THE LAST INHABITANTS OF MINANHA, BELIZE: EXAMINING THE DIFFERENTIAL ABANDONMENT OF AN ANCIENT MAYA COMMUNITY
A Thesis Submitted to the Committee of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science
TRENT UNIVERSITY
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
© Copyright by Maxime Lamoureux St-Hilaire 2011
Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program
October 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-81145-0 Our We Notre ref6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-81145-0
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1+1 Canada ABSTRACT
The Last Inhabitants of Minanha: Examining the Differential Abandonment of an Ancient Maya Community.
Maxime Lamoureux St-Hilaire
This thesis explores the abandonment of the ancient Maya site of Minanha,
situated in the North Vaca Plateau of west-central Belize. The purpose of this research is to study, through a behavioral-contextual approach, the 12 on-floor assemblages that were excavated across the entire social spectrum of the Minanha community, from commoners to royal elites. The research methods include a careful "type-variety: mode" ceramic analysis, and detailed contextual, architectural observations. Specifically, this thesis explores the timing of the abandonment for each segment of the Minanha community, as well the differential abandonment processes responsible for the creation of each of the 12 on-floor assemblages excavated at the site. Additionally, intra- and inter-site comparisons allow for a regionally integrated reconstruction of the abandonment scenario for the broader Minanha community. Finally, this study of settlement abandonment will serve to inquire into ancient Maya rituals and social organization, and into the socio-political dynamics at Minanha during its last phase of occupation (810-1050 A.D.).
Keywords: Minanha, Belize, ancient Maya, settlement abandonment, gradual abandonment, termination rituals, Classic Maya collapse, social organization, household archaeology, behavioral archaeology.
n ACKOWLEDGMENT
This thesis would not exist if not for Gyles Iannone and his Social Archaeology
Research Program (SARP). Indeed, this whole project began with my participation in the
SARP field school in 2007, which confirmed my passion for Maya archaeology.
Therefore, I would first like to thank Gyles for leading his great research program and field school, for being such a good theoretical and methodological influence, and for being a dear friend. I would also like to thank Paul Healy for sharing his knowledge, and
for providing me with great opportunities for developing my ideas. I am very grateful to
Trent's Department of Anthropology, and to the individuals making it such a great place, especially: James Conolly, Susan Jamieson, Kristine Williams, and Judy Pinto. I also wish to thank Jennifer Moore for accepting to be on my committee and for being of good counsel, as well as Takeshi Inomata for accepting to be my external examiner and providing me with great inputs.
Furthermore, I wish to thank Cara Tremain for being a fantastic support throughout this long process, and for being such a good critic and patient reviewer.
Among my friends, I owe special thanks to Andy "Red Diamond" Snetsinger, Kendall
"Steaks" Hills, Alex "Gangsta" Nascou, and "Big Jim" Conlon for their constant friendship, their priceless insights, and for the time they spent editing my work. I also wish to thank Marshall J. Becker who provided me with good advice during the consolidation of several ideas included in this thesis, and Scott "Shaky McGee" Macrae and Derek Paauw, who provided me with some of their data which proved to be invaluable for the completion of my thesis. I also wish to thank Suzanne Lee Smith and
James Garber who helped me with the analysis of the roller-stamp from Structure iii MRS15-M2.1 am also grateful to all the individuals who made great experiences of my
Belizean summers, and made my research at Trent such a positive enterprise. These people are: Wendicita Solis, Morgan "Teen Wolf Moodie, Matt "Goma Eyes"
Longstaffe, Sonja Schwake, Norbert Stanchly, James "Margay" Stemp, Jeffrey "Chops"
Seibert, Jose Martinez, Roberto Carlos Melendez, Landy and Erva Espat, Carlos "Caling"
Ayala, Alwyn Smith, Miss Julia, and all my other Belizean friends, of whom Ciego and
King Tut will be missed forever. I also wish to thank the Trent-Belize field school students who contributed to making my graduate experience so gratifying.
Bien entendu, mafamille — Marie, Jean-Claude, Fabienne, Renaud, Josee et Eve — ont contribue, par leur amour et amitie, a me fairepasser au trovers de I'experience eprouvante quefut ce programme de maitrise. Je leur dis merci, etje vous aime.
Finally, I am very grateful to Trent University, Graduate Studies, the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Alphawood Foundation, and the Government of Quebec, for funding my studies these past two years. Without them, everything would have been much more difficult. I also wish to thank the Belize Institute of Archaeology for allowing us to do such interesting research in their amazing country.
IV TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Acknowledgment iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xi
Chapter One: Introduction 1
The Thesis 4
Minanha 5
Thesis Organization 8
Summary 10
Chapter Two: Theory and Methods 12
The Maya Concept of the Regeneration of Life and its Ties to Architecture 13
Dedication Rituals 16
Rededication Rituals 18
Termination Rituals 21
Summary 25
Settlement Abandonment 26
Behavioral Archaeology and Settlement Abandonment 26
Settlement Abandonment Among the Ancient Maya 28
On-Floor Refuse : 29
Exposed Offerings 33
A Behavioral-Contextual Approach to Ancient Maya Settlement Abandonment 43
Gradual and Organized Abandonment 43
v Rapid and Unplanned Abandonment 44
Summary 46
Chapter Three: Data 48
The Community Approach of SARP 48
The 12 On-Floor Assemblages of the Minanha Community 50
Segment One: The Epicenter 50
Segment Two: The Site-Core Zone 61
Segment Three: The Contreras Zone 66
Summary 77
Chapter Four: Behavioral-Contextual Analysis of the On-Floor Assemblages 79
Ceramic Analysis 79
Methods 79
Limitations ..80
Analysis of the 12 On-Floor Assemblages from the Minanha Community 81
Overview 82
Detailed Analysis: Epicenter : 85
Summary 92
Detailed Analysis: Site Core Zone 93
Summary 100
Detailed Analysis: Contreras Zone 101
Summary 115
Synthesis: The Abandonment of the Minanha Community 116
Artifactual and Contextual Trends 116
Abandonment Processes for the On-Floor Assemblages 123
Conclusion 125
vi Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions 126
The Fall of Minanha's Royal Court in Perspective 126
Methodological Discussion 131
Theoretical Discussion: The Social and Cognitive Dimensions of
Termination Ritual 134
The Construction of Ancient Maya Architectural Landscape 134
The Abandonment of Ancient Maya Architectural Landscape 139
Summary 143
Conclusion 144
When Were the Different Segments of the Minanha Community Abandoned? 144
How Did the Abandonment Occur for Each of these Segments? 145
What does this Abandonment Scenario tell us about the Minanha Community? 146
Appendix A: SARP Project Temporal Designation 149
Appendix B: SARP Stratified Random Sample Group Type Designation 150
Appendix C: Results of the Ceramic Analysis [compact disc] 152
References Cited 153
vn LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Central America and the Maya subarea 2
Figure 1.2 The Vaca Plateau of Guatemala and Belize and the Mopan River basin 6
Figure 1.3 The SARP permit area 9
Figure 2.1 Doorway from an elite residence at the ancient Maya site of
Chicanna, Southern Campeche, Mexico 14
Figure 2.2 Elder from the village of Lacanja, Chiapas, Mexico, performing a
god-pots feeding ritual 23
Figure 2.3 The entrance to a dry cave close to Lacanja 24
Figure 2.4 The hypothetical ritual life of a Maya architectural structure 35
Figure 2.5 Roller-stamp found as part of the on-floor assemblage of structure
MRS15-M2 37
Figure 3.1 The Epicenter 51
Figure 3.2 Top plan of the architectural complex including Structure 12A 52
Figure 3.3 Top plan of Units 12A-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, showing Level 3, or the
terminal floor occupation, and its seven features 54
Figure 3.4 Computer-modeled artistic reconstruction of Group L 56
Figure 3.5 Isometric Plan of Group L showing its excavations units 58
Figure 3.6 Top plan of Unit 43L-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal floor
occupation, and its three on-floor features 56
Figure 3.7 Top plan of Units 44L-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal floor
occupation, and its on-floor feature 59
viii Figure 3.8 Top plan of Units 45L-1 and 45L-2, showing level 3, or the terminal
floor occupation, and its two on-floor features 60
Figure 3.9 The square km of the Site Core Zone 62
Figure 3.10 Isometric plan of Group R 63
Figure 3.11 Top plan of Structure 91R, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and its on-floor feature 64
Figure 3.12 Artistic reconstruction of Group S 65
Figure 3.13 Top plan of Unit 76S-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture,
and the structural termination cache 76S-F/1 66
Figure 3.14 The square km of the Contreras Zone ...67
Figure 3.15 Isometric plan of Group MRS4 68
Figure 3.16 Top plan of Unit MRS4-M1 -1, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and the five clusters of its on-floor assemblage 69
Figure 3.17 Artistic architectural reconstruction of Group MRS15 70
Figure 3.18 Isometric plan of Group MRS 15 71
Figure 3.19 Top plan of Structure MRS15-M2, showing Level 3, or the
terminal architecture, and its two on-floor features 72
Figure 3.20 Top plan of Structure MRS15-M3, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and its on-floor assemblage 73
Figure 3.21 Top plan of Structure MRS15.-M5, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and its on-floor feature 74
Figure 3.22 Isometric plan of Group MRS89 75
Figure 3.23 Top plan of Structure MRS89-M1, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and its on-floor feature 76 ix Figure 3.24 Top plan of Structure MRS89-M4, showing Level 3, or the terminal
architecture, and its on-floor feature 77
Figure 4.1 Illustration of a partial Terminal Classic Chiquibul Scored-Incised
censer 103
Figure 4.2 Illustration of the Portable Composite Ceramic Brazier 104
Figure 4.3 Illustration of a complete ink / poison pot 106
Figure 4.4 Illustration of a partial Platon-Punctated Incised dish typical of
the Terminal Classic 110
x LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Count of the vessel classes from the on-floor assemblages 83
Table 4.2 Averages and standard deviation of vessel classes for six groups of the
Minanha community 83
Table 4.3 Count of the vessel classes from the above-floor assemblages 84
Table 4.4 Percentages of the vessel classes from the above-floor assemblages 84
Table 4.5 Count of the on-floor loose ceramic material from Structure 45L 89
Table 4.6 Percentage of the on-floor loose ceramic material from Structure 45L 89
Table 4.7 Synthesis of the artifactual and contextual data of the on-floor
assemblages 119
Table 4.8 Postulated gradual and organized abandonment processes for the
on-floor assemblages 123
XI 1
Chapter One : Introduction
Ancient Mesoamerica has been extensively studied by archaeologists over the past century. This broad and heterogeneous cultural area contains a rich archaeological record representing a succession of many indigenous civilizations. These ancient cultures interacted with, and succeeded, each other for millennia. One of these cultures, the ancient Maya, developed in the south-eastern regions of Mesoamerica for over two millennia. More specifically, the ancient Maya civilization occupied the lowland regions of the greater Yucatan peninsula, and the highland regions bordering it to the South and
West (Figure 1.1). This broad region corresponds to modern south-eastern Mexico, the whole of Guatemala and Belize, as well as the north-western portions of Honduras and El
Salvador. In anthropology, the Maya subarea of Mesoamerica can be divided into four broad regions: the Northern Lowlands, the Southern Lowlands, the Highlands, and the
Pacific Coast. This thesis focuses on the Southern Lowlands region.
Ancient Maya civilization is divided, chronologically speaking, into three broad periods: the Preclassic (1200 B.C. - 250 A.D.), the Classic (250 A.D. - 900 A.D.), and the
Postclassic (900 A.D. - 1525 A.D.)1. Throughout this long history the ancient Maya established and settled thousands of locales which are now important archaeological sites.
Even though hundreds of these sites have been excavated, we are still trying to understand how this civilization emerged and eventually faded away.
1 All chronological references in the present thesis refer to the SARP Temporal Project Designation, see Appendix A. 2 r~
-f-i.
MI \l< O IN
(.1 \ll\l\l.\ f l()M)l K\s Ml \ii\ti\ V r II 111(1 2U0 .'(III 4IHI jj II SVI\ VDOK t \M, \:i .•% U^..'"J! I'M r • v. Figure 1.1. Central America and the Maya Subarea. The Southern Maya Lowlands are delimited by the black lines (SARP).
The Classic period is generally considered to be the apex of ancient Maya civilization. By this time, the ancient Maya had established powerful polities, with large city-states, which were ruled by divine kings, or k'uhul ajaw (Demarest 2004 110-111,
208-217; Sharer and Traxler 2006: 295-300, 711-716). These divine kings operated a complex regal-ritual court complex composed of many elite individuals, and centered around ancestor worship and tribute imposition (Demarest 2004:173; 176; Inomata and
Triadan 2010:3-5; Sharer and Traxler 2006:711-716). Among other things, ancient Maya kings raised monuments, called stelae, engraved with hieroglyphic inscriptions to their own glory (Sharer and Traxler 2006:149). The decipherment of inscriptions on these monuments led Mayanists to understand that these numerous ancient city-states engaged in competitive growth, and waged war with one another for centuries (Coe 1999:65). 3
During these wars, ancient Maya polities claimed and ruled over relatively large
territories, which included dozens of sites (Sharer and Traxler 2006:704-714). Each of these major centers had their own community which functioned in a semi-autonomous way. While this complex socio-political dynamic peaked during the Late Classic period
(675-810 A.D.), it underwent a slow demise during the Terminal Classic period (810-900
A.D.). This deteriorating socio-political and economic process is known as the Classic
Maya 'collapse'. During this century of decline, hundreds of Maya sites were abandoned in the Southern Lowlands.
This widespread 'collapse process' affecting the Southern Lowlands of the Maya
subarea was not synchronic nor monocausal (Rice et al. 2004). Indeed, it appears that ancient Maya polities underwent different collapse scenarios. Characterized by such variability, this intricate societal process is hard to understand from a holistic perspective.
A consensus between Mayanists studying the collapse is presently impossible to reach;
consequently, the best way to document this so-called collapse is to study it from different regional perspectives (Demarest 2004:5-6; Demarest et al. 2004; Iannone
2006a: 13; Rice et al. 2004).
The ancient Maya site of Minanha, situated in the North Vaca Plateau of modern west-central Belize, was once one of those Late Classic polities which declined and were eventually abandoned. Therefore, by studying the demise of the Minanha polity, it is possible to contribute to our understanding of the broader Classic Maya collapse. This thesis focuses on the direct consequence of the collapse of the ancient Maya polity of
Minanha, namely, evidence for its gradual abandonment. 4
THE THESIS
One of the obvious consequences of this collapse process is the varying degrees of abandonment of ancient Maya communities. Comparative studies of the abandonment for a number of centers is, therefore, an ideal way to understand the differential impacts of the Classic period collapse. Abandonment is best exemplified by the very last occupation of sites, which can be observed through the examination of on-floor assemblages. An On- floor assemblage is a behaviorally neutral term which refers to the artifactual material excavated on the terminal floor of abandoned structures. This thesis studies the abandonment of Minanha by looking carefully at 12 on-floor assemblages. In order to document this facet of Minanha's culture history, the following questions are asked :
A-When were the different segments of the Minanha community abandoned?
B-How did the abandonment occur for each of these segments?
C-What does this abandonment scenario tell us about the Minanha community?
In order to answer these questions the ceramic material included in 12 on-floor assemblages originating from the entire spectrum of Minanha's community was analyzed.
The results of this ceramic analysis are combined with a detailed discussion of the architectural context of each assemblage. Combining these two sets of data, I interpret the behaviors responsible for the deposition of each of the on-floor assemblages. These behaviors will be judged according to a well-defined interpretative method which is presented in detail in Chapter Two. In order to properly articulate the following chapters of this dissertation, I will first provide some information regarding Minanha. 5
Minanha
According to our present knowledge of the site, the first inhabitants of Minanha settled towards the end of the Late Middle Preclassic (600-400 B.C.) (lannone 2005:29; lannone et al. 2006:116). The site then steadily expanded until the beginning of the Late
Classic period (ca. 675 A.D.), when a royal court was established (lannone 2005:29). The establishment of such an institution at the site is related to its sensitive geographical position. Minanha (Figure 1.2) is situated on a hill-top, at the northern edge of the geologically rich and mountainous region of the Vaca Plateau (lannone 2005; Reeder et al. 1996; Macrae 2009). This places Minanha only 25 km north of the most prominent
Maya city-state to have existed in this region, Caracol (Chase and Chase 2004). Minanha is also close to the Macal River, a major tributary draining the Vaca Plateau into the densely populated Belize River Valley (Garber 2004; Willey et al. 1965).
It is epigraphically documented that during the Late and Terminal Classic periods the polity of Caracol was varyingly at war and at peace with the city-state of Naranjo
(Simon and Martin 2008:84-115), situated approximately 25 km North-West of Minanha.
Therefore, Minanha was situated in a tense geopolitical location, a factor that certainly played an important role in the establishment and eventual demise of its royal court
(lannone 2005). Unfortunately, the absence of epigraphic data from the site - the nine monuments from Minanha are all eroded - does not help us understand the details of its political history. Therefore, the roles which Caracol and Naranjo played in the development of Minanha's royal court must be inferred from the archaeological record. —u-u-u-uum-u.. 1 IUI ^-. LJ_31_ulll ^u-, JLM rtfift/ Figure 1.2. The Vaca Plateau (shaded in light grey) of Guatemala and Belize, and the Mopan River basin. The postulated extent of the Minanha "kingdom" is shaded in dark grey (SARP).
It has been postulated that Caracol played a decisive role in the establishment of the Minanha royal court. Indeed, many archaeological features, ranging from architecture to ritual practices, indicate cultural ties between Minanha and Caracol (lannone 2005:31- 7
32, 2006:14; Schwake 2008:105-106). Moreover, as previously indicated, both sites are
situated in the same geographical area, with Minanha roughly settled at the entrance of
Caracol's regional geographical boundary of the Vaca Plateau. In a similar way, the site
of Xunantunich is closely related to Naranjo, with both of these city-states being settled in the lowlands, and being less than 20 km apart. Xunantunich is set on a hill top, on the western shore of the Mopan River, and would have represented an excellent "border post"
for Naranjo, as well as a connection with the Belize River (lannone 2005: 38-39; Lecount
el al. 2002; Lecount and Yaeger 2010:351-352). Thanks to extensive epigraphic data from
Naranjo and Caracol, and to a lesser degree, Xunantunich, Ucanal, and other sites (Corzo
et al. 1998:210-215; Martin and Grube 2008; Tourtellot and Gonzalez 2004:77-792), we know that these two prominent and belligerent city-states underwent troubled political periods towards the end of the Late Classic period. More specifically, Naranjo underwent a very unsuccessful military and political phase, during the reign of its 36th and 37th rulers, which roughly corresponds to 630 - 680 AD, while Caracol underwent a hiatus in its historical and political record between 680 - 798 AD (Martin and Grube 2008:72-
73,95). These periods correspond to the emergence of the short-lived royal courts of
Xunantunich and Minanha (Ashmore 2010: 51-56; lannone 2005, 2006:14; Lecount el al.
2002). This is paralleled also by the notable growth of similarly positioned polities such as Ucanal and Calzada Mopan, in the neighboring Mopan river basin (Corzo et al 1998;
Gomez et al. 1994; Lamoureux-St-Hilaire 2009; Laporte 2004; Laporte et al. 1999, 2002;
Laporte and Mejia 2002; Mejia 2002, 2003). Therefore, the emergence of Minanha and
Xunantunich, and most likely other medium-sized competing polities, is likely associated with a political and economic power-vacuum which ensued from the balkanization of the two larger city-states (lannone 2005). 8
Although there were apparently ties between Minanha and Caracol, we remain unsure as to the exact nature of their relationship. Were the kingly elite of Minanha related to those of Caracol, or were they affiliating themselves with Caracol with material means for prestigious or political reasons? One way or the other, the result is a regional trend that gives us clues for interpreting the social dynamics ongoing at both sites.
Regardless of the "hows and whys", the royal court of Minanha was established in the Late Classic and included a densely settled Epicenter characterized by massive architectural structures. However, a few centuries later, during the Terminal Classic, it was already in sharp decline. Quite interestingly, by ca. 810 A.D. the summit of the north acropolis of Minanha, which was the setting for the royal residential courtyard, was buried under five meters of rubble, and many of the center's stelae were destroyed
(lannone 2005; lannone et al. 2009). This implies that the royal court of Minanha had, by then, lost most of its power. This collapse of Minanha's petty royal court reproduces, on a smaller scale, the fate of the royal court of the larger polities of Caracol and Naranjo.
However, at that time, the greater Minanha community, particularly those inhabiting the Site Core and Contreras Settlement Zones (Figures 1.3), was far from completely abandoned. Some of the areas surrounding Minanha's Epicenter were indeed occupied until the Early Postclassic period (900-1200 A.D.). Nonetheless, the whole community would eventually be fully abandoned, and this thesis is aimed at documenting this complex process.
Thesis Organization
This thesis is organized in five chapters covering different aspects of my research.
Chapter Two, the theory and method chapter, begins by defining some important aspects 9
of the ancient Maya ritual belief system. More specifically, it discusses the ancient Maya
ritual philosophy of the regeneration of life, with a special focus on termination rituals. It
then proceeds with a theoretical exposition of settlement abandonment studies. The last part of this chapter presents a behavioral-contextual approach for interpreting the on-floor
assemblages of the ancient Minanha community.
Figure 1.3 The SARP permit area. This map puts in geographical relation the two square km zones of the Site-Core (Top) and Contreras Valley (Bottom) (SARP).
Chapter Three, the data chapter, begins by discussing the three segments of the
Minanha community: 1) the Epicenter; 2) the Site Core zone; and, 3) the Contreras zone.
During this presentation of the archaeological data, the seven architectural groups which revealed on-floor assemblages will be discussed in detail. In summary, this chapter will 10 provide the reader with the architectural context of the 12 on-floor assemblages, as well
as an overview of the material they included.
Chapter Four, the analysis chapter, applies the behavioral-contextual approach presented in Chapter Two to each of the 12 on-floor assemblages. During this analysis,
the groups are compared with one another, and references are consistently made to other
settlement abandonment studies from elsewhere in the ancient Maya world. The final
objective of this chapter is to reconstruct the abandonment scenario for the Minanha
community.
Chapter Five is the discussion and conclusions chapter. It explores the implications of the results of my research. The discussion first focuses on the broader culture history of Minanha. The chapter then discusses methodological development for the study of ancient Maya settlement abandonment, and explores new theoretical avenues
for understanding ancient Maya termination rituals. To conclude the thesis, the three research questions raised in Chapter One are reiterated, and their answers summarized.
SUMMARY
Ancient Maya civilization developed in the south-eastern part of Mesoamerica and was characterized, during its Classic period (250-900 A.D.), by a myriad of city-states interacting with each other. Minanha was a medium-sized ancient Maya city-state situated in the northern Vaca Plateau of Belize. Towards the beginning of the Terminal Classic period (ca. 810 A.D.), its royal court was in sharp decline, and was soon abandoned. This was the beginning of the abandonment process for the broader Minanha community. This thesis studies this abandonment process through the careful examination of 12 on-floor 11 artifact assemblages which were excavated throughout the three segments of the Minanha community: the Epicenter, Site-Core Zone, and Contreras Zone. The following chapter discusses the theoretical and methodological framework necessary for the appropriate study of these on-floor assemblages. 12
CHAPTER TWO: THEORY AND METHODS
"The city was desolate. No remnant of this race hangs round the ruins, with traditions handed down from father to son, and from generation to generation. [...] her lost people to be traced only by some fancied resemblance in the construction of vessel, and, perhaps, never to be known at all. [...] an immense forest shrouded the ruins, hiding them from sight, heightening the impression and moral effect, and giving an intensity and almost wildness to the interest" (Stephens 1841:105).
John L. Stephens wrote this passage just after his first visit to the ancient Maya site of Copan, situated in modern north-western Honduras. Stephens was one of the first, but certainly not the last, to meditate on the ruins and abandonment of the site. Today we understand much better what prompted the ancient Maya to abandon their settlements, and how these were abandoned (Demarest et al. 2004). It is argued by numerous
Mayanists that the ancient Maya likely performed a certain type of ritual - termination rituals - when they abandoned their settlements (Stanton et al. 2008:235). The concept of termination ritual is complex for several reasons and, in order to understand it better, it is imperative first to grasp certain philosophical and ritual aspects of ancient Maya society.
It is particularly important to understand how this termination ritual complex was related to different aspects of the life of the ancient Maya, especially to their architecture.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section begins by exploring the
Maya philosophical and spiritual concept of the regeneration of life and reviews general, but necessary, knowledge concerning Maya architecture. Secondly, it examines and defines dedication, rededication, and termination rituals.
The second section of this chapter begins by exploring some aspects of behavioral archaeology and then presents a behavioral-contextual approach for interpreting on-floor 13
assemblages. This interpretative method, among other things, integrates the concept of
termination rituals.
At the end of this section it should be clear that termination rituals embody one of
the most prominent beliefs of the ancient Maya, their cyclical vision of time. The
interpretative method presented at the end of the chapter will allow me to adequately
examine the behaviors responsible for the deposition of each on-floor assemblage from
Minanha, and to understand if these behaviors were once part of a termination ritual or not.
THE MAYA CONCEPT OF THE REGENERATION OF LIFE
AND ITS TIES TO ARCHITECTURE
A first crucial concept for understanding the philosophy of the regeneration of life
of the Maya is k'ulel. This invisible force, which one could translate as soul in English, is
actually quite different from the Christian soul. Contrary to the latter, it does not
disappear from the terrestrial world at the death of an individual. Rather, after having remained with its former body for a while, it becomes part of a k'ulel pool and is
eventually reassigned to a new person by the ancestral gods (Freidel et al. 1993:182;
Gillespie 2001:94; Loten 2001:230-231). In an animistic fashion, the cyclical nature of this life energy is not only applicable to humans; everything animate and inanimate contains k'ulel (Loten 2001:231; Mock 1998a: 10). This fact is especially true regarding the dwellings of the Maya, which even today are believed to be alive. At the moment of construction of an architectural structure, a dedication ritual is performed in order to infuse it with its own k'ulel (Stuart 1998:395-96). The modern Tzotzil Maya of Chiapas 14 hold dedication rituals for their houses, and one of the main functions of this is to animate the house with an inner soul in order for it to become a living part of the group (Vogt
2004:32). The Maya ascribe their houses to the living world, a fact which is supported by the vocabulary associated with their dwellings. For example, the modern Tzotzil apply bodily terms to their houses, such as ti 'na, or "house mouth" (Figure 2.1), which refers to the door (Stuart 1998:395).
-•*..» * a Figure 2.1. Doorway from an elite residence at the ancient Maya site of Chicanna, Southern Campeche, Mexico. This doorway perfectly embodies the modern Tzotzil term for door, ti 'na, or "house mouth" (Photograph by the author).
This life-giving ritual is even tied to the ancient Maya cosmology. The ancient
Maya universe, as we understand it, did not have one finite form. However, in all cases, its creation involved many characters, gods or heroes, performing many activities that could be interpreted as parts of an epic ritual (Freidel et al. 1993:64-69; Tedlock 1995).
This ritual, I presume, could be understood as the mighty, primeval dedication that infused k'ulel into the cosmos. 15
The Maya dwelling, as previously discussed, is conceived of as a living entity, and it is created in a manner that physically and symbolically embodies such a vision.
Furthermore, it reflects the Maya vision of the universe. The center of the cosmos is conceived of as the three triangle-shaped stars of Orion, which is paralleled by the three- stone hearth of archaeological and modem-day Maya houses (Freidel et al. 1993:79;
Tedlock 1996:236). Architecturally, the cosmos is further expressed by the four posts at the comers of the house, which are viewed as the four pillars holding up the sky; these are intimately related to the center of the cosmos, as they represent the four cardinal directions (Freidel et al. 1993:71-73, 115, 217; Stuart 1998:395; Vogt 1998:26, 2004:33).
So far, I have discussed life-giving rituals and the living nature of Maya architecture. Another vital concept to the Maya is their cyclical vision of time. According to the Popol Vuh, the sacred book of the K'iche Maya of Guatemala, the world had been created, destroyed, and recreated twice before the world of the ancient Maya came to be
(Freidel et al. 1993:61; Tedlock 1996:63-76). In other words, the mighty world life-giving dedication ritual described above had to be repeated several times, and will probably be repeated again. Among the present-day Tzutujil Maya of Guatemala, the concept of jaloj- k'exoj refers to a "concentric system of change within change, a single system of transformation and renewal" (McAnany 1995:162; Mock 1998a:9). The concept of jaloj- k'exoj perfectly embodies the ancient Maya philosophical concept of the regeneration of life.
In the same cyclical fashion that the different worlds succeeded each other, new buildings were constructed over older architectural structures (Webster 1998:16), thus
"recycling" the k'ulel they acquired at the time of their dedication. This architectural superposition, and the rejuvenation of spiritual energy, or cycling of it had to be activated 16
through rituals (Mock 1998a : 10-11). These rituals, generally consisting of a termination
ritual followed by a dedication ritual (Garber et al. 1998; Freidel and Scheie 1990:489),
sometimes referred to as "compound context caches" (Freidel 1998:192), can be
understood as a complete process, which I term "rededication" ritual. In order to
understand this concept properly, it has to be tied to the veneration of the ancestors,
which was crucial for the ancient Maya (McAnany 1995). Therefore, the act of building
the new version of a structure directly on top of the one built by an ancestor is framed by
the jaloj-k'exoj, and also has its roots in ancestral veneration.
The performance of the rededication rituals involved the placement of burials and
caches which generally contained human remains (Gillespie 2001:91; Hendon 2000:48;
McAnany 1998). Patricia McAnany (1995:161) states that the "Burial of ancestors often
marks the termination of the use of an older structure and the commencement of the
construction of a new one". It can thus be understood that the interrelationship between
the veneration of the ancestors and rebuilding episodes, in the context ofjaloj-k'exoj, pertains to the rejuvenation of the k'ulel of the ancestors in order to infuse a 'soul' into the
superposed structure (Kunen et al. 2002:200 209; Mathews and Garber 2004:53). The
deified ancestors, as previously mentioned, were believed to be responsible for the k'ulel pool (Freidel et al. 1993:182). As such, by interring the ancestors within their architecture, the Maya maintained, or renewed, their powerful spiritual influence upon the community (Gillespie 2001:92).
Dedication Rituals
Many contemporary Maya communities still build houses resembling the houses that were built by their (very) remote ancestors, examples of which go back to the Early 17
Middle Preclassic (ca. 800 B.C.; Hansen 1998:56-58). Moreover, ethnographically- studied Maya still conduct dedication rituals, although they differ from region to region
(Freidel et al. 1993:231-235; Mock 1998a: 10-1 l;Vogt 1998:21-29, 2004:32-35). The way these rituals are performed today would not leave many archaeological remains, as they mainly involve behaviors such as the caching of perishable material (Vogt 1998:21-
29, 2004:32-35), musical performances, and dancing (Freidel et al. 1993:231-235; Stross
1998:34). But, fortunately for archaeologists, the ancient Maya did conduct dedication rituals that involved caching of long-lasting material, such as ceramics, various types of lithic and shell artifacts, and human and faunal remains (Becker, in press; Pagliaro et al.
2003:76-77). However, I must emphasize that this does not, by any means, imply that these caches did not also contain perishable materials at one time.
Dedication rituals involved: "materials that were cached in the attempt to charge a place or thing with super-natural power" (Pagliaro et al. 2003:76). As for caches,
Marshall J. Becker (1992:186) defines them as a feature containing a ritual object found without associated human bones, generally cut into the bedrock under a structure or associated with a renovation phase of a non-residential structure. He does suggest, however, that dedication caches, in particular, may include human remains and may be found in non-residential buildings (Becker 1992:186-90). However, dedication rituals, not necessarily in the form of caches, but rather as burials, are documented from both elite and commoner residential contexts (Garber et al. 1998:131; Lucero 2006:106-135, 174).
Of course, the material manifestation for the dedication of a sumptuous temple is likely to be more elaborate than for a pole-and-thatch commoner's house, but the beliefs behind those rites remain the same (Demarest 2004:176; Lucero 2006:59, 174; Kunen et al.
2002:209). 18
As with the ethnographically studied Maya, these archaeological manifestations of
dedication rituals are thought to be related to the notion of k'ulel and jaloj-k'exoj (Becker
1992:186; Stuart 1998:395-96). They were so important to the Classic Maya that they were one of the main events worth recording on the prized stelae (Gillespie 2001:93;
Stuart 1998:375). Nevertheless, although such dedication rituals were the beginning of
the life story of most architectural features of the Maya, they were certainly not the last ritual to be conducted in association with them.
Rededication Rituals
The Maya inhabited specific locales for many generations, as expressed by many
enduring royal bloodlines spanning over centuries at the same sites (Scheie and Freidel
1990; Martin and Grube 2008). These lengthy occupations involved the continual habitation of the same architectural structures which had to be cyclically renovated
(Gillespie 2001:91; Lucero 2006:58; Webster 1998:16). New phases of construction, at the moment of the renovation, were generally marked by a ritual. These rituals are referred to as rededication rituals.
As previously discussed, the concept of rededication ritual falls directly in line with that of dedication. The main material difference between them is that here a stmcture lies beneath the one being constructed. In order to activate the sacredness of the new building, it is believed that the Maya first had to release the k'ulel of the underlying stmcture through some form of termination ritual. To reiterate, this would have been done in a reverential way, and the final objective of this ritual is defined by the "life-from- death" philosophy of the jaloj-k'exoj. As McAnany (1995:51) states, "The perpetual cycle 19
of death and inheritance (rebirth) was played out in the pattern of burial interment and
stmcture remodeling".
This ritual killing of an existing structure, followed by the 'birth' of a new one, was
a form of veneration of the ancestors responsible for the construction of the earlier building (McAnany 1995:104, 1998). Thisy'a/q/-A:'exq/-related ritual may be enacted by
the placement of a single votive feature serving both purposes, or by two distinct caches
or burials, placed in a "complex stratigraphic interplay", which can be referred to as
"compound contexts" rituals (Freidel 1998:192-193). Some researchers have even
suggested that the renovation of buildings may have been prompted by the death of
important individuals from the community, who would then have become venerated
ancestors (Becker 1992:188; Gillespie 2001:91; McAnany 1998:276).
Rededication rituals are widely documented across the Maya lowlands. As with
dedication deposits, their material remains were sealed under mortar and stone, and they
were therefore kept well preserved for archaeologists to excavate (Webster 1998:16). The variety of the deposits associated with such rituals is enormous, and I believe this high variability partly explains the debate surrounding the interpretation of these
archaeological features.
Indeed, Mayanists have uncovered many types of deposits relating to structural renovations that could fit the description of rededication rituals. The deposits most often
associated with the performance of such rituals are caches, occasionally referred to as
"placed deposits", consisting either of ceramic vessels or other materials, regularly containing partial secondary burials (occasionally referred to as "problematical deposits")
(Becker 1992:185-186; Chase and Chase 1998:304). As previously discussed, these caches are often placed over the underlying structure and then incorporated into the construction fill of the subsequent construction phase. However, caches are also regularly placed inside a pit dug into the underlying structure. As such, caches function as a ritual killing, or termination, of the earlier construction (Chase and Chase 1998:300; Kunen et al. 2002:200; Mock 1998a:5). Moreover, on-floor termination deposits can sometimes be incorporated in the caching process when a subsequent constmction phase covers them.
They can then be interpreted as cached, on-floor, termination deposits (Chase and Chase
1998:301).
Primary burials, potentially placed in a formal tomb, are also a normal feature accompanying structure renovations but, as previously mentioned, they seem to be more typical of dedication rituals (Becker 1992:188; Chase and Chase 1998:304; Gillespie
2001:91; McAnany 1998:276). The burials deposited during these rituals are variable in terms of the individuals they contain. Most of them, however, seem to contain the remains of important community members, such as a lineage head, or even an ajaw, as was the case for Pacbitun's Stmcture 1 (Gillespie 2001:91; Healy et al. 2004:234-235;
McAnany 1998:276). David Freidel (1998:192-193), in reference to the royal tombs of
Tikal, has suggested that some of Tikal's ajaws used compound contexts burials (see above) as political tools aiming at desecrating the burials of mlers from different dynasties, while bolstering their own legitimacy.
A complication regarding the definition and the classification of rededication rituals is that their deposition patterns vary greatly, both geographically and temporally
(Chase and Chase 1998:314-323, Pendergast 1998). This is easily explained when one considers the fact that caching has happened throughout most periods of Maya prehistory, as exemplified at places such as Lamanai, where caching was practiced from the Early
Preclassic all the way to the Contact Period (Pendergast 1998:56-61), or at Caracol, 21
where caching practices are documented from the Late Preclassic all the way to the
Postclassic (Chase and Chase 1998:327). At other sites, such as Rio-Bee, rebuilding
episodes are rarely associated with caching, and burials are generally not associated with
dedication rituals; interestingly, the rare burials found within architectural context
generally yield very few offerings (Dominique Michelet, personal communication 2009).
However, regardless of their differences, all these deposits had a purpose pertaining to the
circulation of k'ulel according to the jaloj-k'exoj philosophy: "The significance of a
dedicatory cache is not the value of its containers or contents, but rather the idea of birth
or ensouling that the symbolic act of dedication represents''' (Garber et al. 1998:128;
emphasis by the author).
In summary, the term "rededication ritual" refers to the performance of a. jaloj-
k'exoj related ceremony marking the renovation of ancient Maya architecture, and
involved the deposition of a variety of votive features, encompassing all the types of
dedication and termination features described above, ranging from a single lip-to-lip
cache to complex compound contexts burials.
Termination Rituals
As we have seen, dedication and rededication rituals served to infuse ancient
Maya architecture with its own k'ulel. This mystical force was thought to be very potent,
and when the Maya stopped using an architectural structure, they also had to take that
energy back, or release it (McGee 1998:41; Mock 1998a:10; Pagliaro et al. 2008:76-77;
Stanton et al. 2008:237; Walker 1998:96-97). Such termination rites have already been mentioned as the first component of the rededication ritual, but in that case the k'ulel was contained by, or transferred to the newly built superposed stmcture (Freidel and Scheie 22
1989:237; Walker 1998:95). This type of termination, sometimes referred to as
'desacralization' or 'deactivation', followed by a dedication, represents a certain type of
termination ritual. However, there is a second type of termination ritual which was
conducted with a different purpose. These were performed on architectural structures at
the time of abandonment, and were aimed at releasing the k'ulel of the building (Chase
and Chase 1998:301; Mock 1998b:115; Pagliaro et al. 2003:76).
Termination Rituals as a Continuation. As we have seen, dedication rituals are
still widely practiced among the modem Maya, especially in relation to their architecture.
However, Maya customs have changed since the Classic Period and Spanish conquest,
and this is the case for termination rituals in association with architecture, which are not practiced anymore. I believe there are two main reasons for this. First, the modem Maya,
to my knowledge, no longer practice the superposition of architecture. Consequently, rededication involving termination rituals do not take place. The second factor is that, nowadays, the Maya tend not to abandon their main settlement or, if they do, the matter is not well documented ethnographically. As the late William T. Sanders (2003:202) noted, there definitely is much more ethnoarchaeological research to be conducted with this
question in mind. With the data presently available, it appears that the cycling of ancestral k'ulel among ethnographically studied Maya, instead of involving rebuilding episodes
and interment of ancestors in communal or residential structures, operates in the spiritual presence of ancestors in domestic or natural shrines, or even at archaeological sites
(Hansen et al. 2009:55; McAnany 1995:29-31; Sharer and Traxler 2006:725; Vogt 2004).
The best example from contemporary Maya perpetuating the termination of the jaloj-k'exoj comes from the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, and it does not apply to architecture. The Lacandon conduct a termination ritual, which takes place during the 23 renewal ceremony of sacred incense burners. During this two month-long rite, new god- pots are made to replace the older ones that are to be decommissioned or killed. The latter are taken from their holy storage, placed on transitional palm leaf mats and "fed" a last time (Figure 2.2).
Then, most importantly, their sacred stones are removed and transfened to the new god-pots, hence transmitting their sacred energy (McGee 1998). Once "dead", and literally mourned, the old incense-bumers are discarded in a remote dry cave and covered with palm leaves (Figure 2.3). Only then do the new god-pots become fully sacred
(McGee 1998:44-45). I believe this Lacandon ritual embodies the jaloj-k'exoj in an almost perfect way. It is also an excellent parallel to termination rituals pertaining to rededication events.
****** •> fe
x .» -'J -• CM" • ,-•>*• •". . , .. >i
* .... ' ""* .* • !" ". —
i ; ...» • ...... ,,-».. I- !»•••• .5" . •*•..'• 6' . '?"»• •: -. <•• * • *
v
fc. • - **£&* I •>.u £ '•;• •
r — -.^^ * • _ * j" " . . ;„V. .- K-'l *. *••£•• . •' .-.•.•. -'V- 7- V" ..'"' .Ji- '•& •> T . ., . i- - - " ,,: ,.,-- i ,.,,..•• • fr . .—• p ^ % * "••••••*„ •-'• ..;.^- ,.-. >"* —-.A ' Jft ."" V f V '- '^ . -/^ '.'-^ iv. V ---:. Figure 2.2. Elder from the Village of Lacanja, Chiapas, Mexico, performing a god-pots feeding ritual. The god pots (in the far right row) are placed on a palm leaf mat (Photo by Jean-Claude St-Hilaire, 2010). 24
Figure 2.3. The entrance to a dry cave close to Lacanja. Human long bones and crania, belonging to ancestors, are mixed with "dead" god-pots (circled) and dried leaves. (Photo by Jean-Claude St-Hilaire, 2010)
Termination Rituals as an End. The final occupation of Maya structures and sites
is often archaeologically observed by what represents probable termination rituals. Their
uncertain nature rests in the fact that they are not as easy to identify as dedication or
rededication rituals. The main reason for that is they were not cached, but rather generally
lay exposed on the surface of floors. Consequently, once it reaches the archaeological
record, the material ensuing from a termination ritual, lying on a floor, is exposed to potential disturbance. Moreover, as pertaining to late occupations, spanning the late
Terminal Classic or Early Postclassic periods, these assemblages certainly include
ceramic types that are not as well documented and recognized as are most earlier types
(Aimers 2003:157; Gyles lannone, personal communications 2009). Thus, I suspect they
are often overlooked or mislabeled by archaeologists. Summary
So far, I have expressed how the Maya concept of the regeneration of life manifests itself in many ways in relation to architecture. More precisely, I looked at how the Maya infused a building with k'ulel at the moment of its construction, through the performance of a dedication ritual, and subsequently reactivated its k'ulel, in a cyclical fashion, with a rededication ritual for every new renovation of the stmcture. Finally, I discussed how termination rituals came to be, and ultimately released or confined this k'ulel, thus rendering obsolete the building or object's participation in the jaloj-k'exoj. It is important to understand how each of these rituals represents a point in the long life- cycles of Maya architecture, how they are related to both the jaloj-k'exoj and the veneration of the ancestors and, finally, how they are all contextually intertwined.
The artifactual remains we find in association with dedication, rededication, and termination rituals are only a fraction of the whole ritual process. However, by coupling these with ethnographic data, and with the help of iconography and epigraphy, we can acquire a reasonably good idea of the complex philosophy of the regeneration of life and its ties to architecture. It has to be stated, however, that even if termination rituals are a logical end for ancient Maya architecture, they are far from being the only artifactual signature for final occupation.
I will now explore specific aspects of behavioral archaeology which relate to settlement abandonment studies. Subsequently, I will present a behavioral-contextual approach to settlement abandonment which is, in other words, an interpretational method for analyzing on-floor assemblages. The objective of this method is to determine, through contextual and material observations, which formation processes are responsible for the creation of on-floor assemblages. SETTLEMENT ABANDONMENT
Behavioral Archaeology and Settlement Abandonment.
Behavioral archaeology, with Michael B. Schiffer as its chief proponent,
developed in the midst of processual archaeology. Even if several aspects of its original
'official' discussion (Schiffer 1976) were critiqued (see Binford 1981 for a good example), many features of behavioral archaeology had a strong influence on the field of
archaeology. Formation processes are among the most influential and significant
concepts brought forward by the behavioral approach. Formation processes can be either natural or cultural, and can also be referred to as n-transforms (natural) and c-transforms
(cultural) (Schiffer 1976). From the archaeological perspective, cultural and natural formation processes are the human behaviors, or natural factors, which affect material culture between the moment it is used in its original systemic context, to the point where it enters the archaeological record, and is eventually retrieved by the archaeologist
(Schiffer 1972). In other words, formation processes help to explain everything which affected the material we, as archaeologists, excavate and how it came to be buried in this particular state and context.
Settlement abandonment studies aim at understanding the behaviors of inhabitants at the time of their desertion of their camp, village, town, or city. These behaviors, or abandonment processes, represent "a key process in the formation of the archaeological record" (Cameron 1993:3). At the time of abandonment, the former inhabitants would most likely leave some material on the floor of their houses. 27
Schiffer (1985) originally listed eight types of "house floor assemblages" which
would have been created by various formation, or abandonment, processes: 1) Primary
refuse (discarded or lost material); 2) Abandonment refuse (midden-like accumulation of
discarded material not cleaned-up because of planned abandonment); 3) De facto refuse
(material which reached the archaeological record without the performance of discard
activities); 4) Ritual deposits (material ensuing from ritual behavior, such as a termination
ritual); 5) Post-abandonment uses (material that would either disturb or add to any of the
other categories); 6) Secondary refuse (material ensuing from post-abandonment dumping
into a house); 7) Post-abandonment collapse and fluvial action (natural formation processes which would disturb the material of the original floor assemblage); and, 8)
Post-occupational disturbances (natural formation processes, of faunal or floral origin,
that would disturb the material of the original floor assemblage). Of all these cultural and natural formation processes, the most unlikely to reach the archaeological context is de facto refuse.
In actuality, Schiffer (1985) specified that, for the existence ofde facto refuse in the
archaeological record, none of the following formation processes had to have affected the
cultural remains: 1) Curate behavior (subsequent relocation of the material by the exiling
agents); 2) Lateral cycling (reincorporation of the material into the systemic context by other agents); 3) Draw down; rather obscure process involving the reduction of the tool kit facing upcoming abandonment; 4) Scavenging {depletion ofde facto refuse by remaining and surrounding population after abandonment); or, 5) Collecting and looting
(depletion ofde facto refuse, long after the abandonment, by visiting agents).
These two lists of formation processes are quite complete and have become the source of inspiration, directly or indirectly, for all subsequent settlement abandonment 28
studies. Admittedly, my behavioral-contextual approach to on-floor assemblages, which I
will present further, is largely influenced by Schiffer's original lists of cultural formation
processes for house-floor assemblages.
Settlement Abandonment Among the Ancient Maya
The ancient Maya invested an enormous amount of energy in constructing their
architectural structures, and every Maya would have lived in a house (even though there
were great variations in elaboration). In such an architectural context, settlement
abandonment is best observed through on-floor assemblages. I refer to on-floor rather
than house floor, because many categories of buildings, not only houses, yield such
assemblages. Therefore, these artifactual assemblages are composed of the material
remains left on the floor of structures at the time of abandonment of the former population. Numerous behaviors may have led to the deposition of such artifacts. Here I
suggest a systematic typology, listing the numerous archaeological factors (or
abandonment processes) to take into consideration while trying to reconstruct the behaviors responsible for the creation of on-floor assemblages. These factors may relate
to discrete architectural attributes or artifactual patterns but, most importantly, they are primarily defined in a contextual approach.
On-floor assemblages can be divided into two broad contextual categories : 1) on-
floor refuse, and 2) exposed offerings (following lannone 1993, 2000). Each is further
divided into subcategories. Every category and subcategory is then associated with
formation processes encompassing potential agents and behaviors. These agents and behaviors are interpreted on the basis of artifact type, completeness, and function, and most importantly, architectural context. Subsequently, the on-floor categories are associated with two broad abandonment scenarios: gradual and organized, in a 'normal' case, or rapid and unplanned, in the case of military invasion or natural catastrophes.
On-Floor Refuse
The refuse category is associated with secular formation processes. In other words, all the cultural formation processes encompassed within this category were mundane, and the result of non-ritual activities. On-floor refuse may be divided into three main subcategories: 1) on-floor primary refuse, 2) on-floor secondary refuse, and 3) on- floor de facto refuse.
On-Floor Primary Refuse. On-floor primary refuse refers to the material remains which were left on the floor of architectural structures before abandonment, through discard or loss, and which were not further displaced (for curating in a midden, for example), by either the original inhabitants or post-abandonment squatters (Cameron
1993:3; lannone 1993:99-100; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999:21; Pagliaro et al. 2003:79;
Palka 2003:126-127; Schiffer 1975:56, 1976:33-34; Stanton et al. 2008; Suhler and
Freidel 2003:137).
A good example of on-floor primary refuse is debitage from stone core reduction, if found as it was deposited during the actual activity (lannone 1993:100). In other words, primary refuse is garbage that has not been transferred to a midden. In the case of the
Maya, where the population was dense and the occupation everlasting (Schiffer 1972:31-
32), the accumulation of primary refuse within architectural stmctures is unlikely. This is especially true given the ethnographically documented tendency of the Maya to regularly sweep and clean their living areas (Chase and Chase 2000:68-69; Hayden and Cannon
1983; Joyce and Johannessen 1993:139; McKee 2002:69; McKee and Sheets 2003:70). 30
However, in the case of post-abandonment occupation, either careless or episodic, the deposition of on-floor primary refuse might be more plausible. In effect, squatters, visiting scavengers, or pilgrims, as they were only reoccupying structures for a short period, may not have taken the time to carry their refuse to a midden (Palka 2003:128-
129; Suhler and Freidel 2003:143). Another hypothesis is that, when facing imminent abandonment, the original inhabitants grew careless and did not appropriately transfer their trash to a midden (Aimers 2003: 157; Palka 2003:128-129; Plunket and Urunuela
2003: 22-23; Schiffer 1976:33; 1985:207).
Another category of primary refuse may be created in post-abandonment context.
Indeed, ancient Maya architecture was well built, but not eternal, and like everything, it aged and deteriorated. At the time of collapse of a structure - which, as will be further discussed, could have been provoked - materials stored in the roof beams or rafters, on shelves, or in niches in the wall, could fall onto the floor (Beaudry-Corbett et al. 2002:48-
49; Chase and Chase 2000:69; Inomata 2003:52-53; Inomata and Striver 1998:436;
McKee 2002:59,64-65). Such material can be referred to as collapse debris (LeCount et al. 2002:46) and, theoretically, this should be visible stratigraphically (Chase and Chase
2000:69). By removing these materials from their original location, and most likely breaking them, these architectural degradation processes transfers these artifacts into primary refuse context.
On-Floor Secondary Refuse. On-floor secondary refuse, in an architectural context, refers to any material remains that ended up on the floor of structures, due to cultural or non-cultural factors, after at least one previous deposition (lannone 1993:100,
LaMotta and Schiffer 1999:21). Several behaviors may be responsible for this subcategory of on-floor material. As has been widely documented, post-abandonment 31 occupation at Maya sites is common (for recent and good examples, see Aimers 2003;
Child and Golden 2008; Hansen et al. 2008; Inomata 2003; Manahan 2004, 2008). In the advent of such settlement squatting, unoccupied structures may have served as loci for dumping trash (Aimers 2003:157; Chase and Chase 2000:81; Child and Golden 2008:82;
Stanton and Magnoni 2008a: 14, Schiffer 1985:211), which would have normally been discarded in unoccupied open areas around the household compound, and eventually recycled, but never dumped inside buildings (Chase and Chase 2000:68-69; Hayden and
Cannon 1983; Joyce and Johannessen 1993:139; Manahan 2004:112; McKee 2002:69;
McKee and Sheets 2003:70; Robin 2002:259; Schiffer 1976:34). Therefore, I refer to the accumulation of such refuse within a stmcture as post-abandonment dumping (Chase and
Chase 2000:69; Healan 2000:105; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999:24).
Non-cultural factors, such as bioturbation or animal scavenging, and cultural factors such as human scavengers or looters, may also have disturbed on-floor material situated within structures (Chase and Chase 2000:69-70; Schiffer 1976; 1985:208-209), thus transferring such material remains into the on-floor secondary refuse category, or simply removing it from the archaeological record.
On-floor De facto Refuse. De facto, as a context, implies that the excavated material was found exactly as it was left, or in situ, by the inhabitants at the time of abandonment, therefore not having been altered by post-abandonment cultural or non- cultural formation processes. It also implies that the material was still usable, and was not simply discarded (lannone 1993:100; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999:22; Schiffer 1985:201;
Stanton et al. 2008:231-38). There are two categories ofde facto refuse. The first, limited in size, is associated with gradual and organized abandonment processes, and relates to material that was stored in a structure for potential future use, or because it was not worth 32 bringing, and was never reused (Chase and Chase 2000:69; Joyce and Johannessen
1993:138, 151). The second category, more inclusive, is associated with rapid abandonment processes related to either catastrophic or military events. More artifacts should be present in this case (Inomata and Webb 2003:9), as all the material that was being used, and could not be brought away under the pressing circumstances, would have been abandoned as on-floor de facto refuse (Chase and Chase 2000:69; lannone
1993:100; Inomata 2003:58-60, 2008:288-89; McKee 2002:69; McKee and Sheets 2003) and remained so as long as it was not disturbed by post-abandonment processes (Chase and Chase 2000:69; Palka 2003: 128; Schiffer 1976:34; Webb and Hirth 2003:30).
In the case of a military-related, rapid abandonment, such as at Aguateca (see
Demarest 2006 and Inomata 2008), or of intense catastrophe-related abandonment, such as the effects of volcanism at Ceren (Sheets 2002), when the structures were heavily damaged by fire, sometimes leading to structural collapse, or purposefully collapsed through partial demolition, the on-floor de facto material would consequently be protected from post-abandonment disturbance (Chase and Chase 2000:69-70). Such an example is rather close to what is sometimes referred to as a Pompeii-like case (Schiffer
1985). Moreover, a structure made of perishable material, such as a wattle-and-daub, or a simple pole-and-thatch house, which was unable to resist natural deterioration like a firmly-built masonry elite buildings, would rapidly collapse over the on-floor assemblage, and before its decomposition, exposed less of its on-floor material to post-abandonment processes, such as scavenging or post-abandonment dumping. On the other hand, material not protected by any type of masonry, even if collapsed, will be more likely to suffer from natural formation processes, such as bioturbation (Chase and Chase 2000:70). 33
In summary, as we move from secondary, to primary, to de facto assemblages, we
also move closer to material that is more closely related to the systemic context, and is
less affected by disturbing formation processes (lannone, personal communication 2011).
Now that I have described secular formation processes, I discuss ritual-related, on-floor
assemblages, referred to as exposed offerings.
Exposed Offerings
The concept that the ancient Maya conducted some sort of termination rituals was
first discussed by William Coe (1958, 1965) in connection with the University of
Pennsylvania research at Piedras Negras and Tikal, Guatemala. These ritual features were refened to as a exposed offering, or terminal offering. However, these features were the
result of termination rituals as continuation, or rededication rituals, and were therefore
concealed under a new phase of construction. In other words, they did not relate to
settlement abandonment, but rather to rebuilding episodes and the rejuvenation of k'ulel.
The first Mayanists who, inspired by William Coe's work, identified termination rituals
as an end, or in association with abandonment, were part of the Southern Methodist
University team working at the site of Cerros, Belize (Freidel et al. 1998:135; Garber
1983, 1986). These termination activities were identified as rituals aiming at terminating the function of a temple, and involved several behaviors:
"Termination ritual deposits, on the. other hand, are defined as the activities associated with the termination or abandonment of a stmcture or area. They usually involve the intentional deposition and scattering about of decomposed limestone. This marl often contains smashed jade, stone spheroids, stone disks, sherd disks, crystalline hematite and smashed ceramic vessels, all of which are also associated with the termination activities" (Garber 1983:117). Since this first identification, the termination ritual concept has been refined,
and recognized at many ancient Maya sites such as Yaxuna (Freidel et al. 1998;
Suhler and Freidel 2003), Caracol (Chase and Chase 1998, 2000, 2004), Dos Pilas
(Demarest 2006; Palka 2003), Hershey (Harrison-Buck et al. 2007, 2008), Pook's
Hill (Helmke 2006a, 2006b), Blackman Eddy (Brown and Garber 2008), El Mirador
(Hansen et al 2008), Waka (Navarro-Farr et al. 2008), Piedras Negras (Child and
Golden 2008), Chan Chich and Dos Hombres (Sullivan et al. 2008), and Xunantunich
(LeCount 2010; Yaeger 2010).
However, the concept of termination ritual is not univocally accepted by the
Mayanist community. Especially in the case of on-floor termination deposits, or
exposed offerings, scholars rightfully show a good deal of skepticism in recognizing
the votive nature of the deposits (see Stanton et al. 2008:242 for a perfect example).
This contextual equivocality is also exemplified by the occasional designation of on-
floor assemblages as problematical deposits (see Clayton et al. 2005). Therefore, to
avoid skepticism, it is very important to provide a clear interpretative framework for
identifying exposed offerings.
From the behavioral perspective, what is crucial in the identification of exposed
offerings is that the behavior which led to the deposition of such material was related to a ritual, and not to mundane activities. Thus, using a clear interpretative method, it is
important to classify such on-floor material using a distinct category. Here, exposed
offerings are organized into three subcategories. The first two relate to termination rituals
- reverential and desecratory - while the third type of exposed offering is related to post-
abandonment veneration. 35
Reverential Exposed Offering. As previously discussed, the ancient Maya believed, as do the modem Maya to some extent, that a sacred energy, k'ulel, was flowing through everything and was being accumulated, especially in architecture (Loten
2001:231; Mock 1998a:10; Stuart 1998:395-96; Vogt 2004:32). After centuries of occupation by subsequent generations belonging to the same social unit, involving the burial of ancestors within architecture and numerous associated rituals, Maya architectural structures were thus charged with very intense k'ulel (Gillespie 2000:141,
2001:91; Lucero 2006:58; Webster 1998:16) (Figure 2.4). This explains, in the context of gradual abandonment, why the Maya conducted a reverential termination ritual which would release that accumulated energy to appease their ancestors (Chase and Chase
1998:301; Mock 1998a:10; Mock 1998b:115; Pagliaro et al. 2003:76-77; Stanton et al.
2008:237; Walker 1998: 96-97). As will be discussed further in Chapter Five, the beliefs related to termination rituals are also intimately intertwined with the social organization of the ancient Maya.
THE RITUAL LIFE OF A STRUCTURE
PRE-ABANDONMENT
CONSTRUCTION REVERENTIAL AND DEDICATION TERMINATION RITUAL CH'ULEL RELEASE AND ABANDONMENT
Figure 2.4. The hypothetical ritual life of a Maya architectural structure (figure by the author). 36
Let me present some archaeological factors relating to the type, function, and context of artifacts associated with exposed offerings, and discuss what differentiated them from mundane, on-floor material. First, there is a characteristic organization, or patterning, for exposed offerings. The artifacts associated with this type of ritual event are normally found aligned on the central axis (axis mundi) of the terminated stmctures
(Barrett and Scherer 2005:103; Brown and Garber 2008:168; Freidel and Scheie
1989:238; Mock 1998a:6; Navarro Fair et al. 2008:130-131). They may be found inside . the structure, but can also be found on the substructure, or the front steps of the building
(Chase and Chase 2004:364; Mock 1998a:6; Sullivan et al. 2008:104). They are sometimes also found scattered over wide areas in a manner that could not have been accidental (Inomata 2003:46-47). In general, these centrally-aligned broken vessels would have hindered, in a symbolic way, access to the terminated stmctures. Sometimes, as whole ceramic vessels would have been broken in situ during their integration into the archaeological record, they should be mostly reconstructible (Clayton et al 2005 :19,29;
Harrison-Buck et al 2007:84; Pagliaro et al. 2003:79-80).
These vessels, being associated with a ritual, would have different from the daily paraphernalia. Such ritual assemblages should mainly include censers, braziers, and serving vessels (Chase and Chase 2004; Pagliaro et al. 2003:79-80). They may also include other types of rarer and prestigious artifacts, such as jade, as seen at Cerros
(Garber 1983; Walker 1998: 95-99), or ceramic roller-stamps, as seen-at Dos Hombres
(Sullivan et al. 2008: 104), and Minanha (Figure 2.5). Even utilitarian vessels, when organized in a special manner, may have been integrated in termination rituals (as exemplified in the present study). 37
0 2 4 6cm Figure 2.5. Roller-stamp found as part of the on-floor assemblage of structure MRS 15- M2. Left, top view; center, side view; right, roll-out view (illustration by the author).
If the vessels all belonged to the same termination ritual, and were not the result of
cumulative depositions (Clayton et al 2005:129), they should pertain to the same
chronological period. Consequently, the vessels should all be related to the same
stratigraphic level and be closely cross-dated to the same time period.
Reverential termination rituals are often associated with structural damage, such as the defacing of stucco masks (Freidel 1986: 11-12; Freidel and Scheie 1989:239-240),
substantial or total collapsing of a structure (Navarro Farr et al. 2008:124; Suhler and
Freidel 2003:141; Walker 1998:96), or sometimes even the burying of the whole structure
(lannone 2005:34, 2007:3-6; Michelet and Arnaud2006 : 76; Trachman 2010:105-109).
Layers of white marl are also sometimes associated with exposed offerings, and these are probably related to damaged stucco features, plastered walls, or even construction fill
(Freidel 1986:11-12; Freidel etal. 1998:139-142; Garber 1986:117; lannone, personal communication, 2011; Inomata 2003: 52). These accumulations of white marl most probably had a ritual function; as a matter of fact, sak, 'white' in ch 'olan, also means
'sacred'(Coe 2005:164).
In some instances, the accumulation of broken vessels is so important that it practically blocks the access to structures, or even courtyards (Stanton et al 2008:240;
Mock 1998a: 10), or is pushed against the front of temples (Suhler and Freidel 2003:139; 38
Walker 1998:85). In these cases, these exposed offerings could be the result of a redeposition, and be considered as secondary refuse. In effect, reverential termination rituals most likely involved more than burning incense and smashing vessels. The fact that they are associated with serving vessels, or even jars, may imply two behaviors: 1) those vessels either contained food offerings (Chase and Chase 2000: 73), or 2) were used during feasting activities associated wit termination rituals (Brown and Garber 2008: 159;
Clayton et al 2005:119; Stanton and Gallareta N. 2001; Suhler and Freidel 2003:139), or both. In the case of feasting, it is possible that the feast would have taken place somewhere other than the locus of the deposition of the assemblages, such as in the patio or courtyard of the concerned architectural group (Clayton et al 2005:119). Then, after this event, at least some of the vessels used for the feast may have been dumped inside, or in front of key buildings, thus symbolically or practically blocking the access to it
(Navarro Farr et al. 2008:129-130). Such redeposited ceramic material, if it was smashed during the feast, could have reached its final locus of deposition in an incomplete state, as exemplified by this study. In this case, the exposed offerings would be the result of redeposition, rather than de facto material. Clayton et al. (2005) actually define this type of artifactual assemblage as ritual debris. However, under a behavioral perspective, I believe, as do Sullivan et al. (2009:109), that such activity is part of the termination ritual complex, and need not be ascribed a title other than exposed offering. Archaeologists while in the field (following Hodder 1999; lannone, personal communication 2009), when they are well aware of the context of such assemblages, should opt for a specific terminology, and justify it, rather than labeling this kind of deposit simply as problematical. The latter inhibits the debate on this type of assemblage, rather than contributes to it. 39
Desecratory Exposed Offerings. Desecratory Exposed Offerings are associated with the aforementioned case of rapid abandonment forced by military invasion. In this violent and belligerent context, the conquering Maya may have performed a desecratory termination ritual (Mock 1998a:9; Suhler and Freidel 2003:136; Stanton and Gallareta N.
2001:230). As for reverential termination, such a ritual would have obliterated the k'ulel from architectural features. However, in this case, the local inhabitants and ancestors would not have been honored. Quite the contrary, they would have been violated and maybe even killed.
The artifactual signature of this ritual formation process is very similar to reverential termination rituals, and potentially involves all the aforementioned traits.
However, it would normally include human remains in the form of articulated and disarticulated skeletons, either from the killed inhabitants, or from profaned ancestral tombs. Such termination rituals, which included human remains, were documented at Dos
Pilas (Palka 2003:127-128), Hershey (Harrison-Buck 2007), Tikal (Suhler and Freidel
2003:145-146), Colha (Mock 1998b: 115), Yaxuna (Suhler and Freidel 2003: 139-140), and Xunantunich (Yaeger 2010:157), among other sites. In other words, after the military conquest, the conquerors may have exhumed the remains of venerated ancestors from burials or caches, and scattered their bones, often mixing them with other materials, especially ceramics (Harrison Buck et al. 2007:81; Pagliaro et al. 2003: 80; Suhler and
Freidel 2003: 145-146). In the case where the remains are those of defeated inhabitants, the conquerors would have left the bodies of their victims on the floor (Palka 2003: 128) before proceeding with the rest of the ritual. This case would likely involve more complete skeletons and, if not, the bones should have defleshing marks (Harrison Buck et al 2007: 81). In the case of profaned ancestral bones, the remains would have been increasingly scattered and obviously disarticulated (Harrison Buck et al. 2007:81-82;
Harrison Buck et al 2008:66). This is even more likely given the tradition of the ancient
Maya to include the separate head and arms of their ancestors in 'sacred bundles' or caches (Navarro Farr et al. 2008:131; McAnany 1995, 1998:288), which would have contained previously disarticulated skeletal fragments.
Desecratory exposed offerings, here referring to both the human and material remains, are found scattered over structures or public spaces, with a tendency toward blocking the access to either stmctures or courtyards (Suhler and Freidel 2003: 145-146;
Harrison-Buck et al. 2007, 2008). These desecratory rites also often involve intensive burning activity, and accentuated structural damage, often leading to the collapse of stmctures (Pagliaro et al. 2003:79-80; Stanton et al 2008:236).
Military invasion, which would have disrupted regular activities and prevented the curation of any objects, would have, as previously mentioned, been propitious for the creation of on-floor de facto refuse, which could likely have been mixed with weapon- related artifacts such as spear or projectile points (Chase an Chase 2004:365). Such material could easily be integrated - voluntarily or not - in exposed offerings (Stanton et al. 2008:238), thus rendering these desecratory exposed offerings more of a palimpsest.
Moreover, this makes violent termination rituals harder to identify and more questionable
(i.e., they could simply be the aftermath of military brutality, and not formal rituals, as argued for the abandonment of Caracol's epicenter [Chase and Chase 2004:365]).
Another possible type of desecratory termination ritual is even harder to interpret, representing, in a relatively patterned manner, an accumulation of different ritual deposits, potentially mixed with more mundane, deposits related to the sacking of a site.
At Aguateca, where there is an incredible amount ofde facto refuse, there also seems to 41 be some ritual desecratory activity. In the case of its royal residences, desecratory termination rituals are argued for, based on high concentrations of objects (ceramic sherds, fragments of grinding stones, chipped stone tools, broken adornments, and fragments of alabasters with glyphic inscriptions including the Aguateca emblem-glyph), referred to as ritual deposits, that appear to have been "[...] dumped by the enemies when they ritually burned and destroyed the buildings [...]" (Inomata and Ponciano 2010:38).
Such assemblages, as noted by Inomata and Ponciano, could also have been created by the inhabitants before they fled. The desecratory hypothesis is, however, quite convincing when coupled with the facts that a seemingly sealed doorway had been broken, that the dense deposits were blocking the access doorways of the buildings, and that the main bench, or throne, had been mutilated (Inomata and Ponciano 2010:38-52). Moreover, in an adjoining room, broken and cremated human bones were found at the same level
(Inomata and Ponciano 2010:48). While one of these deposits, taken alone, would not be a particularly convincing example of desecratory termination ritual, at the broader contextual level, this represents a strong case for violent desecration.
I am, however, doubtful about assessing desecratory termination ritual on the sole basis of the burning of stmctures (Webb and Hirth 2003:41), even if related to indications of sacking (Stanton et al. 2008:236). I believe such a ubiquitous behavior is an aftermath of military customs, and is not necessarily based on religious beliefs.
Finally, some researchers argue that violent termination rituals would have included vessels of foreign origin (Stanton et al. 2008:240; Stanton and Gallareta 2001;
Suhler and Freidel 2003:144; Harrison-Buck et al. 2007:84; Yaeger 2010:157), probably transported from the conquerors' settlement, and potentially involved in either feasting or incense burning. This hypothesis is interesting in the sense that the analysis of such 42 material could inform us of the origin of the invaders. I am, however, not convinced that this type of behavior was necessarily common.
Post-Abandonment Veneration. Obviously, abandoned sites did not disappear from the physical world. Those constmcted landscapes acquire a special significance, making them an ideational landscape for its occupants, and for anyone encountering them in a post-abandonment context (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:12; Stanton and Magnoni
2008a: 10). The people living in the vicinity of those abandoned, constructed landscapes, or even the descendants of the former inhabitants of those settlements, all perceived them in a particular ideational way that was influenced by their social memory (see Stanton and
Magnoni 2008b, for numerous examples). Pilgrimages to abandoned sites, for episodic reverential rituals - sometimes referred to as ritual maintenance - are widely documented throughout Mesoamerica (Aimers 2003:157; Cameron 2003:209-210; Charles and Golden
2008:86-87; Chase and Chase 2004:354; Hansen et al 2008:53; Nelson 2003:78; Sanders
2003:200; Stanton and Magnoni 2008a: 14-15; Walker 1998:97; Winter 2003:114-115).
The archaeological signature of such assemblages is more discrete than for other termination rituals. Post-abandonment reverential ritual would have involved the deposition of ceramic material, especially incensarios and a limited quantity of feast- related ceramics, on the floor or in the slump of major architectural features (Aimers
2003:157; Walker 1998:97), thus creating exposed offerings. Obviously, those assemblages would post-date the abandonment of the concerned sites and likely be of foreign production; both factors are possible to identify, especially stratigraphically. 43
A BEHAVIORAL-CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO ANCDZNT
MAYA SETTLEMENT ABANDONMENT
My approach to on-floor assemblages and exposed offerings relies heavily on the
numerous studies of the subject discussed earlier in this chapter. My research is thus
aligned in the same direction as recent work on the subject, attempting to join behavioral
theory to Maya ritual idiosyncrasies, and trying to bridge theory and method. In the
following section of this chapter I discuss behavioral considerations from the contextual
and material perspective.
These behavioral considerations about the formation processes of on-floor
assemblages, or abandonment formation processes, allow us to posit two large categories
of abandonment scenarios: 1) gradual and organized, and 2) rapid and unplanned. I
summarize the expected composition of on-floor assemblages from architectural
structures in a list-form. The formation processes are organized by their creators, or
agents, and in three chronological episodes: pre-abandonment, during abandonment, and post-abandonment.
Gradual and Organized Abandonment:
Original Occupants:
Pre-Abandonment:
A. Very little on-floor primary refuse due to the clean nature of Maya refuse disposal
patterns.
B. Very little secondary refuse due to the clean nature of Maya refuse disposal
patterns. During Abandonment:
C. Some on-floor de facto refuse composed of material that was not brought away.
D1. Potential exposed offerings resulting from reverential termination rituals.
D2. Potential on-floor secondary refuse, or collapse debris, resulting from the ritual
demolition of architectural features and associated burning activity.
Squatters, Scavengers, Visiting Pilgrims, or Natural Processes :
Post-A bandonment:
E. Some on-floor primary refuse resulting from neglectful refuse disposal patterns.
F. Some on-floor secondary refuse, or post-abandonment dumping, resulting from
neglectful refuse disposal patterns, and as a consequence of vacant structures.
G. Potential disturbance of any on-floor material, transferring it into the secondary
on-floor refuse category.
H. Potential on-floor secondary refuse, or collapse debris, resulting from the
disintegration of architectural features.
I. Potential exposed offerings resulting from post-abandonment veneration.
J. Bioturbation or animal scavenging altering the archaeological on-floor record.
Rapid and Unplanned Abandonment:
Original Occupants:
Pre-A bandonment:
K. Some on-floor primary refuse, due to the catastrophic disruption of daily
activities. Very little on-floor secondary refuse due to the clean nature of Maya refuse
disposal patterns.
During Abandonment:
Important on-floor de facto refuse composed of material that was left there as a
result of the invasion of enemies, or of catastrophic events.
Invaders:
During Abandonment:
Potential exposed offerings, including human remains, resulting from desecratory
termination ritual.
Potential on-floor secondary refuse, or collapse debris, resulting from sacking
activities, or the demolition of architectural features and associated burning
activity.
Looting, thus altering the archaeological on-floor record.
Squatters, Scavengers, Visiting pilgrims, or Natural Processes:
Post-A bandonment:
Improbable on-floor primary refuse due to neglectful refuse disposal patterns.
Improbable on-floor secondary refuse, or post-abandonment dumping, for the
same results and as a consequence of vacant structures.
Potential disturbance of any on-floor material, transferring it into the secondary
on-floor refuse category.
Potential exposed offerings resulting from post-abandonment veneration.
Potential on-floor secondary refuse, or collapse debris, resulting from the
disintegration of architectural features.
Bioturbation or animal scavenging altering the archaeological on-floor record. SUMMARY
The ancient Maya developed an elaborate ritual system. One of their central beliefs was animistic and implied that a sacred energy, k'ulel, was flowing through
everything. Another prominent ancient Maya ritual concept was the philosophy of the regeneration of life, ox jaloj-k'exoj. Therefore, when the ancient Maya superimposed
architectural structures through ritual reconstruction events, they believed that the k'ulel
of the underlying structure was recycled by the superimposed, newly constructed building. At the time of abandonment of their settlement, the ancient Maya conducted termination rituals which were aimed at releasing the powerful k'ulel which had accumulated within their architectural structures. After their performance, these termination rituals left, as material remains, a variety of material on the floor of the terminated structures. This material, when found archaeologically, can be contextually referred to as exposed offerings, or on-floor assemblages.
However, on-floor assemblages excavated in ancient Maya architecture may also be related to behaviors different from termination rituals. In effect, a variety of abandonment processes, ranging from de facto refuse to site sacking, may create on-floor assemblages as well. This is why it is important to examine on-floor assemblages carefully in order to postulate which behavior was responsible for its deposition. A careful interpretative method for understanding on-floor assemblages must study their material components, and most importantly, their architectural context.
The two broad scenarios listed in the last section of this chapter are the fruits of an attempt at systematizing the variability of the formation processes involved in the abandonment of Maya settlement. The next chapter proceeds with a presentation of the 12 on-floor assemblages which were found at Minanha. Subsequently, in Chapter Four, the interpretational framework described in this chapter will be applied to each of these assemblages and, through this process, the ancient Maya behaviors responsible for their deposition will be postulated. 48
CHAPTER THREE: DATA
The purpose of this research is to explore the abandonment processes for the different segments, or geographically defined strata, of the Minanha community through the study of 12 on-floor assemblages. This chapter begins by outlining the sampling strategy adopted by the Social Archaeology Research Program (SARP) and explains how my research sample came to be excavated. This is followed by an overview of each of the seven architectural groups and 12 structures from which these on-floor assemblages were recovered. This overview focuses on the geographic location and function of those architectural groups and structures, and briefly describes the context and material of the on-floor assemblages.
THE COMMUNITY APPROACH OF SARP
Gyles lannone (2006b: 16), the principal investigator of SARP, adopted a community approach for studying the site of Minanha. This approach emulated the research design of the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (XAP), directed by Wendy
Ashmore and Richard Leventhal (Ashmore et al. 1994; lannone 2006b: 16). The XAP
"[...] adopted a balanced perspective in their examination of the Terminal Classic transition, with investigations being carried out in both the epicenter and surrounding hinterlands" (lannone 2006b: 16). Similarly, one of the premises of lannone's community approach, which was inspired by the work of Yaeger and Canuto (2000), was to study equally all the segments of the Minanha community. Therefore, members of SARP first surveyed the Epicenter, then a one square km zone encompassing the surrounding area, 49 the Site Core Zone, and finally a second one square km zone situated to the south-east of the Epicenter, in the Contreras Valley. Over the course of 12 years, 14 architectural groups were mapped in the Epicenter, 39 were found in the Site-Core zone (Figure 3.5), while 98 were identified in the Contreras zone (Figure 3.8).
The research program was divided into two phases. Phase I concentrated on the intensive archaeological study of the Epicentral royal court complex (lannone 2006b: 1) where nine groups and 25 structures were partially excavated (Hills, personal communication 2011). Phase II focused on extensive survey and excavation of the Site
Core Zone and the Contreras Zone (lannone 2006b:2). According to the XAP classification scheme (Ashmore et al. 1994), all of the 137 groups in these two zones were stratified based on seven types. The parameters of this classification scheme are the quantity of mounds, their height, and their degree of formal arrangement (see Appendix
B). In order to look at every stratum, or segment, of the community, a stratified random
sample of 20% was employed to select all the architectural groups to be excavated
(lannone 2006b). However, the stratified random sample was reduced to 15% for the
Contreras Zone due to the ever-increasing number of groups discovered during the detailed reconnaissance (lannone 2009:4). At the end of the 2009 field season, after the detailed investigation of 8 architectural groups and 37 structures in the Site Core Zone, as along with 15 residential groups and 41 stmctures in the Contreras zone, Phase II was completed (lannone 2009).
As previously "mentioned, seven architectural groups excavated during Phases I and II are studied in this thesis. During the excavation of these groups, on-floor assemblages were recovered from 12 structures. Those 12 on-floor assemblages, which constitute the best archaeological marker for the abandonment of the site, were 50
interestingly distributed across the three segments of the Minanha community: 1)
Epicenter; 2) Site Core Zone; and 3) Contreras Zone. The Epicenter (segment one)
encompasses the royal court complex, which includes a variety of elite residential,
administrative, and ritual structures. The Site Core Zone (segment two) includes all the
architectural groups situated around the Epicenter and encompassed by the one square km
survey zone, while the Contreras Zone (segment three) corresponds to the numerous
architectural groups situated in the one square km survey area of the Contreras Valley.
THE 12 ON-FLOOR ASSEMBLAGES OF THE MINANHA COMMUNITY
This section explores the 12 stmctures that revealed on-floor assemblages. First, I will present the four structures from the Epicenter which had on-floor assemblages:
Structures 12A, 43L, 44L, and 45L. I will then present Structures 76S and 91R, the two buildings from the Site Core Zone which revealed on-floor assemblages. Finally, I will discuss the six structures from the Contreras Zone which contained an on-floor
assemblage: Structures MRS4-M1, MRS15-M2, MRS15-M3, MRS15-M5, MRS89-M1, and MRS89-M4.
Segment One: The Epicenter
The Epicenter of Minanha (Figure 3.1) constitutes the most prominent architectural concentration of the site. The heart of the Epicenter is Plaza A, which represents the most public space at the site. Group F, an important elite courtyard, lies to the west of Plaza A. The border between these two architectural groups is occupied by Stmcture 12A, a large range structure. During the excavation of Structure 12 A, an important on-floor assemblage was uncovered.
0 50 100 150 200 Surveyed by C. AgnewandA Menzies Figure 3.1. The Epicenter; Segment I of the Minanha community (SARP). To the north of Plaza A lies the North Acropolis, towering 22 m above the pi floor. The southernmost group on the acropolis is Group J, which was the royal 52 residential courtyard. The acropolis extends further north in a succession of three architectural compounds (Groups K, L, and M). During the excavations of Group L, on- floor assemblages were found in each of its three structures (Structures 43L, 44L, and
45L).
(raag) •»•••••• Mill 11 |
Figure 3.2. Top-plan of the architectural complex including Structure 12A (SARP).
Structure 12A. Stmcture 12A is a range structure which borders the western side of the main plaza of Minanha and constitutes the eastern edge of Courtyard F (Figure
3.2). Structure 12A - which is 6.47 m tall, 40 m in length, and 20 m in width (Seibert
2002:7) - is one of the few vaulted masonry structures identified at the site, and has the typical top-plan of a tandem range structure, with two rows of four rooms facing opposite directions (Plaza A and Courtyard F). Structure 12A also has a central passageway that would have led individuals from Plaza A to Courtyard F. This narrow corridor, which 53
connects with the two central rooms facing Plaza A, represents a very restricted control
point for the courtyard group.
The strategic position of this structure and its layout has led SARP archaeologists
to ascribe it a public and administrative function (Seibert 2000, 2001, 2002). More
specifically, following Harrison (1999), this structure, characterized by its passageway
corridor, has been assigned to the passage structure function-type (Seibert 2002:7).
Therefore, its eastern face, overlooking Plaza A from a wide staircase, would have had a
public function, while its western face, which could only be accessed from the restricted
Courtyard F, would have had a more private function (Seibert 2002:7-8). The excavations
conducted in 2002 revealed that Structure 12A had at least two construction phases, both
dating to the Late Classic period. It is during the Terminal Classic occupation of the
second Late Classic phase of construction that the extensive on-floor assemblages of
Structure 12A were created.
The on-floor assemblage of Structure 12A was divided into seven features
(Features 12A-F/1 to 12A-F/7) which, interestingly, were mainly found lying on the floor
of its passageway corridor (Figure 3.3). More specifically, Feature 12A-F/1 was placed just to the left of the entrance of the central passageway, and included the upper section of
four jars (including the lips, rims, and parts of the shoulders), three of which were
stacked. The three stacked jar mouths were of the Zibal Unslipped type, while the other
was a Cayo Unslipped. The same feature also included one broken Dolphin Head Red
bowl.
Features 12A-F/2 and 12A-F/3 were simpler, as both included a partial jar, but did
not include any diagnostic sherds. Nonetheless, I have tentatively identified these as Cayo
Unslipped, on the basis of surface, temper, and estimated size. Feature 12A-F/2 was 54 placed just beside the bench of the southern passageway front room, about a meter away from Feature 12A-F/1. Feature 12A-F/3 was roughly placed in the middle of the passageway.
Figure 3.3. Top plan of Units 12A-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, showing Level 3, or the terminal floor occupation, and its seven features. The units top-plans were superimposed on the reconstmction to provide a clearer architectural context (SARP). 55
Feature 12A-F/4 was found on the southern bench facing the central passageway, and is a single fragmentary vessel which was ascribed, during excavations, to the Late
Classic. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the vessel for analysis. Feature 12A-F/5, placed on the floor in front of the same bench, included the upper section of a partial
Cayo Unslipped jar.
Feature 12A-F/6, which was found on the floor just beside the eastern entrance to the corridor represents the only non-ceramic artifact from the assemblage. It is a large ground stone disc, which looks like a giant circular mbbing stone, and is similar to the pigment grinding stones from the House of the Scribes in Aguateca, Guatemala (Inomata
1997:346; Inomata and Stiver 1998:442-447; Seibert 2000:48). This has led Seibert
(2000:48) to suggest that some scribal activities may have taken place inside this stmcture, which strengthens the hypothesis of an administrative function for Structure
12 A.
Finally, Feature 12A-F/7, which was excavated on the bench of the north-eastern room, included five partial vessels. These are a Zibal Unslipped jar, a Dolphin Head Red bowl, a Mount Maloney Black bowl, and the only two fine volcanic ash tempered vessels of the on-floor assemblage: two Platon Punctated-Incised dishes (see Figure 4.4, p.l 10, for an example of this type of vessel).
Group L. Group L is located on Minanha's North Acropolis, at approximately 50 m north of the royal court residential courtyard, Group J (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). Group L is architecturally intriguing, organized in a U-shaped patio group, with its courtyard opened towards Group J. Unlike Structure 12 A, Group L's buildings were not made of vaulted masonry. Its buildings consisted of a masonry substructure, accessed by two out-set steps, 56 supporting perishable structures with low lying double-faced walls (Paauw 2007:113-
115). Structure 45L was slightly more elaborate than its flanking counterparts, having a two-tiered substmcture for supporting its rooms (absent in Figure 3.4). Of importance are the large masonry benches present within the perishable structures (Paauw 2007:113-
115), which were the largest benches excavated at Minanha (lannone, personal communication 2011). The location of Group L, atop the North Acropolis, suggests that the group held a special position in the settlement hierarchy (Paauw 2007:194).
Figure 3.4. Computer-modeled artistic reconstruction of Group L, facing North (Illustration by Derek Paauw).
The conjunctive study of Group L's architecture and artifactual collections did not yield a clear answer regarding its function (Pauuw 2004, 2005, 2007). Although its architectural layout suggests a residential function, Group L has no associated ancillary structures, shrines, or burials, which are normally found in residential groups (Pauuw
2007:195-196). This suggests that if Group L was residential, it would have been atypical.
Furthermore, the group yielded only one constmction phase (dated to the Late Classic period), which created a "cookie-cutter" plan, where each room had the exact same proportion; a unique case at Minanha. The occupation of Group L appears to have been 57
contemporaneous with Group J's use as the royal residential courtyard, and likely lasted
during its Terminal Classic occupation as well. Based on this set of data, Pauuw
(2007:203) suggests that the original Late Classic function of the group was communal, proposing "boys pre-marital house" or "scribal training school" as the more likely
functions for the group, and "community-house", or popol-nah, as an alternative hypothesis. It is then suggested that the occupation of Group L, after the demise of the royal court during the Terminal Classic, may have shifted towards residential functions
(Pauuw 2007:204-205). It appears that Group L, which was closely tied to the royal
residential courtyard, was dynamic in nature and probably had some sort of residential
focus (especially during the Terminal Classic), with a range of associated complementary
functions, ranging from administrative to ritual, as exemplified by its probable extensive termination ritual (see Chapter Four for a discussion of the matter).
Figure 3.5. Isometric Plan of Group L, showing its excavations units (SARP). 58
Quite interestingly, all three structures of Group L revealed an on-floor
assemblage. These were recovered along the central axis of each structure, as this was
where the excavation units were set (Figure 3.5). These assemblages were situated on the
floor of the Late Classic constmction, but are associated with the Terminal Classic
occupation of the group.
Figure 3.6. Top plan of Unit 43L-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal floor occupation, and its three on-floor features (SARP).
Structure 43L. The western building of the group, Structure 43L (Figure 3.6), revealed three on-floor features (Features 43L-F/1, 43L-/F2, and 43L-F/3), which were all situated in the northern portion of the excavation unit. The first feature was found lying on the patio floor, beside the front step; the second feature was found on the northern part 59 of the building platform, just in front of the stmcture's front wall; while the third feature was recovered on the floor within the northern half of the room, in front of the bench.
These features included three partial vessels, including a partial Cayo Unslipped jar, and a partial miniature vessel. Feature 43L-F/3 also included a ground stone celt.
Structure 44L. The eastern building of the compound, Structure 44L, had the simplest on-floor assemblage of the group (Figure 3.7). Indeed, this assemblage only consisted of a single partial jar (Feature 44L-F/1) placed on the floor of the structure's room, in front of the bench.
Figure 3.7. Top plan of Units 44L-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal floor occupation, and its on-floor feature (SARP). 60
Unit 45L-1
Back Wall 71 -^A-^^ho
Room Divider Wall
Bench
63 U8SJ—£^~> -i 1% *a$S?" C/5 89 Os'L TO .®frJ;^r£;bJja&- SSO O CM & -I—>- knr84V^ *'-~~P*x*\zM^i S>
Front Wall 0V/ I <*V_^J?H> \ .... , 75 1?„ Terrace Step 128 C/l %s 146 - ,.k.-i- outsets"* .>-•>- 0 20 40 60cm C^^x-^-^s^^^Cl^^ * 45L-F/2 Courtyard Surface Courtyard Surface Unit 45L-2 Figure 3.8. Top plan of Units 45L-1 and 45L-2, showing level 3, or the terminal floor occupation, and its two on-floor features, Features 45L-F/1 and 45L-F/2 (SARP). Structure 45L. The northern structure of the architectural group, Structure 45L (Figure 3.8), yielded the most important on-floor assemblage of the group. This assemblage consisted of two features (Features 45L-F/1 and 45L- F/2) representing two 61 extensive layers of artifacts, including numerous ceramic sherds. Feature 45L-F/1, which covered the entire floor of the room, was divided into five clusters (C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4 and C/5). Clusters C/1 and C/2 were found on the substructure's floor, directly in front of the entrance to the building. Cluster C/3 was excavated on the room's floor, inside the doorway. As for Clusters C/4 and C/5, they were also found on the room's floor, scattered around the bench. Feature 45L-F/2, on the other hand, was excavated on the courtyard floor, in front of the steps of the structure. Taken as a whole, these two on-floor assemblages represented an extensive layer of "loose" on-floor ceramic material (totaling 142 diagnostic sherds), including partial and complete vessels (n=4) and numerous (n=15) lithic artifacts, including several intact pieces (such as chert bifaces and ground stone tools). The reconstructible vessels, which were only part of Feature 45L-F/1, included two ink / poison pots (see Figure 4.3, p. 106, for an example of this type of vessel), one miniature vessel, and one Late Classic Mount Maloney Black bowl. Feature 45L-F/2 did not include any reconstructible vessels, and consisted of a large quantity of sherds (see Chapter Four for a discussion of this material). Segment II: The Site Core Zone The Site Core Zone refers to the area surrounding the Epicenter. This zone comprises 39 architectural groups (including isolated structures), eight of which were excavated during the second phase of SARP (Figure 3.9). Other groups, including Group R, were excavated for particular reasons (see below). On-floor assemblages were recovered from the two largest of those 39 groups, Group R and Group S. 62 Figure 3.9. The one square km of the Site Core Zone; Segment II of the Minanha community (SARP). Structure 91R. Group R (Figure 3.10) is one of the most unusual architectural groups at Minanha. It is also the second largest settlement unit of the Site Core Zone. Unlike all the other excavated architectural groups at the site, Group R was not part of the original sampling strategy, but was rather excavated specifically because of its size and unorthodox architectural composition (Herbert et al. 2002; Prince 2000; Prince and Jamotte 2001). It was suggested that Group R was an administrative complex which might have served as an entry check point for Minanha's Epicenter (Prince and Jamotte 63 2001:63). However, the materials recovered from Group R's excavations have yet to be fully analyzed in order to confirm this hypothesis (Herbert et al. 2002:79). Figure 3.10. Isometric plan of Group R (SARP). Group R is situated on a raised platform measuring approximately 50 m by 50 m, and has one major elongated sub-structure supporting three perishable structures (71R, 92R, and 93R) on its western side. It also has a smaller structure, Structure 91R, on its north-eastern corner, which is a low, but wide (12 m in length), south-facing substructure that supported a perishable structure containing a rectangular bench. Structure 91R had two construction phases, both dating to the Late Classic period. During the excavation of Structure 91R, an on-floor assemblage was found on its terminal floor (Prince 2000). The on-floor assemblage from Structure 91R (Figure 3.11) was found along its central axis, lying on the preserved plastered floor of the room, in front of the bench. The on-floor assemblage included four partial vessels: one Terminal Classic dish of the Platon Punctated-Incised type (see Figure 4.4, p.l 10, for an example of this type of vessel), one Terminal Classic bowl of the Mount Maloney type, one Alexanders Unslipped jar, as well 64 as non-diagnostic sherds from a second jar which, on the basis of surface, paste, and estimated size, I assigned to the Cayo Unslipped type. Unit 91R-1 Ocecc: & QD mag. o 4&bm$ preserved * oO -i Feature 91R.-F/1 2# m m 3 CNQDCD ^0#^oQ3 O Figure 3.11. Top plan of Structure 91R, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its on-floor feature, 91R-F/1 (SARP). Structure 76S. Group S (Figure 3.12) is the largest architectural group in the Site Core Zone. Following Becker (1999, 2009:69), its layout is a perfect plaza-plan 2, being a residential group with a shrine or temple on its eastern side. It is composed of a large raised courtyard (measuring ca. 50 m by 50 m) which is circumscribed by nine residential structures, one small platform, and a tripartite temple. All of these structures have been excavated during three seasons of field work. Indications are that the group was probably settled in the Early Classic period (Zehrt 2006, 2007). Of interest for the present study is the northern structure of the tripartite eastern shrine, Structure 76 S. This structure yielded three major construction phases (dating back to the Early Classic period), plus a 65 modification to its terminal architecture (Zehrt 2006). The terminal architecture of Structure 76S consisted of an unusual C-shaped platform topped by a C-shaped bench, with a small, extension-like, northern platform. The actual superstructure, if there was one (absent in Figure 3.12), was perishable. Unlike the other on-floor assemblages included in this study, the examined material from Structure 76 S, which was recovered from its above-floor levels, was not originally labeled as an on-floor assemblage (Figure 3.13). However, the reason why it is included in this study is that," after reexamination, it appears that this on-floor material did constitute a massive on-floor assemblage. Figure 3.12. Artistic reconstruction of Group S, facing North-East (illustration by the author). Specifically, a very large amount of material, including lots of pottery, was recovered from the above-floor levels (Levels 1 and 2). These sherds, which included 564 diagnostics, were scattered across the surface of the structure, with the majority concentrated along its central axis (Zehrt 2007). This ceramic material was fully analyzed and the results of this analysis are discussed in Chapter Four. In association with this on- 66 floor assemblage, a feature (76S-F/1) labeled as Offering Termination-Cache (Structural) was excavated. Feature 76S-F/1 consisted of the infilling of the interior space of the small "room" formed by the C-shaped bench (Zehrt 2006:38). This feature was constructed by sealing the space between the door jambs, and capping the enclosed space with capstones, and the feature probably held some perishable material, as well as a small adze and a few ceramic sherds (lannone et al. 2006:125; Zehrt 2006:38). Figure 3.13 Top plan of Unit 76S-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and the structural termination cache, Feature 76S-F/1 (SARP). Segment III: The Contreras Zone The Contreras Valley is particularly impressive because its landscape is almost entirely anthropogenic (Macrae 2009) (Figure 3.14). Indeed, this agricultural and hilly area was both extensively and intensively modified by the construction of agricultural 67 terraces (Macrae 2009; Macrae and lannone 2009). Three of the 98 architectural groups of the Contreras zone are important for this study: Groups MRS4, MRS 15, and MRS89. 32 I i 48 %_ _5S • a . \ I X / so r f^*, • & \J .5lSl1f * A"1 A60 \ A4 .65 /^-\ 52 54 / V, ^_ / „~N ""s •/ + * '\ / x •/ V , V 7 MRS4 20 48 / 103 101 A ->-x / + + • we A ioz» 4 / ' f A f \ • 10S 1 \ 7' * J ^ XT' If »A 43 3 \ 4 * A N? 14*^-"S19~i~x# A • I / ^ 1 AT \ \ 114 X } I \ 97 -^ \. 96» 33 * \»*lAMRS89 \ \ 26 =, J • < / ; ^? m \ * m / S A77 '' M \+ A~ / f **• £/ • *\ « A / 86 *-. c-SK + \ # / * / ( A* 11 V^, g.^f-1 91 \ Xjy 74 V •> - &> 82 J \ • A7 85 A x i \ 79 ^ \ i t A / i Z»S?50 [yj • Type 7 * Chultun i * Type 6 + Sinkhole Contreras Survey Zone 1 • Types + sPnn8 T # Type 4 Data Source Social Archaeological Research Program > . T Created By Scott A Macrae J A lype3 0 25 SO 1Q0 150 2O0 250 II • Type 2 W • Type 1 Figure 3.14. The square km of the Contreras Zone; Segment III of the Minanha community (SARP). Structure MRS4-M1. Group MRS4 (Figure 3.15) is the largest of the architectural groups in the Contreras Zone. As with Group S, it is orthogonally organized in the plaza- plan 2 style, but in a much simpler way. Group MRS4's structures are built atop a large sustaining platform (ca. 40 m by 45 m), and include three large domestic structures, as well as three smaller ones. All of these domestic structures are located on the southern, 68 western, and northern sides of the platform, while the eastern side is occupied by a small pyramidal temple, Structure MRS4-M3. The latter, as with the eastern shrine of Group S was an important, ritually-charged structure. Indeed, it contained two burials and two caches, which were all placed along the primary axis of the structure (Schwake 2003). The burials contained a total of four individuals (Snetsinger, personal communication, 2011). Structure MRS4-M3 has proved to yield three phases of construction, with the antepenultimate phase dating back to the Terminal Preclassic period. This is also the case for Structure MRS4-M5, the second largest residence of the group (McCormick 2008:57- 59). SurveyedbyAMenaes&J Philips Figure 3.15. Isometric plan of Group MRS4 showing the excavation units (SARP). The important structure for this study is the largest residence of the group, Structure MRS4-M1 (Figure 3.16). Unlike the two aforementioned structures, it only has one phase of construction, dating to the Terminal Classic period (McCormick 2008:50- 53). Structure MRS4-M1 consisted of a fairly large substructure accessed by two steps, and an additional small outset step for accessing its room, which yielded a rectangular 69 bench. The excavation unit was set along its primary axis, and this is where five ceramic clusters (Clusters C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4, and C/5) representing its on-floor feature were located. These ceramic clusters were recovered, in an organized fashion, on the various "steps" of the structure, and represent a total of six fragmentary vessels, as well as several individual sherds. Four of these vessels were plainware jars, one was a Yalbac Smudged Brown bowl, and the last one was a Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer (see Figure 4.1, p. 103, for an example of this type of vessel). Bench ;;;:; ex;;; oociso f& C/1!'°a5V%^ Platform ST.' .CScftwa C/3V f A Cut Stories ' ""^ tut Stouts 0 « ^! V Mag. C/4 Step 0 30 60cm CXSW^Q;-;: >\ 'V. 7 124 ( '•*""". 174BUD C ourtyard 172 BUD , L^^jC^ ^ Figure 3.16. Top plan of Unit MRS4-M1-1, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and the five clusters of its on-floor assemblage, MRS4-M1-F/1 (SARP). 70 Group MRS15. Group MRS 15 is among the few larger groups of the Contreras Valley, and is composed of two distinct patio groups, which is unusual at Minanha (Figures 3.17 and 3.18). These two patio groups are situated quite close to one another, on two adjacent terraces of different elevation. Both groups consist of three domestic structures, with the largest one placed on the eastern edge of both patios. These patios are open on their western side, and oriented towards their relatively close, and significant neighbor, Group MRS4 (McCane et al. 2009:15). Figure 3.17. Artistic architectural reconstruction of Group MRS 15, facing south-east (illustration by the author). Structure MRS15-M2 is the largest and earliest building of the group (McCane et al. 2009:18). Its first phase of construction is associated with a dedication burial, which was placed on the bedrock, and was dated to the Middle Classic period. Being the only structure with an associated burial, and located on the eastern edge of the group, Structure MRS15-M2 was likely the ancestral focus of the group (McAnany 1998:279). Overall, it seems that while this eastern patio was settled during the Middle Classic period, the western patio was built only during the Terminal Classic period. Group MRS 15 revealed on-floor assemblages on three of its structures. 71 Figure 3.18. Isometric plan of Group MRS 15, showing its excavation units and its surrounding agricultural terraces (identified by single black lines on the map) (SARP). Structure MRS15-M2. Structure MRS15-M2 is a rather elaborate domestic structure. It originally had three steps leading to a platform, which supported a large perishable structure that comprised two benches (the occurrence of two benches in one structure is exceptional) (Figure 3.19). One bench was rectangular and placed along its northern side, while the second was L-shaped and occupied the south-eastern corner of the building (McCane et al. 2009:18). Structure MRS15-M2 yielded the most important on-floor assemblage of the group, with two features, and some associated material. The on-floor features excavated on the floor of Structure MRS15-M2, Features MRS15-M2- F/l and MRS15-M2-F/2, represent a considerable quantity of material. These features, placed side-by-side on the floor of the room, in front of the L-shaped bench, may be 72 considered as a whole. Feature MRS15-M2-F/1 included four partial vessels: one small Cayo Unslipped jar, two Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers (see Figure 4.1, p. 103, for an example of this type of vessel), and one brazier base, while Feature MRS15-M2-F/2 included two complete bowls of the Yalbac Smudged Brown and Daylight-Orange type- varieties. Other material associated with Structure MRS15-M2's floor, though not incorporated within the formal features, included a roller-stamp (Figure 2.5), an ink / poison pot (see Figure 4.3, p. 106, for an example of this type of vessel), and a partial metate. Additionally, two unidentified lithic artifacts and a few unclassified small bone fragments were associated with the on-floor assemblage (McCane et al. 2009:21-24). Figure 3.19. Top plan of Structure MRS15-M2, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its two on-floor features, MRS15-M2-F/1 and MRS15-M2-F/2 (SARP). 73 The on-floor materials appear to have been mixed, through natural formation processes, with the above-floor levels. Therefore, the ceramic material (including almost 500 diagnostic sherds) from these levels was analyzed for Structures MRS15-M2, MRS15-M3, and MRS15-M5, and the results of this analysis are presented in Chapter Four. Figure 3.20. Top plan of Structure MRS15-M3, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its on-floor assemblage (SARP). Structure MRS15-M3. Structure MRS15-M3 is a medium-sized domestic structure, and is composed of a wide building platform (almost 6 m in width) accessed by a step, on which was constructed an unusual square platform (Figure 3.20). At the time of excavation, there was a large tree growing on the middle of this platform and, consequently, the excavation unit was set on the western third of the mound. An on-floor assemblage was excavated close to the western edge of the substructure. This on-floor assemblage was quite simple, and included only one partial unidentified calcite-tempered 74 bowl, placed on the south-western corner of the substructure, as well as one complete mano, placed on the same axis, on the front step. ———it*———•* ---•>r o .»- --* T -v. 32 cm I'5 c4 • I.J *• * Bench Q 19 c tn Room ,^2c^i3o £ Step Tread Mag. J 3,cm mtmmtZZn 0 30 60cm £ ""J <^53cirr £231 £? MRS15-M5-F/1|x5£. stcPTre^ U CJ 81 cm ^s V —"Tracm _ _ . i -. , : r~" J 118 cm Step Tread Courtyard Figure 3.21. Top plan of Structure MRS15-M5, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its on-floor feature, MRS15-M5-F/1 (SARP). Structure MRS15-M5. Structure MRS15-M5 is a large domestic structure, comparable to Structure MRS15-M2 in its elaborateness, and represents the definite focus of the western patio (Figure 3.21). The building consisted of a large substructure topped by a C-shaped platform (not apparent in figure 3.21), accessed by two steps, which supported a room that consisted of a massive C-shaped bench. Its on-floor assemblage, Feature MRS15-M5-F/1, was discrete and included one vessel, which was a near complete ash-tempered Platon Punctated-Incised dish (see Figure 4.4, p. 110, for an 75 example of this type of vessel), typical of the Terminal Classic. This vessel was found halved, on the second step of the front staircase of the building, along its central axis. Group MRS89. Group MRS89 is smaller than any other group discussed in this thesis. It is situated, along with three other small residential groups, atop a small ridge that dominates the south-western portion of the Contreras Valley (Figure 3.22). Group MRS89 is composed of four small domestic structures orthogonally arranged around a patio (McCormick 2007:89-95, 2008:17-23). Interestingly, two of its structures yielded on-floor assemblages. Figure 3.22. Isometric plan of Group MRS89 (SARP). Structure MRS89-M1. Structure MRS89-M1 was a small residence with the typical, simple design of a substructure supporting a perishable structure that yielded a bench along its back wall, and only had one phase of construction. This structure yielded 76 an on-floor assemblage, Feature MRS89-M1-F/1, which consisted of a layer of sherds scattered on the floor of the room, and on the substructure in front of it, along the central axis of the building (McCormick 2007:90), where a doorway would have been (Figure 3.23). These sherds were refitted into seven partial vessels: three bowls, two jars, one dish, and one censer. Two of the bowls were of common type-varieties (Rubber Camp Brown and Garbutt Creek Red), while the third one was a rare bowl of the Belize Red type. The dish was also of the Belize Red type, the censer was of the Chiquibul Scored- Incised type (see Figure 4.1, p. 103, for an example of this type of vessel), while the jars were both of the Cayo Unslipped type. A small stone scraper was also associated with the ceramic material. Sub-unit MRS89-M1-1a 74 Bl Rear of building / {completely deteriorated) £-/- -J\-t- Bench surface (deteriorated) 33BUD MRS89-M1-F/1 ""' ~~' Room floor - ~szr&9 "f^ag^S 52BUD Mag <~1 Building platform (detenorated) 4r*< • aamm 75BUD 0 30 60cm Figure 3.23. Top plan of Structure MRS89-M1, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its on-floor feature, MRS89-M1-F/1 (SARP). 77 MRS89-M4. Structure MRS89-M4 (Figure 3.24) was an even simpler domestic structure composed of a building platform supporting a small perishable structure that did not contain a bench. A simple on-floor assemblage, Feature MRS89-M4-F/1, consisting of an unidentified partial jar, was recovered on the floor of the substructure (McCormick 2008:20-22). Q latfbrai 59BJM> D D D CD Stent *—' / i _ji»' % ••• I" m' «2 B l!.» Cwatyajd Surface SO 100 wn Figure 3.24. Top plan of Structure MRS89-M4, showing Level 3, or the terminal architecture, and its on-floor feature, MRS89-M4-F/1 (SARP). SUMMARY The 12 on-floor assemblages which are the object of this research were found in each segment of the Minanha community. Within the Epicenter, four on-floor 78 assemblages were found: one in Structure 12 A, and one in each of the structures of Group L (Structures 43L, 44L, and 45L). Two on-floor assemblages were found within the Site Core Zone: one in Structure 91R, and one in Structure 76S. Finally, six on-floor assemblages were found in the Contreras Zone: one in Structure MRS4-M1, three in Group MRS15 (on Structures MRS15-M2, MRS15-M3, and MRS15-M5), and two in Group MRS89 (on Structure MRS89-M1 and MRS89-M4). This distribution of on-floor assemblages represents an interesting opportunity to study the differential abandonment scenarios for each stratum of the social spectrum represented at the site of Minanha. In the following chapter, these assemblages will be examined in further detail, and the behaviors responsible for their deposition will be postulated. 79 CHAPTER FOUR: BEHAVIORAL-CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE ON-FLOOR ASSEMBLAGES In the previous chapter, I examined the architectural context for each of the 12 on- floor assemblages included in my research collection, and presented an overview of the material included in each assemblages. In this chapter I describe my ceramic analysis, and then apply the interpretative method (presented in Chapter Two) to each on-floor assemblage. During this process I will examine the composition and context of the on- floor assemblages. More precisely, I will first study the classes, types, and completeness of the vessels. Secondly, I will analyze the context of the assemblages in terms of patterning, and association at the structure and group levels. Throughout this process comparisons are made consistently within the collection and at the inter-site level. At the end of the chapter, I will provide a synthesis aimed at classifying the 12 assemblages with respect to the different categories of settlement abandonment processes. I will conclude by providing a chronology for the abandonment of the site and discuss the behaviors responsible for the deposition of each assemblage. CERAMIC ANALYSIS Methods All the material discussed in this thesis, apart from Group L's ceramics (which were analyzed by Derek Paauw in 2005), was analyzed between the months of May and July, 2010, at Martz Farm, Cayo District, Belize. I followed the type-variety: mode analysis methods described by James C. Gifford (1976), and used Sabloff s (1975) formal 80 attribute description for ceramic vessels. This analysis method, adapted by Dr. lannone, has been consistently used by SARP archaeologists. My collection included 1177 diagnostic sherds, which either comprised parts of the rim or base, or yielded some decorations, or appendages, such as a foot. In terms of terminology, as we do not have defined a ceramic typology for Minanha proper, I followed the ones established for Barton Ramie (Gifford 1976) and Xunantunich (Lecount 2002) in the Belize River Valley to the North, and Caracol to the south (Chase and Chase 2004). For behavioral purposes, I considered the completeness of the vessels as a diagnostic aspect during my analysis. The vessels represented by two or three sherds (or roughly 10% of the vessel) were considered fragmentary, those represented by more than three sherds (or between 10 and 80% of the vessel) were classified as partial, and vessels that were reconstructible in their entirety, or that were only missing a few sherds (80% or more of the vessel), were considered complete. Consequently, I used individual vessels (either fragmentary, partial, or complete) for analytical units in the case of on-floor assemblages. However, in the case of above-floor material (including material recovered on the surface, or in the humus, slump, or fall levels) where individual vessels were comparatively scarce, I used individual sherds for my analytical units. Limitations This research consisted of my first formal type-variety: mode ceramic analysis. Therefore, I likely made some mistakes in my classification of sherd types, but I can assure the reader that I conducted this analysis to the best of my abilities. Other limitations to this study include the context-labeling issue. Indeed, on-floor assemblages are detectable only if they are carefully excavated. It is therefore possible that such 81 assemblages have been overlooked during the excavation of architectural structures at the site. Moreover, as exemplified by structures from Group MRS 15, ceramic sherds that were part of the original on-floor assemblages may well have shifted, due to natural or cultural formation processes, towards above-floor levels. This is why, ideally speaking, I would have processed the ceramic material from the above-floor levels for each assemblage, as I did for Structures 76S and Group MRS 15. This would have allowed me to search for sherds that were part of the on-floor partial and fragmentary vessels. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, this was not possible. Doing so could have played a role in changing the completeness of the on-floor vessels, and also may have provided information as to the terminal function of the structures, especially in the cases where the ceramic material had not been fully analyzed by another member of SARP. Another limitation of the present study is due to time constraints and excavation strategy choices, and relates to horizontal exposure of structures. Indeed, none of the excavations described in this thesis targeted the entire surface of mounds; they either focused on one of their halves, or their central axis. Therefore, some of the inferences presented in this thesis could be invalidated if the whole of the terminal floor for each structures were to be excavated. ANALYSIS OF THE 12 ON-FLOOR ASSEMBLAGES FROM THE MINANHA COMMUNITY In this section I present the results of my behavioral-contextual interpretational analysis. I begin with an overview of the whole collection, and then proceed with each assemblage. I will first look at the assemblages from the Epicenter, and then move on to 82 the Site Core Zone, and finally the Contreras Zone. For every case I postulate the behaviors, or abandonment processes, responsible for the deposition of the assemblage. Overview I will begin by presenting the 11 on-floor assemblages2 (Table 4.1) , then proceed with the results of the analysis of the four above-floor levels assemblages3 (Tables 4.3 and 4.4). On-floor Material. The primary class, or form, of vessels may be very informative regarding their function, as well as the role they played in the behavior responsible for their integration into the archaeological record. The classes of vessels statistically considered in this study are jar (or olla), bowl, dish, and censer (or incensario), the latter being grouped with brazier. Other vessel forms which were statistically insignificant were grouped with unidentified ones. However, in many cases, I refer to those uncommon vessels in my qualitative analysis. Not surprisingly, the most common class in the on-floor collection is the jar, with 40.8%. This percentage is very high in comparison to the other classes present in the on- floor assemblages, and slightly higher than the average for Minanha (38.2%), although within the standard deviation (see Table 4.2). All jars contained in the assemblages were of coarse paste and span three types, with a strong tendency towards Cayo Unslipped. Bowls, mostly of calcite temper; represent 24.4%, which is slightly lower than the average for Minanha (30.1%). Bowl is the class that has the most variety in types (n=8). 2 This number excludes the assemblage from Structure 76S, as its material all came from Levels 1 and 2, and was only later associated with the floor of the structure (see below). 3 This number includes the above-floor assemblages of Group MRS 15, and the total number of analyzed structures remains 12. 83 Dishes, with two ash-tempered types, were rarer and only represent 10.2% of the total, which is less than half of the average for Minanha's assemblages (23.2%), and is even out of the wide standard deviation for this class. Censers (including braziers) are generally a rare class (with an average of 0.4% ). Therefore, with 10.3%, and even if censers are the least represented class, it is very significant to find this class of vessel in such proportions: about 25 times higher than the site average. The only type of censer represented in the assemblage is the Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer (see Figure 4.1, p.103, for an example of this type of vessel), and the only brazier, from MRS15-M2, is the base of a Composite Three Prong Brazier (Figure 4.2). The "Other / N/A" category includes the vessels which were unidentifiable, one censer lid, three ink / poison pots (see Figure 4.3, p. 106, for an example of this type of vessel), and two miniature vessels. Structure Jar Bowl Dish Censer/Brazierj Other/N/A Total 12A 8 2 o 8 1 14 43L 1 0 0 0 f; 2 3 1 44L 1 0 0 0 '"' 0 1 45L 0 1 0 0 3 4 f 91R 2 1 1 0 0 4 MRS4-M1 4 1 0 1 0 6 MRS15-M2 1 2 0 3 1 7 MRS15-M3 0 1 0 0 0 1 MRS15-M5 0 0 1 0 0 1 MRS89-M1 2 3 1 1 0 7 MRS89-M4 1 0 0 0 0 1 To|a| aid 20 12 5 5 7 49 40.8% iil4,4% 10.2% 10.2% 14.3% 100% Table 4.1. Count of the vessel classes from the on-floor assemblages. Units refer to single vessels (either fragmentary, partial, or complete). Standard form fGroup. '•-• AC AQ K u Average Deviation Jar - 28.1% 36.5%> 35.3% 40.0% 42.0% 47.3% 38.2% ':.6..53|| Bowl 28.7% 29.9% 26.9% 34.0% 36.3% 24.8% 30.1% • I4;lf|/a1 Dish 39.6% 28.8jj>r 14.2% - ;J.4»/of 16.5% 25.7% 23.2% Censer 0.0% s?-|i#ljj| 1.1% |^#frr' 0.6% ; 0.0%"- 0.4% QMo[ Others/N/A 3.6% P, IS1I| 22.5% imjlt" 4.4% < 2.2% 8.9% 7.7%i Table 4.2. Averages and standard deviation of vessel classes for six groups of the Minanha community (after Longstaffe 2010 and Slim 2004). 84 Above-Floor Material. I decided to group the material from the above-floor levels separately from the on-floor assemblages because they represent two very different type of assemblages. In effect, the humus and slump levels, comprising the above-floor levels, mainly contained individual sherds, no complete vessels, only several partial vessels, and relatively few fragmentary ones. Consequently, single sherds were used for analytical units. Moreover, they represent 1060 sherds out of a total of 1176 (or 90%), and including them with the on-floor assemblages would have been statistically misleading. .Class-' / Jar ""Bowl j, Dish Censer/Brazier Other/N/A it Total •jres-t.._:•;.; 263 *'2iT/'r 72 3 15 ;'--,.564. ^mSlSh^l^k 42 |948..;.:* 47 16 11 |/ 164 MRS15-M3 • 59 1V M#:.:|i 4 0 13 rHlfJ5 fcHSlS&*S'%# 100 j^>51' ;•*., 24 35 16 \ 226 TWSi-: • -ft 464 *'%•%&!& 147 5- 55 i Table 4.3. Count of the vessel classes from the above-floor assemblages. Units refer to single sherds. fXtass :/ '"'"''""" Jar |. Bowl','. Dish Censer/Brazier Other/N/A Total 76S-1 46.5% ^%-frty 12.7% ,, ;u .0.5% ./>';'" 2.7% 100.0% MRS15-M2 25.6% \ 2§;3%- -; 28.7% Y;J?\ %*f&&J;£ 6.7% 100.0% ; MRS15-M3™. 56.2% $Z%J6$y, 3.8% ' • '. _a0%l_t3 12.4% 100.0% MRS15-M5 44.2% ^'22.6%^ 10.6% jr.. j/lS.5% . 7.1% 100.0% Total ".-/•>•<$ 43.8% • 32.0%" 13.9% '': ''•'" 5.0%; v#:i 5.2% 100.0% Table 4.4. Percentages of the vessel classes from the above-floor assemblages. The proportion of non-identifiable classes for above-floor assemblages was significantly reduced because I was able to access all the material for my analysis. Consequently, the percentage of each class was increased, in contrast to the on-floor material. Jars are still the dominating class, with a slightly above average percentage (43.8%), followed by a normal proportion of bowls (32.0%), a low proportion of dishes (13.9%), and a high percentage for censers (5.0%). The "Other / N/A" category (5.2%), 85 includes a pot stand, two censer plugs, some rare vase (referring to relatively tall, cylindrical-shaped containers) sherds, and unidentified vessels. Detailed Analysis: Epicenter Structure 12A. Structure 12A's on-floor assemblage (Figure 3.3) includes the largest number of partial vessels (n=14) found at the site, which were all either placed along the central passageway of the structure, or on the bench of the north-eastern room of the structure. In terms of dating, one of the two fine-tempered dishes present in Feature 12A-F/7 was a typical Terminal Classic Platon-Punctated-Incised dish (with linear incisions around the hole in their rattle-feet; see Figure 4.4, p.l 10, for an example of this type of vessel). Also, Feature 12A-F/5 included the mouth of a Cayo Unslipped jar, which had a pie-crusted lip, also characteristic of the Terminal Classic (Aimers 2003:154). Even though there are two Zibal Unslipped jars in the assemblage, which are generally ascribed to the Middle Classic (Gifford 1976), and even if several of the diagnosed partial vessels date to the Late Classic, it seems that this on-floor assemblage was created early in the Terminal Classic. In terms of patterning, Features 12A-F/1 to 12A-F/6 were placed along the central passageway of this structure, which would have effectively blocked, in a symbolic manner, the access to Group F. If the placement of these vessels was accompanied by the purposeful collapsing of the corridor's vault, which is hard to assess, then the blockage would have been physical also. Such a case was observed at the site of Hershey, in the Sibun River valley of east-central Belize, where the accessway leading to an elite courtyard was ritually terminated, and then covered by collapse debris (Harrison-Buck et 86 al. 2007, 2008). In that case, however, the assemblage included human remains, and it is thus considered to be a desecratory termination ritual. There were eight partial jars in the whole on-floor assemblage. Interestingly, three of the jars, represented by their mouths (part of Feature 12A-F/1), were stacked one inside the other. The stacking of vessels has been observed in ritual contexts elsewhere, including Santa-Rita Corozal, Cerros (both situated in northern Belize) and Pacbirun, and is refened to as a symbolic opening towards the underworld (Chase and Chase 2005:116; Healy et al. 2004:230-231; Walker 1998:86). I cannot confirm that this was the meaning of the stacking of ollas in Structure 12A, but such a patterning for partial vessels clearly expresses a special purpose. The case of Feature 12A-F/7, which was placed on the bench of one of the public rooms facing Plaza A, is harder to interpret. In contrast, the only excavated room which faced into Courtyard F did not yield any on-floor material. Thus, it is plausible that, if a termination ritual was performed outside of the passageway, as expressed by Feature 12A-F/7, it would have been aimed at terminating the public function of Structure 12A, as opposed to its more private function associated with Courtyard F. This is supported by the fact that the only non-ceramic artifact present in the assemblage was the aforementioned large rubbing stone (Feature 12A-F/6), which was associated with scribal, administrative functions. Structure 12A has not revealed the complete regeneration of life cycle within its architecture; it only yields the termination part. Even if it is possible that other ritual features were missed by the excavation units, the non-domestic, non-ritual, and administrative function of the building supports the lack of association with interred ancestors. 87 In summary, it seems plausible that Structure 12A was ritually terminated sometime during the early Terminal Classic (ca. 810-850 A.D.) by individuals who were seeking to terminate its accessway corridor, as well as its public function. It may be possible to link the obliteration of the passageway to Group F rather than to Structure 12A itself. However, further excavations would be necessary in Group F in order to determine this. The agents who performed this termination ritual carefully stacked purposefully broken jar mouths and placed numerous other partial vessels, some of fine quality, on the floor and benches of this corbelled-vaulted building. Given the form and partial nature of the vessels, it appears that the vessels could have been involved in feasting activities, which might have taken place in either, or both, Courtyard F and Plaza A. It has been argued that feasting events should create middens including twice as many serving, or ceremonial vessels, as they include jars (Hageman 2004; Clayton et al. 2004). This is not the case here, where jars represent almost 60% of the assemblage. Nonetheless, this assemblage is not a midden, and its vessels were probably individually selected; therefore the ratio is not applicable to this particular case. Consequently, I do not reject the feasting theory for this assemblage. The vessels could subsequently have been ritually broken at the locus of the feast, and then carefully laid on the floor of Structure 12A. Finally, the vaults of Structure 12A were potentially dismantled, a fact that would have physically blocked the access to both the structure itself and to Courtyard F. Situated in such a prominent place within Minanha's most public space, this terminated structure would have had a strong impact on the Epicenter's landscape and function. Group L. The excavations of Group L revealed a type of on-floor assemblage that is unique at Minanha. It has the particularity of occupying every structure of the group 88 (Paauw 2004, 2005). The most important assemblage came from Structure 45L (Figure 3.8), where two on-floor features were excavated. These extensive, yet well patterned, on- floor assemblages are larger than the on-floor assemblages of Structure 43L and 44L, and would have effectively symbolically blocked the access to Structure 45L. Interestingly, two miniature ink / poison pots (see Figure 4.3, p. 106, for an example of this type of vessel) were found in Feature 45L-F/1, as well as another unidentified miniature vessel, which altogether represented three of four recovered individual vessels (the fourth one being a bowl). This ratio is curious, but not surprising, as miniature vessels have a greater chance of remaining relatively intact than larger, more fragile ones (Inomata 2010b: 160). However, given the rarity of ink / poison pots, their association with a potential termination ritual may be significant. Indeed, Paauw (2007:217) suggests that the miniature vessels may relate to scribal activities, a function that was also suggested for Structure 12A (see above), although there is a possibility that ink / poison pots were containers for tobacco powder (Inomata, personal communication 2011). Nonetheless, if ink / poison pots were used for scribal activities, this could be indicative of a certain administrative function for Group L. At Yaxuna, in the northern Yucatan, a "poison bottle" was also found mixed within a thick layer of white marl, in a terminated elite residence, Structure 6F-4 (Freidel at al. 1998:142). As very few individual vessels were present in the on-floor assemblage of Structure 45L, the on-floor 'loose' sherds (n=142) are discussed here for a better understanding of the abandonment processes of the building. The loose ceramic material from Structure 45L included a very high proportion of jars (57.7%), and less than 20% of both dishes and bowls, which is relatively low (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). This assemblage also has the particularity of including 5.6% vases, which is 89 a rare form at Minanha (with an average of 0.9%). This distribution for the vessel forms, with very few serving or ritual related sherds, likely indicates a utilitarian, domestic function for the vessels included in the on-floor material (Paauw 2007:214). However, the presence of eight vase sherds is contradictory to this assertion. The scarcity of reconstructible vessels, and the importance of individual sherds, could support the hypothesis that this ceramic material was gathered from surrounding middens and then dumped on, and in front of Structure 45L. However, the presence of several intact chipped stone artifacts and of the complete and partial vessels contradicts this hypothesis. Primary "*'•'.'*- " Others / 'Class,,, jar bowl dish vase N/A Grand Total l4%fi-F|i, ;%. 55 15 26 3 3 102 4$L-F/2 27 8 0 5 0 40 jfOtaK ,vJ=j; 82 23 __ 26 8 _ J 142 Table 4.5. Count of the on-floor loose ceramic material from Structure 45L. Units refer to single sherds. ,p__»^»__ ^,,^.....,,.,| j Others/ Wj^ss''^-^- jar bowl dish lyase N/A Grand Total ! Hfci/l ' 53.9% \r$4.i$fd \ 25.5% %^B%^'.;. 2.9% 71.8% :45Mfey7 67.5% ; 20.0%;' 0.0% %2*5%! 0.0% 28.2% T^tal •--''•? 57.7% .iM$%. 18.3% :. 5.6% '; 2.1% 100.0% Table 4.6. Percentage of the on-floor loose ceramic material from Structure 45L. In summary, the case of Structure 45L's on-floor assemblage is quite equivocal. On one hand, the on-floor assemblage appears to be related to elite / administrative activities (with the ink / poison pots and the vase sherds), potentially representing de facto or primary refuse while, on the other hand, it seems to be related to domestic secondary refuse (with the overwhelming proportion of jars). Let us look at the two other structures from this group before proceeding with more interpretations. In contrast to Structure 45L, few materials were left on Structure 43L's floor (Figure 3.6). Its three on-floor features consisted of three partial vessels, including 90 another unidentified miniature vessel, a partial jar, and an unidentified partial vessel, as well as a heavily weathered groundstone celt (Paauw 2004:43). These features were not centrally aligned, and would not have symbolically blocked the access to the structure. Taken individually, this on-floor assemblage appears to be primary or secondary refuse, and somewhat resembles the on-floor assemblages of Structures MRS15-M3 and MRS89- M4. Structure 44L's on-floor single partial jar (Figure 3.7), isolated in the northern corner of the room, is even less easily ascribed to ritual behaviors, and also looks like primary or secondary refuse. The six features that made up the on-floor assemblages of Group L include many artifacts, and are quite diverse in terms of raw material. Unfortunately, few of the individual vessels of the on-floor assemblages were identified. Also, even if they were originally assigned to Late Classic dates, lannone (personal communication 2011) posits that many of them were type-varieties that were used during the Terminal Classic period as well. Therefore, the ceramic material indicates an early Terminal Classic date (ca. 810 A.D.) for the deposition of the on-floor assemblages. When taken as a whole, the on-floor assemblages from these three structures could be associated with feasting events (Paauw 2007:211-213) that could have taken place in Courtyard L, but the near-absence of reconstructible serving vessels, the presence of several intact chipped stone artifacts, and the high proportion ofjars , indicates a different behavior. The material from Structure 45L is not very different from the description of post-abandonment dumping. However, the absence of faunal remains and the presence of usable material, indicates that the assemblage would not have been a midden from daily refuse. The contrast between still-usable material and the midden-like deposit is curious, and it seems plausible that these two categories of material were 91 deposited at a different time. Therefore, it is possible that the intact material represents de facto or primary refuse, which would have subsequently been covered by the rest of the on-floor material. It seems plausible that this material was mostly gathered from surrounding refuse deposits. Paauw (2007:211) also argues that the three structures could have been intentionally collapsed, a fact that would explain why the lithic artifacts (including intact blades and projectile points) would not have been taken away by scavengers. The successive symbolic blocking of the access to Structure 45L by the deposition of a large quantity of refuse along its central axis - symbolically blocking the access to the room - followed by the collapsing of the structure, which would have physically sealed the building off, does represent a good case of reverential termination ritual. Thus, it is possible that this structure was the focus for the ritual termination of this group. I suggest that, early during the Terminal Classic period (ca. 810 A.D.), Structure 45L was terminated and that, probably contemporaneously, some partial vessels were either placed, or simply left, on the floor of its two adjoining structures. Subsequently, all three buildings were potentially purposefully collapsed, a fact that would have kept the material in situ. I suspect that the deposition of the on-floor assemblages of Structures 43L and 44L was done complementarily to the formal ritual termination of Structure 45L. Consequently, the termination of Group L is to be understood in the group context, rather than separately for each structure, as is also the case for Groups MRS 15 and MRS89 (see below). As with Structure 12 A, Group L did not embody the whole jaloj-k'exoj, but only its tail-end, and was closely related to the royal court residential courtyard. Unlike that of Structure 12A, however, the function of Group L is unclear. I suggest that its function was a mix of royal-related administrative activities, but that it also served as a residence, 92 where "[...] courtiers lived a significant part of their daily lives in [a] domestic setting" (Inomata 2010a: 3). Complementary domestic activities, such as food preparation, could have taken place in a 'centralized' kitchen, situated in a neighboring group, such as Group K or M (lannone, personal communication 2011), as was suggested for Caracol's and Tikal's elite residences (Chase and Chase 2000:74). This highlights the fact that the institutionalized, administrative function of ancient Maya royal courts is not mutually exclusive of its domestic counterpart (Inomata 2010b:3). In other words, as with Structure 12A, the termination of Group L might be related to its ties to the royal court, rather than to ancestral veneration. This termination event, however, would have had a lesser impact than Structure 12A's termination on Minanha's landscape, as it was secluded from the public areas of the Epicenter. The non-violent termination of royal-related buildings (not palaces), as an outcome of the demise of a royal court, has also been documented at the site of Piedras Negras (Child and Golden 2008). There, during the Terminal Classic, the access to a sweatbath associated with the royal acropolis, Structure J-17, was obstructed by the dumping of refuse on its front steps, in its vestibule, as well as its chamber, a fate that was paralleled at other structures associated with the royal court (Child and Golden 2008:82). A similar termination ritual (albeit in a non-royal context) was also conducted during the Terminal Classic in the sweatbath situated in the most important residential group of the small site of Pook's Hill, Belize (Helmke 2006a:80, 2006b: 185-186). Summary It appears that the on-floor assemblages recovered within Minanha's Epicenter are related to the ritual deactivation of structures and groups that were functionally related to 93 the royal court complex. It is possible that these ritual terminations involved feasting activities, but no evidence supports incense-burning activity. Indeed, not a single censer sherd was associated with the on-floor assemblages of the Epicenter; a situation which is in stark contrast with non-epicentral on-floor assemblages (see below). Moreover, these potential termination rituals focused on whole groups, by either blocking their entranceway, or by being conducted on every structure. This is in accordance with the documented tendency of reverential and desecratory termination rituals in epicentral, royal-elite related context, to focus on whole groups, as expressed at Hershey (Harrison- Buck et al. 2007, 2008), Dos Hombres (Sullivan et al. 2008), and Xunantunich (Yaeger 2010). As will be discussed in Chapter Five, these termination events also coincide with the ritual termination of the royal house of Minanha (lannone 2007), and appear to have been performed relatively soon after the infilling of the royal residential courtyard, early on during the Terminal Classic. Now, we turn attention to the far less documented topic of abandonment at ancient Maya sites: the non-elite context. Detailed Analysis: Site-Core Zone Structure 91R. Group R, as previously mentioned, is an unusual architectural group at Minanha. Its unusual configuration, combined with its large size (only slightly smaller than Group S), led SARP archaeologists to ascribe a non-domestic, administrative function to all of its structures (Herbert et al. 2002; Prince 2000; Prince and Jamotte 2001). However, Structure 91R, which revealed an on-floor assemblage (Figure 3.10), outside of this unusual architectural context, is in no way different from a large domestic structure. The on-floor vessels associated with this structure - two coarse jars, and two Terminal Classic diagnostic vessels, a Mount Maloney Black bowl and a Platon Punctated-Incised dish (see Figure 4.4, p.l 10, for an example of this type of vessel) - were all partial, and positioned in a seemingly disordered manner. Thus, they could have been broken elsewhere before they were placed inside the building. This case is somewhat comparable to Structure 12A's on-floor assemblage, but more similar to the domestic on-floor assemblages of Structure MRS89-M1 (see below). This on-floor assemblage represents one of the only special features of Group R. If it is, indeed, evidence for a termination ritual, this assemblage is, once more, the only part of the jaloj-k'exoj embodied by the structure. Indeed, Structure 91R does not yield a dedication burial, nor any cache features. It is, however, important to mention that a collapsed burial was found in front of the south-eastern corner of the building (Prince 2000:58-65). This burial was radiocarbon-dated to the Early Postclassic period (conventional date [B.P.]: 1000 ± 40; 1 Sigma cal AD: [1010-1040]; 2 sigma cal AD: [980-1060], [1080-1150]) and, due to the lack of associated Postclassic material with Structure 91R, was considered intrusive. Therefore, the individual contained in that burial could not have been an ancestor to the agents who left Feature 91R-F/1 on the floor of Structure 91R at moment of its abandonment. Group R's function has been suggested to have been an administrative complex which might have served as an entry check point for Minanha's Epicenter (Prince and Jamotte 2001:63). However, it seems probable that the seat of such function would have been the large range building consisting of Structures 71R, 92R, and 93R, not the much smaller Structure 91R. Furthermore, the material from Group R's excavation was never formally analyzed, and the administrative function for the group has never been 95 confirmed. Consequently, the function of Structure 91R is hard to assess. It is hard to postulate, as I did for Structures 12A and 45L, that the on-floor assemblage of Structure 91R was aimed at terminating the function of the building. It would also be far-fetched to ascribe to the same assemblage a termination typical of fhe jaloj-k'exoj complex, as no buried ancestor is directly associated with the building. In summary, it is possible that the four partial vessels from Feature 91R-F/1 were used in an event, such as a feast, within Group R, during the Terminal Classic period (810-900 A.D.), and then ritually broken. Subsequently, these broken vessels could have been placed in the entrance of the building, symbolically blocking its access. It is, however, impossible to confidently ascribe a ritual behavior to this on-floor assemblage. Indeed, the structure does not seem to have been ritually charged at the time of deposition of the assemblage, and it is not possible to securely argue that a termination ritual would have obliterated any specific function. The possibility that the material in this on-floor assemblage was deposited by other means than a ritual is, therefore, the most logical explanation. In summary, I suggest that Feature 91R-F/1 was deposited on the floor of Structure 91R through mundane activities, such as primary or secondary refuse disposal. This hypothesis is supported by the lack of clear patterning for the on-floor assemblage, although this disorganization may have been the result of subsequent cultural or natural formation processes. Further insights into Structure 91R and Group R itself will only be possible if its excavated material is further analyzed. Structure 76S. The case of Structure 76S is different than any other studied in this sample. As previously mentioned, the material from Structure 76S discussed in this thesis was not originally labeled as an on-floor assemblage. It consisted of a very large amount 96 of material, including thousands of sherds retrieved from the humus and slump levels (Zehrt 2006:35-38). The diagnostic sherds (n=565) were composed of a very large proportion of jars (46.5%), followed by a high proportion of bowls (37.3%), a low proportion of dishes (12.7%), three censer sherds and two partial miniature vases (represented by one sherd each). During the analysis of this material, numerous diagnostic Terminal Classic vessels were identified (especially fine-tempered dishes). These ceramic data were combined with a set of radiocarbon dates which came from a burial associated with the adjacent Structure 77S, and included these two Terminal Classic dates: (conventional date [B.P.]: 1200 ± 40; 1 Sigma cal AD: [770-890]; 2 sigma cal AD: [690- 900], [920-950]), and (conventional date [B.P.]: 1170 ± 40; 1 Sigma cal AD: [780-900]; 2 sigma cal AD: [770-980]). Taken together, these data indicate a Terminal Classic date for the assemblage. During the analysis of the ceramics, many sherds were refitted, and 33 fragmentary vessels and six partial vessels were identified. Among these broken vessels were several jars, bowls, and a few dishes. Along with the ceramic material, numerous special finds (n=74) of many types of raw material, as well as some faunal remains, were recovered. It has been postulated by Zehrt (2006:38 2007:70) that a structural termination cache (Figure 3.13) was placed in the entrance of the structure, thus blocking its access. As with Structures 12A and 45L, the doorway of Structure 76S was blocked. Here, however, it was sealed in a much more effective and formal way, which involved placing cut-stones and infilling the doorway with construction material, and capping the whole thing with formal capstones, rather than blocking the entryway with an accumulation of artifacts. Quite unusually, this cache, Feature 76S-F/1, did not include much material - 97 only a small adze and a few sherds - which may have been part of the construction fill. This may indicate, as Zehrt (2006:38) suggests, that the cache mainly included perishable material. The case of caches which mainly contained perishable material has been documented elsewhere in the Maya subarea (Becker, in press), including Lamanai, where cache-like, empty pits placed in an architectural context are a common feature from the Preclassic to the Terminal Classic periods (Pendergast 1998:56). In the case of Feature 76S-F/1,1 suggest that this structural cache's function was not only to enclose material, but also to ritually block the access to the structure. It was also suggested that the thick layer of ceramic material and its associated artifacts present in the above-floor levels of Structure 76S were, in fact, deposited inside the building at the same time that its structural cache was built, and that these events were probably associated with feasting activities (lannone et al. 2006:125; Zehrt 2006:37-38). Therefore, all this material, which would have been tossed inside the room of Structure 76S, was a massive on-floor assemblage. It would have been after the collapse of the building, and through the action of natural formation processes, that this material would have migrated upward, and been mixed with the above-floor levels. The thousands of sherds included in the above-floor assemblage represent a very large amount of material. When coupled with all the other artifact types retrieved from these levels, the entirety of this assemblage could hardly be ascribed to a single event such as a feast (as suggested for Structure 12A). Indeed, it is unlikely that hundreds of jars, representing nearly half of the ceramic material, would have been used during a single feasting event, and that this feast would have also involved several dozens of lithic artifacts. 98 As Structure 76S was the north wing of the ancestral shrine of Group S, its function was ceremonial. Consequently, the high proportion of jars and bowls (83.9%), the scarcity of fine serving vessels (12.6%), and the virtual absence of censers (only three sherds), is confusing. It seems likely that this material was gathered from elsewhere in the group, potentially from middens, and deposited within the structure, along with the structural cache, in order to hinder further use of the building. The hypothesis that at least some of this material came from a midden context is supported by the fact that several sherds included in the assemblage date to the Middle Classic period (especially Mount Maloney Black bowls), while, as previously discussed, others are typical of the Terminal Classic. The redeposited refuse theory is further supported by the fact that these above- floor levels also included a very large amount and variability of artifacts (dozens of special finds and large lithic bulklots), as well as faunal remains (Zehrt 2006:35^38). Many artifacts were found concentrated in the frontal part of the structure, and along the central axis (Zehrt 2006:35), which is to be expected if the material was tossed inside the room from the front door which was situated in the middle of the building. Nonetheless, it is possible that some of the material present in this massive on-floor assemblage originated from a feast associated with the ritual termination of the structure but, if so, it would probably only represent an unidentifiable fraction of the entire assemblage. Even if Structure 76S did not yield the whole jaloj-k'exoj within its architecture, and only the tail-end, the adjoining pyramidal Structure 77S represents one of the best documented cases, at Minanha, for a complete (and complex) regeneration of life architectural sequence. Indeed, it revealed a dedication burial, and three rededication caches as well as a reentry tomb (Schwake 2008: 140-157; Zehrt 2007). Despite this, no termination offering was excavated for Structure 77S. This suggests that the ritual 99 termination for this relatively large eastern shrine complex - constituted of Structure 76S, 77S, and 78S - could have taken place in Structure 76S, and is represented by Feature 76S-F/1, along with its associated massive on-floor assemblage. As Group S is the largest settlement unit of the Site Core Zone, its four-meter tall eastern tripartite temple - taller than any other structure for this whole segment of Minanha's community - is quite significant. Furthermore, as none of the domestic structures excavated in Group S revealed an on-floor assemblage, Structure 76S is the only candidate for a termination ritual. As no material clearly postdating this feature was excavated within Group S, it is possible that this termination event reflects the abandonment of the whole group. Moreover, the termination of Structure 76S may have had an impact on the landscape of the Site Core Zone that transcended Group S and affected this whole segment of Minanha's community. Elsewhere, at Blackman Eddy in the Belize River Valley, an on-floor, dense layer of sherds was excavated along the central axis of an epicentral ceremonial structure (Structure Bl), and was interpreted as being the result of a communal non-feast related ritual, but not of redeposited middens, which represented the abandonment of the whole site (Brown and Garber 2008:168). Although the very large on-floor deposit of Structure 76S appears to be redeposited refuse, I argue that its terminal function was very similar to the one of Blackman Eddy's Structure Bl "deactivating" ritual, and that, in the Site Core Zone context, "This event symbolically represents the death not only of the main ceremonial building and established sacred place on the landscape but also of the site [or segment of the community] in general" (Brown and Garber 2008:168). To summarize, I suggest that during the Terminal Classic (810-900 A.D.), after centuries of utilization, the inhabitants of Group S blocked the access to the northern wing of their ancestral shnne with a structural termination cache. Before doing so, they gathered refuse from surrounding middens, including a large amount of ceramic material, which they dumped inside the building. As suggested by lannone et al. (2006:125), this ceremonial 'dumping event' could have been accompanied by ritual feasting, and at least some of the partial vessels included in the on-floor assemblage could have been used during this event. This termination ritual represents an organized effort to seal off the building, and this is paralleled by the intense and continuous ritual focus on Structure 77S throughout the occupation of the group. The hypothesis that the on-floor assemblage of Structure 76S was simply the result of a massive accumulation of secondary refuse, potentially ensuing from post-abandonment dumping, may not be completely dismissed. However, the fact that it is accompanied by a formal cache definitely points towards the ritual termination hypothesis. Summary It appears that the two on-floor assemblages excavated in the Site Core Zone date to the Terminal Classic, but are related to two different abandonment scenarios. Evidence indicates that Structure 91R, potentially a domestic structure, was abandoned without the performance of a termination ritual. Instead, at the time of abandonment, its former inhabitants left some primary or secondary refuse on the floor of its room. On the other hand, the case of the on-floor assemblage of Structure 76S, associated with the construction-of a formal cache in its doorway, indicates a complex termination ritual. Indeed, it is possible that the termination of Structure 76S represents the abandonment of the whole of Group S, and was conducted as a communal rite for signifying the abandonment of their social landscape and venerated ancestors interred in the adjacent 101 Structure 77S. Let us turn attention to the study of the on-floor assemblages that were excavated in the humblest segment of Minanha's community, the Contreras Zone. Detailed Analysis: Contreras Zone Structure MRS4-M1. Group MRS4 is the most prominent architectural group of the Contreras Zone. The on-floor assemblage discussed here, Feature MRS4-M1-F/1 (Figure 3.16), was excavated from one of its larger domestic buildings, Structure MRS4- Ml. In terms of dating, a Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer, diagnostic of the Terminal Classic (see Figure 4.1, p. 103, for an example of this type of vessel) (Awe 1985:311-316) was part of the on-floor assemblage. However, given its association with a burial from Structure MRS4-M3, which was radiocarbon-dated (conventional date [B.P.]: 1050 ± 40; 1 Sigma cal AD: [980-1020]; 2 sigma cal AD: [900-1030]), this feature has been dated to the Early Postclassic period. The entire assemblage was found along the primary axis of the structure, on four of its "steps": on the patio floor, on the second step of the substructure, on the small outset step leading to the house, and on the floor of the room. The patterning of these clusters - representing six fragmentary vessels: four coarse-paste jars, one Yalbac Smudged Brown bowl and a Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer - is very well defined. These six partial vessels, individually clustered, occupied almost all the steps leading into the room, and would have effectively hindered, in a symbolic way, access to the building. The fact that the vessels were only fragmentary indicates that the whole vessels were not broken in situ. They were rather probably broken elsewhere, such as in the group's patio. Then, the fragmentary vessels would have subsequently been transported, and placed on the structure. The predominance of jars in the assemblage, coupled with the 102 presence of only one serving vessel, is not surprising in the case of a domestic structure, but does not point towards these remains as being the results of a feast. However, as previously discussed, these vessels do not represent a midden, and could have been selected among many others, which potentially included more dishes or bowls. Moreover, the presence of a censer indicates a ritual use for at least some of the vessels, and the possibility that these six fragmentary vessels were laid in such a axial pattern, without a definite purpose, seems unlikely. Structure MRS4-M1 only yielded one phase of construction, and Feature MRS4- Ml-F/1 was the only feature revealed during its excavation. However, the eastern shrine of the group, Structure MRS4-M3, revealed a complex jaloj-k'exoj ritual program, composed of four features including a dedication burial and two rededication caches. Structure MRS4-M5, the other large domestic structure in the group, also revealed a rededication cache consisting of a small ceramic vessel containing 14 obsidian blades (McCormick 2008:59). The ritual sequence for the group, if taken as a whole, represents the whole architectural cycle of the regeneration of life. However, as with Group S, the final termination ritual did not happen on the same structure as the earlier phases of this ritual sequence. In summary, it appears that, at least six vessels were used during a ceremony, perhaps in the patio of the group, at some point during the Early Postclassic period (900- 1050 A.D.), and then ritually broken. Subsequently, in a gesture aimed at ritually blocking access to Structure MRS4-M1, several large sherds of each of these vessels were laid on the central axis of the building. These partial vessels, individually clustered, were carefully placed on the different "steps" leading inside the room, and would have effectively symbolized the sealing-off of this structure. However, other scenarios, such as 103 the hypothesis that these sherds were simply taken from a midden and then carried there, cannot be ruled out entirely. Nonetheless, the very well-patterned deposition of the fragmentary vessels suggests a ritual abandonment process for MRS4-M1. Group MRS15. Along with Group L, Group MRS 15 yields the highest number (n=3) of on-floor assemblages recorded for one group at Minanha. Furthermore, as with Structure 76S, the material from the above-floor levels for each of these three structures was analyzed. I will first discuss the on-floor and above-floor assemblages of its two larger buildings (Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5) and will finish with Structure MRS15-M3. 0 2 4 6cm Figure 4.1 Illustration (profile view) of a partial Terminal Classic Chiquibul Scored- Incised censer. This particular vessel was part of the on-floor assemblage of MRS15-M2 (illustration by the author). The on-floor ceramic assemblage from Structure MRS15-M2 (Figure 3.19) contained only one jar, and a very high proportion of serving and ceremonial vessels, including a partial Terminal Classic diagnostic Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer (figure 4.1). Most interesting, three of these vessels (the complete effigy brazier base and Yalbac Smudged Brown bowl, and the smaller, pie-crusted Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer) are, in fact, part of the same artifact (Figure 4.2). Indeed, the brazier from Structure MRS 15- M2 matches perfectly the description of the Portable Composite Ceramic Brazier type, 104 also referced to as Three-Prong Brazier (Ball and Taschek 2007). This particular type of vessel is rare, and is composed of a brazier 'base' which supports a container, using three prongs placed on its summit, which was typically covered by a lid; this artifact could have been used for cooking, or heating food, and burning incense (Ball and Taschek 2007:458). 0 2 4 6cm Figure 4.2. Illustration (profile view) of the Portable Composite Ceramic Brazier found dunng the excavation of the on-floor assemblage of Structure MRS15-M2 (illustration by the author) 105 Three Prong Braziers have been found throughout the region surrounding Minanha, at sites such as Arenal, and Caracol (Ball and Taschek 2007:461-466; Chase and Chase 2004:361-362), but had not been previously documented for Minanha. The three prongs were not recovered (one was potentially part of the above-floor material), but the partial brazier had three circular holes for holding the prongs. Moreover, the associated complete Yalbac Smudged Brown bowl had its base blackened from apparent intense heating, and the scored lid perfectly matched the rim diameter of this bowl. On a different note, the association of the small Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer with this artifact, for which it serves as a lid, seems to indicate that this type of vessel may have been primarily used as lids, rather than as 'autonomous' censers. The scores of the lid, at the point of contact with a container, may have allowed for the circulation of air (lannone, personal communication 2011). The roller-stamp found in association with the floor (see Figure 2.5, p.37) is a unique find at Minanha, but not in the region. Roller stamps have been found at sites throughout the Maya subarea (Smith 2009), including Cahal Pech and Barton Ramie (situated in the neighboring Belize River Valley), but are generally associated with Preclassic period occupations. In fact, the roller-stamp from Structure MRS15-M2 resembles Preclassic examples, rather than Postclassic examples (Smith, personal communication 2011). Therefore, it is possible to suggest that this roller-stamp may have been an heirloom, associated with remote ancestors, and passed on through the generations (Joyce 2000). A roller-stamp has also been found in association with a termination ritual at Dos Hombres, where a small elite courtyard was sealed off by the deposition of an enormous quantity of material, which included many exotic artifacts, including the roller-stamp (Sullivan et al. 2008:104-107). A broken, partial metate was found beside this roller-stamp. The presence of a food processing artifact in association with the on-floor material could indicate ties to feasting activities (Stanton and Gallareta 2001:234). Furthermore, broken maize grinding tools (manos and metates), representing a crucial part of daily Maya life, are commonly found in association with ritual deposits, including termination rituals, throughout the Maya subarea (Freidel et al. 1998:141; Lucero 2010:144; Navarro-Farr 2008 et al. 137- 138). 0 2 4 6cm Figure 4.3. Illustration of a complete ink / poison pot. This vessel was found during the excavation of the level 2 of MRS15-M2 (illustration by the author). A complete ink / poison pot (Figure 4.3) was also found within the slump layer, wedged between two cut-stones on the front staircase's first step. It is likely that the on- floor assemblage originally included this complete miniature vessel (Hills and lannone, personal communication, 2011). This ink / poison pot could have been left somewhere between the house floor and the first step, and would have then been removed from its original location through natural formation processes. Interestingly, ink / poison pots have also been found in Structure 45L's on-floor assemblage, where they have been associated 107 with scribal activities. In the case of a commoner's residence, the hypothesis of scribal activity can probably be dismissed. However, Smith (2009:21-22) argues that roller- stamps could have been used, once soaked in ink, to print motifs on either exposed flesh or various types of cloths. Therefore, if ink / poison pots were used for holding ink, rather than poison or tobacco, it is likely that this small container and the roller-stamp were originally associated. In terms of dating, these on-floor features included two Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers, which are typically associated with the Terminal Classic (Awe 1985:311-316). However, the assemblage also included a Daylight Orange bowl, which is diagnostic of the Early Postclassic period. Portable Composite Ceramic Braziers have been associated with both Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic dates (820-950+ A.D.; Ball and Taschek 2007:461). Therefore, it seems likely that this assemblage was created early in the Postclassic period (ca. 900-950 A.D.). The above-floor material from Structure MRS15-M2 (164 sherds) contained a very low proportion of jars (25.6%), a normal proportion of bowls (29.3 %), a high proportion of dishes (28.7%), as well as a very significant proportion of censer and brazier sherds (9.8%), 24.5 times higher than the average at the site. Among this assemblage, three fragmentary and five partial vessels were found. Of these, most were fine ash-tempered dishes and Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers. This unusually high proportion of fine serving vessels, combined with all the censer and brazier sherds among the above-floor assemblages, matches with the composition of the on-floor assemblages. These proportions even surpass the expected, previously mentioned, composition for feast-related middens (Clayton et al. 2004; Hageman 2004), with 2.5 times more serving or ritual vessels than storage containers. However, it is important to specify that this assemblage does not represent a midden. Nonetheless, the presence of a device with probable cooking, and/or incense burning functions (the Three Prongs Brazier), and a food-processing artifact (the partial metate), supports the hypothesis that a feast may have taken place in association with the abandonment of Structure MRS15-M2. The fact that the on-floor jar and larger Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer (Figure 4.1) were found in partial condition indicates that they were not broken in situ, but probably in the patio of the group. These ritually-broken vessels, as well as the partial metate, would then have been placed on the floor of the room. The case of the Three Prong Brazier (including the complete brazier and bowl, and the partial Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer/lid) is, however, different. The brazier base was indeed fairly complete, and it is believed that its missing sherds could have slumped down onto the unexcavated portion of the staircase (Hills, personal communication, 2010), potentially including its prongs and the rest of the lid. Therefore, it appears that the two complete bowls, along with the brazier and its lid, were placed on the floor of Structure MRS 15- M2 as complete items. It is impossible to assess if they were broken at the time of their deposition, or if they were placed intact and subsequently broken through natural formation processes. Elsewhere, at Caracol, fairly complete Three Prong Braziers were also found in association with on-floor assemblages (Chase and Chase 2004:261-362). As for the roller stamp and ink / poison pot, which were virtually intact, they could also have been placed at the same time as the complete vessels. It is also important to mention that the structure suffered a great deal of root disturbance (McCane et al. 2009:18). Consequently, it is possible that a certain portion of the above-floor material was originally part of the on-floor material. This is further supported by the fact that sherds 109 belonging to on-floor partial vessels, including the brazier, were found in the above-floor levels. All the on-floor material of Structure MRS15-M2 (except for the ink / poison pot) was excavated inside the room, in front of its benches. This on-floor material was therefore not placed along the primary axis of the structure, but would have covered a good portion of the available floor surface. In a symbolic manner, it would have effectively blocked the access to the room. Although the presence of the several complete artifacts could suggest that these represent de facto refuse, both the portable and valuable nature of theses items contradict this hypothesis. The structure is also notable as it revealed the only dedication burial of the group, Burial MRS15-M2-B/1, which was radiocarbon-dated (conventional date [B.P.]: 1460 ± 40; 1 Sigma cal AD: [570-640]; 2 sigma cal AD: [540-650]), and dates to the Middle Classic period. Even if it proved to contain two phases of construction, no rededication cache was found within Structure MRS15-M2. It is, however, possible that such a feature was missed by the excavation units. Nonetheless, the building was ritually charged by a buried ancestor. A termination ritual would, therefore, fit perfectly in the jaloj-k'exoj. The presence of the roller-stamp, representing a potential ancestral heirloom, also supports the hypothesis of jaloj-k'exoj related termination ritual for this assemblage. The definite ritual tendency of Structure MRS15-M2 is further supported by the fact it is placed on the eastern edge of the group, a direction associated with ancestor worship at Minanha (as at Groups S and MRS4, for example), and elsewhere in the Maya subarea, including Caracol (Becker 1999; Chase and Chase 1998:319; McAnany 1995:102; 1998:278). Structure MRS15-M5 is a domestic structure that was slightly smaller than Structure MRS15-M2, but was also the eastern, and predominant building of its patio 110 group. Feature MRS15-M5-F/1 (Figure 3.21) comprised a single, practically complete, halved Platon-Punctated Incised dish typical of the Terminal Classic (Figure 4.4). The few missing sherds of the dish (including one of the rattle-feet) were probably removed from their original context through natural formation processes. Even if this on-floor assemblage only included a single vessel, its above-floor material contained a great deal of ritual-related material. Figure 4.4. Illustration of a partial Platon-Punctated Incised dish typical of the Terminal Classic (part of the MRS15-M5-F/1). Notice the linear incisions around the hole in their rattle-feet (illustration by the author). The above-floor material from Structure MRS15-M5 revealed an assemblage different from Structure MRS15-M2's, with a predominance of jars (44.2%), followed by bowls (22.2%), and quite unusually, censers and braziers (15.5%) - almost 40 times the average at the site. Dishes were uncommon in the assemblage with only 10.6%. An important aspect of this assemblage is its 11 fragmentary vessels, and five partial vessels, which included four Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers, and an elegantly incised bowl (probably of the Orange Walk Incised type), which decorations likely represented a scene with birds. This assemblage also included two partial Cayo Unslipped miniature vases. Feature MRS15-M5-F/1, consisting of a complete, perfectly halved, dish lying on a step, resembles the definition of post-abandonment veneration. However, on a Ill stratigraphic basis, it does not match the definition of post-abandonment veneration and can therefore be dismissed as a hypothesis. Furthermore it seems very unlikely that this dish was deposited in a post-abandonment context as this type of dish is typical of the Terminal Classic, and it is consequently more logical that it was associated with the occupants rather than with post-abandonment visiting agents. Moreover, the composition of the above-floor assemblage - especially its censer component - indicates that a great deal of ritual was taking place within Structure MRS15-M5, at least towards its final occupation. Indeed, the remarkable presence of four partial Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers is telling of the strong ritual component of this assemblage. As with Structure MRS15-M2, natural formation processes probably transferred to above-floor levels material that was originally associated with the floor surface. Moreover, even though Structure MRS15-M5 lacks any other ritual feature, as with Structure MRS15-M2, it is the larger, and eastern structure of its patio-group. It is thus plausible that the termination of Structure MRS15-M5 was complementary to the termination of Structure MRS15-M2. Structure MRS15-M3 is the third largest building of Group MRS 15. The top-plan of this structure is unusual, with a large and high, bench-like, square platform on the middle of its substructure. In contrast to Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5, the on- floor assemblage from Structure MRS15-M3 (Figure 3.20) does not appear to be a ritual deposit and, certainly, it did not block access to the room. Indeed, the clustered partial bowl and complete mano placed on the western edge of the platform make it much harder to postulate what behaviors were responsible for this on-floor assemblage, which most resembles the ones from Structures 43L, 44L, and MRS89-M4 (see below). It is possible that this on-floor material was placed at the same time as the termination rituals for Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5 were being conducted. However, I suspect that 112 the on-floor assemblage of Structure MRS 15-M3 was not the result of a ritual. Indeed, the above-floor assemblage for this building was heavily dominated by jars (56.2%), followed by bowls (27.6%), barely contained any dish sherds (3.8%), and no censer sherds. It contained a dozen fragmentary vessels which were almost all jars. The only potential marker for a ritual at Structure MRS15-M3 is its mano which, if taken in association with the partial metate from Structure MRS15-M2, could be related to feasting activities. However, judging by these data, it appears that at the moment of abandonment Structure MRS15-M3 was being used differently than Structures MRS 15- M2 and MRS15-M5, and that its function was focused on domestic activities, potentially those of a storage facility. In contrast to Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5, the near absence of ritual paraphernalia in its above-floor levels, combined with the domestic nature of the on-floor assemblage, suggests that it consisted of abandonment refuse of either de facto, primary or secondary deposition. This means that, among the six structures from Group MRS 15, only Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5 revealed a ritual component associated with the abandonment of the group, which indicates that the termination ritual may have focused on the larger and eastern buildings of both patios. To summarize, it appears that early during the Postclassic period (ca. 900-950 A.D.), a complex termination ritual was performed at Group MRS 15. During this event the former inhabitants of the group performed a ceremony which involved a great deal of incense burning and a" feast. Subsequently, they ritually smashed the Chiquibul Scored- Incised censers and other vessels used during the ceremony and laid them on the floor of Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5. Then they placed a Three Prong Brazier and at least three more vessels used during the ceremony on the floor of the same buildings. 113 These complete serving vessels potentially contained some sort of food offerings at the time of their deposition. The inhabitants then abandoned their households while leaving on the floor of Structure MRS15-M3 some material which they did not wish to carry away with them. Group MRS89. Group MRS89 is the smallest of the settlement units in this study, but nevertheless yielded two on-floor assemblages (Features MRS89-M1-F/1 and MRS89-M4-F/1). The first feature was found on Structure MRS89-M1, which was a fairly large domestic building situated on the southern edge of the patio group. Feature MRS89-M1-F/1 (Figure 3.23), with its seven partial vessels (three bowls, two jars, one dish, and one censer) could be related, as was the case for several other on-floor assemblages at the site, to a feasting event. Indeed, as with Structure MRS15-M2, the ratio of serving and ritual vessels is 2.5 times higher than for storage vessels. As the vessels were only partial, they were probably broken, probably ritually, at another locus and then transported, in their partial state, and deposited in the doorway. As for the small stone scraper included in this assemblage, there is a possibility that it partook a role in this ritual breakage, and ended up on the floor of the structure during the same event, but this is impossible to confirm. This termination offering, placed on the room's and substructure's floor, where the doorway would have been, would have blocked the access to the building in a symbolic way. Structure MRS89-M1 only contained one phase of construction, which was dated to the Middle Classic period. A dedicatory offering was associated with this construction phase. This offering consisted of a secondary burial placed within an upside-down jar, situated within the construction fill of the substructure, along its the central axis. This feature contained the only human remains found within Group MRS89. Therefore, it 114 appears that Structure MRS89-M1 was the ritual focus for the group. Between this dedication offering and the termination offering, Structure MRS89-M1 (as with Structure MRS15-M2) contained both ends of the jaloj-k'exoj. A second, smaller on-floor assemblage was found on Structure MRS89-M4 (Figure 3.24). The excavation unit was set on the southern half of the building, and revealed Feature MRS89-M4-F/1 lying on the substructure's floor, in front of where the room would have originally been. The partial jar was therefore not aligned along the central axis of the building. Taken alone, it would be hard to postulate what behavior was responsible for the creation of this assemblage. However, as with Groups L and MRS 15, this simple on-floor assemblage is associated with a rather clear example of a termination offering from a neighboring structure. Therefore, when considered in association with Feature MRS89-M1-F/1, it is possible to postulate that this single partial vessel was deposited at the same time as the termination ritual for Structure MRS89-M1 was being performed. This case is similar to the on-floor assemblage from Structure MRS15-M3. In summary, it is possible to postulate that during the Terminal Classic (810-900 A.D.), the inhabitants of Group MRS89, just before abandonment, performed a ritual that involved a feast, which likely took place in their patio. After ritually breaking vessels used during the ceremony, they would have scattered several portions of these onto the floor of Structures MRS89-M1, and perhaps MRS89-M4. Another possibility is that the material from Structure MRS89-M4 was simply left, as primary or secondary refuse, on the floor of the substructure. 115 Summary The on-floor assemblages (n=6) retrieved from the Contreras Zone represent half of my sample. It appears that the Contreras Zone was gradually abandoned over a long period of time, starting during the Terminal Classic and lasting until the Early Postclassic period. It seems that the abandonment of these residential groups was marked by reverential termination rituals which were aimed at symbolically blocking the access to the larger domestic structures of the groups. These termination rituals seem to have involved communal ceremonies, which likely took place in the patios of these groups, and most probably involved feasting activities , as is represented by a high frequency of serving dishes and the presence of food-processing artifacts - and incense burning - as suggested by the presence of at least one partial Chiquibul Scored-Incised censer at each group. These reverential termination rituals focused on ancestral veneration and embodied the jaloj-k'exoj. The fact that several on-floor assemblages were found in association with commoners' context differs from what has been documented elsewhere in the Maya subarea. Indeed, at Caracol, on-floor material is extensively documented from the site's epicentral elite residences and temples, but rarely documented in a commoners' context (Chase and Chase 2000, 2004), although this distributional difference could simply be the result of differential sampling strategies. In terms of ceramic types, however, we see certain parallels between Caracol and Minanha. At both sites, diagnostic Terminal Classic plainwares (especially Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers) are commonly found in the non- epicentral residential groups (Chase and Chase 2004:361-362). This shared ceramic distribution suggests that the surrounding population of the sites kept on living in their residential groups after the abandonment of the sites' epicenter. However, at the site of 116 Caracol, Terminal Classic finewares (such as Platon-Punctated Incised or Belize Red vessels) are mostly found in association with epicentral, elite architectural complexes (Chase and Chase 2004:363). The case is obviously different at Minanha, where ash- tempered dishes and bowls of fine quality were found in association with the on-floor assemblages at Groups R, S, MRS 15, and MRS89. Therefore, in contrast to Caracol, it appears that the non-epicentral, commoner population of Minanha had a greater access to status-related ceramics during the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic periods. So far, I have discussed in detail the architectural context and material composition of the 12 on-floor assemblages that were excavated throughout the community of Minanha. During this analytical process, it became apparent that different abandonment processes characterize the three segments of the community. In the following pages, I provide a synthesis of this analysis, and explore further the differential abandonment processes of the Minanha community. SYNTHESIS: THE ABANDONMENT OF THE MINANHA COMMUNITY In this synthesis, I begin by examining the artifactual and contextual trends which emerged during the analysis on the on-floor assemblages from Minanha. I then ascribe to each assemblage the appropriate abandonment scenario (as presented in Chapter Two). Artifactual and Contextual Trends The behavioral-contextual analysis of the on-floor assemblages from Minanha revealed some variety in terms of abandonment processes. In Table 4.7 the nine material and contextual traits that proved to be the most meaningful for interpreting the 117 abandonment processes are presented. By carefully observing the distribution of these traits, it is possible to postulate differential behavioral trends for the various on-floor assemblages. Gradual and Organized Abandonment. The foremost observation regarding this set of assemblages is that Minanha was not abandoned rapidly. Elsewhere in the Maya subarea the main evidence for rapid abandonment is the presence of fully reconstructible, de facto material (Beaudry-Corbett and Bishop 2002:117; Inomata and Triadan 2010:369- 372). Also, in the context of a military-related rapid abandonment, structures generally exhibit evidence of intense burning, and human remains and weapons are associated with on-floor assemblages (Chase and Chase 2004:365; Harrison-Buck 2007; Palka 2003:127- 128; Suhler and Freidel 2003: 139-140). At Minanha, the situation is quite different. Most structures (apart for Structures 45L and 76S) did not yield large amounts of on-floor material that could have been left at the time of a "catastrophic" abandonment, exhibited no traces of intense burning, and included no human remains, and very few weapons. Additionally, very few completely reconstructible vessels - or de facto material - were found among these assemblages. The only structure that contained a large amount of material, some reconstructible vessels as well as intact artifacts (including two projectile points), is Structure 45L. However, the on-floor assemblage of this building mostly included scattered sherds, which appear to have been redeposited inside the building after previous breakage. Structures MRS15-M2 and MRS15-M5 also contained some complete vessels but, as previously noted, both buildings yielded only a small amount of this material, which is ceremonial in nature, and does not seem to have pertained to daily household activities. It seems that, until abandonment, Minanha's building floors were carefully swept and that very few usable, complete vessels or other types of artifacts were 118 left on the floor of the structures at the time of their abandonment. Additionally, between the 12 structures, the approximate abandonment dates for the whole community span over a century, and the concept of "rapid abandonment" definitely does not allow for such a lapse of time. Even if the two groups that yielded four on-floor assemblages (including only one complete, miniature vessel) from Minanha's epicenter appear to have been abandoned around the same time, the scarcity of on-floor deposits from this zone does not support the hypothesis of rapid abandonment. In contrast, 29 on-floor assemblages, comprising 140 relatively complete vessels, were excavated in Caracol's rapidly abandoned epicenter (Chase and Chase 2004:351-352). Admittedly, Caracol is much larger - which partly explains this discrepancy - but the distribution of these 29 deposits is in stark contrast with Minanha's epicenter's four on-floor assemblages. These sets of evidence allow me to affirm confidently that Minanha was abandoned in a gradual and organized way. Royal-Court Related Terminations. Among the obvious trends present in Table 4.7 is the correspondence between the lack of association with jaloj-k'exoj structural rituals (such as a dedication burial) and structures associated with the royal court of Minanha. Moreover, each of these cases is associated with the Epicenter, with the exception of Structure 91R. Among those, Structures 12A and 45L, represent strong cases of termination rituals, while Structures 43L and 44L are closely associated with Structure 45L. Facing the lack of association with any jaloj-k'exoj related feature, it seems plausible that the ritual termination of these structures was not related to ancestral veneration. Instead, I suggest that the purpose of the termination rituals of Structures 12A (and potentially Group F), 43L, 44L and 45L was to symbolically bring an end to their royal court-related, administrative, non-domestic, or domestic function, rather than to 119 s s © § § 9 19 © © =3 •n © © © (O © = VI «r> !«n !© 00 o o jo — i OS *OS jOS e os © 00 oo oo © © © o ^© ^© s 00 IS* "S3 CA os OS OS 00 oo 1 Ia U=•* • * ° illr> > > r> & ai 2 I/! MB * > "> "> > * I* a a » * • CL. SQ en •X! -4 l> J? 3 e E a < = £ ** > f> t> 3S £. < o a E tfi m e ei ^ > *§o .2 • ON Is "T v. wi ir( os 43 u Tf •— r-l i-i ac < -^ —; -j •J: •*. \n \r. s. J: a sD si as ac as a as >n i w rsi t*i «r m ^* «-^ *-• *•* *•* **•• —i *r "«• v *•: »*•. «*. «*: *• **. la 2 * 120 release an accumulation of ancestral k'ulel. The ceremonies associated with these ritual deactivations potentially involved feasting, but no incense burning. Furthermore it seems that the potential purposeful, ritual collapsing of buildings may be related, at Minanha, to this particular type of termination ritual. Finally, if we consider that the blocking off of Structure 12A's passageway was aimed at terminating the access to Group F, it seems that these royal court-related terminations focus on whole groups, rather than on single structures. The case of Structure 91R is different, because its gateway function, which would have related it to the royal court, was never demonstrated, and its on-floor assemblage does not represent a strong case of termination ritual, and is not associated with another on-floor feature. Therefore, I suggest that the on-floor assemblage of Structure 91R was not the result of a ritual, but was rather deposited through mundane or natural formation processes. Jaloj-K'exoj-Related Terminations. A different trend that emerges from this analysis is the correspondence between the symbolic blocking of doorways, domestic or ceremonial function for buildings, and the direct, or broader association with jaloj-k'exoj- related ritual features. In the case of Structures MRS15-M2, MRS15-M5 and MRS89-M1, these factors are also associated with ritual and/or feast-related ceramic assemblages. The correlation between these four factors represents convincing cases for termination rituals aimed at releasing the powerful ancestral k'ulel of architectural structures. The case of Structure MRS4-M1, where the assemblage was quite domestic, is still convincing. As I have previously discussed, the material present in these rather small on-floor assemblages were not middens, and only include a few selected vessels, which could well have been originally associated with many more. Furthermore, the assemblage from Structure 121 MRS4-M1 is a good example of a well-patterned, purely symbolic blocking of the access to a building. The termination ceremonies associated with these domestic structures appear to have involved both feasting and incense-burning activities. The case of Structure 76S is unique at Minanha. There, the behaviors responsible for the creation of the on-floor assemblage and its associated cache were different, but ritually significant. Once more, this assemblage was domestic in nature, but the presence of the very large amount of material, including many types" of non-ceramic artifacts, expresses the special nature of this on-floor assemblage. I also believe that the association with the cache that effectively blocked the building's doorway (Feature 76S-F/1) points towards a ritual function for Structure 76S's on-floor assemblage. Moreover, Structure 76S is associated with one of the most jaloj-k'exoj ritually-charged buildings at the site, Structure 77S, and this ceremonial context strengthens the termination hypothesis for Structure 76S. While feasting activities may have been related to the termination of Structure 76S, very few censer fragments were recovered from this assemblage. Finally, the case of Structures MRS15-M3 and MRS89-M4 are different. The on- floor assemblages of these structures did not block the access to the building, and were very mundane in nature. However, in contrast to Structure 91R, both buildings were in close association with at least one of the aforementioned termination ritual cases. In other words, I suspect that the on-floor assemblages from Structures MRS15-M3 and MRS 89- M4 were deposited, in a complementary manner, during the ceremonies responsible for the creation of the termination offerings of Structures MRS15-M2, MRS15-M5 and MRS89-M1. Differential Abandonment Dates. According to the dates obtained from the analysis of the on-floor assemblages, it appears that the three segments of the Minanha community were abandoned at different periods. It seems that, by the early Terminal Classic period, the Epicenter of Minanha had been abandoned. Thereafter, before the onset of the Early Postclassic, the Site Core Zone had also been mostly abandoned. The on-floor data from the Contreras Zone is less definite. There, it seems that the abandonment was conducted over a longer period of time. Group MRS89, a smaller group situated on a ridge and settled in the Middle Classic, was abandoned before the onset of the Early Postclassic period. The larger MRS 15 Group, established during the Middle Classic, and in close spatial relationship with the most prominent group of the Valley, Group MRS4, appears to have been abandoned early in the Early Postclassic period. Finally, Group MRS4, established during the Terminal Preclassic, endured until well into the Early Postclassic period. These abandonment dates for the Contreras Zone indicate that the groups established earlier, and situated in more productive areas of the valley, were occupied for the longest time (see Chapter Five for further discussion on the matter). Obviously, these dates represent only a small sample of the whole community, but they all point in the same direction. As will be discussed in the next chapter, this chronology for the abandonment of Minanha corresponds to our current understanding of the socio-economic dynamics of the site during the last centuries of its occupation. The abandonment scenarios for the different segments of the community have now been postulated. However, in order to make the results of this analysis comparable to other studies, I will now formally apply the behavioral typology (as defined in Chapter Two). 123 Abandonment Processes for the On-Floor Assemblages The purpose of Table 4.8 is to present the list of possible formation processes for each of the 12 on-floor assemblages of the Minanha community and to classify them in three different categones. The table does not include any new hypotheses, but rather serves as a synthesis for the conclusions of the detailed analysis of each on-floor assemblages. Each letter present in the table refers to the abandonment processes typology presented m Chapter Two, and each postulated formation process relates to the Gradual and Organized Abandonment category. > Structures Gradual and Organized Abandonment Processes Presence of Reverential » Termination Ritual * 12A Dl, D2, (G, H, J) Yes , 43L A, B, Dl, D2, (G, H, J) Maybe 44L A, B, Dl, D2, (G, H, J) Maybe 45L Dl, D2, (G, H, J) Yes 91R A,B,(G,H,J) No 76S D1,(G,H,J) Yes •MRS4?M1— Dl, (G, H, J) Yes HRS15-M2'' D1,(G,H,J) Yes MRS15-M3 A, B, C, Dl, (G, H, J) Maybe ; ;PRS1$-M5 D1,(G,H,J) Yes MRS0-M1 Dl, (G, H, J) Yes MRS8S-M4 A, B, Dl, (G, H, J) Maybe *Normal character refer to secular cultural formation processes, bold characters refer to ritual formation processes, and characters in parentheses refer to natural formation process Legend: A Primary Refuse, B Secondary Refuse, C De Facto Refuse, Dl Original Exposed Offering, D2 Collapse Debris Resulting from Ritual Demolition, E Primary Refuse as a Result of Squatting, F Secondary Refuse as a Result of Squatting, G Disturbance as a Result of Squatting, H Secondary refuse, or collapse debris, resulting from the disintegration of architectural features I Exposed Offering as a Result of Post-Abandonment Veneration, J Disturbance by Natural Formation Processes For a detailed list of the abandonment processes, please refer to Chapter Two Table 4.8. Postulated gradual and organized abandonment processes for the on-floor assemblages. 124 Among the postulated abandonment processes, natural formation processes (H and J), as well as post-abandonment disturbances (G) are impossible to rule out, and are therefore present in each case. Reverential Termination. A first category of on-floor assemblage includes the ones from Structures 12A, 45L, 76S, MRS4-M1, MRS15-M2, MRS15-M5, and MRS89- Ml. I suggest that each of these on-floor assemblages represents the material remains of reverential termination rituals. Consequently, these on-floor assemblages were attributed to ritual abandonment processes (Dl and D2). Secular Abandonment Processes. A second category of on-floor assemblage applies only to Structure 91R. In this case, I suggest that the on-floor assemblage is the result of mundane formation processes, and is not related to termination rituals. Consequently, this on-floor assemblage was attributed to secular formation processes (A and B). Potential Reverential Termination. A third category of on-floor assemblage includes the ones from Structure 43L, 44L, MSR15-M3, and MRS89-M4. These cases are less secure. They represent on-floor assemblages found in association with postulated reverential termination ritual. I suggest that these assemblages were created at the same time as their associated exposed offerings were deposited. Consequently, these on-floor assemblages were attributed to ritual abandonment processes (Dl and D2). However, as they lack clear ritual characteristics possessed by the first category of assemblages, it is impossible to rule out the role of secular formation processes in their creation. Consequently, these on-floor assemblages were also attributed to secular formation processes (A and B). These three categones of behaviors presently appear to fit the range of vanabihty in abandonment processes observed at Minanha. However, further investigations and the application of this model to other case studies might reveal that these categories of gradual and organized abandonment need to be refined, and even subdivided. CONCLUSION This chapter discussed the differential abandonment scenarios for the three segments of the Minanha community. This was done by methodically applying the behavioral and contextual interpretative framework defined in Chapter Two to the 12 on- floor assemblages recovered from the site. Following this analysis, I suggest that the three segments of the Minanha community were abandoned gradually, at different time periods, and that this was done in an organized way. I also suggest that two types of termination rituals are identifiable at Minanha: 1) For epicentral structures, the termination rituals symbolically terminated the building's royal-court related functions; and, 2) For non-epicentral structures, the rituals terminated the structures by releasing the ancestral k'ulel accumulated within them. Finally, I dismissed the hypothesis that Structure 91R had been ritually terminated. Now that I have discussed how and when the Minanha community was abandoned, two of my research questions have been achieved. In Chapter Five, I explore what this abandonment scenario can tell us about the Minanha community and, therefore, answer my third research question. Finally, I explore the broader methodological and theoretical implications of my thesis for the study of settlement abandonment and ancient Maya society. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS "[...] a house without people in it is not a proper house" (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a:44). In this final chapter, I first articulate the results of my research with regard to specific aspects of Minanha's culture history, which have previously been posited by SARP researchers. This discussion allows me to look at the abandonment of this site under the broadest social perspective, and include the apex of the Minanha community - its royal residential courtyard - within the abandonment scenario. Secondly, I renew the methodological implication of this research for the study of ancient Maya settlement abandonment in general. Thirdly, I discuss a theoretical approach which represents an alternative explanation - differing from the jaloj-k'exoj philosophy - for termination- rituals. Finally, I reiterate the original three research questions and provide summary answers for each of these. THE FALL OF MINANHA'S ROYAL COURT IN PESRPECTIVE The Northern Acropolis of Minanha housed the royal residential courtyard. This residential complex, Group J, was erected during the Late Classic and consisted of a courtyard with highly-restricted access. The entryway to Group J, situated on an impressive 13 m tall acropolis, consisted of a vaulted archway flanked by two small rooms, Structure 35J-2nd, leading into the courtyard, which was bordered to the north by a 8.5 m tall pyramid (Structure 38J-2nd ) decorated by a stucco frieze, a performance platform to the west, Structure 39J-2nd, and to the east by the vaulted residential/throne- room, Structure 37J-2n (lannone 2005, 2007). In addition, a small servants compound, Group K, was set to the back of Structure 38J-2nd (lannone 2005, 2007). Early on during the 9th century A.D., the vaulted structures of Group J were carefully infilled using cobbles and boulders and without collapsing the vaults, the frieze of Structure 38J-2nd was defaced, and the whole courtyard was buried under approximately five meters of carefully-laid construction material (lannone 2005, 2007). After this infilling event, the only original architecture remaining visible of the royal residential compound was the summit of Structure 38J-2nd, while small perishable, 'non-royal' buildings were erected on the newly elevated courtyard (lannone 2007). This infilling event is also associated with the breakage of the stelae of Minanha's Epicenter (lannone 2005, 2007). The infilling of the Minanha royal court has been interpreted by lannone (2005, 2007) as the ritual termination of the royal residential compound of Minanha. Interestingly, certain aspects of this large and complex termination ritual are reverential (the careful infilling of structures and the continued use of this space), while other aspects could definitely be interpreted as desecrational (the defacing of the frieze and the breakage of the stelae). It is consequently hard to ascribe either a positive or negative value to this termination ritual. What is sure is that the timing of this event is probably related with the return of the Naranjo and Caracol polities on the regional political and military scene at the end of the 7th century, and obviously aimed at terminating the rather autonomous function of the Minanha royal court (lannone 2006c: 165-166). As for the ambivalence regarding the reverential nature of the termination, this could be explained by the fact that the infilling, which would have been commissioned by exterior, antagonistic agents, could have been conducted by local agents, who wanted to preserve the memory of their defunct royal institution (lannone 2006c: 166). Further examples of comparable infilling of elite 128 residential courtyards have been documented elsewhere in the Maya subarea, including at La Milpa (Hammond 1999a; Hammond 1999b; Hammond and Thomas 1999), Lamanai (Graham 2004), and Balamku (Michelet and Arnaud 2006; Michelet, personal communication, 2009). The reason why this termination ritual was not discussed earlier in this thesis is because it does not represent an on-floor assemblage. However, now that termination rituals have been postulated for each of Minanha's community segments, it is pertinent to consider them in relation to this massive infilling event, which represents the termination of the social and political apex of the Minanha community. The termination of Minanha's royal residential courtyard effectively blocked access to each of its structures, and to the courtyard itself. This termination is somewhat similar to the ritual terminations of Group L, Structure 12 A, and perhaps Group F, which were probably aimed at terminating whole groups by hindering the access to the courtyards, or to each structure in the group. Furthermore, it is possible that Structure 12A's vaulted passageway and Group L's perishable structures were purposefully collapsed, which would have made the blocking not only symbolic, but also physical. The infilling of Group J's vaulted architecture also resembles, in some ways, the blocking of the access to Structure 76S, which was partially infilled by a massive amount of artifacts, and to which access was formally closed off by blocking up its doorway. In summary, the decommissioning of Group J most resembles the termination of the two other epicentral groups, Structure 12A and Group L (which functionally were related to the royal court), and of the only ceremonial structure discussed in this research, Structure 76S. Group J, as a royal residential courtyard, probably embodied numerous functions, including domestic, administrative, and ceremonial activities (Inomata 2010:3- 4). Therefore, Group J, and its neighbouring Group L and Structure 12A, as well as Structure 76S, not only shared resemblances in the way they were terminated, but also had similar functions. However, a much larger energy expenditure characterizes the termination of Group J, which did not involve the deposition of artifacts along the central axis of the structure, but rather the concealment of the whole courtyard group (apart for the summit of Structure 39J-2nd) under meters of construction material which had to be carried to the very top of the acropolis. As discussed in Chapter Two, the burying of whole structures is characteristic of termination rituals as a continuation (i.e., rededication rituals), but may also be related to termination as an end. Therefore, the ritual purpose behind the infilling of Group J is highly similar to the reverential ritual termination of the other structures or groups at Minanha. Moreover, the burying of structures as a termination ritual has also been documented in a non-elite context, at the site of Dos Hombres, in north-western Belize, where Structure 1 of the Pak'il Nah Group was infilled and buried by loose fill and limestone marl (Trachman 2010:104-109). Nonetheless, the termination of Group J, in spite of the rituals performed on the other epicentral structures, involved non-reverential behaviours, which involved the destruction of the stucco frieze, and the associated destruction of stelae. This type of behaviour has been argued to be reflective of conquest (Brown and Garber 2003; Freidel et al. 1998:135; Yaeger 2010:156), and it is possible that foreign antagonistic agents from either Naranjo or Caracol could have led such destructive actions on Group J, before it was infilled (lannone 2007). However, it has also been argued that such destructive behaviours could also have been led by members of the same community who were attempting to alter the ruling ideology at their own site (lannone 2007; Navarro-Farr 130 2008:143; Walker 1998). Based on the lack of any indication of warfare-related abandonment at Minanha (see Chapter Four), and the fact that structures were rebuilt atop this desecrated area, it seems more likely that this whole ritual destruction and infilling, which may well have been sponsored by antagonistic agents, was conducted by community members who were still well-established in the periphery of the site. Chronologically speaking, the termination event of Group J fits perfectly with the other cases of termination rituals within Minanha's epicenter, which all happened around the Late Classic to Terminal Classic transition. Consequently, I suggest that Minanha's royal residential courtyard was the first architectural group, or structure, to be terminated at Minanha. Following lannone (2007), I support the hypothesis which suggests that the infilling of Group J was aimed at deactivating the royal, multifaceted function of the courtyard. Thereafter, Group J's related administrative, and royal-related domestic structures, Group L and Structure 12A (and potentially Group F), were terminated. It is not possible to pinpoint the exact timing of those termination events, but I suggest, on the basis of ceramic styles, that Group L was terminated first, and that Structure 12A followed shortly afterward. lannone (2007) suggests that, "The infilling did not correspond with total abandonment of the center and its adjacent territory - rather, it signified the emergence of a very different kind of Terminal Classic community", and I believe that the current thesis provides strong evidence supporting this inference. Indeed, as discussed in the previous chapter, the broader Minanha community was occupied for a few more centuries, until the Early Postclassic period. After the demise of Minanha's royal court, the social order of the community was transformed. Stelae were broken and construction was halted within the Epicenter (apart for the perishable structures of the terminal version of Group J), a 131 fact that is well exemplified by the unfinished temple-pyramid Structure 7A, which still bears its construction ramp (lannone 2005). Thereafter, the surrounding zones of the Minanha community were progressively abandoned, and many of the inhabitants of the numerous architectural groups conducted termination rituals on their houses and shrines. Unfortunately, only a dozen of those termination rituals left artifactual signatures that were archaeologically recovered by SARP. I believe that the differences in nature and labour investment between these 12 termination rituals and the infilling of the royal residential courtyard are to be related to the wealth and the number of agents responsible for their performance. The parallels between those different scales of termination rituals are not due to the desire of commoners to imitate the elite, but rather relate to a shared cultural beliefs system. As I will discuss further, I suggest that the termination of all these different types of architectural structures is related to social and cognitive factors, and not only to an overarching, animistic ritual philosophy. METHODOLOGICAL DISCUSSION Following my analysis, some aspects of my results and interpretations have methodological implications for the study of ancient Maya ceramics, architecture, and on- floor assemblages. Given the disparate nature of these implications, I will list them in a succinct manner. Ceramics. As I alluded to in Chapter Two, Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic types of ceramics are not as readily identifiable as are the very well documented Late Classic types. With this in mind, it seems that many types normally associated with 132 Terminal Classic occupations, such as Chiquibul Scored-Incised censers, were still in use during the Early Postclassic. It also appears that some types of ceramics normally associated with the Middle or the Late Classic are not confined to these periods, especially in the case of jars and bowls. For example, Zibal Unslipped jars and Yalbac Smudged Brown bowls are found in association with Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic vessels and, therefore, seem to have been used for a very long period of time. If more ceramic types-varieties were micro-seriated, in a way paralleling Lecount and colleagues' (2002) study of Mount Maloney Black bowls, this would enable a far more precise relative dating of ceramic assemblages, especially in the absence of contextual association with better documented, or rarer, and more diagnostic types. I also believe that in order to be most effective, such an approach should try to adopt type names shared across micro-regions, rather than ascribing new type names to vessels highly similar to existing types, but with slightly different attributes (such as lip shape or paste color). Following Inomata (2010b: 159-160), it appears important that the completeness of vessels be considered during the analysis of on-floor ceramic materials, rather than simply the percentage of represented primary classes (i.e., forms of vessels). Such an analysis may be reflective of the behaviors and purposes behind the deposition of the on- floor material. Architecture. As has become clear in this thesis, termination rituals tend to focus on the ritual or physical blocking of the entrance of architectural structures. Consequently, the excavation units that tend to reveal them are normally placed on the central axis of the structures, rather than on one side of the building. This is not a new concept, as excavation units are normally set on one half of smaller structures, or on the central part of larger structures for better understanding the architecture of buildings and 133 having better chances of revealing caches or burials, which are typically axially aligned in buildings. This excavation strategy, adopted by SARP, enabled the documentation of the termination rituals studied in this thesis. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize this approach and its limitations (see p.81). On-Floor Assemblages. During the analysis of the 12 on-floor assemblages presented in this thesis, it became obvious that the study of the behaviors responsible for the deposition of on-floor assemblages needs to be highly contextual. In summary, an adequate study of on-floor assemblages needs to pay attention to: 1) Horizontal association at the structure level, where associations between on-floor materials allow for a better understanding of the assemblage; 2) Vertical association at the structure level, where a) refitting with materials from the above-floor levels may allow an enlargement of the original on-floor assemblage, and b) association with structural votive features (dedication or rededication) from earlier levels may allow a better understanding of the ritual history of the structure, or be informative about the presence or absence of jaloj- k'exoj related rituals; 3) Associations on the group level may allow one to associate different on-floor features, a fact that is particularly important for interpreting less diagnostic on-floor features (as in the cases of Structures MRS15-M3 or MRS89-M4); 4) Associations with the function of structures or groups, which may influence the "function" of termination rituals; and, 5) Associations on the micro-regional level, where correlations between architectural groups may enable a reconstruction of the abandonment scenario for a whole site. Following the aforementioned observations, I suggest that jaloj-k'exoj-related termination rituals must only be posited if they are found in association with dedication and/or rededication rituals. It also seems logical that such a ritual correlation may be extended at the group level, as was the case in the relation between Structures 76S and 77S, or Structures MRS15-M5 and MRS15-M2. However, it is hard to support the interpretation that an on-floor feature's purpose was to release an inexistent 'soul' in the context of an absence of ritual 'ensoulment' for structures or groups. In such cases, well- patterned termination rituals may instead have been aimed at obliterating the function of structures, as has been argued for the royal-related structures of Minanha. This fact begs for a redefinition of termination rituals that does not only equate with the jaloj-k'exoj, but is instead more intimately associated with the concept of abandonment. In the following theoretical discussion, I suggest an alternative approach to termination rituals which, turning away from ancient Maya ritual philosophy, explores social and cognitive factors. THERORETICAL DISCUSSION: THE SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS OF TERMINATION RITUALS The Construction of Ancient Maya Architectural Landscape In Chapter Two, I examined how, ideologically speaking, abandonment-related termination rituals - intimately related to ancestral veneration - may be understood as the tail end of the regenerative life cycle of architectural structures. Now, I look away from the jaloj-k'exoj, and explore an alternative explanation for termination rituals. In order to discuss this, I first examine the social organization of ancient Maya architectural groups. This allows me to evaluate the ties binding the ancient Maya to their social landscape. Finally, I explore the implications of abandonment for ancient Maya inhabitants. Through this process, I present social and cognitive factors responsible for the performance of termination rituals. The House Group. Household studies have been a very important part of Maya archaeology for decades (see Wilk and Ashmore 1988). The concept of household is, however, very malleable. A household is sometimes referred to as a residential structure and its inhabitants, composed of a nuclear family (for examples, see : Gillespie 2007:34; Inomata et al. 2002:325; McAnany 2010; Wilk and Ashmore 1988). Another term, corporate group, is more inclusive and refers to an economic unit potentially grouping several households (Gillespie 2000a: 136, 2007:33; McAnany 1995). When studying ancient Maya settlement - encompassing abandonment -1 believe that the concept of household must not be mistaken as an equivalent to dwelling (Wilk and Ashmore 1988:6), and has to be slightly redefined, broadened, and intertwined rather closely to the concept of corporate group. In the following pages, I argue that the basic social unit of the ancient Maya may be understood as the house group (also referred to as sociological house; Hendon 2010:57). The house-society (Societe a Maison) model, first defined by Claude Levi-Strauss (1979), is a social model, inspired by feudal European royal houses, which organizes certain cultures, both in terms of kinship and settlement patterns, into houses : "[...] the house as a grouping endures through time, continuity being assured not simply through succession and replacement of its human resources but also through holding on to fixed or movable property and through the transmission of the names, titles and prerogatives which are integral to its existence and identity. [...] The diacritical, status marking significance of such property appears to imply that the constituent units of society, the houses, are necessarily hierarchically ranked" (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a:7). This model has inspired many anthropologists (see Beck 2007; Carsten and Hugh- Jones 1995b; Hendon 2010:57; Joyce and Gillespie 2000), but was also the target of 136 much criticism (see Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a; Gillespie 2007:44; Houston and McAnany 2004). Before going any further with this topic, I must state that I do not advocate the application of the house-society model in its entirety to the ancient Maya (see Gillespie 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2007; Joyce and Gillespie 2000). My discussion (and vision) of the house group is rather intimately related with Carsten and Hugh-Jones' (1995a:45) adaptation of Levi-Straus' model: "Insofar as it is a native category referring to a social group, the house, in Levi Strauss's sense, is a largely ritual construct which is related to ancestors embodied in names, heirlooms and titles brought out and displayed in ritual contexts, and objectified in a temple or in a domestic dwelling which temporarily takes on this quality. [...] But the house has another side. It is an ordinary group of people concerned with their day-to-day affairs, sharing consumption and living in the shared space of a domestic dwelling. [...] On the one hand, people and groups are objectified in buildings; on the other hand, houses as buildings are personified and animated both in thought and in life [...]" (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995:45-46). I suggest that in the ancient Maya context, the architectural houses are the anchor of the social house group, which could be argued to be an equivalent to the "multifamily compound households" (McAnany 1995:121), and "coresidential group" (Wilk and Ashmore 1988:6). What is crucial about this social anchor, is that it is not only defined by material means, but also by the interred ancestors that were in constant symbolic interaction with the inhabitants of the house groups, and so, through centuries of occupation. The Constructed and Ideational Landscapes of House Groups. One of the most important aspect of house societies is their incredible attachment to their locale, the land where they are living, and where their ancestors have been living 'forever' (Gillespie 2000:57): "The continuity of the social house [...] is represented in the language of kinship and/or alliance by material and immaterial references to precedence in the form of ancestors" (Gillespie 2007:35). In the ancient Maya context, this is expressed by the 137 tradition of burying important individuals - thus transforming them into venerated ancestors - within architectural structures (Ashmore and Geller 2005; McAnany 1995). These residences and temples, on top of being the most important components of the materially constructed landscape of the ancient Maya, then acquired further symbolic, ideational significance. This constructed landscape (see Knapp and Ashmore 1999; Stanton and Magnoni 2008a: 9-11) when ascribed to one Maya house group, can be defined as an architectural compound composed of a variable amount of structures (of residential, ancillary, and ceremonial functions) organized around a public patio, or courtyard (Gillespie 2000:141, 2007:39). As will be further discussed, such a house group may also be 'allied' with surrounding architectural groups, and thus incorporated within a broader house. The inhabitants of a house group were primarily linked by kinship, not only because these locales were where families were united, but also, as aforementioned, because their ancestors were interred within these architectural compounds: "[...] ancestors come to symbolize the coalescence of lineage and locale" (McAnany 1995:110). But integration to a house group was not limited to descent, and could also be achieved by marriage, adoption, capture, or simply enduring shared residential patterns (Hendon 2010:57). Obviously, this integrative "genealogy of space" (McAnany 1995:100) is tied to the jaloj-k'exoj, and the transfer of k 'ulel between the ancestors and the living (Gillespie 2001:92; McAnany 1995). In other words, the house group, as a constructed landscape yielding an ancestral genealogy (embodied by its burials and caches), acquired a definite symbolic dimension, making it an ideational landscape as well (see Knapp and Ashmore 1999; Stanton and Magnoni 2008a:9-l 1). But this 138 particular aspect of the ideational dimension of ancient Maya architectural groups does not stand alone. The ancient Maya were obviously sedentary and their economy depended on their agricultural productivity. Their fields and gardens, situated around their households, were consequently a fundamental factor in determining their economic success. Thus, wealthy households, strategically placed in agriculturally productive areas - according to the principle of first occupancy — could afford the construction of a more prestigious constructed landscape (Gillespie 2007; Macrae and lannone 2009; McAnany 1995:97, 106). In other words, this perpetually maintained and renovated architecture was a symbol of prestige for the Maya, and further symbolized the enduring success - which transcended generations - of their house group (lannone et al. 2008:154-155; Hendon 2010:102). Therefore, within communities, the elaborateness and strategic settlement of house groups had a strong, prestige-related, ideational component: "The relation between building and group is multifaceted and contextually determined, the house's role as a complex idiom for social groupings, as a vehicle to naturalize rank, and as a source of symbolic power being inseparable from the building itself. (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a:20-21). In other words, the house group's architecture, organized around public spaces, embodied the material, economic and spiritual dimensions of Maya communities. Hence, ancient Maya architectural groups, as an ideational landscape, may be understood as the material reflection of their socially constructed house. Consequently, the difference in elaboration of the numerous house groups comprised in ancient Maya communities, would have ranked them in terms of associated prestige (Hendon 2010:102; lannone et al. 2008:154-155). This being said, I do not advocate that every single architectural group, including isolated structures, represented an autonomous house group. Instead I suggest that different alliance networks unified architectural groups under the same umbrella: "While the house can clearly be exploited for purposes of social differentiation, it can also - and still more powerfully - be used in the attempt to create a legitimating and apparently 'natural' unity in which the houses of rulers are conceived as 'encompassing' those of their followers." (Waterson 1995:53) While this is argued for rulers, I propose, on the basis of the principle of first occupancy, and on the observation of dominant architectural groups within all segments of communities, that this was replicated at a smaller scale, allowing lower-ranking commoners to associate themselves with more prestigious commoners' house groups. This would have been done in accordance with strategic decisions relating to economic and prestige-related factors, taken by the leading agents of the various house groups. These associations, based on several factors including locality and kinship, highlight the permissiveness of the house model as a social structure. Consequently, these sets of house affiliations would have bolstered an atmosphere of competition, where neighboring house groups could have challenged each other's prestige through the means of labor investment in the construction of their physical, constructed landscape (Hendon 2010:102). These inclusive characteristics of the house model represent the most critiqued aspect of its definition, and I agree that the house-model has its defects. However, I advocate that this model is at least partly applicable to the ancient Maya, and that the house-group structure is observable at the time of abandonment. The Abandonment of Ancient Maya Architectural Landscape I have discussed how Maya social identity was intimately related to their constructed landscape. The fact that generation upon generation occupied the same locus 140 for several centuries, and contributed to the creation of an elaborate constructed landscape, demonstrates the complexity of the ideational dimension of ancient Maya architecture. In other words, the house group was a domestic compound where various buildings organized around a communal space "were contributors to and agents of the production and reproduction of social life, including identity, memory [...] [and made] history perceptible and palpable, material and monumental, and seemingly immutable" (Hendon 2010:96; emphasis by the author). What was Abandoned. Let us come back to the subject of this thesis, and examine the sociological implications signified by the abandonment of this complex Maya architectural landscape. At the time of abandonment, the ancient Maya would have had to leave behind: 1) their constructed landscape, composed of architectural structures and farmlands; 2) their ideational landscape, composed of: a) the powerful k'ulel pool protected by their sacred ancestors, and b) the prestige associated with their constructed landscape; 3) the basis of their sedentary economy (their fields and gardens); 4) the access to their natural and conceptualized landscape, composed of the surrounding mountains, caves and forest, and their natural resources (Fay Brown 2008:277). In other words, the ancient Maya, at the time of abandonment of their social landscape, would have had to sacrifice both the economic (Stanton and Magnoni 2008a: 13) and sacred basis of their house, throwing away all their prestige, and thus threatening their own identity; "[...] within the context of Maya temporality, abandonment would signify the end of cycles of use - the end of the future as encoded in the past, precipitating a crisis of identity" (Fay Brown 2008:277). Termination Rituals as a Rite-of-Passage. Rituals, studied under the scope of rites of passage, may be ascribed to what Van Gennep (1960[1909]) has termed liminality, 141 which corresponds to a momentary transition between two states of being. This model of ritual has been applied to mortuary rituals, and to the veneration of the dead (see Bloch and Parry 1982, Huntington and Metcalfe 1979:93-117), where the actual liminal stage corresponds to the transition between life and death (Duncan 2005:209-211; Rakita and Builkstra 2005:97). It is also common to refer to mortuary rituals, such as the Christian tradition of exposing the body of deceased individuals, as a means of facilitating grief and consoling, through communal processes, the sorrow of the mourners. When one considers the living-being, animistic nature that the Maya ascribed to their architecture, parallels between actual mortuary rituals and termination rituals become obvious (Benavides C. 2008:233; Mock 1998a:9, 11). In other words, when these rituals were performed, the structures were in the ambiguous liminality, between their everlasting cycle of life, and the obliteration of their k'ulel. Therefore, termination rituals may be understood as the mortuary ritual - serving as a rite of passage into oblivion - of Maya architectural structures. The access to the buildings, or the passageway to courtyards, representing their usage - their function, or raison d'etre - are the logical focal point of termination rituals. In the context of house groups, such rituals, taking place within communal space, and binding the community through feasting and other collective activities, further served the purpose of embodying this transition : "If people construct houses and make them in their own image, so also do they use these houses and house-images to construct themselves as individuals and as groups." (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a:3). Furthermore, this 'mortuary' rite of passage could have eased the 'grieving process' of the individuals, who were facing the loss of their identity, as a result of the 'death' of their primordial social landscape. The same idea may be applied to the functional termination of royal-related buildings. In such cases, the individuals associated with the function of these structures would have been compelled to signify, by a termination ritual, their transition into oblivion. During this liminal stage, the k'ulel associated with the role of those structures would have been released, therefore 'killing' their existence and function. Obviously, such a termination, as it was not associated with the basis of social identity, may not have been as sorrowful as was the case for house groups. In the context of buildings such as Structures 12A or Group L, which were tied to the royal court complex, their termination may even have been led by 'disgruntled community members' who were gladly signifying the end of the usage of these structures (lannone 2007). This brings to light the importance of evaluating the degree of valence (or banishment) involved in the performance of termination rituals (Canuto and Andrews 2008:265), which is so hard to assess (see Chapter Two, p.39, for a discussion on the matter). From this point of view, but to higher valence scale, it is also possible to perceive desecratory violent termination rituals, which typically targeted elite residential courtyards and involved the profanation of ancestral tombs, as the ultimate violation of the social landscape of enemies, what Bloch and Parry (1982) term negative predation (Duncan 2005:211-212). In this case, the rite of passage enacted by the desecratory termination ritual, rather than being reflective of sorrow, would have been an expression of triumph, celebrating the death of an enemy's house. Once 'dead', these different types of 'de-constructed' landscapes would have acquired a completely new ideational dimension. These would likely have remained in the social memory of the abandoning residents and their descendants for a long time, a 143 fact that may explain the presence of exposed offerings resulting from post-abandonment veneration (see Stanton and Magnoni 2008b for numerous examples). Lastly, one question remains: What happened to the human constituents of the house group once it was terminated? Where did they go? Did they found a new house group? These questions are very intriguing but, unfortunately, with our present knowledge of the ancient Maya, it is impossible to answer them. I suspect that the ancient Maya at centers such as Minanha would have left to either find a vacant spot for settling a new home, or would have joined a different community, which was less affected by the 'collapse process'. SUMMARY The abandonment of ancient Maya constructed house groups, and their corresponding ideational dimension, would have meant the death of the house and the dissolution of the k'ulel binding this social unit together. In this context of severe identity trauma, a communal ritual aiming at celebrating the house-group one last time, while terminating its life, seems logical. This life-to-death rite of passage, concentrating on the blocking of the access to the most prestigious buildings of the house group, would have obliterated the means of participating in the social processes of ancient Maya house groups: "The source of the symbolic power of the house does not reside in the house as isolated entity, but in the multiple connections between the house and the people it contains. This is vividly brought out by the fact that a house without people in it is not a proper house." (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995:44) 144 Just as the infilling of the royal residential courtyard at Minanha is postulated to have embodied the termination of Minanha's royal house (lannone 2007), the termination rituals of commoners' residential groups such as Group S, or Groups MRS4, MRS 15, and MRS89, could be argued to have embodied the termination of these humbler houses. While the same cannot be said about the termination of the other buildings (Structures 12 A, 43L, 44L, and 45L), their termination - in association with the infilling of Group J - may be related to the end of the ruling house of Minanha. CONCLUSION This thesis had the objective of reconstructing the abandonment scenario for the ancient Maya community of Minanha. This was done through the careful examination of 12 on-floor assemblages excavated across all the strata of Minanha's community. The ceramic material recovered as part of these on-floor assemblages - and in some instances, recovered from the above-floor levels associated to these on-floor features - was analyzed following the type-variety: mode analysis used by past SARP researchers. The data from this ceramic analysis were combined with a careful examination of the architectural context of each on-floor assemblages, and the result of this combination was analyzed through a behavioral approach. This behavioral-contextual approach enabled me to postulate the abandonment processes responsible for each assemblage. Once this was done, the results of these 12 analyses were combined in order to acquire a holistic view of the abandonment of the broader Minanha community. Specifically, here is how the behavioral-contextual study of the 12 on-floor assemblages of Minanha answered my three questions: 145 When Were the Different Segments of the Minanha Community Abandoned? After the demise of Minanha's royal court, early on during the Terminal Classic, Group L , and then Structure 12A - both situated in close association with the royal residential complex, Group J - were soon abandoned. In the next century or so, before the start of the Early Postclassic, Group R and Group S - both situated in the Site-Core Zone - were also abandoned. Around the same time, Group MRS89, situated atop a small ridge overlooking the Contreras Valley (in the Contreras Zone), was abandoned. Subsequently, early on during the Early Postclassic, Group MRS 15, settled in the Contreras Valley, was abandoned as well. Finally, during the early facet of the Early Postclassic, the most prominent settlement unit of the Contreras Zone, Group MRS4, was the last to be abandoned. This chronology does not reflect the abandonment of every single architectural group at Minanha, but thanks to the representative sampling strategy adopted by SARP, it provides with a fairly accurate approximation for the abandonment scenario for the Minanha community at large. How Did the Abandonment Occur for Each of these Segments? Taken as a whole, the Minanha community was abandoned in a gradual and organized fashion, over a period of more than two centuries. The abandonment occurred differentially within the three segments of the community. In the Epicenter, the abandoned structures studied in this research appear to have been ritually and reverentially terminated. These termination rituals seem to have aimed 146 at obliterating the royal-related function of the buildings, in a fashion that paralleled the ritual termination of Group J, the royal residential courtyard. In the Site Core Zone, Group R appears to have been abandoned without the performance of a formal termination ritual, but in a manner that left some ceramic refuse on the floor of Structure 91R. Not far from there, it seems that the inhabitants of Group S, before abandoning their group, performed a complex termination ritual which focused on the northern wing of their tripartite ancestral shrine, Structure 76S. This ritual probably aimed at terminating the powerful k'ulel infused within their ancestral shrine, and symbolized the termination of the whole residential group, perhaps even the abandonment of this whole segment of the community. In the Contreras Zone, the inhabitants of Groups MRS4, MRS 15 and MRS89, before abandoning their residences, seem to have performed elaborate termination rituals which involved communal feasting and incense burning, and focused on the most important domestic structures of their groups. These termination rituals aimed at releasing the ancestral k'ulel held by their most prominent domestic structures, and symbolized the abandonment of the whole groups. What Does this Abandonment Scenario Tell Us About the Minanha Community? As lannone (2007) has suggested, it appears that the demise of the royal court of Minanha did not signify the end of the occupation at the site. However, this 'collapse' of Minanha's royal institution seems to have stimulated the termination of royal-related buildings. Thereafter, the community that kept on living at Minanha appears to have been successful for some time, as is attested by Terminal Classic construction events from numerous groups in the Site Core and Contreras Zones (lannone et al. 2006). The success of these commoner groups is exemplified by the Terminal Classic reoccupation of Group J, where humble perishable structures were constructed over the infilling of its original royal residential compound (lannone 2007). As previously discussed, this Terminal Classic community kept on living at Minanha for a few centuries, but did not endure through all of the Early Postclassic period. By then, the different segments of the Minanha community had all been abandoned in the different manners described above. This Variety of ritual abandonment processes suggests that the classical jaloj-k'exoj explanation for all types of termination rituals may not be fully adequate. As a matter of fact, termination rituals may be conceptualized as something different than ceremonies aiming at religiously releasing the k'ulel of structures. Indeed, the social structure of the ancient Maya, who were incredibly attached to their constructed landscape and its ideational dimension - its associated ancestral k'ulel, prestige, and function - predisposed them particularly to be affected by abandonment. Accordingly, termination rituals may be understood as communal rites of passage, observed by various 'liminal' rituals, including feasting, food offerings, and the burning of incense. Therefore, termination rituals, as rites of passage, might have facilitated the acceptance, for the members of the house group, of the imminent abandonment of their vital social landscape. On the other hand, in the context of administrative, but ideologically meaningful structures, such as buildings associated with a royal court complex, or in the case of desecratory termination rituals, the transition enacted by these rites of passage may have been perceived as relatively positive. To conclude, on-floor assemblages, as a marker of abandonment, allow archaeologists to inquire into a specific set of events associated with past communities. 148 Such a context is rare in archaeology, and through the careful contextual examination of this type of feature, it is possible to reconstruct the behaviors of the agents responsible for the deposition of these artifactual assemblages, which were left in situ at very critical moments in the life of those ancient communities. In other words, the study of on-floor assemblages and termination rituals provides us with a glimpse into a very critical moment of ancient Maya culture-history, where many aspects of Maya ideology and social structure played themselves out. APPENDLX A: SARP PROJECT TEMPORAL DESIGNATIONS (working version) ^modified from Ball and Taschek 1999* EARL Y PRECLASSIC 1200-900 B. C. EARLY MIDDLE PRECLASSIC 900-600 B. C. LATE MIDDLE PRECLASSIC 600-400 B. C. LA TE PRECLASSIC 400 B. C. -100 A.D. TERMINAL PRECLASSIC 100-250 A.D. EARL Y CLASSIC 250-550 A.D. MIDDLE CLASSIC 550-675 A.D. LA TE CLASSIC 675-810 A.D. TERMINAL CLASSIC 810-900 A.D. EARL Y POSTCLASSIC 900-1200 A.D. LA TE POSTCLASSIC 1200-1525 A.D. APPENDIX B: SARP STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE GROUP TYPE DESIGNATION Site Core Zone MINANHA PHASE II SETTLEMENT STUDY: SITE CORE ZONE Randomly Selected Total # in Identified Settlement Units Total # in 20% Settlement Typo Zone Within the Site Core Zone Sample Units 1: isolated mound (less 70. 100. 119.120, 130. than 2 m high) 10 134. 137, 147. 150, 158 2.0 134, 137 II: 2-4 mounds (informally arranged; all less than 2 m high) 6 AC. AD. AF. AJ, AL. AN 1.2 AC III: 2-4 mounds N, O. P, T. V. X, Z, AA. AB. (orthogonally arranged; AE. AG. AH, Al. AK, AP. all less than 2 m high) 18 AQ, AR. AS 3.6 V, X, AQ IV: 5 or more mounds (informally arranged: all less than 2 m high) 0 none 0.0 V: 5 or more mounds (at least 2 arranged orthogonally: all less than 2 m high) 3 Q. U, W 0.6 U VI: 1 or more mounds (at least 1 being 2-5 m high) 2 R. S 0.4 S Vll: 1 or more mounds (at least 1 being higher than 5 m) 0 none 0.0 none TOTALS 39 7.8 8 note: All types are based on those employed by the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (e.g., Ashmore et al. 1994; Ehret et al. 1995). 151 Contreras Zone MINANHA PHASE ME SETTLEMENT STL«» CONTRERAS ZOWfefe||| Randomly Selected Total # in Identified Settlement Units Total* in 15% Settlement Type Zone Within the Contreras Zone Sample Units MRS10. MRS11.MRS26. MRS29. MRS30. MRS33, MRS36. MRS37, MRS38 MRS40, MRS41.MRS42, MRS43. MRS44, MRS48. MRS50. MRS52, MRS54. MRS57. MRS59. MRS61, MRS62. MRS66. MRS70. MRS73, MRS74. MRS76, MRS86. MRS87, MRS91. MRS94, MRS95. MRS97, MRS98, MRS101. MRS11, 102. MRS 105. MRS36, P106, MRS107. MRS43, ||08. MRS109. | MRS57. I: isolated mound (I S110, MRS111. MRS61. than 2 m high) 45 /IRS116 6.8 MRS86 IMRS28, MRS35. 5MRS45. MRS51, |RS56: MRS65. |||RS71. MRS78, i II: 2-4 mounds (informally - ".JRS85, MRS96. '' arranged: all less than 2 |/i/IRS113. ; m high) 18 2.7 RS2, MRS3, RS14. MRS16. P*L_ *SRS19, MRS20, RS23. MRS25. lMR527, 1MRS34, MRS49, MRS55, MRS58, MRS60, MRS63, MRS64, MRS67. MRS2, Jll: 2-4 mouWIl fill .. MRS68, MRS77, MRS81. MRS22. {orthogonally arranged; MRS88, MRS89, MRS90, MRS63. lull loss th^|m high) 29 MRS92, MRS103 4.4 MRS89 jV: 5 or mbrejiioutlds malty arranged; atl than 2 m high) 0.0 : 5 or more mounds (at least 2 arranged orthogonally: all less MRS13, MRS15, MRS17, than 2 m high) MRS 104 ' 0.6 MRS 15 VI: 1 or more mounds (at least 1 being 2-5 m high) MRS9, MRS4 0.3 |«IRS4 Vll: 1 or more mounds (at loast 1 being higher than 5 ml none 0.0 TOTALS 98 14.7 note: All types are based on those employed by the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (e.g., Ashmore et al. 1994; Ehret et al. 1995). 152 APPENDIX C: RESULTS OF THE CERAMIC ANALYSIS Please refer to attached compact disc. REFERENCES CITED Aimers, Jim 2003 Abandonment and Nonabandonment at Baking Pot, Belize. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 149-160. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ascher, Robert 1968 . Time's Arrow and the Archaeology of Contemporary Community. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Kwang-Chih Chang, pp. 43-52. National Press Books, Palo Alto. Ashmore, Wendy 2010 Antecedents, Allies, Antagonists: Xunantunich and Its Neighbors. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger pp. 46-64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ashmore, Wendy, Samuel V. Connell, Jennifer J. Ehret, Chad H. Gifford, L. Ted Neff, and John C. Vandenbosch 1994 The Xunantunich Settlement Survey. In Xunantunich Archaeological Project: 1994 Field Season, edited by Richard Leventhal, pp. 248-288. Xunantunich Archaeological Project, Belmopan and Los Angeles. Ashmore, Wendy and Pamela L. Geller 2005 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Space. In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, edited by Gordon F.M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck and Sloan R. Williams, pp. 81-92. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Ashmore, Wendy and Richard R. Wilk 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by Wendy Ashmore and Richard D. Wilk, pp. 1-27. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Awe, Jaime 1985 Archaeological Investigations at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. Unpublished M.A., Trent University, Peterborough. Ball, Joseph T., and Jennifer W. Taschek 1999 Las Ruinas de Arenal: Preliminary Report on a Subregional Major Center in the Western Belize Valley (1991-1992 excavations). Ancient Mesoamerica 10: 215-235. 154 2007 Sometimes a "Stove" Is "Just a Stove": A Context-Based Reconsideration of Three-Prong "Incense Burners" from the Western Belize Valley. Latin American Antiquity 18(4): 451-470. Barrett, Jason W. and Andrew K. Scherer 2005 Stones, Bones, and Crowded Plazas: Evidence for Terminal Classic Maya Warfare at Colha, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 101-118. Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn and Ronald L. Bishop 2002 Ceramics and Their Use at Ceren. In Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Ceren Village in Central America, edited by Payson Sheets, pp. 117-138. University of Texas Press, Austin. Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn, Scott E. Simmons and David B. Tucker 2002 Ancient Home and Garden: The View from Household 1 at Ceren. In Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Ceren Village in Central America, edited by Payson Sheets, pp. 45-57. University of Texas Press, Austin. Beck, Robin. A., Jr. 2007 The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 35, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Becker, Marshall J. 1992 Burial as Caches; Caches as Burials : A New Interpretation of the Meaning of Ritual Deposits Among the Classic Period Lowlad Maya. In New Theories on the Ancient Maya, edited by Elin C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 185-196. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 1999 Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Groups with Shrines. Tikal Reports No. 21. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2009 Tikal: evidence for Ethnic Diversity in a Prehispanic Lowland Maya State Capital. In Domestic Life in Prehisanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, edited by Linda R. Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine, pp.69-84. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. LP.* Ashes to Caches : Is Dust Among the Heterarchical Maya ?, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. [*In Print] Benavides C. Antonio 2008 Edzna: A Lived Place through Time. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 223-255. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Binford, Lewis R. 1981 Behavioral Archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise". Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 195-208. Bloch, Maurice and Jonathan Parry. 1982 Introduction. In Death and the Regeneration of Life, edited by Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, pp. 1-44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown, Kathrym M., and James F. Garber 2008 Establishing and Reusing Space: A Diachronic View form Blackman Eddy, Belize. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 147-170. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Cameron, Catherine M. 1993 Abandonment and Archaeological Interpretation. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions : Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by Catherine M. Cameron and Steve A. Tomka, pp. 3- 10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2003 A Consideration of Abandonment from Beyond Middle America. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb pp. 203-210. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cameron, Catherine M. and Steve A. Tomka 1993 Abandonment of Settlements and Regions : Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Canuto, Marcello A. and Anthony P. Andrews 2008 Memories, Meanings, and Historical Awareness: Post-Abandonment Behaviors among the Lowlands Maya. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 257-273. University Press of Colorado, Boulder Carsten, Janet and Stephen Hugh-Jones 1995a Introduction: About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. In About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 1-46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Carsten, Janet and Stephen Hugh-Jones (editors) 1995b About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen D. Chase 1998 Architectural Context of Caches, Burials and Other Ritual Activities. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 299-332. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 2000 Inferences about Abandonment: Maya Household Archaeology and Caracol, Belize. Mayab, Publication especial #13: 61-11. Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas, Madrid. 2004 Terminal Classic Refuse-Linked Ceramic and The Maya "Collapse" : De facto Refuse at Caracol, Belize. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Arthur Demarest, Prudence D. Rice, Don S. Rice. pp. 342-366. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2005 The Early Classic Period at Santa Rita Corozal: Issues of Hierarchy, Heterarchy and stratification in Northern Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 2, edited by Jaime Awe, John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, and Cristophe Helmke, pp. 179-192. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Child, Mark B., and Charles W. Golden 2008 The Transformation of Abandoned Structures at Piedras Negras. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 65-89. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Clayton, Sarah C, W. David Driver and Laura Kosakowsky 2005 Rubbish or Ritual? Contextualizing a Terminal Classic Problematical Deposit at Blue Creek, Belize: A Response to "Public Architecture, Ritual, and Temporal Dynamics at the Maya Center of Blue Creek, Belize" by Thomas H. Guderjan. Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 119-130. Coe, Michael D. 1999 Breaking the Maya Code (Revised Edition). Thames & Hudson, New York. Coe, Michael D. and Mark Van Stone 2005 Reading the Maya Glyphs (second edition). Thames & Hudson, New York. Coe, William R. 1958 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia. 1965 Caches and Offertory Practices of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of the Middle-American Indians, Volume 2: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 462-68. University of Texas Press, Austin. Corzo, Lilian S., Marco Tulio Alvarado, and Juan Pedro Laporte 1998 Ucanal: un sitio asociado a la cuenca media del rio Mopan. In XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 1997, edited by J.P. Laporte and H. Escobedo, pp. 191-214. Museo National de Arqueologia y Etnologia, Guatemala. Demarest, Arthur A. 2004 Ancient Maya : The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2006 The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. Demarest, Arthur, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice 2004 The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformations. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Duncan, William N. 2005 Understanding Veneration and Violation in the Archaeological Record. . In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, edited by Gordon F.M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck and Sloan R. Williams, pp. 207-227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Ehret, Jennifer, L. Ted Neff, and Samuel Connell 1995 Social Organization and Human Ecology: Perspectives from the Xunantunich Hinterlands. Paper presented at the First Conference of Belizean Archaeology, San Ignacio, Belize. Fay Brown, Denise • 2008 Afterword. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 275-279. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Freidel, David 1986 The Monumental Architecture. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America, Volume 1, edited by Robin A. Robertson and David A. Freidel, pp. 1-22. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. 1998 Sacred Work: Dedication and Termination in Mesoamerica. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp. 189-193. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 158 Freidel, David and Linda Scheie 1989 Dead Kings and Living Temples : Dedication and Termination Rituals among the Ancient Maya. In Word and Image in Maya Culture, edited by William F. Hanks, pp. 233-243. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Freidel, David, and Linda Scheie 1990 A Forest of Kings, Morrow, New York. Freidel, David, Linda Scheie, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos : Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. Perrenial, New-York. Freidel, David, Charles K. Suhler, and Rafael Cobos Palma 1998 Termination Ritual Deposits at Yaxuna : Detecting the Historical in Archaeological Contexts. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp. 135-144. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Garber, James F. 1983 Patterns of Jade Consumption and Disposal at Cerros, Northern Belize. American Antiquity 48(4): 800-807 1986 The Artifacts. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America, Volume 1, edited by Robin A. Robertson and David A. Freidel, pp. 117-126. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Garber, James F. (editor) 2004 The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Haifa century of archaeological research. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Garber, James, David Driver, Lauren Sullivan and David Glassman 1998 Bloody Bowl and Broken Pots : The Life, Death and Rebirth of a Maya House. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp. 125- 133. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Gifford, James C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley (compiled by Carol. A. Gifford). Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Gillespie, Susan D. 2000a Maya "Nested Houses": The Ritual Construction of Place. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, pp. 129-146. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 2000b Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing "Lineage" with "House'. American Anthropologist 102(3): 467-484. 2001 Personhood, agency and mortuary ritual: A case study from the ancient Maya, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(2) p. 73-112. 2007 When is a House ? In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology, edited by Robin A. Beck, Jr., pp. 25-50. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 35, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Gomez, Oswaldo, Lilian A. Corzo, Julio A. Roldan, Carlos Aragon and Anaitte Benitez 1994 Calzada Mopan: Zona arqueologica en el medio rio Mopan. In Reporte 8, Atlas Arqueologico de Guatemala, pp. 75-199. Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala. Graham, Elizabeth A. 2004 Lamanai Reloaded: Alive and Well in the Early Postclassic. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Volume 1, edited by Jaime Awe, John Morris, and Sherilyne Jones, pp. 223-241. Institute of Archaeology, NICH, Belize. Hammond, Norman 1999a A Pillar of State... Majestic, Though in Ruins: The Royal Acropolis of La Milpa. Context 14(1): 11-15. 1999b A Maya Throne Room at La Milpa. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Newsletter 28: 12-13. Hammond, Norman, and Ben Thomas 1999 Another Maya Throne Room at La Milpa. Context 14(1): 15-16. Hageman, Jon B. 2004 The Lineage Model and Archaeological Data in Late Classic Northwestern Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:63-74. Hansen, Richard D. 1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 49-122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Hansen, Richard. D., Wayne K. Howell and Stanley P. Guenter 2008 Forgotten Structures, Haunted Houses, and Occupied Hearts: Ancient Perspectives and Contemporary Interpretations of Abandoned Sites and Buildings in the Mirador Basin, Guatemala. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Alme Magnoni, pp. 25-64. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Harrison, Peter D. 1999 Lords of Tikal: Rulers of an Ancient Maya City. Thames & Hudson, London. Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, Patricia McAnany and Rebecca Storey 2007 Empowered and Disempowered During the Late to terminal Classic . Transition : Maya Burial and Termination Rituals in the Sibun Valley, Belize. In New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society, edited by Vera Tiesler and Andrea Cucina, pp. 74-98. Springer-Verglad, New York. Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, Patricia McAnany and Satoru Murata 2008 Purposeful Desecration of a Ruling Elite Residence? Recent Excavations at the Hershey Site, Sibun Valley, Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 5, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe and Cristophe Helrnke, pp. 63-78. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Hayden, Brian and Audrey Cannon 1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117-63. Healy, Paul F., Jaime Awe and Hermann Helmuth, 2004 Defining Royal Maya Burial: A Case from Pacbitun. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Haifa Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James Garber, pp. 228-237. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Helrnke, Christophe 2006a Recent Investigations into Ancient Maya Domestic and Ritual Activities at Pook's Hill, Belize. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 17: 77-85. 2006b A Summary of the 1999-2002 Seasons of Archaeological Investigations at Pook' Hill, Cayo District, Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 3, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe and Cristophe Helrnke, pp. 179-192. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Hendon, Julia 2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations, American Anthropologist 102(1): 42-53. 2010 Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life in Mesoamerica. Duke University Press, Durham. 161 Herbert, James, Gyles lannone, and Peter V. Prince 2002 The 2002 Field Seaon at Group R, Minanha, Belize. In Archaological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourth (2002) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Joelle Chartrand, Rachel Dell, Adam. Menzies, Adam Pollock, and Barbara Slim, pp. 75-79. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Hodder, Ian 1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell, London. Houston, Stephen and Patricia McAnany 2003 Bodies and Blood: Critiquing Social Construction in Maya Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22: 26-41 Huntingon, Richard and Peter Metcalfe 1979 Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge University Press, New York. lannone, Gyles 1993 Ancient Maya Eccentric Lithics: A Contextual Analysis, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough. 2000 SARP Recording Sheets and Classification Guides. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Lisa McParland, Adam Menzies, and Ryan Primrose, pp. 109-125. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. 2005 The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Maya Petty Royal Court, Latin American Antiquity 16(1): 26-44. 2006a Detailed Description of the Proposed Phase II Research. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eighth (2006) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Jeffrey Seibert and Jason Seguin, pp. 12-26. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. 2006b Archaeological Research at Minanha: Summary of the 2006 Investigations. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eighth (2006) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Jeffrey Seibert and Jason Seguin, pp. 1-11. SARP, Trent • University, Peterborough. 2006c Investigations in the Buried Royal Residential Courtyard at Minanha, Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 3, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe and Cristophe Helrnke, pp. 155- 168. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. 2007 The Ritual Termination of Royal Palaces Dunng the Terminal Classic Period: Implications for Understanding Ancient Maya Societal Structure. Paper presented at the 5th annual Belize Archaeology Symposium, Belize City. 2009 Archaeological Research at Minanha: Summary of the 2009 Investigations. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eleventh (2009) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Matthew Longstaffe, and Scott Macrae, pp. 1-11. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. lannone Gyles, Carmen McCormick, and James Conolly. 2008 Community Archaeology at Minanha: Some Preliminary Insights from the Phase II Settlement Study. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 5, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, and Christophe Helrnke, pp. 149-158. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan lannone, Gyles, Holley Moyes, Jaime Awe, James A. Brook, James W. Webster and James Conolly. 2009 Socio-Environmental Dynamics in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : A Long Term Perspective. Paper presented at the 7th annual Belize Archaeology Symposium, Belize City. lannone, Gyles, Jesse Phillips, and Carmen McCormick 2006 Community Archaeology at Minanha: Some Preliminary Musings on the 2006 Filed Season. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eighth (2006) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Jeffrey Seibert and Jason Seguin, pp. 115-127. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. Inomata, Takeshi 1997 The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 337-351 2003 War, Destruction, and Abandonment: The Fall of the Classic Maya Center of Aguateca, Guatemala. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb pp. 43-60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2008 Warfare and the Fall of a Fortified Center : Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville. 2010a Introduction. In BurnedPalaces and Elite Residences of Aguateca: Excavations and Ceramics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 1-19. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2010b Introduction to the Ceramic Study at Aguateca. In Burned Palaces and Elite Residences of Aguateca: Excavations and Ceramics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 157-162. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Inomata, Takeshi and Erick Ponciano 2010 The Palace Group. In Burned Palaces and Elite Residences of Aguateca: Excavations and Ceramics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 23-52. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Inomata, Takeshi and Laura R. Stiver 1998 Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya Household. Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 431- 452. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Erick Ponciano, Estela Pinto, Richard E. Terry and Markus Eberl 2002 Domestic and Political Lives of Classic Maya Elites: The Excavation of Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 13(3): 305-330. Inomata, Takeshi and Ronald W. Webb (editors) 2003 The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Joyce, Arthur A. and Sissel Johannessen 1993 Abandonment and the production of archaeological variability at domestic sites. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions : Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by Catherine M. Cameron and Steve A. Tomka, pp. 138-153. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Joyce, Rosemary 2000 Heirlooms and Houses: Materiality and Social Memory. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillepsie, pp. 189-212. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Joyce, Rosemary A. and Susan Gillespie (editors) 2000 Beyond Kinship : Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Knapp, Bernard A. and Wendy Ashmore 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and Bernard A. Knapp, pp. 1-30. Blackwell, Oxford. Kunen, Julie Mary Jo Galindo and Erin Chase 2002 Pits and Bones: Identifying Maya Ritual Behavior in the Archaeological record , Ancient Mesoamerica 13:197-211. LaMotta, Vincent M. and Michael B. Schiffer 1999 Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages. In Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by Allison M. Penelope, pp. 19-29. Routledge, London. Lamoureux-St-Hilaire, Maxime 2009 Across the Border: Socio-Economic Dynamics in the Guatemalan Vaca Plateau and Mopan and Chiquibil Basin during the Late Classic to Terminal Classic Transition. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eleventh (2009) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Matthew Longstaffe, and Scott Macrae, pp. 140-151. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. Laporte Juan Pedro 2004 Terminal Classic Settlement and Polity in the Mopan Valley, Peten, Guatemala. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Arthur Demarest, Prudence D. Rice, and Don S. Rice. pp. 195-230. University Press of Colorado, Boulder Laporte, Juan Pedro, Jorge E. Chocon, Hector E. Mejia, Carlos Batres, Jaime Castellanos, Rene Johnston, Irinna Montepeque and Luis Salazar 1999 Exploraciones arqueologicas en Calzada Mopan: Grupos asentados en las terrazas de la Acropolis. In Reporte 13, Atlas Arqueologico de Guatemala, pp. 264-291. Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala. Laporte, Juan Pedro and Hector E. Mejia 2002 Tras la huella del Mopan: arquitectura del Clasico Terminal y del Postclasico en el sureste de Peten. In XV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 2001, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Herman Escobedo, and Barbara Arroyo, pp. 65-96. Museo National de Arqueologia y Etnologia, Guatemala. Laporte, Juan Pedro, Hector E. Mejia, Mary Jane Acuna, Silvia Alvarado, Karia Alvarez, Ana Lucia Arroyave, Erika Gomez, Luz Midilia Marroquin, Damaris Menendez and Luis Salazar. 2002 La exploration de grupos residenciales en Ucanal, Melchor de Mencos. In Reporte 16, Atlas Arqueologico de Guatemala, pp. 127-170. Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala. LeCount, Lisa J. 2010 Mount Maloney People? Domestic Pots, Everyday Practice, and the Social Formation of the Xunantunich Polity. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger pp. 209-232. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 165 LeCount, Lisa J. and Jason Yaeger 2010 Conclusions: Placing Xunantunich and Its Hinterlands Settlements in Perspective. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger pp. 337-369. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. LeCount Lisa J., Jason Yaeger, Richard M. Leventhal and Wendy Ashmore 2002 Dating the Rise and Fall of Xunantunich, Belize: A Late and Terminal Classic Lowland Maya Regional Center. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 41-62 Levi-Strauss 1979 La voie des Masques. Plon, Paris. Longstaffe, Matthew 2010 Ancient Maya Site Core Settlement at Minanha, Belize: Development, Integration, and Community Dynamics. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Lohse, Jon C. and Fred Valdez Jr 2004 Examining Ancient Maya Commoners Anew. In Ancient Maya Commoners, edited by John C. Lohse and Fred Valdez, pp. 1-22. The University of Texas Press, Austin. Loten, H. Stanley 2001 The North Acropolis : Monumentality, Function and Architectural Development. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners and Affairs of State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 227-252. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Lucero, Lisa J. 2006 Water and Ritual: The Rise and Fall of Classic Maya Rulers, University of Texas Press, Austin. 2010 Materialized Cosmology Among Ancient Maya Commoners. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(1): 130-167. Macrae, Scott A. 2009 A Comparative Approach to Understanding the Socio-Political and Socio- Economic Organization of the Intensive Terrace Farming at the Ancient Maya Centre of Minanha, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Macrae, Scott A., and Gyles lannone 2009 The Investigation of the Relic Terrace Systems Surrounding the Ancient Maya Site of Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eleventhh (2009) 166 Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Matthew Longstaffe, and Scott Macrae, pp. 71-109. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. Manahan, Kam T. 2004 The Way Things Fall Apart: Social Organization and the Classic Maya Collapse of Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:107-125. 2008 Anatomy of Post-Collapse Society: Identity and Interaction in Early Postclassic Copan. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 171-192. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Martin, Simon and Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya (revised edition). Thames & Hudson, New-York. Mathews, Jennifer and James Garber 2004 Models of Cosmic Order : Physical Expression of Sacred Space among the Ancient Maya, Ancient Mesoamerica 15:49-59. McAnany, Patricia 1995 Living with the Ancestors : Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1998 Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 271-298. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New-York. McCane, Carmen A., Kendall Hills, Andrew Snetsinger, and Matthew Longstaffe 2009 The Last Year of Trying to Figure Out "What was going on Over Yonder?": The 2009 Peripheral Investigations in Contreras, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eleventh (2009) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Matthew Longstaffe, and Scott Macrae, pp. 13-49. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. McCormick, Carmen A.M. 2007 What was going on Over Yonder?: The Peripheral Investigations in Contreras, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Ninth (2007) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone and Scott Macrae, pp. 74-98. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough 2008 A Continuation of the Investigations into What Was Going on Over Yonder?: The 2008 Peripheral Investigations in Contreras, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Tenth (2008) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone and Scott Macrae, pp. 14-72. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. McGee, Jon R. 1998 The Lacandon Incense Burner Renewal Ceremony. In The Sowing and the . Dawning, edited by Shirley B. Mock, pp. 41-52. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. McKee, Brian R. 2002 Household 2 at Ceren: The Remains of an Agrarian and Craft-Oriented Corporate Group. In Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Ceren Village in Central America, edited by Payson Sheets, pp. 58-71. University of Texas Press, Austin. McKee, Brian R. and Payson Sheets 2003 Volcanic Activity and Abandonment Processes : Ceren and the Zapotitilan Valley of El Salvador. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 61- 75. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Mejia Hector E. 2002 Ucanal: aproximiacion a su espacio politico territorial. In XVSimposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 2001, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, H. Escobedo and B. Arroyo, pp. 313-332. Museo National de Arqueologia y Etnologia, Guatemala. 2003 Distribution y funcion de los monumentos de Ucanal, Peten. In XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 2001, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Herman Escobedo, Barbara Arroyo and Hector Mejia, pp. 280-295. Museo National de Arqueologia y Etnologia, Guatemala. Michelet, Dominique et Charlotte Arnaud 2006 Del Arraigo Mediante el Culto a los Ancestros a la Reivindicacion de un Origen Extranjero. In Nuevas Ciudades, Nuevas Patrias : Fundaciony Relocalizacion de ciudades en Mesoamerica y el Mediterraneo Antiguo, - edited by Josefa Ponce de Leon, Rogelio Valencia Rivera and Andres Ciudad Ruiz, pp. 65-92. Publicaciones de la Sociedad Esapnola de Estudios Mayas, Madrid. Miller, Mary 1998 A Design for Meaning. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 187-222. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 168 Mock, Shirley B. 1998a Prelude. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley B. Mock, pp. 3-20. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1998b The Defaced and the Forgotten : Decapitation and Flaying/Mutilation as a Termination Event at Colha, Belize. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley B. Mock, pp. 113-124. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Navarro Farr, Olivia C, David A. Freidel, and Ana Lucia Arroyave Prera 2008 Manipulating Memory in the Wake of Dynastic Decline at El Peru-Waka': Termination Deposits at Abandoned Structure M13-1. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 113-145. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Nelson, Ben A. 2003 A Place of Continued Importance: the Abandonment of Epiclassic La Quemada. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 77-89. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Paauw, Derek 2004 Excavations within Structures 43L, 44L, and 45L in Group L at Minanha, Belize: 2004 Research. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Sixth (2004) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, J. Turuk, Derek Paauw, Jason Seguin, and Laura McRae, pp. 40-57. SARP. Trent University, Peterborough. 2005 Digging in the Backyard of the Lord: The 2005 Excavations in Group L. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Seventh (2005) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, pp. 72-83. SARP. Trent University, Peterborough. 2007 Archaeological Investigations in Group L at the Ancient Centre of Minanha, Belize. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Trent University, Peterborough. Pagliaro, Jonathan, James Garber and Travis Stanton 2003 • Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual. In Ancient Mesoamreican Warfare, edited by Kathryn Brown and Travis Stanton, pp. 75-90. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Palka, Joel W. 2003 Social Status and Differential Processes of Abandonment at the Classic Maya Center of Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. In The Archaeology of 169 Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 121-133. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Pendergast, David 1998 Intercessions with the Gods : Caches and their Significance at Altun Ha and Lamanai, Belize. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley B. Mock, pp. 55-63. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Urunuela 2003 Frowm Episodic to Permanent Abandonment: Responses to Volcanic Hazards at Tetimpa, Puebla, Mexico. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 13-27. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Prince, Peter V. 2000 The Second Terrace Operation: A Preliminary Analysis of Group R, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Lisa McParland, Adam Menzies, and Ryan Primrose, pp. 51-65. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. Prince, Peter V. and Nick Jamotte 2001 The second Terrace Operation: Investigations at Group R, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Ryan Primrose, Adam Menzies, and Lisa McParland, pp. 56-63. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. Rakita, Gordon F. M. and Jane E. Buikstra. 2005 Corrupting Flesh: Reexamining Hertz's Perspectives on Mummification and Cremation. In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, edited by Gordon F.M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck and Sloan R. Williams, pp. 97-106. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Reeder, Philip, Robert Brinkmann, and Edward Alt. 1996 Karstification on the Northern Vaca Plateau, Belize. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 58(2):121-130. Rice, Prudence M., Arthur Demarest, and Don S. Rice. 2004 The Terminal Classic and the "Classic Maya Collapse" in Perspective. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Arthur Demarest, Prudence D. Rice, Don S. Rice. pp. 1-11. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Robin, Cynthia 170 2002 Outside of Houses : the Practices of Everyday Life at Chan Noohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2):245-268. Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1975 Excavation at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Ceramics. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 13. Harvard University, Cambridge. Sanders, William T. 2003 Collapse and Abandonment in Middle America. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 193-202. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Schiffer, Michael Brian 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. In Behavioral Archaeology : First Principles (published in 1995), pp. 25-34. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1975 Behavioral Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization, and the Use of Space. In Behavioral Archaeology : First Principles (published in 1995), pp. 53- 66. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1985 Is there a "Pompeii Premise" in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41:18-41 1995 Behavioral Archaeology : First Principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Schwake, Sonja Andrea 2002 The Ritual Sub-Program of Investigations: The 2002 Research in Group S, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourth (2002) Field Season, edited by by Gyles lannone, Joelle Chartrand, Rachel Dell, Adam. Menzies, Adam Pollock, and Barbara Slim, pp. 80-96. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2003 The Ritual Sub-Program of Investigations: The 2003 Research in the Minanha Periphery. In Archeaological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fifth (2003) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone and James Herbert, pp. 80-96. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2008 The Social Implications of Ritual Behavior in the Maya Lowlands: A Perspective from Minanha, Belize. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California at Santa Diego, Santa Diego. Seibert, Jeffrey 2000 Preliminary Excavations in Structure 12A at Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Lisa McParland, Adam Menzies, and Ryan Primrose, pp. 35-50. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. 2001 Continuing Excavations of Structure 12A, Minanha, Belize. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Second (2000) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Ryan Primrose, Adam Menzies, and Lisa McParland, pp. 29-44. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. 2002 2002 Excavations in Structure 12A, Minanha, Belize. In Archaological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourth (2002) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Joelle Chartrand, Rachel Dell, Adam. Menzies, Adam Pollock, and Barbara Slim, pp. 7-28. Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Sharer, Robert J. and Loa P. Traxler 2006 The Ancient Maya (sixth edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford. Sheets, Payson 2002 Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Ceren Village in Central America. University of Texas Press, Austin. Slim, Barbara 2004 Letting the Margins Speak: Exploring the Lower Strata of Ancient Maya Royal Courts at Minanha', Belize. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. Smith, Suzanne Lee 2009 Patterns in Seal Iconography: A Frequency Model. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos. Stanton, Travis and Thomas Gallareta N. 2001 Warfare, Ceramic Economy, and the Itza: A Reconsideration of the Itza in Ancient Yucatan. Ancient Mesoamerica 12: 229-245. Stanton, Travis W., M. Kathryn Brown and Jonathan B. Pagliaro 2008 Garbage of the Gods? Squatters, Refuse Disposal, and Termination Rituals Among the Ancient Maya, Latin American Antiquity 19(3): 227-248. Stanton, Travis W. and Aline Magnoni 2008a Places of Remembrance: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 1-24. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2008b Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Stephens, John L. 1841 Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (In Two Volumes). Dover Publications, New York. 1843 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan (In Two Volumes). Dover Publications, New York. Stross, Brian 1998 Seven Ingredients in Mesoamerican Ensoulment: Dedication and Termination in Tenejapa. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp. 31-40. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Stuart, David, 1998 "The Fire Enters his House" : Architecture and Ritual in Classic Maya Texts. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 373-426. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Suhler, Charles and David Freidel 2003 The Tale End of Two Cities : Tikal, Yaxuna, and Abandonment Contexts in the Lowland Maya Archaeological Record. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 135-147. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sullivan, Lauren A., Jon B. Hageman, Brett A. Houk, Paul Hughbanks, and Fred Valdez Jr. 2008 Structure Abandonment and Landscape transformation : Examples from the Three Rivers Region. In Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands, edited by Travis W. Stanton and Aline Magnoni, pp. 91-111. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Tedlock, Dennis 1996 Popol Vuh (The Definitive Edition). Touchstone, New York. Trachman, Rissa M. 173 2010 Ancient Maya Household Ritual in Northwestern Belize: Memory, Expression, and Identity. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology Volume 7, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, George Thompson, and Melissa Badillo, pp. 179-192. National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Van Gennep, A. 1960 The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. [Originally published in 1909]. Vogt, Evon Z. 1998 Zinacanteco Dedication and Termination Rituals. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp.21-30. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 2004 Daily Life in a Highland Maya Community. In Ancient Maya Commoners, edited by John C. Lohse and Fred Valdez, pp. 23-48. The University of Texas Press, Austin. Walker, Debra Selsor 1998 Smashed Pots and Shattered Dreams. In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Mock, pp. 81-99. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Waterson, Roxana 1995 Houses and Hierarchies in island Southeast Asia. In About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh- Jones, pp. 47-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Webb, Ronald W. and Kenneth G. Hirth 2003 Xochicalco; Abandonment of Households at an Epiclassic Urban Center. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Ronald W. Webb, pp. 29-42. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Webster, David W. 1998 Classic Maya Architecture : Implications and Comparisons. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen Houston, pp. 5-48. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 54. Harvard University, Cambridge. Wilk, Richard R. and Wendy Ashmore 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Winter, Marcus 2003 Monte Alban and Late Classic Site Abandonment. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by Takeshi Inomata & Ronald W. Webb pp. 103-119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Yaeger, Jason 2010. Shifting Political Dynamics as Seen form The Xunantunich Palace. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and Jason Yaeger pp. 145-160. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Yaeger, Jason and Marcello Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: a New World Perspective, edited by Marcello Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge London. Zehrt, Claudia 2006 Excavations in Group S, the 2006 Season. In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Eighth (2006) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone, Jeffrey Seibert and Jason Seguin, pp. 27-57. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough. 2007 Changing Fates: Life at the Residential Group S in Minanha's Site Core Zone (Field Season 2007). In Archaeological Investigations in the North Vaca Plateau, Belize : Progress Report of the Ninth (2007) Field Season, edited by Gyles lannone and Scott Macrae, pp. 37-73. SARP, Trent University, Peterborough.