure Map 1 ...... 70 4.13 UAV Structure Map 2 ...... 71 5.1 Map of all BE-designated sites ...... 73 5.2 Map of Chan Chich ...... 74 5.3 Map of Kaxil Uinic Ruins ...... 75 5.4 Map of Punta de Cacao ...... 77 5.5 Map of Gallon Jug ...... 79 5.6 Stela at Gallon Jug ...... 80 5.7 Map of Laguna Verde ...... 82 5.8 Map of Laguna Seca...... 83

ix Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

5.9 Map of Qualm Hill ruins...... 85 5.10 Map of Gongora Ruin ...... 87 5.11 Jerry climbs in a looters’ trench at Gongora Ruin ...... 87 5.12 Map of Ix Naab Witz...... 89 5.13 Stela 1 at Ix Naab Witz ...... 90 5.14 Map of La Luchita...... 91 5.15 Investigating a looters’ trench at La Luchita...... 92 5.16 View of preserved architecture from looters’ trench in La Luchita Structure 3 ...... 93 5.17 Map of Montaña Chamaco ...... 94 5.18 Map of Sylvester Village ...... 96 5.19 Photos of artifacts collected from Qualm Hill Camp...... 97 5.20 Map of Qualm Hill Camp ...... 99 5.21 Map of Kaxil Uinic Village...... 100

x Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION Hubert Robichaux (2002) claimed that despite the lack of a systematic archaeological survey of the entire area, it is evident that many ancient Maya sites are scattered throughout northwestern Belize. However, most of them remain undiscovered to this day, hidden amongst the jungle vegetation. To address this lack of systematic survey and record more of the Maya occupation that undoubtedly remains in the area, the Chan Chich Archaeological Project (CCAP) formed the Belize Estates Archaeological Survey Team (BEAST) during the 2013 field season. This thesis reports the results of archaeological reconnaissance and systematic survey conducted by BEAST in 2013 and 2014 in the project’s permit area.

The study area for this project is in northwestern Belize, which is situated within the northern portion of the Southern Maya lowlands. The region has been seasonally visited by humans for at least 10,000 years, and the Maya and their descendants have settled in the surrounding areas for nearly 3,000 years (Lohse et al. 2006).

Chan Chich and the rest of this project’s study area are located on Gallon Jug Ranch and Laguna Seca Ranch, which are former holdings of the Belize Estate and Produce Company. Gallon Jug Agribusiness (GJA) had managed the 135,000-acre Gallon Jug property since the mid-1980s, using the property for agriculture (cattle, coffee) and sustainable timber harvesting. In 2013, Bowen and Bowen, Ltd., the corporation that owns GJA, sold approximately 100,000 acres of the property to Forestland Group, a part owner of Yalbac Ranch, the neighboring property to the south. The acreage that was conveyed in the sale is now known as Laguna Seca Ranch (Figure 1.1).

O. G. Ricketson, Jr.’s early 20th century cruciform surveys around are described by Wendy Ashmore and Gordon Willey (1981) as the first Maya

1 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 1.1: Map of Belize and Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca Properties. lowland settlement pattern study (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937). Like most scientific fields, archaeology has made great advancements in the past several decades, and the methods employed in these early surveys differ greatly from modern techniques. However, Ashmore and Willey (1981:9) tout Ricketson’s work as the first example of an intentional, large-scale settlement survey, a methodological avenue that continues to yield new insights on Maya populations. Decades before modern archaeological work was conducted in the area, Sir J. Eric S. Thompson (1939) recorded several sites on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property before conducting excavations at the San Jose site in 1931.

Gordon Willey’s (1953) study of Peru’s Virú Valley represents the first modern archaeological settlement pattern research. His ideas and methods were soon hailed as a valuable approach to many scales of archaeological research, and other

2 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 researchers subsequently adapted them in studies across the globe (Trigger 1989). Willey’s later work in the Belize Valley (Willey et al. 1965) marks the true beginning of modern settlement pattern studies in the Maya area, which continue to this day.

Willey’s approach to survey and excavation was guided by four goals (Willey et al. 1965). These goals, as summarized by Thomas Garrison (2007:64-65) were: 1) to examine the relationship of occupations to natural environments; 2) to learn the nature and function of buildings composing habitation communities; 3) to understand the form, size, and spacing of habitation communities in relation to one another and to ceremonial centers; and, 4) to consider these problems in a chronological perspective.

In the last 40 years, major strides have been made in epigraphic studies and physical sciences (Garrison 2007). The growth of these fields has gleaned “an enormous amount of data” regarding the Maya and has given archaeologists a greater understanding of the cultural, paleoclimatic, and paleoenvironmental setting in which the Maya existed (Garrison 2007:1). These data have provided researchers with an ever-expanding understanding of many aspects of the Maya, including their religion, worldview, and political ties and rivalries.

The transect survey methods employed in Dennis Puleston’s (1973) work around represent an early example of the survey methods employed extensively by BEAST. These linear surveys are considered particularly useful in the Maya lowlands, where dense vegetation causes low visibility and can limit the efficacy of archeological survey (Boudreaux 2013).

Since Puleston’s seminal Tikal surveys, archaeological research has flourished across the Maya world, particularly in Belize. Starting in the 1970s, researchers commissioned by Belize’s Department of Archaeology recorded several sites near the Programme for Belize lands (Guderjan et al. 1989). In the 1980s, Anabel Ford and Scott Feddick conducted reconnaissance surveys on the Programme for Belize property (Ford and Feddick 1988). Following their assessment of the area’s archaeological potential, many archaeological projects were initiated on the

3 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Programme for Belize lands and the surrounding properties, such as work around La Milpa (Hammond 1991), Blue Creek (Guderjan et al. 1989, Nievens 1991), and Dos Hombres (Houk 1996).

The main goal of BEAST is to update the inventory of sites in the permit area, building on work done by the Río Bravo Archaeology Project (Guderjan et al. 1991). To complete this task, BEAST surveyed along seismic lines, revisited sites previously recorded by other projects, and conducted targeted survey after consulting local informants. Specifically, BEAST’s research aims are to analyze Maya (and later) occupation in terms of its density and to study the relationships between settlement and environmental and topographical settings. In this thesis, data collected by BEAST is compared to previous studies in the general vicinity of the project area, including Lohse’s (2001) work around Dos Hombres and Cortes-Rincon’s (2011) work on the Dos Hombres to Gran Cacao transect (see also Boudreaux 2013). Various aspects of the individual structures, groups, and sites recorded during BEAST’s surveys are examined to compare the nearby projects’ datasets.

Questions the research seeks to address in this thesis include: What is the overall density of Pre-Columbian settlement in the study area? How does this density compare to nearby areas? Which, if any, environmental settings are preferred locales for settlement and construction of structures, groups, and sites? Are these environmental preferences expressed in similar fashions at nearby sites, such as Dos Hombres?

To address these questions, survey crews (led by the author) conducted pedestrian survey in 2013 and 2014 along pre-existing lines cut by American Seismic during 2012 and 2013. These lines were originally cut to carry out exploratory studies, which were attempting to identify possible subsurface petroleum deposits. Since these lines were pre-cut, mostly in fair condition, and relatively easy to access, crews were able to quickly cover large swaths of the survey area. Thanks to rapid rate of survey and the relative lack of intensive archaeological surveys conducted on the property, these essentially random samples allow for a more in-depth examination of the scale

4 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 and intensity of Pre-Columbian occupation in the immediate area than previously possible.

Over two field seasons, BEAST crews completed over 75 km of linear survey on and away from American Seismic lines, covering more than 2.1 km². During these surveys, the team recorded 275 structures along American Seismic Lines, 356 total features (including structure mounds, chultuns, and other possibly cultural features), and 4 new sites in addition to revisiting five previously recorded sites for site inventory updates.

Chapter II describes the cultural and environmental setting of the project area. Chapter III outlines the research design and methodology of BEAST’s surveys, including the history and theory of archaeological survey and previous archaeological research conducted in the area. Chapter IV discusses the results of fieldwork in each surveyed area, Chapter V presents the updated site inventory for the study area, and an analysis comparing BEAST’s data to that of other nearby projects is presented in Chapter VI.

5 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER II

PROJECT SETTING The following section provides an overview of BEAST’s study area, including descriptions of the physical characteristics (climate, geology, vegetation) as well as a review of the culture history of the area. This review spans Maya prehistory through the Colonial period and up to modern land ownership.

The Maya region (Figure 2.1) includes the entire Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, and Guatemala, and stretches from Chiapas and Tabasco in on the west, to the Caribbean Sea to the east, and into and to the southeast (Coe 2005; Sharer and Traxler 2006). This region is subdivided into three zones, based on differences in environment and culture (Sharer and Traxler 2006). These three areas are the northern lowlands, the southern lowlands (including Belize and CCAP’s permit area), and the southern highlands (Coe 2005; McKillop 2006). As Sharer and Traxler (2006:30) note, the divisions between these zones are neither discrete nor precise due to the “subtle environmental changes or transitions from one zone to another.” The southern lowlands are home to many important Maya sites, including , Piedras Negras, and Tikal. This region can be further subdivided, but this study focuses on a relatively small portion of the southern lowlands known as the Three Rivers region.

Physical Environment

The Three Rivers Region The survey area examined in this thesis is located in the geographically- defined area commonly referred to as the Three Rivers region (Dunning et al. 1998; Houk 1996). Dunning et al. (1998:87) proposed “Three Rivers adaptive region” is one of 27 subdivisions of the Maya lowlands, which are based on “environmental characteristics distinct from adjoining areas.” These regions are based on similar work in the Yucatan (Wilson 1980) and southern Maya lowlands (Dunning and Beach 1994), as well as paleoenvironmental data from Dunning et al.’s (1998) studies.

6 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 2.1: Map of Large Maya Site Centers, from Brown and Witschey (2008:Figure 7).

7 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 2.2: The Three Rivers Region. Map courtesy Dr. Brett A. Houk and CCAP.

Generally speaking, the areas flanking the Río Azul form the northern and western boundaries of the region (Figure 2.2), the eastern limit is located between the Booth’s and New Rivers, and the southern boundary of the region is just south of Chan Chich (Hammond 1991). Other sites in the Three Rivers adaptive region include , , La Milpa, and Blue Creek (Garrison and Dunning 2009).

8 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Climate The Three Rivers region exhibits a typical semi-tropical climate, possessing distinct wet and dry seasons beginning around May/June and December/January, respectively (Brokaw and Mallory 1993; Meerman et al. 2006). Dunning et al. (2003:14) summarize the region as exhibiting a “tropical wet/dry climate, with more than 90 percent of rainfall” coming during this wet season, which can leave “the landscape dry for four months.”

During the wet season, daytime temperatures average approximately 80° F and dip down to the low 70s just before the break of dawn (Brokaw and Mallory 1993). The end of the dry season is often marked by extreme heat, often rising to 100° F and above (Brokaw and Mallory 1993). During the wet season, the region receives approximately 150 millimeters (mm) of rain per month, while dry seasons will typically see less than 100 mm of rain per month (Meerman et al. 2006). As we observed during the 2014 field season, the numerous streams, rivers, and lagoons found in the area are very likely to flood during these rainy periods, pushing their widths and depths far beyond their typical extents (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Flooded bridge near Sylvester Village in May 2014.

9 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Physiography The following description is based on Brokaw and Mallory’s (1993) study of the Río Bravo Conservation area, located just north of CCAP’s permit area. As part of the Yucatán peninsula, the study area rests upon the geological formation known as the Yucatán platform. This platform is a large limestone formation created by accumulating marine sediments during the Eocene (58-47 mya). The Yucatán peninsula emerged from the ocean during the Pliocene (13-2 mya).

Geologically speaking, the study area straddles the eastern edge of the Petén Karst Plateau, which stretches from Belize into northeastern Guatemala in the west and north to Quintana Roo (Dunning et al. 2003). Additionally, the Three Rivers Region sits within the Corozal Basin, a geological formation extending from the Caribbean Sea on the east to the Maya Mountains on the west (Meerman et al. 2006).

Stretching across Guatemala, Mexico, and Belize, the Corozal Basin contains several fault lines that created the undulating landscape seen today. During the formation of the Yucatán peninsula, a trough opened on the eastern edge of the formation, slumping along fault lines created several terraces running roughly southwest to northeast. These geological formations span from Belize to Guatemala and Mexico to the west, with elevation increasing to the west with each terrace (Brokaw and Mallory 1993).

The terraces formed by these fault lines are edged by the three escarpments that are prominently visible on the modern Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property: The Booth’s River Escarpment, the Río Bravo Escarpment, and the La Lucha Escarpment (Brokaw and Mallory 1993; Meerman et al. 2006). These features are shown in Figure 2.2. The site of Chan Chich is located near the southern end of the Río Bravo Escarpment (Houk 1998).

The Río Bravo and Booth’s River Escarpments form sub-basins known as the Orange Walk and Hill Bank sub-basins, which are further carved by rivers flowing over and through the limestone bedrock (Meerman et al. 2006). The Río Bravo begins

10 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 in Guatemala as Chan Chich Creek and flows to the Río Hondo in Belize, paralleling its namesake escarpment for much of the journey (Meerman et al. 2006).

The study area is further subdivided by the various environmental features present across the landscape. From the east, the low and level Booth’s River Depression transitions up the Booth’s River Escarpment to the Booth’s River Upland, which is characterized by flat areas and small, rolling hills. The Río Bravo flows immediately east of the Río Bravo Escarpment, and represents the central feature in the Río Bravo embayment. This highly variable floodplain spans from the Booth’s River Upland in the east to the Río Bravo Escarpment in the west. The Río Bravo Terrace Lowland extends west from the Río Bravo Escarpment to the La Lucha escarpment, and is characterized by low and level stretches of terrain. The La Lucha Upland, a stretch of rolling, steep hills, extends west from the La Lucha Escarpment into Guatemala to the east (Brokaw and Mallory 1993). These varying zones are vital in analyzing the interactions between ancient Maya populations, other nearby Maya populations, and their unique environments, as well as “assessing the environment’s role in affecting the political economy of the ancient Maya” (Scarborough and Valdez 2003:4).

The Río Bravo runs year-round thanks to springs located near the La Lucha and Río Bravo Escarpments (Dunning et al. 2003). It flows through the Río Bravo Terrace Lowland in the study area, and at the base of the Río Bravo Escarpment on the Programme for Belize property to the north. The low, slow flow that occurs during the dry season is greatly exaggerated during the wet season, when rain runoff transforms the river into a massive waterway (Dunning et al. 2003). The spring-fed Booth’s River also flows year-round, and experiences a similar (yet not as drastic) transformation during wet season (Dunning et al. 2003). These waterways have undoubtedly shaped the landscape, both environmental and cultural, and as Dunning et al. (2003:15) demonstrate, the “ecological zones of the Three Rivers Region are closely tied to the drainage patterns of these rivers.”

11 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

In addition to the rivers and their many tributaries that extend throughout the project area, a string of several large lagoons spans across the central portion of the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca properties. Of these lagoons, Laguna Seca and Laguna Verde are the two largest. This chain of lakes and bajos covers at least 80 acres, expanding and contracting seasonally with rainfall. During the 2014 field season, the lagoons’ margins extended east to the Blue Creek Road, several kilometers away from the mapped boundary of the lagoons.

Vegetation Vegetation in the Three Rivers Region can be generally described as a broadleaf, semi-tropical forest with intermittent savannahs and swamps (Dushku 2002; Scarborough et al. 1995). CCAP’s vegetation typology is borrowed from Brokaw and Mallory’s (1993) study of the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area.

This early 1990s study by Brokaw and Mallory (1993) focused on the western section of the Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area and includes data on climate, vegetation, and physiography of the property. This 110,000-acre tract is located just 20 km north of Chan Chich, meaning that the proximity and coverage of the study makes their findings relevant to BEAST’s survey area (Houk 1998). This usage is adequate, but not perfect, and Houk (1998:2) remarks that this study is “largely applicable to the area around Chan Chich,” but recognizes that “differences in vegetation patterns were noted.”

Upland Forest

Upland forest vegetation is present in areas with well-drained soils, such as escarpments, hilltops, and ridges. Given the highly-variable landscape present, upland forest unsurprisingly covers a majority of the PfBAP area (Brokaw and Mallory 1993). According to Brokaw and Mallory (1993:21), canopy height varies from 15 to 30 m, and the most common tree species found in this vegetation type are zapotillo (Pouteria reticulata), sapodilla (Manilkara zapota), cherry (Pseudolmedia sp.), male bullhoof

12 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

(Drypetes brownii), pigeon plum (Hirtella americana), and silión (Pouteria amygdalina).

Cohune Palm Forest

The dominant vegetation type around Chan Chich, cohune palm forest makes up a minority (0.7 percent) of the neighboring Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area (Brokaw and Mallory 1993; Houk 1996). Cohune palm forests can be found in areas with deep but well-drained soils, such as the bases of large slopes (Brokaw and Mallory 1993).

Scrub Swamp Forest

Scrub swamp forests, colloquially known as bajos, are most often found in poorly-drained depressions with mostly dense clay soil. Scrub swamp forests have a low canopy, typically between 4 and 5 m high (Brokaw and Mallory 1993). Dense, brushy vegetation like that found in bajos can make survey an extremely arduous task. These areas are often inundated with water for much of the year, especially during the rainier months.

Cohune Palm Riparian Forest

Easily identifiable by their low canopy, proximity to perennial streams, and off-axis trees, riparian forests are quite common around Chan Chich (Houk 1996). Bullet trees (Bucida buceras) and cohune palms (Orbignya cohune) are the most commonly found large flora in riparian forests, which occur in areas of deep alluvial soil that are inundated with groundwater for large portions of the year (Brokaw and Mallory 1993).

Transition Forest

Although transition forest is not found at Chan Chich (Houk 1996), this type represents the most common vegetation type in the area assessed by Brokaw and Mallory (1993). Transition forest is found in the transitions in topography between swamp scrub forests and higher areas such as uplands (Brokaw and Mallory 1993).

13 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 2.4: View of jungle vegetation and American Seismic Line 3.

Ecozones Various aspects of the local environments were noted during survey, including soil, topography, and vegetation. For ease of comparison to other datasets, these areas were then assigned to one of six “ecozones,” which were proposed by Lohse (2001). Lohse (2001:43) defined different “ecozones” around Dos Hombres by examining “localized soil, slope, and hydrologic conditions.” Lohse (2001) based this categorization on his own observations, but drew on information from other studies conducted in the area, including Brokaw and Mallory’s (1993) and Dunning et al.’s (2003) research. By utilizing data from both environmental and archaeological studies,

14 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 scholars are able to gain insights about local prehispanic resource availability, including the prevalence of “arable soils, different types of construction materials, raw stone for toolmaking, and even water for consumption and agriculture (Lohse 2001:40).

As Lohse (2001:43) notes, “soil development and erosion processes have continued” in the centuries between the Late Classic and today. Furthermore, these ecozones should be viewed as approximations of the “natural conditions… (in) which residents of these communities and users of these structures would have adapted” (Lohse 2001:43). Lohse’s ecozones are upland bajos, transitional uplands, riverine floodplain, broken ridges, escoba bajo, and aguada margins; each is described below.

Upland Bajo

Upland Bajos are characterized as mostly level areas containing thick clay vertisols with poor drainage. Seasonal rains provide both sustenance and flooding in these areas and support vegetation with a low canopy and a dense understory. Commonly observed species in these areas include “black poisonwood (Metopium brownii), Santa Maria (Calpphyllum brasilinse), nargusta (Terminalia amazonia), pea (Gymnanthes lucida), boyjob (Matayba oppositifolia), and chicle (Makilkara zapota)” (Lohse 2001:51).

Transitional Uplands

In Transitional Upland areas, tall (<25 m) hardwoods create a thick overhead canopy, which prevents the type of dense understory growth observed in Upland Bajos. These areas are characterized by their steep and irregular slopes, along which natural and manmade terraces are often located. These formations likely serve as water catchment features to store seasonal rainfall. Generally, soils in these areas are “thin and stony,” but these level terraces can contain pockets of fertile soil up to 50 cm deep (Lohse 2001:52).

15 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Riverine Floodplain

Riverine Floodplains are located in areas flanking spring-fed perennial streams in the area (Río Bravo, Booth’s River). Mostly level topography, year-round water access, and organic-rich alluvial clays characterize these areas. Vegetation in Riverine Floodplains is more variable than that of other ecozones. “Open stands of cohune palms” located near the bases of escarpments often give way to nearly impassible swaths of bamboo grass the farther you move away from the escarpment (Lohse 2001:54).

These areas are considered to be seasonally agriculturally productive, but typically endure severe flooding activity during rainy seasons (Lohse 2001). Although local rains certainly contribute to these flooding events, upstream precipitation can broaden rivers’ edges greatly, and deepen streams by several meters (Brokaw and Mallory 1993; Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Broken Ridges

Broken Ridges are characterized as areas of “steeply-sloping ridges” interrupted by “broad troughs” reaching between 30 and 100 m wide (Lohse 2001:55). This markedly variable topography is well-drained, with seasonal rainfall providing intermittent access to freshwater. Erosional conditions have left the ridges with “thin to non-existent soils,” but have deposited thin but fertile colluvial soils in the low- lying troughs (Lohse 2001:55). According to Lohse (2001:55), these areas were likely “limited (in) potential for sustainable food production.”

Vegetation varies greatly between the troughs and ridge tops, with the troughs inundated with dense, low-lying plant life, and ridge tops marked by mixed hardwoods with a high canopy. Ramón (Brosimum alicastrum), my lady (Aspidosperma cruenta), sapotillo (Pouteria reticulata), copal (Protium copal), seiba, cabbage bark, and fig trees (Ficus oestediana) are common species found along these ridges (Lohse 2001).

16 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Escoba Bajo

Escoba Bajos are characterized as mostly level areas with poor drainage and thick clay vertisols. These soils are highly absorptive and remain swollen and saturated for much of the rainy season. The majority of water access comes from seasonal rainfall. Due to the soil type and the area’s essentially flat gradient, “well- defined water courses” are few and far between in Escoba Bajos (Lohse 2001:56).

Locally-identified species include black poisonwood (Metopium brownii), red gumbolimbo (Bursera simaruba), bullhorn acacia (Vachellia cornigera), and numerous escoba palms. Although mature, living specimens are now somewhat rare finds in much of the Río Bravo area, Lohse noted the presence of low-cut mahogany stumps in Escoba Bajos, indicating past presence of these hardwoods (Lohse 2001:56).

Aguada Margins

Aguada Margins are located in areas flanking large aguadas, which are large natural depressions that function as water catchment features. Often modified by surrounding communities, these aguadas are considered to be “significant natural features in terms of the exploitable aquatic or agricultural resources” provided to prehispanic communities (Lohse 2001:57). This is certainly the case with Dos Hombres, where a nearby pair of aguadas measuring 200-300 m in diameter provided fresh water for the inhabitants of the large site (Lohse 2001).

This ecozone is typically found in nearly level areas with well-drained mixed soils and visible limestone bedrock outcrops. The soils in Aguada Margins are particularly fertile, and vegetation in the surrounding areas transitions from dense underbrush nearby to larger, taller hardwoods further away. Lohse (2001) describes these conditions as similar to a transition between Escoba Bajo and Transitional Upland areas.

Summary These approximations of environmental conditions give archaeologists a window through which to examine resource availability during Maya occupation of

17 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 these areas. Different ecozones contain highly variable vegetation and soil types, water storage abilities, and raw material availability, such as clay for ceramics, stone for tools and structures, and so forth (Lohse 2001). For example, outcrops of construction- quality limestone were important to Maya construction efforts. Ecozones such as Broken Ridges and Transitional Uplands likely served as quarrying areas, such as the quarry found at BE-11, Ix Naab Witz (Sandrock 2013).

However, as Lohse (2001:41) points out, “In general...low-lying flat areas such as the Upland Bajo, Riverine Floodplain, and Escoba Bajo lack easily accessible outcrops.” Even when ignoring other factors (including but not limited to local soil types, presence or lack of perennial water sources, and seasonal flooding conditions), any scale of construction in these ecozones requires more effort than in others. Transporting heavy cut stones away from their sources calls for increased man-hours, making areas closer to potential quarries better-suited for intensive inhabitation and large-scale construction.

Cultural History

The Maya of the Three Rivers Region Belize and the southern Maya lowlands have seen at least 10,000 years of human activity, including the Maya settlers and their descendants that have inhabited Belize for nearly three millennia (Lohse et al. 2006). As with much of Mesoamerica, the chronological framework for the local area is derived from ceramic data, which is referenced to established chronologies from other sites (Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003). In general, archaeological projects in the Three Rivers Region have relied on comparing ceramic sequences excavated to those at Colha and Uaxactun (Houk 1996; Sagebiel 2008; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003; Smith 1955; Valdez 1987). According to Houk (2012), CCAP has adopted the chronological sequence spanning the Middle Preclassic (ca. 900 - 300 BC), Late Preclassic (300 BC - AD 250), Early Classic (AD 250 - 550), Late Classic (AD 550 - 840), Terminal Classic (AD 840 - 900), and Postclassic (AD 900 - 1600) periods. Recent work by BEAST, however, extends this

18 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 sequence into the late Colonial period (see Bonorden 2016). The Classic and Preclassic periods are preceded by the Paleoindian (11,500-8000 BC) and Archaic (8000- 900 BC) periods (Lohse et al. 2006).

The earliest evidence for human activity in Belize comes from a “small number of highly distinctive fluted points” found in northern and southern Belize (Lohse et al. 2006:214). The best-known of these artifacts is the “Ladyville Clovis,” a lanceolate specimen of similar style to other North American Clovis point technology (Hester et al. 1981; Lohse et al. 2006). These lithics have been dated to the Paleoindian period, between 11,500 and 8000 BC (Lohse et al. 2006). During this period, humans likely led “highly mobile” lives, relying on naturally-occurring edible plants, small animals, and now-extinct larger fauna for subsistence (Lohse et al. 2006).

Although Belize’s Archaic Period begins at the start of the Holocene epoch (approximately 8000 BC), little is known of human activity between the Paleoindian period and 3400 BC (Lohse et al. 2006:216). During the early Archaic (and Holocene) the global climate shifted from more cold and dry to generally more wet, and shorelines advanced as more accessible inland aquifers emerged (Lohse 2010).

Lohse (2010) argues that the cultural origins of the Lowland Maya began to take firm root between approximately 1100 and 900 BC, as nomadic preceramic lifeways gave way to a more horticulturally-based occupation of the landscape. Early villages were established in varying habitats— “lagoon margins, river valleys, near coastal areas, upland settings along ecotonal boundaries, rock shelters, and caves”— that provided access to key resources such as “high-quality toolstone” and fresh, potable water (Lohse et al. 2006:216). Lohse (2010:314-315) also points out that this shift in practice corresponds with the “rapid widespread appearance of ‘pan- Mesoamerican’ motifs.”

According to Sullivan and Sagebiel (2003:25), many of the sites in the Three Rivers Region were occupied during the Middle Preclassic to the Late Classic “with little indication of Postclassic occupation.” The oldest diagnostic ceramic uncovered in

19 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 the Three Rivers Region to date is an Early Preclassic Cunil-like sherd, which was found at Kaxil Uinic, some 2.6 km from Chan Chich (Harris and Sisneros 2012; Valdez and Houk 2012). Although from mixed context, this sherd indicates the earliest Maya occupation in the region occurred as far back as the Early Preclassic period, prior to 1000 BC (Valdez and Houk 2012).

The Middle proliferated throughout Mesoamerica, spilling into the highlands and lowlands with new village organization and ceramic wares (McKillop 2006). Lohse (2001) describes early lowland settlement as being characterized by small, nucleated villages. Sites such as and began to flourish around this time, aided by increasingly expansive trade networks (Coe 2011).

For many population centers throughout the Maya lowlands, the Middle Preclassic was a time of growth, as villages expanded in both number and size (Coe 2011, Sharer and Traxler 2006). Agricultural pursuits intensified as populations grew, and both social complexity and interaction with disparate site centers increased greatly. Craft specialization diversified, and individuals were typically employed as farmers and goods-producers (Coe 2011). During this time in Belize, the sites of Colha, , and Blackman Eddy underwent similar changes in population and structure (McKillop 2006). Recent radiocarbon dating at Chan Chich suggests the Upper Plaza at the site was occupied as early as 900 BC (Houk 2016).

The Late Preclassic saw a further increase of social stratification, evidenced locally by status differentiation in the form of architectural changes and elite burial practices at sites such as Blue Creek, Dos Hombres, and Río Azul (Adams et al. 2004). Instead of the small villages of the past, larger site centers started appearing across the Maya world, often focused around consistent access to clean water (Adams 1990, 1995, Sharer and Traxler 2006). During this time, populations and sites experienced large growth spurts, and Maya culture underwent a phase of “widespread development in... complexity” (McKillop 2006:88).

20 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

According to Sagebiel (2014), La Milpa began its expansion in earnest at some point in the Late Preclassic. Between the Late Preclassic and Early Classic, the site expanded from a somewhat meager village into a bustling city complete with monumental architecture and carved stone monuments (Sagebiel 2014).

In the Early Classic, writing in the form of hieroglyphic texts began to appear (around AD 300), with the first historical calendrical inscription coming from Tikal in AD 292 (McKillop 2006). Some of the most famous sites in the Maya lowlands came into fluorescence during the Early Classic, including Caracol, , and Tikal (Coe 2011). Growth and new constructions appear to stagnate during this time in much of the Three Rivers Region, but the Late Classic brought about a new, important phase of Maya occupation (Sagebiel 2014; Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003).

Between the Early and Late Classic periods, local populations underwent a period of large growth and expansion (Hageman 2004). Populations continued to rise through the Late Classic period, when an estimated 80 to 90 percent of the Three Rivers region’s Maya settlements were inhabited (Adams et al. 2004). This period also saw greater construction efforts at large site centers, as well as hinterland and agricultural expansion (Houk et al. 2008). Most sites in the Three Rivers Region likely saw their peak during the Late Classic period, and in many cases, lowland Maya ruins visible from the surface today are Late Classic forms (Adams et al. 2004).

Archaeological evidence dating to the Late Classic period indicates widespread craft specialization, new forms of social stratification, and an expansion of regional trade systems, controlled by the elite classes (Lohse 2001; Sagebiel 2014). Elite dominance of “exotic economic commodities” is evidenced in the presence of increasingly differentiated goods between elite and common spaces, particularly in burials (Lohse 2001:63). Toward the end of the Late Classic period, and leading into the Terminal Classic period, the areas around La Milpa experienced a decline in both population and power (Zaro and Houk 2012). Zaro and Houk (2012) suggest that this shift is symptomatic of a decline of the divine kingship that had ruled for centuries prior.

21 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

By the end of the Terminal Classic period, the majority of settlements in the local area were left mostly abandoned, and the once-prominent site centers’ “cultural fluorescence” waned (Sharer and Traxler 2006:588). Although there is wide debate regarding the specific causes of the so-called “Classic Maya Collapse,” Lohse (2001) describes the effects as widespread. During this time, populations in the area and the lowlands in general dwindled, with the Northern Yucatan serving as a likely destination for emigrants (Adams 1999; Robichaux 1995; Sharer and Traxler 2006).

There is some indication of Postclassic activity in the Three Rivers Region, but the few sites that exhibit Postclassic features show little (if any) “evidence of... rural population or construction at large sites” (Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003:27). Houk et al. (2007) describe the Postclassic activity in the area as reduced to visitation with some occupation, as evidenced by on-going (albeit limited) construction at the sites of Akab Muclil, Gran Cacao, and La Milpa. Evidence of Postclassic pilgrimages exists at Chan Chich, Dos Hombres, La Milpa, and Medicinal Trail (Houk et al. 2008; Hyde 2011). These visits are evidenced by lithic and ceramic artifacts left as offerings found in apparent monument veneration (Houk et al. 2008). Additionally, arrow points dating to the Postclassic period suggest incursions to sites and ruins by hunting parties (Houk et al. 2008).

Historical Background: Belize, from Colony to Country In the 16th and 17th centuries, Spain colonized and occupied much of the New World. At some point in the 1540s, Spanish conquistadors laid colonial claim to much of eastern Central America. Although they were originally seen as unattractive to early European settlers, these rich lands were eventually coveted by other European powers, who saw the region’s vast potential for settlement and trade (Gasco 2005). During the early and middle 17th century, the English, Dutch, and French attempted to cut out their own slice of the remaining pie, which included the Lesser Antilles, Guianas, and the Caribbean coast from the Yucatan to Nicaragua (Bolland 1992). England eventually claimed Jamaica in 1655, and used this new post to claim settlements along the Caribbean coast, including British Honduras (now known as Belize).

22 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

In 1667, European powers ratified a treaty against piracy, which led to an economic shift from pirating to timber harvesting, necessitating more permanent settlements (Simmons 2001). The 1670 Godolphin Treaty further ratified England’s existing colonial holdings, but conflicts between the Spanish and English continued. By 1717, the Spanish pushed the English east out of the Bay of Campeche, which led to an increase in British settlement around the Belize River (Bolland 1992).

This struggle between the two colonial powers continued throughout the 18th century, when the 1783 Treaty of Versailles gave the British full permission to harvest logwood in the forests between the Río Hondo and Belize River. At this time, logwood demand was in decline, but mahogany and other fine hardwoods saw their demand (and value) increase (Bolland 1992).

The Caste War during the late 19th century marked a 50-year period of warfare and resistance by indigenous rebel forces against European settlers (Dornan 2004). By the end of 1855, an estimated 200,000 people were dislocated or killed in the fighting (Rugeley 1996). Although, as Dornan (2004:xiv) asserts, “the Caste War was one of the most successful indigenous uprisings in the history of the Americas,” little research has delved into the everyday lives of the “estimated one million Maya” that occupied the region. Between 1847 and 1855, the population of the Yucatan was halved, and thousands immigrated into British Honduras (Dornan 2004).

The Maya village of San Pedro was founded in northwestern Belize around 1857 by comandante Asuncion Ek and a group from Chichanha, Mexico following a decade of bloody conflict (Sutherland 1998). These Caste War refugees fled their previous homes near the Santa Cruz Maya lands, retreating to the hilly jungles of Guatemala and British Honduras (Bolland 1992; Sutherland 1998). Most individuals in this founding group were Maya, but it is likely that San Pedro was a diverse settlement comprised of African, Mestizo, and Creole populations (Sutherland 1998). Villages such as San Jose and (at least 20 in all) were established in the area (Sutherland 1998). San Pedro, the largest of the villages, acted as a regional center of

23 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 military and political action (Sutherland 1998). By 1862, Approximately 1,000 Maya had settled in villages around San Pedro (Bolland 2003).

Located approximately 2 km from the Belize-Guatemala border and 2 km from Chan Chich, Kaxil Uinic village (BE-16) was settled in the late 19th century by San Pedro Maya (Houk 2012b; Jones 1977:161-162). These initial settlers were refugees from the Yucatán Caste War, and remained in the area until 1931. After up to 60 years of residence, the villagers were removed to San José Yalbac by the Belize Estate and Produce Company (Houk 2012b:35). Bonorden (2016) recently completed two seasons of research at Kaxil Uinic village.

Already thoroughly entrenched in their colony, European landowners were given titles to their holdings by the Legislative Assembly, but “Indians” were still forced to rent or reside elsewhere (Bolland 1992, 2003). This was further mandated by the 1872 Crown Lands Ordinance, which established reservations for Maya and Garifuna populations, who were increasingly viewed as squatters on British property (Bolland 1992). As the colonists continued denying these populations rights, they prevented other groups outside their own from owning property and continued to use them as sources of cheap but valuable labor (Bolland 1992, 2003). A series of conflicts saw the Maya re-take massive tracts of land in the Yucatan, only to return home to tend crops. Due to this, and the generally more well-equipped European powers, the Maya were beaten back (Sutherland 1998).

Despite this, these populations continued their resistance, attacking mahogany camps and taking control of other centers in inland Belize. In 1866, an outfit led by Marcos Canul conducted a successful raid on a logging camp known as Qualm Hill camp (BE-15) near modern-day Cedar Crossing, located approximately 1.6 km south of the Programme for Belize-Laguna Seca property line. Canul was an Ichaiche chief, fighting under the abetment of the Mexican claim to the land. Although San Pedro was supplied by the British, the townspeople welcomed and joined Canul’s cause with open arms. During this battle, also referred to as the Chichina raid, Canul and his men killed two British loggers and took the rest prisoner for ransom. Later that year, the

24 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

British sent a detachment of troops to San Pedro in response to the raid, but this squad was swiftly defeated by residents of the town (Bolland 1992). Bonorden (2016) recently conducted excavations at Qualm Hill camp, the theorized location of Canul’s raid.

In the spring of 1867, at least 300 British troops climbed to the Yalbac Hills and attempted to uproot the Maya, destroying Maya villages, stores, and granaries. Though defeated, the Maya returned by 1870, and in April of that year Canul’s troops managed to occupy the town of Corozal (Bolland 1992). The indigenous campaign would continue for at least two more years, when Canul and 150 of his men marched on a British encampment at Orange Walk. After an intense battle, Canul’s group was forced to retreat; their leader wounded and unable to continue. On September 1, 1872, Marcus Canul was dead from his battle-related injuries, and the British colony would never face another serious attack (Bolland 1992; Sutherland 1998).

Comprised of the wealthiest landowners and merchants, the Legislative Assembly controlled the colony’s finances. These costly military engagements had increased the expenses of the colony during a time of economic depression, and different groups of businesses and landowners held varying ideals on how best to handle the taxation situation. While merchants within city control felt no threat from Maya attacks, inland landowners still saw their lands, plantations, and lumber camps as threatened. The city merchants felt little responsibility to pay for the protection of inland territory, preferring lower export taxes and increased land taxation, with the landowners opting for the opposite. As political disagreements teemed, the Legislative Assembly voted to surrender political privileges back to England, preferring a direct British rule as a crown colony. This change went into effect in 1871, when the Legislative Council shifted control from a settler-run oligarchy to British boardrooms and colonial offices (Bolland 1992).

Originally registered in 1859, the British Honduras Company became the domineering land ownership group in the colony via expansion and acquisition. The company became Belize Estate and Produce Company in 1875, when they possessed

25 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 roughly half of all privately-owned lands in the colony (Bolland 1992). Their position as a force to be reckoned with was firmly established. Highlighting this point is the fact that whoever was serving as manager of the company automatically held membership on the Legislative Council, while Creoles and other minorities were all but excluded from the process. By this point, cedar, chicle, and hardwood accounted for 82 percent of all export revenue, and BEC still owned massive swaths of the timber-covered country (Bolland 1992).

Through economic downturn and labor activism, the company suffered but survived. The economy of the colony was based primarily on exports, causing outside dependence (on both England and the United States) and underdevelopment (Sutherland 1998). After the turn of the 20th century, under-represented groups began to find their voices and power. In 1927, Creole businessmen uprooted the British from their long-standing seats on the Legislative Council. The BEC manager still held a place on the council, but this new inclusion of Creoles marked an important social shift (Bolland 1992). This event acted as a catalyst to further change, and by the 1930s modern political movements swept across the colony.

Over the next half-century, laborers fighting for better conditions and against strict and brutal colonial rulership managed to pry more and more political control from British hands. After decades of political upheaval, Belize gained independence on September 21, 1981, when nearly every town and village raised the nation’s flag at midnight (Bolland 1992). Four days later, the country was admitted to the United Nations, becoming a member of the Non-Aligned Movement (Sutherland 1998). Despite the once-tense relationship between Belizeans and the British, Belize was also admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations (Sutherland 1998).

Glicksten Property and Investment Trust purchased BEC in 1947, but the new management left much of the owned land unused. In lieu of paying traditional taxes, the local government acquired more than a million acres, most of which was owned by BEC. After this parsing, the company owned only 709,000 acres, 500,000 of which were sold to Coca-Cola in 1985. As part of political and economic backlash to their

26 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 environmentally-unfriendly approach to their new holdings, Coca-Cola eventually decided to abandon their planned agricultural project. Approximately 250,000 acres of these holdings later became the Río Bravo Conservation Area (Sutherland 1998).

In the mid-1980s, Barry Bowen, purchased BEC and reopened the abandoned company town of Gallon Jug. In 1987, Bowen and Tom Harding located and named the site of Chan Chich, and began a project that would eventually see the construction of Chan Chich Lodge (Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996).

Three groups of Maya (Yucatecan, Mopán, and Kekchí) continue to reside in modern Belize. Although all three are descendants of the Pre-Columbian Maya, only the Yucatecan Maya are indigenous to Belize, and most Kekchí and Mopán Maya are immigrants from Guatemala and Mexico (Rutheiser 1992).

27 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This chapter frames the survey work carried out by BEAST within its theoretical and methodological bounds. The following sections discuss the history and importance of archaeological survey in both broad and region-specific contexts, followed by a detailed examination of BEAST’s methods of survey and analysis.

Theoretical Background The initial reports on lowland Maya settlement and sites came from early Spanish colonialists, who visited ruins like Palenque and Copan and delivered their reports to the Spanish crown. In the centuries to follow, these ancient construction efforts were largely ignored. During the 19th century, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood ignited “the imagination of scholars in Europe and America” with their records and illustrations of ruins and monuments in the Maya area (Ashmore and Willey 1981:5). In the late 19th century, Teobert Maler, Désiré Charnay, and Alfred Maudslay took the next steps toward modern settlement studies. These “explorer-archaeologists” traversed the dense jungles of Central America amassing locations, descriptions, and drawings of ever more Maya ruins (Ashmore and Willey 1981).

Unlike his predecessors and many of his contemporaries, Edward H. Thompson (1886, 1892) turned his eye toward the smaller mounds around the Yucatan, examining small groups around larger sites. Noting their great numbers and strong resemblance to the existing house mounds of the living Maya he encountered, Thompson posited that these small groups must represent households (Ashmore and Willey 1981). Following in Thompson’s footsteps, Alfred M. Tozzer (1913) was one of the first to record structures between these site centers in a relatively detailed and systematic fashion. Prior to this, explorers had largely ignored such features, and, as Puleston (1973) notes, “such observations, when they are reported at all, occasionally appear in the introductory sections of site reports (Maler 1911:5) or within the texts of

28 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 reconnaissance surveys (Merwin 1913)”. In the 1920s and 1930s, Sylvanus G. Morley (1937) created maps and descriptions of sites during his hieroglyph documentation project, creating an early site catalog.

Survey methods continued to change and improve, and a more modern interpretation of settlement pattern studies arose in the mid-20th century to combat what Ashmore and Willey (1981) later described as a relatively narrow focus of archaeological objectives. Ashmore and Willey (1981:10) paint a picture of landscape prior to the advent of settlement pattern studies in which archaeologists dwelled on “pottery type sequences, culture trait classifications, and trait distribution studies.” Advocates of this newer vein of archaeological study focused on painting a more in- depth landscape of “people, society, and behavior—with contextual relationships, function and process” (Ashmore and Willey 1981:10).

Ashmore and Willey (1981) describe O. G. Ricketson, Jr.’s work at Uaxactun as the “first ‘full-dress’ Maya lowland settlement pattern study”. During this study, the Ricketsons set up a cruciform survey to examine settlement around the large Petén site (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937). Although their methodology was far from thorough compared to modern standards, Ashmore and Willey (1981:9) claim this project as “the first gathering and analysis of a large-scale sample of settlement data.”

Julian H. Steward (1937) was also among one of the earliest proponents of settlement studies, but Gordon R. Willey was the first conduct a major settlement survey project in the Maya lowlands (Ashmore and Willey 1981). Roughly a decade after Willey’s (1953) famous studies in Peru, he brought his method of study into Mesoamerica when he conducted archaeological surveys near the town of Barton Ramie, located in the Belize River Valley (Willey et al. 1965). Willey’s influence on survey in the Maya Lowlands was massive, and many survey projects followed in his project’s footsteps.

In his survey of Tikal, Puleston (1973) adopted a modified version of Willey’s methods, creating a cruciform of survey transects extending from the site’s core. This

29 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 method of survey can be particularly effective in studying the lowland Maya, thanks to its ability to mitigate low visibility found throughout tropical forests (Boudreaux 2013). Additionally, transects such as Puleston’s are viewed as the one of the most objective ways to collect data in a concise manner without the aid of remote sensing (Boudreaux and Cortes-Rincon 2013).

Dennis Puleston (1973) saw a relative dearth of data regarding the hinterlands, where the majority of ancient Maya populations likely resided. Until his study, most archaeological research focused primarily on awe-inspiring site centers rather than the masses of household groups located in the periphery of centers. In order to fill in the gaps between the numerous projects that focused on large site centers, Puleston (1973) sought to examine the political sphere of Tikal, and how the site’s influence was evident throughout the local area outside the site core.

Dennis Puleston (1973) identified three primary survey methodologies that had examined intersite occupation: trail, area, and site surveys. Trail surveys were the most common in the early age of archaeological exploration in the Maya world, and involved traipsing through the jungle recording major sites using local guides to point the way. Puleston (1973) praised trail survey data as useful “for obtaining an impression of settlement patterns and density,” but recognized the downside of the non-systematic approach of such techniques.

Area surveys were far less common than trail surveys, owing to the region’s often heavily forested condition. This method was used mostly on cleared fields and the northern Maya lowlands in general (Puleston 1973). In open, visible spaces, structure mounds are easily recognizable, lending to an accurate and rapid recording of features.

Site surveys occur after a site has been located. Settlement in the immediate surrounding area is recorded, creating a larger picture of the site core’s relationship to its periphery. Often accomplished using a grid system, this approach has been used at many sites in the region (Houk, Valdez et al. 1996 at Chan Chich; Tourtellot et al.

30 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

1996 at La Milpa). Site surveys can lend insight into site planning ideals, site boundaries, and site population estimates.

Scarborough and Valdez (2009:209) take what they term a “lateral” approach to examining stratified relationships in , and decry a “lack of systematic survey control over large swathes of contiguous landscape.” Despite over a century of development, they suggest that most previous survey work is still overly-focused on the areas immediately surrounding large sites. In their view, this focus creates a “sorely incomplete” picture of disparate hinterland communities, which emphasizes the “glorious history” displayed in ceremonial or economic centers (Scarborough and Valdez 2009:209).

This avenue often forcefully paints small villages and towns as simply existing in some degree of subservience to these centers, rather than operating as autonomous economic units with complex relationships to other units. In their view, the imbalance in data stemming from mostly site-centered survey is especially apparent when compared to survey results from more open and arid study areas (Scarborough and Valdez 2009).

Maps and other data recovered during survey studies allow for an examination of many facets of Maya communities. Houk and Robichaux (1996:20) provide a rundown of possible issues to be tackled with such data, especially when looking at single communities or sites. Issues discussed in the aforementioned piece that are of particular interest to BEAST include:

Density of structures at the community, variation in size among structures present within the community; The composition and spatial arrangement of structures within residential units; The number of different structure construction types present and their relative frequencies; The distribution of structures within differing topographical and vegetational zones; The location of possible agricultural fields within the community; The positioning of non- agricultural economic activity areas such as lithic workshops within the community; The relationship of settlement to major natural features such as rivers and bajos; The population density of the ancient community; Efforts at general community planning; The similarities

31 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

between the local community layout and those of other Maya communities (Houk and Robichaux 1996:20). For settlement patterning to be an effective avenue for study, one must assume that ideas about the use of space can be observed through archaeological evidence (Parsons 1972). Settlement surveys can give researchers valuable insights on potential population estimates. Harrison and Turner (1978) suggest that the analysis of residential units is the more accurate avenue for the estimation of local and regional populations. Settlement patterning enables researchers to investigate cultural aspects through mapping, such as social structures present and rationale behind location choice (Parsons 1972). Such studies, especially those working between known sites, allow for an examination of populations’ relationships with other nearby (and more distant) populations (Ashmore and Willey 1981).

However, Julia Hendon (1992) acknowledges the limitations of survey data unaided by excavations. By looking at two case studies from and Copan, she demonstrates the detail in structures only exposed by excavation, with exposure revealing far more structures than survey in the majority of instances. In both instances, the projects conducted excavations to more accurately analyze “function, social status, chronology, and population size” of structures and groups (Hendon 1992:24).

Hendon (1992) claims that projects at both sites realized their interpretations were somewhat limited because of an over-reliance on data collected during survey and discusses how the classification of mounds found during survey can vary drastically from what actually exists. These variances do not apply in every instance, but they do suggest an overall trend for sites to increase rather than decrease in size (i.e., in numbers of identifiable structures) after excavation.

Since features closest to the ground surface are most often the latest evidence for occupation, survey studies are also intrinsically biased toward examinations of later occupational periods (Boudreaux 2013; Hageman 2004). In the Three Rivers

32 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Region, most sites likely saw their peak and final construction episodes during the Late Classic (Hageman 2004).

Survey techniques may be less applicable to more nomadic ancient cultures, which often leave a more discreet archaeological footprint. In the case of the Maya, the archaeological footprint is much more obvious and easily evidenced by the multitudes of structures and features (both tiny and massive) that are still present throughout their world. Due to this, Hendon (1992) is cognizant of the significance of these surface finds toward reconstructing Mesoamerican prehistory.

Despite describing a combination survey and excavation as the ideal method, Hendon (1992:38) still asserts that the data stemming from survey work can be add much to the discourse regarding “regional and temporal variation in ancient Mesoamerican cultural evolution.” Even though significant insights can be attained with this multivalent approach, limited budgets and the growing importance of site preservation have brought about an increased reliance of expedient research and with it an increased dependence on survey (Hendon 1992).

Baudez (1983) held the same idea on discrepancies between survey and excavation data, and understood that the criteria applied have a tangible influence on the quantity and classification of structures and sites. To discuss settlement in broad terms, it must first be examined on a smaller, more discrete scale. In this way, sites can be considered one of the most basic units of a settlement-pattern typology (Ashmore 1981). Even more refined in scale, one could record settlement on a structure group or single-structure basis.

Difficulties in effectively assigning a typology to features found in lowland Maya settlement studies are well documented (Boudreaux 2013; Hageman 2004; Hendon 1992; Leventhal 1979; Robichaux 1995; Tourtellot 1988; Willey and Leventhal 1979). According to Bruce Trigger (1967), settlement can be analyzed on three different scales: individual structures, localized groups of structures forming settlements, and the distribution of these settlements across a landscape as a whole.

33 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Jeffrey Parsons (1972) recognized this tridental approach as effective, but only when analysis considers all three scales in concert.

Complicating matters, as Hageman (2004) points out, is the tendency of measurements of mounds recorded during survey to not necessarily be accurate reflections of the structures hidden below stone and organic debris. This dichotomy is the result of natural site formation processes that have modified existing features over some 1,200 years of abandonment. Although current mound size is not always the most accurate method of estimating past structure size, Hageman (2004) believes that this information serves as an appropriate estimation, as long as the results are presented as suggestive instead of conclusive.

Sarah Boudreaux (2013) proposes that few survey projects have taken place in the Three Rivers region due to the logistical issues that accompany jungle survey. Ideally, such surveys would be conducted in cleared fields (such as the author’s survey of the recently burnt-clear area surrounding Xiaman Witz, see Heller [2012]). However, the remote nature of these ancient ruins and the heavily forested state of much local area has made for great difficulty in survey. Due to this, archaeological surveyors working in the Río Bravo area have “literally, only scratched the surface” in our examination of Maya settlement (Guderjan et al. 1991:1).

Previous Investigations near Gallon Jug and Laguna Seca Although there have been several archaeology projects conducted on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property, no large-scale, systematic surveys were undertaken prior to BEAST’s studies. The first archaeological visitor to the Programme for Belize, Gallon Jug, or Laguna Seca properties was J. Eric Thompson (1963), who visited the area in 1931, passing through the historic village of Kaxil Uinic en route from San José to La Honradez, Guatemala. Thompson later worked for several days at La Milpa (Hammond 1991). Thompson recorded several sites in the local area, including La Milpa and one he described as Kaxil Uinic (Houk 2012b). Despite

34 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 encountering Kaxil Uinic, which is located just 1.6 km away from the site core at Chan Chich, it is unlikely Thompson ever visited the much larger site (Houk 2012b).

According to the site files at the Institute of Archaeology, the Archaeological Commissioner of Belize visited the site of El Infierno in the early-to-mid 20th century (Guderjan et al. 1991). Little more is known about this excursion, such as the purpose for the visit, the number of sites visited, or even where El Infierno is located (Sandrock 2013; Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Other groups commissioned by the Department of Archaeology recorded a handful of sites located north of Programme for Belize lands between 1970 and the early 1980s (Guderjan et al. 1989). During this time, Mary Neivens (1991) carried out investigations on the Maya site of Blue Creek, located near the modern town of the same name. In the late 1980s, Anabel Ford and Scott Feddick (1988) were contracted to appraise the potential archaeological significance of the Programme for Belize property, which led to the initiation of many projects in the area.

Several projects conduct research on the properties surrounding Gallon Jug- Laguna Seca. Immediately to the north, the Programme for Belize Archaeology Project (PfBAP) holds a permit covering all of the Programme for Belize (PfB) lands. This area contains many sites, including La Milpa, Gran Cacao, and Dos Hombres (Hammond et al. 1998; Houk 2011; Houk 1996; Lohse 2001; Robichaux 1995; Scarborough and Valdez 2003; Walling 1995). Various archaeologists have overseen research on the Programme for Belize lands, including (Tourtellot et al. 1996), R.E.W. Adams, and most recently, Fred Valdez, Jr. (Adams et al. 2004). Northwest of the PfB property, the Maya Research Project (MRP) conducts research at several sites in the area, most notably at Blue Creek (Guderjan 2007; Guderjan et al. 1991; Neivens 1991). On the Yalbac Property (immediately south of Gallon Jug- Laguna Seca property), the Valley of Peace Archaeology Project (VOPA) is currently focused on the site of and areas surrounding Cara Blanca (Lucero 2013, 2014).

35 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Previous Investigations on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca Property During 1988 and 1990, the Rio Bravo Archaeological Project (RBAP) conducted the most expansive reconnaissance work on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property to date. During these surveys, RBAP recorded 41 sites, including 17 on the Programme for Belize lands and 12 on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property. In addition to mapping 37 structures within Chan Chich’s site core, RBAP mapped the sites of Gallon Jug, E’kenha (now Kaxil Uinic), Laguna Seca, Laguna Verde, Punta de Cacao, Qualm Hill, and Gongora Ruin (Guderjan et al 1991). All of these sites are discussed in detail in Chapter V.

Programme for Belize Archaeological Project In the early 1990s, R. E. W. Adams (1995) initiated the PfBAP to investigate archaeological resources on the PfB property north of Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca (Adams 1995). During the projects’ first few seasons, research was focused on lengthy surveys and excavations on small sites (Houk 1996). In August 1995, a PfBAP survey team mapped the trails that surround and intersect the site in relation to the ruins at the request of the managers of Chan Chich Lodge (Houk, Valdez, et al. 1996). PfBAP archaeologists returned to the Gallon Jug property in 2006 for an investigation of the Maya site of Qualm Hill, and discovered Qualm Hill camp, the historic scatter near Cedar Crossing, en route to the prehistoric ruins (Cackler et al. 2007). During their visit, the PfBAP crew assessed the condition of the site and confirmed its location with updated GPS points (Cackler et al. 2007). It is worth noting that this style of relocation is nearly identical to BEAST’s method of revisiting previously recorded sites (Sandrock 2013; Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Chan Chich Archaeological Project and Belize Estates Archaeological Survey Team In 1996, CCAP’s first season, archaeologists returned to map a 1.54-km2 block around the site, recording all structures, topography, and changes in vegetation (Houk and Robichaux 1996). During the 1996 field season, CCAP’s mapping project managed to record 253 structures, including 187 newly-recorded mounds (Houk 1998;

36 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996; Robichaux et al. 1997). In the following season, CCAP performed the first excavations at the site, located in the Upper and Main Plazas (Houk 1997). Excavations continued in the 1998, 1999, and 2001 field seasons (Houk 2012).

More than a decade passed before the reinitiation of CCAP, when Houk (2012) returned to Chan Chich for the 2012 field season. During May and June 2012, CCAP carried out excavations at both Chan Chich proper and Kaxil Uinic ruins, a smaller site 2.6 km west of Chan Chich (Harris and Sisneros 2012; Houk 2012). In May of the following year, BEAST initiated the first substantial survey work on the property in some 12 years, which continued for the 2013 and 2014 field seasons (Sandrock 2013, Sandrock and Willis 2014). Under the auspices of BEAST, Brooke Bonorden (2016) investigated Qualm Hill camp and Kaxil Uinic village in 2015. Bonorden (2016) returned for a second season of work at Kaxil Uinic village in 2016.

Punta de Cacao Archaeology Project (PdCAP) Robichaux’s project investigated Punta de Cacao in the early 2000s, mapping the site core and conducting excavations over the span of three field seasons (Pruett 2003; Robichaux 2002, 2005). In total, PdCAP mapped 3.33 km² surrounding Punta de Cacao, recording 522 structures between the site core and the various residential groups in the surrounding areas. In addition, PdCAP conducted detailed instrument mapping and excavations in several locations around the site core (Robichaux 2005).

Other Settlement Surveys in Northwestern Belize Most archaeological studies in northwestern Belize have taken place near large site centers, such as Dos Hombres (Houk 1996; Lohse 2001; Robichaux 1995; Walling 1995), La Milpa (Hammond et al. 1998; Houk 2011; Robichaux 1995; Zaro and Houk 2012), and Blue Creek (Guderjan 2007; Guderjan et al. 2003). Blue Creek is currently studied by the Maya Research Program, and La Milpa and Dos Hombres are within the Programme for Belize permit area (Guderjan 2007).

37 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Working around Dos Hombres and La Milpa, Hugh Robichaux’s (1995) dissertation research involved a large amount of survey work. Previous studies at Dos Hombres had examined the site center and some of the periphery, but the site’s relationships to sites in the surrounding area were still unclear (Houk 1996). Despite using a pre-cut oil exploration line (near Dos Hombres) as a project baseline, Robichaux’s (1995) methods varied from Puleston’s transect study (1973) Instead of focusing study along this line, Robichaux (1995) randomly selected 300 by 300 m survey blocks along the line for his study.

In order to analyze possible community dynamics and organization, Jon Lohse (2001) conducted a radial transect survey around Dos Hombres. Viewing transects in a similar light to BEAST’s own, Lohse (2001) believed that a radial transect represents a highly systematic method for examining both environmental and cultural aspects of occupation. His project also examined settlement’s relationship to local resources such as land suitable for farming, fresh water, and construction-quality limestone, concluding that environmental factors were a significant influence on settlement patterns (Lohse 2001). This thesis draws heavily from Lohse’s analysis methods.

During his dissertation research, John Hageman (2004) conducted a survey transect running between Dos Hombres and La Milpa to locate and record settlement. Using a baseline with perpendicularly cut brechas, his project created a de facto grid along the transect, and recorded several types of data on structure mounds and other features (Hageman 2004).

The Dos Hombres to Gran Cacao Archaeology Project (DH2GC) is an ongoing systematic survey utilizing a pure brecha transect system, with smaller cut lines extending from the main transect (Cortes-Rincon 2011). Extending from Dos Hombres to the site of Gran Cacao some 12 km away, DH2GC uses survey, detailed mapping, and excavations to better understand possible interaction between the two site centers (Boudreaux 2013; Cortes-Rincon 2011). This transect is perhaps the most ambitious survey and excavation project ever undertaken on the Programme for Belize property (Boudreaux 2013). Although Lohse (2001), Hageman (2004), Robichaux (1995), and

38 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Cortes-Rincon (2011) all utilize varying survey methods, each project’s findings are aided greatly by excavations to establish chronology and ascertain uses of structures.

Methodology

Transect Survey Methodology Due to the dense vegetation present throughout the region, most nearby survey projects are forced to machete their way through the jungle. This can be an expensive, intensive, and time-draining endeavor. Due to the prevalence of pre-cut lines with relative ease-of-access, BEAST was presented with a somewhat unique opportunity to rapidly conduct large-scale survey.

Figure 3.1: Map of American Seismic lines.

During 2012 and 2013, American Seismic cleared 13 lines on varying headings (Figure 3.1). These lines were originally cut to carry out exploratory studies

39 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 attempting to uncover possible subsurface petroleum deposits. Since these lines were pre-cut, mostly in fair condition, and relatively easy to access, crews could quickly cover large swaths of the survey area. For ease of organization, all of American Seismic’s lines were re-numbered, starting with AS1, AS2, and so forth.

Lines were then selected for survey for various traits including length and prevalence of multiple ecological settings, with AS1 and AS6 serving as the primary targets for the 2013 and 2014 field seasons, respectively. Other lines were selected to provide a different cross-section view of the property, as was the case with AS3, AS7, and AS8 (Table 3.1). Thanks to rapid rate of survey and the relative lack of intensive archaeological surveys conducted on the property, these essentially random samples allow for a more in-depth examination of the scale and intensity of Pre-Columbian occupation in the immediate area than previously possible. Due to time limitations and the unpredictable nature of jungle survey, not all lines were surveyed, and not all initiated lines were completed.

Much of the survey area is forested, but all-weather and seasonally-accessible logging roads provide access to some areas. The main road on the property runs north- south, connecting Gallon Jug to the Programme for Belize’s Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area to the north and Yalbac Ranch to the south. Because the first

Table 3.1: Transect Survey Overview

Distance Total Area # of Structures Survey Area Surveyed (km) (km²) Structures per km² American Seismic 1 26 0.728 118 162.09 American Seismic 3 12 0.336 47 139.88 American Seismic 6 20.65 0.578 50 86.51 American Seismic 7 4.7 0.132 23 174.24 American Seismic 8 7.3 0.204 37 181.37 Survey from lines 5.19 0.145 (included above) Total: 75.84 km 2.123 km² 275

40 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 major town along this road to the north is the Mennonite community of Blue Creek, we refer to this as the Blue Creek road. The Blue Creek road and most of the other all- weather roads in the area are constructed of crushed limestone caliche and are approximately 8 m wide. Most of the additional roads on the property were originally cut by logging operations and are typically two-track dirt (mostly mud when it rains) roads approximately 5 m wide.

Utilizing these existing roads and a trusty, well-loved four-wheel drive Toyota HiLux nicknamed La Dinosauria to gain access (Figure 3.2), BEAST conducted pedestrian survey on over 70 km of cut line in addition to other areas of targeted survey. BEAST crews typically consisted of the author, Jerry Serminia or Josimar Magana (our field guides), and one or two field school students.

Figure 3.2: La Dinosauria takes a lunch break by Laguna Verde.

Using the cut lines as baselines, survey coverage spanned out to the extent of visual range to either side of the transect. Range of visibility on the transects varied based on vegetation, but survey crews encountered a range between 10 and 30 m in

41 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 each direction. On average, the visible survey corridors were approximately 28 m wide, matching the expected 14-m visibility to either side of a line described by Robichaux and Houk (1996). BEAST recorded all structures within the transect, in addition to any other structures visible from mapped mounds, regardless of their visibility from the transect. BEAST conducted no excavations, so chronologies of groups are essentially unknown. However, structures found most likely represent Late Classic construction episodes (Hageman 2004; Robichaux 1995).

After identifying a structure, crews used a GPS receiver to record its location, established likely boundaries for the structure, and mapped the structure using a 25-m fiberglass tape and Suunto KB-20 compass. To better examine shapes of recorded structures, crews used machetes to clear vegetation before mapping. Due to technological limitations, we were forced to abandon the Trimble Junos originally intended for use on survey, instead utilizing a Garmin eTrex 10 as a replacement. Although much less expensive than the Junos, the eTrex 10 provided 3 to 5 m accuracy, even under dense jungle canopy. Due to the nature of our survey and the structures and sites recorded by survey crews, BEAST opted to record each structure individually, making notes of associations with other nearby structures. After mapping individual structures, maps were combined to form groupings of these associated structures to establish their positional relationships. We followed the standard system of depicting mounds as rectified or prismatic shapes (Hutson 2012).

Every structure was assigned a STR- number, and sites were recorded with their own BE- designation (for Belize Estates). BE- designations were assigned to any location meeting the following criteria: the total number of structures present (four or more), height of tallest structure (at least 4 m in total height, including the substructure), and relative isolation of the structure group (not within 1 km of another BE-designated site of the same cultural period). Brokaw and Mallory’s (1993) vegetation types were used to record the various settings that span each of the surveyed lines. The ecozone for each structure and group recorded by BEAST was

42 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 noted, based on the vegetation, apparent soil conditions, and general landscape of the surrounding area.

Figure 3.3: David Sandrock explains BEAST’s recording methods to a student.

In post-field processing, the field maps were converted into scaled drawings using iDraw by Indeeo, Inc. (now named Graphic) running on an Apple iPad 2. All geographic information system (GIS) work was carried out using ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.1 Advanced Edition. Information gathered from survey and background review was recorded into the CCAP database using FileMaker Go (Version 11.0.2), and Institute of Archaeology entries were created for all sites on the property. All photos taken in the field were recorded in a photo log, including date, photographer, and direction in which the photo was taken.

Utilizing a similar method to Hageman’s (2004), measurements of the structures are used to compare occupation in different survey areas. Similarities and differences from both within the survey area and across property lines (using Hageman’s data from Programme for Belize property) are analyzed in Chapter VI.

43 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Structure height from base to peak, basal length, and basal width are all considered in this study.

In analyzing BEAST’s survey data, Boudreaux’s (2013) group type assignment system is applied to structures and compared to other nearby datasets. Boudreaux’s ranking system works under the assumption of an existing hierarchical stratification of groups, in that bigger groups are more significant to the surrounding area than smaller groups. Like BEAST, Boudreaux utilized a cut-off distance of 25 m between structures to differentiate groups. These groupings and associations can only truly be verified or debunked through excavation, but a 25-m separation is adequate for terms of survey data (Boudreaux 2013).

Using this system, associated structures forming groups, courtyards, and sites are easier to analyze via comparison. Boudreaux’s dataset includes results from both the Dos Hombres to Gran Cacao Archaeology Project (2013) and John Lohse’s (2001) dissertation work around Dos Hombres. In her comparison, Boudreaux discusses settlement in terms of both size and setting, including an analysis of settlement within each of Lohse’s (2001) proposed “ecozones.”

BEAST’s survey data is also compared to findings from Hageman's (2004) dissertation work, which was concerned with the general social organization of the Late Classic lowland Maya. To better understand the relationships between Dos Hombres and La Milpa, Hageman conducted a transect survey similar in nature to the DH2GC transect. During this survey, Hageman identified and recorded the remains of settlement activity along a transect with perpendicular brechas from Dos Hombres to La Milpa (Hageman 2004).

During his work around La Milpa and Dos Hombres, Robichaux collected survey data to examine the large site centers’ influence on nearby settlement. Robichaux found that while the larger, more impressive construction occurred near site centers, settlement in more hinterland areas was typically smaller, but far more

44 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 variable in size and format. As part of his study, Robichaux (1995) calculated population estimates based on a method originally used by Culbert et al. (1990).

Site Revisits Although the primary target for this survey was the seismic lines, BEAST conducted separate investigations in addition to linear surveys. Planned revisits of sites previously mapped by RBAP during the 1988 and 1990 field seasons (see Guderjan et al. 1991) took place to examine sites’ conditions, re-map the sites if necessary, and record a more accurate UTM location for each site. BEAST targeted the sites of Gallon Jug, Laguna Verde, and Laguna Seca for revisits during the 2013 field season (Sandrock 2013). During the 2014 field season, survey crews revisited Gongora Ruin, Punta de Cacao, and the historic scatter associated with the site of Qualm Hill (Phillips and Sandrock 2014; Sandrock and Willis 2014).

UAV Survey, Targeted Reconnaissance, and Informant-Based Survey As part of an ongoing project with CCAP, BEAST used UAV mapping to investigate a cleared area east of the Gallon Jug sawmill. Mark D. Willis of Archaeo- Geophysical Associates, LLC, flew six aerial photography missions with a custom- modified DJI Phantom UAV above the cleared cattle pastures. With the UAV flying in a controlled pattern, the attached camera was programmed to snap a photo every four seconds (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Using a series of Ground Control Points (GCPs) and an Ashtech 100 GPS unit for geo-referencing, this aerial areal survey covered 488,000 m2 in just over an hour (Sandrock and Willis 2014). During this time, the UAV collected 545 overlapping photographs, which were processed using PhotoScan Pro, a Structure from Motion (SfM) software package (Willis et al. 2014). This produced a three-dimensional model of the project area comprising over 62 million topographic data points. A model of this resolution is comparable to a LiDAR-based system, but was produced at a fraction of the cost and time (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

45 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

This model was exported for review in ArcGIS, where a hypsographic map was created with 5-cm contours and a slope model. Both processed datasets allowed for the surface shape of the project area to be examined in great detail, and for the presence of several Maya structures to be identified. Following identification, BEAST crews verified the possible structures during pedestrian survey and mapped the confirmed features using the same methodology utilized by BEAST elsewhere (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

BEAST also consulted locals familiar with the area to find additional unrecorded sites. The sites of Montaña Chamaco (BE-13) and Sylvester Village (BE- 14) were located and recorded thanks to the invaluable help of a retired logger, and crews recorded La Luchita (BE-12) based on informant information collected in 2012 (Sandrock 2013).

During the 2013 field season, BEAST investigated an area 2.6 km to the east of Chan Chich, looking for a site akin to Kaxil Uinic (Sandrock 2013). Additionally, in what was easily the most arduous task undertaken by BEAST, survey crews made two attempts to relocate the site of El Infierno (Sandrock 2013, Sandrock and Willis 2014). The results of each of these investigations are discussed in detail in Chapter IV.

46 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER IV

SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following section discusses the various survey areas studied by BEAST. The first five sections describe various American Seismic lines surveyed by BEAST, and the final section discusses the different targeted surveys undertaken.

Figure 4.1: Surveyed portions of American Seismic Lines

Transect Surveys Over the course of two field seasons, BEAST’s investigations along the survey transects resulted in the discovery of 275 structures (Table 4.1) along five American Seismic lines (Figure 4.2).

47 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Transect Survey Summary

Survey Length Width Total STR# Ecozone Area (m) (m) Height (m) 1 AS1 Escoba Bajo 4 2 0.3 2 AS1 Escoba Bajo 8 5 2 3 AS1 Escoba Bajo 14 12 1 4 AS1 Escoba Bajo 4.4 3.6 0.3 5 AS1 Escoba Bajo 4.2 4 0.5 6 AS1 Escoba Bajo 5 4 0.3 7 AS1 Escoba Bajo 7.5 7 2 8 AS1 Escoba Bajo 10 7.5 1.5 9 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 5 1 10 AS1 Upland Bajo 25 21 3 11 AS1 Upland Bajo 13 12 0.4 12 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 8 1 13 AS1 Upland Bajo 24 19 3.5 14 AS1 Upland Bajo 14 11 1 15 AS1 Upland Bajo 6 5 0.3 16 AS1 Upland Bajo 8 5 0.5 17 AS1 Upland Bajo 16 4 1 18 AS1 Upland Bajo 8 6 1 19 AS1 Upland Bajo 4.6 3.4 0.3 20 AS1 Upland Bajo 12 5 1.5 21 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 4 1.2 22 AS1 Upland Bajo 7.4 3.6 1 23 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 4.6 1.2 24 AS1 Upland Bajo 6 7 0.8 25 AS1 Upland Bajo 6.5 4 0.7 26 AS1 Upland Bajo 14.5 5 1.5 27 AS1 Upland Bajo 6 3 0.6 28 AS1 Upland Bajo 12.5 6 1.8 29 AS1 Upland Bajo 11 11 1.2 30 AS1 Upland Bajo 5 4 0.8 31 AS1 Upland Bajo 11 9 2 32 AS1 Upland Bajo 10.5 8 2.2 33 AS1 Upland Bajo 7 4.5 0.5 34 AS1 Upland Bajo 15.5 7 2.3 35 AS1 Upland Bajo 17 5 1.5 36 AS1 Upland Bajo 17 5 1.5 37 AS1 Upland Bajo 17 5 1.5 38 AS1 Transitional Upland 5 4 0.4

48 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 39 AS1 Transitional Upland 5 5 1 40 AS1 Transitional Upland 8 5 1 41 AS1 Transitional Upland 7 6 0.5 42 AS1 Transitional Upland 9 8 1 43 AS1 Transitional Upland 3.5 3 0.5 44 AS1 Transitional Upland 10 5 0.5 45 AS1 Escoba Bajo 7.5 5 1.1 46 AS1 Transitional Upland 5.5 3 0.8 47 AS1 Transitional Upland 9 7 1.5 48 AS1 Escoba Bajo 10 6 1.5 49 AS1 Riverine Floodplain 7.5 6 0.5 50 AS1 Escoba Bajo 5.5 2.5 0.5 51 AS1 Transitional Upland 13 5 3 52 AS1 Escoba Bajo 8 6.5 1.2 53 AS1 Escoba Bajo 12 7 3.5 54 AS1 Transitional Upland 13 4 2.5 55 AS1 Transitional Upland 16 11 1.5 56 AS1 Transitional Upland 8 8 1 57 AS1 Transitional Upland 5 3 0.6 58 AS1 Transitional Upland 14.5 5 2 59 AS1 Transitional Upland 15 8 2 60 AS1 Transitional Upland 7 5 1.6 61 AS1 Transitional Upland 18 10 2 62 AS1 Transitional Upland 20 14 3 63 AS1 Transitional Upland 12 5 1 64 AS1 Upland Bajo 7 5 0.5 65 AS1 Upland Bajo 10 5 1 66 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 3.5 0.7 67 AS1 Upland Bajo 8 4 0.7 69 AS1 Upland Bajo 13 5 1 70 AS1 Upland Bajo 4 3 0.5 71 AS3 Upland Bajo 13 8 2 72 AS3 Upland Bajo 12 5 1 73 AS3 Transitional Upland 12.5 6 1 74 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 3 0.5 75 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 3 0.3 76 AS1 Transitional Upland 5 4 1.2 77 AS1 Transitional Upland 11 3 1 78 AS1 Upland Bajo 3.5 3 0.7 79 AS1 Transitional Upland 5 2 0.5 80 AS1 Transitional Upland 4 3.5 0.3

49 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 81 AS1 Upland Bajo 9 7 1.8 82 AS1 Upland Bajo 10 8 2.5 83 AS1 Upland Bajo 13 6 1.5 84 AS1 Upland Bajo 3.5 3 0.5 85 AS1 Upland Bajo 4 4 0.6 86 AS1 Upland Bajo 7 6 1 87 AS1 Upland Bajo 5.5 4 1 88 AS3 Transitional Upland 10 6 1.7 89 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 6 1 90 AS3 Transitional Upland 10 6 3 91 AS1 Escoba Bajo 3 3 0.7 94 AS3 Escoba Bajo 5 2.5 0.8 95 AS3 Escoba Bajo 5 2.5 0.8 96 AS3 Transitional Upland 4.5 4 1 97 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 2.5 0.3 98 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 3 0.3 99 AS3 Transitional Upland 3 2 0.3 100 AS3 Transitional Upland 8 5 0.8 101 AS3 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.6 102 AS3 Transitional Upland 4 2 0.2 103 AS3 Transitional Upland 3 3 0.3 104 AS3 Transitional Upland 5 2 0.3 105 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 3 0.3 106 AS3 Transitional Upland 4 2 0.3 107 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 3 0.5 108 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 4 0.6 109 AS3 Transitional Upland 8 4 0.5 110 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 6 1 111 AS3 Transitional Upland 10 6 1.2 112 AS3 Transitional Upland 12.5 3 0.8 113 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 5 0.8 114 AS3 Transitional Upland 17 5 1.2 115 AS3 Transitional Upland 9 5 1.8 116 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 4 0.8 117 AS3 Transitional Upland 8 5 1 118 AS3 Transitional Upland 10 5 1.3 119 AS3 Transitional Upland 3 3 0.5 120 AS3 Transitional Upland 15 15 2 121 AS3 Transitional Upland 9 7 1 122 AS3 Transitional Upland 8 6.5 0.8 123 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 5 1

50 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 124 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 6 1 125 AS3 Transitional Upland 17 10 2.5 126 AS3 Transitional Upland 6 3 1 127 AS3 Transitional Upland 5 4 0.6 128 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 4 0.6 129 AS3 Transitional Upland 3 3 0.5 130 AS3 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.5 131 AS3 Transitional Upland 7 3 0.8 132 AS3 Transitional Upland 8 5 0.8 137 DS-1 Upland Bajo 17 12 1.6 138 DS-1 Upland Bajo 5 3 0.5 139 DS-1 Upland Bajo 11 2 0.3 140 DS-1 Transitional Upland 6 6 1.2 141 DS-1 Transitional Upland 5 3 0.6 142 DS-1 Transitional Upland 13 4 1 143 DS-1 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.6 144 DS-1 Transitional Upland 13.5 7 1.5 145 DS-1 Transitional Upland 4 4 0.4 146 DS-1 Transitional Upland 6.5 5 2 147 DS-1 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.7 148 DS-1 Transitional Upland 3 3 0.3 149 DS-1 Transitional Upland 6 3 0.5 150 DS-1 Transitional Upland 8 8 0.7 151 DS-1 Transitional Upland 5 4 0.5 152 DS-1 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.5 153 DS-1 Transitional Upland 8 5 1.2 154 DS-1 Transitional Upland 8 5 2 175 AS1 Broken Ridges 39 26 2.5 176 AS1 Broken Ridges 26 22 6 177 AS1 Broken Ridges 20 9 2.5 178 AS1 Broken Ridges 19 17 3 179 AS1 Broken Ridges 72 10 2.2 180 AS1 Broken Ridges 34 9 2.2 181 AS1 Broken Ridges 20 15 5 182 AS1 Escoba Bajo 16 14 4.5 183 AS1 Transitional Upland 20 18 5 184 AS1 Transitional Upland 41 12 4.5 185 AS6 Transitional Upland 9 8 1 186 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 1 187 AS6 Transitional Upland Wall Feature 188 AS6 Transitional Upland 12 8 1

51 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 189 AS6 Escoba Bajo 13 7 2.2 190 AS6 Escoba Bajo 8 2 0.8 191 AS6 Escoba Bajo 7 6 0.6 192 AS6 Escoba Bajo 2 2 0.4 193 AS6 Escoba Bajo 9 6 0.8 194 AS6 Escoba Bajo 12 10 1.3 195 AS6 Transitional Upland 3 2 0.3 196 AS6 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.5 197 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 0.6 198 AS6 Transitional Upland 10 7 1 199 AS6 Transitional Upland 12 7 1 200 AS6 Transitional Upland 7 4 0.8 201 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 0.8 202 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 6 1 203 AS6 Transitional Upland 8 4 1.2 204 AS6 Transitional Upland 14 6 1.4 205 AS6 Transitional Upland 10 5 1 206 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 1 207 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 1 208 AS6 Transitional Upland 7 4 2 209 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 5 1 210 AS6 Transitional Upland 8 8 2 211 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 4 0.4 212 AS6 Transitional Upland 6 2 0.4 213 AS6 Transitional Upland 5 3 0.3 214 AS6 Transitional Upland 10 8 1.2 215 AS6 Transitional Upland 8 4 0.7 216 AS6 Transitional Upland 7 4 2 217 AS6 Transitional Upland 16 8 2 218 AS6 Transitional Upland 8 4 1.2 219 AS6 Escoba Bajo 13 4 1.4 220 AS6 Transitional Upland 14 8 1.5 221 AS6 Transitional Upland 4 4 0.8 222 AS7 Transitional Upland 6 5 1 223 AS7 Transitional Upland 6 5 1.2 224 AS7 Escoba Bajo 8 4 1.5 225 AS7 Escoba Bajo 5 4 1 226 AS7 Escoba Bajo 12 8 1.4 227 DS-1 Escoba Bajo 9 5 0.8 228 DS-1 Escoba Bajo 4 4 0.4 229 DS-1 Escoba Bajo 9 4 1.2

52 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 230 DS-1 Escoba Bajo 5 5 1 231 DS-1 Escoba Bajo 6 3 0.5 232 DS-1 Transitional Upland 6 5 1 233 DS-1 Transitional Upland 8 4 1 234 DS-1 Transitional Upland 6 6 1.3 235 AS6 Broken Ridges 10 9 1.4 236 AS6 Broken Ridges 36 18 1.8 237 AS6 Broken Ridges 28 6 0.8 238 AS6 Broken Ridges 8 4 1 239 AS6 Broken Ridges 12 7 1.4 240 AS6 Broken Ridges 10 5 1.4 241 AS6 Broken Ridges 15 6 1.8 242 AS6 Broken Ridges 14 8 1.8 243 AS6 Broken Ridges 7 4 0.8 244 AS6 Transitional Upland 5 3 1.1 245 AS8 Upland Bajo 6 4 1 246 AS8 Upland Bajo 6 3 0.4 247 AS8 Upland Bajo 10 6 0.8 248 AS8 Upland Bajo 6 5 0.5 249 AS8 Upland Bajo 10 6 0.8 250 AS8 Transitional Upland 5 4 0.6 251 AS8 Transitional Upland 6 4 1 252 AS8 Transitional Upland 5 4 0.5 253 AS8 Escoba Bajo 10 9 1.2 254 AS8 Escoba Bajo 6 6 1 255 AS8 Escoba Bajo 5 4 0.5 256 AS8 Escoba Bajo 10 8 2.4 257 AS8 Escoba Bajo 4 4 0.5 258 AS8 Escoba Bajo 5 3 1 259 AS8 Escoba Bajo 7 3 0.8 260 AS8 Escoba Bajo 18 13 1.5 261 AS8 Escoba Bajo 12 1 0.6 262 AS8 Escoba Bajo 13 6 2 263 AS8 Escoba Bajo 5 4 0.4 264 AS8 Escoba Bajo 4 4 0.5 265 AS8 Escoba Bajo 4 3 0.5 266 AS8 Escoba Bajo 5 2 0.4 267 AS8 Escoba Bajo 6 3 0.5 268 AS8 Escoba Bajo 5 4 0.4 269 AS8 Escoba Bajo 8 4 1 270 AS8 Escoba Bajo 6 6 1

53 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 4.1: Continued 271 AS8 Escoba Bajo 3 3 0.5 272 AS8 Escoba Bajo 6 4 0.8 273 AS8 Escoba Bajo 65 2 1 274 AS8 Escoba Bajo 10 4 0.6 275 AS8 Escoba Bajo 4 4 0.8 276 AS8 Upland Bajo 6 4 0.8 277 AS8 Upland Bajo 7 4 0.5 278 AS8 Escoba Bajo 12 4 1 279 AS8 Transitional Upland 7 4 1 280 AS8 Transitional Upland 12 7 1.8 281 AS8 Transitional Upland 4 3 0.4 282 AS6 Broken Ridges 13 10 3 283 AS6 Broken Ridges 5 3 0.7 284 AS6 Broken Ridges 4 3 0.6 285 AS7 Broken Ridges 30 20 2.5 286 AS7 Broken Ridges 20 10 2 287 AS7 Broken Ridges 7 6 1 288 AS7 Broken Ridges 18 7 1.2 289 AS7 Broken Ridges 4 3 0.5 290 AS7 Escoba Bajo 6 3 0.5 291 AS7 Escoba Bajo 6 4 0.8 292 AS7 Escoba Bajo 18 14 2 293 AS7 Escoba Bajo 8 6 1.2 294 AS7 Transitional Upland 7 4 1 295 AS7 Transitional Upland 5 5 1 296 AS7 Transitional Upland 7 4 1.2 297 AS7 Transitional Upland 8 6 1.2 298 AS7 Transitional Upland 7 4 0.8 299 AS7 Transitional Upland 8 5 1.2 300 AS7 Transitional Upland 12 6 1.8 301 AS7 Transitional Upland 16 10 2.5 302 AS7 Transitional Upland 10 7 3

American Seismic Line 1 AS1 (Figure 4.2) is the longest transect cut by American Seismic on the property, measuring 26 km in length. The eastern edge of the line is located near its intersection with the Booth's River, with swampland extending west from the river to the Booth’s River Escarpment. The vegetation changes from swamp to transition forest west of the escarpment before a stretch of upland forest, followed by a large

54 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 section of sawgrass-infested upland bajo after crossing the Río Bravo and the Río Bravo Escarpment. Near the base of the La Lucha Escarpment, vegetation transitions back to upland forest extending west into Guatemala. This line bears directly east-west (270-90 degrees) and ends at the Belize-Guatemala border.

Table 4.2: AS1 Summary

AS1 Summary Total Length 26 km Surveyed 26 km Total Structures 118 Total Groups 11 New Sites 1, (BE-11)

Figure 4.2: Map of AS1

55 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Crews recorded 118 structures on AS1 (Table 4.2), with 51 situated in an area beginning 1 km east of the Blue Creek road and extending for 1.6 km to the east (Figure 4.3). These structures comprise DS-1, a sizable and dense settlement area with structures of varying size and form. Because BEAST did not encounter similar mound density anywhere else in the surveyed areas, we conclude that the structures are part of a larger, as yet unidentified Maya site, the core of which is hypothesized to be nearby.

Figure 4.3: Map of Dense Settlement Area DS-1

Possible locations of the proposed site core were targeted around the settlement area, and in three separate ventures BEAST crews examined all hilltops within 1 km of the dense settlement area. This search turned up 33 fairly small rectangular structures (25 in 2013 and 8 in 2014) but no site core was found in association with the area. Given Qualm Hill’s size and location (roughly 2.5 km north-northwest of DS-1), it is possible this settlement area represents a hinterland community associated with

56 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 the site. In addition to the structures mentioned above, BEAST recorded Ix Naab Witz (BE-11) on AS1. The site is described in detail in the updated site inventory below. No structures were recorded during survey east of the Booth’s River Escarpment, and the areas flanking the Booth’s River were inundated swamps at the time of BEAST’s visit.

American Seismic Line 3 AS3 is 12 km long and, like AS1, reaches its western terminus at the Guatemalan border. AS3 is cut on a bearing of 281-101 degrees and traverses similar environmental conditions to the paralleling span of AS1, transitioning east to west from primarily transition forest to upland forest. AS3 crosses both the Río Bravo and a pair of small seasonal drainages and climbs both the Río Bravo and La Lucha Escarpments. Just west of the of the La Lucha Escarpment, vegetation changes from transition forest to hilly, upland forest extending past the Belize-Guatemala border.

Figure 4.4: Map of AS3

57 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

BEAST crews completed survey on the entirety of AS3, mapping 47 structures, including a small area of dense settlement just over 1 km from the Guatemalan border (Table 4.3). In this area, 10 structures of varying size and shape (but all under 0.5 m tall) are clustered together in a 25-x-40-m section of flat upland forest (see Figure 4.4). Despite the relatively high number of structures discovered along the line, no groups warranted the assignment of a BE number.

Table 4.3: AS3 Summary

AS3 Summary Total Length 12 km Surveyed 12 km Total Structures 47 Total Groups 9 New Sites None

American Seismic Line 6 AS6 is located 6.8 km south of the Programme for Belize-Laguna Seca property boundary and 3.8 km south of AS1. It extends from the Guatemalan border for 24.2 km to the east. This line passes within 200 m of the north bank of Laguna Seca, as well as just 230 m north of BE-13, Montaña Chamaco (Figure 4.5). Starting in the west, AS6 descends from the Guatemalan border through an area of upland forest at the top of the La Lucha Escarpment. From the escarpment, it extends through a large section of transition forest before reaching a bajo swamp above the Río Bravo Escarpment. Luckily for BEAST crews, the large sawgrass bajo encountered on AS1 was not present on AS6. After crossing the Río Bravo, the line ascends into transition forest, which continues to the very hilly area immediately west of the Booth's River Escarpment. Immediately east of the Booth's River Escarpment, the line crosses through a large bajo swamp, which was greatly extended by the particularly rainy conditions in the months prior to this field season. Due to these flooded conditions of the area, and the results of survey along a similar stretch of AS1

58 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

(0 structures recorded), BEAST did not survey east of Booth’s River. BEAST crews surveyed approximately 20.65 km of AS6.

Figure 4.5: Map of AS6

Table 4.4: AS6 Summary

AS6 Summary Total Length 24.2 km Surveyed 20.65 km Total Structures 50 Total Groups 5 New Sites None

Of the 117 structures recorded during the 2014 field season, 50 were recorded along AS6, including a large wall-like feature of unknown use (Table 4.4). Originally

59 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 recorded as a small wall feature (approximately 100 m long in the author’s original notes), further inspection with Dr. Houk revealed that the feature was much larger and more complex than previously thought. This feature ranges from nearly 1.5 m to less than a 0.5 m tall, narrows and widens between 1 and 5 m across, and extends for a total of approximately 500 m in several directions. Figure 4.6 presents the recorded boundary of the feature’s stone tumble. Three structures were constructed within 25 m of the wall feature, including two small rectangular mounds and an irregular L-shaped mound with a small wall or fence feature attached.

Figure 4.6: Map of wall feature.

This feature is situated in a stand of transition forest, located in a relatively flat area with no evident nearby streams. The height, length, and varying directionality of the feature, combined with the relatively low-density occupation in the surrounding area, suggest that this feature was not defensive in nature and was likely used for

60 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 agricultural, horticultural, or animal husbandry pursuits. Although it is unclear if this area is associated with any known site center, Laguna Seca (BE-6) is located just 1.3 km to the west. Thus, it is possible this location represents a small residential and agricultural area associated with the larger, nearby hilltop site.

American Seismic Line 7 AS7 travels on a north-south axis, starting 600 m north of the road leading to Chan Chich from Gallon Jug. The line begins approximately 9.3 km east of the Belize- Guatemala border, and extends for 15.6 km in total (Figure 4.7). Heading north, AS7 starts in a patch of dense transition forest before crossing the all-weather road leading to Sylvester Village. It then continues through the Gallon Jug Agroindustries' coffee plantation before reaching a narrow strip of transition forest that acts as a boundary between the coffee and cattle pasture. North of the pasture is a stand of transition forest, which extends into the clearing. North of the treed area is another cleared pasture, which serves as additional livestock pasture. This deforested area is strewn with sawgrass and swamp. North of the clearing, transition forest resumes until the line encounters a small stand of upland forest, which fades into transition forest extending to the current edge of Laguna Seca. Due to the aforementioned exceptionally rainy year, Laguna Seca's waters spanned much farther than any topographic maps indicate, and the line stretches directly through the grassy, flooded area.

Because of access problems (Laguna Seca's rain-based extension and a long stretch of muddy and rutted roads), BEAST crews were unable to survey beyond 4.7 km north of the Sylvester Village road. This means approximately 9.3 km of AS7 were left unsurveyed. In all, 23 structures were recorded on the surveyed stretch of AS7 (Table 4.5).

61 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.7: Map of surveyed portion of AS7.

Table 4.5: AS7 Summary

AS7 Summary Total Length 15.6 km Surveyed 4.7 km Total Structures 23 Total Groups 4 New Sites None

American Seismic Line 8 Like AS7, survey along AS8 was initiated but left unfinished due to time constraints and issues with access. The northern end of this line sits on the property boundary between Programme for Belize and Laguna Seca, and extends northwest to southeast on a bearing of 300-120 degrees. AS8 terminates approximately 2.6 km east

62 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 of the Booth's River Escarpment, and the entire line measures 18.6 km in length. AS8 crosses AS1 on the Blue Creek road (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8: Map of AS8.

The northwest end of the surveyed area on AS8 crosses the Río Bravo, before extending into a short stand of transition forest abutting a very hilly section of upland forest. Just before and after crossing the Blue Creek road, the vegetation shifts to transition forest, eventually giving way to bajo for the remainder of the surveyed portion.

Survey crews covered 7.3 km of AS8. Crews were able to reach beyond the Río Bravo approximately 2.5 km northwest of the road, and survey an additional 4.8 km southeast of the Blue Creek road. In all, 36 structures were recorded on the

63 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 surveyed stretch of AS8, but approximately 11 km of the transect was not investigated (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: AS8 Summary

AS8 Summary Total Length 18.6 km Surveyed 7.3 km Total Structures 37 Total Groups 5 New Sites None

Targeted Surveys and Site Revisits Over the course of two field seasons, BEAST attempted six different targeted exploratory surveys: two designed to find the site of El Infierno, one designed to locate a predicted minor center near Chan Chich, and three to investigate unrecorded sites known to local informants. In addition to these targeted surveys, BEAST crews also conducted site revisits of Laguna Seca, Laguna Verde, Gongora Ruin, Punta de Cacao, Gallon Jug, and Qualm Hill camp.

In 2013, BEAST surveyed an area 2.6 km east of Chan Chich to test Houk’s hypothesis that a minor center was located nearby. Based on the existence of sacbeob extending east and west from Chan Chich, it was hypothesized that another satellite center could exist, similar to Kaxil Uinic, which is 2.6 km to the west. This survey was unfruitful and arduous; Hurricane Richard ravaged the area in 2010, knocking down many trees, and creating massive organic barriers perfect for slowing down the pace of survey. No sites or structures were identified during this undertaking (Sandrock 2013).

During the same field season, three new sites were recorded during targeted survey following consultation with locals: La Luchita (BE-12), Montaña Chamaco (BE-13), and Sylvester Village (BE-14). These sites, as well as all other sites revisited

64 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 by BEAST crews, are described in detail in Chapter V and are shown in Figure 5.1 (Sandrock 2013).

Recorded after a visit from the Archaeological Commissioner of Belize in 1970, the site of El Infierno is reportedly located approximately 1 km east of the Guatemalan border behind the El Infierno logging camp (Guderjan et al. 1991). Little is known about this site, and all information regarding it comes from its record in the Institute of Archaeology files (Guderjan et al. 1991). The exact location of the site is unknown, but the site likely contains a pair of large pyramids. Given the uncertainty of its location, it could be part of Chochkitam in Guatemala (Guderjan et al. 1991).

Despite making multiple attempts over the two field seasons, BEAST crews were unable to locate the site of El Infierno. The first targeted area, undertaken in 2013, is located southwest of the westernmost gravel road on the property, approximately 5.2 km west-southwest of Sylvester Village. Houk targeted this location based on the brief description of the site, and the assumption that a large site would be located near the highest position on the landscape.

The second targeted area, investigated in 2014, is located between the Belize- Guatemala border and the westernmost north-south section of logging roads on the property several kilometers north of the first attempted survey (Sandrock and Willis 2014). This area was selected based on Houk’s (personal communication, 2014) consultation with Rafael Guerra of the Institute of Archaeology and the Institute of Archaeology's database of known sites.

65 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.9: Map of El Infierno investigation areas.

UAV Mapping During pedestrian survey aided by UAV mapping, BEAST crews recorded five structures across two hilltops (see Figures 4.10 and 4.11). The largest of the five recorded structures is situated atop a modified hilltop, but sits alone on the northern

66 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 edge of the flattened surface (Figure 4.12). This structure is the largest recorded during UAV surveys, measuring 21 by 18 m at the base and roughly 2.6 m tall. The four structures on the eastern hilltop form a small, open plazuela atop a modified hilltop (Figure 4.13). These structures include three rectangular structures and one irregularly-shaped L-shaped structure. The southernmost rectangular mound is the tallest of the group at 2 m tall, and the northernmost structure is 17 m long, making it the longest on this hilltop (Sandrock and Willis 2014). Given their location, these structures may be part of the site of Gallon Jug’s (BE-4) settlement area.

67 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.10: UAV mapping overview.

68 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.11: UAV mapping detail.

69 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.12: UAV Structure Map 1.

70 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 4.13: UAV Structure Map 2.

71 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER V

SITE INVENTORY This section includes an updated inventory of previously recorded and newly discovered BE-designated sites on Gallon Jug and Laguna Seca, organized by BE number. Maps for all visited sites are included, and many of them represent modified versions of the maps from Guderjan et al. (1991). In all, archaeologists have recorded 16 BE-designated sites in the project area, and CCAP/BEAST has visited 11 of those sites (see Figure 5.1)

Chan Chich (BE-1) The Chan Chich ruins are located primarily on the west bank of Chan Chich Creek, a tributary of the Río Bravo (Houk 2012a). Situated in primarily dense tropical forest, the site is approximately 4 km east of the Guatemalan border. The UTM coordinates of the Main Plaza’s primary datum are Zone 16, N 19 40 412.846, E 2 75 875.557, and the datum’s elevation is 118.722 m above sea level (Houk 2012a:3).

The main architectural features of the site (Figure 5.2) are the Main and Upper Plazas (Plazas A-1 and A-2, respectively). Chan Chich is organized into four groups of structures, with Group A representing the largest at the site. This group includes the two largest plazas, several smaller courtyards, and 37 structures. Group A is constructed on a natural hill, with other groups spread on the smaller hills that surround the site. This primary structure group is dominated by Plaza A-1, the second largest plaza in the region (Houk 2015). Like many sites in the area, Chan Chich possesses a single uncarved stela, Stela 1, located near Structure A-2 in the southwest corner of Plaza A-1 (Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996).

Chan Chich is the most intensively studied site in the permit area. During the 1987, 1988, and 1990 field seasons of the RBAP, Thomas Guderjan (1991) and his teams conducted mapping of Chan Chich's site core. PfBAP resumed work at the site in 1995 (Houk et al. 1996), and CCAP was initiated in 1996 (Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996).

72 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.1: Map of all BE-designated sites.

73 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.2: Map of Chan Chich.

74 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

These studies produced a map of a 1.54-km2 block surrounding Chan Chich, recording 253 structures (Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996). For a more robust description of Chan Chich and updated discussion of work at and around the site, refer to the 2012-2016 CCAP annual reports and Houk’s (2015) recent book.

Kaxil Uinic Ruins (BE-2) The Kaxil Uinic ruins, previously known as E'kenha, are located approximately 2.6 km west of Chan Chich (Houk 2012a). The La Lucha Escarpment is about 900 m west of the ruins, and the site is situated on a small rise west of the bajo separating it from Chan Chich (Harris and Sisneros 2012). Per Harris’ (2013) thesis, the UTM coordinates of the ruins are Zone 16, N 19 40 538, E 2 73 381, at an elevation of 130 m above sea level. The name Kaxil Uinic references both the prehistoric site and the historic Maya village located 0.5 km to the south (Bonorden

Figure 5.3: Map of Kaxil Uinic ruins, from Harris (2013)

75 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

,2016; Houk 2012b). This description focuses on the prehistoric site, while the historic site (which has a separate BE number), is described later in this chapter.

As Houk (2012b) discusses in the 2012 CCAP report, the site of Kaxil Uinic is first mentioned in a journal entry from Maler's (1910) 1895 expeditions through the Petén. Thompson (1939, 1963) later discusses the site, but carried out neither excavations nor mapping. RBAP recorded and mapped the site as E'kenha in the early 1990s (Guderjan et al. 1991), but excavations did not take place until the 2012 field season of CCAP (Harris and Sisneros 2012). Sir J. Eric S. Thompson (1963) first reported the stela and an associated plain altar. Thompson, who intended to excavate the site with the help of local labor from the nearby village, visited the abandoned village during Easter week in 1931.

RBAP’s original maps (Guderjan et al. 1991:Figure 33) contain 12 structures, and Harris and Sisneros (2012) recorded an additional two structures, bringing the total to 14 (Figure 5.3). Guderjan et al. (1991) recorded both monuments in front of Structure 3, the tallest and largest structure at the site. Kaxil Uinic is somewhat unusual in that it is one of the only sites in the area to contain a carved (albeit heavily damaged) stela (Harris and Sisneros 2012).

Harris (2013) excavated units in five areas around the site, including five units placed on structures and three units around the site’s stela and altar. Ceramics recovered during these excavations date to between Mamom and Tepeu 3 ceramic phases, indicating Middle Preclassic to Terminal Classic occupation at the site (Harris and Sisneros 2012). However, a single Cunil-like sherd from a mixed deposit suggests nearby Early Preclassic occupation (Valdez and Houk 2012).

)

Punta de Cacao (BE-3) The site of Punta de Cacao was mapped during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 field seasons of Punta de Cacao Archaeological Project (PdCAP). Punta de Cacao represents the second largest known site in the project area, behind only Chan Chich in

76 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.4: Map of Punta de Cacao.

77 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 size. The site was named by Barry Bowen and is just 5.5 km east of Gallon Jug headquarters (Robichaux 2002).

Punta de Cacao contains 522 structures in total, including the site core and the surrounding 3.33-km² area mapped by PdCAP (Robichaux 2005). Excavations in the area have dated the site occupation from between the Middle Preclassic period to the Terminal Classic period (Robichaux 2005). According to Robichaux (2005), the Plaza A and Plaza B complexes represent the central precinct of Punta de Cacao, with a ball court located approximately halfway between the two (Figure 5.4).

Plaza A is marked by three large range structures and three large pyramid- shaped structures (Robichaux 2005). The Plaza B complex is located 200 m northeast of Plaza A and represents a more elevated, more enclosed, and less accessible structure group than Plaza A (Robichaux 2005). The most prominent structure is Str. A-45, a pyramid-shaped structure surrounded on three sides by compact courtyards (Robichaux 2005). In addition to these primary complexes, PdCAP recorded various residential groups in the area (Robichaux 2005).

BEAST revisited Punta de Cacao and assessed the site’s condition in 2014. Despite the heavy toll levied by the forests’ regrowth, the ruins at Punta de Cacao are still accessible and easily visible. Cut trails (marked by a wooden sign) leading off an all-weather road provide easy access to the site, which can be toured by patrons of Chan Chich Lodge and visitors to Gallon Jug. The updated UTM coordinates of the site are Zone 16, 19 46 100 N, 2 86 728 E, at an elevation of 116 m above sea level (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Gallon Jug (BE-4) The site of Gallon Jug is located just north of Gallon Jug’s primary cleared parcel, approximately 1 km west of the Blue Creek road; the RBAP first recorded the site (Guderjan et al. 1991) The passing of time has been fairly kind to most of the site, save for some tree falls to the west and east of the site, which seem to have affected little more than the ease of access to structures. The main plaza remains mostly

78 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.5: Map of Gallon Jug (after Guderjan et al. 1991:Figure 40)

79 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 cleared, and the impressive 15-m tall main temple still towers over the surrounding area, relatively unharmed by biological forces. A year-round stream flows just a few hundred meters north of the main plaza (Guderjan et al. 1991).

The site plan of Gallon Jug exhibits a generally east-west alignment (Figure 5.5). This site comprises 21 individual structures among several smaller courtyard groups that surround a larger hilltop plaza (Guderjan et al. 1991). A 15-m tall temple marks the easternmost end of the plaza (Guderjan et al. 1991). An upturned stone that appears to be a small stela is located near the center of the northern range structure in the main plaza. This possible monument is quite diminutive, measuring approximately 45 cm tall, 25 cm wide, and 10 cm thick (Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6: Possible stela at Gallon Jug.

Yaeger (1991) conducted settlement pattern studies in approximately 500 acres of cleared fields to the south of the site center. Artifacts recovered from six 1-x-1-m test pits and surface collection yielded dates between the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods. This work recorded hundreds of structures and features (mostly

80 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 proposed floors and artifact scatters) spread across the field. Unfortunately, much of these data are admittedly limited due to heavy disturbance from modern agricultural practices (Yaeger 1991).

BEAST recorded the location of the site with a GPS unit and modified the mapped site core to better reflect the structures’ summits. The UTM coordinates for the site core of Gallon Jug are Zone 16N, N 19 45 700 E 2 83 688, at an elevation of 148 m above sea level (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

UAV mapping conducted during the 2014 field season identified several structures in a large, cleared pasture just east of the Gallon Jug Sawmill. During this survey, five structures constructed atop two modified hilltops were recorded, including a small plaza group comprising four structures. These mounds were located just over 1 km west-southwest of the site of Gallon Jug, and are likely associated with the site (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Laguna Verde (BE-5) Laguna Verde was first recorded by RBAP in 1988 (Guderjan et al. 1991). The site is located on the southeast bank of Laguna Verde, a part of the small chain of lakes and bajos covering 80 acres on and to the north of the Gallon Jug property. Laguna Verde contains between 10 and 20 mounds, and smaller house mounds associated with the site are located in the surrounding forested areas (Guderjan et al. 1991).

RBAP mapped two primary courtyard groups in 1988 (Figure 5.7). The site core comprises a small courtyard associated with a 2-m tall mound. On a hilltop to the west, another small courtyard was built in a similar fashion (Guderjan et al. 1991).

The environmental setting is difficult to classify, because this area and the areas flanking the road leading to it have been totally cleared and mowed for visitors to the lagoon. After BEAST’s revisit, the site map was found to be accurate, and was

81 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 left unmodified. UTM coordinates for Laguna Verde are Zone 16N, N 19 47 763 E 2 80 678, at an elevation of 133 m above sea level (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Figure 5.7: Map of Laguna Verde (after Guderjan et al. 1991:Figure 34).

Laguna Seca (BE-6) Guderjan et al. (1991) first recorded the site of Laguna Seca in 1988. The structures comprising the site were constructed on a peninsula jutting into the lagoon for which it was named. Laguna Seca is located approximately 10 km north of the town of Gallon Jug and 1 km west of the Blue Creek road.

The main plaza comprises four range structures flanking the plaza’s edges, the tallest of which is nearly 8 m high (Figure 5.8). Four structures sit on a ridge running north-south, overlooking the lagoon. Several courtyards surround the main plaza in all

82 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 directions, including two similarly arranged U-shaped complexes to the north and west (Guderjan et al. 1991). Laguna Seca is constructed on a generally north-south axis, a decision influenced by the shape and direction of the peninsula upon which the site is situated.

Figure 5.8: Map of Laguna Seca (after Guderjan et al. 1991:Figure 41).

At the time of the BEAST revisit in 2013, the site was in good condition. Trails designated for walking and horseback riding (mostly for guests at Chan Chich Lodge) lead up to and traverse the site, and these paths are regularly raked and cleared.

83 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

BEAST crews recorded the location of the site with a GPS unit and modified the site map to better reflect the mounds’ shapes. UTM coordinates for the site are Zone 16N, N 19 51 216 E 2 83 867, at an elevation of 143 m above sea level (Sandrock 2013).

Qualm Hill Ruins (BE-7) The Qualm (previously Quam) Hill ruins are located on a flattened hilltop between Río Bravo and Booth's River and contain two large plazas as well as another smaller plaza (Guderjan et al. 1991). At least five structures over 10 m tall are located at the site (Figure 5.9), including a 15-m tall temple mound (Guderjan et al. 1991). The site also contains a ball court (Cackler et al. 2007). Ceramics found in construction fill date the site to between the Protoclassic (aka the Terminal Preclassic) and Early Classic periods (Guderjan et al. 1991).

In 2006, a team from the PfBAP revisited the site, reporting a previously undiscovered altar in one plaza and a stela in another (Cackler et al. 2007). Cackler (et al. 1991) list the UTM location of this site as Zone 16N N 19 57 008 E 2 87 602, at roughly 125 m above sea level. The site is located 3 km due east of Cedar Crossing (the point at which the Blue Creek road crosses the Río Bravo) and 4.5 km south of the large site of Dos Hombres. BEAST did not revisit the Qualm Hill ruins.

Wamil (BE-8) Originally recorded by Hal Ball, the site of Wamil is an area of dense settlement spanning across a logging road between the Gallon Jug-Hillbank train to San Jose (Guderjan et al. 1991). Guderjan et al. (1991) list the site’s UTM location as N 1939.9, E 294.9, which places it just south of Laguna Seca on Yalbac Ranch. BEAST did not attempt to revisit Wamil, and no map is available for the site.

Sierra de Agua (BE-9) Sierra de Agua has never been formally mapped, but according to Guderjan et al. (1991), Institute of Archaeology records mention this site, a small ceremonial

84 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.9: Map of Qualm Hill ruins (after Guderjan et al. 1991:Figure 50 with stela and altar after Cackler et al. 2007:Figure 1).

85 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 center near the Gallon Jug-Hillbank train (Guderjan et al. 1991). Guderjan et al. (1991) list the site’s UTM location as N 1940.6, E 299.5, which places the site in the southeast corner of the Laguna Seca property, near the Yalbac Ranch property line. BEAST did not attempt to revisit Sierra de Agua, and no map is available for the site.

Gongora Ruin (BE-10) Gongora Ruin overlooks the Booth's River from the escarpment above, and contains a small plaza and an associated courtyard (Guderjan et al. 1991). The largest structure rises 12 m above the plaza's surface (Figure 5.10), and the site contains a single uncarved stela (Guderjan et al. 1991). The site is infamous because a looter from the nearby village of San Felipe died when a trench collapsed on him in the late 1980s or early 1990s (Houk, personal communication, 2013). Figure 5.11 shows Jerry, one of the field guides, climbing inside of one of these trenches.

Gongora Ruin was revisited by BEAST crews during the 2014 field season. Leroy Lee of American Seismic reported that his seismic survey crews had likely encountered the site, and gave us an approximate location in reference to their lines. Thanks to this, the relocation of Gongora Ruin was a straightforward task.

In the more than two decades that have passed since the site was last investigated, the Belizean jungle has reclaimed the site with a vengeance. BEAST crews were unable to locate the stela previously identified by Guderjan et al. (1991), which was likely knocked down and buried by one of the numerous tree falls that have covered the site. Newly-recorded UTM coordinates for Gongora Ruin are Zone 16N, 19 54 400 N, 2 93 459 E, at an approximate elevation of 96 m above sea level (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

86 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.10: Map of Gongora Ruin (after Guderjan Figure 5.11: Jerry climbs in a looters’ trench at et al. 1991:Figure 51). Gongora Ruin.

87 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Ix Naab Witz (BE-11) Ix Naab Witz (or Lady Waterlily Hill) is a site located on a 100-m tall hill, approximately 1.5 km east of the Río Bravo and 1 km west of the Blue Creek road. The UTM coordinates of the primary marking point are Zone 16N, N 19 55 187, E 2 85 085, at approximately 147 m above sea level. BEAST located this site during investigations along AS1, and the northern edge of this site borders the southern side of the line's cut transect. The site is situated in a stand of upland forest, and the surrounding areas below the hill slope are primarily transition forest vegetation. The site core comprises 15 structures around two main plazas, with a connected courtyard to the north and a plazuela group to the southwest (see Figure 5.12). The arrangement of plazas and courtyards gives Ix Naab Witz a distinct north-south alignment (Sandrock 2013).

The backsides of the perimeter structures abut the natural hill slope surrounding the site, and the hill extends 15 m down from the main plaza to the east and west. The upper plaza area is situated on a hill another 20 m above the main lower plaza, and its southern slopes drop to 35 m below plaza level. The main plaza runs north-south and is approximately 110 m long and 46 m wide. Structure 1, a 2.5-m tall U-shaped courtyard marks the far northern end of the plaza, and the west side is flanked by Structure 2, a 72-m long, 4-m tall range structure that transitions to the hillslope to the west. Structure 3 is the tallest building in the main plaza, reaching at least 6 m above the plaza surface (Sandrock 2013).

The upper plaza to the south runs east-west, and measures 76 by 32 m. An area immediately to the southwest of the upper plaza was a likely quarry area, evidenced by multiple layers of cuts into the exposed bedrock. BEAST did not find any features resembling a ball court in either plaza (Sandrock 2013).

BEAST crews documented a 1.05-m tall stela located at the southeast corner of the upper plaza near the corners of Structures 6 and 7 (Figure 5.13). This uncarved

88 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 stela is 35 cm thick, 60 cm wide at the base, and 40 cm wide at the top (Sandrock 2013).

Ix Naab Witz is devoid of any obvious looters’ trenches and appears to be entirely unlooted. Due to the size and relative ease of access of the site, BE-11 is an ideal candidate for sustained investigations and more accurate instrument mapping.

Figure 5.12: Map of Ix Naab Witz.

89 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.13: Stela at Ix Naab Witz.

La Luchita (BE-12) La Luchita is a hilltop site first visited by Houk in 2012. The UTM coordinates of the primary marking point are Zone 16N, N 19 50 110, E 2 77 178, approximately 177 m above sea level. It comprises 10 structures forming one primary plaza area that is bisected by a logging road. BEAST crews determined that an “altar” originally observed by Houk is most likely a natural piece of bedrock dislodged when the logging road was cut directly through the site’s main plaza. The site and surrounding areas are covered in primarily upland forest vegetation, and the plaza is approximately 150 m west of a seasonal stream that flows across the bottom of the hill upon which the site is built. Dr. Houk dubbed the site La Luchita due to the small struggle required

90 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 to ascend the slick, steep hillside, as well as its relative proximity to the La Lucha Escarpment (Sandrock 2013).

Most of the structures on the western side of the site are connected via a large, narrow platform (Figure 5.14). La Luchita was built on a generally east-west alignment. The two tallest structures (3 and 6) and have been looted heavily, as evidenced by large looters’ trenches on the structures’ western sides. These looters’ trenches gave BEAST a fortunate look inside the structures, revealing preserved

Figure 5.14: Map of La Luchita.

91 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.15: Investigating a looters’ trench at La Luchita. evidence of multiple construction events and possible interior rooms (Figures 5.15 and 5.16). The longest structure is the easternmost range structure edging the plaza, which measures 61.7 m in length. Structure 6, the tallest at the site (approximately 7 m high), was built separate from the surrounding structures in the western portion of the main plaza, and its position and size indicate that it is a possible temple mound. The northernmost L-shaped structures (4 and 7) on the west end of the site comprise a small plazuela with a possible entrance in the southwest corner. Structures 3, 4, 5, and

92 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

12 comprise a less-restricted plazuela, with multiple entrances on the west side and a short wall (Structure 12) marking the eastern edge of the plazuela. This wall also divides this plazuela from the large, open plaza containing Structure 6 (Sandrock 2013).

Figure 5.16: View of preserved architecture from looters’ trench in La Luchita Structure 3.

Montaña Chamaco (BE-13) Montaña Chamaco is a site relocated with the help of a local logger, after whom this site is named. Due to time constraints and the relative difficulty in reaching the site, an extensive mapping project was not feasible, and the map presented in Figure 5.17 is a re-touched sketch map. This site is located on a large modified hilltop approximately 15 m tall, just north of a swampy area. The UTM coordinates of the primary marking point are Zone 16N, N 19 55 187, E 2 75 043, with an approximate elevation of 162 m. A possible abandoned chiclero camp was located nearby, as evidenced by a small collection of bottles found approximately 50 m west of the

93 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 swamp. Additionally, Montaña Chamaco is located approximately 1.3 km east of the La Lucha Escarpment. The vegetation in the area surrounding Montaña Chamaco is primarily dense transition forest (Sandrock 2013).

Figure 5.17: Map of Montaña Chamaco.

The site core comprises 14 structures located around a single plaza built on a modified hilltop; the structures are seemingly not aligned with regards to a north-south or east-west alignment. The largest structure (Structure 6) is located in the central plaza, and extends approximately 9 m above the plaza floor. Most of the perimeter structures’ backs abut the edge of the hilltop, with the exception of a small, seemingly- natural shelf on the least-sloping west side of the site. This area would easily lend

94 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 itself to being a primary entrance to the site. The site has been looted, but only one looters’ trench was found at the site core (Sandrock 2013).

A pair of rectangular structures (13 and 14) to the east accounts for the only associated structures found outside the main plaza area. Additionally, BEAST recorded several small structures and chultuns during the hike from our entry point to the site (Sandrock 2013).

During the 2014 field season, survey along AS7 brought BEAST crews to within 300 m of Montaña Chamaco. On this line, roughly 350 m north-northeast from the site center, a trio of structures comprising a single hilltop group was recorded. The largest of these three structures was looted at some point, evidenced by the large trench cut into the structure’s western face. Given the short distance from the site center, the group’s size, and the relative lack of structures in the surrounding area, it is likely that these structures are associated with the Montaña Chamaco (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Sylvester Village (BE-14) The site comprises a single elevated platform supporting four smaller structures, making up a small courtyard. The tallest mound (Structure 1) is approximately 2.5 m in height above the courtyard surface and 4.5 m from the bottom of the substructure (Figure 5.18). According to residents of the village, additional small structures are likely located in the forest to the east, but BEAST did not survey the area. The area surrounding the site is mostly cleared, and the local school is located in the same clearing, immediately north of the site. The primary vegetation type of the nearest uncleared area is transition forest (Sandrock 2013).

95 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.18: Map of Sylvester Village.

Qualm Hill Camp (BE-15) The historic site of Qualm Hill camp lends its name to the aforementioned Maya site, but is located approximately 5 km west of the prehistoric Maya site. BEAST revisited the site during the 2014 field season. The historic site is distant from its namesake, and represents a drastically different (but still important) aspect of Belize’s history, necessitating a slight change in nomenclature. Thus, BEAST named

96 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 the site Qualm Hill camp, and assigned it a unique BE number (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

Using the description provided by Cackler et al. (2007), survey crews were able to relocate Qualm Hill camp, which is evidenced by the historic artifact scatter visible from the surface (Sandrock and Willis 2014). The UTM coordinates for the

Figure 5.19: Photos of artifacts collected from Qualm Hill Camp, From Phillips and Sandrock (2014: Figure 2).

97 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 approximate center of the scatter are Zone 16, 19 57 213 N, 2 85 282 E, at an elevation of approximately 50 m above sea level (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

BEAST took field photos of some surface artifacts (Figure 5.19), and recovered GPS-referenced surface collections in the form of glass bottles, ceramic fragments, and chamber pots for lab analysis (Phillips and Sandrock 2014; Sandrock and Willis 2014). These surface collections include seven distinct bottle types as well as historic ceramics bearing 10 different adornments. The entire scatter spans from 5 to 55 m from the east bank of the Río Bravo, for approximately 160 m along the stream (Figure 5.20). Materials observed and collected are associated with a historic lumber camp founded by the British Honduras Company in the mid-19th century (Cackler et al. 2007).

According to Cackler et al. (2007:124), this scatter likely represents “the seasonal headquarters” for timber harvesting operations in the area. Additionally, the site takes on historical importance as the site of a “Chichina” Maya raid led by Marcus Canul in 1865 (Bristowe and Wright 1888:27–28). No structures were found in association with the site, but a single brick found during surface collection indicates possible construction of a feature (Phillips and Sandrock 2014). The site is now heavily forested, save for a few small cut trails utilized for river fishing access (Sandrock and Willis 2014).

In her 2015 continuation of BEAST’s work at Qualm Hill camp, Bonorden (2016) conducted survey around the site to identify additional archeological resources at the site. Following this survey work, 19 excavation units were placed around the site. Bonorden’s (2016) work uncovered likely locations of the camp’s several residential and industrial areas. Bonorden (2016) concludes that the site was used as a logging camp between roughly 1830 and 1920, but was unable to find evidence of Canul’s raid.

98 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Figure 5.20: Map of Qualm Hill Camp, from Bonorden and Houk (2016: Figure 2).

Kaxil Uinic Village (BE-16) Kaxil Uinic village (BE-16) is a historic San Pedro Maya site, located roughly 500 m south-southeast of the prehistoric Maya ruins of Kaxil Uinic. Thompson (1963:233) described the site shortly after it was abandoned in 1931 as a “...score of huts scattered around a dirty water hole…” which “...presented a melancholy appearance…”

99 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

During the 2012 relocation, this site’s presence was evidenced by a large scattering of beer bottles and a single metal pot (Harris and Sisneros 2012; Houk 2012a). A large aguada is present at the site, which measured approximately 40 m in diameter at the end of the 2012 dry season, and likely doubles in size during rainy seasons (Houk 2012a). The site is currently covered in vegetation downed by Hurricane Richard during 2010, and the aguada and its margins have been reclaimed by tall aquatic vegetation (Houk 2012a).

Figure 5.21: Kaxil Uinic village map, from Bonorden and Kilgore (2016:Figure 4).

During the 2015 field season, Bonorden (2016) conducted survey around the Kaxil Uinic village site to identify additional historic-age resources at the site (Figure 5.21). Multiple artifact scatters were recorded, as well as a mound and a small cobble platform. Following this survey, 12 excavation units were placed around the site (Bonorden 2015). Bonorden (2016) returned the following field season, recording an additional 30 artifact scatters and excavating 18 units.

100 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Summary The 16 sites presented in this chapter represent the most prominent examples of archaeological resources recorded on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property. Unfortunately, even after BEAST’s survey work over the 2013 and 2014 field seasons, the majority of the property remains unsurveyed and the vegetation undoubtedly conceals countless more structures, groups, and sites.

101 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER VI

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Over the course of two field seasons, BEAST crews completed a total of 70.65 km of linear survey along the pre-cut transects and 5.19 km of survey extending away from these transects. This value was obtained by measuring the distances travelled away from the transect during survey. These lengths of survey are considered to have the same 28-m wide viewsheds as the main transects. The total linear distance for BEAST’s surveys is 75.84 km, making the total area surveyed 2.123 km² (Table 6.1). This figure was calculated by adding the two linear survey distances, and multiplying the total by 0.028.

This portion of surveyed area includes a total of 275 structures. Only structures found during survey along transect lines are considered in this calculation. This figure includes structures found outside the 28-m wide transect during linear survey that were located from other structures recorded during linear survey. The dense settlement area located during survey on AS1 is an example of such an inclusion. This total also includes all structures from Ix Naab Witz (BE-11), which was the only BE-designated site located during survey on the selected transects. This figure does not include structures recorded during targeted site-recording surveys, such as the attempts to locate El Infierno, La Luchita, and Montaña Chamaco. This figure also excludes previously recorded structures observed during site revisitations, such as Laguna Seca, Laguna Verde, and Punta de Cacao, as well as the structures recorded and area surveyed during Sandrock and Willis’s (2014) UAV survey.

The following sections present an analysis of the data collected by BEAST during the 2013 and the 2014 field seasons. In this analysis, data gleaned from BEAST’s surveys is compared to other nearby projects, such as Boudreaux (2012), Hageman (2004), and Lohse’s (2001) work around Dos Hombres, as well as Robichaux’s (1995) work near Dos Hombres and La Milpa. First, BEAST’s various survey areas are compared in terms of structures and groups recorded. Next,

102 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 population density estimates for BEAST’s surveyed areas are compared to those of other nearby projects. Following that, group type distribution of groups found during BEAST’s surveys are compared. The ensuing section discusses structure and group distribution amongst the various ecozones established by Lohse (2001) and utilized by Boudreaux (2013). The final section of this chapter presents a comparison of group and structure size data to Hageman’s (2004) findings.

Table 6.1: BEAST Survey Statistics

Distance Total Area # of Structures Survey Area Surveyed (km) (km²) Structures per km² American Seismic 1 26 0.728 118 162.09 American Seismic 3 12 0.336 47 139.88 American Seismic 6 20.65 0.578 50 786.51 American Seismic 7 4.7 0.132 23 174.24 American Seismic 8 7.3 0.204 37 181.37 Survey from lines 5.19 0.145 (included above) Total: 75.84 km 2.123 km² 275

Survey Findings by Survey Type BEAST recorded more than twice as many features (118, 42.9% of all features) during investigations along AS1 than on any other transect line (Table 6.2). With all these features, it is perhaps unsurprising that AS1 contained a relatively high proportion of groups (11, 28.95% of all groups).

Despite containing less than half the number of total features of American Seismic Line 1 (47 to 118), nine groups were recorded along AS3. In dividing total groups on each line by the total number of structures on each line, we get a ratio of 0.19 groups per feature for AS3, compared to 0.10 for AS1. AS3 also contains just 13.48% of the total recorded features, but 17.1% of all groups were found on this line.

103 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 6.2: Findings by Survey Type

Survey Type # Groups % Groups # Structures % Features Groups/Features Coverage (km)

American Seismic 1 11 28.95% 118 42.9% 0.10 26 American Seismic 3 9 23.68% 47 17.1% 0.19 12 American Seismic 6 5 13.16% 50 14.33% 0.10 20.65 American Seismic 7 4 10.53% 23 6.46% 0.17 4.7 American Seismic 8 5 13.16% 37 10.39% 0.14 7.3 Targeted Investigations 4 10.53% 89 25.00% 0.04

Survey Type Coverage (km²) Groups/km Structures/km Groups/km² Structures/km²

American Seismic 1 0.728 0.42 4.15 15.11 148.35 American Seismic 3 0.336 0.75 4.00 26.79 142.86 American Seismic 6 0.578 0.24 2.42 7.37 75.22 American Seismic 7 0.132 0.85 4.89 30.30 174.24 American Seismic 8 0.204 0.68 5.07 24.51 181.37

104 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Survey along AS6 discovered five groups (13.16%) and 50 features (17.1%). BEAST recorded four groups (10.53%) and 23 structures (8.36%) during survey along AS7. AS7 contained far fewer structures (14 less than the next highest) than the other lines, but also contained just one less group than AS6 and AS7, giving it one of the highest proportions of groups to features (0.17). Survey along AS8 recorded another five groups (13.16%) and 37 structures (10.39%).

BEAST recorded an additional four groups (10.53%) and 89 features (25.00%) during targeted investigations. This count includes three newly-recorded, BE- designated sites (Montaña Camacho, Sylvester Village, and La Luchita). Despite targeted investigations being mostly used as a means to locate known but previously unrecorded sites, this method of survey returned the lowest ratio of groups to features (0.04, the next highest is 0.10).

As shown in Table 6.2, the number of features found during targeted investigations appears staggeringly high compared to the area covered. However, this high proportion of recorded features is to be expected, considering that these were specifically targeted investigations, often conducted to find known but unrecorded sites and/or features.

Population Density Estimation Ashmore (1981:147) proposed a “minimum residential unit,” in which structures of any format with at least 20 m2 of area or “roofed space,” as Ashmore termed it, would be considered potential residences. In survey work around Dos Hombres, Houk et al. (1993) utilized a value of 12 m2. We chose a middle road for this analysis, selecting Robichaux’s (1995) criteria of greater than or equal to 15 m2 as the qualifier for possible residences. A total of 228 recorded structures were designated possible residences using Robichaux’s cutoff.

One drawback of using only survey data to calculate population density is the difficulty in assessing what proportion of investigated structures were occupied at any given time. Hageman (2004) suggests that 80-85% of mounds found during his survey

105 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 were occupied during the Late Classic. Robichaux’s (1995) population estimate calculations use a value of 83% of mounds occupied during the same period.

Due to the dense jungle vegetation, it is entirely possible (and very likely) that survey crews do not observe or record 100% of all structures present. To stymie this effect on occupation density, Robichaux (1995) estimated that approximately 85-90% structures in the survey area were recorded.

In his calculations, Robichaux (1995), using methods from Culbert et al. (1990), accounted for variables using the following values: +10% to account for mounds missed during survey, -10% for mounds in disuse, -17% for structures not occupied during the Late Classic, and -15% because not all structures designated as possible residences served residential a residential function. This aggregated adjustment calls for calculations to ignore 32% of all possible residences, making the adjusted total 155.04. The resulting formula can be expressed as z=(5[x*0.68])/y, where x represents the number of possible residences, y represents the area surveyed (in km²), and z represents the population density estimate in individuals per km². Like Robichaux (1995), a value of five individuals per possible residence was used, as previously prescribed by Culbert et al. (1990).

Instead of calculating population densities for each individual line, a larger sample size will be considered here. Using the total area surveyed (2.123 km²), the adjusted value for possible residences (155.04), and a value of five individuals per residence, the estimated population density for our study area is 348.71 individuals per km². When the figure for possible residences and the resulting calculation are rounded up to the nearest integer, the estimated population density becomes 351 individuals per km².

Using data collected from his survey blocks, Robichaux (1995) estimated a settlement density around Dos Hombres of approximately 480 individuals per km², and a density of 805 individuals per km². Walling’s (1995) work near Dos Hombres produced an estimated occupation density of around 2,000 individuals per km². Lohse (2001) recorded 232 possible residences, but did not provide a population density

106 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 estimate. Using the same formula used on BEAST’s data and values of 232 for possible residences and an area value of 1.5 km² (150 hectares) produces an estimate of roughly 527 individuals per km². BEAST’s estimation is significantly lower than the other projects’, and the study area with the closest population estimate (Robichaux’s (1995) work around the Dos Hombres periphery) is roughly 33 percent higher than BEAST’s. Given that no site centers as large as Dos Hombres or La Milpa were recorded in BEAST’s surveyed area, and the majority of BEAST’s surveyed locales would be considered hinterland areas, BEAST’s estimate seems within reason.

Table 6.3: Population Estimation Comparison

# of Possible Population Estimate Survey/Source Residences (individuals per km²) BEAST 156 ~351 Dos Hombres (Walling 1995) n/a ~2,000 Dos Hombres periphery (Robichaux 1995) 49 ~480 La Milpa periphery (Robichaux 1995) 149 ~805 Dos Hombres (Lohse 2001) 232 ~527

Group Typology Makeup Table 6.4 provides a description and count of each group type found during BEAST’s survey. Including newly recorded sites, a total of 38 groups was recorded during transect survey. These tables do not include features recorded during survey of previously-recorded sites.

Level 1 Groups of Level 1 were found in Upland Bajo (2), Transitional Upland (3), Broken Ridge (1), and Escoba Bajo (4) ecozones, but not Aguada Margins or Riverine Floodplains. This contrasts with Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) findings, in that only 26.32% of BEAST’s recorded groups fall into this category, while a substantial 63.0% of groups around Dos Hombres were Level 1 groups—a difference of 36.68% (Boudreaux 2013). Furthermore, Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) encountered Level 1 groups in Escoba Bajo and Riverine Floodplain ecozones far more often, while not recording a single group in Upland Bajo. Boudreaux (2013:138)

107 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 proposes that Level 1 groups in an Escoba Bajo or Riverine Floodplain setting are indicative of agricultural or economic pursuits as opposed to residential construction.

Table 6.4 Group Types and Descriptions, from Boudreaux (2013:118)

Group Type Group Type Description # Observed

Type 1 Consists of 2 structures 9 Consists of 3-4 structures; or a creation a courtyard group; or Type 2 14 2 structures on a platform Contains more than 5 structures or creation a courtyard group with more than 5 structures; or a total of 2 courtyards Type 3 11 present in a group of more than four structures; or 3-4 structures on a platform Type 4 Consists of more than 5 structures on a platform 1 Consists of more than 5 structures on a platform with more Type 5 3 than one courtyard

Level 2 In BEAST’s study area, Level 2 groups were most commonly found in Transitional Upland ecozones (23.68%, or 9 of 13). This is a far higher share than Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) encountered, with just 1.90% of Level 2 groups around Dos Hombres located in the same ecozone. This combination also represents the most commonly represented pairing of group level and ecozone. 34.21% of all groups recorded by BEAST are considered Level 1, while Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) recorded 24.10% of groups in the same level. This proportion is the most similar of the three lowest group types (Levels 1, 2, and 3, at a difference of just 10.11%).

Level 3 According to Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) combined data, just 8.30% of structure groups are categorized as Level 3 groupings, while BEAST recorded 28.95% of all groups as Level 3 (a difference of 20.65%). However, other than the Level 3 group situated in Upland Bajo recorded by BEAST, the distribution of these groups among the other five ecozones is largely similar. Boudreaux (2013:138) believes Level 3 groups are generally indicative of residential settlement when found in Transitional Upland settings. 108 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Levels 1, 2, and 3 make up the vast majority of groups recorded in both data sets. These levels include 89.47% and 95.4% of BEAST and Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) recorded groups, respectively. This proportion is rather predictable, as higher-level groups require far more organization and manpower to construct and maintain, and a majority of inhabitants would undoubtedly occupy these smaller types of groups.

Level 4 The only Level 4 group recorded by BEAST was located in a Transitional Upland area. Lohse and Boudreaux encountered two in Broken Ridge areas and one in an Aguada Margin. Level 4 groups make up 2.63% of BEAST’s recorded groups, and just 2.80% of Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) recorded groups. This level is the most similar in distribution to any other grouping by some distance, with a difference of just 0.17%.

Level 5 By far the most similarly distributed group level, Level 5 groups were found almost exclusively in Broken Ridge settings in both data sets. The only exception is a single group, recorded in Transitional Upland around Dos Hombres.

It seems likely that many of these discrepancies can be attributed to either sampling or scalar issues. Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) data is drawn from a much more focused survey area, while BEAST’s survey area nearly spans the entire width of the permit area. The most distant survey from Dos Hombres only extended roughly 2.5 km away from the site core, while BEAST’s longest single transect line was approximately 26 km long. Additionally, the disparity between a dataset concentrated around a considerably large site center and a dataset from a large-scale, essentially random sample needs to be considered when examining these results. Given the influence and importance of Maya economic and political centers, it is

109 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 6.5: Comparison of BEAST and Boudreaux (2013): Group Levels by Ecozone

Total % of Transitional Riverine Aguada BEAST: Upland Bajo Broken Ridges Escoba Bajo Groups Upland Floodplain Margins Level 1 26.32% 2 5.26% 3 7.89% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 4 5.26% 0 0.00% Level 2 34.21% 3 7.89% 9 23.68% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 7.89% 0 0.00% Level 3 28.95% 1 2.63% 4 10.53% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 4 2.63% 1 2.63% Level 4 2.63% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Level 5 7.89% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 7.89% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total per ecozone: 6 15.79% 17 44.74% 0 0.00% 5 13.16% 9 23.68% 1 2.63%

Boudreaux (2013):

Level 1 63.00% 0 0.00% 15 13.90% 13 12.00% 9 9.30% 22 20.40% 8 7.40% Level 2 24.10% 0 0.00% 2 1.90% 8 7.40% 3 2.80% 8 7.40% 5 4.60% Level 3 8.30% 0 0.00% 3 2.80% 1 0.90% 1 0.90% 3 2.80% 1 0.90% Level 4 2.80% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.90% 0 0.00% 1 0.90% Level 5 1.80% 0 0.00% 1 0.90% 0 0.00% 1 0.90% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total per ecozone: 0 0 21 19.44% 22 20.37% 17 15.74% 33 30.56% 15 13.89%

110 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 likely that the dissimilarity between these projects’ results is due to this difference in locale.

Ecozone Analysis The following subsections examine habitation within each ecozone in terms of recorded structure groups and their group rankings (from Boudreaux 2013). A summary of statistics regarding ecozones is presented in Table 6.6.

Upland Bajo Although Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) did not record a single structure group in an Upland Bajo setting, BEAST recorded six. This represents 15.79% of all groups recorded by BEAST, which starkly contrasts with the 0.0% recorded by Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013). This disparity is rather surprising, considering Upland Bajo areas account for 11.86% of their combined survey area. A total of six groups (2 Level 1, 3 Level 2, 1 Level 3) was recorded in Upland Bajo areas.

Transitional Upland BEAST recorded a lofty 44.74% of all structure groups in Transitional Upland settings. Although Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) proportion is the third- highest of the five ecozones (19.44% of all groups), BEAST found more than double this proportion of structures in this ecozone. With a difference of 25.30%, the largest difference in percentage of total groups per ecozone is found in the Transitional Upland setting. The next highest differences come in the Upland Bajo and Riverine Floodplain ecozones (15.79% and 20.37%, respectively).

Riverine Floodplain Although BEAST did not record a single structure group in Riverine Floodplains, 20.37% of the groups from Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) data were found in this ecozone (Boudreaux 2013). This is fairly interesting, considering every surveyed transect line crosses both the Río Bravo and other small seasonal drainages in various locations. Additionally, AS1 and AS3 both cross the Booth’s River (a second perennial stream) near the eastern end of each line. This variation can

111 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 6.6: Ecozone Comparison

# of Groups % of # of Groups % of Groups # of Groups % of Groups Ecozone (BEAST) Groups (Lohse 2001) (Lohse 2001) (Boudreaux 2013) (Boudreaux 2013) Upland Bajo 6 15.79% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Transitional Upland 17 44.74% 21 21.21% 0 0.00% Riverine Floodplain 0 0.00% 22 22.22% 0 0.00% Broken Ridges 5 13.16% 9 9.09% 8 88.89% Escoba Bajo 9 23.68% 32 32.32% 1 11.11% Aguada Margins 1 2.63% 15 15.15% 0 0.00%

112 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 be explained by the location of Lohse’s (2001) data, as it is derived from an area near both a large site center and rivers. Additionally, the areas flanking river crossings encountered on AS lines were generally steep and rocky, and the transition from Riverine Floodplain to other environmental settings was quite abrupt.

Broken Ridges The proportion of total groups recorded near Broken Ridges is by far the closest between the two examined datasets. BEAST recorded 13.16% of groups in this ecozone, while Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) encountered 15.74%, a difference of just 2.58%.

Escoba Bajo Despite being described as one the least-hospitable ecozones in which to settle, Lohse and Boudreaux recorded 33 groups (30.56% of all groups) in Escoba Bajo areas. BEAST recorded 9 of 38 groups (23.68%) within the Escoba Bajo ecozone. The difference of 6.88% represents the second-closest separation of proportions in this comparison.

Aguada Margins BEAST recorded only a single group (2.63% of all groups) in an Aguada Margin setting, but Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) recorded 15 (15.15% of all groups). This difference is easily explained by the presence of two large aguadas near Dos Hombres, while the only area considered an Aguada Margin encountered by BEAST was just north of Laguna Seca on AS3.

Discussion Other than the lack of groups in Upland Bajo, Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) data show a relatively even distribution in groups amongst each of the ecozones. This is quite dissimilar to BEAST’s data, in that nearly 70% of all groups recorded by BEAST were located in Transitional Upland or Escoba Bajo settings (44.74% and 23.68%, respectively). The prevalence of structures recorded by BEAST

113 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 in Upland Bajos is also rather surprising, since neither of the previous projects to use the ecozone system recorded any structures in this ecozone.

During analysis, issues were encountered with comparing my data to that of Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013), as they use more diverse data sets to describe localized environmental settings. Unfortunately, BEAST’s findings are not aided by data from excavations, soil sample analysis, or high-detail topographic survey as Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013) were. Thus, during field observations, BEAST described the environmental settings of structures, features, and sites through observed vegetation types (from Brokaw and Mallory 1993), apparent hydrologic conditions, and local slope conditions. These findings were then categorized into the “ecozones” utilized by Lohse (2001) and Boudreaux (2013).

Additionally, the scales of these projects are quite different. Lohse’s (2001) study area only covers the site of Dos Hombres and a pair of 2.3 km transects, and Boudreaux’s (2013) work only covers the first few km of the planned 12 km-long DH2GC transect extending from the aforementioned site. In all, BEAST (Sandrock 2013; Sandrock and Willis 2014) managed to cover nearly 80 linear km and over 2.1 km² during survey, covering a much more disparate survey area than our predecessors.

Size Comparison In order to compare the size of construction efforts in different locales, measurements of structures recorded during BEAST’s surveys are contrasted with comparable data from Hageman’s (2004) dissertation work. Hageman’s surveys were conducted in three study areas: the sites of Guijarral and Barba Group/Territory and a cut-brecha transect extending between La Milpa and Dos Hombres. These two projects’ study areas are compared in three tables: Table 6.7, which lists statistical summaries for structure width, Table 6.8, which lists statistical summaries for structure length, and Table 6.9, which lists statistical summaries for structure height.

For each variable (length, width, height), BEAST’s data seems to be skewed by two aspects: the size of structures recorded by BEAST, and the comparatively limited

114 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017 datasets of each of Hageman’s study areas. For instance, BEAST’s largest structure is 72 m in length, nearly 50 m longer than the longest structure recorded in Hageman’s study areas. Additionally, the 274 structures recorded by BEAST represents a sizably larger dataset than each of Hageman’s study areas, as the highest number of structures recorded in any area is 177. For this comparison, the wall feature recorded during survey along AS6 is not included, as its massive length would certainly skew BEAST’s statistical data.

Table 6.7: Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman (2004), Length

Guijarral Transect Barba BEAST

Length Length Length Length Number 131 177 46 274 Minimum 1.850 2.000 2.600 2.000 Maximum 20.290 23.200 16.300 72.000 Range 18.440 21.200 13.700 70.000 Median 4.840 7.000 6.000 8.000 Mean 5.806 7.838 6.577 9.395 Standard Deviation 3.036 4.539 2.802 6.848 Variance 9.219 20.606 7.849 46.900

Table 6.8: Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman 2004, Width

Guijarral Transect Barba BEAST

Width Width Width Width Number 131 177 46 274 Minimum 0.860 1.000 2.000 1.000 Maximum 11.610 18.000 11.400 26.000 Range 10.750 17.000 9.400 25.000 Median 3.430 4.500 4.000 5.000 Mean 3.970 4.948 4.487 5.774 Standard Deviation 1.916 2.576 2.005 3.691 Variance 3.670 6.633 4.019 13.621

115 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Table 6.9: Statistical Comparison: BEAST and Hageman 2004, Height

Guijarral Transect Barba BEAST

Height Height Height Height Number 131 177 46 274 Minimum 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.200 Maximum 6.077 4.500 2.500 6.000 Range 5.877 4.250 2.200 5.800 Median 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 Mean 0.747 1.112 0.970 1.186 Standard Deviation 0.704 0.593 0.468 0.861 Variance 0.496 0.352 0.219 0.742

Unsurprisingly, the results of Hageman’s (2004) transect and BEAST’s surveys are statistically quite similar, as are the results from Guijarral and Barba Territory. These paired study areas reflect their similar methods of survey and focus on a site or transect. Between the two datasets, the most similar variable is structure height. For this aspect, the minimum and maximum heights for the projects are very similar. For both height and width, BEAST’s dataset appears to contain drastically larger structures than Hageman’s dataset. This is likely due to the inclusion of the large structures at Ix Naab Witz, which contains several structures many times larger than any recorded in Hageman’s study areas.

116 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION Following in the footsteps of settlement studiers such as Gordon Willey, Dennis Puleston, and Wendy Ashmore, BEAST conducted intensive survey aimed at analyzing Maya settlement on the Gallon Jug-Laguna Seca property. As one could elucidate from any number of reports or publications, large-scale settlement surveys in the dense jungles of northwestern Belize are no easy task.

Whereas most other survey projects in the region focus on either a site center or the areas immediately surrounding a site center, this project recorded its data from essentially random samples. The total area covered by BEAST crews is comparable to many other projects’ totals (Houk, Robichaux, and Durst 1996, Robichaux 1995, Lohse 2001). However, the linear coverage of disparate locales afforded to BEAST by our transects provides us a broader and less-focused view of Pre-Columbian occupation in our study area. Unlike block surveys, our long, linear samples enabled us to examine Maya settlement across both great distances and a myriad of environmental and topographical settings.

In comparing the data recorded by the three projects, significant variation between Lohse’s (2001) and Boudreaux’s (2013) combined data set and BEAST’s data is evident, but these differences are to be expected when comparing two disparate areas with unequally variable locations. However, comparisons between Maya settlement near site centers and in hinterland communities is a worthwhile task, and one that is gleaning an ever-more-complex view of Maya settlement across their landscape. A size comparison of BEAST and Hageman’s (2004) dissertation data shows that while some more limited and less variable aspects of structure measurements (such as structure height) might often remain similar across study areas, the mean length and width of an area’s structures can be easily skewed by the inclusion of a few large structures found within site centers. However, generally speaking, these two projects’ data are statistically comparable in scale and result.

117 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

The survey work undertaken by BEAST has demonstrated the reality that these lowland jungles are pocked with evidence of settlement and use. It is also abundantly clear that Maya occupation extends far beyond the fantastic site centers of lore, across all shades of the variable landscapes found in the Maya world.

With the massive advancements made in remote sensing technology, BEAST’s use of UAV mapping technologies demonstrates that random archaeological survey is becoming a research avenue at a crossroads. Although expensive, aircraft-mounted LiDAR and satellite imagery can produce highly detailed maps of large areas of land far more rapidly than what was feasible even 5 years ago. In our case, a UAV-based survey covered nearly 1/5 of the area subjected to pedestrian survey by BEAST crews over two field seasons. However, the UAV covered this area in less than one afternoon. The maps produced with this method lend themselves easily to the conducting of targeted surveys of possible features identified prior to putting any boots on the ground, making random survey through dangerous and rugged landscapes of Mesoamerica a decreasingly attractive option.

Although the undertaking of archaeological survey is still a valid method for studying the Maya, the best analysis of survey data comes when such findings are examined in concert with excavation data. Unfortunately, after the completion of Bonorden’s (2016) work at Kaxil Uinic Camp and Qualm Hill Camp, it is unclear if excavations will be undertaken at any of the newly-recorded sites or features found by BEAST and CCAP. Hopefully, future generations of archaeologists will get this chance, thus teaching us ever more about the prolific Maya builders and their cultural lifeways.

118 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Richard E. W. 1990 Archaeological Research at the Lowland City of Río Azul. Latin American Antiquity 1:23–41.

1995 1994 Interim Report, Introduction. In The Programme for Belize Archaeological Project, 1994 Interim Report, edited by R. E.W. Adams and F. Valdez, Jr., pp. 1-14. The Center for Archaeology and Tropical Studies, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

1999 Río Azul: An Ancient . University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Adams, Richard E.W., Vernon Scarborough, Laura Levi, Stanley Walling, Nicholas Dunning, Brandon Lewis, Leslie Shaw, Eleanor King, Lauren Sullivan, Kathryn Reese Taylor, and Fred Valdez, Jr. 2004 Programme for Belize Archaeological Project: A History of Archaeological Research. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 1:185-196. Institute of Archaeology, NICH, Belize.

Andrews, E. Wyllys V., and Norman Hammond 1990 Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at , Belize. American Antiquity, 55: 570–884.

Baudez, Claude F. 1983 Introducción a la Arqueología de Copán, Honduras. Proyecto Arqueológico Copán, Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa.

Bolland, O. Nigel 1992 Belize: Historical Setting. In A Country Study: Belize, edited by Tim Merrill. Library of Congress Federal Research Division, Washington, D.C.

Bonorden, Brooke 2016 Comparing Colonial Experiences in Northwestern Belize: Archaeological Evidence from Qualm Hill Camp and Kaxil Uinic Village. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

119 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Bonorden, Brooke, and Brett A. Houk 2016 Archaeological Investigations at Kaxil Uinic and Qualm Hill, Two Colonial Period Sites in Northwestern Belize. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 13:337–347.

Bonorden, Brooke, and Gertrude Kilgore 2015 Results of the 2015 Excavations at Kaxil Uinic Village. In The 2015 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 105–144. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 10. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Bonorden, Brooke, and Gertrude Kilgore 2016 Results of the 2016 Excavations at Kaxil Uinic Village. In The 2016 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 81–134. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 11. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Booher, Ashley, Valorie V. Aquino, Brooke Bonorden, and Brett A. Houk 2016 A Beginning, an Ending, and a Reoccupation: The 2016 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Belize Archaeology Symposium, San Ignacio, Belize.

Boudreaux, Sarah 2013 Life on the Edge: Investigating Maya Hinterland Settlements in Northwestern Belize. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Bristow, Lindsay W., and Philip B. Wright 1888 Handbook of British Honduras for 1888-89, Comprising Historical, Statistical, and General Information Concerning the Colony. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London.

120 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Brokaw, Nicholas V. L, and Elizabeth P. Mallory 1993 Vegetation of the Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area, Belize. Manometi Bird Observatory. Massachusetts, and the Programme for Belize, Belize City, Belize.

Brown, C. T., and W. R. T. Witschey 2008 The Electronic Atlas of Ancient Maya Sites. Available at http://mayagis.smv.org/maps_of_the_maya_area.htm. Accessed December 10, 2016.

Bullard, William R., Jr. 1960 Maya Settlement Patterns in Northeastern Petén, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25:355-72.

Buttles, Palma J. 2002 Material and Meaning: A Contextual Examination of Select Portable Material Culture from Colha, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Cackler, Paul R., Stanley L. Walling, David M. Hyde, and Fred Valdez, Jr. 2007 Qualm Hill: Reconnaisance, Rediscovery, and Mapping. In Research Reports from the Programme for Belize Archaeological Project, edited by Fred Valdez, Jr., pp. 117–125. Occasional Papers, Number 8. Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin.

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

Coe, Michael D. 2011 The Maya. 8th ed. Thames and Hudson, London.

Cortes-Rincon, Marisol 2011 Dos Hombres to Gran Cacao Settlement Survey Project: 2010 Field Season. In Research Reports from the Programme for Belize Archaeological Project, Vol. 5., edited by Brett A. Houk and Fred Valdez,

121 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Jr., pp. 243–250. Occasional Papers, Number 12. Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin.

Culbert, T. Patrick, Laura J. Kosakowsky, Robert E. Fry, and William A. Haviland 1990 The Population of Tikal, Guatemala. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, edited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 103-121. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dornan, Jennifer L. 2004 Even by Night We Only Become Aware They are Killing Us: Agency, Identity, and Intentionality at San Pedro Belize (1857–1930). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dumond, Don E. 1997 The Machete and the Cross, Camesino Rebellion in Yucatan. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Dunning, Nicholas P. and Timothy Beach, Patrice Farrell, and Sheryl Luzzadder- Beach 1998 Prehispanic Agrosystems and Adaptive Regions in the Maya Lowlands. In Culture and Agriculture 20:87-100.

Dunning, Nicholas P., 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 Scarborough, Fred Valdez, and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 14-24. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Dushku, Aaron, Sandra Brown, and Myrna Hall 2002 Modeling the Deforestation and Carbon Emissions Baseline in the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area Climate Action Project, Belize, 1993-2035.Winrock International. Electronic document available at: http://winrock.org/what/PDF/eco/Product%25205%2520GEOMOD% 2520to%2520Rio%2520Bravo%2520CAP.pdf

122 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Ford, Anabel, and Scott Feddick 1988 Predictive Model for Ancient Maya Settlement: The Archaeological Resources of the Río Bravo Conservation Area, Belize. Manuscript prepared for Programme for Belize. Community Organization Research Institute, University of California, Riverside.

Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas P. Dunning 1999 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bartolo-Xultun Territory, El Petén, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 20:525-552.

Guderjan, Thomas H. 1991 Chan Chich. In Maya Settlement in Northwestern Belize, edited by Thomas H. Guderjan, pp. 35–49. Maya Research Program, San Antonio, Texas and Labyrinthos, Culver City, California.

2007 The Nature of a Maya City: Resources, Interaction, and Power at Blue Creek, Belize. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Guderjan, Thomas H., Michael Lindeman, Ellen Ruble, Froyla Salam, and Jason Yaeger 1991 Archaeological Sites in the Río Bravo Area. In Maya Settlement in Northwestern Belize, edited by Thomas H. Guderjan, pp. 55–88. Maya Research Program, San Antonio, Texas and Labyrinthos, Culver City, California.

Hageman, Jon B. 2004 Late Classic Maya Social Organization: A Perspective from Northwestern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Hammond, Norman 1991 The Discovery of La Milpa. In Mexicon 13(3):46-51.

Hammond, Norman, and Gair Tourtellot 2004 Out with a Whimper: La Milpa in the Terminal Classic. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 288- 301. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

123 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Harris, Matthew C. 2013 A Short Walk from Paradise: Initial Excavations at the Ruins of Kaxil Uinic, Belize. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Texas Tech University.

Harris, Matthew C. and Sisneros, Vincent M. 2012 Results of the 2012 Excavations at Kaxil Uinic Ruins. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 45-65. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 6. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Harrison, Peter D., and Billie. L. Turner II 1978 Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Heller, Eric J. 2012 Towards a Biography of Place: The 2011 Season of Survey and Excavation at La Milpa North, Belize. In Research Reports from the Programme for Belize Archaeological Project, Volume 6, edited by Fred Valdez, Jr., pp.109-122. Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

Hendon, Julia A. 1992 The Interpretation of Survey Data: Two Case Studies from the Maya Area. Latin American Antiquity 3(1):22-42.

Hester, Thomas R., Thomas C. Kelly, and Giancarlo Ligabue 1981 A Fluted Paleo-Indian Projectile Point from Belize, Central America. Working Papers in Archaeology 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

Houk, Brett A. 1996 Introduction to the 1996 Chan Chich Archaeological Project. In The 1996 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk and Hubert R. Robichaux, pp. 1–10. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 1. Center for Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

124 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

2012a Return to Paradise: An Introduction to the 2012 Chan Chich Archaeological Project. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 1-6. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 6. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

2012b Kaxil Uinic: A Report on Archival Investigations and Reconnaissance of the Historic Maya Village. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 31–44. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 6. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

2015 Ancient Maya Cities of the Eastern Lowlands. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Houk, Brett A., Paul J. Hughbanks, and Fred Valdez, Jr. 1993 Preliminary Findings of the 1992 PfB Archaeological Survey. In The Programme for Belize (PfB) Archaeological Project: Report of Field Activities, 1992, edited by R. E. W. Adams and F. Valdez, Jr., pp. 27-34. University of Texas at San Antonio.

Houk, Brett A, Fred Valdez, Jr., Jon C. Lohse, Paul J. Hughbanks, and Greg Zaro 1996 Appendix A- The 1995 Chan Chich Mapping Project. In The 1996 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk and Hubert R. Robichaux, pp. 35-38. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 1. Center for Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Houk, Brett A., Hubert R. Robichaux, and Jeffrey Durst 1996 Results of the 1996 Season. In The 1996 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk and Hubert R. Robichaux, pp. 21–30. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 1. Center for Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Houk, Brett A., Gregory Zaro, Antonio Padilla, Débora Trein, and Shannon Smith 2008 Report of Archaeological Investigations at Plaza B, La Milpa: The 2008 Season of the La Milpa Core Project. In Programme for Belize Archaeological Project: Summary Report of the 2008 Investigations,

125 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

edited by Fred Valdez, Jr., pp. 31–52. Mesoamerican Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

Hutson, Scott R. 2012 "Unavoidable Imperfections": Historical Contexts for Representing Ruined Maya Buildings. In Past Presented: Archaeological Illustration and the Ancient Americas, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 282–316. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant D. 1977 Levels of Settlement Alliance among the San Pedro Maya of Western Belize and Eastern Petén, 1857-1936. In Anthropology and History of the Yucatán, edited by Grant D. Jones, pp. 139-190. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring 1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A New Evaluation. Ancient Mesoamerica 9(1):55–66.

Leventhal, Richard M. 1979 Settlement Patterns at Copan, Honduras. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Lohse, Jon C. 2001 The Social Organization of a Late Classic Maya Community: Dos Hombres, Northwestern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin.

2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin American Antiquity 21(3):312-352.

Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. Rosenswig, Fred Valdez, Jr. 2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating the Paleoindian and Archaic Record. Latin American Antiquity 17(2):209-226.

Lucero, Lisa 2013 VOPA 2012: Cara Blanca Pool 1. Report submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belize.

126 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

2014 Results of the 2013 Valley of Peace Archaeology Project: Underwater and Surface Explorations at Cara Blanca Pool 1. Report submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belize.

Maler, Teobert 1910 Explorations in the Department of Petén, Guatemala, and Adjacent Region: Motul de San José; Petén-Itza. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, IV(3). Harvard University, Cambridge.

McKillop, Heather I. 2006 The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.

Meerman Jan, Brian Holland, Boris Arevalo, and Tineke Boomsma 2006 EIA Prepared for ‘RSM Production Corporation’ Seismic Activities in the Orange Walk District Belize. Belize Environmental Consultancies Ltd. Field Report.

Merwin, Raymond E. 1913 The Ruins of the Southern Part of the Peninsula of Yucatan, With Special Reference to their Place in the Maya Area. Unpublished thesis of the Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Morley, Sylvanus G. 1938 The Inscriptions of Petén, Vols. I-V., Publication 437. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Neivens, Mary 1991 Operations at Blue Creek. In Maya Settlement in Northwestern Belize, edited by Thomas H. Guderjan, pp. 51–54. Maya Research Program, San Antonio, Texas and Labyrinthos, Culver City, California.

Padilla, Antonio 2007 Akab Muclil: A Classic to Postclassic Hinterland Settlement in Northwestern Belize. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

127 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:127-150.

Powis, Terry G. 2005 New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures. BAR International Series, 1377. Archaeopress, University of Oxford Press, Oxford, England.

Pruett, Candace 2003 The 2002 Punta de Cacao Mapping Program. In Interim Report on the 2002 Field Season of the Punta de Cacao Archaeological Project, edited by Hubert R. Robichaux and Alexandra Miller, pp. 41-42. University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas.

Puleston, Dennis Edward 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Models. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Department of Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Available at http://www.puleston.org/writings-dissertation.html

Puleston, D. E., and Haviland, W. A. 1983 The Settlement Survey of Tikal. Tikal Report 13. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson 1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931. Publication 477. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

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

2005 Summary of the 2003 Field Season. In An Interim Report on the 2003 Field Season of the Punta de Cacao Archaeological Project, edited by Hubert R. Robichaux, pp. 77-80. University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas.

128 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Robichaux, Hubert R., Alexandra Miller, Evans Roberts III, Candace Pruett, Benjamin Smyth, and Thomas O’Brien 2002 Report on the 2001 Field Season of the Punta de Cacao Archaeological Project. University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas.

Robichaux, Hubert R., and Brett A. Houk 1996 Mapping Ancient Maya Settlement at Chan Chich, Belize: 1996 Field Methodology. In The 1996 Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk and Hubert R. Robichaux, pp. 15–20. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 1. Center for Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Rugeley, Terry 1996 Yucatan's Maya Peasantry and the Origins of the Caste War. University of Texas Press, San Antonio.

Rutheiser, Charles C. 1992 Belize: The Society and Environment. In A Country Study: Belize, edited by Tim Merrill. Library of Congress Federal Research Division, Washington, D.C.

Sagebiel, Kerry 2014 The Late and Terminal Classic Ceramic Sequence at La Milpa, Belize: Implications for its Occupational History. Ancient Mesoamerica 25:115- 137.

Sandrock, David 2013 Preliminary Results of the 2013 Gallon Jug and Laguna Seca Survey and Reconnaissance. In The 2013 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, 7, pp. 63-80. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Sandrock, David, and Mark D. Willis 2014 Results of the 2014 Field Season of the Belize Estates Archaeological Survey Team. In The 2014 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 111-129. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 8. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

129 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

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 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. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2009 An Alternate Order: The Dualistic Economies of the Ancient Maya. In Latin American Antiquity 20:207–227.

Sharer, Robert, and Loa Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya. 6th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Smith, Robert E. 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Publication 20. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University.

Steward, Julian H. 1937 Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society. Anthropos 32:87–104.

Sullivan, Lauren A., and Kerry L. Sagebiel 2003 Changing Political Alliances in 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. 25-36. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Sutherland, Anne 1998 The Making of Belize: Globalization in the Margins. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

130 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Thompson, Edward H. 1886 Archaeological Research in Yucatan. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 4:248-254.

1892 The Ancient Structures of Yucatan not Communal Dwellings. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 6:262-269.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1931 Third Marshall Field Archaeological Expedition to British Honduras: Preliminary Report. Manuscript on file at Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois.

1939 Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. Publication 506. Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.

Tourtellot, Gair, III 1988 Peripheral Survey and Excavation: Settlement and Community Patterns. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of Petén, Guatemala. Edited by G. R. Willey. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 16. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

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

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1913 A Preliminary Study of the Prehistoric Ruins of , Guatemala, A Report of the Peabody Museum Expedition, 1909-1910. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnohistory 5(3):137-201. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1967 Settlement Archaeology: Its Goals and Promise. American Antiquity 32(2):149-160.

Yaeger, Jason R. 1991 Preliminary Report of the Gallon Jug Settlement Survey. In Maya Settlement in Northwestern Belize, edited by Thomas H. Guderjan, pp.

131 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

89–93. Maya Research Program, San Antonio, Texas, and Labyrinthos, Culver City, California

Valdez, Fred, Jr. 1987 The Prehistoric Ceramics of Colha, Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Walling, Stanley L 1995 Bajo and Floodplain Sites Along the Río Bravo; 1994 Survey and Excavations. In The Programme for Belize Archaeological Project: 1994 Interim Report, edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Fred Valdez, Jr., pp. 63-67. The Center for Archaeology and Tropical Studies and The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Virù Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Vol. 54. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Boston.

1981 Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, edited by Wendy Ashmore, pp. 385-416. The School of American Research, New Mexico.

Willey, Gordon R., and R. M. Leventhal 1979 Settlement at Copan. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by N. Hammond and G. R. Willey, pp. 75-102. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Willis, Mark D., Brett A. Houk, Kelsey Herndon, and Chet Walker 2014 Structure from Motion Mapping of Structure A-15 at Chan Chich. In The 2014 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 21–30. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 8. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

132 Texas Tech University, David Sandrock, August 2017

Zaro, Gregory, and Houk, Brett A. 2012 The Growth and Decline of the Ancient Maya City of La Milpa, Belize: New Data and New Perspectives from the Southern Plazas. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(1):143-159.

133