Interpreting
the Maya “Collapse”:
Continued
Investigation of Residential Complexes in and near Caracol’s Epicenter:
2009 Field
Report of the Caracol Archaeological Project
Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase
University of Central Florida
The 2009 field season of the Caracol
Archaeological Project ran from late January through the middle of March. The project was staffed by 32 people (Table
1). The research undertaken at Caracol
during the 2009 field season had three specific field objectives. The first goal was to complete the axial
excavation of Structure C20, started in 2008.
The second goal was to begin a new program of settlement research focusing
on the use of LiDAR to attempt to document Caracol’s outlying settlement. The third, and primary, archaeological focus
for the 2009 field season was to begin a three-year program to analyze
residential and status differences among Caracol’s elite inhabitants at the
time of the Maya Collapse; these excavations focused exclusively on the
Northeast Acropolis during 2009.
Goal
1: Continuation of the 2008 Research
During the 2008 field season,
Structure C20 was axially trenched and yielded a series of special deposits
that included 3 interments and 2 caches.
These excavations and deposits are fully detailed in the 2008 Season
Report for the Caracol Archaeological Project (www.caracol.org). Also recovered in the course of the axial
penetration of Structure C20, however, were the capstones for another
interment. The central capstone was
lifted, revealing an open-air space that dropped 0.7 m down to a dirt surface;
although no one went inside the chamber, it was estimated that the rough-walled
tomb minimally measured 2 m from north-to-south by 1.2 m east-to-west. Because multiple deposits were in the process
of being excavated and so as to not rush the investigation, the capstones were
replaced and the trench was backfilled in 2008 in anticipation of proper
excavation in the future. During the
2009 field season, this tomb was in fact excavated and the results of its
investigation are reported below.
Goal
2: Lidar Mapping and Ground Checking of Caracol’s Settlement
In conjunction with Dr. John Weishampel
of the UCF Department of Biology, funding was awarded through a NASA/NSPIRES grant
both to gain biological information for the Caracol area and to attempt to document
the settlement, terraces, and other constructed features that form ancient
Caracol’s landscape through the use of remote sensing information (IKONOS
imagery and LIDAR radar). Because the
funding transfer took longer than was
projected – and due to the need to undertake LiDAR flights at the end of the
dry season, the project ran behind the original schedule developed for the
grant proposal. Prior to the 2009 field
season, IKONOS imagery had been acquired and analyzed by Dr. Weishampel, but
had not yielded significant results. In
February 2009, the collection of on-the-ground tree and canopy data commenced
with a biology graduate student who was housed with the archaeological project;
this data collection will continue during the 2010 field season. The National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping
undertook over-flights of Caracol in late April, after the 2009 archaeological
excavations had been completed; these flights produced LiDAR DEM (Digital
Elevation Model) data for both the treetop canopy and the ground level for 200
square kilometers of the site. The point
data and DEM were provided to the project in early June and are in the process
of being analyzed. It should be noted,
however, that the LiDAR over-flights provided data that was far beyond original
expectations. These data have resulted
in the identification of 11 new causeways, 5 new termini, and thousands of new
residential groups and terraces (Figures 1 and 2). While the validity of the LiDAR data could be
confirmed through comparison to pervious mapping, additional ground testing
will be undertaken during the 2010 field season.
Goal
3: Caracol’s Northeast Acropolis: Primary Focus of 2009 Field Season
The Northeast Acropolis, an elite
complex located in the site epicenter immediately adjacent to Caana,
constituted the main focus of archaeological research undertaken during the
2009 field season (Figures 3 and 4). The
research in this complex was funded by the Alphawood Foundation and constituted
the first year of a three-year project to investigate elite residential
complexes in order to garner more information about artifactual subcomplexes at
Caracol at the time of the “collapse.” During the 2009 field season, both
Structures B32 and B33 in the Northeast Acropolis were areally excavated and
penetrated. The northern side of
Structure B31 was also cleared for architectural detail and exterior testing
was carried out in the vicinity of Structure B30. The southern base of the platform supporting
the Northeast Acropolis was also tested.
Previously, the eastern building, Structure B34, had been excavated,
yielding a series of deposits that spanned the Late Preclassic through Terminal
Classic Periods. These earlier
archaeological investigations had suggested that the elevated plaza in the
Northeast Acropolis had been raised approximately 2 m during the late Late
Classic to Terminal Classic Period.
Thus, the Northeast Acroplis was deemed to be a logical locale for the
further investigation of late occupation at Caracol. By cleaning out what were expected to be
stone buildings in this raised architectural complex, it was hoped that in situ refuse would be recovered that
could be compared with material from other epicentral palaces. This did in fact turn out to be the
case. However, the magnitude of Terminal
Classic modification to this architectural complex only became clear with the
deeper penetration of Structure B32 and the discovery that the entire western portion
of the Northeast Acropolis was a very late addition that accompanied the
raising of the plaza. The 2010 field
season will attempt to determine the full extent of the Terminal Classic
building effort at this locale and to define the earlier architectural form of
the Northeast Acropolis in order to see how the function of this group may have
been altered by Caracol’s latest inhabitants.
Basal clearing of Structure B33 and B34 during 2010 is likely to recover
new Terminal Classic refuse. All of
these data should help further our understanding of Caracol’s Terminal Classic
Period and the events leading up to the final abandonment of the city.
Interpreting the
“Collapse”: Background for 2009 Research in Northeast Acropolis
Despite almost two centuries of
research, the factors resulting in the Classic Maya collapse remain
unresolved. Originally defined in terms
of a cessation in the creation and erection of stone hieroglyphic monuments,
conjoined with a stoppage of the construction of massive stone temples and
palaces in the lowland areas of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, the collapse
occurs primarily in the 9th century A.D. However, its timing varies substantially from
site to site throughout the Southern Maya lowlands. The Maya collapse has additional import when
viewed in relation to the contemporary turbulent political climate, with
scholars and lay public alike wondering if ancient situations may have modern
parallels – or, more far afield, even provide “warnings” for our own
society. Archaeological investigations
at Caracol, Belize have provided tantalizing clues to this transition,
documenting dramatic changes in the site’s socio-political and economic systems
between the Late Classic (A.D. 550-780) and Terminal Classic (A.D. 780-950)
Periods. Contemporaneous differences
exist in the ceramic assemblages utilized by Caracol’s highest epicentral elite
as compared to other segments of the Terminal Classic society. Non-epicentral, secondary elite, even those living
in palaces, appear not to share in the use of the epicentral subcomplex. Thus, further investigation of both
epicentral and non-epicentral elite residential compounds is expected to shed
light on what transpired just before Caracol’s collapse. In order to gain a comparative sample from an
elite epicentral complex, excavations during the 2009 excavation season were
directed toward recovering appropriate materials from Caracol’s Northeast
Acropolis. While the eastern building in
this group had been trenched in the 1990s and had produced some materials
dating to the Terminal Classic Period, none of the other structures had been
investigated. Thus, the Northeast
Acropolis was deemed to be an appropriate locale for gathering the data that
could aid in detailing the significant changes in Caracol society that occurred
between the Late and Terminal Classic Periods.
The Problem:
Understanding the Nature of the Maya Collapse
The Classic Maya collapse is
among the most debated enigmas in modern archaeology. New proposals claiming to explain the Maya
denouement appear yearly, usually receiving substantial newspaper and
television coverage. The end of Maya
civilization has been publically portrayed as either due to drought (History
Channel Ancient Apocalypse: The Maya
Collapse) or due to destructive warfare and sacrifice (USA Today and New York Times
November 17, 2005; Discovery Channel Explorer:
Last Days of the Maya); the collapse of the Maya has also been linked to
prophetic “end-of-the-world” scenarios correlated with December 21, 2012
(History Channel Mayan Doomsday Prophecy). These are intriguing postulations that play
well for the media and public, but they are based on archaeological data that
are open to other interpretations.
Academically popular single-cause explanations for the Classic Maya
collapse include a host of factors (Aimers 2007), but often center on
discussions of internal and external warfare (A. Chase and D. Chase 1989; D.
Chase and A. Chase 2002, 2003; Demarest 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Sabloff and
Willey 1967 [but see Binford 1968]; Willey 1990), drought (Hodell et al. 1995,
2001; Gill 2000, Gill et al. 2007), and environmental degradation (e.g. Copan,
Webster 2002; Webster et al. 2004 [but see Fash et al. 2004]). It is apparent, however, that the collapse
was a more complex phenomenon that both spanned a substantial period of time
and had a variety of impacts among and within individual sites.
Previous archaeological investigations
at Caracol, Belize have shown that the site contains abundant Late and Terminal
Classic (collapse-related) remains (A. Chase and D. Chase 2007; D. Chase and A.
Chase 2000). This research has suggested
that the leaders of Late Classic Caracol utilized a distinct management
strategy characterized by symbolic egalitarianism (A. Chase and D. Chase 2009;
D. Chase and A. Chase 2006), resulting in a shared identity and prosperity
throughout Caracol’s population (D. Chase and A. Chase 2004). Through symbolic egalitarianism, the majority
of Caracol’s Late Classic population had access to material and ritual items
that were normally restricted at other Maya sites. In the Terminal Classic Period, however, this
strategy appears to have been abandoned.
Rather than having a relatively homogenous archaeological distribution
of material culture (as occurred in the Late Classic), it appears that social
differences were emphasized during the Terminal Classic. The uppermost elite appear to have used a
distinct ceramic subcomplex, as well as to have had access to goods that were
no longer available to the general populace (A. Chase and D. Chase 2004,
2005a). This move away from symbolic
egalitarianism is perhaps the catalyst for the ultimate collapse of Caracol.
Key to understanding the collapse at
Caracol, then, is greater exploration of Terminal Classic deposits to outline
changes in management strategies and social access to material and ritual
items, as well as to determine the areal extent of the high status ceramic
subcomplex at Caracol and the degree to which these remains are associated with
royal, as opposed to other elite, occupation.
To this end, two different locations were selected for archaeological
investigation over the course of a three year period from 2009 through 2011
(Figure 3). Both are residential
groups. One likely represents high
status, possibly non-royal, occupation and is the Northeast Acropolis. The other residential area is located west of
the site epicenter (Structures F30-F42) and likely housed high status members
of Caracol’s secondary elite. Taken
together and placed within the context of previous long-term work at Caracol,
these two groups should provide sufficient detail to elucidate the changes that
occurred and the variability that existed in pre-collapse Caracol social,
political, and economic organization.
Northeast
Acropolis: Structures B30-B34
The Northeast Acropolis is situated on a
raised platform immediately east of Caana (Figure 3). The acropolis commands the northern end of a
broad plaza that is bordered by Caana to the west and by the Barrio palace
complex to the east (A. Chase and D. Chase 2001). Six structures are located on top of this
elevated platform (Figure 4); a tall range building, Structure B33, dominated
the northern side of the complex; another range building, Structure B32, was
located on the western side of the elevated plaza; the eastern side of the
plaza contained an elevated pyramid, Structure B34, that functioned as the
group’s residential shrine; two low constructions, Structures B30 and B31,
defined the southern end of the plaza and a small low platform, Structure B150,
was located at the southwest corner of the complex. Based on the mapped plan, it was believed
that any formal entryway to this raised acropolis area would have had to pass
through one or more buildings, as represented by Structures B30 and B31;
contrary to this expectation, the 2009 excavations demonstrate that entry to
the raised acropolis was not achieved from its southern side and was, instead,
apparently gained from the platform’s sides.
The Northeast Acropolis was selected for
investigation for several reasons.
First, based on previous excavation of stone buildings elsewhere in the
epicenter, investigation of the sizeable range/palace buildings on the northern
(Structure B33) and western (Structure B32) sides of this complex was likely to
be associated with Terminal Classic in
situ refuse. Second, excavation of
Structure B34, the ancestral temple of the Northeast Acropolis, in 1994 and
1995 recovered a series of deposits ranging from the Late Preclassic (A. Chase
and D. Chase 2005b) through the Terminal Classic Periods (A. Chase and D. Chase
2007), indicating that the group had a long occupation history and was occupied
until the final abandonment of the site; thus, late remains could be
expected. However, the fact that no late
royal tombs were recovered in the ancestral shrine for the Northeast Acropolis
(unlike the Central Acropolis and Caana) suggested that excavations in this
complex would supplement our understanding of non-royal elite variability at
Caracol. Third, the excavations
undertaken in 1994 and 1995 indicated that a massive construction effort had
raised the Northeast Acropolis plaza over 2 m in the late Late Classic to
Terminal Classic Periods, indicating a substantial interest in this complex at
that time. Finally, it was thought possible
that excavations in the Northeast Acropolis could recover hieroglyphic texts
that could shed light on the Late to Terminal Classic history of Caracol;
stucco texts were recovered in association with buildings on both Caana (Grube
1994) to its west and on Structure B64 (bottom link in 1994-96 season report at
www.caracol.org)
to its east.
Structure B33
Structure B33 is the most
massive construction of the Northeast Acropolis (Figure 5). The interior rear floor of the latest
building is situated some 5.4 m above the latest plaza floor and the terrace in
front of the summit construction rose 4.8 m above this same plaza surface. The final building that occupied the summit
of Structure B33 measured 7.8 m in depth by an estimated 37.2 m in length and
consisted of a total of 8 rooms. The stone
base-walls for this construction were presumably surmounted by a wooden
building and roof; no vault stones were recovered in the excavation. At each end of this palace, two transverse
rooms were set – one looking west towards Caana and the other looking east towards
the C Group. Each of the excavated transverse
rooms measured 2.0 m in depth. The
innermost western transverse room had an infilled and elevated floor that
raised this surface 0.4 m above the underlying floor that formed the surface
for the central front room; a 1.5 m deep bench was set against the rear wall of
the outermost western transverse room.
When viewed from the south, Structure B33 would have revealed a façade
with three doorways that all accessed the same front room. Three other interior doorways penetrated the
rear wall of this central room, entering three separate rear rooms. The eastern central rear room was excavated
and produced a small inner portico and that was fronted by a solid raised bench
on its eastern, northern, and southern side; the stonework evident in the sides
of the benches was truly monolithic.
Half of the central rear room was excavated during the 2009 field season;
this 2.3 m deep chamber revealed a central bench set against the rear wall; the
bench rose 0.73 m above the floor on which it had been built, but only 0.4 m
above the floor with which it was finally associated; its final form would have
measured some 5.0 m in width by 1.7 m in depth.
An opposing L-shaped bench dominated the eastern side of the central rear
room.
While the latest palace on the
summit of Structure B33 was used and modified during the Terminal Classic
Period, portions of this building must date to the Early Classic Period. An Early Classic tomb was found in the
doorway area immediately below the summit floor associated with the building’s
inner door jambs, possibly indicating that the medial wall of the structure in
this locus was of Early Classic date.
However, the front room of the palace constituted a Terminal Classic
addition as did the transverse rooms on the western side of the summit. These construction efforts may have been
accompanied the late building activity that raised the Northeast Acropolis
plaza by over 2.0 m at approximately the same time. The stratigraphy from the Structure B33 locus
makes it clear that the edifice had already achieved its present height in the
Early Classic Period; as such, it would have been a much more impressive
building than its Terminal Classic counterpart, when it was fronted by a much
lower plaza level.
Operation C181B (Figures 6, 7, and 8) consisted of an axial trench
to Structure B33 and the excavation of the interior of the eastern portion of
the central rooms of the palace. The
trench measured 16.3 m north-south by 2.0 m east-west and the interior front
room extended 10.25 m east of the eastern interior doorjamb and was 2.1 m wide. Besides exposing the outlines of the Terminal
Classic building and its frontal platform, Operation C181B was recovered in situ floor refuse and significant
Early Classic construction activity, including a tomb. Terminal Classic ceramic and artifactual
remains were encountered in the original trench on axis to the building (Figures
9, 10, and 11) and included pieces of five vessels. In the central portion of the front room,
against the step-up for the interior stair were found an olla (Figure 10a), a footed
cylinder (Figures 10b), a small jar (Figure 10e), and a pyrite mirror piece
(Figure 11j); positioned against the inner step and the western jamb were
portions of a burner (10f), the remainder of which is probably within the
unexcavated portion of the room.
Approximately 2 m into the eastern front room a ceramic spouted jar
(Figure 10d) and a large lithic (Figure 11d) were encountered on the floor. Pieces of another footed cylinder (Figure 10g)
were found on the front terrace and part of a late modeled barrel (Figure 10c)
and figurine (Figure 11i) were found on the front slope of Structure B33 in the
trench. Also located on the front summit
terrace were pieces of burnt shell (Figure 11e-h), probably part of the same
artifact, and a badly burnt and shattered large biface (Figure 11c). On top of the L-shaped bench in the inner
central room (Figure 12), the remains of a mirror were recovered, based on the
recovery of multiple pieces of a worked slate backing (Figure 13a-e) and four
pyrite mirror pieces (Figure 13f-i).
Penetration of the core of Structure
B33-1st yielded deeply buried architectural remains (Figures 14, 15,
and 16), all dating to the Early Classic Period, based on sherd material from
within sealed fill (Figures 19 and 20).
The upper stairway for the latest building was not preserved, but this
stair was set approximately 2 m above a ripped-out earlier summit stair. Half-way down the southern slope of Structure
B33, the basal course of what must have been a stair balk was recovered with an
associated floor. The materials in the
fill overlying the earlier steps at the summit of Structure B33 consisted of
mixed sherd material dating from the Preclassic through the late Late Classic,
3 partial green obsidian blades, and several chert artifacts (Figure 11a and 11b). Excavations at the base of Structure B33
found an exceeding disturbed late stair.
The limestone that made up this stair was extremely soft and had largely
disintegrated; yet, vertical stones were evident in the section, indicating
three possible latest steps, only the lowest of which could be recorded (Figure
14). As with the steps deep under the
summit fill, the earlier steps at the base of the substructure had been largely
removed, but were still very much in evidence (Figure 17). As with the plaza fill excavated in 1994 and
1995, the dirt fill over these ripped out steps was full of refuse. The majority of the pottery refuse that was
situated directly over the ripped-out earlier steps dated to the late Late
Classic and Terminal Classic Periods (Figures 21 and 22); other artifactual
garbage was also well represented (Figure 23).
Excavation into the core of the deeply buried ripped-out steps produced
only material dating to the Early Classic Period (Figure 20).
The buried architectural remains on the
summit of Structure B33 were also penetrated to the south of the tomb,
revealing a complicated construction sequence (Figure 18). The Early Classic tomb had been placed behind
a slight step that was appropriately placed to form an exterior plinth for the
medial building wall. This step was abutted
on its south side by a floor that extended 2.4 m to the south where it turned
down over a 0. 7 m high stair-balk. This
stair-balk in turn was set 0.6 m in front of an ealier stair-balk. This earlier stair-balk was abutted by a
floor that ran for 2.8 m and articulated with the upper course of the buried
earlier steps in the summit of Structure B33; the fill beneath these
constructions contained more dirt than stone.
Penetration of these surfaces and that fill, all of which must have
dated to the Early Classic Period, in turn revealed at least two earlier stages
of construction activity, associated with ripped-out steps and floors. In one of the ripped-out floors, a circular
pit (Figure 16) was uncovered that had been dug though the floor to a depth of
some 0.5 m; as it was sealed by upper floors, the pit must have been
intentional and its contents were either perishable or were robbed in
antiquity. The earliest construction at
this locus was comprised of a fill of large soft limestone blocks. There are undoubtedly other constructions
buried deep within Structure B33, probably of Late Preclassic date.
S.D. C181B-1 (Figures 24, 25, 26, and 27)
was assigned for an Early Classic tomb that was located on axis to Structure
B33 directly beneath the central rear doorway area. While the western central door jamb was not
located over the tomb, the eastern central jamb was directly over the tomb’s
capstones. The tomb was sealed by the
same floor that was associated with the door-jambs and upon which the central
rear bench rested. The chamber had been
dug into a pre-existing structure and its northern, eastern, and, western walls
consisted only of the cut fill; the southern wall was more formally constructed
of stone. It is suspected that the
interior of the chamber may have once been plastered, but that this thin
surface did not survive the ravages of time.
The roughly oval chamber that was created in the fill of the earlier
building measured 1.55 m in height by 0.95 m in width and 2.05 m in length
(Figure 25). The chamber contained the disintegrated
remains of a single adult individual with head to the east. The teeth show evidence of tartar; no
hypoplasia is present. Three pyrite
inlays were also present in the teeth, all located in premolars (both upper and
lower). The bones were extremely poorly
preserved meaning that no definitive sex identification is possible; however,
as the recovered bones are relatively slight, and given the jewelry that was
present, it is suspected that the individual may have been female. Areas of red cinnabar could be detected on
the floor of the chamber in the area of the skull and the feet. Four ceramic vessels were included in the
interment, all located in the vicinity of the feet and legs; these consisted of
a polychrome basal-flanged bowl (Figures 29a and 30), a dark brown pedestalled
bowl (Figure 29c), a dark brown spouted bowl (Figure 29d), and an unslipped cup
(Figure 29b). The cup was located within
the pedestalled bowl. The polychrome
bowl portrays a hummingbird on its interior and evinces two human portraits on
its exterior wall (Figure 30). Two large
spondylus shells (Figures 31a and 31b) were located to either side of where the
head had once been. The individual had
also worn a spondylus shell necklace, consisting of 54 beads (Figure 28 and 31c-dd). One other shell disk (Figure 31ee) was also
recovered in the vicinity of the head.
Three small pyrite mirror fragments were recovered south of the left arm
and may indicate that a mirror had once been present in the tomb.
Operation C181C and Operation
C181D (Figures 32, 33, and 34) both investigated the western portion of the
palace on the summit of Structure B33.
Operation C181C was located 6.5 m west of Operation C181B and
encompassed both the western part of the interior front room for the palace and
half of the two transverse rooms at the western end of the building; the
excavation measured 4.4 m north-south by 9.9 m east west. Operation C181D was originally designated to
encompass a looters’ pit into the southern wall of the structure, but was
extended to include all materials to the south of this wall, as well as a 1.2 m
excavation extension to the west and a 2.0 m by 2.0 m excavation south to the
summit edge. The westernmost outer wall
was not present, having collapsed over the edge of the substructure. The excavations indicated that the inner
doorway to the interior transverse room must have been offset to the north,
possibly to better highlight the rear bench in the outer transverse room, which
would have been centrally accessed. The
fill within the walls consisted of finely powdered bedrook, which did not do a
good job of providing the necessary binder for long-term preservation; the
eastern wall of the inner transverse room had collapse west over the interior
floor of the building. Two floor levels
were encountered south of the transverse building wall, in the area disturbed
by the looters. The lower floor level
was consistent with the surface levels elsewhere in Structure B33; the upper
level was approximately 0.5 m above this floor and possibly indicates the
existence of an exterior bench to the building, similar to the jaguar throne
noted to the west of the Structure B19-1st stairway. However, trees, looting, and slope had
caused the almost complete disruption of whatever this feature once was. The floor of the front central room for
Structure B33 was heavily burned and a carbon sample was taken for future
radiocarbon dating. That this portion of
Structure B33 was constructed and used in the Terminal Classic Period can be
established by the context of the ceramics recovered here. Portions of a censer (Figure 35a) were
recovered from within the bedrock fill of the rear transverse wall. Pieces of a flat-based Belize Red plate
(Figure 35d) were recovered on the floor of the inner transverse room and late
ceramic materials (Figure 35b and 35c) were recovered from the fill of the
elevated floor in the inner transverse room.
Structure B32
From its surface configuration, Structure
B32 appeared to be a range building situated on the western edge of the
Northeast Acropolis plaza (Figures 36 and 37).
Upon excavation, the substructure for Structure B32 measured 23.7 m
north-south; its east-width width can be estimated to be slightly less than
11.0 m. No indications were found that the
substructure was surmounted by a formally constructed stone building. Instead, the edifice that graced the multi-level
summit was probably perishable. The
interior rear floor for Structure B32 rose approximately 2.25 m above the plaza
floor for the Northeast Acropolis. The
building itself was minimally bi-level; the rear of the construction has
collapsed and the exact dimension are problematic. What remains of the building consists of a
lower eastern surface 1.25 m broad and a higher western surface2.1 m broad;
each of these levels rose approximately 40 cm above the associated floors. This rear bi-level construction was in turn
fronted by a 2.3 m wide terrace, the upper portions of which formed the fourth,
and uppermost, step for an 8.5 m wide stairway that protruded into the
Northeast Acropolis plaza. Extensive
burning was found on the plaza floor to either side of this stairway and along
the front terrace walls.
Operation C182B (Figures 39 and 40) was an axial trench into
Structure B32. The excavation measured.
11.9 m east-west by 2.5 m north-south (except for a 2 m wide section in the
plaza); materials overlaying the front step area included a Sahcaba
Modeled-Carved sherd (Figure 47j), part of a colander (Figure 47i), and pieces
from a large olla (Figure 46d). Deeper
penetration was made only in a 2.0 m by 2.0 m area tangent to the northern
section and set behind the intial summit step (Figure 38). This deeper penetration revealed that the
core of Structure B32 consisted of a packed dirt matrix that was similar to
that recovered from other plaza excavations, such as those in front of
Structures B33 and B34; as in these other deep excavations, this dirt fill
contained refuse (Figure 47a, c-e) and pottery (Figure 46c) that dated from the
Late Preclassic through the late Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods. However, whereas the deeper excavations in
StructuresB33 and B34 found earlier architectural features, none were recovered
in the Structure B32 excavations. Instead,
it would appear that Structure B32 was constructed at the same time and as part
of the same effort as the final plaza elevation for the Northeast Acropolis. This implies that a massive construction
effort was undertaken in the Northeast Acropolis in the early portion of the
Terminal Classic Period, presumably in the early 9th century
A.D. As Late Classic Period deposits
were recovered within earlier constructions in Structure B34, it can also be
deduced that the platform for the Northeast Acroplis was extended to the west
during this late construction effort and that the remains of any earlier
western buildings are presumably buried under the present plaza surface.
Operation C182C (Figures 41, 42, and 43) was set 1.4 m north of
Operation C182B and originally measured 5 m north-south by 5.5 m east-west; a
later extension to the north, measuring 3.0 m east-west by 5.1 m north-south,
resulted in an excavation that was 10.1 m in length and that exposed the entire
northeastern facing of Structure B32. Heavy
burning was noted for the entire floor along the terrace wall and samples were
taken for future radiocarbon dating. Ceramic
artifactual materials recovered during the clearing of this part of Structure
B32 included a modeled dog’s head (Figure 47l), a drilled sherd (Figure 47g),
and an eye from a modeled vessel (Figure 47k).
Operation C182D (Figures 44 and 45) was placed 0.9 m south of
Operation C182B and exposed the southeastern portion of Structure B32; the
excavation measured 3.8 m east-west by 9.4 m north-south, at which point the
excavation merged with Operaction C183F.
As in Operation C182C, extensive burning was again recorded for the
floors that abutted the terrace facing.
Portions of three pottery vessels were recovered during the clearing of
this area, two small bowls (Figures 46a and 46b) and one large bowl (Figure 46e)
located near the southeast corner. The
small, presumably footed, bowl is similar to others recovered in association
with Structures A6 and B64; the other bowl is similar to burial vessels found
in a residential group adjacent to the Conchita Terminus and in a residential
group a kilometer northeast of the Puchituk Terminus. Artifactual materials from this excavation
included a partial green obsidian blade (Figure 47b), a broken biface (Figure
47f), and numerous stone fragments that appeared to come from the same metate.
Structure B31
Architecturally, Operations C183E and
C183F showed that Structure B31 measured approximately 17 m in length (Figures
48 and 53). Extrapolating from Structure
B30, Structure B31 was probably approximately 5.5 m broad. While it is unlikely that a stone
construction graced the summit of Structure B31, the two excavations undertaken
on the front of this building revealed substantial architectural detail. The lower platform of this construction contained
two inset terraced areas with elevated borders set amid what must have been
three elevated balks or benches. The
central bench would have measured 3.2 m across its front and been 1.50 m deep;
the benches marking the extent of the front terrace would have been 2.1 m wide
and 1.5 m deep. The precise function of
these architectural features is not known, but it is likely that they would
have been covered by a perishable roof given the dimensions and form of
Structure B31.
Operation C183E (Figures 49 and 50) was set over the mid-section of
Structure B31 and measured 4.5 m north-south by 3.5 m east-west. The investigation succeeded in finding
architectural features associated with the lower terrace of Structure B31; the
eastern side of the front terrace in this excavation formed a lower area that
was set against a higher western balk or bench.
Apart from a burnt olive shell and some broken chert tools (Figure 52,
the only diagnostic ceramic materials associated with this excavation included
a composite lipped bowl (Figure 51b) and a possible piece of Daylight Orange:
Darknight Variety (Figure 51d).
Operation C183F (Figures 54 and 55) was placed 2.0 m west of
Operation C183E and exposed the entire front terrace of Structure B31, as well
as portions of its elevated summit. The
excavation measured 4.5 m north-south by 8.6 m east-west and merged with the
areal clearing undertaken in Operation C182D, exposing the southern facing for
Structure D32. A southwestern excavation
extension, measuring 2.4 m by 0.5 m, exposed a plinth on the building’s western
extent. Based on surface topography, it
is also possible that a short stairway accessed the Northeast Acropolis west of
Structure B31 and east of a small platform situated on the southwestern corner
of the Northeast Acropolis. Artifactual
materials recovered from this investigation included a partial olla with wavy
incision at its neck (Figure 51a), three ceramic figurine fragments (Figure 56d,
56f and 56h), a pyrite mirror piece (Figure 56e), part of a marine shell
(Figure 56g), and several chert tools (Figure 56a-56c).
Structure B30
Structure B30 was only cursorily
investigated during the 2009 field season.
Its western extent was revealed in Operation C183D. Operation C183C demonstrated that access to
this construction would not have been possible from its southern side. Operation C183H showed that there was an
alleyway south of the edifice and that another building that faced south may
have been located at the southeastern corner of the Northeast Acropolis. The data from Operation C183D and surface
features indicate that Structure B30 may have been 1.0 to 2.0 m longer than
Structure B31 and had a width of approximately 5.5 m.
Operation C183C (Figures 57, 58, and 59) was designed to find the
southern wall of Structure B30. The
excavation measured 3.0 m north-south by 2.0 m east west. It was set over the rear slope of Structure
B30 and extended south to the edge of the platform that comprised the top of
the Northeast Acropolis. While no
clear-cut facing was found that would have formed the southern wall for
Structure B30, a northern facing was located at the edge of the platform that
was abutted by a plaster floor. Although
only one course in height, this facing may represent the rear wall of a
construction that at one time overlooked the large plaza between the Northeast
Acropolis and Barrio; alternatively, it may simply be a formal border for the
alleyway behind Structure B30; work during the 2010 field season should answer
this question. A partial Belize Red
tripod plate (Figure 46c) was recovered in this excavation. Two interesting artifacts were also recovered
from the floor near the southern facing: one was a spondylus bead (Figure 60a) and the other was a small chert point
(Figure 60b). Elsewhere in the Maya
area, these small chert points are thought to be indicative of the use of the
bow-and-arrow (Shafer and Hester 1988) and they are also often taken to be
Postclassic in date. However, it appears
that this point – and several others at Caracol – date to the Terminal Classic
Period, something also noted for similar points from Tikal, Guatemala
(Moholy-Nagy 2008:14). The specimen from
Operation C183C is the third one of these points known from Caracol; another
small point was found at the base of Caana and the third small point was
recovered from within a residential tomb 1.2 km south of the epicenter.
Operation C183D (Figures 61, 62, and 63) was an excavation
measuring 10.25 m north-south by 2.0 m east-west. It was set in a depressed area between
Structures B30 and B31 and was designed to find the central access to the
Northeast Acropolis. Instead, the
investigation found the western extension of Structure B30 and demonstrated
that there was no central access to the Northeast Acropolis plaza from the
southern side of the platform.
Artifactual materials recovered from within this excavation included an
large incurved bowl (Figure 46d) and a number of chert tools (Figure 64). The space between Structures B30 and B31 appears
to have been less than 1.0 m in width and does not appear to have been designed
to provide entry to the Northeast Acropolis.
Thus, there was no central access to the Northeast Acropolis on its
southern side, which is very unusual given its articulation with the large
southern plaza that was also fronted by Barrio.
Structures B30 and B31 both faced north; their rear walls would have
shielded the interior plaza of the Northeast Acropolis from being viewed from
the south. These two buildings were
clearly situated so as to provide an aspect of privacy to the inhabitants of
the Northeast Acropolis. Thus, the
architectural constructions indicate that the Northeast Acropolis would have
been a very private area.
Operation C183H (Figures 65, 66, and 67) was not actually set over
Structure B30, but instead bounded the southeast corner of this structure. Operation C183H encompassed both an original
trench that measured 2.0 m east-west by 6.8 m north-south and an additional
areal excavation 4.0 m in width (north-south) by 6.0 m in length that straddled
a 1.4 m wide wall that was uncovered within the original trench (and that ran
to the west). This wall had remnants of
an interior floor on its southern side, presumably from a formal room; however,
the southern wall for this room had collapsed in antiquity. However, this construction apparently served
as the rear wall for a formal building that had been situated above the large
southern plaza between Barrio and the Northeast Acropolis. The wall had more courses on its northern
side and also evinced a plinth; with the plinth, the northern side was set at a
slightly deeper level that the southern facing for the wall. Besides being the rear wall of a southern
facing building, this same feature also formed the southern side of an alleyway
running to the west behind Structure B30.
Indeed, this facing may eventually prove to be linked to the facing that
was recovered in Operation C183C; however, alleyway steps should exist if this
was in fact the case. No formally
constructed step-up onto the plaza surface of the Northeast Acropolis was
recovered in Operation C183H, although it is suspected that one existed. Ceramic materials from this excavation
included Terminal Classic sherds (Figure 68 and 68c). Artifactual materials included the usual
chert tools (Figure 69d-69f), part of a limestone barkbeater (Figure 69a) and
an elaborately carved burnt bone portraying a human face (Figure 69c).
Acropolis Platform Base
The acropolis upon which the
Northeast Acropolis was situated rose approximately 5 m above the broad plaza
to its south and defined the entire northern extent of the plaza. Two excavations were therefore placed against
the base of the acropolis so that central stairs could be located that would
have led upwards from the plaza to the acropolis summit; neither excavation
appears to have found any evidence for such features. Instead, it would appear that the Northeast
Acropolis was not formally accessed from this plaza and that its access must
have been from its sides.
Operation C183B (Figures 70, 71, and 72) was set at the rise of the
acropolis platform and was designed to find any basal architectural
features. The excavation measured 2.0 m
east-west by 3.8 m north-south. While two
facings were located within the investigation, the construction core to the
north indicated that no stairway was possible in this location. Artifactual materials recovered in Operation
C183B included one worked bone and a number of worked chert tools (Figure 73).
Operation C183G (Figures 74, 75, and 76) was placed 9.9 m east of
Operation C183B and was also designed to search for basal architectural
features. Like Operation C183B, Operation
C183G also measured 2.0 m east-west by 3.8 m north-south. Unlike its sister operation, Operation C183G
did not recovered any definitive facings nor any indication that a stair could
have existed at this locus. Artifactual
materials recovered in this excavation included a circular shaped ceramic, a
large chert tool, and a ceramic censer appliqué (Figure 77).
Summary of Northeast
Acropolis
The Northeast Acropolis was
occupied from the Late Preclassic through the Terminal Classic Periods. The 2009 investigations of this complex
demonstrated several things. First, the
massive core of Structure B33 was constructed by the Early Classic Period and
was then extensively modified during the Terminal Classic Period. It in fact appears that Terminal Classic
peoples directly reused at least part of an Early Classic stone building and
that they incorporated earlier walls from this structure into an extensive
Terminal Classic palace. Second,
Structure B32 was a single phase construction effort that was undertaken at the
same time that the plaza surface at the summit of the Northeast Acropolis was
raised over 2.0 m in height; the dirt fill that formed the hearting for this
building was the same matrix as that used to build up the plaza. Third, late Late Classic and Terminal Classic
refuse was directly deposited on top of ripped-out Early Classic constructions
before and as the plaza was elevated.
Fourth, as a result of the late construction efforts, the Northeast
Acropolis became a very private plaza; only people on the summit of Caana would
have had a view into the Northeast Acropolis plaza; no direct access or view
was possible from the south side of the platform; entry may have only been
possible from the southeast and southwest corners of the Northeast Acropolis,
indicating that access would have been very controlled. Fifth, burials recovered during the 1994
excavation of Structure B34 indicate that this building received late Late
Classic and Terminal Classic interments, indicating that the people who resided
in the Northeast Acropolis at this time participated in traditional Caracol
burials patterns and were presumably local elites. Finally, the earlier Late Classic form of the
Northeast Acropolis was completely obscured by the Terminal Classic
modifications. It is suspected that
excavations within the central plaza would yield buried constructions of this
date on the western and southern sides of the Northeast Acropolis.
Culebras
Residential Group
The Culebras Residential Group
(Figure 78) is located to the southeast of the South Acropolis on the eastern
side of the Pajaro-Ramonal Causeway. The
group straddles a set of terraces on a hillside that leads up to the Caracol
epicenter. This residential group was
one of the primary foci for excavation during the 2008 field season and a
report of these archaeological investigations is available on the internet (www.caracol.org).
Structure C20
Structure C20 is the
northernmost of two eastern shrines associated with the Culebras Residential
Group. During the 2008 field season,
this building was penetrated by an axial trench and produced a number of
special deposits. One special deposit, a
rear chamber, was not excavated during 2008, but was rather backfilled so that
it could be investigated during the 2009 field season.
Operation C179B and Operation
C179H were both used during the 2009 field season. Operation C179B (Figure 79) was an axial
trench on Structure C20 that was excavated during the 2008 field season. Seven special deposits were encountered in
this trench, including the capstones for a large open air chamber at the
eastern end of the excavation. Because
of the size of the tomb and the fact that the chamber was recovered toward the
end of the 2008 field season, it was not excavated and was, instead, backfilled
intact so that it could be properly exposed in the future. At the beginning of the 2009 field season,
the eastern 1.5 meters of Operation C179B was reopened to re-expose the
capstones over the chamber. Upon
entering the tomb, it was determined that the structural fill had shifted to
the point that complete excavation of the chamber could cause a collapse. In order to ensure that conditions were safe
for the excavation, a southern extension was made directly over the chamber and
its capstones. This extension was
labeled Operation C179H and measured 2.2 m north-south by 1.5 m east-west
(Figure 80). Below the humus, the
disturbed remnants of the interior rear wall for Structure C20 were recovered
in association with pieces of the last interior floor of the building. Beneath this latest flooring, the capstones
for the chamber were found 55 to 65 cm below ground surface, as were pieces of
an earlier floor that was presumably cut to construct this chamber. The extension also exposed an entryway for
the tomb on its south side that consisted of a narrow passage and steps; this
entryway had been sealed within the fill of the last construction effort
associated with Structure C20.
Also within the fill for the
latest version of Structure C20, and sealed by the latest floor, was a smashed
concentration of ceramic sherds that was precisely centered on the tomb
axis. These ceramic materials were
located approximately 12-20 cm above the capstones for the chamber. Although not in specific order in the ground,
when reconstructed in the laboratory, they formed half of a ring-based dish;
the other half of this dish was recovered from the floor of the chamber (Figure
85m), sealed under other pottery vessels to the side of the bench. Thus, the interment of half of the vessel
above and a half of the vessel within the tomb was purposeful. This fortuitous find is also relevant to
other burial practices recorded from Caracol.
Partial vessels are occasionally recovered within tombs (A. Chase 1994),
leading to questions about their purpose and origin. Were they accidently included in the
chamber? Had the other part of the
vessel been purposefully removed? Had a
ceremony been carried out somewhere else and only part of that ceremony placed
in the chamber? The C179H/C179B vessel
indicates the purposeful use of a single vessel relative to the construction
and consecration of an interment chamber. Complete vessels have been noted in a number
of cases as occurring within fill above Caracol’s tombs; in some cases, single
vessels were complete and in situ ,
smashed above capstones; in other cases, one or more reconstructable vessels
were broken and included haphazardly in fill above a chamber (A. Chase and D.
Chase 1987); in still other cases, complete censers and vessels were placed on
floors directly above interments. Thus,
while we may perceive single contexts archaeologically, the ancient Maya used
material culture to ritually interrelate multiple contexts.
S.D. C179B-7 (Figures 81, 82, 83 and 84)
was assigned for the contents of the chamber uncovered in the rear of Structure
C20. The chamber contained an L-shaped
bench with a lower alley in the northwestern corner. The chamber measured roughly 2.1 m
north-south by 1.15 m east-west; it was 1.0 m from the upper bench surface to
the bottom of the capstone. The alleyway
measured 1.5 m in length by 0.3 m in width by 0.2 m in depth. The entryway was 0.5 m wide and ran along the
eastern side of the chamber; two steps led down to the bench surface. Thirty centimeters of dirt covered the
vessels and bones that were set on the broad bench; several ceramic vessels
were intact and upright. Skeletal
remains were distributed throughout the chamber and none were clearly
articulated. The skeletal remains were
very fragmentary, although all the remains appear to have been from
adults. No sex identifications are possible,
although one of the pelvises may be female.
Based on lower premolars, 7 individuals were present in the interment,
matching the 6 skull concentrations and one mandible noted by the excavator. Most of the individuals in this interment had
evidence of substantial tartar, although several also had caries. The teeth of one individual had hypoplasia;
those from two other individuals had evidence of having been filed; and, one
other individual displayed pyrite inlays in both lower left premolars. Including the vessel (Figure 85m) found both
above and within the chamber, sixteen pottery vessels were recovered from
within the tomb. Four are footed plates
(Figure 85i-85l); four are ring-base dishes (Figure 85m-85p); four were
cylinders (Figure 85a, 85c, 85g, and 85h); two were bowls (Figure 85e and 85f);
and two were pedestalled “brandy snifters” (Figure 85b and 85d). One of the cylinders evinces dark brown
designs on a buff background (Figure 85c); it is similar to other cylinders
noted from Tayasal in the Peten (A. Chase and D. Chase 1983: 145) and, more recently,
from the vicinity of Cancuen (based on photographs of that site’s ceramics). Another polychrome cylinder evinced three
human figures and an eroded band of hieroglyphs (Figures 85h and 86). The central figure dwarfs his two attendants
and is probably seated on a throne; his elaborate headdress is splayed over
more than half of the cylinder. The
brown modeled-carved cylinder (Figure 85a and 87) is perhaps the most unusual ceramic
piece. This vessel portrays the Sun God
with a jaguar headdress within a shell cartouche. The shell cartouche is framed to the left by
a corporeal serpent from whose mouth emerges God K with a water-lily headdress.
To the right of the shell cartouche, facing the God K serpent, is a
skeletalized serpent from whose mouth a foliated gourd emerges. This modeled-carved cylinder is similar
stylistically to three other recorded vessels, none of them from known context. Justin Kerr (www.famsi.org)
has posted photographs of two cylinders (K2292 and K8242) and one bowl (K8257) that
contain imagery and texts that closely resemble the Caracol vessel. The head of the sun god on one of these
vessels (K2292; Kerr 1990:230) is almost an exact duplicate to imagery shown on
the Caracol vessel. The origins of this
style cannot be determined at this time, but this style dates to the Late
Classic Period and is antecedent to the later modeled-carved vessels that appear
during the Terminal Classic (albeit with more warlike imagery). A large number of small artifacts were also
recovered from within the S.D. C179B-7 chamber.
One of the ring-based dishes (Figure 85n) contained: 8 partial obsidian
blades (Figure 88a-88h); 4 bone needles (Figure 88v-88y); 1 bone “bead” (Figure
88i); 1 burnt bone fragment (Figure 88j); 10 worked shell objects (Figure 88k,
88l, and 88n-88u), 1 chert flake (Figure 88m), 3 olive shells (Figure
88aa-88cc), and 1 river snail (Figure 88z).
Other materials recovered from within the tomb included: 18 fragmentary
obsidian blades (Figure 89a-r); 1 obsidian core fragment (Figure 89u); 1 green
obsidian point tip (Figure 89v); 10 chert tools (Figure 89s, 89t, 89w-89dd); 1
jadeite bead (Figure 90o); 1 spindle whorl (Figure 90m); 1 hematite inlaid
labret (Figures 90j and 91); 1 bone awl (Figure 90n); 2 bone pins/needles
(Figure 90a and 90e); 9 other pieces of worked bone (Figure 90b-90i, 90k, and
90l); 1 shell adorno (Figure 90r), 3 marine shells (Figure 90p, 90s, and 90z),
1 pomacia shell (Figure 90q), 6 riverine shells (Figure 90t-90y); and, 1 worked
stone (Figure 90aa).
The excavation of S.D. C179B-7
during the 2009 field season yielded a substantial tomb containing items that date
to the late Late Classic Period. Given
the seven individuals interred within the chamber, the 16 vessels indicate an
adherence to typical patterns regarding numbers and kinds of vessels that
accompanied the dead; while normally one cylinder, one plate, and perhaps one
bowl, there was clearly some flexibility in these pairings. The materials
within this chamber are also significant because they demonstrate that the
inhabitants of the Culebras residential group had access to a multitude of
items, some of them tradewares from outside the Caracol area. The artifacts from within the chamber also
suggest that the inhabitants of this group minimally worked (spindle whorl),
wove (bone awl), and sewed (needles and pins) cloth. The Culebras excavations provide an excellent
example of the material remains that can be associated with the inhabitants of
a non-elite Caracol residential group.
Significance
The 2009 field season was
significant for a number of reasons.
First, the Structure C20 tomb added to our understanding of ancient Maya
ritual behavior at the site by archaeologically demonstrating the unity between
materials overlaying a chamber with those within the chamber. Second, the LiDAR data from Caracol produced
accurate imagery of 200 square kilometers of Caracol’s ancient landscape
modifications and architectural constructions, potentially revolutionizing
settlement archaeology within the Maya area.
Finally, the investigations begun in the Northeast Acropolis of Caracol during
the 2009 field season are particularly important to understanding Terminal
Classic variability in coeval Maya material culture and in identifying changes
that immediately preceded the Classic Maya Collapse. Upon the conclusion of the 2010 field season,
the excavations in the vicinity of the Northeast Acropolis should help
elucidate late burial ritual, craft specialization, and the special role that
this architectural complex played within the Caracol site core. Investigations in the F33/F39 Complex in 2010
and 2011 will provide comparative material and aid in defining the latest
occupation, ritual patterns, and ultimate abandonment of Caracol. Previous research at Caracol suggests that
some of the answers to the Maya collapse lay in understanding the internal
dynamics of Maya socio-political and economic structures and the changes in
these dynamics between the Late and Terminal Classic Period. Thus, the research that is being undertaken
from 2009 through 2011 should ultimately have implications for wider
interpretations of the Classic Maya Collapse.
Acknowledgements
The bulk of the drafting for this report was
undertaken by Lucas Martindale Johnson with parts also being done by Arlen F.
Chase and Diane Z. Chase; all figures, however, were assembled and finalized
within Photoshop by Arlen F. Chase. The
Field Drawing represented within the drafted figures were recorded at Caracol
by senior staff members of the project listed in Table 1. As with past field seasons, the Belize
Institute of Archaeology has substantially facilitated the project; without the
aid of Jaime Awe, John Morris, George Thompson, and Brian Woodye, the field
camp and project at Caracol would not have functioned successfully, especially
in terms of camp start-up and final extraction.
Funding for the 2009 field season was provided by the Alphawood
Foundation, the Geraldine and Emory Ford Foundation, the Harrison Fund, NASA Grant NNX08AM11G in conjunction with the UCF-UF
Space Research Initiative, and the Trevor Colbourn Endowment
at the University of Central Florida.
References
Aimers,
James J.
2007 “What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya
Lowlands,” Journal of
Archaeological
Research 15(4): 329-377.
Binford,
Louis
1968 “Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology,” Southwestern Journal
of
Anthropology 24:267-275.
Chase,
Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase
1983 La Ceramica de la Zona
Tayasal-Paxcaman, Lago Peten Itza, Guatemala, distributed
by The
University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania (available at www.caracol.org).
1989 "The Investigation of Classic Period Maya Warfare at
Caracol, Belize," Mayab 5: 5-18.
2001 “The Royal Court of Caracol, Belize: Its
Palaces and People,” in Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D.
Houston, Eds., Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya:Volume 2:
Data and Case Studies, pp. 102-137,
Westview Press,
Boulder.
2004 “Terminal Classic Status-Linked Ceramics and the Maya
‘Collapse:’ De Facto Refuse at
Caracol,
Belize,” in A.
Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The
Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:
Collapse,
Transition, and Transformation, pp. 342-246, University of Colorado
Press, Boulder.
2005a “Contextualizing the Collapse: Hegemony and Terminal Classic
Ceramics from Caracol, Belize,”
in S. Lopez
Varella and A. Foias, Eds., Geographies
of Power: Understanding the Nature of
Terminal
Classic Pottery in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 73-91, BAR Monograph S1447,Oxford.
2005b “The Early Classic Period at Caracol, Belize: Transitions,
Complexity, and Methodological Issues
in Maya
Archaeology,” Research Reports in
Belizean Archaeology 2:17-38.
2007 “’This is the End:’ Archaeological
Transitions and the Terminal Classic Period at Caracol, Belize,”
Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology
4:13-27.
2009 “Symbolic Egalitarianism and Homogenized Distributions in the
Archaeological Record at
Caracol, Belize:
Method, Theory, and Complexity,” Research
Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6:15-24.
Chase,
Diane Z. and Arlen F. Chase
1996 "Maya Multiples: Individuals, Entries, and Tombs in
Structure A34 of Caracol, Belize," Latin
American
Antiquity
7(1):61-79.
2000 “Inferences about Abandonment: Maya Household Archaeology and Caracol,
Belize,” Mayab
13:67-77.
2002 “Classic Maya Warfare and Settlement Archaeology at Caracol,
Belize,” Estudios de Cultura
Maya 22:33-51.
2003 “Texts and Contexts in Classic Maya
Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and
Archaeology
at Caracol, Belize,” in M.K. Brown and T.W. Stanton, Eds., Ancient Mesoamerican
Warfare, pp. 171-188,
Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.
2004 “Archaeological Perspectives on Classic
Maya Social Organization from Caracol, Belize,” Ancient
Mesoamerica 15:111-119.
2006 “Framing the Maya Collapse: Continuity,
Discontinuity, Method, and Practice in the Classic to
Postclassic
Southern Maya Lowlands,” in G. Schwartz and J. Nichols, Eds., After
Collapse: The
Regeneration of
Complex Societies,
pp. 168-187, University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Demarest, Arthur
A.
1993 “The Violent Saga of a Maya Kingdom,” National Geographic 183(2):94-111.
1997a “The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project
1989-1994: Overview, History, and
Major Results of
a Multidisciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse,” Ancient Mesoamerica
8:209-227.
1997b “War, Peace, and Collapse of a Native American Civilization: Lessons
for Contemporary Systems
of Conflict,” in
T. Gregor, Ed., A Natural History of Peace,
pp. 215-248, Vanderbilt University
Press,
Nashville.
2004 “After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and
the Terminal Classic in the
Western Peten,”
in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The
Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 102-124, University of
Colorado Press,
Boulder.
Fash, William
L., E. Wyllys Andrews, and T.Kam Manahan
2004 “Political Decentralization, Dynastic Collapse, and the Early
Postclassic in the Urban Center of
Copan,
Honduras,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 260-287, University of
Colorado Press,
Boulder.
Gill, Richardson
B.
2000 The Great Maya Droughts:
Water, Life, and Death, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gill, Richardson
B., Paul A. Mayewski, Johan Nylerd, Gerald P. Haug, and Larry C. Peterson
2007 “Drought and the Maya Collapse,” Ancient Mesoamerica 18(2):283-302.
Grube, Nikolai
1994 "Epigraphic Research at Caracol, Belize," in D.
Chase and A. Chase, Eds., Studies in the
Archaeology of Caracol,
Belize,
pp. 83-122, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7,
San Francisco.
Shafer, Harry
and Thomas Hester
1988 “Preliminary Analysis of Postclassic Lithics,” in D. Chase and A.
Chase, A Postclassic
Perspective:
Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize, pp. 111-117,
Mongraph
4, Pre-Columbian
Art Research Institute, San Francisco.
Hodell, D.A.,
J.H. Curtis, and M. Brenner
1995 “Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya
Civilization,” Nature 375:391-394.
Hodell, D.A., M.
Brenner, J.H. Curtis, and T. Guilderson
2001 “Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands,” Science 292:1367-1369.
Kerr, Justin
1990 The Maya Vase Book, Volume 2,
Kerr Associates, New York.
Moholy-Nagy,
Hattula
2008 The Artifacts of Tikal:
Ornamental and Ceremonial Artifacts and Unworked Material, Tikal Report
27A,
University Museum Monograph 127, University of Pennsylvania Museum,
Philadelphia.
Sabloff, Jeremy
A. and Gordon R. Willey
1967 “The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: A
Consideration of History and
Process,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
23:311-336.
Webster, David
2002 The Fall of the Ancient
Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse, Thames and Hudson
Ltd, London.
Webster, David,
AnnCorine Freter, and Rebecca Storey
2004 “Dating Copan Culture-History: Implications for the Terminal
Classic and the Collapse,” in A.
Demarest, P.
Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic
in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 231-259,
University of
Colorado Press, Boulder.
Willey, Gordon
R.
1990 “General Summary and Conclusions,” Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala
17(4), Memoirs
of the Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Staff:
Directors:
Arlen
F. Chase C1
Diane
Z. Chase C2
Lab and Field Directors:
Maureen
Carpenter C56
Amy
Morris C111
Senior Field Supervisors:
James
Crandall C170
Amanda
Groff C150
Lucas
Johnson C134
Field Supervisors:
Lisa
Lomitola C183
Field Assistants:
Kelin
Flanagan C185
Joshua
Foster C186
Patsy
Holden C187
Alexander
Rivas C188
Vincent
Scarcella C189
Biological Program:
Jessica
Hightower C191
Belizean
Labor:
Kitchen:
Angelica
Meneses
Linda
Aurora Meneses
Mirna
Beatriz Meneses
Field:
Alvaro
Ruben Aldana
Jorge Alberto Aldana
Abelino Rafael Castellanos
Carlos Cocom
Reynaldo Cunil
Roberto
Cunil
Saul
Galeano
Jaime
Rene Iglesias
Robert
Carlos Lopes
Carlos
Ivan Mendes
Gabriel
Meneses
Asterio
Moralez
Aparacio
Moro
Jose
Luis Uck
Jose
Victor Vasquez
Figures
Cover: Ceramic
modeled-carved cylinder from S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 1: LiDAR
200 sq km DEM and the Caracol causeway system.
Figure 2: LiDAR
image of epicentral Caracol and southern settlement and terraces between the
Retiro and Pajaro-Ramonal Causeways.
Figure 3: Map
of Caracol epicenter showing details of the original map of the Northeast
Acropolis and the F30-F42
residential group.
Figure 4: Plan
of the Northeast Acropolis, showing the locations of the 2009 investigations.
Figure 5: Photograph
of Structure B33 showing the axial trench in Operation C181B.
Figure 6: Structure
B33 axial section (Operation C181B).
Figure 7: Photograph
of eastern portion of areal excavation in Operation C181B.
Figure 8: Plan
of Structure B33, as revealed in Operation C181B.
Figure 9: Plan
of in situ sherds that formed a reconstructable
vessel (Figure 11e) in front of the step-up to the
rear central room in Structure B33.
Figure 10: Ceramic
vessels associated with the summit floor of Structure B33: a. Valentin
Unslipped;
b.
eroded Zacatel Cream Polychrome; c. Monica Plano-Relief; d. possibly San Julio
Modeled;
f.
Monterey Modeled; g. Cohune Composite.
Figure 11: Artifactual
materials associated with the summit of Structure B33: a. chert biface; b.
chert drill;
c.
large burnt chert biface; d. limestone blank; e.-h. burnt shell; i. ceramic
figurine fragment; j.
pyrite mirror piece.
Figure 12: Photograph
of L-shaped bench in Structure B33’s central rear room (Operation C181B).
Figure 13: Artifactual
materials from the surface of the L-shaped bench in the rear central room of
Structure B33: a.-e. worked slate pieces
(probably all from the same mirror back); f.-i. pyrite mirror pieces.
Figure 14: Plan
of the upper step (late Late Classic or later) and the lower steps (Early
Classic) in the
southern part of the Structure B33 axial trench
(Operation C181B).
Figure 15: Plan
of the deeply buried earlier steps and the later stair balk in the central part
of the Structure B33
axial trench (Operation C181B).
Figure 16: Plans
associated with the summit excavation of the axial trench through Structure
B33: upper plan of rear bench, jambs and steps
associated with the central rear room and of the capstones over S.D. C181B-1; lower plan
of the two southern balks, buried and cut floors, and an upper step in front of
the central room; detail
of an empty pit through one of the deeper floors.
Figure 17: Photograph
of the lower buried steps (Early Classic) in the eastern extent of the axial
trench through Structure B33.
Figure 18: Photograph
of deeper constructions buried beneath the last floor for Structure B33; inner
balk is visible; the later balk is
visible in section; deeper cut shows softer dirt fill in an area of architectural
disturbance.
Figure 19: Ceramic
sherd material from within the fill of the lower buried steps (Early Classic)
in the eastern extent of the axial trench
through Structure B33: a., b., d., e. Quintal Unslipped; c. Candelario Appliqued;
f. unnamed dichrome; g., h. Dos Arroyos Orange-Polychrome.
Figure 20: Ceramic
sherd material from within the fill sealed behind the second balk in the axial
trench (Early Classic): a. Dos Hermanos Red;
b. probably Quintal Unslipped.
Figure 21: Ceramic
material from above the deeply buried steps to the front of the stair balk in
the eastern part
of the axial trench for Structure B33: a. Zacatel Cream-Polychrome; b. probably
Cambio < Unslipped.
Figure 22: Ceramic
material directly above (and resting on) the deeply buried steps in the eastern
extent of the
axial trench for Structure B33: a. possibly Calabaso Gouged-Incised; b. Canoa
Incised; c.,
e., i. burnt Tinaja Red; d., f., h. Palmar Orange-Polychrome; g. Tinaja Red; j.
Platon Punctated; k.
Belize Red; l. burnt Chaquiste Impressed; m. possibly eroded Valentin
Unslipped; n.,
o., q. Valentin Unslipped; p. eroded Calabaso Gouged-Incised.
Figure 23: Artifactual
material from directly above (and resting on) the deeply buried steps in the
eastern extent of the axial trench for
Structure B33: a.-g. chert burins, drills, and bifaces; h.-l. worked bone;
m. obsidian inlay; n. pyrite mirror piece.
Figure 24: Photograph
of S.D. C181B-1.
Figure 25: Plan
of S.D. C181B-1 (letters correspond with vessels in Figure 29).
Figure 26: East-west
cross-section of chamber for S.D. C181B-1.
Figure 27: North-south
cross-section of chamber for S.D. C181B-1.
Figure 28: Detailed
plan of beads in the skull area of S.D. C181B-1.
Figure 29: Ceramic
vessels from S.D. C181B-1: a. Dos Arroyos Orange-Polychrome; b. undesignated
type; c.,
d. Pucte Brown.
Figure 30: Photographs
of the polychrome decoration on the basal-flanged bowl from S.D. C181B-1.
Figure 31: Shell
artifacts from S.D. C181B-1: a., b. complete spondylus shells; c.-ddd.
spondylus shell beads; eee.
shell disk.
Figure 32: Photograph
of areal excavations, Operations C181C and C181D, on the western summit of Structure B33.
Figure 33: Section
of north wall of Operation C181C.
Figure 34: Plan
of Operations C181C and C181D.
Figure 35: Ceramic
vessels associated with Operation C181C: a. Ramonal Scored; b. Pantano
Impressed; c.
Valentin Unslipped; d. Belize Red.
Figure 36: Photograph
of Structure B32 and Operations C182B, C182C, and C182D, looking southwest.
Figure 37: Photograph
of Structure B32 and Operations C182B, C182C, and C182D, looking northwest.
Figure 38: Photograph
of excavation into the core of Structure B32 (Operation C182B).
Figure 39: Section
of Operation C182B.
Figure 40: Plan
of Operation C182B.
Figure 41: Profile
of north side of stairway for Structure B32 (Operation C182C).
Figure 42: Section
of Operation C182C.
Figure 43: Plan
of Operation C182C.
Figure 44: Section
of Operation C182D.
Figure 45: Plan
of Operation C182D.
Figure 46: Ceramic
vessels associated with Structure B32: a., b. Pepet Incised; c. eroded Paixban
Buff- Polychrome; c., d. Valentin
Unslipped.
Figure 47: Artifactual
materials associated with Structure B32: a.-c. fragmentary green obsidian
blades; d.
ceramic figurine fragment; e. worked bone; f. chert biface; g. shaped and
drilled ceramic; h.
riverine snail; i. ceramic colander sher; j. ceramic modeled-carved sherd; k.
Carro Modeled ceramic
sherd; l ceramic dog head.
Figure 48: Photograph
of Structure B31 with Operation C183E in the foreground.
Figure 49: Section
of Operation C183E.
Figure 50: Plan
of Operation C183E.
Figure 51: Ceramic
materials associated with Operations C183C, C183D, C183E, and C183F: a.
undesignated type; b. undesignated type; c. Belize Red; d. probably Daylight
Orange; e. eroded Tinaja
Red.
Figure 52: Artifactual
materials associated with Operation C183E: a.-d. chert tools; e. burnt olive
shell.
Figure 53: Photograph
of Structure B31 with Operation C183F in the foreground.
Figure 54: Section
of Operation C183F.
Figure 55: Plan
of Operation C183F.
Figure 56: Artifactual
materials associated with Operation C183F: a.-c. chert tools; d., f., h.
ceramic figurine fragments; e. pyrite mirror
piece; g. marine shell fragment.
Figure 57: Photograph
of Operation C183C, looking east.
Figure 58: Section
of Operation C183C.
Figure 59: Plan
of Operation C183C.
Figure 60: Artifactual
materials from Operation C183C: a. spondylus bead; b. chert point.
Figure 61: Photograph
of Operation C183D, looking south.
Figure 62: Section
of Operation C183D.
Figure 63: Plan
of Operation C183D.
Figure 64: Artifactual
materials from Operation C183D: a.-d. chert tools.
Figure 65: Photograph
of Operation C183H, looking west.
Figure 66: Section
of Operation C183H.
Figure 67: Plan
of Operation C183H.
Figure 68: Ceramic
materials associated with Operation C183H: a. possibly Torres Incised; b.
eroded Tinaja Red; c. eroded Infierno Black;
d. undesignated type; e. undesignated type.
Figure 69: Artifactual
materials associated with Operation C183H: a. limestone barkbeater fragment; b.
undesignated modeled ceramic; c. burnt carved bone; e.-f. chert tools.
Figure 70: Photograph
of Operation C183B.
Figure 71: Section
of Operation C183B.
Figure 72: Plan
of Operation C183B.
Figure 73: Artifactual
materials associated with Operation C183B: a.-j. chert tools; k. worked bone.
Figure 74: Photograph
of Operation C183G.
Figure 75: Section
of Operation C183G.
Figure 76: Plan
of Operation C183G.
Figure 77: Artifactual
materials associated with Operation C183G: a. rounded ceramic; b. chert tool; c.
ceramic censer appliqué.
Figure 78: Plan
of Culebras Residential Group showing location of excavations.
Figure 79: Photograph
of Operation C179H, an western extension over S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 80: Axial
section through Structure C20 (Operation C179B).
Figure 81: Photograph
of S.D. C179B-7, looking east.
Figure 82: Upper
and lower plans of S.D. C179B-7 (letters correspond with vessels in Figure 85).
Figure 83: East-west
section through S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 84: North-south
section through S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 85c: Ceramic
vessels from S.D. C179B-7: a. Retiro Gouged-Incised; b., d., k., l. Belize Red;
c. Bejucal Brown-on-Buff; e. possibly
Botifela Orange; f. possibly Monstera Orange-Polychrome; g. eroded Palmar
Orange-polychrome; h. possibly Paixban Buff-Polychrome; i. undesignated type; j.
Calabaso Gouged-Incised; m., n. possibly Machete Orange-polychrome; o., p.
possibly Fallabon Red-on-Orange.
Figure 86: Rollout
photograph of polychrome cylinder (Figure 83h) from S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 87: Rollout
photograph of modeled-carved cylinder (Figure 83a) from S.D. C179B-7.
Figure 88: Artifactual
materials from within a ring-base dish (Figure 83n) in S.D. C179B-7: a.-h.
fragmentary obsidian blades; i. worked bone
“bead;” j. burnt worked bone; k., l., n., o., p.-u. worked shell; m. chert
flake; v.-y. bone pins; z. riverine shell; aa.-cc. worked olive shells.
Figure 89: Lithic
artifactual materials from within S.D. C179B-7: a.-r. fragmentary obsidian
blades; s.-dd. chert tools; ee. chert
tool from Operation C179H.
Figure 90: Other
artifactual materials from within S.D. C179B-7: a., b. bone pins/needles;
c.-i., k., l. worked bone; j. fish vertebrae with
inlaid hematite; m. stone spindle whorl; n. bone awl; o. jadeite bead; p., s. marine
shell fragments; q. pomacea shell; r. worked shell adorno; t.-y. riverine
shells; z.
worked olive shell; aa. worked stone.
Figure 91: Photograph
of possible labret (Figure 88j) from S.D. C179-7.
