A Short Walk from Paradise: Initial Excavations at the Ruins of Kaxil Uinic, Belize

Matthew Charles Harris, B.S.

A Thesis

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, Ph.D. Chair of Committee

Tamra Walter, Ph.D.

Dominick Casadonte Interim Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to begin by thanking Dr. Brett A. Houk for facilitating this research and restarting the Chan Chich Archaeological Project (CCAP). Without his help none of this research would have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr.

John Morris and Dr. Jaime Awe of the Institute of Archaeology (IA) in Belize for being supportive of the work we conducted there. A great deal of thanks also goes to the owners of the property, the Bowen Family, and the manager of the property,

Alistair Macpherson. The staff at Chan Chich Lodge is also entitled to a great deal of thanks, especially Elder de Leon and Letty Martinez.

We were also assisted in the field by some of the staff of Chan Chich Lodge.

They made working at Kaxil Uinic possible by clearing the road and some of the structures of vegetation. I would like to extend my thanks to Emil Flota, Eduardo

(Yayo) Granados, Elias Romero, Pedro Barahona, Jorge Montuy, Migde Perdomo, and

Jose (Chelis) Monroy for all their hard work in the field.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to the lodge’s head cook, Maritsa Montuy, whose selection of meals was fantastic and never left us hungry. All other staff members of the lodge are also owed a great deal of thanks. These include: Don Gilberto Vasquez,

Don Israel Ramirez, Luis Romero, Massiel Carrillo, Shaira Carrillo, Jeremias

Serminia, Yasmin Perdomo, Eulalio, Corado, Esmerelda De La Rosa, Arlene

Sanabria, Teresa Cordova, Olivia Cordova, Rosario Vasquez, Leny Sonabria, Raul

ii Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Martinez, Marina Cortez, Karina Rodriguez, Marely Moh, Herminia, Cortez, and

Marvin Ramirez. Alan Jeal and Hector Gomez, Gallon Jug staff members, are also owed a great deal of thanks.

I would also like to thank Vincent M. Sisneros, staff member of the Chan

Chich Archaeological Project, for assisting me in the field at Kaxil Uinic. His experience in the field assisted me greatly. The students who attended the field school are also owed thanks because without their interest the project may not have happened as it did. I would also like to thank John Wall for his trouble shooting abilities while designing a relational database using FileMaker. The problems I encountered in the design of the relational database were the cause of many headaches. I also owe a great deal of thanks to graphic designer, Brittany Payne, for cleaning up my artifact photos.

Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Fred Valdez, Jr. for his analysis of the ceramics from

Kaxil Uinic and Margaret Greco for illustrating several sherds.

iii Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...... ii

Table of Contents ...... iv

Abstract ...... vi

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Figures ...... viii

1. Introduction ...... 1

Natural Setting ...... 3

Cultural Setting ...... 7

Background ...... 10

2. Research Design and Methodology ...... 15

Research Questions ...... 19

Originally Proposed Methodology ...... 19

Modified Methodology ...... 22

Lab Procedures ...... 24

Digital Data Collection System and Relational Database ...... 25

3. Results ...... 27

Site Layout ...... 27

Investigations in the Plaza ...... 30

Stela 1...... 32

Altar 1 ...... 41

Structure 6 ...... 49

Structure 12 ...... 57

iv Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Structure 2 Excavations...... 61

Surface Finds ...... 70

Locating the Historic Village of Kaxil Uinic ...... 73

Artifacts ...... 77

Summary ...... 85

4. Discussion ...... 87

Is Kaxil Uinic Connected to Chan Chich by a Sacbe? ...... 87

What are the Extent, Condition, and Nature of the Prehistoric Site? ...... 87

What is the Age of the Prehistoric Site? ...... 88

What is the Condition of the Monuments at the Site? ...... 89

What is the Condition and Extent of the Historic Village/Chicle Camp?...... 89

What is the Spatial Relationship Between the Historic Village/Chicle Camp, the

Aguada, and the Prehistoric Ruins? ...... 89

The Structure 6 Surface Artifact Deposit and Concepts of Directionality ...... 90

Monument Veneration and Resetting ...... 94

Preclassic Occupation ...... 97

Conclusions ...... 98

References ...... 100

v Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

ABSTRACT

The summer of 2012 marked the first field season of excavations at the ruins of Kaxil

Uinic in northwestern Belize. The goal of the investigation was to understand the site and its relationships to the nearby site of Chan Chich, the historic Maya village/chicle camp, and a nearby aguada. In the course of the investigations, the original map of the site was modified and two previously unidentified structures were added. The stela and altar at the site were also targeted for investigation to better understand the chronology of the site. Some structures were also investigated for this purpose. This thesis discusses what was found during excavation at the site and provides possible explanations for the nature of certain concentrations of artifacts found.

vi Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 List of Operation KU-1 Suboperations Excavated...... 24 3.1 Dimensions of Structure by Number. *based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33)...... 28 3.2 List of Lots by Suboperation in Op KU-1 ...... 31 3.3 Artifact counts by lot ...... 78 3.4 Lots with Ceramic count by Suboperation in Op KU-1...... 79 4.1 Contents of Structure 6 Deposit...... 90

vii

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Location Map of Kaxil Uinic in relation to the region (Houk 2012a: Fig 1.1)...... 2 1.2 Modified Map of Kaxil Uinic based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33)...... 4 1.3 Kaxil Uinic’s relation to Chan Chich (Houk 2012a:Fig 4.4)...... 5 1.4 Thompson’s (1963:Fig. 22) sketch of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic ...... 10 1.5 Guderjan’s (1991: Fig) original map of E’kenha...... 12 2.1 Courtyard showing the damage from Hurricane Richard in 2012 ...... 15 3.1 Map of Kaxil Uinic based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33)...... 29 3.2 Photo of Stela 1 fragments (KU-1-A-2-3) prior to removal ...... 32 3.3 Plan map of Stela 1 (KU-1-A-2-3)...... 33 3.4 Photo showing Subops KU-1-A and KU-1-E ...... 34 3.5 Profile of Subops KU-1-A and KU-1-E...... 35 3.6 Photo showing the two stela fragments (KU-1-A-2 and -3) fitting together...... 37 3.7 Illustration of Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments by Margaret Greco. From KU-1-A-1 (a,b,c, and e) and KU- 1-A-4 (d)...... 38 3.8 Catalog numbers KU0015 (top) and KU0016 (bottom). Photo of Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments from KU- 1-A-1 and -4...... 39 3.9 Photo showing placement of Altar 1 (KU-1-B-2)...... 42 3.10 Plan map showing placement of Altar 1 (KU-1-B-2)...... 43 3.11 Catalog number KU0039. Cunil-like sherd ceramic dating to ca. 1200 B.C. (Early Preclassic period)...... 45 3.12 Photo showing vessel embedded in plaster floor (KU-1-B-5)...... 46 3.13 Plan map showing vessel embedded in plaster floor (KU-1-B-5)...... 46 3.14 Photo showing profile of Subop KU-1-B ...... 47 3.15 Profile drawing showing of Subop KU-1-B...... 48 3.16 Photo showing Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F with large cut stones on the left...... 50

viii

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

3.17 Plan map showing Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F...... 51 3.18 Elevation photo of Lots KU-1-C-2 and KU-1-F-2 ...... 52 3.19 Profile drawing of Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F...... 53 3.20 Photo showing speleothems from KU-1-C-1 and KU-1-F-1...... 54 3.21 Spec number KU0046-01. Bifacial chert tool found in KU-1-F-1 ...... 55 3.22 Photo showing Subop KU-1-D at the base of Structure 12...... 57 3.23 Plan map of Subop KU-1-D at the base of Structure 12 ...... 58 3.24 Profile drawing of KU-1-D at the southern base of Structure 12...... 59 3.25 Spec number KU0097-01. Ceramic pendant with three drilled holes from KU-1-D-1...... 60 3.26 Photo showing badly preserved steps on the southern face of Structure 2 in Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H...... 62 3.27 Plan Map of Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H...... 63 3.28 Profile drawing of Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H...... 64 3.29 Spec number KU0078-01. Uniface chert tool found in KU-1-G-1 ...... 66 3.30 Photo of wall of Structure 2 (KU-1-H-3)...... 68 3.31 Profile drawing showing wall of Structure 2 (KU-1-H-3)...... 69 3.32 Spec number KU0042-01. Photo showing bifacial chert tool (KU- 1-SF-1)...... 70 3.33 Spec number KU0041-01. Photo showing bifacial chert tool (KU- 1-SF-2)...... 71 3.34 Spec number KU0044-01. Photo showing unifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-3)...... 72 3.35 Spec number KU0054-01. Photo showing an unfinished bifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-4)...... 72 3.36 Spec number KU0081-01. Photo showing granite mano (KU-1- SF-5)...... 73 3.37 Photo showing the scatter of bottles on the ground at the site of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic...... 75 3.38 Photo showing the Goebel beer bottle that was collected from the site of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic...... 76 3.39 Photo showing the aguada in June 2012 ...... 76 3.40 Spec number KU0072-01. Chert tool from Structure 6 Deposit...... 82

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

3.41 Spec number KU0082-02. Chert tool from Structure 6...... 83 3.42 Spec number KU0082-03. Chert tool from Structure 6...... 84 3.43 Spec number KU0072-01. Chert tool from Structure 12 ...... 84

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION The first season of investigations at Kaxil Uinic ruins took place as part of the

2012 field season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project (CCAP). Kaxil Uinic is a small Maya site located in dense tropical forest in the Orange Walk District of northwest Belize, approximately 1 km east of the border with Guatemala (Figure 1.1), in an area known as the Three Rivers region. An old logging road connects Kaxil

Uinic to the larger site of Chan Chich, 2.6 km to the east. As discussed below, the site was first reported during the earliest days of archaeological research in Belize, but was never excavated. Thomas Guderjan et al.’s (1991) mapping work in the early 1990s was the only archaeological work conducted at the ruins prior to the investigations reported here.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 1.1: Location Map of Kaxil Uinic in relation to the region (Houk 2012a: Fig 1.1).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

The goals of these thesis investigations were to determine the extent, condition, and nature of the prehistoric site, the age of the site, the conditions of the monuments, and the site’s relationship to Chan Chich. As discussed in Chapter 2, the research intended to test the hypothesis that Kaxil Uinic was connected to Chan Chich by a sacbe, but the conditions at the site made such a determination impossible given the time constraints. With that question unanswerable, the research focused instead on basic site documentation, correcting the existing map, and establishing a chronology for the construction.

The 2012 CCAP field season commenced on May 23, 2012, and ended on June

20, 2012. Matthew Harris and Vincent Sisneros of Texas Tech University served as field supervisors to six field school students and one or two workmen provided by

Chan Chich Lodge to assist in the field. The project was part of Texas Tech

University’s Field School in Maya Archaeology directed by Brett A. Houk.

Natural Setting

This section provides descriptions of the location, physiography, and vegetation of the area to better understand the environment in which Kaxil Uinic is located.

The ruins of Kaxil Uinic (Figure 1.2) are on Gallon Jug Ranch, near the southern property line between Gallon Jug and Yalbac Ranch. The ruins are in dense tropical forest in the Orange Walk District of northwest Belize, approximately 1 km east of the border with Guatemala. The site of Kaxil Uinic is 2.6 km west of Chan

Chich, with a bajo located between the two sites (Figure 1.3). Kaxil Uinic is on a

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

small rise west of the bajo. An aguada and associated historic Maya village/chicle camp described by Thompson (1963) are about 500 m south of Kaxil Uinic ruins (see background section below). The La Lucha Escarpment is about 900 m west of the ruins.

Figure 1.2: Modified Map of Kaxil Uinic based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 1.3: Kaxil Uinic’s relation to Chan Chich (Houk 2012a:Fig 4.4).

The UTM coordinates of the ruins are: Zone 16, N 19 40 538, E 2 73 381, using the North American Datum of 1983. The elevation of the site is approximately

130 m above sea level. Kaxil Uinic is located near the southern boundary of the Three

Rivers region. This is a study area that is geographically defined by the Rio Azul to the west, the Rio Hondo to the north, and the Booth’s River to the east. Chan Chich is located on the southern boundary of the region (Houk 1996).

The region experiences a wet season lasting from May to January with rainfall surpassing 200 mm/month. The dry season lasts only from February to May with

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

average rainfall measuring half that of the wet season. The temperatures of the region do not vary greatly, with the hottest months of the year being April and May when the high temperature will reach at least 32° C (90° F) and the coldest months of the year being January and February when the temperature reaches as low as 10° C (50°F) at night (Houk 1996).

Physiographically, the Three Rivers region rests upon a limestone platform, which makes up a part of the larger Yucatán Peninsula region (Garrison and Dunning

2009). The limestone platform was formed during the Eocene (58 – 47 million years ago), and since, the karstic region has experienced geologic processes such as erosion, faulting, and slumping resulting in the bajos, uplands, and escarpments that scatter the region. Three major escarpments are located in the area around Kaxil Uinic: the La

Lucha Escarpment, the Río Bravo Escarpment, and the Booth’s River Escarpment

(Houk 1996). The La Lucha Escarpment, the tallest of the three, is located approximately 900 m to the west of Kaxil Uinic. Bajos, or wide depressions, also scatter the region. They occur in the lowlands and often flood during the rainy season due to poor drainage (Houk 1996). Located between the sites of Kaxil Uinic and Chan

Chich is a large bajo, which was often flooded during the 2012 wet season.

Houk (1996) describes the terminology to classify the vegetation of the area as inconsistent. Here I will use the same terminology used in The 1996 Season of the

Chan Chich Archaeological Project by Houk and Robichaux (1996). The five forest types that occur in the Three Rivers Region are: Upland Forest, Cohune Palm Forest,

Transition Forest, Scrub Swamp Forest, and Cohune Palm Riparian Forest. Upland

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Forest occurs in areas with well-drained soils on hilltops, ridges, and escarpments with the canopy height ranging from 15 – 30 m. This type of forest occurs in areas with deep, well-drained soils at the base of slopes and is the dominant forest type in the area around Kaxil Uinic. Cohune Palm Forest are present in areas at the base of slopes that have deep, well drained soils and have a high occurrence of cohune palms

(Orbignya cohune). Transition Forest occurs in areas between Upland Forest and

Scrub Swamp Forest (see below) and is not found in the area around Kaxil Uinic.

Scrub Swamp Forests can be found in clay-filled depressions that are poorly drained and have a canopy averaging about 4 – 5 m in height. Cohune Palm Riparian Forests are located near rivers and perennial streams with deep alluvial soils. Trees in this area often lean because of poor root anchorage and have a low canopy (Dunning et al.

1996, 2004; Houk 1996).

Cultural Setting

This section provides an overview of the culture history of the area helps put the site in context temporally with other known sites in the area.

The Three Rivers region has known occupation dates spanning the Middle

Preclassic (ca. 900 – 300 B.C.) to Postclassic (A.D. 900 – 1600) periods (Houk 1996;

Sullivan 2003). The earliest occupation of the area of dates to 900 B.C. and is evidenced by the settlement of farmers at the site of Río Azul with monumental architecture first appearing there around 500 B.C. Other known sites in the southern

Maya Lowlands that date to the Middle Preclassic are Chan Chich, Nakbé, La Milpa,

Blue Creek, Cuello, Colha, and Dos Hombres (Houk 1996; Robichaux 1998; Sullivan

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

2003). The Middle Preclassic occupation dates at Chan Chich came from ceramic analysis as well as a radiocarbon analysis (Robichaux 1998).

The Late Preclassic lasted from 300 B.C. – A.D. 250 and showed a growth in settlement and a rise in construction of monumental architecture. Sites such as Río

Azul, Dos Hombres, La Milpa, Las Abejas, Blue Creek, Gran Cacao, and Chan Chich all experienced this growth in population and architecture (Houk 1996). Late

Preclassic ceramics were also found in a tomb in the Upper Plaza at Chan Chich. This is the earliest royal tomb documented in the Three Rivers region (Houk et al. (2010).

During the Early Classic (A.D. 250 – 600) the Three Rivers region saw a change in the settlement of the population, with rural populations declining and an increase in settlement around ceremonial centers (Houk 1996). Sites with occupations dating to this time include Chan Chich, La Milpa, Blue Creek, Río Azul, Dos

Hombres, Quam Hill and Gran Cacao. During this time the population of the region grew, however, the sites of Dos Hombres, Las Abejas, and Río Azul saw a decline in population. The site of Río Azul shows signs of abandonment and destruction around

A.D. 530. Chan Chich also shows an Early Classic occupation, however, not a very strong one according to ceramic data (Valdez 1998). Other sites in the area show signs of population decline at the end of the Early Classic, possible as a result of the Middle

Classic Hiatus at Tikal, which may have cut its political ties in the region (Houk

1996).

The time period that lasted from A.D. 600 – 840 is known as the Late Classic.

During the Late Classic, rapid growth in population and construction was seen. This is

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

evidenced at the sites of Río Azul, Kinal, La Honradez, La Milpa, Dos Hombres, Blue

Creek, Chan Chich, Gran Cacao, and Punta de Cacao. Also, the erection of carved stelae in the area saw an increase at the sites of Río Azul, La Milpa, and Dos Hombres

(Houk 1996).

The Terminal Classic lasted from A.D. 840 – 900 and was a time of great change in the region (Houk et al. 2008). The sites of Río Azul, Dos Hombres, La

Milpa, Blue Creek and Kinal all show signs of similar change. There are signs of

Terminal Classic occupation at the site of Chan Chich from ceramic data (Ford and

Rush 2000; Harrison 2000; Houk 2000). During this time the major centers and surrounding countryside were largely abandoned; at some sites small remnant populations occupied former plazas and courtyards while constructing smaller structures with the stones that were originally part of the monumental architecture

(Houk 1996).

The time period following the Terminal Classic is known as the Postclassic, which lasted from A.D. 900 – 1600. There is limited evidence for occupation during this period, with most data coming from the site of Río Azul, with some signs of occupation seen at Gran Cacao (Houk et al. 2008). The sites of Dos Hombres and La

Milpa show no occupation during this time (Houk 1996).

Although occupation during the Postclassic declined drastically, some sites in the Three Rivers region show signs of visitation during this period. Houk et al. (2008) notes there is evidence of Postclassic visitation at the sites of La Milpa, Gran Cacao,

Akab Muclil, Dos Hombres, as well as at Chan Chich and Kaxil Uinic.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Background

Sir J. Eric S. Thompson (1963) planned to conduct fieldwork at Kaxil Uinic in

1931, using workers from the nearby Maya village, which at the time consisted of a chicle camp for the Belize Estates Land and Produce Company (see below). However, when the camp was closed and the workers moved prior to his arrival in March 1931, he decided not to excavate at Kaxil Uinic and instead conducted excavations near the village of San José. In the San José report, Thompson (1939:280) published a description of Kaxil Uinic and the structures associated with it: “[m]ounds, sculptured stela, plain altar. Second group on west bank of R. Holmul (Bravo) one league southeast.” Thompson (1939:280) later published his description of the chicle camp of

Kaxil Uinic in Maya Archaeologist as “…huts scattered around a dirty water hole…”(Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4: Thompson’s (1963:Fig. 22) sketch of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

After Thompson’s departure from British Honduras archaeologists did not study the area for over 50 years. In the 1980s a Belizean named Barry Bowen purchased part of the former Belize Estates holdings, including the land where the ruins of Kaxil Uinic are located. Today, this property is known as Gallon Jug Ranch.

The archaeological site of Chan Chich, also situated on the property, was chosen as the location of a jungle lodge (Houk 2011a:5).

During the 1987, 1988, and 1990 field seasons of the Rio Bravo

Archaeological Project, Thomas Guderjan (1991:35) and his teams mapped the ruins at Chan Chich and conducted a reconnaissance survey of Gallon Jug Ranch and the adjacent Programme for Belize property to the north (Guderjan et al. 1991). As part of this reconnaissance, Guderjan et al. (1991:59) also recorded a site called E’kenha

(Figure 1.5), which Houk (2012:32) has concluded is actually the site Thompson referred to as Kaxil Uinic.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 1.5: Guderjan’s (1991: Fig) original map of E’kenha.

Guderjan’s crews mapped 12 structures and “a very badly damaged carved stela and altar” at the site, but conducted no excavations (Guderjan et al. 1991:59).

Guderjan et al. (1991) mention the presence of two courtyards, an eastern and a western, and the possibility of two additional structures that were not mapped, but according to the description were located in the center of what he referred to as the western courtyard. It is stated that the unmapped Structure 13 is “50 m southeast of

Structure 9,” which would place it in the center of the plaza (Guderjan et al. 1991:59).

His description of the structure fits what we are calling Structure 14, which is about 50 m southeast of Structure 3.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

There was much confusion over the years as to the name of the site because of the variations in the spelling of Kaxil Uinic and the fact that Guderjan et al.(1991:59) referred to it as E’kenha. Houk’s (2012a) research shows the variation in the spelling of the name. For example, various spelling include “Kaxil Uinic,” “Kaxiluinic,”

“Kaxilvinic,” “Kaxi Uinic,” “Xaxe Venic,” and “Kaxwinik,”. Houk (2012a) found that the earliest spelling of the name is Xaxe Venic, which first appeared on a map by

William Miller published in 1887. This spelling of the name was the locally preferred variation by both the villagers and the Belize Estates Land and Produce Company. The name Xaxe Venic also appears on the modern trail signs that lead to the site from

Chan Chich. Houk (2012a) postulates that J. Eric Thompson may have changed the spelling to Kaxil Uinic, which is Yucatec Mayan for “forest man” or “wild man.”

Following the Rio Bravo Archaeological Project, Houk conducted formal archaeological investigations at Chan Chich in 1996–1999, 2001, and again in 2012.

During the 1996 CCAP field season Houk (2011b:13)

“…discovered a sacbe running west from Chan Chich, but the length of

the sacbe was never determined. It is hypothesized that it connects

Chan Chich to Kaxil Uinic. If confirmed, this would be an important

discovery; thus far no sacbe terminus group has been documented in

the eastern half of the Three Rivers Region.”

During the 2012 season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project the historic

Maya village of Kaxil Uinic (mentioned above) was re-located (Houk 2012b). The first mention of the village was by William Miller on an 1887 map that was the result

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

of a survey of the area. The Maya that occupied this area and the village are known as the San Pedro Maya and migrated there from Mexico after the Caste War in 1887

(Houk 2012a; Jones 1977). The historic Maya village of Kaxil Uinic was occupied from 1887 to at least until the time when Thompson visited the area in 1931. The fact that the aguada associated with the historic Maya village is 500 m south of the prehistoric ruins of Kaxil Uinic suggest that these are the ruins that Thompson intended to excavate during his visit in 1931 (Houk 1996).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

As discussed below, due to the condition of the prehistoric site we were unable to completely follow through with our original research design. The vegetation was very thick, and there were many felled trees as a result of a hurricane that struck the area in 2010 (Figure 2.1). Because of this, the original research design was almost completely revised to effectively conduct investigations. Below is an explanation of the original version of the research design followed by the modified research design.

Figure 2.1: Courtyard showing the damage from Hurricane Richard in 2012. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

One of the original research goals was to locate the terminus of the sacbe that was hypothesized to connect Kaxil Uinic to Chan Chich. Below is a discussion of the types and variations seen in sacbe, or sacbeob, the plural form in Mayan. Justine Shaw

(2001:261) proposed a typology of sacbeob; local intrasite, core-outlier intrasite, and intersite sacbeob. These three classifications of causeway systems are based on the length of the sacbe as well as what they connect. Local intrasite causeway systems are those that connect groups of architecture or other cultural features such as cenotes and bajos within a site core. This can be seen at the site of Tikal in the Peten of Guatemala and at Baking Pot in the Cayo District of Belize. In Shaw’s (2008:85) sample of causeways this type was the most frequent, comprising 78 percent of the total of 293 causeways studied.

Core-outlier instrasite causeways are considered to be 1 to 5 km long and connect architectural groups that possibly existed before the construction of the actual causeway (Shaw 2008:86). It is evident that the connected architectural groups likely existed prior to the construction of the causeway. This would seem to suggest the possibility that the larger site in the area displayed its control over smaller ones by the construction of a sacbe. According to Shaw (2008:89), the causeway system at

Caracol connected outlier sites that existed independently prior to the construction of the causeway. Another possibility is that the construction of the causeway would have been much easier if there was a known line along which it was constructed since most are constructed in a fairly straight line. Examples of core-outlier intrasite causeways can be seen at the sites of Chichen Itza, Coba, Calakmul, and Caracol.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Finally, intersite sacbeob are those that are greater than 5 km in length and connect what seem to be larger sites that are independent of one another but politically tied somehow (Shaw 2008:89). Most causeways of this type are prevalent in the northern reaches of the Yucatan Peninsula. The prevalence of causeways in this area may be due to the fact that they are easier to find in that environment, or possibly because of the existence of Postclassic occupations in which a new form of political control was established. One of the most famous examples of this type of causeway is the one that stretches from Yaxuna to Coba in the Yucatan, spanning some 100 kilometers (Demarest 2004:271).

Although this classification system is a good way of naming a type of causeway and its possible functions, it is not definitive and should be used with caution. In regards to sacbe length, it also is not a definitive means of applying the typology. More work is needed to establish a definitive classification system of causeways, but for now the three types proposed by Shaw have sacbe studies moving in the right direction.

Shaw (2008:92) has also classified four types of sacbe system forms; linear, cruciform, radial, and dendritic. Linear causeway systems are those that run in a fairly straight line, connecting groups of architecture within a site core, generally. Keep in mind that even though most causeways run in a more or less straight line, they may be a part of another form of causeway system, such as radial or cruciform. Examples of linear causeway systems would be that of Baking Pot in the Cayo District of Belize and Chan Chich in the Orange Walk District of Belize. A cruciform causeway system

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

is one in which the four sacbeob generally radiate out from a site center following the four cardinal directions (Shaw 2008:98). An example of a cruciform causeway system is seen at the site of Ek Balam located in the Yucatan of Mexico (Demarest 2004:271).

Shaw (2008:98) has postulated that the cruciform causeway system is reflective of the

Maya cosmos in that the causeways represent the four cardinal directions while the center where they meet represents the center of the universe. Radial forms differ from cruciform ones in that there are generally more than four sacbeob radiating out from the center in directions not usually associated with the four cardinal ones. A radial causeway system is usually associated with a core-outlier intrasite causeway system but this does not mean one of the causeways in the system could not be an intersite one. The final form of causeway system is that of a dendritic one, with dendritic referring to the way that the causeways seem to branch out. At first glance a dendritic causeway system may appear fairly similar to a radial one, but there is a difference according to Shaw (2008:101). “A dendritic sacbe arrangement involves architectural groups concentrated in concentric rings around the site core…”. A good example of a dendritic sacbe system is that of Caracol, Belize, where the University of Central

Florida has done extensive fieldwork in recent years (Chase and Chase 2001). A dendritic sacbe system, like a radial one, can be associated with core-outlier intrasite and intersite sacbe systems.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Research Questions

The survey and testing were designed to address the following research questions:

1. Is Kaxil Uinic connected to Chan Chich by a sacbe?

2. What are the extent, condition, and nature of the prehistoric site?

3. What is the age of the prehistoric site?

4. What is the condition of the monuments at the site?

5. What is the condition and extent of the historic village/chicle camp?

6. What is the spatial relationship between the historic village/chicle camp, the

aguada, and the prehistoric ruins?

Originally Proposed Methodology

Months before the project began, Houk (2011b) submitted a research design to the Institute of Archaeology in Belize describing the methods to be used at Kaxil

Uinic to answer the questions posed above. As mentioned previously, when we first visited Kaxil Uinic at the beginning of the 2012 field season, we found that Hurricane

Richard had severely damaged the forest in 2010. Massive trees, felled by the storm, littered the area around the site. We realized that our proposed investigations could not be completed in the allotted time because of the extraordinary effort that clearing structures and cutting survey lines would have required. The originally proposed methodology and the modified methodology are presented below for comparative purposes.

We had planned to clear the vegetation in the two courtyards at Kaxil Uinic to increase visibility of the structures, monuments, and features. A datum was to be

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

established in the western courtyard (southwest of Structure 3), and an east-west oriented baseline was to be cut extending about 200 m in both directions. At 25-m intervals along the baseline, we planned to cut perpendicular brechas (narrow, straight lines) extending 100 m to the north and the south. This would have created a 200-x-

400-m survey block centered on the main courtyard of the prehistoric site. Following the same system used to map Chan Chich (see Robichaux and Houk 1996), the ruins, cultural features, topography, and vegetation were to be mapped in this block. Based on the success in identifying the Western Causeway at Chan Chich using this system in 1996 (see Houk et al. 1996), we believed it would be possible to determine if a sacbe enters Kaxil Uinic from the east, as hypothesized.

If Kaxil Uinic is indeed connected to Chan Chich via a sacbe, then it would be classified as a linear sacbe due to the general east-west orientation of the sacbe that can be seen leaving Chan Chich. The sacbe would also be considered a core-outlier intrasite sacbe due to the fact that the distance between the two sites is about 2.6 km, well within the range of

1 – 5 km to be classified as this type of sacbe. Again, the presence of a sacbe connecting the sites of Kaxil Uinic and Chan Chich is likely; however more fieldwork is needed to locate it.

The fact that there is a bajo, or low-lying wetland area, would provide a practical reason for a sacbe to exist. One would have enabled the Maya who inhabited these sites to cross the low- lying area during the rainy season when the bajo would be flooded.

Using the primary datum for the survey block, we proposed to use a total data station

(TDS) to make a detailed topographic map of structures at Kaxil Uinic, as well as the locations of excavation units, looters’ trenches, and monuments. Looters’ trenches were to be cleaned

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

and profiled, if possible. Ceramics from undisturbed contexts in the trenches were to be collected if found.

Test pit excavations were to be conducted in selected locations at Kaxil Uinic.

Preliminarily, we proposed the excavation of a 2-x-2-m test pit in each courtyard to collect information on construction sequence, chronology, and depth of cultural deposits. More excavations would be conducted at the discretion of the principal investigator, possibly on structures or at the base of the stela and altar. If carvings were still visible on the stela and altar, we proposed taking photographs of them at night with battery-powered lights.

Additionally, mapping crews would attempt to locate the remains of the historic Maya village/chicle camp. According to Thompson’s (1963) description, the camp should be near the aguada. If the aguada is located outside of the designated survey area around the ruins, we planned to extend the block or create a new one to include the historic site in the survey. We proposed to map visible features and use shovel testing to try to locate historic trash middens. The purpose of the historic investigations at this point was to locate the remains of the camp, assess its condition, and determine its extent. A detailed study of the camp may be considered as a future line of research, depending on the results of the initial survey.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Modified Methodology

As noted above, the thick vegetation and debris resulting from Hurricane

Richard in 2010 rendered our initial research design infeasible. To clear the site to the degree needed to make a detailed TDS map would have taken weeks, and cutting survey brechas was pointless because the vegetation was too thick to allow mapping along the brechas. We scaled back our investigations accordingly. The vegetation in the courtyards was cleared enough to enable excavations in areas of interest and to locate many of the structures originally mapped by Guderjan et al. (1991). What

Guderjan et al. (1991) called the western courtyard we call the plaza because of its public and ceremonial function. The plaza was sufficiently cleared to gain access to the stela and altar that are situated at the western base of Structure 3. Vegetation was also cleared on the north side of Structure 6, the south side of Structure 12, and the south side of Structure 2 to allow for excavations to expose architecture. Trails were cut around the site to allow for access between excavation areas. A datum was established north of Structure 2 and four 50-m long brechas were cut to the north and south of the datum to enable us to look for the hypothesized sacbe connecting Kaxil

Uinic to Chan Chich. A detailed topographic map of the site proved an impossible task to complete due to the thick vegetation and felled trees at the site. However, modifications were made to Guderjan et al.’s (1991) map, including the correction of the orientation of some structures as well as the addition of two structures that are located to the south of Structures 2 and 3.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

The TDS was used to map the locations of the excavation units and monuments, but we did not map the looters’ trenches due to dense vegetation. The looters’ trenches were also not cleaned or profiled because their walls had collapsed and showed no intact architecture.

A test pit was not conducted in the center of the plaza at Kaxil Uinic due to the thick vegetation. Instead, excavation units were opened around the monuments and on the slopes of chosen structures to expose architecture, and test pits located below the monuments and at the base of Structure 6 were excavated to sterile levels, and bedrock, respectively. Excavations at Kaxil Uinic were designated as “KU” in the field recording system to avoid confusion with designations from Chan Chich (CC).

The aguada and associated historic village/camp were located by the workmen who cut a brecha extending south of Structure 6. No excavations took place at the historic village, but it was definitively located due to a concentrated surface scatter of glass bottles and a kettle (Houk 2012b).

Excavations at the site followed the field methods in The La Milpa Core

Project Field Manual (Houk and Zaro 2011). The methodology utilizes a hierarchical nomenclature of site, operation, suboperation, and lot. A site is a distinct area, such as

Kaxil Uinic or Chan Chich. An operation encompasses excavations with common research goals, a suboperation refers to a specific excavation, and a lot is a soil layer or distinct feature in a suboperation. The 2012 excavations at the site of Kaxil Uinic were designated Operation KU-1. All excavation units at Kaxil Uinic were oriented east-west or north-south to ensure consistency between the units. During the field

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

season, eight suboperations (subops) were excavated, designated Subops KU-1-A to

KU-1-H (Table 2.1). These ranged from excavation units around monuments to excavation units situated on the slope of selected structures. An additional subop was designated as KU-1-SF for surface finds that were deemed significant at the site.

Table 2.1: List of Operation KU-1 Suboperations Excavated.

Subop Size (m) Location

KU-1-A 2 x 2.5 Stela 1

KU-1-B 2 x 2 Altar 1

KU-1-C 2 x 2 Slope of Str. 6, centrally located on north side

KU-1-D 2 x 2 Slope of Str. 12, centrally located on south side

KU-1-E 1 x 2 Stela, adjacent to Subop A, west side

KU-1-F 2 x 2 Slope of Str. 6, adjacent of Subop C, south side

KU-1-G 1.5 x 4 Slope of Str. 2

KU-1-H 1.5 x 6 Slope of Str. 2, adjacent to Subop G, north side

KU-1-SF Surface Finds

Lab Procedures

Whenever a lot was closed all artifact bags from that lot were taken to the lab from the field at the end of the workday. Each day two students were assigned lab duties and were supervised by Houk. In this manner we were able to continuously process artifacts in the lab while excavation was still taking place. A catalog number

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

was assigned to each lot’s artifact assemblage by artifact class, and spec numbers were assigned to individually analyzed artifacts. For example, all bifaces from Subop KU-1-

F-1 were assigned catalog number KU0046, while the large oval biface found in the lot was assigned spec number KU0046-01. Due to our limited field season this proved to be a very efficient means of data collection and analysis. The lithic debitage was analyzed once fieldwork was completed. The debitage was analyzed by lot and counts of primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes were taken.

Digital Data Collection System and Relational Database

The 2012 season of the CCAP marked the first season that a digital data collection system and relational database was used in the field on the project. Dr. Brett

A. Houk was awarded a small grant through Texas Tech University’s Office of the

Vice President for Research to develop a digital data collection system to be used in the field (Houk 2012b). The grant allowed Houk to purchase three iPads, software, and other equipment to that would be of use to this system. Over the course of three months Houk and I developed the digital data collection system and relational database.

Archaeologists in the Maya area implement a system of hierarchical paper forms in order to document excavation areas (operations), individual excavation units

(subops), and specific excavation contents (lots). Other forms such as cache, burial, and sample forms are also commonly used. Also, photologs and field journals are all a part of the data collection system (Houk 2012a). Once all data in the field is collected using these forms they are then transcribed into a spreadsheet.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

A digital data collection system and relational database skips the step of writing paper forms entirely, drastically reducing the amount of time that it takes to go back and enter all of that information into a spreadsheet format. The fact that all of the forms are part of a relational database means that any shared fields between forms would automatically be filled in with corresponding information.

We built the relational database and digital data collection system using

FileMaker Pro 11. The software was used to essentially make digital versions of all of the necessary paper forms; each individual field on each form represents a cell in the relational database. The iPads were then loaded with FileMaker Go software. This software allowed us to pull up a digital copy of a paper form on an iPad. This enabled data entry directly on an iPad while in the field.

Although initially there were many bugs and problems with the system due to the inexperience Houk and I had with the software, the system was eventually debugged, allowing us to completely implement the plan of a digital data collection system in the field.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Site Layout

As you head west from Chan Chich down the old logging road, the first structures at Kaxil Uinic you encounter are Structure 1 to the north and Structure 2 to the south (Table 3.1). Continuing farther you enter an open area defined by Structure 2 to the south and Structures 4 and 5 to the north (Figure 3.1). This is what Guderjan et al. (1991) called the eastern courtyard. Structure 2 is located in the southeastern area of Kaxil Uinic and was originally believed to enclose an eastern plaza; however, after the 2012 field season it was determined that this structure is associated with an unknown area to the south. Extremely thick vegetation, resulting in limited 1-2 meter visibility restricted further examination for associated constructions. As one goes farther west you enter the small plaza. This plaza measures about 45-m north-south by

45-m east-west. The eastern boundary of the plaza at Kaxil Uinic is defined by

Structure 3, the largest mound at the site; the stela and altar are associated with this structure. Structure 6 defines the southern extent of the plaza, Structure 12 the northern extent, and Structures 8 and 9 the western extent. Structure 7 is a small mound to the southwest of Structure 8. Structures 13 and 14 are the additional structures that were located during reconnaissance that are not on the original map.

They are small mounds, only about 1.5 m tall, south of Structures 2 and 3. Structures

10 and 11 were never relocated due to dense vegetation.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Table 3.1: Dimensions of Structure by Number. *based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33).

Structure # Length (m) Width (m) Height (m)

1 15* 10* 6 2 47 18 5 3 26 22.5 5 4 30* 12* ? 5 27* 7* ? 6 16.5 23.5 5 7 11* 9* ? 8 13* 12* ? 9 31* 9* ? 10 12* 8* ? 11 8* 6* ? 12 21 23 4 13 14 8 1.5 14 11 5 1.5

In addition to the 12 structures mapped by Guderjan et al. (1991), two more structures (Structures 13 and 14) were located. Guderjan et al. (1991) mentions the presence of two more possible structures at the site, but describes their location as southeast of Structure 9. This would place the two additional structures in the center of the plaza at Kaxil Uinic, meaning the direction and/or structure number given in

Guderjan et al. (1991) are an error. After some reconnaissance the two additional structures that Guderjan et al. (1991) mentioned were located. They are situated about

13 m south/southeast of Structures 2 and 3. They are both relatively small mounds, measuring about 1.5 m in height, 5 m in length, and 2 m in width.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.1: Map of Kaxil Uinic based on Guderjan et al. (1991:Figure 33).

The following section covers the results of the excavations at Kaxil Uinic. The excavation results are summarized in Harris and Sisneros (2012) but are described in more detail here. The results are broken into four sections: excavations in the plaza, excavations on Structure 2, surface finds, and locating the historic Maya village/chicle camp. For a summary of excavated lots, see Table 3.2.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Investigations in the Plaza

The plaza of the ruins of Kaxil Uinic is the location of the stela and altar mentioned by

Thompson (1963) and mapped by Guderjan et al. (1991) that are now referred to as

Stela 1 and Altar 1. These monuments were a large part of the primary investigations that aided in establishing a chronology of the site. The stela and altar are at the western base of Structure 3, the largest mound at the site. Structure 3 is about 22.5 x 26 m at the base and about 5 m in height. There are signs of looting on the summit of the structure. The altar is located about 2.5 m north/northeast of the stela. The results of the excavations around and below Stela 1 are presented below, and the results from

Altar 1 follow.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Table 3.2: List of Lots by Suboperation in Op KU-1.

Subop Lot Description Ceramic Data

1 Humus Tepeu 3 2 Stela fragment 1 none A 3 Stela fragment 2 none 4 Construction fill Tepeu 2 , Chicanel 5 Construction fill Tepeu 1-2, Chicanel 6 Construction fill Tepeu (general) 1 Humus Tepeu 3 2 Altar none B 3 Building collapse debris Floral Park, Mamom trace 4 Construction fill Chicanel, Mamom admix, Pre-Swasey (?) trace 5 Partially reconstructable vessel none 6 Plaster floor and construction fill Chicanel, Mamom trace 1 Humus/building collapse debris Tepeu 3, Tzakol 2 trace, Chicanel trace C 2 Platform face none 3 Construction fill Tepeu 2, Chicanel trace, Mamom trace 4 Construction fill Floral Park (?) trace, Chicanel, Mamom trace 1 Humus Tepeu 3 (?) D 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2, Chicanel/Floral Park trace 3 Platform face/stairs none 4 Plaster floor none E 1 Humus Tepeu 3 2 Construction fill Tepeu 2, Chicanel 1 Humus Tepeu 3, Chicanel trace, Mamom trace F 2 Platform face none 3 Construction fill Tepeu 2 4 Plaster floor none G 1 Humus/building collapse debris Tepeu 3 (?) 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2 3 Steps none 4 Floor none 1 Humus/collapse debris Tepeu 2 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2 H 3 Spine wall of Str. 2 none 4 Step none 5 Plaster floor/landing none 1 Chert biface none 2 Chert biface none SF 3 Chert hammerstone none 4 Incomplete chert biface none 5 Groundstone mano none

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Stela 1

The results of the excavations around and below Stela 1 (Figures 3.2 and 3.3) are presented below, and the results from Altar 1 follow.

Figure 3.2: Photo of Stela 1 fragments (KU-1-A-2-3) prior to removal. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.3: Plan map of Stela 1 (KU-1-A-2-3).

Subop KU-1-A was a 2-x-2.5-m unit oriented on the cardinal directions to align with the orientation of Structure 3 and to include the area around Stela 1. Stela 1 is broken into two fragments designated Stela Fragment 1 and Stela Fragment 2. The fragments are approximately 20 cm apart and 2.5 m southeast of Altar 1 (KU-1-B-2).

An additional subop, Subop KU-1-E, was added to the west (Figures 3.4 and 3.5), a 2- x-1-m unit with the same orientation as Subop KU-1-A. Both Subops KU-1-A and -E were intended to determine the original location of the stela and gather diagnostic information. However, our excavations did not discover a stela socket.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.4: Photo showing Subops KU-1-A and KU-1-E. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.5: Profile of Subops KU-1-A and KU-1-E.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Stela Fragment 1(Lot KU-1-A-2) was laying flat, oriented east-west at the base of Structure 3. Our guess is that Fragment 1 is the bottom of the stela, and the end to the west was originally placed in the ground, or connected to a piece broken off in the ground. The top surface of Fragment 1 has faint traces of carvings, but the condition of the stela is so poor that we can only state that the monument was once carved.

However, the presence of carved stela is important since so few are known from the region. Once the fragment was removed from the unit, the flat surface facing the ground was inspected for indications of carvings, but none were discerned. The dimensions of Fragment 1 are: 40 cm wide on the western edge, 80 cm wide on the eastern edge, 1.1 m in length, and 50-55 cm thick.

Stela Fragment 2 (Lot KU-1-A-3) was standing in an upright position, perpendicular to Structure 3, and is presumed to be the top half of the stela. The north face of Fragment 2 matches the top surface of Fragment 1. Evidence for carving is present, but no details are preserved. Based on observations of the stela, it was concluded that Stela Fragment 2 was reset into its current position, explaining its orientation perpendicular to the building, instead of the more common parallel placement to its associated structure. Dimensions of Stela Fragment 2 are: 75 cm wide,

85 cm in length, and 50 cm thick.

Once both of the fragments were removed from Subop KU-1-A, they were positioned next to each other confirming that they once fit together (Figure 3.6), with only one side of the monument apparently carved. Together the two fragments

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

measured 1.95 m tall, 75–80 cm wide and 50–55 cm thick. If this interpretation is correct, when Stela 1 was in an upright position the carvings would have been visible from the plaza looking east toward Structure 3.

Figure 3.6: Photo showing the two stela fragments (KU-1-A-2 and -3) fitting together.

During the excavations of the two subops, the humus layer (Lots KU-1-A-1 and KU-1-E-1) consisted of dark (10YR 3/2, very dark grayish brown) organic soil riddled with rootlets and several medium-sized roots. Lot KU-1-A-1 was terminated upon reaching a change in soil color to a lighter matrix (10YR- 5/2, grayish brown).

All of the topsoil was screened to maximize collection of artifacts in context with

Stela 1. In the topsoil surrounding the base of Stela 1 (Lots KU-1-A-1 and -4) multiple fragments of Chen Mul modeled ceramics with incising and molded appliqué were

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

collected. This type dates to the Postclassic period (A.D. 900–1600) (Valdez and Houk

2012). Their use as incensarios is assumed because of the presence of burned concave surfaces and their style. Among the collected ceramic assemblage were two complete arm and hand fragments decorated with molded appliqué bracelets, two molded and incised figurine faces—one complete and one broken in two pieces— and several other molded fragments with appliqué (Figures 3.7 and 3.8).

Figure 3.7: Illustration of Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments by Margaret Greco. From KU-1-A- 1 (a,b,c, and e) and KU-1-A-4 (d).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.8: Catalog numbers KU0015 (top) and KU0016 (bottom). Photo of Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments from KU-1-A-1 and -4.

Lot KU-1-A-4, below the topsoil, consisted of a very dark grayish brown matrix (10YR4/2) mixed with small limestone cobbles. This lot varied in depths from the north half where a mixture of larger limestone blocks was uncovered (Lot KU-1-

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

A-5) and the southern half where a compact cobble and marl mixture was encountered

(Lot KU-1-A-6). The thickness of Lot KU-1-A-4 averaged approximately 5 cm in the north meter and 15 cm in the south meter. Additionally, in the northern half of Subop

KU-1-A, a single ammunition cap from a center fire shotgun shell was collected, indication of continued visitation to the site, possibly from the historic Maya village/chicle camp nearby (see Houk 2012b).

Below the northern section of Lot KU-1-A-4 was Lot KU-1-A-5, which consisted of a 20-cm thick layer of limestone cobble and cut limestone blocks that are interpreted as construction fill for the plaza surface. Lot KU-1-A-5 was terminated upon reaching the same compact mixture of small cobbles and marl matrix in the southern half of the unit. Lot KU-1-A-6 was a mixture of clay with small marl matrix, and medium sized cobbles containing a small number of artifacts. Lot KU-1-A-6 averaged depths of 10–15 cm.

Subop KU-1-E was a 1-x-2-m extension of Subop KU-1-A to the west. This unit was opened to locate the stela socket. Lot KU-1-E-1 consisted of thick clayey topsoil that was saturated from rainfall. It was excavated to the same level as Lot KU-

1-A-6, reaching depths of approximately 45 cm. The socket for Stela 1 was not identified, however, excavations continued to bedrock. Lot KU-1-E-2 was approximately 2 m deep and consisted of three layers beginning with; the clayey deposit from Lot KU-1-E-1, which continued an additional 60 cm, making the clayey deposit approximately 1 m thick. Below this was a mixture of small and medium sized cobble fill approximately 1 m thick with the largest cobbles near the top and smaller

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

below, ranging in size from 10–20 cm thick for the larger cobbles down to 2–5 cm for the smaller ones. Possibly, there was a floor near the top of the cobbles; however, there was no evidence of a floor visible during excavations. Finally, in the bottom 30 cm of Subop KU-1-E (Lot KU-1-E-2) we encountered a buried A-horizon that is culturally sterile. The last plaza surface was not identified, however, it is likely that it was near the top of the current surface and has completely eroded.

As is apparent from the excavations, the stela is likely not in its original position (see final chapter for discussion of this). The piece was more than likely reset sometime in the past after the abandonment of the site. This idea is also supported by the presence of Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments in the topsoil around the stela. Also, its location in relationship to the altar is atypical, further supporting the theory that the stela was moved from its original position in the past.

Altar 1

Subop KU-1-B was a 2-x-2-m unit placed on the courtyard floor at the base of

Structure 3 and surrounding Altar 1. The north-south axis measures 22.5 m in length and the east-west axis measures 26 m in length. The unit was situated so that Altar 1

(Figures 3.9 and 3.10) was as close to the center of it as possible. This subop was opened to investigate the area around the altar and to collect dateable material from beneath the altar to aid in establishing a chronology for the site. One of the intentions in moving the altar was to locate a cache to aid in dating the site.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.9: Photo showing placement of Altar 1 (KU-1-B-2).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.10: Plan map showing placement of Altar 1 (KU-1-B-2).

The humus layer (Lot KU-1-B-1) was a thin layer of dark grayish-brown

(10YR 3/2), loamy matrix with thicknesses varying from 10 to 20 cm. The subop contained numerous roots and rootlets from two fairly large trees in close proximity to the unit. Several large cobbles were found on and near the surface surrounding Altar 1, which are possibly broken pieces of the altar or perhaps fragments of a stand for the

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

altar. The lot was terminated once the soil composition changed. Altar 1 was designated Lot KU-1-B-2. Its location was mapped and photographed before it was removed from the subop. Altar 1’s measurements varied from 120 to 130 cm in diameter and from 25 to 30 cm in thickness. The monument is made of limestone and does not appear to have been carved. The altar was removed from the unit by using a log as a lever and the cobbles that were removed earlier as a fulcrum. At the end of the season the altar was moved back to its original provenience.

Lot KU-1-B-3 was directly beneath the altar. This lot was excavated in hopes of locating a cache or offering beneath the altar, but nothing of this nature was found.

This lot’s soil was dark grayish-brown (10YR- 4/2) with scattered cobbles. Not many artifacts were found other than ceramic sherds and a bifacial tool. A plaster floor may have once been present, but it was not identified during excavation. The lot was terminated when it became obvious that we were in construction fill.

Lot KU-1-B-4 was construction fill that consisted of white-powdery matrix and cobbles. The lot was 40 to 60 cm thick and terminated on an earlier floor surface

(Lot KU-1-B-6). In Lot KU-1-B-4 a yellow, chalky rock was found, possibly ochre.

The ceramic assemblage from this lot dated to the Middle to Late Preclassic (900 B.C.

– A.D. 250). An interesting ceramic sherd was found that resembles the Cunil type

(Figure 3.11, Catalog number KU0039) found mostly in the Belize Valley (dating to the Early Preclassic) (Valdez and Houk 2012). See the final chapter for further discussion on this sherd.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.11: Catalog number KU0039. Cunil-like sherd ceramic dating to ca. 1200 B.C. (Early Preclassic period).

Lot KU-1-B-5 was a concentration of sherds embedded in the underlying plaster floor that appeared to represent a partially reconstructable vessel (Figures 3.12 and 3.13). The type of ceramic was not determined, but the sherds are slipped with a reddish-orange color. The area of vessel fragments embedded in the floor measured about 12-x-12-cm.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.12: Photo showing vessel embedded in plaster floor (KU-1-B-5).

Figure 3.13: Plan map showing vessel embedded in plaster floor (KU-1-B-5).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Once Lot KU-1-B-5 was removed from the floor, the floor and associated contexts below it were designated Lot KU-1-B-6. We continued to excavate the 1-x-2- m southern half of the subop only until we came down on bedrock, which was 94 - 97 cm deeper than the top of the floor. Artifacts found in this context include ceramic sherds, unifacial tools, jute, and terrestrial land snail shells. Jute is a freshwater snail that the Maya utilized as a food source (Halperin et al. 2003). This subop was terminated on bedrock about 2 m below the surface (Figures 3.14 and 3.15).

Figure 3.14: Photo showing profile of Subop KU-1-B. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.15: Profile drawing showing of Subop KU-1-B.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Evidence from the excavations around the altar suggest that it may have been moved sometime in the past, possibly by looters, or was possibly reset by historic

Maya living in the nearby village/chicle camp. This possibility is suggested because there was no dedicatory cache beneath the altar and due to the fact that the altar and stela are in an atypical arrangement in relation to one another, with Altar 1 located about 2.5 m to the north/northeast of Stela 1.

Structure 6

Structure 6 is a pyramidal structure that is situated at the southern edge of

Kaxil Uinic’s plaza. A 2-x-2-m unit designated Subop KU-1-C (Figures 3.16, 3.17,

3.18, and 3.19) was opened on the north slope of the structure with the intention of exposing architecture. Based on the large number of artifacts recovered from this subop and the realization that the unit was too low on the mound to expose intact architecture, an additional 2-x-2-m unit (Subop KU-1-F) was opened on the southern end of Subop KU-1-C.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.16: Photo showing Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F with large cut stones on the left.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.17: Plan map showing Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.18: Elevation photo of Lots KU-1-C-2 and KU-1-F-2. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.19: Profile drawing of Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F.

The humus layer (10YR3/2, dark grayish brown) was designated Lot KU-1-C-

1. Many roots and rootlets were located in this lot, including three larger roots approximately 10 cm in diameter. The ceramic assemblage found is mixed with types ranging from the Middle Preclassic to the Terminal Classic. A similar pattern is noted in the extension designated KU-1-F. Two pieces of speleothems (Figure 3.20), were found in Lot KU-1-F. A speleothem is a rock that is formed in caves and karstic environments. There are no caves known in close proximity to the site.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.20: Photo showing speleothems from KU-1-C-1 and KU-1-F-1.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

A large bifacial tool (Figure 3.21, spec number KU0046-01) measuring about

16 cm in length was found in this the topsoil of Subop KU-1-F. Additionally, several more fragments of speleothems were found in this lot, (Lot KU-1-F-1) as well.

Figure 3.21: Spec number KU0046-01. Bifacial chert tool found in KU-1-F-1. .

Lots KU-1-C-2 and KU-1-F-2 were three cut-stones (see Figure 3.18) that were partially situated in both subops, forming the lowest step to the structure’s stairs.

The largest and most exposed of the cut-stones measures 34 cm in width, 57 cm in length, and 26 cm in height. The size of these stones possibly suggests an Early

Classic or Late Preclassic construction date, but, as noted below, the ceramic data contradict this interpretation. Any additional steps above this lower level, if present, were too poorly preserved and therefore not detected during excavations. When it was apparent that the excavators had exposed construction fill south of the well-preserved

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

step (Lot KU-1-F-2), Lot KU-1-F-3 was designated. This construction fill was excavated to collect a ceramic sample to help date the construction of the structure.

The construction fill contained Palmar Orange polychrome which dates to the Late

Classic (A.D. 600–800) period, suggesting that the final phase of construction of

Structure 6 took place during this period. Lot KU-1-F-4 was a fairly well-preserved plaster floor under the construction fill, about 1 m below the surface. This feature was possibly a floor to a structure from an earlier phase of construction. At this point the subop was terminated.

To test the courtyard construction, excavations continued in Subop KU-1-C north of the preserved step. Lot KU-1-C-3 appeared to be construction fill for about 40 to 50 cm. It was not until the profile was visible that it was obvious there were two badly eroded floors present that were not visible during excavation. Also, another speleothem fragment was found in this lot. Lot KU-1-C-4 was construction fill that continued down into a dark alluvium. In the dark alluvium some marine shell and terrestrial land snails were found. Bedrock was found about 2 to 2.5 m below the surface, and the subop was terminated at this point.

The excavations at the base of Structure 6 revealed a very interesting concentration of artifacts, including the speleothem fragments, marine shells, a large bifacial tool, and a large number of ceramic sherds from a mixed context. The concentration of artifacts found on Structure 6 is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Structure 12

Structure 12 is located on the northern extent of the plaza of Kaxil Uinic. A 2- x-2-m excavation unit designated Subop KU-1-D (Figure 3.22) was opened on the southern slope of the mound with the intention of exposing architecture (Figures 3.23 and 3.24).

Figure 3.22: Photo showing Subop KU-1-D at the base of Structure 12.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.23: Plan map of Subop KU-1-D at the base of Structure 12. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.24: Profile drawing of KU-1-D at the southern base of Structure 12. .

The humus layer was designated Lot KU-1-D-1 and measured about 10 to 20 cm in thickness. The humus was a dark organic, loamy soil. This lot yielded ceramic sherds, a bifacial tool, jute shells, and two obsidian blades. The two obsidian blades were the only pieces of obsidian found at the site. Lot KU-1-D-2 was collapse debris that was 10 to 20 cm thick. The ceramics in this lot date to the Late Preclassic (300

B.C.–A.D. 250) and Late Classic (A.D. 600–A.D. 800) periods, including Chicanel and Tepeu II ceramic types. Also in this lot a small ceramic pendant (Figure 3.25, spec number KU0097-01) about 2 cm in diameter was recovered.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.25: Spec number KU0097-01. Ceramic pendant with three drilled holes from KU-1-D-1.

What was designated Lots KU-1-D-3 and KU-1-D-4 were four cut-stones and a floor, respectively. The largest of the cut-stones that made up Lot KU-1-D-3 measures 185 cm in length and about 25 cm in height. One of the stone blocks measured only about 40 to 50 cm in width. This was the most intact of the stone blocks that comprised what appears to be the base to Structure 12. The plaster floor

(Lot KU-1-D-4) at the base was fairly intact compared to other floors seen at the site.

Only a small portion of the floor was exposed since it was found in the 20 to 30 cm between the step and the extent of the subop. The excavations did not penetrate the intact architecture.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

This subop yielded the only pieces of obsidian found at Kaxil Uinic during the

2012 field season. The ceramic pendant was also a peculiar find, and the only of its kind found in the 2012 field season. The level of preservation of the architecture was also some of the best seen at Kaxil Uinic.

Structure 2 Excavations

Structure 2 (Figures 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28) at Kaxil Uinic is a range structure oriented east-west. It is a total of 52 m in length and at the widest point it is 18 m wide. The building is widest on the western edge and becomes narrower as you move east, with a narrow platform on the eastern edge. The southern face of the structure has been interpreted as the front of the structure, based on the presence of steps ascending the structure, as well as a platform landing that appears to span most of the building.

Excavations were possible on Structure 2 because workers from Chan Chich Lodge had cleared the structure of undergrowth and debris from Hurricane Richard in 2010, leaving only larger trees, prior to our arrival. This section describes the two contiguous subops located on the south face of Structure 2, Subops KU-1-G and -H. These subops were situated to document the latest phase of construction on the structure and gain a better understanding of the architectural style at Kaxil Uinic.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.26: Photo showing badly preserved steps on the southern face of Structure 2 in Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.27: Plan Map of Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.28: Profile drawing of Subops KU-1-G and KU-1-H.

Subop KU-1-G was a 1.5-x-4-m unit, and Subop KU-1-H was a 1.5-x-6-m unit. Both subops were oriented north-south and perpendicular to Structure 2’s long axis. Subop KU-1-G extended from the base of the structure to approximately half way up the structure, where it connected to Subop KU-1-H, which continued to the summit of the mound. The excavations encountered an eroded floor at the base of the

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

mound, very badly preserved steps on its face, an eroded plaster landing, and a wall near the summit of the mound.

Lots KU-1-G-1 and KU-1-H-1 were the topsoil, which consisted of dark loamy soil with many small roots and rootlets. The thickness of these lots varied between 10 to 25cm. Beneath the topsoil was collapse debris (Lots KU-1-G-1 and KU-1-H-1), which spanned both subops and consisted of both cut and uncut, tumbled limestone blocks above intact architecture. Some of the blocks may have originally served as steps; however, the final phase of architecture was very poorly preserved, and the blocks obviously shifted from their original positions. The matrix around the collapse consisted of a lighter soil, with some small roots, rootlets, and one medium size root

(10 cm diameter) in the northern half of Subop KU-1-G. The thickness of collapse debris averaged approximately 25 cm in Subop KU-1-G. In Subop KU-1-H, the thickness of the collapse debris ranged from 10 to 20 cm in the northern meter above the wall (see below), 1 m to the south of the wall, and 25 to 60 cm in the southern section of the subop above the landing (see below). In Lot KU-1-G-1 a circular uniface tool made of chert, which measures about 5 – 6 cm in diameter was found

(Figure 3.29, Spec number KU0078-01).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.29: Spec number KU0078-01. Uniface chert tool found in KU-1-G-1. .

A plaster floor (Lot KU-1-G-4) in extremely poor condition was only recognizable from the mixture of small limestone pebbles and lighter matrix color at the base of the steps of Structure 2. The matrix was light brownish gray (10YR6/2).

This eroded floor is presumed to be a part of a courtyard or similar surface in front of

Structure 2, but the thick vegetation hindered us from investigating the area.

The steps (Lots KU-1-G-3 and KU-1-H-4) ascending Structure 2 were in extremely poor preservation with many of the cut stones missing. A total of nine steps was documented. The lower eight were located in the northern 3 m of Subop KU-1-G and the ninth and uppermost step in the southern 50 cm of Subop KU-1-H. The lowest step was located 120 cm from the south edge of Subop KU-1-G. From the courtyard 66

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

floor, the steps ascend the structure approximately 2 m to a plaster landing in Subop

KU-1-H. The steps average 21 cm in height, and their treads average 21 cm deep. All were very poorly preserved and none were intact across the width of the units.

At the top of the steps in Subop KU-1-H, excavations encountered a plaster landing extending 4 m from the top of the steps to the base of the wall (see below).

Presumably, the landing extended across the front of the central part of the structure measuring approximately 26 m in length. The plaster surface was in poor condition, and it is unclear if there were any resurfacing events. Although the plaster was poorly preserved, it was the best-preserved plaster surface encountered at Kaxil Uinic.

Whether or not the plaster surface is an exterior landing or perhaps a floor in a room, which we had expected to find on the summit of the mound, is not yet known.

Although we did not encounter a southern wall, it is possible that our narrow 1.5 m subop was unknowingly placed in the center of a doorway, missing the front wall.

A wall (Lot KU-1-H-3, Figures 3.30 and 3.31) was uncovered during excavation on the summit of Structure 2, located in the northern 1.20 m of Subop H.

The wall is situated perpendicular to the subop, oriented east-west, and was preserved at its highest point to 1.2 m. At the highest point the wall has seven courses of cut stone, each course averaging approximately 20 cm. The wall is made of well-cut limestone blocks, ranging in size from larger blocks averaging 40 cm wide by 20 cm high to smaller blocks averaging 20 cm by 20 cm. The wall extends outside of our subop to the north; however, additional exposed cut stone on the surface of the mound

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

approximately 1 m to the north of the unit indicate that the wall is approximately 2 m thick.

Figure 3.30: Photo of wall of Structure 2 (KU-1-H-3).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.31: Profile drawing showing wall of Structure 2 (KU-1-H-3).

Although the architecture of Structure 2 was in a poor state of preservation and a room was not located, a great deal of information was obtained by excavations. It is apparent that the southern side of Structure 2 is the front of the structure, considering the discovery of Structures 13 and 14 to the south, possibly suggesting that these structures, along with Structure 3, may have formed a residential courtyard.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Surface Finds

Surface finds of tools were collected when discovered. To comply with the conventions of the laboratory processing system, all surface finds were collected as part of Subop KU-1-SF, and each individual tool was given its own lot number.

Lot KU-1-SF-1 (Figure 3.32, spec number KU0042-01) was found just north of Structure 3 on one of the trails that were cut to access the site. It is a bifacial tool made of chert measuring about 8 cm in length.

Figure 3.32: Spec number KU0042-01. Photo showing bifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-1).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Lot KU-1-SF-2 (Figure 3.33, spec number KU0041-01) was found to the south of Structure 12 about 2 m south of Subop KU-1-D. It is a bifacial tool made of chert that measures about 5 x 7 cm.

Figure 3.33: Spec number KU0041-01. Photo showing bifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-2). Lot KU-1-SF-3 (Figure 3.34, spec number KU0044-01) was also found on the south side of Structure 12 about 3 m south of Subop KU-1-D. The specimen is a hammerstone made of chert measuring approximately 6 cm in diameter.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.34: Spec number KU0044-01. Photo showing unifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-3). Lot KU-1-SF-4 (Figure 3.35, spec number KU0054-01) was found on the southern slope of Structure 2 about 5 m west of Subop 1-G. It is a fairly large, unfinished chert biface. It measures about 20 cm in length.

Figure 3.35: Spec number KU0054-01. Photo showing an unfinished bifacial chert tool (KU-1-SF-4).

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Finally, Lot KU-1-SF-5 (Figure 3.36, spec number KU0081-01) was also found on the southern slope of Structure 2 about 7 m west of Subop KU-1-G. It is a mano made of granite. It measures about 7-x- 13 cm.

Figure 3.36: Spec number KU0081-01. Photo showing granite mano (KU-1-SF-5).

Locating the Historic Village of Kaxil Uinic

One of the primary research goals was to locate and assess the condition of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic (see Houk 2012a). As noted earlier, Thompson planned to conduct fieldwork at the ruins in 1931, using workers from the nearby village/chicle camp. However, when the camp was closed and the workers moved prior to his arrival in March 1931, he decided not to do any excavations at Kaxil Uinic and instead

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

conducted excavations near the village of San José. Thompson (1963:233) later published his description of the chicle camp of Kaxil Uinic in Maya Archaeologist as

“…huts scattered around a dirty water hole…”(see Figure 1.4).

With the aid of staff members of Chan Chich Lodge a path was cleared to locate the aguada and associated historic village. The historic village of Kaxil Uinic and the associated aguada mentioned by Thompson (1963) were indeed located. The aguada is about 500 m to the south of the ruins of Kaxil Uinic and likely served as a source of drinking water for the ancient Maya and the historic villagers. The historic village’s location was determined by the presence of many glass bottles scattered on the surface, (Figure 3.37) as well as an old kettle. No sign of the structures was visible due to their having been made with highly perishable materials and being left derelict in the dense tropical forest for decades.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.37: Photo showing the scatter of bottles on the ground at the site of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic.

The majority of bottles found were beer bottles from the pre-prohibition era of the early 20th century (see Houk 2012a). Other types of bottles such as medicine and tonic bottles were also present. It does not seem likely that the bottles were used at the village for their alcoholic contents. Church et al. (2010:187) concluded that beer bottles at other contemporary villages “may not have been acquired for their original contents.” The historic villages were likely dry communities. Instead, the bottles were likely reused for products that were acquired locally, such as water and honey. One of the bottles with a legible label is a Goebel beer bottle (Figure 3.38). About 50 m farther south from the historic village is the aguada. The view very much resembles

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

the sketch of the village (Figure 2.39) that Thompson made during his visit in 1931.

The aguada fit Thompson’s description very well as “a dirty water hole”.

Figure 3.38: Photo showing the Goebel beer bottle that was collected from the site of the historic village of Kaxil Uinic.

Figure 3.39: Photo showing the aguada in June 2012. .

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Artifacts

This section summarizes the artifacts (3.3) recovered during the 2012 excavations Kaxil Uinic. The types of ceramics (Table 3.4) found span the Preclassic through the Postclassic, and possibly into the Colonial period. According to Valdez and Houk (2012) the ceramics found at Kaxil Uinic resembled those found at the nearby ruins of Chan Chich. However, there are two distinct differences between the two ceramic assemblages. One of the distinctions in Kaxil Uinic’s ceramic assemblage was a ceramic sherd that resembles a type known as Cunil (see above) that is generally found in the Belize River Valley (Valdez and Houk 2012). The sherd (catalog number

KU0039) was found beneath the altar, about 1 m below the surface. The piece was also found in the same context as a yellow, chalky rock, most likely to be ochre. What is peculiar is that this sherd was the only one of its kind found at Kaxil Uinic.

According to Valdez and Houk, (2012) if it is in fact a sherd of Cunil, the occupation of Kaxil Uinic would be pushed back as far as the Early Preclassic (1200 B.C.). The other significant difference in the ceramic assemblages of Chan Chich and Kaxil Uinic was the presence of incensario fragments that were Chen Mul modeled (see above)

(Valdez and Houk 2012). These fragments (catalog numbers KU0015 and KU0016) were found in the topsoil around the stela fragments. Chen Mul modeled dates to the

Postclassic and possibly into the Historic period.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Table 3.3: Artifact counts by lot.

Subop Lot Artifacts Present and Count

1 Ceramic Sherds (58) Ceramic Vessels (24) A Lithic Debitage (25) 2 Stela fragment 1 3 Stela fragment 2 4 Ceramic Sherds (162) Ceramic Vessels (5) Lithic Debitage (33) 5 Ceramic Sherds (37) Lithic Debitage (3) 6 Ceramic Sherds (10) Lithic Debitage (2) Lithic Tools (1) 1 Ceramic Sherds (10) Lithic Debitage (7) B 2 Altar 3 Ceramic Sherds (278) Lithic Debitage (27), 4 Ceramic Sherds (205) Lithic Debitage (33) Lithic Tools (3)

5 Partially reconstructable vessel 6 Ceramic Sherds (94)

Lithic Debitage (12) Lithic Tools (1) Shell (49) 1 Ceramic Sherds (348) C Lithic Debitage (86) Lithic Tools (3) Speleothem (3) 2 Platform face 3 Ceramic Sherds (158) Lithic Debitage (1) Lithic Tools (1) Speleothem (1) 4 Ceramic Sherds (468) Lithic Debitage (6) Lithic Tools (1) Shell (19) 1 Ceramic Sherds (89) D Lithic Tools (2) Obsidian (2) 2 Ceramic Sherds (479) Lithic Debitage (8) Lithic Tools (5) Ceramic Pendant (1) 3 Platform face/stairs 4 Plaster floor

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Table 3.4 continued: Artifact counts by lot.

Subop Lot Artifacts Present and Count

E 1 Lithic Tools (2)

2 Ceramic Sherds (248) Lithic Debitage (14) Lithic Tools (4)

1 Ceramic Sherds (142) F Lithic Debitage (21) Lithic Tools (3) Speleothem (4) 2 Platform face 3 Ceramic Sherds (20) Lithic Debitage (6) Lithic Tools (3) 4 Plaster floor G 1 Ceramic Sherds (80) Lithic Debitage (6) Lithic Tools (2) 2 Ceramic Sherds (122) Lithic Debitage (7)

3 Steps 4 Floor 1 Ceramic Sherds (64)

Lithic Tools (1) H 2 Ceramic Sherds (73)

Lithic Debitage (1) Lithic Tools (1) 3 Spine wall of Str. 2 4 Step 5 Plaster floor/landing 1 Chert biface 2 Chert biface SF 3 Chert hammerstone 4 Incomplete chert biface 5 Groundstone mano

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Table 3.5: Lots with Ceramic count by Suboperation in Op KU-1.

Subop Lot Definition Chronological Assessment Sherd Count

1 Humus Tepeu 3 58 2 Stela fragment 1 none A 3 Stela fragment 2 none 4 Construction fill Tepeu 2 , Chicanel 162 5 Construction fill Tepeu 1-2, Chicanel 36 6 Construction fill Tepeu (general) 10 1 Humus Tepeu 3 10 2 Altar none B 3 Building collapse debris Floral Park, Mamom trace 278 4 Construction fill Chicanel, Mamom admix, Pre-Swasey (?) trace 205 5 Partially reconstructable vessel none 6 Plaster floor and construction fill Chicanel, Mamom trace 306 1 Humus/building collapse debris Tepeu 3, Tzakol 2 trace, Chicanel trace 348 C 2 Platform face none 3 Construction fill Tepeu 2, Chicanel trace, Mamom trace 158 4 Construction fill Floral Park (?) trace, Chicanel, Mamom trace 468 1 Humus Tepeu 3 (?) 89 D 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2, Chicanel/Floral Park trace 479 3 Platform face/stairs none 4 Plaster floor none E 1 Humus Tepeu 3 2 Construction fill Tepeu 2, Chicanel 248 1 Humus Tepeu 3, Chicanel trace, Mamom trace 142 F 2 Platform face none 3 Construction fill Tepeu 2 20 4 Plaster floor none G 1 Humus/building collapse debris Tepeu 3 (?) 80 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2 122 3 Steps none 4 Floor none 1 Humus/collapse debris Tepeu 2 64 2 Building collapse debris Tepeu 2 73 H 3 Spine wall of Str. 2 none 4 Step none 5 Plaster floor/landing none 1 Chert biface none 2 Chert biface none SF 3 Chert hammerstone none 4 Incomplete chert biface none 5 Groundstone mano none

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

A peculiar piece of ceramic (spec number KU0097-01) was found on the southern side of Structure 12 (KU-1-D-2). The item is likely a pendant made from a reworked sherd measuring 2.53 cm in length, 2.36 cm in width, and 0.53 cm thick, weighing 4 g. Roughly square in shape, the sherd has three drilled holes in it in a triangular pattern (see Figure 2.25).

Of the stone tools found at Kaxil Uinic, the one (Figure 3.21, spec number

KU0046-01) found on the north side of Structure 6 (see above) was the largest, being

15.7 cm in length, 6.55 cm wide, and 4.25 cm thick, with a weight of 473 g. The tool is the largest of those found at Kaxil Uinic. The subops on the north side of Structure 6

(Subop KU-1-C and -F) yielded a greater number of lithics than any others investigated during the 2012 season (Figures 3.40, 3.41, and 3.42, spec numbers

KU0072-01, KU0082-02, and KU0082-03). The south side of Structure 12 (KU-1-D) also contained a stone tool. The tool (spec number KU0072-01) is a chert biface that is

9.34 cm in length, 5.1 cm in width, and 2.66 cm thick, weighing 98 grams (Figure

3.43, spec number KU0072-01). Another lithic came from the topsoil on the south side of Structure 2 (Subop KU-1-G). This discoid chert tool measures 5.69 cm in diameter and 2.55 cm thick, and weighs 89 grams (see above). The artifact is made of a large secondary flake. Nearby in Subop KU-1-H a biface (spec number KU0085-01) was found in the topsoil on the south side of Structure 2. This chert biface measures 7.2 cm in length, 3.97 cm in width, and 1.52 cm thick, weighing 31 grams. The tool is a complete biface that is made of a very fine-grained, non-local chert.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Of the 336 lithic artifacts found at Kaxil Uinic, 41 were chert stone tools, utilized flakes, or obsidian blades. There were 295 pieces of debitage found at Kaxil

Uinic. Of this, there were 176 primary flakes (about 60 %), 41 secondary flakes (about

14%), and 78 tertiary flakes (about 26%). There were only two obsidian blades

(catalog number KU0060) found at Kaxil Uinic in 2012. They were found in the topsoil (Lot KU-1-D-1) on the southern side of Structure 12. One is a complete obsidian blade with significant wear on the edges. The blade measures 4.48 cm in length, 1.44 cm in width, and .31 cm thick, weighing 2 g. The second obsidian blade is possibly a distal end of what was once a larger blade and has some wear on the edges.

The piece measures 2.32 cm in length, 1.25 cm in width, and .29 cm thick, weighing 1 g.

Figure 3.40: Spec number KU0072-01. Chert tool from Structure 6 Deposit.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.41: Spec number KU0082-02. Chert tool from Structure 6.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Figure 3.42: Spec number KU0082-03. Chert tool from Structure 6.

Figure 3.43: Spec number KU0072-01. Chert tool from Structure 12. . 84

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Summary

In summary, the 2012 excavations at Kaxil Uinic aided in the rectification of the map made by Guderjan et al. (1991), and two additional structures were discovered at the site (Structures 13 and 14). Structures 13 and 14 now appear on the rectified map of Kaxil Uinic, the site which Guderjan et al. (1991) referred to as E’kenha. Per

Houk (2012a), this site will now be referred to as Kaxil Uinic, which is what

Thompson (1963) called it when he was in the area in 1931. Although the village of

Kaxil Uinic is located about 500 m south of the ruins of Kaxil Uinic, the ruins are referred to as Kaxil Uinic as well.

As stated above, the nature of the vegetation of the site due to Hurricane

Richard in 2010 greatly limited our original research plans to completely remap the site. Our limited explorations did not find evidence that the sacbe that extends west from Chan Chich connects to Kaxil Uinic. The eastern terminus of the sacbe can be seen at Chan Chich extending in the direction of Kaxil Uinic, however, a sacbe terminus could not be located at Kaxil Uinic. The dense vegetation prevented the thorough search as we had planned and prevented us from following the sacbe west towards Kaxil Uinic from Chan Chich.

The ceramics found at the site varied greatly between lots. There were mixed contexts that contained ceramics from the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods.

The ceramic assemblage of the site was typical of the ancient Maya; however, the one sherd of Cunil that was found is atypical for the area. Cunil ceramics are generally

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

found in the Belize River Valley and date to the Early Preclassic, ca. 1200 B.C.

(Valdez and Houk 2012).

The speleothems found on Structure 6, the southern structure of the courtyard, were unexpected discoveries. Their possible cosmological associations are discussed in the following chapter. They are interesting because there are no known caves in the area large enough to produce speleothems of this size. A thorough karstic survey of the area is needed to locate a cave. Ideally, trace analysis of the speleothems conducted on the speleothems to determine their source will be conducted in the future; however, this was not in the budget of the 2012 project. The speleothems were part of a dense artifact deposit, discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

This chapter reviews the original research questions and provides the results from the investigations. Also, interpretations from certain artifacts and artifact concentrations are discussed and possible explanations are provided.

Is Kaxil Uinic Connected to Chan Chich by a Sacbe?

One of the original goals of investigation was to determine if a sacbe connects

Kaxil Uinic and Chan Chich. The eastern end of the sacbe was located at Chan Chich continuing in the direction of Kaxil Uinic, but due to the dense vegetation of the tropical forest, we could not trace the sacbe from Chan Chich. Also due to the dense vegetation we could not locate the terminus of the sacbe at Kaxil Uinic. Our inability to locate the sacbe during the 2012 field season however does not mean that it does not exist.

What are the Extent, Condition, and Nature of the Prehistoric Site?

Although complete remapping of the site was not possible due to time constraints, we were still able to gain a better understanding of the extent, condition, and nature of the prehistoric site. Significantly, two additional structures, Structures 13 and 14 to the south of Structures 2 and 3 were discovered and possibly form a residential courtyard. The site was in a poor state of preservation due to the passage of

Hurricane Richard’s passage in 2010 and the presence of several looters’ trenches on

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

many of the structures (Structures 2, 3, 12, 13, and 14). According to Tourtellot et al.,

(2003:95) middle-level sites, or minor ceremonial centers are within 3.5 km to larger sites. Kaxil Uinic was likely a secondary center to Chan Chich, which would have been active in the local social and resource management of the area. This is similar to the relationship of the minor, or middle-level centers of La Milpa South, La Milpa

East, and Say Ka to the larger site of La Milpa (Houk and Hageman 2007; Tourtellot et al. 2003).

What is the Age of the Prehistoric Site?

The chronology of the prehistoric site of Kaxil Uinic spans from the Preclassic through the Terminal Classic, with some visitation in the Postclassic and Historic periods, as seen by the evidence of architecture, the Cunil sherd, and Chen Mul modeled ware incensario fragments. The presence of Chicanel and Mamom ceramics below floors suggest a Preclassic construction of the floors in the area beneath the altar. Although the area may have been inhabited for some time due to the Cunil-like sherd found, the construction of monumental architecture did not begin until the

Preclassic. Some of the monumental architecture at Kaxil Uinic may have been built around this time, but the visible structures presumably date to the Late Classic period based on ceramic data from the uppermost courtyard deposits—no excavations penetrated intact architecture so the actual age of buildings is unknown. During the

Terminal Classic, the site was likely abandoned, with only sporadic visitation in later periods

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

What is the Condition of the Monuments at the Site?

The condition of the monuments (Stela 1 and Altar 1) at the site is very poor.

Both the stela and altar are badly eroded with no identifiable carvings; however, the stela was clearly carved in the past. The stela was also broken into two fragments,

Stela fragment 1 and Stela fragment 2 (KU-1-A-2 and KU-1-A-3). Notably, the monuments were apparently moved or reset in the past due to their atypical arrangement, with the altar located essentially behind and to the side of the stela.

Typically, altars were placed in front of stelae, forming a line, parallel to the structure’s orientation.

What is the Condition and Extent of the Historic Village/Chicle Camp?

The only visible sign of the historic village/chicle camp is a scatter of bottles and a kettle on the surface (Houk 2012a), however no excavations took place there.

The extent of the historic village/chicle camp is unknown, but it was likely concentrated around the aguada, as described by Thompson (1963).

What is the Spatial Relationship Between the Historic Village/Chicle Camp, the

Aguada, and the Prehistoric Ruins?

By means of reconnaissance and surface survey, the spatial relationship between the historic village/chicle camp, the aguada, and the prehistoric ruins was determined. The historic village/chicle camp is approximately 500 m south of the plaza of the prehistoric site of Kaxil Uinic on Yalbac Ranch. The visible signs of the historic village/chicle camp were seen on the surface on the north side of the aguada.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

The Structure 6 Surface Artifact Deposit and Concepts of Directionality

The types of ceramic sherds found in Lots KU-1-C-1 and -F are mostly Tepeu

3 with traces of Tzakol 2, Chicanel, and Mamom (Valdez and Houk 2012). These types of ceramics span the Late Preclassic to Terminal Classic Periods. The most prevalent type of ceramic in this deposit is Tepeu 3, which dates to the Terminal

Classic. Tzakol 2 dates to the Early Classic, while Chicanel and Mamom date to the

Late Preclassic. Below this context Tepeu 2 ceramics were found, which date to the

Late Classic, (Sullivan and Sagebiel 2003) meaning that the earlier ceramics in KU-1-

C-1 and -F were deposited sometime in the Late Classic or Terminal Classic along with the later ceramics.

Other artifacts found in this deposit on the north side of Structure 6 included:

490 ceramic sherds, 101 pieces of lithic debitage, nine stone tools, and 7 speleothem fragments (Table 4.1). This was an unusually large amount of ceramic sherds found in one concentration compared to other areas of the site, suggesting that this may have been part of a special deposit.

Table 4.1: Contents of Structure 6 Deposit.

Lot Ceramic Chipped Stone Chipped Stone Speleothem Sherds Tools Debitage KU-1- 348 3 83 3 C-1 KU-1-F- 142 6 18 4 1

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Similar surface deposits were described by Moats (2012) at the nearby site of

La Milpa, by Navarro Farr (2009) at the site of El Perú-Waka’ in Petén, Guatemala, and by Houk (2011c) at Dos Hombres and Chan Chich. Although these deposits contained similar artifacts, no speleothems were present in them. Moats (2012:7) describes these types of deposits as surface or floor deposits with a high density of ceramic sherds above the final construction or occupation phase of a structure. The term “problematic deposit” has been used by others to describe these surface deposits, although the term is meant to be a placeholder until the nature of the deposit can be determined. Navarro Farr (2007:95) describes problematic deposits as having inconsistent contents without a clear intention of their placement. Houk (2011c) describes problematic deposits as “…resist[ing] simple classification and universal interpretation…to lump them into an inclusive category and interpret them as indicators of a common cultural process.” What all of these deposits have in common is that they all date to the Terminal Classic, during the final phase of occupation of the site (Houk 2011c; Moats 2012; Navarro Farr 2007).

The term “problematic deposit” was first used after the excavations of the

Northeast Acropolis at Tikal because the deposits encountered had no obvious meaning such as a termination or dedication deposit (Navarro Farr 2007:95). Deposits of this type are still termed “problematic” by some researchers because of the amount and variety of artifacts found within them and their being located on or near the surface in areas where middens would not be expected, such as on the front of structures facing a plaza or blocking access to elite buildings or courtyards. Houk

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

(2011c) also argues against the dense surface deposit at Dos Hombres and similar features being middens because of the lack of faunal remains and the presence of exotic materials.

Although the surface deposit on Structure 6 is lacking the variety of artifacts seen in other problematic deposits, it still holds a dense concentration of ceramic sherds and speleothems, which are considered exotic items. Also, the presence on the deposit on the centerline of Structure 6 further shows its similarities with other deposits of this nature. Navarro Farr (2007:95) argues that there are many different intentions behind the placement of these deposits. Although the deposit on Structure 6 is similar to other deposits in the density of ceramic sherds recovered, it does not contain other artifacts that are prevalent in those deposits, such as obsidian, shell, eccentric bifaces, human bone, and figurines (Houk 2011c; Moats 2011; Moats 2012;

Navarro Farr 2009). This deposit is still considered to be in the same class of surface deposits similar to examples at Dos Hombres, La Milpa, Chan Chich, and other sites due to the density of ceramic sherds present near the surface, but most importantly by the presence of speleothems, which have not been seen in other similar deposits.

As stated above, one of the more intriguing finds at Kaxil Uinic was the seven speleothems on the surface of Structure 6. As noted by Brady and Rissolo (2006), speleothems are secondary mineral deposits from groundwater in caves and include stalactites, stalagmites, and travertine. Speleothems were not found anywhere else at the site other than here, except for one fragment found beneath the surface deposit.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

The seven pieces of speleothem were found in Subops KU-1-C and KU-1-F. The total amount in weight of all speleothems was 4,372 g.

There are no known caves in close proximity to Kaxil Uinic that the speleothems could have come from, but no systematic survey was conducted in the area. Lucero and Kinkella (2011) documented 23 cenotes on Yalbac Ranch, just south of Gallon Jug Ranch where Kaxil Uinic is located. A cenote is similar to a cave in that it is a feature of karstic environments. These karstic environments are rich in limestone and are ideal for the development of speleothems.

Ashmore (1991) states that some sites demonstrate that the cardinal direction south corresponds to the underworld in the cosmology of the Maya. She also notes that the Maya underworld is associated with caves because caves are seen as entrances to the underworld. If this is true then this could explain why a concentration of speleothems was found on Structure 6. Structure 6 marks the southern boundary of the courtyard at Kaxil Uinic. Navarro Farr (2009:447) also states that speleothems could be reflective of water and the murky depths of Xibalba, the underworld of the Maya.

Although Structure 8 is the western boundary of the courtyard, it was never excavated so it is not known what lies at its base. However, Structures 3 and 12 were excavated on the courtyard side and no speleothems were found.

Ashmore (1991) goes on to state that the number “9” is also associated with the Maya Underworld because of the Nine Lords of the Night. Her example comes from the Twin Pyramid Complex at Tikal, in which the structure marking the southern boundary of the plaza has nine doorways, representing the underworld. Ashmore

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

(1991) also states that underworld iconography can be seen on the southern structure of the Copan Acropolis, further supporting the theory of the direction’s relationship with the underworld and caves. This could be the cause for further investigation of

Structure 6 at Kaxil Uinic. Rissolo (2005) discusses the attention that archaeologists have given speleothems recently. She states that speleothems cached at surface sites likely had sacred qualities and represented the power of caves. Rissolo (2005) goes on to state that the caching of speleothems is a common ritual activity among the Maya.

Currently, the data collected from Kaxil Uinic suggests the relationship between the cardinal direction south and Xibalba, the Maya underworld. However, further investigation at the site is needed to confirm the association of certain ideas and objects with directions in the cosmology of the Maya. If it can be definitively confirmed that Structure 6 at Kaxil Uinic represents the cardinal direction south, then this may give a meaning and intention to this problematic deposit. However, for now, it can only be referred to as a problematic deposit.

Monument Veneration and Resetting

At the ruins of Kaxil Uinic there were also signs of Late Postclassic or

Colonial monument veneration. The incensario fragments of the Chun Mul variety were found near the surface around the fragments of Stela 1. Chen Mul modeled ware dates to the Late Postclassic period. Jason Yaeger (personal communication, 2012) noted to Houk that the ceramics could be historic in age and not of the Chen Mul type.

Possibly Postclassic pilgrims, or more recently, the Maya living in the nearby village of Kaxil Uinic situated near the aguada visited Stela 1 at Kaxil Uinic to offer it

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

veneration by leaving these offertory items. Navarro Farr (2007) describes a pilgrimage as a sacred or spiritual journey to a destination with a particular ritual need.

Hammond and Bobo (1994) describe a pilgrimage as “…the visiting of a venerated place in expectation of spiritual and perhaps material benefits…”. Hammond and

Bobo (1994) go on to say that the pilgrimage described in their work likely served as an integrative social mechanism which was a response to the possible threat of disruption of Postclassic Maya society. The similar nature of Postclassic visitations and offerings to stelae in the region (Hammond and Bobo 1994; Houk 2011c; Houk et al. 2008; Milbrath et al. 2008; Navarro Farr 2007; Sagebiel 2005) suggest that these stelae described, as well as Stela 1 at Kaxil Uinic, were the destinations of pilgrimages. The Postclassic incensario fragments present at sites with not Postclassic occupation, along with ethnohistorical analogy suggest that they were part of a ritual procession or pilgrimage to sites (Milbrath et al. 2008:7).

The Chen Mul modeled ware fragments came from incensarios due to the fact that there were burn marks on concave surfaces, likely the inside of the vessel.

According to Mehrer (2007) incensarios, or incense burners, were a regular part of commoner ritual, which the Maya living in the area at the time were considered. Houk et al. (2008:97) mention a similar pattern of monument veneration at the nearby sites of Dos Hombres and Chan Chich. They state that pilgrims venerated monuments by leaving similar incensario fragments at the base of a stela and on the summit of a structure. Early Postclassic pottery has also been found at the base of Stela 11 and 14 at La Milpa (Hammond and Bobo 1994:24). Sagebiel (2005:710) also notes the

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

presence of Chen Mul modeled incensario fragments at the base of Stela 12 at La

Milpa. Sagebiel states that this Chen Mul incensario fragment dates to the Late

Postclassic, possibly even Colonial. At the site of Lamanai in northern Belize Milbrath et al. (2008) describe the presence of Chen Mul incensarios present on top of Structure

N9-56, which also served as a platform to a stela that had been repositioned, similar to other stela described in the area. Just like at Kaxil Uinic, the area where the incensario fragments were recovered shows no sign of occupation during the Postclassic, except for the presence of the fragments at the base of stelae.

Although during the Late Postclassic period the sites of La Milpa and Kaxil

Uinic were not inhabited, it is apparent that Maya peoples were making pilgrimages to the sites to venerate their ancestors and the monuments because of religious practices that continued after the Classic period. The fact that Maya peoples were still making pilgrimages to these sites long after their abandonment shows how sacred these spaces are to them. It is suggested that the Maya who left incensarios as offerings at the base of stelae were not residents but pilgrims, due to the lack of other types of ceramics from the Postclassic at La Milpa (Hammond and Bobo 1994). This is also the case at

Kaxil Uinic. The only Postclassic ceramics found at Kaxil Uinic are the incensario fragments found at the base of Stela 1.

The stelae at La Milpa that have associated incensario fragments were also moved similarly to Stela 1 at Kaxil Uinic. Hammond and Bobo (1994) note that of the

17 stelae at La Milpa, all but six are still in their original position. The stelae at La

Milpa were moved during the Late Postclassic period in the fifteenth or sixteenth

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

centuries (Hammond and Bobo 1994:26-27). This occurrence fits in the time frame when Stela 1 at Kaxil Uinic was likely moved from its original position. Thompson

(1963) describes his 1931 impression of the stela at Kaxil Uinic as being in a badly deteriorated condition, but does not mention it being broken. However, it is likely that the stela fell onto its carved face sometime in the past and the top portion was put up on its side at a later time to show the face that contained carvings. Signs of the stela and/or the altar being moved sometime in the past are evident by the atypical relation the two monuments have, being about 2.5 m away from one another, when generally these two types of monuments are seen closer together and in line with an associated structure.

If it is the stela that is not in its original position, then it was moved sometime in the Postclassic because of the presence of Chen Mul incensario fragments at the base of it. What is likely the top half of the stela was probably reset sometime in the recent past since Thompson (1963) does not mention it being broken, only badly damaged. Guderjan et al. (1991) however does mention it being broken, but does not mention one of the fragments being on its side. From the evidence presented here, it is probable that the Chen Mul incensario fragments were placed there as offerings by pilgrims during the Postclassic.

Preclassic Occupation

One of the more significant finds at Kaxil Uinic was the Cunil-like ceramic found in the area of Altar 1. As stated above, Cunil ceramics date to the Early

Preclassic (ca. 1200 B.C) and are generally found in the Belize River Valley region

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

(Valdez and Houk 2012). Houk (2012a:41) states that it is possible that the sherd came from the area of the aguada since the area was ideal for habitation for a long period of time due to the viable water source. If this is the case, then the area of aguada was occupied by Maya peoples from approximately 1200 B.C through the Terminal

Classic.

Conclusions

Excavations at the prehistoric ruins of Kaxil Uinic revealed that it has had a long occupation history spanning the Preclassic to Terminal Classic, with some evidence of Historic period visitation. The site is in a poor state of preservation and many of the structures were badly damaged by looters’ trenches. Although the sacbe terminus could not be located at Kaxil Uinic, it is evident the site was contemporaneous to the nearby site of Chan Chich. Also evident is that the site described by Guderjan et al. (1991) as E’kenha is the same site that Thompson (1963) described as Kaxil Uinic. This is due to the Kaxil Uinic’s close proximity to the aguada and the presence and condition of the stela and altar. The rediscovery of the historic Maya village/chicle camp is significant in that it offers a new avenue of research to learn more about the historic Maya of this area.

Additional investigations are recommended in the plaza at the prehistoric ruins of Kaxil Uinic to learn more about construction history of individual structures. Other structures may contain surface deposits, similar to the one at Structure 6. If so, further study of the possible directional symbolism of the artifacts in the deposits would be

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

warranted as is the possible symbolic relationship between Structure 6, the southern structure, and the Maya underworld of Xibalba.

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

REFERENCES Ashmore, Wendy

1991 Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality among the

Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2(3):199 – 226.

Brady, James E., and Dominique Rissolo

2006 A Reappraisal of Ancient Maya Cave Mining. Journal of

Anthropological Research 62(4):471 – 490.

Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase

2001 Ancient Maya Causeways and Site Organization at Caracol, Belize.

Ancient Mesoamerica 12:273 – 281.

Church, Minette C., Jason Yaeger, and Jennifer L. Dornan

2010 The San Pedro Maya and the British Colonial Enterprise in British

Honduras. In Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of

Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas, edited by Matthew

Liebmann and Melissa S. Murphy, pp. 173 – 197. School for Advanced

Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Demarest, Arthur

2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization.

Cambridge University Press.

100

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Dunning, Nicholas, John G. Jones, Timothy Beach, and Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach

2003 Physiography, Habitats, and Landscapes of The Three Rivers Region.

In Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three

Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatán Peninsula, edited by Vernon

L. Scarborough, Fred Valdez, Jr., and Nicholas Dunning, pp. 14 – 24.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Ford, Owen, and Amy E. Rush

2000 1998 Excavations at the Western Groups. In The 1998 and 1999

Seasons of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A.

Houk, pp. 41 – 48. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project,

Number 4. Center For Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas P. Dunning

2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bartolo-Xultun

Territory, El Petén, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 20(4):252 –

225.

Guderjan, Thomas H., Michael Lindeman, Ellen Ruble, Froyla Salam, and Jason

Yaeger

1991 Archaeological Sites in the Rio 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.

101

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Guderjan, Thomas H.

2007 The Nature of an Ancient Maya City: Resources, Power, and

Interaction at Blue Creek, Belize. University of Alabama Press,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Halperin, Christina T., Sergio Garza, Keith M. Prufer, and James E. Brady

2003 Caves and Ancient Maya Ritual Use of Jute. Latin American Antiquity

14(2):207 – 219.

Hammond, Norman, and Matthew R. Bobo

1994 Pilgrimage’s Last Mile: Late Maya Monument Veneration at La Milpa,

Belize. World Archaeology 26(1):19 – 34.

Harris, Matthew C., and Vincent M. Sisneros

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 – 63. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project,

Number 6. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Harrison, Ellie

2000 Structure C-6: Excavation of an Elite Compound. In The 1998 and

1999 Seasons of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by

Brett A. Houk, pp. 71 – 94. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological

Project, Number 4. Center For Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

102

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Houk, Brett A.

2000 An Introduction to the 1998 and 1999 Seasons. In The 1998 and 1999

Seasons of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A.

Houk, pp. 1 – 14. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project,

Number 4. Center For Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Houk, Brett A.

2011a The Curious Case of Kaxil Uinic. Mono y Conejo 6:3 – 7.

2011b Chan Chich Archaeological Project: 2012 Research Design. Proposal

submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, Government of Belize.

Manuscript on file with the author.

2011c The Deadly Years: Terminal Classic Problematic Deposits and the

Fates of Does Hombres and Chan Chich, Belize. Paper presented at the

76th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,

Sacramento, California.

103

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Houk, Brett A.

2012a The Chan Chich Archaeological Project’s Digital Data Collection

System. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project,

edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 73 – 82. Papers of the Chan Chich

Archaeological Project, Number 6. Department of Sociology,

Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,

Texas.

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, Texas.

Houk, Brett A., and Jon B. Hageman

2007 Lost and Found: (Re)-Placing Say Ka in the La Milpa Suburban

Settlement Pattern. Mexicon 39(6)152-156.

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.

104

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Houk, Brett A., Hubert R. Robichaux, and Fred Valdez, Jr.

2010 An Early Royal Maya Tomb from Chan Chich, Belize. Ancient

Mesoamerica 21:229-248.

Houk, Brett A., Lauren A. Sullivan and Fred Valdez, Jr.

2008 Rethinking the Postclassic of Northwestern Belize. Research Reports in

Belizean Archaeology 5:93 – 102.

Houk, Brett A., and Gregory Zaro

2011 The La Milpa Core Project Field Manual. Occasional Papers in

Archaeology, Number 5. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and

Social Work, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Jones, Grant D.

1977 Levels of Settlement Alliance Among the San Pedro Maya of Western

Belize and Eastern Peten, 1857 – 1936. In Anthropology and History in

Yucatan, edited by Grant D. Jones, pp. 139 – 189. University of Texas

Press, Austin, Texas.

Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring

1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A New Evaluation. Ancient

Mesoamerica 9(1):55 – 66.

Lucero, Lisa J., and Andrew Kinkella

2011 A Place for Pilgrimage: The Ancient Maya Sacred Landscape of Cara

Blanca, Belize. Manuscript on file, Anthropology Department,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.

105

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Maler, Teobert

1910 Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala, and Adjacent

Region: Motul de San Jose; Peten-Itza. Memoirs of the Peabody

Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. IV, No. 3.

Harvard University, Cambridge.

Mehrer, Mark W.

2007 Steps to a Holistic Household Archaeology. In Commoner Ritual and

Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Nancy Gonlin and Jon C.

Lohse, pp. 281 – 293. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Milbrath, Susan, James Aimers, Carlos Peraza Lope, and Lynda Florey Folan

2008 Effigy Censers of the Chen Mul Modeled Ceramic System and their

Implications for Late Postclassic Maya Interregional Interaction.

Mexicon 30:104-112.

Moats, Lindsey R.

2011 Results of the 2010 Excavations at the Courtyard 100 and Preliminary

Plans for 2011. In The 2010 Season of the La Milpa Core Project,

edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 17-28. Occasional Papers in Archaeology,

Number 4. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

106

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Moats, Lindsey R.

2012 The Long Goodbye: New Data from Courtyard 100 on the

Occupational History of La Milpa, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas.

Navarro Farr, Olivia Clementina

2009 Ritual, Process, and Continuity in the Late to Terminal Classic

Transition: Investigations at Structure M13-1 in the Ancient Maya site

of El Perú-Waka’, Petén, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Dedman College, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Rissolo, Dominique

2005 Beneath the Yalahau: Emerging Patterns of Ancient Maya Ritual Cave

Use from Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico. In In the Maw of the Earth

Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady

and Keith M. Prufer, pp. 342 – 372. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Robichaux, Hubert R.

1998 Excavations in the Upper Plaza. In The 1997 Season of the Chan Chich

Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 31 – 52. Papers of

the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 3. Center For Maya

Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

107

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

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.

Sagebiel, Kerry Lynn

2005 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Shaw, Justine M.

2001 Maya Sacbeob: Form and Function. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:261 –

272.

2008 White Roads of the Yucatan: Changing Social Landscapes of the

Yucatec Maya. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

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.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

108

Texas Tech University, Matthew Charles Harris, May 2013

Thompson, J. Eric S.

1939 Excavations at San José, British Honduras. Publication 506. Carnegie

Institution of Washington, D.C.

1963 Maya Archaeologist. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,

Oklahoma.

Tourtellot, Gair, Gloria Everson, and Normand Hammond

2003 Suburban Organization: Minor Centers at La Milpa, Belize. In

Perspectives on Ancient Maya Rural Complexity, edited by Gyles

Iannone and Samuel V. Connell, pp. 94 – 107. Cotsen Institute of

Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

Valdez, Jr., Fred

1998 The Chan Chich Ceramic Sequence. In The 1997 Season of the Chan

Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A. Houk, pp. 73 – 86.

Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Number 3. Center

For Maya Studies, San Antonio, Texas.

Valdez, Jr., Fred, and Brett A. Houk

2012 Preliminary Comments on the 2012 Ceramic Analysis. In In The 2012

Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, edited by Brett A.

Houk, pp. 65 – 72. Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project,

Number 6. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

109