Prehistoric Maya Community and Settlement at Nohmul, Belize 9780860546504, 9781407348001

Citation preview

Prehistoric Maya Community and Settlement at Nohmul, Belize

K. Anne Pyburn

BAR International Series 509 1989

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S509, 1989: 'Prehistoric Xaya Comm.unity and SettleDEnt at Nohmul, Belize' © K. Anne Pyburn, 1989 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860546504 paperback ISBN 9781407348001 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860546504 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

This m onograph

i s d edicated to

R ichard Ralph Wilk my e steemed c ollegue and to the memory of Mauri K .

Hall

my brilliant

f riend

i ii

CONTENTS

Chapter One:

Why Mayanists C ount M ounds, t o t he R esearch Design

Chapter Two:

The N ohmul

C hapter Three:

The

S ettlement

A Background

Pattern P roject

E xcavations

T ime/Space Distributions

Chapter

Five:

Population Density

Chapter

S ix:

Patterns

2 4

46

C hapter Four:

S ettlement

1

91

a nd S tructure

1 16

a t

1 33

N ohmul

Appendix A :

Tables

1 48

Appendix B :

F igures

1 76

Appendix

C hronology

1 90

A ppendix D :

S ite Map

1 91

A ppendix E :

E xcavation

C :

S ection Drawings

R eferences

S ummaries

a nd Harris Matrices

1 92

3 05

4 27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The two people who have done more than a ny o thers to make me an archaeologist are T . Patrick Culbert a nd Norman Hammond. Dr. Culbert l ed me through the maze o f graduate school without l osing his s ense o f humor. My gratitude f or his efforts a s my dissertation a dvisor i s more than I c an express. Dr. Hammond gave me support and friendship during f our seasons of f ieldwork. He gave me advice a nd direction when I needed i t, but a llowed me t he i ntellectual f reedom to pursue my own i nterests. C arol Kramer and Norman Yof f ee have been e specially i nterested a nd supportive committee members. Special thanks are due to Susan C ohen, P atricia C ook, and Nancy Kowalski who s erved at different t imes a s excavation s upervisors f or the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project. Their professional a ssistance and good c ompanionship w ill a lways be remembered. Most especially I want to thank L aura Jane Levi f or her sharing her romantic s pirit and her i deas, and Jan ( "Kiwi") Morrison f or her drawings, her f riendship, and her humor. No f ield s eason will ever s eem c omplete without them. L aura Kosakowsky d id the preliminary c eramic analysis on which this dissertation i s based. She has a s pecial p lace i n my heart. John Rose, champion surveyor, was e specially d iligent in his preparation of the Nohmul map. Harriot Topsey, C ommissioner, and Winnel Branche, Acting D irector i n 1 985, of The D epartment o f Archaeology of Belize made my f ieldwork possible and enjoyable. Their professional and personal s upport i s much appreciated. Of a ll the many excellent B elizean excavators I have worked with, Malaquias Correa and Armando Ya are surely the most dedicated and p leasant working c ompanions one could a sk f or. They made the days s eem shorter and cemented my l ove f or B elize. E steban I tzab generously encouraged research a t Nohmul, which i s on his l and. Dr. William F . Pyburn and Wanda C arl Pyburn, my parents, gave me a l ove f or f ield r esearch and a f ascination with other cultures. Research f unding was provided to the Nohmul P roject, N . Hammond, D irector, by the National Geographic Society, Rutgers University, the British Museum, Cambridge University, and the Society o f Antiquaries o f London. Funding f or the Nohmul Settlement P roject, which I d irected, was provided by the Nohmul Project, the Tinker F oundation, and the University o f Arizona.

v i

CHAPTER ONE WHY MAYANISTS C OUNT MOUNDS: A BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH D ESIGN

This i s a s ettlement pattern s tudy o f Nohmul, the l argest Maya a rchaeological s ite i n Northern Belize. Intrasite d ata were collected f or this analysis during f our s pring e xcavation s easons beginning i n 1 982 and ending i n 1 986. Today Nohmul i s c overed by patches of cane f ields, corn f ields, low bush, c ow pastures, swamps, roads, and modern houses. A thousand years ago Nohmul was a s prawling c ommunity of s everal thousand l ocated on an arterial r iver, the Hondo, bordered by r aised f ields and smaller neighboring s ettlements. The goal of this treatise i s to outline the population s tructure of prehistoric Nohmul and to i dentify changes i n that s tructure over t ime. The purpose of this outline i s to r econstruct s ome a spects o f the culture history of Nohmul, such a s how i t developed and grew, and to add to the g eneral f und o f i nformation available on the development o f complex s ociety among the Maya. S ince the Maya themselves a re a case s tudy i n the evolution of human cultural systems, i nformation f rom Nohmul i s a lso valuable f or addressing i ssues of broader anthropological i nterest. The study o f population s tructure i n communities a s l arge as Nohmul presents a s pecial problem f or s ocial s cientists. Even very extensive projects dealing with l iving communities encounter d ifficulties with s ample s ize and b ias. B ecause s o many variables are i nvolved i n the a ction of human s ystems, i t i s d ifficult to determine the population boundaries necessary to develop a s ampling s trategy. When the s ocial s cientist i s an archaeologist trying to r econstruct a l arge a nd c omplex prehistoric c ommunity, the " sampling paradox" ( the f act that a good deal must be known a bout a population i n order to s ample i t properly [ Cowgill 1 975:263]) i s exacerbated. B esides the great r ange o f variation i n the group under s tudy, there are r anges of variation i n the f ormation of the archaeological r ecord of communities that correlate to a varying and o ften unknown degree with cultural variables and processes ( Schiffer 1 976). Tracing Nohmul's archaeological r ecord i n order to describe i ts extinct c ommunity i nvolves an i nterplay between method a nd theories o f cultural evolution. The r elationship of method to theory i n Maya s ettlement analysis i s partly the r esult o f h istorical processes i n the d iscipline o f anthropology. I n s ome very i mportant ways, our picture o f the prehistoric Maya has changed while our methods o f d ata c ollection have n ot kept pace. The s tudy described here o ffers a n ew perspective on some of the s tandard approaches to the s tudy o f prehistoric Maya communities, particularly at the methodological l evel. The

1

result of i mplementing this perspective at Nohmul has been an outline of s ome hitherto unexamined s ettlement configurations and f eatures. Chapter One begins with an explanation of how c urrent methods of s ettlement r econnaissance d eveloped and how they f all short of addressing the c omplexity o f Maya s ettlements. In Chapter Two I describe the s ite o f Nohmul and present the r esearch design used t o gather data a bout i ts prehistoric community. General excavation s ummaries are presented i n Chapter Three, o ffering s ome details o f the methodological tests d iscussed i n l ater c hapters. Chapter Four i s an analysis of Nohmul's p opulation distribution over t ime, i n the l ight of some unusual f eatures of the Nohmul r esearch design. Chapter F ive discusses the demographic r econstruction of Nohmul and the s hortcomings of Maya s ettlement s tudies f or s uch reconstructions. A s ummary and conclusion are presented i n Chapter S ix. Tables, f igures, i ndividual e xcavation descriptions, and the s ite map are i n Appendices f ollowing the bibliography.

Mound Typologies

From a theoretical point of view, the f ocus o f the survey has been on the question of spatial variability within and between mound groups relative to the central precinct. I n order to deal with this variability, a working morphological typology of mounded f eatures u sing f orm, s ize and groupings was devised f or the settlement z one ( of C erros) i n 1 977. ( Scarborough 1 986:23) Maya archaeological s ites vary widely i n s ize and i n their distribution of f eatures, but f rom the surface o f the ground, most have a s imilar a ppearance. The central area, i dentified by the f act that other f eatures are a rranged around i t, contains very l arge buildings. These a re covered with earth and f orest, but bits of monumental s tone architecture are usually visible. Outside the central a rea are more l arge mounds and numerous s maller mounds. These vary greatly i n s ize and s hape, and may be i solated o r grouped i nto c lusters. B esides the f act that the density of these f eatures i s uneven, s ometimes creating t he i mpression of i ntentional groupings, there i s n o obvious organizational l ayout o f most l owland s ites. No r oads o r paths are a pparent; no property boundaries are visible. The smaller mounds a re o ften s pread over many square k ilometers. They may number i n the hundreds or l ess, a s a t small s ites such a s B arton Ramie, or i n the thousands a s a t l arger s ites l ike T ikal. The mounds e xtending out f rom t he

2

center of the s ite may merge with those of the next center, as i s t he case with the s ettlements o f Uaxactun and Tikal ( Ford 1 986, Puleston 1 974). These smaller mounds have commonly been r eferred to a s " housemounds", their functional designation being given on the basis of " the principle of abundance" ( Ashmore and Willey 1 981:6). A lthough much early emphasis was on the monumental architecture of Maya c enters, i nterest i n the smaller mounds had begun by the end o f the nineteenth century ( Ashmore and Willey 1 981). I t was generally agreed that the small mounds were the r emains o f ordinary houses ( Gordon 1 896, H ewett 1 912, E . H. Thompson 1 886, 1 892, Tozzer 1 913) and t hey were occasionally excavated and mapped ( e. g., Gann 1 918). Willey a nd Bullard ( 1965:364) credit J .E.S. Thompson's s tudy o f s ites i n the Mountain Cow D istrict o f Southern Belize a s the f irst " with an embryonic i nterest i n physical settlement pattern a s a means of i mplying s ocial systems" ( quoted i n Ashmore and Willey 1 981:8). This i dea was e laborated by the Ricketsons ( 1937) who mapped a lmost two square kilometers o f area around ( and i ncluding) the central precinct at Uaxactun, i ncluding 7 8 small "housemounds". W illey brought the f ull b lown concept of settlement pattern analysis t o the Maya l owlands i n the 1 950's. He stated an explicit i nterest i n the reconstruction of culture history a nd demographic variables f rom s ettlement f eatures ( 1956:113-4). To make s uch a reconstruction would require dates and f unctional i nformation f rom the mounds, as well as c omplete maps. Willey ( et a l. 1 965) excavated 2 5% ( 65 mounds) o f B arton Ramie's 2 62 visible structures. In h is reflections on mound occupation and construction, Willey describes the r ise and decline of o ccupation debris in h is mound s ample over t ime, but s tops s hort of actual population e stimates or historical r econstructions, though these a re c learly h is u ltimate i nterest. W illey ( 1956) d eveloped a basic typology of l owland Maya m ounds, and s ampled the s ettlement of Barton Ramie according to three types: ordinary housemounds ( small individual s tructures), p lazuela mounds ( three to f our platform based s tructures around a r ectangular court), and temple mounds ( larger s tructures on t aller p latforms). He did n ot attempt to o btain a r andom s ample of e ach type, but scattered his tests widely over the s ite. S imilar mound typologies were d eveloped by S anders ( 1963) and Bullard ( 1964). Sanders d id the f irst r andom sample of a Maya settlement at Tulum ( 1955), i ncluding both mound and nonmound areas i n his s ample universe. L ike Willey, he did not u se his mound typology to s tatistically stratify his sample. T hese typologies c lassified visible mounds i n terms o f the s ize, shape a nd grouping. They were not the result o f survey and excavation, but were a ssumed to have cultural meaning. Willey ( 1956) s topped s hort o f postulating s ocial

3

correlates f or his s ettlement types, but B ullard ( 1964) a nd Sanders ( 1962a, 1 963) both proposed that t he formal arrangements and volumes o f visible mounds c orresponded t o a s ociopolitical hierarchy. When the f ear of " over-interpretation" that still plagued the discipline o f archaeology i n the 1 950's ( Brew 1 946, Kluckhohn 1 940, Taylor 1 948) was f inally o verridden by the New Archaeology of the 1 960's, s ettlement reconnaissance i n the Maya L owlands ( eventually ) took s ettlement typology a s tep f urther. I n an a ttempt t o i mprove the objectivity o f settlement testing T ourtellot ( 1970, 1 982, a lthough his work was c arried out i n the m id 1 960's) designed a c lustered s ampling technique f or Seibal, based on the surface characteristics o f mapped mounds. B y dividing mapped s ettlement f eatures i nto types and s ampling 1 0% of each type, Tourtellot hoped to obtain a more representative s ample of s ettlement f eatures than would b e possible with more haphazard digging. Most s ubsequent s ettlement excavators have used a s imilar strategy o f s tratifying settlement f eatures a ccording to surface i ndications and s ampling a percentage of each s tratum . Recent works by F ord ( 1986), S carborough ( 1986), Thomas ( 1981), Tourtellot et a l. ( n.d.), Webster a nd Freter ( n.d.) a ll use s ampling s trategies based o n surface i ndications. These authors make population e stimates based on their s amples. The s ame data are a lso f requently used f or reconstructions of s ocial organization. Mound c ounting began a s a way o f e stimating t he s ize, density and extent of Maya s ettlements, and developed i nto a means o f estimating population s ize and sampling a nd describing Maya s ocial hierarchy. These procedures have advanced knowledge o f the Maya profoundly. In f act, i t w as the population c ount provided by the s ettlement s urvey o f Tikal ( Haviland 1 970) that revolutionized our p icture o f the Maya. Nevertheless, current knowledge of Maya social organization, i mplemented by ever i ncreasing i nformation f rom hieroglyphics and e thnohistory, has l eft the l ogic o f this settlement methodology i n the dust.

Models

of Maya Ecology

How were the ancient Maya distributed upon the l and? And how do these d istributions r eflect the f ormer relationships of man to n ature and man to man?.. . What terrain types were u tilized and how were they utilized? ( Willey e t a l. 1 965:5) The perpetuation o f i naccurate models of Maya d emographic patterns and s ocial organization i s r ooted in the history of s ettlement pattern a nalysis i n the l owlands. Undue emphasis on a naive type of cultural e cology resulted f rom

4

e arly e vents i n the f ield and c ombined with a l ack of a ttention to s ite f ormation processes to perpetuate an odd c oncept of Maya c ivilization. C onsequently, most s tudies o f prehistoric Maya s ettlements s till develop s ocial s tructural reconstructions and e stimates o f population d istributions based on an i ncomplete cross-section of prehistoric f eatures, or make s tatistical i nferences based on a s ample of an uncircumscribed population. The dispersed nature of Maya s ettlement has been a ccepted in the l iterature f or s o l ong that the a ssumption that a ll Maya structures ( in the L owlands) were built on p latforms and are s till visible today a s widely scattered mounds has become a methodological axiom. Archaeologists i n o ther parts o f the world have not a ccepted such short cuts a nd a variety o f c ompensating techniques have been developed ( cf. F ish, F ish, and Madsen 1 987, P log 1 968, P log, P log, and Wait 1 978, S chiffer, Sullivan and K linger 1 978). This i ssue became central to the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project. The f irst true settlement pattern s tudy of the Maya Lowlands was done i n the B elize Valley ( Willey et a l. 1 965). The study of s patial r elationships between non-monumental archaeological f eatures was not new, even to the Maya Lowlands ( cf. Ricketson and Ricketson 1 937, Thompson 1 931), but Willey's explicit i nterest i n man's r elationship to the natural l andscape s prang f rom Julian Steward's emphasis on e cology a s a " prime mover" i n cultural development. I n each case, the exigencies o f making a l iving i n a given e nvironment with a s pecific s et of d evices and methods f or o btaining, transporting, a nd preparing f ood and o ther e ssential goods s et l imits to the d ispersal or grouping of the people a nd to the c omposition o f s ettlements, and i t s trongly i nfluenced many of their modes of behavior ( Steward 1 949:647). I t i s c lear f rom the f oregoing that Steward's emphasis on e nvironmental f actors and " devices" makes his approach eminently s uitable f or archaeologists, whose main s ources of d ata are environmental relationships and artifactual devices. When added to his i nterest i n cultural evolution, i t i s n ot s urprising that Steward encouraged his s tudent Willey to l ook a t c hanges i n the i nterplay between material culture and the n atural environment i n the developmental s equence of a complex s ociety. Willey c arried out the f irst s ettlement pattern s tudy i n the Viru Valley of P eru ( 1953). The Viru Valley was a brilliant choice f or such a project, because of s everal advantages o ffered by the • Peruvian c oastal environment. Extreme dryness a llows f or excellent preservation of archaeological f eatures. The l ack o f massive modern i rrigation s ystems i n the area meant that not only were the

5

prehistoric f eatures undisturbed by recent human activities, but a lso that, s ince the a rea was quite barren, archaeological f eatures were not a ffected by p lants a nd animals and were e asily visible a bove ground. F urthermore, Peru i s noted f or i ts r eadily o bserved, sharply c ontrasting ecozones ( Lanning 1 967) caused mainly by sharp a ltitude changes that juxtapose hot with cold, wet with d ry, a nd desert with jungle at unusually c lose i ntervals. A lmost none of these advantages exist i n other parts of t he world. The tropical heartland of t he Maya, in particular, i s notorious f or the bioturbation and invisibility of i ts archaeological s ites and the s ubtle distinctions between i ts ecozones.

1 956, mind,

In this context, i t i s i nteresting to note t hat, when his P eruvian experience was s till fresh i n Willey remarked:

i n h is

Most of the accumulated knowledge of f ield archaeology i n the Maya L owlands derives f rom i nvestigations of major s ites where l arge pyramids, platform mounds, and imposing architectural remains ( hereafter referred t o as " ceremonial centers") have attracted attention. This has resulted f rom the difficult c ondition of tropical vegetation cover - in which small mounds and building f oundations are e xtremely hard to l ocate and examine - rather than any l ack of i nterest on the part of archaeologists. ( 1956a: 1 08) Willey may not have been entirely correct, a nd several authors have advanced o ther c onvincing arguments f or a l ack of i nterest i n l ess s pectacular s ites ( Brew 1 946, K luckhohn 1 940, Taylor 1 948). It i s true, however, that i n areas o f greater preservation and visibility, such a s northern Yucatan ( Andrews IV 1 960, Jones 1 952) or central Mexico ( Sanders 1 962b), mapping and testing o f smaller s tructures a lways proceeded according to a different type o f research design ( Millon 1 973; S anders, Parsons and Santley 1 979). From the beginning, archaeologists a t these s ites expected to f ind and a ttempted to outline a wide r ange o f archaeological f eatures and expected c omplex cultural correlates. Willey next went to B elize, a n eotropical portion o f Mesoamerica traditionally considered t o be a monotonously uniform environment ( Culbert 1 973, Meggers 1 954, Morley 1 946, Sanders and Price 1 968 and many others). D espite the f act that B arton Ramie, Willey's main f ocus in t he B elize Valley Project, had been c leared of j ungle, c ontrast between Belize a nd P eru i n the visibility and preservation of archaeological f eatures must have been striking. I n s pite of this, Willey ( et a l. 1 965) a ccomplished a true s ettlement pattern s tudy, mapping and testing visible s tructures. He d id not i gnore the possibility o f i nvisible archaeological f eatures, s ince he excavated s ix " flat

6

tests" in s ix d ifferent non-mound areas, meters of visible mounds.

a ll

within

6 0

The results o f his f lat tests s eemed negligible to him: o ne ( #3) i s d escribed a s having yielded " only 9 0 sherds"; most cultural material was i nterpreted a s deposited by " wash" or " alluvium". What he did not mention, perhaps because o f his P eruvian experience, was that i n an area o f h eavy r ain and s erious bioturbation l ike the Maya l owlands, i f there was a n i mportant i nvisible settlement c omponent, i t would be most l ikely preserved ( and most l ikely s ituated ) i n the better drained areas of the s ite. The e levations of the B arton Ramie f lat tests are n ot given and they are not l ocated on the s ite map, but descriptions of their l oci provided i n the t ext do not suggest they were p laced a t unusual e levations, e ither low or h igh. I will r efer back to this problem i n Chapter Two when I discuss the j udgmental s ampling s trategy employed at Nohmul. That h is e xcavations disclosed heavy a lluviation suggests Willey was l ooking i n p laces where people would never have been a ble to l ive on the ground s urface. If they d id, their e phemeral r emains ( people l iving i n such areas without platforms may well have been the poorest of the poor, and without much material culture to l eave behind ) would certainly have rotted away after only a f ew decades. He did r ealize, after the termination o f his excavation, that the absence of architectural a ssociations f or s ome of the c eramic phases he uncovered s uggested that some k inds o f dwelling might not be r epresented i n his sample ( 1965:12), but he d id not f ollow up this possibility or e mphasize i t i n l ater years. I t i s a tribute to his influence that modern researchers c ontinue to f ollow his lead. I t i s a lso a t ribute to the s trength o f Steward's influence that a n environmental perspective became so popular. This, a nd the c ircular r easoning of f unctionalist i nterpretations e xplain why the " myth of the milpa", the belief that a ll Maya agriculture was an extensive f orm of swidden ( Hammond 1 978), l asted f or s o l ong, persisting i n modified f orm i n s ome models even t oday. The f unctionalist paradigm mandated that any culture traits present were there because they were i n s ome way useful ( Radcliffe-Brown 1 952). The argument developed i n the United States out of Boas' cultural r elativism ( Harris 1 968:521), but, a s i s commonly noted, when c arried to an extreme, the reasoning becomes tautological. There i s no trait f or which s ome function c annot b e i magined, a nd a lmost no needs that cannot be met with more than o ne s olution. Consequently the f unctional paradigm i n i ts original f orm i s now s een a s lacking in both predictive and e xplanatory power ( Jarvie 1 968). The Cultural

e cological paradigm was no l ess circular. s imilarities and differences were s een to be

7

predicated on environmental s imilarities and d ifferences. B oth f unctionalism and environmental determinism became anthropological paradigms i n the s trict Kuhnian ( 1962) s ense. They provided a substrate o f l ogically c onsistent but untestable a ssumptions and a s cientific s tyle o f objectivity not previously a vailable to cultural anthropologists and archaeologists. In particular, t he emphasis on environment a nd f unction enhanced t he possibility of quantification and measurement. If o ne begins by a ssuming that every s alient a spect of c ulture h as a f unction or an environmental cause, a ll that i s left i s the i dentification of that f unction or that cause. Environmental f actors and f unctional attributes can b e empirically discovered, objectively described, a nd counted or measured i n terms of a constant s cale s uch a s " efficiency" or " energy capture" ( cf. R .N. Adams 1 975, Odum 1 971, Sanders a nd Santley 1 983, S ervice 1 962, or White 1 959, f or some examples of this approach). In archaeology, a correlation between variables usually begins with the observation of spatial r elationships. For example, the a pparent l ack o f dense populations around l owland c enters was a ssociated w ith, a nd therefore attributed to, the l ack o f r esource concentration ( Meggers 1 954). The monotony of the r esource base was a lso the cause of the l ack of technological sophistication ( e. g., no l arge s cale i rrigation, n o metallurgy, n o wheeled vehicles), and the Maya c ame t o be characterized a s creators of a unique s ort of s ettlement system, with vacant ceremonial centers i nstead of ordinary c ities a nd towns. This did not surprise anyone, s ince the l owland jungles were considered a unique environment f or the r ise of a pristine civilization ( cf. B ell 1 956, Meggers 1 954, Morley and Brainerd 1 956, S anders and P rice 1 968). Chauvinistic Mayanists, however, were torn between their d esire t o maintain the i mage o f Maya uniqueness and their d esire t o bestow the honor of the " true c ity" on their s ubjects. They attempted to s olve the problem by r edefining t he term " urban". The r esult was a tendency f or s cholars t o refer to Maya " urban c enters", but n ot Maya c ities ( cf. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1 979:260-263, S anders a nd Price 1 968:45-46, S anders and Webster 1 988). Although Willey c ontinued to b elieve i n low p opulation densities around " ceremonial centers" f or s ome t ime ( Willey 1 974, Puleston 1 974:307), he himself had s own the s eeds f or the eventual r ejection of this belief. He perpetuated t he emphasis on visible f eatures, but he shifted t he theoretical f ocus f rom historical r econstruction to a n i nterest i n the r econstruction of a c ultural system ( Willey a nd Sabloff 1 980). In l ooking a t the pattern of a prehistoric Maya s ettlement, Willey was u sing t he archaeological r ecord to test anthropological models f or explaining " man's d isposition over the l andscape", n ot s imply accepting the deterministic c ultural ecology model that became s o popular among other Mayanists ( Bell 1 956, Meggers 1 954, S anders and Price 1 968). He f ocused on t he

8

dynamic interplay b etween culture and environment, thereby s etting the s tage f or processual a rchaeology and encouraging o ther Mayanists to reach beyond s tatic typologically based descriptions.

Maya E thnography

C onventional wisdom a bout the s ubfields o f anthropology has a lways r egarded archaeology as a s ort o f s econd-hand cultural anthropology, a ble to advance only i n so f ar as i t c ould emulate. Although the a ssociation between disciplines i n the U .S has been generally advantageous f or both, Mesoamerican archaeology has s ometimes been r etarded by i ts r ather s lavish dependence on ethnography and c ultural anthropology. The trip f rom e thnographic data on the l iving Maya to prehistoric reconstruction has a lways been a rather short one f or most Mayanists. A review of s ome e arly anthropological concepts will make c lear how this has a ffected s ettlement pattern analysis. F ew ethnographers o f the 1 930's c onsidered that ranges of variation i n cultural knowledge and observable cultural traits might be wide even within the population of a s ingle village. Data f rom d istant areas were o ften used i n l ieu of more specific r esearch to exemplify the grand s cheme of cultural development i n Mesoamerica a s though i t were an organic whole. B ecker ( 1979) has pointed out that during the e arly days o f Maya e thnography, e thnographers borrowed s peculative archaeological concepts, e specially Thompson's ceremonial center hypothesis ( 1931:334), to s upport arguments f or c ultural continuity. " Such uses of Thompson's data created biases among e thnographers which i n turn generated e thnographies which were used to i nterpret archaeological " evidence." ( Becker 1 979:10). So Thompson's early work i nfluenced highland e thnographers ( e. g. Wagley 1 941) whose i nterpretations he then used f or s upport of his r econstructions ( Thompson 1 970). Mesoamerica came to be r egarded by e thnographers a s a " culture area" and a timeless entity. The impossibility o f using geography to deal with the cultural variety within a ny particular " culture area" s oon resulted in the r emedial c oncept o f the " cultural center" ( Wissler 1 926) o r " cultural core", and the " age area hypothesis". The cultural c enter was a c ircumscribed hypothetical geographical and cultural entity i n which a f unctionally i ntegrated s et of traits originated. According to the a ge area hypothesis, these traits diffused out f rom the cultural c enter a t a constant r ate, the age o f a trait being d iscernible by the d iameter of the area o f i ts s pread.

9

The bankruptcy o f the culture a rea concept and i ts concomitant hypotheses has been adequately discussed ( cf. Harris 1 968, Voget 1 975). C ultural anthropologists h ave l ong s ince ceased to pursue this l ine of i nquiry. It c ould even be argued that Mesoamerica does not f ulfill the basic r equirements of the original definition o f a culture a rea, because i t i s s o geographically, linguistically, historically, and culturally discontinuous. Nevertheless, archaeologists c ontinue to be f ond of the culture a rea concept. The trait distributions developed by K irchoff i n 1 943 to define the boundaries of Mesoamerica are e choed i n Weaver's r ecent i ntroductory text ( 1981:10). No c learer s tatement o f the concept of the c ulture center could b e f ound than C oe's ( 1962, originated by C ovarrubias 1 942, 1 946) cultura madre concept o f the O lmec. While denying the geographic, ethnic and l inguistic uniformity o f Mesoamerica, Sanders and Price s tate The presence over wide areas o f certain c ulture traits, s ome of greater diagnostic s ignificance than others, permits us to c lassify the cultures of the region a s a unit. ( 1968:7) The s ignificance o f this l ong standing a dherence t o outmoded concepts of cultural development and c hange i s twofold: 1 . Mayanists, and o ther s tudents o f Mesoamerican prehistory, have been predisposed to expect and a ccept a great deal o f cultural c ontinuity over both t ime a nd s pace. 2 . Prehistoric patterns have c ommonly been uncritically explained i n terms o f modern e thnographic f indings f rom a ny part of the l owlands, a nd even f rom the highlands o f Mesoamerica ( Vogt 1 961), or a s diffused f rom more " central" areas ( Kelly 1 976, Sanders and Price 1 968). Mesoamericanists have a lmost i nvariably explained t he perceived a bsence of a trait i n o ne place that i s present e lsewhere i n Mesoamerica a s the r esult of environmental differences. As a lready noted, this reasoning t ends t o b e circular, and may f orestall testing f or the presence o r absence of the f eatures thought to be absent. C ities w ere s aid to arise i n c entral Mexico, f or example, because agricultural r esources were c oncentrated, while the O lmec and the Maya had a d ispersed s ettlement pattern around vacant centers due to t heir d ispersed resource b ase. As e arly a s 1 962, art historian George Kubler argued f or " disjunction" between the material form and t he cultural meaning of a rtifacts f rom different times a nd cultures i n Mesoamerica. Nevertheless, until the l ate 6 0's ethnographers o f Mesoamerica c onsistently i gnored historical and cultural d iscontinuities i n their s tudies o f Mesoamerican c ommunities. L ike many other anthropologists of the period, Redfield and Rojas ( 1934) f ailed to account f or the variation that existed among i nformants, or t he

1 0

variation that e xisted a cross t ime and s pace in the cultural experience and s ocial organization o f the people of C han Kom ( Harris 1 968, L ewis 1 951). Mesoamerican archaeologists a lso f ailed to recognize variation, not only within and between historic and prehistoric Maya, but between ethnographers. I n Redfield's s eamless l ittle c ommunity, change involves dissolution o f community values a nd evolution to a more complex s tate of s ocial organization. In this Durkheimian s cheme, the reinstitution of homogeneous " mechanical s olidarity" i s not r eally possible after the transition t o heterogeneous organic solidarity has begun. Little communities i n the present s ignify continuity with the past. .. the c ommunity to which we are to l ook i n these chapters i s h omogeneous. Activities and s tates o f mind are much a like f or a ll persons in c orresponding s ex and age positions; and the c areer o f o ne generation r epeats that o f the preceding. S o understood, homogeneous i s equivalent t o " slow-changing". ( Redfield 1 960, r eprinted 1 973:4). The " little c ommunity" was s een " natural" s ocial f orm, preceding development of c omplex s ociety.

a s a ubiquitous, the evolutionary

The small c ommunity has been the very predominant f orm o f human l iving throughout the history of mankind. ( Redfield 1 960:3) ..Furthermore, we may i n a preliminary way arrange them ( little c ommunities) i n a r oughly descending order a ccording to t he degree to which the qualities ( distinctiveness, smallness, homogeneity, and s elf-sufficiency) are present. ( Redfield 1 960:4) Redfield's c ommunity i s modeled a s a c losed system. All i ts i nstitutions ( political, r eligious, social, agricultural) f unction to maintain the s tatus quo. Change i s the result of e xternal i mpositions and s ignifies the breakdown o f the " pristine" i ntegrated community. Most important f or Maya archaeology were the c oncept of a strong dichotomy between the traditional community and modern complex society, a nd the i dea of l ong s tanding cultural continuity i n Mesoamerica. These r elated Durkheimian concepts were e pitomized i n Redfield's work f or the Carnegie I nstitution, that hired h im to a dd an e thnographic dimension t o their archaeological r esearch program. Although h ighly c riticized ( Harris 1 968, L ewis 1 961), Redfield's a pproach c ontinued to hold sway f or many years, e specially among a rchaeologically i nclined Mayanists ( such as Haviland 1 970, 1 974, Vogt 1 961, 1 964, 1 969, Willey 1 956a, 1 974).

1 1

Reminiscent of Redfield's work , the e thnographically based r econstructions that Evon Z . Vogt d eveloped f or the prehistoric Maya ( e.g. 1 969) are a lso l ittle c oncerned with t ime and s pace. Vogt d id a l ong term ethnographic study of the Maya village of Z inacantan i n highland Chiapas. Although he presents a more multidimensional picture than Redfield, l ike Redfield Vogt equates s ociocultural change with westernization and sees c hange a s the cause of cultural deterioration and i ndividual a lienation. " ... Highland Chiapas i s probably o ne of t he crucial regions f or the discovery o f a ncient Maya patterns i n relatively undisturbed f orm" ( Vogt 1 974:177). B ased on his work i n the highlands, Vogt developed a model f or the political organization of the prehistoric l owland Maya. In the f ace of mounting evidence f or s ocial s tratification, f ull t ime s pecialists, and a hereditary e lite, Vogt continued to argue f or 2 0 years that prehistoric Maya centers were administered on a r otational basis by l ocal e lites f rom outlying areas. H is major justification f or i nsisting on t he antiquity of the rotational system he had encountered i n Z inacantan was that such " cargo s ystems" are extremely w idespread, occurring i n both North and South America. Unfortunately for Vogt's a ge area hypothesis, the cargo s ystem i n the New World has the same d istribution a s areas o f Spanish colonialism ( Chance and Taylor 1 985). Vogt has f inally r elinquished h is commitment to i ts antiquity ( 1983b), but i t i s l ikely to b e years before traces o f i ts i nfluence l eave the f ield. Other authors besides Vogt have used ethnohistoric documents to argue c ontinuity with the past ( cf. Lundell 1 933, Sanders 1 962b) with questionable success. The difficulty i nvolves not only distinguishing between preand postconquest cultural configurations, but a lso t he i nterpretation of s omewhat ambiguous s ources. Turner ( 1978:16) notes that s ome o f Landa's descriptions could easily be i nterpreted i n more than o ne way. S tatements made by Landa, probably the most f requently c ited ethnohistoric s ource ( cf. i ndex l istings i n Chase and Rice 1 985, S abloff and Andrews V 1 985) cannot u sually b e archaeologically substantiated ( Chase and Rice 1 985:24). Nevertheless, archaeologists a lmost i nvariably c ite Landa e ither to demonstrate continuity with the past or t o buttress an a ssumption of c ontinuity. Archaeologists have attempted t o model the r ise a nd f all of Maya c ivilization i n terms o f the evolution o f l ittle communities i nto c ities, a nd have concluded that such a transition i s unworkable ( for a succinct s tatement, s ee Lamberg-Karlovsky and S abloff 1 979:257-278). H istorical data f rom a fter the c onquest has b een used as a mirror o f preconquest s ociety. Problems with a rchaeological models have been mistaken f or problems a ctually f aced by t he prehistoric Maya. B ut l ittle c ommunities of the s ort described by Redfield do not e xist t oday a nd may n ever have existed among the Maya. Modern ( and most postconquest

1 2

historic) small c ommunities are i n marginal a reas with e conomically and p olitically oppressed c ircumstances that may r igidify s ocial s tructure. I t i s possible that small oppressed and exploited communities existed prehistorically, but not a s an evolutionary s tage of urbanization, or, a s Willey thought, " a f ailure i n adaptation to the f ull urban order" ( 1974:141). Peasant communities exist, and probably existed, i n dynamic s ociocultural systems that c enter on c ities ( Wolf 1 967). They a re part of a r ange o f variation i n s ettlement type, the boundaries o f which are s et by the existence of contemporary c ities. I f there were peasant communities among the prehistoric Maya o f the type s tudied by Vogt ( 1974), then there were a lso ordinary c ities. I n sum, e thnographers working i n Mesoamerica, e specially on community s tudies, have f requently i gnored historical, l inguistic, technological, and even environmental i ndicators o f cultural variety and change. Most r ecent ethnographic work has s uperseded the Durkheimian model of e arly s cholars ( Chambers and Young 1 979). Nevertheless, many a rchaeologists have adopted the earlier simplistic p erspective uncritically, a llowing i t to impair their vision of prehistoric s ocial c omplexity. The paradoxical model o f a c ivilization without c ities becomes i ntelligible i n this historical context.

Describing C omplexity

A s a r esult o f historical accident ( dry Peru preceded wet B elize) and the e volution of the intellectual partnership between archaeology and cultural anthropology, Maya s ettlement s tudies have remained unduly i nductive. That i s, what Mayanists s aw of Maya s ettlements on the surface of the ground suited their oversimplified models of Maya s ociety and s ubsistence, as well a s their l ack of attention to the archaeological f ormation processes affecting the archaeological record of a complex s ociety i n the tropics. Uniformity was attributed to vast reaches of time a nd space. S tudies on a s maller s cale than s ettlement analyses have o utlined great variety i n Lowland Maya archaeological f eatures, i ncluding those most central to s ettlement studies: housemounds. Maya archaeologists have s hown that, besides function, d ifferences i n i ndividual Maya s tructures or i n their p lacement i n r elation to e ach o ther may r esult f rom s ocial or ethnic boundaries ( Chase and Chase 1 982), economic differences ( Leventhal and B axter 1 988, Wilk 1 983), family s tructure ( Fash 1 983, Haviland 1 988, Wilk 1 988), status ( Haviland 1 981), occupational s pecialization ( Becker 1 973), political s tructure ( de Montmollin 1 988), and f amily developmental c ycles ( Tourtellot 1 988) to name

1 3

only a f ew i nfluences. Not a ll of t his variation relates to variation i n population density, but i t can be recognized i n the archaeological r ecord through d ifferences i n the s ize, l ocation, and type of s tructure. In the s ettlement of Teotihuacan ( Millon, Drewitt, a nd Cowgill 1 973), there are s pacious compounds with l arge rooms i n s ome areas that s eem t o f orm neighborhoods ( particularly a long the " Street o f t he Dead"), a nd smaller compounds with more and smaller r ooms i n other areas, suggesting that more people were packed into the s ame amount of area. Some s imilar variation i s readily visible at Maya s ites between central and o utlying areas, but the possibility of neighborhoods i s relatively untested ( Fash 1 983). This i s partly due to the f act that not a ll t he variation obvious at a s ite l ike Teotihuacan will b e preserved i n the archaeological r ecord of a tropical c ivilization. Two f acts about the l owlands that have o ften been c ited as explanations f or l ow a nd uniform population densities are a lso explanations f or the l ow visibility o f dense populations and the c omplete d eterioration o f a ll but a f ew types of s tructure. The l owlands are hot and wet. Consequently, the most practical housing i s made o f organic materials that breathe when the weather i s dry and swell t o keep out water when i t rains. Such dwellings are perfectly comfortable with no platforms beneath them, a s modern l owland housing demonstrates, s ince, unlike heavy masonry s tructures, they r equire no additional s tability when built on f luid, s ilty s oils. These s tructures, unlike t he ground surface masonry apartments that were comfortable in the cooler, drier highlands, do n ot l ast l ong after abandonment. P ersonal observation of a bandoned ground surface thatched s tructures suggests that the a rea they occupy may be ready f or r ehabitation within a g eneration after abandonment without r equiring the new occupants e ven to remove much debris. A lso unlike masonry structures o r those built on platforms, ground-surface architecture offers no i mpediment to d isturbance f rom biota or modern l and uses s uch a s deep plowing. Whether masonry s tructures are comfortable i n the Lowlands i s n ot the i ssue, the point i s that the existence of d ense p opulations i s probably i ndependent of the use of particular t ypes of architecture, and degrees of preservation. Another methodological point w orthy o f consideration i s that the s cale of analysis affects the perception o f population density. Areas within a s ingle settlement a re l ikely to vary i n density. Nevertheless, Mayanists have tended to make population e stimates based on the a ssumption of uniform densities over vast areas. ..Tikal... had an e stimated p opulation of 3 9,000 persons f or an area of s ixty-three square kilometers i ncluding a nd immediately surrounding the major politico-religious buildings o f the

1 4

s ite. By a dding another 1 00 square kilometers to this z one, t he e stimate i s boosted to about 4 5,000 people f or the 1 63 square k ilometers of what might be c alled " greater Tikal"... ( Willey 1 974:139). A f ew authors have a ttempted to compensate f or variations i n density when making population estimates ( Webster and Freter n .d., f or e xample), but tend to a ssume that environmental d istinctions a lone are the origin o f settlement variation within a s ite or a r egion. Consequently, a small amount of testing i s used to correlate differential density with geological, hydrological, or vegetational d ifferences, which are then mapped as areas bounding c ertain types of structures and a particular population density. The methodological i mplications of these a ssumptions are o f crucial i mportance. The s tandard method f or calculating the population density of a Maya s ettlement i s to c ount visible mounds, use s ome corrective calculation to account for the probability that not a ll visible mounds were occupied at the s ame time, subtract some percentage as l ikely to be nonresidential, and multiply by a standard f amily size ( usually 5 .6, s ee Chapter F ive). S imilarly, the c onfiguration, volume and d ensity of visible s tructures i s a prominent s ource o f s ocial and political reconstructions ( de Montmollin 1 988, Fash 1 983, Haviland 1 968, Marcus 1 976, 1 983a and b ). In the l ight of what most archaeologists n ow accept a bout the i nterplay between i nductive and deductive r easoning i n s cientific i nquiry ( Salmon 1 976), this method i s o verbearingly i nductive. An alternative a pproach would be to develop s ome units of a nalysis that a re r egularly a ssociated with c omplex s ocieties and devise ways of testing f or them under the known conditions o f Maya archaeological s ites. Most archaeologists i nvest the prehistoric Maya with complicated systems of s ocial s tratification ( Haviland 1 972, Rathje 1 971, Sanders and Webster 1 988, Willey and Leventhal 1 979), a lmost certainly i ncluding s laves and s pecialists i n craft production ( Becker 1 973, Culbert 1 968, Haviland 1 974, Schele and Miller 1 986), politics ( de Montmollin 1 988, Haviland 1 967, 1 968, 1 972, Vogt 1 983a), and trade ( Andrews 1 983, Rathje 1 972). Although s omewhat more controversial, most archaeologists would agree that Prehistoric Maya communities participated to varying degrees i n a wider economic and political s phere t han that defined by their immediate environment ( see Andrews 1 983, Ball 1 977, de Montmollin 1 988, Marcus 1 976, 1 983a and b , Rathje 1 971, Rice 1 987, S anders a nd S antley 1 983, f or a variety o f perspectives on the nature of such i ntrasite relationships). Accepting that variations i n population density and s tructure are l ikely i n a c omplex s ociety makes i t necessary to consider where d ense populations would be

1 5

l ocated i n a particular s ettlement a nd what s ort o f traces they might l eave. The s tandard a ssumption that visible mounds will " speak" on the topic of population density does not address these i ssues. C learly the pattern o f Maya s ettlements i ncluded a r ange o f variation i n subsistence, i n specialization, i n d ensity, and i n architectural style and function, both within and between s eparate s ites. I t i s these ranges of variation that a re key to defining the nature of Maya settlements i n terms o f demographic patterns and social organization. This treatise i s an a ttempt t o take the f irst s tep i n a ddressing these points.

C ities and Semantics:

Defining the T erms

The debate about whether prehistoric Maya population densities were sufficient to qualify any Maya settlements a s " true cities" has declined to the status of a s emantic i ssue. Recent authors s eem to a gree that population density a lone i s i nsufficient to q ualify or disqualify a community from the category " city" ( Hammond 1 975, Marcus 1 983b, Sanders and Webster 1 988). Other s ettlement characteristics have become the f ocus of r ecent work, not s o much to separate c ities f rom non-cities a s to c ompare the characteristics of d ifferent communities as a means o f r econstructing demographic patterns and sociopolitical organization. Archaeologists have f or many years cast Maya c ultural systems as victims o f their ecological setting. As discussed above, settlement pattern analysis i tself has i ts roots i n cultural ecology. F or 5 0 years archaeologists have tried to explain the arrangement of Maya settlements i n terms of soil types ( recently Ford 1 986, Wingard 1 988), geological deposits ( recently Shafer and Hester 1 983), p lant c ommunities and s ubsistence s tyles ( recently Drennan 1 988, S anders and Webster 1 988). While these approaches are not without merit, cultural geographers ( Berry and Horton 1 970, Johnson 1 969, Jones 1 966, S joberg 1 960), historians ( Jacobs 1 969, Skinner 1 977), and a nthropologists ( Boserup 1 965, 1 981, Wolf 1 967), and s ome archaeologists ( de Montmollin 1 988, Marcus 1 976, 1 983a a nd b ) f requently argue that i n complex societies agricultural systems, subsistence s trategies and patterns of growth are contingent o n s ociopolitical organization, and not the r everse. Similarly, these s implistic e cological models c ontinue to be justified by recourse to current ( or a t least r ecent) Mesoamerican subsistence practices a nd s ocial s tructure ( Fash 1 983, Ford 1 986, S anders and Webster 1 988). The exact nature of Maya c ities i s s till i n d ispute ( Marcus 1 983b, Sanders and Webster 1 988). Nevertheless, i f the prehistoric Maya had a complex s ociopolitical organization that i ncluded the " ordinary" multi-function c ities described by

1 6

Wolf ( 1967), which are dependent on outlying populations f or s upplies and s upport, or even the f unctionally s pecific but r elatively autonomous c ities described by S anders and Webster ( 1988), then i t i s not r eally possible to explain the d istribution o f mounds i n a Maya s ettlement a s a r esult o f the immediate a grarian environment. This i s true even i f the settlement i n question would only have amounted to a small town. Settlements are not just c lusters of houses, but have economic a nd political f unctions that give them an i nternal structure not f ully explained by agricultural practices and postconquest kinship r elations. To be s ure, l arge permanent c ommunities r equire agricultural s urplus a nd c ertain decisions a bout r esidence patterns are i nfluenced by f amily organization, but these f actors a lone do n ot predict the population d istribution o f a particular s ettlement i nvolved i n a l arger economic s phere and i n c omplex sociopolitical c onditions. At one time, urban geographers a ttempted to develop a d ifferent kind of t ypology f or c ities. Several theories of s ettlement arrangement were described, based on the s tudy o f modern c ities ( Johnson 1 969). However, a s has been pointed out by s everal theorists ( e. g., Skinner 1 977), there are no typical c ities. Although two r ecent s tudies have a pplied urban typologies to prehistoric Mesoamerican c ommunities, s ince a ny particular c ity will have a unique c onstellation of f eatures a s a r esult of i ts history, c ultural context, e nvironmental s etting, and i nnumerable o ther f actors, trying to put c ities i nto set c ategories i s probably not worthwhile. B oth Marcus ( 1983b) and S anders a nd Webster ( 1988) c onclude that Maya cities were mainly r eligious or " regal-ritual" c enters ( a c oncept uncomfortably c lose to Thompson's [ 1966, 1 970] vacant c eremonial c enter c oncept), i gnoring the f act that the urban geographers a nd political theorists f rom whom their typologies are drawn would not have argued f or the e xistence of a c ivilization based on a s ingle type o f c ity. Nevertheless, a lthough they vary, cities do usually c ontain certain e lements i n c ommon, that i s, they vary a long s ome o f the s ame l ines. S ome o f the most basic o f these lines of variation have been i dentified by urban g eographers and may be u sed to derive a vocabulary useful f or describing and c omparing settlement f orms. Appropriateness o f the c oncepts borrowed must be an i ssue o f s erious concern, however, s ince geographers' c ity typologies o ften equate " preindustrial" c ities with c ontemporary non-western c ities, such a s C alcutta ( Berry 1 970), that have been s ignificantly a ffected by the r epercussions o f the i ndustrial revolution. Urban g eographers a lso f ocus on changes i n population structure o ver periods of t ime that are too brief i n archaeological t erms to be useful. P erhaps the most c ommonly c ited characteristic o f urban s ettlements i s that o f c entralization o r nucleation,

1 7

e laborated by geographers i n the concentric theory. Although developed f or modern s ocieties by using c oncepts such as " factory z ones" and " transport costs" ( Johnson 1 969:164-5, originally proposed by B urgess 1 925), t he basic premise o f the concentric theory i s that population density and land use will vary f rom the c enter of a city to the periphery. In general, the c ity c enter, or the area immediately outside the c ity center, will be the most densely s ettled, and population will decrease away f rom the center. In his treatise on preindustrial c ities, S joberg ( 1960) outlines a s imilar type of urban variation, but does not tie the center-periphery contrast exclusively to population density. Instead he discusses the " preeminence of the central area" which s imply means that the c ity center may contain markets, monumental architecture and e lite dwellings. This i s not necessarily the most densely s ettled area, but the most prestigious, so i t i s l ikely to have many very l arge houses making conspicuous use of valuable s pace. The smaller dwellings of poorer c lasses who do business i n the center and provide services t o the e lite may be near or even between t hese e lite residences i f the c ity i s a commercial c enter. The central density depends to some extent on i ts f unction. This argument has been developed f or Mesoamerican c ities by Marcus ( 1983b). Her argument i s that d ifferences between the distribution of population i n urban c enters i s related to the predominant f unction o f the c enter a s administrative, religious or c ommercial. C ommercial centers l ike Teotihuacan will be a ccessible a nd dense, religious centers l ike Tikal will be l ess d ense a nd emphasize temple architecture, and a dministrative c enters l ike Monte Alban will be o f medium d ensity and d efensible. Although developed f or a pan-Mesoamerican c omparison, Marcus's model ( 1983b:241) has r elevance f or a c omparison of exclusively Maya s ites a s well. To attribute a s ingle predominant function to a ll Maya c ities i s surely t oo great a s implification. D ifferent Maya c ities undoubtedly had d ifferent f unctions, which s hould, i f Marcus i s correct, r esult i n variations i n the density and l ayout o f their central areas. Measuring the density of population, a s well as the variation i n density between the center and the s ite periphery, may help determine t he f unction o f a c ity, e specially when considered on a r egional scale. D ensity s hould be considered on a Maya s cale, bounded p erhaps by D zibilchaltun ( probably the most d ense Maya s ite ) and B arton Ramie ( or whatever Maya s ite i s argued t o be the l east dense). And density e stimates should be c ombined with i nformation on s ite l ayout, g raded f rom defensible to e asily accessible. However, B erry has argued ( 1970, and Berry e t a l. 1 963) that central densities are not s tatic and t hat, while i ndustrial cities tend to become l ess dense o ver t ime,

1 8

preindustrial s ettlements become more dense i n the center. He e xemplifies this process with data f rom a 7 0 year period in C alcutta. Two f actors make this generalization unlikely to a pply to a prehistoric preindustrial c ity. F irst, the 7 0 year period i s very brief. Many of the Maya cities archaeologists s tudy were occupied f or 2 500 years. Several cycles of i ncreased and decreased central density may be encompassed by such a t ime s pan. Second, the changes i n Calcutta include s ignificant developments i n economics and transportation options concomitant with the entry of India into t he modern world system. This kind of change i s l ikely to be a s hort term response to modern conditions. Nevertheless, i t i s possible f or c ities to play more than one f unctional role over time. Changes in the degree and f orm o f nucleation o f a s ettlement over t ime that are archaeologically detectable may i ndicate changes i n the community f unctions described by Marcus ( 1983b). T hese theories a ll i nvolve the i dentification of a contrast between the density and type of settlement structures i n the center of a community with those at a distance from the c enter. All s uggest that i mportant c lues to the organization and f unctioning of a s ettlement can be gained by outlining the degree and f orm of this contrast. Furthermore, these authors suggest that i n order to make accurate population e stimates, i t i s necessary to determine relative settlement densities at varying distances f rom site c enter. Changes i n these relative densities and i n the d istribution o f different types o f structures over time may b e key to understanding the development of a community. U ltimately, u sing s ite density variations to i dentify the f unction o f a particular s ettlement will require comparative data f rom other s ites, particularly those nearby with possible economic or political relationships to the s ite under s tudy. D ata f rom s ites with a variety of patterns will be n ecessary to determine at what scale the contrast i n density and f orm between the center and the periphery o f a s ite i s meaningful. Nevertheless, attention to s uch variation i s valuable f or r econstructing the growth and d evelopment o f a particular s ite. The f irst research question addressed by the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project ( outlined i n Chapter Two) i s that there i s a s ignificant contrast between Nohmul's central precinct and i ts outlying areas that may vary at d ifferent i ntervals f rom s ite center and t hat may change over time. B esides center-periphery variation, S joberg discusses the e xistence o f " neighborhoods" or districts within a settlement based on s ocial c ontrasts, s uch a s c lass, economic s tatus, o ccupational s pecialization, or ethnic origin. His point i s that, a lthough artisans of a particular craft or members of a particular c lass may reside in particular neighborhoods, their work places may not b e separate f rom their houses. Neighborhoods may be socially segregated, but are l ess l ikely to be f unctionally

1 9

s egregated. F or example, S joberg suggests that crafts-people may l ive mostly i n one neighborhood, but their s tatus as crafts-people, not t heir particular crafts, will c ircumscribe their neighborhood. Butchers, b akers a nd candlestick makers may a ll l ive i n the s ame neighborhood i f they have equal s ocial s tatus, but they will be s eparated from higher status doctors, l awyers and I ndian c hiefs. The s ector theory of urban 1 969:165-75, originally presented by S joberg's concept of " neighborhoods" that:

f ormation Hoyt 1 939), c losely, b y

( Johnson follows arguing

Once a district with high-class housing has been e stablished, the most expensive s ites f or new houses will be a long the outer edge of t his area. The net r esult over a period of u rban expansion i s that a z one of h igh c lass housing tends to be l ocated on one s ide o f a c ity r ather than i n the c ontinuous r ing s upported b y the concentric theory." ( Johnson 1 969:166) Obviously this argument i nvolves concepts of r eal estate and commerce that have no prehistoric counterparts. Furthermore, the upper-class, occupational or k in-based groups that create these s ectors may not endure t he entire l ife span of a prehistoric c ity. However, s ome e vidence o f the division of a s ettlement i nto s ocial s ectors m ay remain when data are controlled f or contemporaneity. Marcus ( 1983b) prefers the multiple nuclei t heory t o the sector theory f or explaining Maya s ettlement s tructure, though e ither could be used to describe the mound c lusters that occur i n most Maya s ites outside the central precinct. The multiple nuclei theory suggests t hat cities are more cellular than nuclear, growing around p oints i n the s ettlement area rather than around the c ity c enter. I n i ts original f orm ( Harris and Ullman 1 945) the multiple nuclei model runs counter to S joberg's characterization o f preindustrial c ities by s uggesting f unctional s egregation in settlement, perhaps around f actories, which mainly applies to i ndustrial c ities. However, Marcus a rgues that the pattern of multiple nuclei i s visible at many smaller Maya centers, and believes i t may pertain t o local political hierarchies. Fash's ( 1983) description o f neighborhoods i s s imilar to Marcus's concept o f nuclei, a lthough on a s omewhat more modest s cale. Major Maya c enters, i dentified by Marcus on t he basis of emblem g lyphs ( 1976), a ll s eem to have one " single major complex of public buildings" ( 1983b:206), while smaller s ites may have s everal " separate but equal" plaza groups. As she notes, demonstration of the e xistence of s uch nuclei i s contingent on s howing contemporaneity between groups. Also, her i dea of s eparate but equal nodes in a single s ettlement i mplies a degree o f r edundancy of s ettlement f unction. That i s, i nstead of the f unctional variation

2 0

between nuclei originally proposed by Johnson ( 1969), e ach of Marcus's nuclei w ould c ontain a s eparate but equally e lite f amily, with a ll r etainers a ttached. Haviland ( 1988) has d eveloped a s imilar explanation o f a rchaeological configurations a t t he household l evel. The a lternative, that s ectors or n eighborhoods f orm i n r elation to a s ingle center a long l ines o f e conomic or s ocial s tatus, i s a lso possible. A s econd proposition a bout urban s ettlements that will be addressed i n the Nohmul S ettlement Pattern research design ( Chapter Two) i s that urban c ommunities may show e vidence o f s ectors with l ike buildings grouped together, or multiple nuclei, with the complete r ange o f s tructural variation r eplicated i n each o ne. O f course i t i s r easonable that a c ombination of these two p atterns existed a t most points i n t ime i n a ny particular c ommunity. Understanding of the s ignificance o f d istributions a t a particular s ite will u ltimately c ome f rom c omparisons w ith o ther s ites. In the meantime, until such c omparisons a re possible, i t may be f ruitful to l ook f or variation i n d istributions over time a t a s ingle s ite. Another research question i s s uggested by C olby ( 1933) i n h is discussion o f c entrifugal and c entripetal f orces. He n oted that i n s ome c ases, c ompetition f or s pace i n c ity centers would drive s ome types o f l and use f urther away. F or e xample, very l arge e lite f amilies might not be able to house themselves a nd their orchards i n the center of town. At t he s ame time, t he c onvenient l ocation of markets or f amily ties would e ncourage crowding i nto the c enter. F or a preindustrial c ivilization l ike that of the ancient Maya, l acking wheels a nd draft animals, these f orces must s urely have been i n play. The l ocation of houses i n r elation to areas of production and markets must have i nvolved s ome s trategic c ompromises. D rennan ( 1988) has articulated this point by suggesting that i ntensive agriculture may have a centrifugal i nfluence on a grarian households. His point i s that e xtremely i ntensive c ooperative agriculture, such a s r idged f ields, may d iscourage nucleated s ettlement o f f armers. I t i s unlikely that this s ituation might actually prevent nucleation and urbanism, s ince s pecialists a nd political and military authorities s upported by the agricultural surplus produced by i ntensive f arming would s till l ive i n nucleated urban s urroundings. However, s uch f actors may be s een a s decentralizing f orces on c ommunities that would o therwise be more nucleated. A f inal proposition to be tested at Nohmul i s that, despite centripetal f orces encouraging dense population i n the s ettlement c enter, c entrifugal f orces may be exerted by particular o utlying s ite a reas. I n the f oregoing I have discussed people a nd s tructures a s though they were one and the s ame. Obviously they a re not. C ultural geographers c an i nvestigate f amily i ncomes and the s ignificance of s acred p laces i n ways that archaeologists o f p rehistoric groups c annot. NeveLtheless, most o f the variation i n population d ensity and s ettlement

2 1

s tructure that geographers describe s hould be reflected i n the density and s tyle of s tructures. The worst problem with testing this model i n the M aya l owlands i s not that buildings do not reflect concentric p atterning a nd sector divisions, but that not a ll prehistoric buildings a re preserved. Furthermore, not a ll t hose that are preserved can be s ampled or understood f rom their surface configurations one to two thousand y ears after they were abandoned.

Conclusion

In this chapter I have argued that the s tudy o f prehistoric Maya s ettlements has been hampered by s implistic cultural ecology, overgeneralized ethnographic analogy, and a l ack of attention to both natural a nd cultural s ite f ormation processes. I n response to this s ituation I have presented three s imple propositions a bout Maya settlement, based on what i s known about urban systems i n general and what i s s uspected about Maya social organization i n particular. These propositions a re designed to be tested with the type of data available i n the Maya Lowlands. In the f ollowing chapter I will present a research design developed to address these propositions with data f rom the settlement of the prehistoric Maya s ite o f Nohmul i n northern Belize. The Nohmul data a re relevant t o these i ssues partly because of the s ite i tself, which was s hown f rom earlier excavations to have a nonplatform c omponent ( Wilk et a l. 1 975), to have mounds whose shapes have l ittle relation to their construction histories ( Heighway et a l. 1 975), c lusters of visible occupation ( Hammond 1 973), and an a pparently uneven occupation spanning a very l ong time ( Hammond e t a l. 1 975). Nohmul i s a lso r elatively well preserved, siF ice i t was protected f rom much deep plowing by the B elize Sugar Industries f or many years. On the other hand, Nohmul's f eatures a re not s o deeply buried that there are a lmost no surface-subsurface relationships, a s i s the case at s ome heavily a lluviated s ites such a s Quirigua ( Ashmore 1 981). A c omplete s ite description i s presented i n Chapter Two. Nohmul i s the l argest s ite i n N orthern Belize, but i s much smaller than many s ites i n t he C entral Peten such a s Tikal or Mirador, both i n terms of i ts areal extent and i n the number of visible mounds i n i ts s ettlement. A s discussed i n Chapter F ive, the population density s uggested by Nohmul's mounds i s much l ower t han that c onsidered e ssential f or qualification a s a c ity by some authors ( Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1 979:260-263, S anders a nd Price 1 968:45-46). Nevertheless, s ince other authors ( Haviland 1 970, Marcus 1 983b, Sanders and Webster 1 988,

2 2

S joberg 1 960) have a rgued that population density per s e i s not a n absolute q ualification f or urbanism, Nohmul's s ize in r elation to o ther c ommunities i n the r egion makes i t an appropriate s ite to l ook to f or o ther urban characteristics. I n other words, i f the Maya had " central place" communities t hat f unctioned a s c ities do i n other complex societies, N ohmul may have had such a f unction. Furthermore, preservation at the s ite makes i t a good place to test whether visible mounds are a good i ndex of a ll archaeological f eatures and therefore a good s ource o f i nformation on population density and s ocial organization.

2 3

CHAPTER TWO THE NOHMUL S ETTLEMENT PATTERN PROJECT

Nohmul i s l ocated i n Northern Belize a bout ten k ilometers north of Orange Walk Town on a l ow r olling l imestone r idge. The Rio Hondo, which f orms the s ite's western boundary, originates within seventy-five k ilometers of the i nland political center of Tikal and o ffers a water route i nto other parts of the central l owlands via i ts tributaries, such a s the Rio Bravo and the Rio A zul. T o the north, the Hondo i s a waterway to the s ea, and t o prehistoric s eaports such a s Santa R ita and Cerros.

S ite Description

Nohmul i s the l argest s ite i n N orthern B elize, both i n terms of courtyard count ( Adams [ 1982] e stimates twelve) and areal extent ( Hammond et a l. 1 985), covering over thirty-five square kilometers between the Rio Hondo a nd Pulltrouser Swamp. Twenty two square kilometers of the s ite have been mapped. From one k ilometer north of s ite c enter ( defined arbitrarily a s t he area within half a k ilometer of the central acropolis) t o the s ite's northern edge a long the r aised f ields, the l and i s currently used t o pasture c attle. Consequently, many prehistoric f eatures are exposed and were mapped a s e arly a s 1 973 ( Hammond e t a l. 1 973). There i s no o bvious patterning in the -r distribution of these f eatures a side f rom their t endency t o appear on r idge tops. Excluding those in the s ite's central precinct, visible mounds r ange f rom ten t o thirty meters i n diameter, and f rom one to f ive meters i n height. Nohmul's central area c onsisted of two enormous platform groups s paced about 4 00 meters apart connected by a s acbe ( elevated road, see S ite M ap, Appendix D ). The e asternmost group contains the s tructure r eferred t o as the " central acropolis", which r ises t o the tallest point f or many miles around. Construction o f this building took p lace i n the Terminal Preclassic when a two meter thick platform, 3 00m x ( almost) 2 00m i n a rea, was built a s a central p laza. On the north s ide o f this p laza, t he acropolis, a s econdary p latform ( Structure 1 ) s ome e ight meters tall was built; upon this p latform S tructure 2 r ose about another n ine meters. The b asal p latform of t he western group a ppears to be of c omparable s ize, but none o f the structures i t supports i s a s l arge a s Structure 1 a nd i ts s econdary pyramid s equence. This double complex i ncludes a bout 3 2 s econdary p latform-based s tructures, built over the s everal c enturies o f i ts o ccupation. Excavation i n t he e ast group has a lso

2 4

r evealed e vidence o f a s tructure s eated directly on basal P latform 1 , without a s econdary supporting platform. This was an enormous timber hall over twenty meters l ong s ituated on the c enter of the c entral a cropolis p latform i n t he T erminal Preclassic ( Hammond et a l. 1 985). Outside the c entral precinct, s ettlement i s c ontinuous but uneven to the R io Hondo, three and one half k ilometers west, and e ast t hree to f our k ilometers to Pulltrouser S wamp, where the l andscape i s a maze of prehistoric r aised f ields ( Turner a nd Harrison 1 983). A relationship between P ulltrouser Swamp and Nohmul i s l ikely, but much more about l ocal demographic patterns and s ubsistence s trategies must be known before this possibility can be f ully evaluated. A n umber of smaller s ites whose r elationship to Nohmul i s unknown are a ssociated with Pulltrouser Swamp. Nohmul i s a lso bounded on the north and n ortheast by swamps densely p acked with r elict f ields. North of these swamps s ettlement i s continuous to the small s ite of S an Victor, which lies about f ive kilometers f rom Nohmul's central a cropolis. S imilarly, s ome f our k ilometers s outh of Nohmul' s central precinct, Nohmul's s ettlement apparently merges with the s ettlement of the small s ite of San Luis. F urther s outh a long the Hondo ( approximately e leven k ilometers f rom Nohmul's center ) i s San Antonio, Albion I sland, another l ocus of prehistoric f ields. The s outhern portion of the s ite ( about 6 0% of the t otal site area) i s now p lanted i n s ugar cane, s everely l imiting the visibility of s urface f eatures. Although l arger mounds are n ot s own, when surrounded by mature c ane e ven these are visible only f rom above. Southern areas e xposed and mapped during c ane harvests i n 1 982, 1 983, 1 985 a nd 1 986 s uggest a distribution s imilar to that visible i n the n orth s ector. All Nohmul's l arger mounds have been trenched by l ooters, and s everal mound groups have been bulldozed away f or road f ill ( Hammond 1 982b). I n s pite of this d isturbance, Nohmul has f ared much better than many north B elize sites ( Sidrys 1 983), and s till c ontains a relatively i ntact occupation s equence. L arge areas of the north s ector have e scaped extensive deep plowing. This i s partly due to the protective ownership of the B elize Sugar I ndustries, but this protection e nded i n 1 986 when the l and was s old. Previous r econnaissance a t the s ite affected the r esearch design o f the Nohmul S ettlement P attern Project. E arly excavations b egan outlining Nohmul's chronology by the turn of t he c entury. More r ecent excavations i dentified s ome o f the major problem a reas that might be a ddressed with d ata f rom the s ite. S ince my research was built on these, they are described below.

2 5

Excavations

By Thomas G ann

Hammond ( 1985) has i dentified the f irst published r eference to Nohmul i n Thomas Gann's 1 897 paper " On the C ontents of Some Ancient Mounds i n C entral America". Gann began digging a t Nohmul i n 1 908-1909 ( reported 1 911). Nohmul i s not named; G ann i dentifies his collection with the modern s ettlement of D ouglas, which lies s everal k ilometers northwest o f Nohmul's s ite c enter. H ammond ( 1985) believes the Terminal F ormative/Protoclassic vessels and the i ncomplete L ate Postclassic i ncensario t hat Gann reports probably came f rom e ither Structure 6 5-66 ( the western partner o f Nohmul's twin c eremonial precincts), o r Structure 2 77. The locations of o ther excavations by Gann during this period are unknown, s ince Gann d escribes his f indings exclusively i n terms of the portable artifacts they produced. During his 1 911-1912 s eason, while he was d igging e lsewhere, Gann reports discovery at Nohmul by a l ocal person of a " large collection o f f ragments o f rough pottery vessels and i ncense burners" ( 1914-1916), i ncluding a Postclassic e ffigy i ncensario which he describes i n some detail. In conclusion he s tates: " No f urther e xcavations were made i n this mound, a s i t i s very l arge, i s s ituated i n a very remote l ocality, and experience has s hown that mounds which c ontain these l arge a ggregations o f broken pottery and i ncensarios a lmost i nvariably c ontain n othing e lse" ( excerpted i n Hammond 1 985:117). Gann reports ( 1939) s pending two o ther s easons a t Nohmul. Loci o f s ome o f these l ater e xcavations a re better known, i n part because o f the extensive damage d one to the s tructures that he l eft unconsolidated. He gutted Structure 2 on the c entral a cropolis, f inding a n i nteresting but not very wealthy burial. He also trenched Structures 8 and 1 1 i n the s ite's c entral a rea. Gann then excavated 2 5 mounds i n Nohmul' s s ettlement area. These excavations are known only from g eneral descriptions of the s ize of the mounds and f rom Gann's e stimates of their d istance f rom Nohmul's c enter. Beside the f act that Gann's d istance measures s eem to h ave been consistently i naccurate ( Hammond 1 985:44,55), i t i s now difficult to d istinguish the r esults o f Gann's efforts from those o f l ooters. F ortunately, many of the artifacts Gann recovered are known a nd now r eside i n the British Museum. D iscoveries at Nohmul o ccurred by accident i n 1 940 when Structure 2 77 was damaged during the construction o f the San P ablo/Douglas Road. Three c hambers were uncovered which contained burials and a l arge a ssemblage o f T erminal

2 6

Formative/Protoclassic vessels and, probably, s ome Early C lassic ( reported by Anderson and Cook 1 944). S ome o f the vessels are i n the B elize National Collection, and have been reproduced by Hammond ( 1985:93-105) and discussed by Pring ( 1977) and Hammond ( 1984). The next reconnaissance at Nohmul d id not o ccur until the 1 970's.

The C orozal

Project 1 973-1974,

1 978

I n keeping with the f ocus o f the discipline i n the 1 970's, Hammond designed a r egional project f or the Maya area o f Northern B elize. According to Hammond ( p.c.) this was the f irst truly r egional project i n the Lowlands. Hammond outlined the project a s f ollows: The Corozal P roject was organized to i nvestigate the prehistory and human e cology of the area of B elize ( formerly British Honduras) l ying north o f l atitude 1 8 0 0'N, and bounded o therwise by the C aribbean coast and the Mexican border a long the R io Hondo ( 1985:1). I n 1 973, the project gathered data mainly f rom the s ites of Nohmul, S an E stevan, S anta Rita, Caledonia, Colha, and K ichpanha; and i n the Tower Hill - Chan P ine Ridge area, the area west of P rogresso L agoon, and the area east of the Rio Nuevo a long the Orange Walk - San E stevan r idge. The central precincts and s ome of the settlement area o f Nohmul, S an E stevan, S anta Rita, Colha, Louisville, Shipstern, and Chowacol were mapped. General reconnaissance i n Northern B elize began to reveal the density and character o f prehispanic settlement i n the region. The beginning of a r egional ceramic s equence s panning the period f rom the Early Late Formative ( 400-300 BC, T zec equivalent) to the P ostclassic ( AD 8 00-1000, and perhaps l ater i n s ome p laces) was developed from s tratigraphic excavations and s urface collections i n this f irst s eason. Outside the c entral area o f about . 13 of a square kilometer, a portion o f Nohmul's north sector, beginning about one kilometer north of s ite c enter, was mapped. Within this mapped a rea, S tructure 1 39 of the P latform 1 37 Group was chosen f or excavation. Hammond describes choice of this structure a s " archaeologically random" ( 1973:45), by which he means that i t met the f ollowing criteria: i t was r eadily accessible f rom the S an Victor Road, i t was i n good c ondition a nd not l ooted, and i t did not appear unusual. The excavation r evealed a Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic s tructure. The excavation was undertaken on the presumption that this group o f s tructures would have a

2 7

history s imilar to those o f uninvestigated groups i n the vicinity i n i ts dates of f oundation, occupation, and a bandonment. ( 1973:45) This turned out not to be t he c ase, a s became c lear f rom Wilk ' s ( et a l. 1 975) work i n the area and my l ater excavation of nearby P latform 1 31, which uncovered a s ingle period construction ( Terminal C lassic) with P reclassic occupation only on the s urface o f bedrock. C omparison between the occupation s equence of t he P latform 1 37 Group, which was a multiphase construction, and that of t he P latform 1 31 Group ( as well a s d ifferences among t he c onstruction s equences of P latforms 1 38, 1 39 and 1 41) g ave the f irst i ndication o f the r ange o f variation e ncompassed by Nohmul's visible mounds. A summary of Corozal Project e xcavations i s presented here in s ome detail, s ince the i nitial f indings, e .g., t he unexpected difference between P latform 1 37 and P latform 1 31, i nfluenced the r esearch design of my s ettlement pattern s tudy. P latform 1 37, l ocated about two k ilometers f rom Nohmul's center and about . 2 k ilometers from the minor ceremonial center of the P latform 1 43 Group, supported f our mounds constructed at r oughly the cardinal d irections. Excavation of Structure 1 39, the s outhernmost s tructure o n the platform, was directed by C arolyn Heighway. S he uncovered a small ( 13.2 by 4 meters) structure with l ow l imestone walls originally under o ne meter tall and a bout . 8 meters thick. Postholes i n the upper courses of t he walls i ndicated a perishable s uperstructure. Several e pisodes of replastering suggest the s tructure was occupied f or some time. At the time of i ts e xcavation, the building was i nterpreted a s a L ate P ostclassic house ( ca. AD 1 300) and l inked to Yucatecan i nfluence by architectural technique and design s tyle. A s econd structure was discovered adjacent to the f irst at the western l imit o f the excavation and, a lthough not e xcavated, was thought to be a kitchen on the basis o f i ts s mall s ize and l ocation near the main dwelling s tructures. Several burials coeval with this building were encountered, a s well a s a s eries of s even poorly preserved burials cut i nto the s urface o f an e arlier occupation. T he e arlier building was made o f c ompletely perishable materials ( identified f rom a s eries of postholes cut i nto the plaster surface below ). The 1 973 excavations concluded with the discovery o f this building, which remained undated. The 1 974 s eason c oncentrated o n Nohmul exclusively. I ris Barry completed the excavation o f Structure 1 39. Three graves f ound a ssociated with the e arlier s tructure dated i t to the Terminal C lassic period. The f act that the original ground surface below the platform w as f ound to c ontain no c eramics l ater than the L ate C lassic suggested that t he p latform was constructed not l ong a fter that period.

2 8

S tructures 1 38 and 1 41 on the s ame platform were a lso trenched i n 1 974, under the s upervision o f E lizabeth Graham. Completion of these excavations a llowed Hammond to produce this reconstruction of the occupation s equence of the P latform 1 39 Group: " Structure 1 38 was f ounded i n the Late Preclassic period and was substantially c omplete by the t ime a n early Protoclassic burial was i ntruded i nto i ts f ront. Structures 1 39 and 1 41 had P rotoclassic a nd l ater material in the o ld l and s urface that t hey buried, and were L ate C lassic c onstructions. Both subsequently acted as podia f or the construction of masonry walled buildings o verlying Terminal C lassic l evels, which are l ikely f rom t heir f orm to be L ate Postclassic in d ate; there w as no detectable hiatus i n o ccupation" ( 1974-1975:7). Despite slight differences i n stratigraphic interpretation ( e. g., I would a rgue that l ayer 2 8 f rom Heighway's excavation [ Hammond et a l. 1 973:18] probably corresponds to a brief period o f a bandonment of Structure 1 37), s imilar construction sequences were r epeated, either completely or partly, in many p latform groups at Nohmul. However, i t was clear f rom these e arly excavations that s urface traces did not c orrespond well to the construction or occupation sequence of a building. L ate P ostclassic occupations turned out to be r are i n the s ettlement area. A series o f s ettlement excavations, directed by Richard Wilk and ( one) by Duncan Pring was c onducted in the vicinity of P latform 1 37 to determine whether the complex pattern of o ccupation of that structure was common in the area, and to d elineate the extent of L ate Postclassic settlement. Fourteen l m - 1 .5m square test pits were used to t est f our plazuela groups, two l arger " ceremonial f l structures, and two s ingle s tructures. T hese excavations revealed that Postclassic occupation was n ot extensive i n the i mmediate area o f P latform 1 37, but that there s eemed to be two population maxima: one i n the L ate Preclassic and one i n the Late ( now designated Late/Terminal) C lassic. All s tructures tested had occupations i n both periods, except the P latform 1 09 Group, which Hammond ( 1974-1975) s uggests was a s hrine, because i t seems to have been unused ( at l east unremodeled) by l ater inhabitants after i ts original c onstruction i n the Late Preclassic. All o ther s tructures were built or reused i n the L ate/Terminal C lassic. S everal i mportant f eatures were discovered i n these excavations. Pring's work on the P latform 9 9 Group between Structures 1 03 and 1 04 revealed a L ate P reclassic hearth, the o nly hearth k nown f rom a p latform Nohmul ( although similar to Cuello f irepits ( Hammond, p . c.). Wilk's excavation i nto the center o f Structure 1 10 on P latform 1 09

2 9

hit a ceremonial c ache at the base o f the structure that contained f our j ade head pendants, two j ade e arspools, a jade bead, s everal Terminal Preclassic vessels, i mported shells and three metates. Excavations i n P latforms 1 68, 1 43, and 1 80 ( the r est of the excavations described here were done by Wilk i n 1 974) yielded the f irst e vidence o f modified bedrock that has turned o ut to be so c ommon a t Nohmul. Excavation i nto Structure 9 4 uncovered t he f irst evidence of nonplatform occupation a t Nohmul: The f irst phase structure i s m uch more puzzling, i n that i t seems to have consisted o f nothing more than a p laster f loor s et f lush into the ground s urface. This i s quite the o pposite of the usual ancient Maya house b uilding technique which utilized a platform to r aise the house up above the l and surface. The e arliest phase of Structure 9 4 i s much c loser to modern Maya h ouse construction i n that the plaster or s ascab f loor f unctions only a s an even c lean surface, n ot as an e levation. P erhaps f urther a ncient s tructures of s imilar nature l ie undiscovered because of their unobtrusive nature ( Wilk e t a l. 1 975:85) Also i n 1 974, B arry excavated i n the r emains of t he badly damaged Structure 2 77, which t urned out to h ave been reconstructed several times over the centuries ( possibly 3 00 B .C. to 1 000 A . D.). Pring and Hammond placed two 1 .5 square meter t est pits i nto Structure 5 36 s ituated on t he banks of the Rio Hondo to test their hypothesis that i t functioned a s a port f acility. They f ound several Yucatecan-style S lateware vessels a ssociated with s econdary burials. Present knowledge suggests the vessels were locally manufactured ( Hammond p .c.) The d iscovery of what may have been an ancient jetty near S tructure 5 36 and t he dating of the s tructure i tself to the E arly C lassic ( which was, at the t ime of excavation, believed to be the period of Nohmul's f lorescence), a long with evidence of f ishing i n the f orm of " numerous netsinkers", were taken t o support the port mound hypothesis. Although Pring a nd Hammond ( 1975:126) a cknowledged their i nterpretations were speculative, Nohmul's position on t he Hondo is undoubtedly related to u se of the waterway f or transport a nd trade. The position o f Structure 5 36 i n a n area vulnerable t o f looding i s i s not l ikely to be the r esult o f poor planning by the ancient Maya. The project c oncentrated e lsewhere i n the r egion i n 1 975 and 1 976, most notably at C uello, where Hammond i dentified the earliest known Maya o ccupation ( 1980). W ilk and Wilhite ( n.d.) carried out a s eries of s ettlement excavations a t Cuello i n 1 980 that f urther developed t he case f or nonplatform occupation i n Northern B elize. T he Corozal Project did not go i nto the f ield i n 1 977. In 1 978, s till under the aegis o f the C orozal Project, Arlen and D iane Chase began excavation of S tructure 2 0 i n

3 0

Nohmul' s c entral p recinct. In 1 979 they returned with f unding f rom the University of Pennsylvania and private donors to e xcavate the adjacent Structure 9 , i dentifying i t a s a Yucatecan s tyle r ound s tructure and Structure 2 0 a s a Yucatecan s tyle p atio quadrangle ( Chase and Chase 1 982, Chase and Hammond 1 982). These excavations i dentified a r ange o f variation i n s tructural type, f rom multiple r euses of i ndividual buildings to s ingle phase constructions, and f rom the c onstruction of m assive platforms to the use of ground s urface f loors. O ccupation was dated to a ll periods from the P reclassic to t he Late Postclassic, but the s pread of s tructures dating t o these periods was shown to be uneven. Evidence of i nfluence f rom outside B elize dated to both the Protoclassic and t he Terminal C lassic.

The Nohmul

Project

The Nohmul P roject began i n 1 982 with a small crew and l imited r esources, under the direction of Norman Hammond. The goals o f t he s eason i ncluded both mapping and excavation. A map o f the s ettlement around the central a cropolis was begun. A l arge trench was opened on the west central edge of the platform below S tructure 1 i n the hope of d ating the c onstruction and occupation s equence of the s ite c enter. The i ntention was a lso to discover whether Structure 1 was a " tell", having grown up gradually by added layers of c onstruction a s did many of the smaller s tructures at Nohmul, or was a s ingle phase construction. 1 982 was the f irst of my f our f ield s easons at Nohmul. As ceramic analyst during the f irst s eason, I undertook to c omplete the exposure of S tructure 9 f or consolidation a nd to obtain an extensive s ample of the ceramic types i t y ielded, mainly L ate/Terminal C lassic. I a lso excavated two lm x lm test pits. The f irst, dug into the p latform of S tructure 8 46 encountered a Late/Terminal C lassic burial o f a n extended corpse with a small b lackware bowl and a metate. The burial was c overed by a cairn o f shaped limestone b locks and was l ess than one meter below the modern ground s urface. The s econd test pit was dug i nto the east e dge of Structure 8 46. I t hit a l ayer of mixed platform f ill over a buried A-horizon containing Late Preclassic ceramics. The artifacts and records of these small excavations w ere l ost by the l aboratory director at the e nd of the 1 982 s eason.

3 1

Excavations

i n the C entral Acropolis

Nohmul's central precinct c ontains two major architectural groups; the smaller western s tructures are l inked to the l arger eastern group by a s acbe. Both groups are built on enormous oblong p latforms made o f cut l imestone blocks; the west platform i s e stimated a t 3 75 by 1 40 meters, the e ast i s s omewhat l arger ( Hammond e t a l. 1 988). Extensive excavations i n the e ast group ( Hammond 1 983, 1 985, Hammond et a l. 1 985, 1 987, 1 988) have s hown the platform and the bulk of the a rchitecture t o d ate to the Terminal Preclassic. A s ingle t estpit in t he west group dates i ts platform and p ossibly some o f i ts superstructures to the s ame period. H ammond ( et a l. 1 988) a lso dates the s acbe a s Terminal C hicanel on the b asis o f i ts construction s tyle. Excavations i n the central precinct were undertaken to outline the construction s equence o f the acropolis a nd i ts surrounding buildings. After a brief i ntroductory s eason in 1 982, f ull scale operations were b egun i n the e ast group of the central acropolis by the Nohmul Project in 1 983, and continued i n 1 985 and 1 986. The buildings i n this g roup are arranged around the edges of the giant platform i n what appears to be a much more f ormal a rrangement than the l ayout of the western p laza. Encircling buildings create an enclosed p latform area at the b ase of S tructure 1 , by f ar the l argest s tructure at Nohmul. The original Preclassic l ayout o f the structures o n the eastern platform was quite open. This situation was changed i n the Terminal C lassic with the addition o f Structures 8 , 9 , 1 0, 1 7, 2 0, a nd 2 1. The i ntrusive positioning of these buildings ( Hammond 1 985), their a ssociation with possible Yucatecan s tyle tradewares and the unusual f orm o f Structure 9 ( round ) and S tructure 2 0 ( a hollow square o f architecture) have s uggested a Y ucatecan i ntrusion i nto the s ite center i n the Tecep ( Late/ T erminal C lassic) period ( Chase and Chase 1 982, C hase and Hammond 1 982). The construction i s s imilar t o that described f or the P latform 1 37 group ( Hammond e t a l. 1 973). Y ucatecan i nfluences f irst a ppear at other s ites at this d ate ( e.g. Seibal; Adams 1 973, Southern Quintana Roo; Fry 1 976). This i nterpretation i s r easonable, a lthough i t i s weakened by the f act that the Yucatecan s tyle c eramics a re a lmost exclusively l ocally made ( Kosakowsky, personal communication), and there i s a Preclassic precedent f or round structures i n Northern Belize ( Haberland 1 958, S idrys 1 983). An unmapped s tructure s outh o f the e astern a cropolis platform, but within the central k ilometer o f Nohmul's s ettlement ( and therefore outside t he s cope of b oth the Settlement P attern Project and the N ohmul P roject) l ocated

3 2

i n the vicinity r ound.

o f

Structure

8 16,

a lso

a ppears

to

be

While these e xcavations were c arried out i n the s ite's c enter, the Nohmul S ettlement Pattern Project was operating i n the outlying areas of the s ite. I d irected the Nohmul Settlement P attern P roject i n 1 983, 1 985, and 1 986. The three s easons of s ettlement excavation are described and analyzed i n Chapters Three and F our. The excavation data a re presented i n Appendix C .

Research

Design

At the broadest l evel, the methodology presented here i s a imed at recovering a r ange of variation i n the types of archaeological f eature recoverable f rom the s ettlement area of a lowland Maya s ite. Previous s ettlement pattern s tudies have too o ften a ssumed that the boundaries of their s ample population were known, without adequate testing. Although this r esearch design i s i ntended to address general problems, i t was developed f or i nvestigating a s pecific site i n northern B elize. A variety of theoretical i ssues and culture h istorical questions outlined i n Chapter One a re addressed i n the r esearch design. T he strategy o f the Nohmul s ettlement pattern project was t o sample cultural f eatures via extensive testpitting at k ilometer i ntervals f rom s ite center, to test f or patterns of o ccupation density and f orm i n relation to the c entral area and outlying f eatures. Excavations were a lso p laced in a ll f our s ite quadrants, to l ook f or evidence of s ector divisions i n the c ommunity s tructure. Test pit excavations i n s ome areas were f ollowed by i ntensive areal excavation of s elected f eatures. T estpitting o utlined l arge s cale changes i n Nohmul's s ettlement c onfiguration a long s everal axes of variation, s uch a s s ize and l ocation i n r elation to s ite center and o ther cultural and n atural f eatures. Imminent destruction o f the s ite due t o l and s ale s upported the decision f or broad coverage. At the s ame time, more i ntensive excavation was r equired to i nvestigate the f unction of c ertain features s o that generalizations a bout occupational density and building f unction would be possible. P osthole testing and surface c ollections were used to s earch f or nonplatform f eatures and to augment the e xcavation s ample.

3 3

S ampling

"Ambiguity i s where we begin. I f we were sure of the answers there would b e no point to r esearch." ( Cowgill 1 975:263) Of a ll archaeological s ampling problems, the d ifficulties presented by a very l arge complex s ite with a l ong occupation are the most s evere ( Asch 1 975, B rown 1 975, Morris 1 975). The archaeological r ecord of Nohmul's s ettlement i s l arge, l ong, deep, and complex. The potential f or bias i n the s ampling o f a s ite like Nohmul i s enormous. The primary way to decrease bias i s to i ncrease s ample s ize. However, to develop a truly random s ample r epresentative of a 3 5km square occupation that e ndured f or a period of 2 500 years would r equire a s ample o f a s ize completely outside the available r esources of any ordinary archaeological project ( Asch 1 975, Morris 1 975). T he r esult of taking a small r andom s ample of an enormous and completely unstratified area i s that the s ample would be precise, i n the s ense that i ts s tatistics a re highly r eplicable, but i t would be biased a nd have a very l ow accuracy, meaning that i ts r elation to t he a ctual population of archaeological f eatures of a ll s ites would not be c lose. The most common f eatures of the p opulation s ampled will be those most f requently f ound, a nd their occurrence will have s ome degree of predictability, but the range of variation i n f eatures will not be r ecovered, e specially i f the r ange i s great a nd the s ample i s small. I t must be noted at the outset that i n dealing with a l arge human population center, most archaeological samples will be relatively small. Archaeologists u sually attempt to c ircumvent this problem by s tratifying the archaeological data a ccording t o a s et of characteristics that are a ssumed to correlate with population parameters. Each s et of characteristics constitutes a " type" o f archaeological f eature. Excavations are then done o f a percentage of e ach type, producing a s tratified s ample that c an be used t o reconstruct ancient l ifeways within a measurable r ange o f error, by means of s tatistical procedures. F or example, a s a lready d iscussed, Mayanists usually a ssume that prehistoric Maya constructed a ll ( or a lmost a ll) their buildings on p latforms, r evealing a spects o f building f unction and s ocial organization i n the p lacement, f orm a nd s ize of the p latforms. From this assumption i t f ollows that mounds a re a true i ndication o f the population o f archaeological f eatures and may be stratified f or

3 4

sampling a ccording t o visible characteristics s uch a s volume and s hape. These s trata are g iven a ttention proportional to t heir f requency i n the s ettlement to produce a s tatistical s ample o f e ach mound type ( Scarborough 1 986, T ourtellot 1 983). A mound-based s ampling s trategy based on these a ssumptions i s the r esult o f a n unfortunate marriage between the practical e xigencies o f f ieldwork a t huge s ites and t he historical i nfluences on Maya archaeology described i n C hapter One. D espite general a cceptance o f Maya cultural c omplexity, this s trategy a ssumes a very small degree of variation i n prehistoric f eatures. The settlement area o f a population c enter i s expected t o i nclude a f ew types o f s tructure, mostly houses, that vary in a f ew s imple c haracteristics. B asically, house s ize i s thought to be affected by the s tatus of i ts o ccupants, house f orm a nd c lustering by f amily s tructure, a nd house distribution by s ubsistence pattern. S ampling only v isible f eatures i s not just a benign oversimplification. I t i s l ikely to r esult i n a s erious under-representation o f population variation. For example, Cowgill ( 1975) points out that an e stimate of the mean s ize of a s et of s ites must be based on a s ample designed to give l ess o btrusive s ites an equal o pportunity o f being l ocated. O therwise, the s ample mean i s l ikely to be much larger than the p opulation mean. The s ample will be precise ( replicable) but not a ccurate ( representative). " In f act, i f the possibility o f bias i s not r ecognized, and the t heoretical precision i s taken t o be a good measure of the actual accuracy, the r esults will be d ownright misleading." ( Cowgill 1 975:265) T he possibility that this k ind of s ampling error i s affecting the i nterpretation o f Maya s ettlements has not been e valuated. A r andom s ample o f mounds does not give a ll a rchaeological f eatures an equal o pportunity of discovery i f an unknown portion o f the f eatures are not on mounds, or n ot on v isible mounds. Furthermore, a r andom s ample of mound t ypes may or may not c orrespond to a s ample of c ultural types. A s discussed i n Chapter One, c omplex s ocieties might be e xpected to r esult i n a greater range o f variation i n settlement than i s r ecognized i n the f oregoing type o f research design. I n a s ense, a ssuming great consistency among s ettlement f eatures and d igging a small number o f excavations i n f eatures that d iffer only a long the s implest parameters o f s ize a nd s hape may well be a s elf-fulfilling research prophecy. I n s hort, the s urface variation we use to s tratify o ur s ample must vary a ccording to prehistoric population p arameters. Otherwise the variation i dentified within the s eparate s trata o f the archaeological s ample will n ot reflect variation i n cultural parameters.

35

The purpose o f the s ampling procedure used by the NohMul Settlement P attern Project was not to a cquire a random s ample of a ll archaeological f eatures or a stratified s ample of a s et of types of f eatures. This s ampling design was •developed to i dentify bias r esulting f rom the use of a s tratified s ample of mound t ypes t o reconstruct the demography or social organization o f prehistoric Maya settlement. Two questions i n particular were addressed: 1 .

What i s the relation of v isible mounds to the constellation of archaeological s ettlement f eatures?

2 .

What i s the r elation of a rchaeological f eatures to a prehistoric Maya c ommunity?

s ettlement

Asch ( 1975:185) notes that f or small s amples a judgment s election may provide a more r epresentative sample than a random sample, even though the judgment sample will be biased. S ince " in a ll c ases... the populations ( of s ampled land areas) and the universe ( of cultural r emains) are not mathematically connected [ the connections a ssumed to exist between the two are] not s omething that c an b e subjected to statistical analysis" ( Chenhall 1 975:23). I n other words, the representativeness of a s ample i s contingent on a decision made by t he archaeologist about what the s ample actually r epresents, not on the n umber o r random placement of excavations. I t would have been possible to s ample 1 0% of N ohmul's 7 00 visible mounds with the 7 6 excavations o f t he s ettlement pattern project. H owever, s ince t he anthropological s ignificance of such a s ample i s under s crutiny, the 7 6 excavations were p laced judgmentally t o i nvestigate parameters o f the archaeological population that would not be i ncluded on a 1 0% r andom sample. Since the " systemic" ( cultural use, Schiffer 1 976) significance of " mounds" i s unclear, the value of a s ample of a s pecific percentage i s questionable. Sample f raction, like s ampling design, depends on " prior knowledge or good guesses about variability i n the population." ( Cowgill 1 975:263) T he ultimate a im of the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project was to i mplement this " prior knowledge" t o add a new d imension to the evaluation o f f uture s ampling designs. Maya mounded f eatures are only the last physical result of a l ong and complex occupation; their characteristics are the result o f a s et of f actors ( natural and cultural f ormation processes [ Schiffer 1 976]) that cross-cut ( in unknown ways) any particular prehistoric Maya population the archaeologist might w ish to r econstruct. A s ample of mounds i s exactly that: a s ample of mounds. T he relationship between mounds and human groups i s affected b y t ime, f ormation processes, e cological i nfluences a nd prehistoric cultural f actors such a s s tatus and building f unction.

36

F or example, T ourtellot ( 1983) has a lready d isproved t he proposition that the visible conformation o f mounds i s n ecessarily r elated to the actual shape or u se o f the prehistoric s tructures i n and on the mounds. The f irst goal o f the Nohmul s ettlement project was to i nvestigate whether visible mounds d id i ndeed represent the true r ange o f s tructure types, even though the types might not a lways be i ndicated by s urface f eatures. The obvious way to answer this question was to s eek " invisible" f eatures and c ompare them to mounded f eatures. The previous research at Nohmul a lready described ( Hammond et a l., 1 973, 1 974-75, Wilk 1 974-75) suggested that nonmound s tructures existed at Nohmul. S ince probability s ampling i s not a tool f or " searching" f or particular types of data, the Nohmul purposive s ample was r ecovered by means of s everal types of j udgmental s earching techniques, i ncluding postholing, s urface concentration t esting, and topographic evaluation. The s econd purpose of the s ampling program was to address the r elationship between the archaeological r emains and the prehistoric community using the geographers' c oncepts of s ettlement d istribution presented i n Chapter One. The general program was to seek archaeological variation a long l ines consistent with an urbanized s ettlement, rather than with a modern Maya village, o r with a model of prehistoric variation based on visible mound types. The most s traightforward characteristic of population c enters i s c entralization, a lthough, a s a lready n oted, this i s not s trictly a f unction of the population d ensity of the c entral precinct. C entralization may be viewed as a r elative c oncept, tempered i n an urban s ettlement by s ectoring and c entrifugal f orces. A s discussed i n Chapter One, centralization correlates with mobilized s ervices and political and e conomic c ontrol. Population density and habitation that f orm under urban conditions may be e xpected to vary within a s ettlement a ccording to s everal parameters, i ncluding the mode o f production and the f unction of the center within the l arger s ociocultural network. All of these f actors may be e xpected to vary over t ime. Neither Nohmul's e conomic and political role i n the Maya s phere nor t he mode o f l ocal production c an be a dequately treated with 7 6 e xcavations. However, i t i s possible to outline s ome variations i n population density a nd d istribution. T his c an be done by i nvestigating the c ontemporaneity o f s tructures, a nd the f unction and density o f f eatures at i ntervals f rom s ite center, and i n r elation to t he cardinal d irections and to outlying natural and c ultural f eatures. Results o f the Nohmul Settlement P attern Project s trongly suggest that a greater r ange o f variation i n Nohmul's s ettlement f eatures was recognized by u sing a judgment s ample than would have been possible with a small random s ample b iased i n f avor of visible mounds.

3 7

Nohmul's mapped s ettlement s ystem i s c omposed of approximately 7 00 visible s tructures s pread o ver a 2 2 square k ilometer area. ( The s ite c overs a t l east 3 5 square k ilometers i n a ll, i ncluding unmapped areas that probably contained s ettlement, s ee S ite Map, Appendix D .) B esides these visible cultural f eatures, t he s ite a lso c ontains a s ubstantial component of c ompletely subsurface, or i nvisible f eatures, and such non-habitational prehistoric f eatures as s acbes, r aised f ields, c anals, chultunob, and aguadas. Developing a s ampling s trategy with any c hance of outlining the range of variation present i n this enormous data set was an ongoing challenge throughout the project, a s i s generally the case i n d ealing with e xtensive occupations ( Morris 1 975:196). S everal strategies were i mplemented, as various i ssues crystallized d uring the three years of the settlement excavations. The i nadequacy o f a pre-excavation mound typology based on volumetric and f ormal a ssessments of mounds i s very apparent a t Nohmul, where visible mounds i n t he s ettlement are not o bviously s eparable into types. Nohmul's p latform mounds have varying heights and d iameters and support f rom one to f ive s tructures of a variety of s izes and shapes. Furthermore, s urface i ndications do n ot c orrespond to dates or s equences o f occupation, a s was s hown by the comparison o f the P latform 1 37 and 1 31 Groups, which are l ocated c lose together and a ppear s imilar f rom the surface, but have d ifferent occupation s equences. C onsequently, an attempt was made to s ample s tructural variation a long s everal c ontinua. However, it i s possible to describe the s ettlement f eatures i n terms of t he g eneral units summarized by Willey ( 1981) a s present at a ll L owland s ites. These units r ange f rom s ingle platforms to platforms grouped i n various ways, a nd are usually s upposed to correspond to demographic groups, s uch a s nuclear f amilies, extended f amilies, and l arger groupings of extended f amilies ( Fash 1 983, Haviland 1 981, Leventhal a nd B axter 1 988, Vogt 1 964). C ontemporaneity must be e stablished f or s uch arguments t o hold. For this r eason, more than one s tructure was tested i n most of the groupings i nvestigated. To s ample changes over t ime and s pace, e xcavations were placed at kilometer i ntervals f rom s ite center t o the edge of the swamps i n the north, the Hondo r iver t o the west, and ( almost) to the c eremonial center of S an L uis i n the south. Unfortunately, excavations e ast of s ite c enter were hampered by modern l and use and the location o f the villages of San P ablo and S an Jose. Only f ive e xcavations were undertaken e ast o f s ite c enter. Excavations were grouped at kilometer i ntervals, a nd ranges o f s tructural variation i n s ize ( largest to s mallest by volume, platform s ize, height, e tc.), i n a ssociation with other cultural f eatures ( grouped to i solated, l arge with small, with and without p latforms, e tc.), and i n a ssociation with n atural f eatures ( ridgetop, bajo, r iver ) were tested. This a pproach tests ( rather than a ssumes) whether s tructures

3 8

with s imilarities i n visible characteristics have s imilar o ccupation histories.

actually

do

F rom the s tart o f the s econd s eason of s ettlement testing at Nohmul ( 1983), artifact c oncentrations and buried surfaces w ere d iscovered i n posthole tests of nonmound areas. S imilar f indings were known f rom other Lowlands s ites, ( Bronson n .d., Cliff 1 982, Harrison p .c., Kurjack 1 974, Wilk a nd Wilhite n .d., Willey e t a l. 1 965), but t he significance of s uch results has not been evaluated or r eflected i n s ubsequent r esearch. The Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project u sed posthole testing to l ocate i nvisible f eatures. P osthole testing has been used to l ocate middens at other Maya s ites ( Fry 1 972, P uleston 1 973), but the technique was used s lightly d ifferently at Nohmul. I t proved impossible t o d istinguish eroding p latform f ill f rom p latform a ssociated middens with only posthole tests. Furthermore, i n a reas around buildings with f allen architecture, l arge s tones were usually over the middens c ontemporary with the occupation of the s tructure and these prevented posthole testing. However, posthole testing proved to be extremely useful f or l ocating ground surface f eatures s ituated a way f rom visible p latforms. P osthole testing r evealed that the preserved nonmound s tructures o f Nohmul that were not under subsequent c onstructions existed mainly i n a c ircumscribed area i n the northern s ector o f t he s ite. A s imple r andom s ample of " flat areas" would probably not have l ocated this area at a ll, much l ess the f eatures i t c ontains. In f act, i n a s ample designed to t est a reas within the r ange of visible mounds, such a s the B arton Ramie " flat tests" ( Willey e t a l. 1 965) this a rea would have been excluded, s ince i ts buildings are northeast of a ll but one mound group ( Platform 6 84) that i s c oncealed by swamp. Furthermore, without the " quick and d irty" i nformation provided on the appearance o f A-Horizon s oils by posthole testing i n the immediate a rea, e ven f airly l arge e xcavations might not have i dentified s ome of the s terile s urfaces a s cultural. P ostholing i dentified areas where the transition between humus and s ascab was unusual a nd where i t was not. Only excavation through the unusual deposits was able to demonstrate their c ultural origin. O f the nonplatform c onstructions discovered i n the north s ector, the i ntensity of the i nvestigation of each was d etermined by i ts i nformation potential. Structures that were badly preserved or that had completely equivocal origins ( i.e., the s urface uncovered i n TP 4 3) r eceived l ess a ttention than s tructures with preserved f loors and a ssociated f eatures s uch a s middens, burials and hearths. C learly, most of the data produced by the Nohmul Settlement P attern Project w ould not have been collected i n a probabilistic s ample. However, the Nohmul data have s erious implications f or the s tatistical reliability o f

3 9

probabilistic s amples taken f rom o ther Maya s ites. Paradoxically, the Nohmul data are p robably not much more biased than s tudies which purport to b e o therwise. I will discuss this i ssue f urther i n C hapter F ive.

Data Collection

Excavation proceeded a ccording t o a r adial-stadial design. Reconnaissance was concentrated at k ilometer intervals f rom s ite c enter ( stadii) i n the g eneral direction of the c ardinal and i ntercardinal p oints ( radii). As discussed below, this c ollection s trategy became s omewhat d iluted by the f inal s eason. All excavations were dug s tratigraphically and most were s creened through one cm s creen. Artifacts were collected f or both chronological and f unctional analysis, and were processed and c atalogued i n the f ield under the direction of James S priggs and Martha Mast. Chronological a ssessments ( provided by L aura J . K osakowsky) a nd s ome distributional a ssessments will be presented i n this monograph; complete artifactual analyses will be published e lsewhere. [ 1]

Survey

Nohmul was mapped o ver s everal s easons. The s ite c ore and a s egment o f the north s ector were mapped by the Corozal Project i n 1 973. This map was augmented i n successive s easons under the d irection of L ogan McNatt, Mark Hodges and John Rose. Surface f eatures a nd excavations were mapped i n relation to a s ite grid t hat was oriented at 3 8 degrees 4 8 minutes to t ake advantage o f the a lignment of preexisting c ane r oads o n the s ite. M apping was a ccomplished with a c ombination o f i nstruments: l arge distances were measured with an e lectronic d istance measuring device ( EDM ) a nd theodolite, f iner s cale measurements were taken with L eitz transits. The s urveyors worked c losely with the s ettlement e xcavations, a nd a ll tests, i ncluding postholes, were mapped and given coordinates. A copy o f the completed map with the

1 . The artifacts used i n the analysis and the o riginal f ield notes are a ll i n t he possession o f the Nohmul P roject archive at the D epartment o f Archaeology, B oston University; c opies o f a ll r ecords a re i n possession o f the author.

4 0

s ettlement excavations noted i s provided i n Appendix D .

S urface Collection

S urface c ollections were made during a ll f our years of the N ohmul Project, u sually by the s urveyors during mapping s o they could be l ocated a ccurately on the map. Most of these collections a re s trictly haphazard: apart f rom a ttempts to a cquire a t l east 1 00 d iagnostics from each area s ampled, no s ampling design was f ollowed. Usually surface c ollections were motivated by the presence of painted or l arge s herds visible on the s urface a s a result of the l ooting of a structure. Although these collections have s ome s cientific value, they c onstitute a very biased s ample. I n 1 986, Arthur Joyce ( Rutgers University) did a s et o f s ystematic surface collections to test the potential value o f a more scientific technique. The results of his tests seemed promising ( Joyce p .c.) but remain unquantified and unpublished. S ix testpits ( 66, 6 7, 6 9, 7 0, 7 2, 7 2) were dug by the Settlement P attern Project to t est hypotheses developed by Joyce as a result of his s urface collection s tudy. As none of Joyce's hypotheses a bout s ubsurface f eatures were c onfirmed, these excavations a re n ot discussed s eparately but a re i ncluded with the r est o f t he settlement excavation d ata. The rationale and r esults of this work are described i n Chapters Three and F our. I n general, s urface c ollections f rom unlooted areas are very poorly preserved, having been burnt r epeatedly in c ane f ires, deep p lowed, and exposed to the e lements. Recognizable sherds f rom these c ollections are a lmost i nvariably f rom the l ast o ccupation of the s ite. C ollections provided by recently l ooted deposits are more r eadily identifiable as they are l arger and usually retain s ome o f their original s urface. They pertain to whatever s trata were d isturbed by the l ooters and do not o ffer good d ates f or the structures themselves. These collections are more l ikely to i nclude e arlier materials than those f rom undisturbed s urfaces ( Robin n .d.).

P ostholes

The posthole-testing s trategy was entirely purposive. Usually postholes s paced one to three meters a part were p laced in a ( roughly ) s traight l ine across the f eature or area to be tested. Areas around excavated mounds were

4 1

usually posthole t ested to s earch f or a ssociated nonplatform s tructures or middens. Various e levations ( both high a nd l ow ) without apparent a rchitecture w ere s ampled and postholing proved i nvaluable f or l ocating nonplatform o ccupations. P ostholes were used several t imes to outline the extent o f i nvisible f eatures. O ne buried s tructure ( slated f or d estruction b y deep p lowing a nd l and l eveling) was s ystematically postholed a long w ith i ts s urrounding a rea to d etermine i f a pattern o f a rtifact c oncentrations was a ssociated w ith this a pparently e phemeral s tructure. P reliminary a rtifact c ounts f rom the area of the buried s tructure ( TP 4 5) s uggest that p atterned artifact concentrations do exist. P ostholes were a lso u sed t o test f or c hanges i n artifact density between visible m ounds i n an a ttempt to reconstruct s ystems o f l and use and s ite f ormation processes. Anomalous f eatures d iscovered by p ostholes i nclude a ground s urface c ache containing nine Chicanel basins, a ground s urface hearth, s everal i solated middens, and a dense a nd extensive c ulturally-modified concentration of f ossil shell.

Excavation S ize and P lacement

The appropriate p lacement of 1 x 1 meter pits i n r elation to visible p latforms a nd s tructures was i nvestigated i n 1 985. S ome Mayanists recommend e xcavation through mounds ( Tourtellot 1 983), o thers prefer t o excavate a ssociated middens ( Fry 1 972). Because o f the w ell k nown Maya proclivity f or r edepositing midden material i n s tructural f ill, s ealed deposits c an only provide terminus post q uem dates. Also, excavations t hrough structures t end to be very deep and t ime c onsuming. Following F ry ( 1972) and Puleston ( 1974), middens a ssociated with s tructures were l ocated with postholes a nd then tested with 1 x 1 meter pits. 1 x 1 meter pits w ere then dug t hrough the s tructures a ssociated with the t ested middens t o provide c omparative d ata. I f c omparable c hronological i nformation was provided, substituting midden tests would s ave t ime, s ince midden d eposits are s hallower than s tructural f ill. More i mportantly, m iddens are more l ikely t o y ield f unctional i nformation a bout a ssociated s tructures than the r edeposited f ill o f t he s tructures t hemselves. T he r esults of these tests are presented i n Chapter Three and d iscussed i n C hapters F our and F ive. The next decision c oncerned the size of the excavations. This d ecision i s i nvariably a trade-off between broad c overage a nd r ecovery of detail. S ince the goals o f the project i ncluded an understanding o f both the s ynchronic f unctioning a nd the d iachronic development o f Nohmul, both extensive a nd i ntensive e xcavation were

4 2

necessary. Extensive testing, a imed mostly at defining density and chronological r anges of s ettlement i n different parts of t he site, was a ccomplished with postholes and 1 x 1 meter pits. The r elative efficiency of different s ized sampling units was considered i n the 1 983 excavations. Susan Cohen ( n.d.) used s tratigraphic s ections and p lans of T P 1 to r econstruct the strata in three d imensions and and e stimate what deposits would have been missed by excavations of varying s izes placed i n different l oci within the 2 x 2 's boundary. Then 2 x 2 meter pits were compared with 1 x 2 meter pits and 1 x 1 meter pits f or information output p er hour of l abor. 2 x 2 's yielded more information than s maller pits, but information i ncrease was not c ommensurate with i ncreased excavation cost. ( This was not r eally a statistical test s ince the results a ll come from a single s et of excavations i n the P latform 1 31 Group.) That i s, o nly very small amounts of additional information on c onstruction s tyle were provided by quadrupling the e xcavation s ize. 1 x 1 meter pits were by far t he best f or c hronological i nformation, s ince 1 x 2 's and 2 x 2 's rarely a dded to the chronological i nformation produced by a 1 x 1 square, while 1 x 1 squares take about one f ourth a s much t ime to dig. The need to define building f unction required that the size of the excavations be varied. Two f eatures were excavated i ntensively: a Terminal C lassic platform group ( Platform 1 31 Group, excavations: TP 1 , TP 2 , TP 3 , TP 4 , TP 5 , TP 6 , and TP 7 ) and a Terminal C lassic nonplatform occupation ( excavation TP 6 1). Architectural detail and artifactual associations were examined to make a comparison between a r elatively well known style of habitation, the plazuela group, and an a lmost unknown s tyle of occupation, a g round surface construction. The plazuela group excavations exposed 26 square meters of a s ingle occupation and a ssociated f eatures, while the nonmound occupation exposed 3 3.5 square meters of occupation and associated hearths and middens. Several other excavations ranged i n size f rom 1 x 1 .5 m eters to 3 x 4 meters. These were mostly the result of a need to define anomalies or determine the f unction of unexpectedly common f eatures that were not visible above ground. In s ome cases, narrow trenches up to 1 2 meters l ong were dug to determine the size of such f eatures. I dentifying the f unction of nonmounded f eatures i s especially i mportant f or the reconstruction of population density, s ince i t has been suggested that nonplatform constructions were l imited activity areas and not permanent occupations ( Webster and Freter, n .d.). C learly, only permanent o ccupations s hould be i ncluded i n density calculations. The number and length of periods of reoccupation of visible f eatures must a lso f igure i n these estimates.

4 3

Conclusion

Early excavations at Nohmul by G ann ( 1938, 1 939) and f ortuitous recoveries by Anderson and Cook ( 1944), s howed Nohmul to have a l ong complex history and cultural ties with l arger i nland s ites. Much l ater work by the C orozal Project, ( Hammond 1 973, 1 975) began s etting Nohmul i nto a context of other Northern Belizean s ites. Work done by the Corozal Project s pecifically at N ohmul, ( Barry 1 975, Heighway et a l. 1 975, Wilk et a l. 1 975), gave t he f irst c lear outline of the problems and possibilities presented by the s ite. This work s uggested that the Late Preclassic and Terminal C lassic population maxima apparent a t other Northern Belizean s ites may have a lso existed at Nohmul. The possibility of a cultural i ntrusion f rom Yucatan during the Postclassic ( Hammond 1 973), subsequently placed i n the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic ( Chase and Chase 1 982, Chase and Hammond 1 982), was i dentified. Wilk also uncovered the f irst examples of bedrock modification and nonplatform-based structures that turned out to be s o crucial to an understanding of Nohmul's s ettlement s tructure. The research design of the Nohmul Project was guided by these f indings i n i dentifying f oci f or i nvestigation and i n tailoring the methods to an array that seemed most a ppropriate f or Nohmul. The most i mportant decision made i n developing the research design that was c learly i ndicated by previous research was the decision to i mplement a judgmental s ample. This produced an unusual data s et that must be considered experimental and e valuated with care, as will be detailed i n the f ollowing chapters. In a ll, the Nohmul Settlement Pattern P roject excavated 7 6 testpits and 9 84 postholes i n 1 982, 1 983, 1 985, and 1 986. 4 3 pits were dug directly through visible mounds, uncovering a total of 6 0 square meters o f architecture. Twelve one meter square pits were dug on the outside edges of platforms i n a reas where p ostholes revealed sherd concentrations. Twenty-one s eparate excavations were placed i n areas without s urface i ndications. These excavations uncovered an area of 1 07 square meters. Individual excavation descriptions and s ection drawings are presented i n Appendix C . The radial-stadial s trategy was i mplemented by t esting i n groups of s patially related s tructures at k ilometer i ntervals f rom s ite center. The sample i ncludes i ndividual s tructures a s well as s tructures grouped around a p latform at . 5, 1 .5 and 2 .5 kilometers f rom t he central a cropolis. These i ntervals were s elected to seek i ncremental c hanges i n f eature variation over the area o f t he s ite.

4 4

G roup t ests were a lso used to a ddress s pecific small s cale p roblems of method and theory, s uch a s the r elation of p articular s tructures to l ocal e levations, or the relative results o f testpit p lacement i n or behind mounds. So, w hile e xcavations were l ocated a ccording to the radial-stadial design, they were a lso used to test propositions a bout e xcavation p lacement. These i ssues are discussed i n the group s ummaries presented i n Chapter Three and t he results are e valuated i n s ubsequent chapters.

4 5

CHAPTER THREE THE EXCAVATIONS

This chapter describes the 7 6 excavations of t he Nohmul Settlement Pattern Study. Usually, several e xcavations were done i n e ach area tested. The excavations a re presented i n the groups i n which t hey were dug and t he general rationale i s given f or the s ize and positioning o f the pits i n relation to each other and to larger cultural and natural f eatures i n the i mmediate area of e ach excavation group. The excavations are s equentially numbered and a re presented i n numeric order i n the text to provide e asy reference. Most of the excavations are not e xtensive enough to provide conclusive functional i nformation a bout the s tructures tested. Nevertheless, several groups w ere ' nicknamed' palaces or houses or e lite structures, to avoid giving l ists of p latform numbers i n group titles. T he reasoning behind e ach nickname i s explained i n the text. Analyses not s pecific to the groupings will be presented i n subsequent chapters. This chapter begins with a c larification of recording t echniques a nd basic terminology.

Recording Techniques

All excavations were dug a ccording t o natural stratification. Stratigraphic decisions were r efined f rom f ield notes after returning f rom the f ield. Layers i ncorrectly s eparated were reunited and renumbered a nd, occasionally, events that f ailed t o r eceive numbers in t he f ield were given numbers l ater. For example, the f ill o f a posthole would be numbered i n the f ield so that a rtifacts retrieved f rom i t could be given a number f or l ab processing. Later, when the Harris Matrix ( Harris 1 975) was drawn f or the completed excavation, the c ut itself would be given a s eparate number, s ince i t represents a s eparate s tratigraphic event. The s tratification of each e xcavation i s described verbally and i llustrated with s ection drawings a nd plans, and the s equence of events i nterpreted f rom the data i s summarized by a Harris Matrix. D espite their u sefulness, Harris Matrices are not widely used, and are f requently misunderstood. Briefly, a Harris Matrix i s a reconstruction o f the s equence o f events that c reated t he natural and cultural deposits uncovered in a n archaeological excavation. I t i s not s imply a s chematic r epresentation of a s ection d rawing, but contains i nformation about the chronology o f deposits n ot always

4 6

obvious from the s ection.

the s imple juxtaposition of s trata visible i n

I n conducting s tratigraphic e xcavations using this explicitly i nterpretive technique, the numbering of the separate strata i s a rbitrary. Usually the l ayers with larger numbers were e ncountered deeper and are therefore older, but this i s n ot a lways the c ase. When numbers were added f or posthole c uts a fter c ompletion o f the excavation, for e xample, the number g iven to the cut i n the l aboratory may b e much l arger than the number g iven to the posthole f ill i n the f ield . I n s ome c ases, a s when s trata given separate f ield numbers were determined i n the l ab to be the same a nd combined, whole s ections have been r enumbered, s o that n umbers would n ot be " missing" f rom the drawings and the d iscussion. N evertheless, the r enumbering of the strata still d oes n ot u sually correspond to the s equence o f events that c reated the deposits uncovered i n the excavation. This s equence i s described i n the d iscussion given f or e ach excavation, and summarized i n the Harris Matrix. In f act, the i nterpretation presented i n the discussion s ection i s the r esult o f the s tratigraphic analysis done to produce the matrix. M easurements g iven f or e ach s tratum are taken f rom the highest point i n the ground s urface a bove the s ection and are o nly approximate. They a re i ntended a s a guide f or locating the l ayer o r e vent described i n the drawing, or, occasionally, when t he l ayer mentioned i s not s hown i n the section, to g ive a n a pproximate i dea of i ts position i n relation to o ther s trata. Again, f or the exact chronological position o f a s tratum, r efer to the Harris Matrix. D atum e levations a re g iven f or the s outhwest corner of e ach e xcavation; measurements o f s trata below surface are within a f ew c entimeters o f a ctual below datum measurements, they a re measured f rom the highest point drawn f or convenient r eference. T he term " soil" has not been used i n the s trict geological s ense, b ut s imply means a particulate matrix, usually brown, unless o therwise noted. Usually use of the term i s neutral, a nd s ignifies that the origin of the deposit, commonly a f ill l ayer, i s unknown. Other terms are d efined below. M unsell c olor r eadings are not i ncluded and were not usually recorded. The decision to e xclude c olor r eadings was b ased on e xperimentation with the c onsistency o f readings taken under d ifferent conditions. Rain, humidity, the a ngle of the s un, r ecency of exposure, a nd variation i n the i ndividual perceptions o f excavators a ll a ffected the readings and Munsell c olors were j udged not to be more meaningful than s imple descriptions. An e ffort has been made t o be c onsistent i n describing c olors, e .g., a s oil described a s tan i n o ne deposit i s a pproximately the s ame color a s other d eposits l abeled t an. However, the color distinctions are mostly f or distinguishing between the

4 7

deposits i n a s ingle excavation, a nd the c olor terminology used here i s mainly meant to e xplain why strata were d ivided during e xcavation.

Natural

F ormation Processes

I n general, the natural f ormation processes a ffecting the archaeological record of Nohmul a re c onsistent with those o f a karst environment with a high rainfall, but a pronounced s pring dry s eason. The water table i s usually high; a t s ome t imes o f the year i n s ome parts of t he site, ground water i s l ess than two meters f rom the modern s urface, though i t may f all much l ower i n the late s pring. One r esult o f this s easonal wetting a nd drying i s t hat t he l imestone s ubstratum that underlies a ll of Northern Belize has a variable c onsistency, d epending, in p art, o n e levation, e xposure, weathering and the cycle of moisture experienced i n a particular part o f t he s ite. B edrock i n s ome areas i s extremely hard, i n o ther p laces brittle a nd f riable and penetrated by r oots, and i n many places i t i s a s oft, f ine grained powder that r esembles white c lay when wet. I n l ow wet a reas where the b edrock tends t o be s oft or a t l east to begin with a l ayer o f unconsolidated l imestone, the white l imestone grades gradually i nto t he black A-Horizon through a gray B -Horizon. Where b edrock i s brittle, the B -Horizon c onsists o f thin l aminae o f black s oil and broken l imestone. Where bedrock i s hard a nd dry, black s oil g ives way d irectly to a s olid l ayer of r ock. The n atural e nvironment o f Nohmul i s a combination o f drier r idge top areas a nd tropical " low b ush", a c ombination o f botan and e scoba f orest t hat i s characteristic o f depressions i n the n orthern Belize-southern Quintana Roo region ( Darch 1 983). The s ite has not been r ecently s ubjected to the deeper p enetration of the l arger vegetation characteristic o f " high b ush", o r true r ainforest. Shallow f eatures, however, which are a very i mportant c omponent of Nohmul's s ettlement, h ave been s everely modified by modern p lowing a nd agriculture, and b y the varied a nimal l ife characteristic o f the tropics. B oth natural and c ultural f ormation processes ( Schiffer 1 976) will be c ontinuously under d iscussion i n the s ections presenting d ata. Animal burrows a re e specially problematic i n prehistoric c onstructions without p laster f loors. Where packed marl was u sed, the marl i s a ctually easier to d ig through than the hard-packed n atural A-Horizon, s o burrows will be c hannelled i nto the c ultural l ayers, causing s erious mixing o f d eposits. Animal burrows were always recorded i n the f ield and their c ontents were numbered s eparately and excluded f rom a nalysis i n most cases. Occasionally, they are i ncluded i n the e xcavation description and Harris Matrix, when their existence made s tratigraphic i nterpretation difficult or impossible, o r

4 8

when their position may i nterpretation presented.

help

the

reader evaluate

the

I n some c ases, a combination of human and animal disturbance of deep d eposits made bedrock difficult to i dentify. When there was a problem, we f requently dug s ome distance into s terile bedrock to be c ertain that i t was not a deeply buried l ayer o f marl f ill. These s ituations are noted i n the i ntroductions given e ach excavation by the statement that the excavation was continued " into" bedrock. In the r are i nstances when excavation d id not continue to bedrock, the decision i s explained i n the discussion. T he s ettlement data are presented f irst i n this chapter in s ets a ccording to the groups in which they were dug. This i s done f or s everal r easons. First, this presentation partly r ecreates the s equence i n which the excavations were dug, s ince i t was practical to o versee crews d igging f airly c lose together. Sometimes excavations were u sed to test particular problems that were not addressed i n a ll excavations. For example, P latform 1 31 was more i ntensively excavated than any other s ingle platform group, because we were testing the relative merits of d ifferent s ized excavations, c ollecting data f or comparison with the s uperficially s imilar P latform 1 37 Group, and f or comparison with o ther types o f house, such as the nonplatform s tructures i n TP 6 1. The excavations a t one k ilometer s outh were used to test the r elative merits of p lacement o f testpits i n r elation to visible f eatures. At f our kilometers north, l arge areal excavations were opened to i nvestigate the f unction o f poorly understood nonplatform f eatures. Most group descriptions i nclude descriptions of these types of tests. The second r eason f or the presentation o f the data i n group f orm i s that the history of occupation of i ndividual groups is o ften i nteresting. The s equence of construction of s patially r elated buildings i s an important f acet o f settlement analysis that i s l ost i n the overall chronological and s patial analysis presented i n Chapter Four. The surprisingly different dates of the f eatures c lumped together i n an i solated area at three k ilometers northeast, f or example, i s not detectable i n the general analysis of overall s ite trends. This s ection a lso a llows me to explain oddities and f ailures i n data c ollection. For example, the Preclassic caches were d iscovered by accident a s a result of an attempt to date a s tructure outlying the s outhernmost platform group tested. I was hoping to discover i f areas this d istant f rom s ite center had been a s heavily populated in t he Preclassic a s i n the Terminal C lassic. F inding a ground surface hearth and a l arge vessel c ache i nstead o f a building led me to a ttempt to l ocate any nearby s tructure with posthole testing. The posthole digger hit the s econd cache about three meters away.

4 9

F inally, the group descriptions a re a vehicle f or me to present my o bservations on i nteresting or unique f inds f rom the s ettlement area, s uch a s t he Preclassic c aches a t three k ilometers s outh, or the s tone-boiling hearth at f our kilometers north. These mostly have i nterest from a culture-historical perspective. C omplete descriptions o f these d ata are presented i n Appendix C . However, they a re more i ntelligible when described i n the context of t he excavations nearby. B efore the group d escriptions, I have i ncluded a g lossary o f terms pertaining to t he excavations. S ince this l ist i s s hort, i t i s l ocated h ere r ather t han i n a n a ppendix f or the c onvenience of the r eader. GLOSSARY I n the excavation descriptions I have used t erms to describe cultural a nd natural s trata f or which I h ave very s pecific meanings. Rather than r edefine the terms f or e ach excavation, I will s imply present a s et of explicit definitions here. aguada - water reservoir Ahorizon - the undisturbed s urface of the ground, e ither modern or a ncient, may c ontain artifacts. bedrock - s terile geological o ccupation o f the a rea.

deposit

blocks - c ut pieces o f l imestone usually r ectangular.

with

may

predating

squared

be

human

corners,

botan - environmental z one s imilar to e scoba ( see below ) but with more trees, botan i s drier than e scoba. buried A-horizon - the ancient n aturally-formed ground s urface, u sually the l ayer upon which cultural activity begins. cobbles - r ounded c hunks o f l imestone 1 0-20cm in d iameter. cultural behavior.

d eposit

-

a

s tratum

r esulting

f rom

human

e scoba f orest - an e cological z one " characterized by l eguminous trees and s hrubs" ( Darch 1 983:25), palms are t he dominant p lant. f ill - s tructural d eposit, usually made o f soil m ixed with midden a nd marl; may be s olid marl; may i nclude cut s et l imestone b locks, o r r ecycled c ut b ut unset blocks. f lecks - s mall bits of marl, l ess than one cm i n d iameter, usually white, but a lso r ed and yellow; marl f lecks usually i ndicate a cultural deposit, or a n occupation s urface n ear

5 0

a midden or a f loor; probably they r esult f rom sweeping the plaster or marl f loor o f a l imestone or wattle and daub house. In s ome c ases, marl f lecks may s imply i ndicate a ground surface upon which marl h as been tracked by f eet and dispersed by rain. foundation trench - a hole excavated through the b lack sticky A-Horizon t o the s urface of bedrock. The n atural A-Horizon at Nohmul i s f luid and holds water. Consequently, i t provides an unstable s ubstrate f or massive stone buildings. F oundation trenches f illed with l oose marl or midden f ill provided drainage and s tability f or large buildings a nd are q uite c ommon at Nohmul. Harris Matrix - a s chematic r epresentation of the s equence of e vents that created the stratification i n an archaeological s ite. incensario a Postclassic e ffigy Nohmul.

ceramic i ncense burner; l ow-fired i ncensarios a re the most c ommon type at

humus - the modern ground surface c ontaining l iving p lants and a nimals and the results of r ecent human a ctivity such as p lowing or cane harvesting. C ane harvesting begins with burning, s o most humus l ayers a t Nohmul have been burnt repeatedly. marl - soft powdery l imestone that has been used i n s ome phase o f construction by humans; marl was used i n f ill layers and f or f loors. midden f ill - a l ayer of a rchitectural f ill, usually deposited to e levate or r enovate a new or existing p latform surface, taken f rom a d eposit o f trash c ontaining l ithics, ceramics, c harcoal and sometimes bone, shell, and groundstone. The a rtifacts are u sually l arge ( although not as l arge a s the l argest f rom a primary midden, s ee below ) and have well preserved surfaces, s ince they have been sealed inside a rchitecture a nd protected f rom the elements. mound - modern r emains o f a prehistoric s tructure; u sually appears as a r ounded hump of e arth, one to 1 0 meters tall and 1 0 to 3 0 meters i n d iameter natural, or natural d eposit - a n undisturbed B-Horizon, or bedrock; a geological deposit.

A-Horizon,

nonmound - a c ultural f eature, usually a f loor, not constructed on t op of a r aised p latform, and not visible above the modern g round s urface. non-platform - n onmound. pebbles diameter.

small u nshaped pieces of l imestone 2 -

5 1

5 cm

i n

p laster - very hard s urfacing material created by burning l ime at a high heat and then mixing the product w ith water to c reate a f luid that can be p oured o ver the desired a rea. p latform - an e levated area, typically c onstructed by building a wall o f cut l imestone b locks a round an open s pace and f illing i n the s pace with l oads of r ubbish a nd marl mined f rom the s ascab substrate. Both perishable a nd permanent s tructures were built o n platforms by the prehistoric Maya i n many parts o f the L owlands. platform group - a s et of p latforms, s uperstructures, usually from two to t ogether on top of the s ame platform.

with f ive,

or without c onstructed

p lazuela group - platform group. primary midden - a trash deposit i n s itu next to t he place o f i ts origin. The artifacts c ollected from primary middens at Nohmul a re often l arge, but have poorly preserved s urfaces due t o exposure. r ocks d iameter.

small

l imestone

pieces,

f ive

to

ten

cm

i n

s acbe - a culturally built-up r oadbed, made of l imestone rubble and ( sometimes) c ut l imestone b locks. s ascab - a Yucatec Maya word meaning " white earth"; I have used i t to refer to the unmodified s oft white B -Horizon that occurs a bove denser s terile bedrock i n many p arts o f Nohmul, the s ascab l ayer may c ontain s ome cultural material. Mined s ascab u sed i n c onstruction f ill i s called marl. s econdary midden - a trash deposit t hat has been moved f rom i ts point o f primary d eposition, usually to be used a s f ill. s econdary p latform - a s mall l arger p latform.

p latform

s itting on top o f a

s licken-sides - a geological process i n which c hurned and s tratigraphic deposits a re mixed.

s oils

s tructure - a building, made o f l imestone b locks o r a nd daub or a c ombination of the two.

a re

wattle

s ubfloor f ill - a l ayer o f f ill l aid d own to create an even l evel s urface f or p lastering. At Nohmul this type o f d eposit usually contains midden mixed with l oose yellow o r t an marl; i n f act this type o f f ill i s s o s tandard i n l ater periods that i t i s s ometimes possible to r ecognize f loors e ven when the p laster s urface i s completely gone.

5 2

superstructure - a s tructure built on top o f a p latform, may be e ither a building with i nterior space or a s econdary platform. The P latform 1 31 Group:

Two K ilometers North

The Platform 1 31 Group i s a p latform or plazuela group located approximately two k ilometers north o f Nohmul's s ite center. The construction c onsists of a l ow platform about one meter tall and a bout 4 5 meters i n diameter s upporting four s tructures that are roughly a ligned with the cardinal points. A s ingle s mall s tructure numbered 1 36 l ies about ten meters north o f t he P latform 1 31 Group, and s ince there are n o other visible s tructures within 1 00 meters, 1 36 c an probably be regarded a s culturally associated with the P latform 1 31 Group. The P latform 1 31 Group was the main target of investigation during the 1 983 season, and Testpits numbered 1 through 7 are l ocated i n or near the group. The i ntent of these excavations was to r esolve s everal methodological problems that could be used to i mprove the r esearch design for l ater s easons. The f irst i ssue was to excavate enough to get a detailed p icture o f l ocal c onstruction techniques, to make it possible to i nterpret l ess extensive evidence from l ater excavations. The P latform 1 31 Group was chosen because it was accessible, well preserved, appeared to be representative of p latform groups at Nohmul ( i.e., about the s ame s ize and s hape a s the majority and without anything unusual i n i ts a ppearance), and was comparable to the n earby P latform 1 37 Group that had been excavated i n 1 973 by Carolyn Heighway and i n 1 974 by Iris Barry and Elizabeth Graham. We used the 1 973 and 1 974 excavations a s a guide and were e ager to know i f the occupation and construction sequence of Structure 1 37 was typical of Nohmul. A second methodological problem that needed to be addressed was the s ize of the testpits. While one by one meter square excavations will provide ceramic dates, I was not s ure whether such small pits would provide enough information f or me t o i nterpret the stratification of a complex construction s equence, or give a complete enough record of occupation. I a lso was not sure how l arge an excavation would n eed to be to provide i nformation about the f unction of the s tructure, or how l ong i t would take to excavate deep architectural deposits with untrained l ocal workmen and s tudent l abor. Another problem I wished to i nvestigate was the relationship between cultural f eatures and the natural topography of the s ite. As noted a bove, Nohmul i s s ituated in a n area of r olling l imestone r idges. These r idges appeared to have been used to provide e levation f or buildings, but we were not certain whether a ll visible structures were s ituated on natural e levations, or whether a ll n atural e levations visible i n the s ettlement had been 5 3

L 0 I 0

......

0 N 1 . 4 1 .

Figure

1 .

The

1 31

Group:

Two

Km North

5 4

1 1 1.

used. T o provide this i nformation, I decided to p lace f our two b y two meter p its a nd a o ne by two meter pit i n the Platform 1 31 Group i tself, one two by two on a nearby elevation ( 70 meters e ast) without visible cultural definition, and o ne two by two i n S tructure 1 36. Completion of t hese excavations took a pproximately 1 0 weeks, but we succeeded i n answering s everal o f our questions. Most obviously, i t was c lear that our excavations would have to be m uch smaller i f we were going to approach adequate coverage of the s ite during s ubsequent s easons. T he P latform 1 31 Group proved to be an excellent choice f or acquainting us with general construction techniques a t the s ite. F eatures that we f irst s aw i n the Platform 1 31 Group e xcavations were encountered repeatedly in o ther excavations: f oundation trenches, f oundation walls made o f cut and s et l imestone b locks, mined bedrock, a sherd l ined hearth, a s nail s hell midden, deep l ayers of platform f ill, thick plaster f loors with postholes cut through them, plaster patches, r emodelling of platforms by increasing their e levation, and s ubfloor f ill consisting of tan o r yellow marl m ixed with a rtifacts. Later, when an excavation h it even a s mall part o f a f oundation trench we were a ble t o i dentify i t, a nd when we began hitting snails, we k new what t o expect. We a lso l earned to tell the difference between m ined a nd undisturbed bedrock, a lthough the i ssue i s often n ot e asy to r esolve, s ince there i s much variation i n the c onsistency o f bedrock a t Nohmul. The i ssue o f t estpit s ize was treated i n an analysis done by Susan Cohen ( n.d.) using d ata c ollected f rom the Platform 1 31 Group. C ohen c alculated that the l ength of time and l abor necessary to d ig two meter square pits was not j ustified by the small additional amount of construction data provided by the l arger excavations. By determining which d eposits would have been hit by a one by one m eter e xcavation p laced anywhere within the boundaries of e ach two by two s quare dug i n the P latform 1 31 Group, she e stimated t hat the s ame amount of chronological information was p roduced i n o ne by one meter squares. Since the r elevance o f C ohen's f indings was underscored by time c onstraints, most l ater e xcavations were smaller; larger excavations were d one only when s pecial f unctional information was r equired a bout a s ubsurface f eature, s uch as a hearth or a n on-platform house f loor. One by one meter "telephone b ooths" do not g ive very much i nformation on t he nature of t he deposits they encounter or reveal much about their origin, but two by two's o ffer very l ittle more. The s tratification visible i n the section of even the m ost c omplex c onstruction s equence encountered, i s usually interpretable f rom the e vidence given i n the area of o ne meter. When i t i s n ot, a s i n Testpit 1 8, much more than a 2 x 2 i s n eeded.

5 5

The relationship between natural topography and c onstruction at Nohmul turned out t o be more complicated than anticipated. Although many n atural e levations d o s upport ancient s tructures, s ome, a s demonstrated by Testpit 5 , do not. Testpit 5 was placed i n an a rea less than a meter l ower than the l owest mound on Platform 1 31, but revealed no evidence of construction. Furthermore, a lthough the s tructure tested i n Testpit 1 was a bove a s light natural e levation, this e levation i s no higher than that encountered i n Testpit 5 . Unlike the s tructures uncovered in 1 973 and 1 974 i n P latform Group 1 37, which was built on top of a much e arlier building, most o f the e levation of P latform Group 1 31 was provided by a single phase of construction that took p lace i n the T erminal C lassic period. This means that the s urface appearance o f a mound at Nohmul i s not an i ndication of e ither the original construction date of the mound or the a mount o f l abor that went i nto building a platform. Some p latforms were constructed a ll at once, others accumulated i ncrementally over t ime. S imilar f indings e lsewhere on s ite ( see TP 5 0 a nd 5 1) demonstrate that e levation d id not d ictate the location o f houses. If a house was desired i n a particular place, e levation could be created by t he construction of a p latform; this was done s ometimes when a s uitable unoccupied natural e levation existed o nly a f ew meters away f rom the house s ite. On the o ther h and, e arlier s tructures were a lmost i nvariably c overed by l ater s tructures, e . g., no Preclassic s tructures were f ound without L ate o r Terminal C lassic s tructures built over them. Mounds Versus Middens:

One K ilometer South

The area one k ilometer s outh of Nohmul's central precinct i s densely s ettled and contains the most massive architecture at this i nterval, i . e., everything l arger i s c loser to the central a cropolis, o r notably farther away. Approximately 5 0 s tructures are c lustered i n this " neighborhood" i n an area of about 2 50,000 square meters ( 1/4 km ). I excavated 1 4 one by one meter square t estpits i n this area, i n a n a ttempt to o utline the o ccupation sequence of visible s tructures a nd determine their chronological relationship to the s ite center. I a lso used some of these excavations to investigate the r elative merits of excavations p laced i n mound-associated m iddens i n contrast to those du i , i nto architectural construction phases.

5 6

4 11

3 84

3 68

r

r i

L 1

L

3 6 1 e

3 24 1 . r. , "

3 39 : .1

306

340 I :2

308 T 26

338r .. 7

a-T18 Z " l 7

3 76

T 19

3 43

o T27

3 18

3 29 C 3 3 12 13

r,

1 : 1T21 3 10

3 3 3 32

Lä

3 11 r -1 J

9 -

L

I .

t .3

I

309

9 72

53 06 0 305 3 17 T200

3 45

3 16 L 22 23722

3 15 22 3

o T16

Figure 2 .

Mounds

V ersus

M iddens: 5 7

One

Km S outh

C 1

The Architectural S equence

Thirteen o f the f ourteen t estpits dug at one k ilometer s outh r evealed T erminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic architecture. F our o f these T erminal C lassic buildings were built over L ate P reclassic buildings or o ccupation s urfaces, and e ight o thers had s ome Late P reclassic ceramics mixed i n their f ill l ayers. This suggests t hat the Colmotz-Chicanel period o ccupation of the v icinity was a lmost a s extensive a s that o f the T erminal C lassic, s ince the distribution o f L ate Preclassic g arbage was s till w ide s pread and a lmost the s ame a s the l ocation of t he building s ites chosen s ome 6 00 years l ater . ( This assumes t hat r ecycled middens were collected l ocally, a nd n ot transported l ong d istances.) In general, the Terminal C lassic construction phases o f the s tructures i n this a rea a re more massive than t he L ate Preclassic s tructures that t hey c over. T hat i s, t he l ayers of f ill a re d eeper, a nd the r esulting s tructures perhaps twice a s l arge ( assuming t hat the mass of t he deposits revealed i n the 1 x 1 meter t estpits i s c onsistent throughout the e ntire s tructure) a s the original P reclassic buildings they r eplace. A lso, more phases of r enovation are evident f rom the T erminal C lassic; many structures h ave a s many a s f ive or s ix phases o f Terminal Classic reconstruction and r enovation. This i s i n contrast to t he s equence i n the s ite c enter, where the most massive construction period was the Terminal Preclassic, during which the l argest s tructures a nd the b asal platform of the c entral a cropolis were c ompleted. A ll these were r enovated i n l ater periods and l arge s cale r emodeling and buildings were added during the Terminal C lassic, but the m ass of t he additions was much l ess than that of t he initial Colmotz-Chicanel Phase a rchitecture. The only excavations that d id not y ield L ate Preclassic c eramics were T 16 a nd T 27. Neither o f these uncovered a c ultural f eature, s uggesting t hat l ater a ctivity i n the area may have enhanced preservation o f Preclassic evidence by r ecycling i t i nto f ill l ayers o r c onstructing o ver i t. I n p laces where Preclassic middens were l eft exposed, they may have w ashed away. P reclassic architecture ( and middens) not l eft i n s itu and u sed as t he f oundation f or l ater building, has f requently b een destroyed and r ecycled i nto f ill l ayers. O nly three testpits produced material e arlier t han L ate P reclassic. All these yielded s mall quantities o f Middle Preclassic i n mixed l ayers o f r ecycled f ill. Testpit 1 7 was the only e xcavation that c ontained no Terminal C lassic evidence. I t uncovered a small p ortion o f

58

the b asal p latform b elow a s econdary platform that s upports Structures 3 28 a nd 3 29. C learly the original s tructure was Preclassic, but i t i s unlikely that the massive superstructure, which i s the topographic f ocal point of this a rea, was not r enovated and r eused after the L ate Preclassic. The d ates yielded by the excavation are probably best e xplained a s s ampling error due to placement. N ine excavations y ielded L ate C lassic c eramics and seven produced E arly C lassic or Protoclassic. All s herds from t hese periods w ere f rom mixed or r ecycled deposits, and t he quantities o f material are much smaller than those recovered i n the s ame excavations f rom the Preclassic or the T erminal C lassic. This might mean that s tructures f rom these middle eras w ere not suitable f oundations f or l ater structures, perhaps because people were more dependent on ephemeral a rchitecture, and d id not remodel e arlier platforms or even u sually create new ones. Alternatively, the l oci of preferred l iving s ites may have changed, and the p opulation may h ave been generally more d ispersed. The more c ommon explanation f or the drastic r eduction i n durable garbage produced during these periods i n the whole of N orthern B elize, i s that population decreased. While this m ay be true, i t may not be the only reason f or the reduction o f archaeological visibility during the Early and Late C lassic. This i ssue i s taken up again i n Chapters Four a nd F ive.

Method:

Excavation P lacement

T he appropriate p lacement o f 1 x 1 meter pits i n relation to visible p latforms and s tructures was a lso investigated i n t his s ite area. Some Mayanists recommend excavation through mounds ( Tourtellot 1 983) f or chronological i nformation, while o thers prefer to excavate associated middens ( Fry 1 972, F ord 1 986). S everal s tudies ( Deal 1 985, Hayden a nd C annon 1 983) have s hown that Maya refuse disposal p atterns a re potentially complex, i nvolving an e valuation of t he nuisance value and the potential f or future reuse of t he d iscarded o bjects, as well a s the convenience of the d iscarder. To this l ist o f c omplicating factors, i t i s a lso probably possible to add c onsiderations of t he surrounding area a nd the s tatus of the discarders ( i.e., can they p ay s omeone to haul their garbage away, or i s t here a member o f the f amily who has t ime to be f astidious.) The a rtifact c oncentrations r eferred to here as m iddens seem t o encompass a c ombination o f Hayden's categories o f house sweepings and provisional d iscard, s ince they i nclude small o bjects ( sherds, bone b its, s hell, broken l ithics, o bsidian f ragments) mixed with f lecks o f plaster ( from f loors?), and ( sometimes) l arger o bjects ( large sherds, c omplete s tone tools, mano and metate

fragments, bark beaters). Middens a lso were s ometimes used as activity areas, s ince they occasionally include hearths ( see TP 4 5), and f or s pecial disposal purposes, s ince they may i nclude burials ( see TP 6 1). I n a ll c ases, the f eature called a midden here consisted of a concentration of artifacts l ocated within 2 0 meters o f a house f loor. Although the middens discussed i n t his methodological section are a ll mound-associated, the n onplatform m iddens referred to i n other s ections had the s ame characteristics. Because of the well known Maya proclivity for redepositing midden material i n s tructural f ill, s ealed deposits can only provide terminus post q uem dates. A lso, excavations through s tructures tend to be very deep and time consuming. Following Fry ( 1972) a nd Puleston ( 1974), middens l ocated nearest s tructures w ere l ocated with postholes and then tested with 1 x 1 meter pits. 1 x 1 meter pits were then dug through the s tructures associated with the tested middens to provide c omparative data. If comparable chronological i nformation was provided, substituting midden tests would s ave time. More importantly, middens are more l ikely to yield functional information about associated s tructures than the redeposited f ill of the s tructures themselves, which must necessarily have been associated with e arlier s tructures. At the one kilometer s outh i nterval, three pairs of excavations were placed explicitly to t est the information output of mounds versus middens. Excavation T14 was p laced in P latform 3 03, T13 was dug o ff the s outh edge o f the platform i n a potential midden deposit. P latform 3 15 was tested with midden-pit 2 0 and mound-pit 2 2. Excavation T18 went through a small mound on p latform 3 07 and T26 t ested the nearby midden o ff the s ide of the p latform.

6 0

Midden TESTPIT NUMBER

Mound

1 3

2 0

2 6

1 4

6 75

7 62

5 69

4 49

2 2

1 8

total sherds/pit avg. sherd wt.

8 .2g 4 .3g 5 .5g

8 .5g

6 .9g

2 0.2g

:

s lipped

2 51

4 2

1 83

1 97

4 32

1 69

•

plainware

1 84

6 1

1 53

1 57

4 30

1 83

unknown

2 40

6 59

2 33

9 5

2 20

8 0

# deposits/ pit

5

3

3

1 3

1 8

1 3

single phase d ep.

0

0

1

6

2

4

# phases present

5

2

2

5

6

3

1 262

4 32

MOUND VERSUS MIDDEN C OMPARISON COUNTS A ll deposits were s creened. The results of these tests are presented above. The total number of sherds f or each p it was determined by adding together the counts from all s trata. The average sherd s ize f or each pit i s given in g rams and was determined by dividing the total weight of the s herds by the t otal count. This number gives a rough measure of the condition of the sherds, s ince i n deposits that a re in poorer c ondition f rom repeated recycling or weathering, the s herds are smaller. The number of s lipped sherds included a ll decorated s herds. The count of plainwares i ncludes a ll undecorated and s triated s herds. Unknowns are sherds that are in too poor condition to be recognized a s s lipped or unslipped. T he number o f deposits per pit i s a s imple count of the n umber of s trata that produced ceramics. The number of single phase deposits i s a count of the number of strata i n each p it that contain ceramics f rom only one period, i .e., unmixed deposits. The " dates present" variable i s a tally of t he total number o f chronological periods represented by ceramics in e ach t estpit, e ither i n mixed or in unmixed deposits. S ome o f these dates are r epresented by a very small number of s herds, e .g., the Middle Preclassic i s represented i n l ayer 4 of Testpit 1 3 by l ess than f ive

61

sherds. Nevertheless, because s ecure, these sherds were c ounted yielded by data f rom Testpit 1 3.

t he i dentification was a s an a dditional date

Obviously, architectural deposits are d eeper, c ontain more r ecognizable e vents ( more s trata), and more s herds. In part, the greater quantity of d ates provided by t he architectural excavations i s the r esult of the s imple f act that l arger deposits, l ike TP 2 2, produce more pottery, but other processes are a lso i nfluencing t he f indings, s ince T P 1 4 and TP 1 8 have smaller q uantities than any of t he midden excavations. Structural f ill i s u sually f rom intentionally collected middens and i s protected f rom the e lements. Consequently, the haphazard collection of pottery i n f ill dates occupation i n the general area, not j ust the s tructure i tself, and i s more i dentifiable because it i s better preserved. Middens, on the o ther hand, a re f requently above earlier middens and o ffer a s oft matrix that i s d isturbed by r odents and s cavengers. Almost i nvariably, p latform a ssociated middens are i nextricably mixed with eroded p latform f ill, c onsequently presenting the same mixing problems a s the f ill l ayers themselves. These t end t o yield much more poorly preserved s herds than i ntact f ill l ayers that have had more protection from natural disturbances and e rosion. F or s trictly chronological i nformation, f ill l ayers s eem to be better, contingent, o f course, on the " freshness" o f the midden used for f ill, a nd bearing i n mind that the l ast occupation of the s tructure cannot be i ncorporated i n a s ample o f s tructural f ill, a nd that other periods of o ccupation may not b e. F or f unctional i nterpretations, i nvestigators must a ttempt t o s eparate e arlier middens a nd p latform f ill from p latform a ssociated middens. F or middens a ssociated with single phase nonplatform s tructures, these p roblems may s ometimes be r educed ( Deal 1 985:283). The s ignificance o f these f indings i s d iscussed i n C hapter F ive. Preclassic C aches:

Two a nd One H alf Kilometers S outh

Testpits 5 9 and 6 0 were l ocated i n a s lightly e levated area about 2 .5 k ilometers f rom Nohmul's s ite c enter a nd about 1 50 meters northwest o f the v ery l arge u nnumbered platform group tested by excavations 5 6, 5 7 and 5 8. Testpit 5 9 was i ntended to t est what I thought might be a n o utlying s tructure r elated to the i mposing p lazuela group to t he s outh. Another s tructure of s ome s ort existed about half-way between the p lazuela and TP59, but h ad been bulldozed away i n the r ecent past. I wanted to r econstruct the o ccupation s equence o f the a rea around the p lazuela, because no o ther s tructures were visible within 2 00 meters, and this was the s outhernmost of my e xcavation a reas. I f San Luis and Nohmul had begun a s i ndependent centers that had grown l arger and c loser together o ver t ime, I t hought I might f ind that s tructures i n this a rea, r oughly h alf-way between the two, were o ccupied l ate. This hypothesis was

6 2

4

Z7669

1 .... ...,

6 71

10 ,674

6 73 6 76

T 60 o

0

T 59

T 57

F igure

3 .

P reclassic

C aches:

Two 6 3

a nd One

Half

Km S outh

not confirmed: a ll s tructures i n the area have a s ignificant Preclassic component.

turned

o ut

t o

I was s till testing the p lazuela l ocated immediately s outh, that had s o f ar yielded only L ate C lassic dates, when I f ound a Preclassic sherd o n the surface of the ground on the s outh edge o f the f eature l abeled P latform 6 76 on the map. 6 76 i s not really a built-up platform, but i t i s a s lightly e levated area created by human a ctivity. The sherd was early Chicanel: transitional between Middle and Late Preclassic. I p laced Testpit 5 9 directly o ver the l ocus of the sherd, hoping to secure evidence of the earliest occupation of the area. The excavation encountered a Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic hearth. This f eature, a lthough i t had c learly been burnt in s itu ( the soil a s well a s the rocks were burned and contained charcoal), was d ifferent f rom other hearths f ound at Nohmul. Although i t c ontained midden materials, i .e., potsherds, and small burnt s tones s imilar to the hearths I l ocated i n the middens a ssociated with nonplatform structures, i t was not p laced i n a midden. Nor was i t s ituated on a platform or i n a deep hole i n bedrock a s are the other types of hearth a t Nohmul. The s tones a nd sherds seemed to be placed i n an i ntentionally rectilinear shape, probably i n a shallow hole dug i nto the prehistoric A-Horizon surface. When I expanded the excavation t o l ocate the l imits o f the hearth, I uncovered the edges o f two l arge v essels. When I expanded the excavation to uncover t hese two vessels, I f ound them touching three o thers. T he f ive vessels were s itting directly on the prehistoric o ccupation surface, were L ate Preclassic, and two of t hem were s ituated over the edge of the basal s tones i n the T erminal C lassic/Early Postclassic hearth. At this point, I decided to i nvestigate f urther the nature of the ground surface, which a ppeared to rise gently to a peak about 8 meters north o f the c ache and t hen drop about 1 .5 meters. I began a l ine of posthole tests spaced at approximately one to two meter i ntervals across the f eature. The f ourth posthole hit the c ache of nine vessels exposed i n Testpit 6 0. This s econd c ache was sitting on a n area e levated by a layer of f ill and a layer o f small unshaped and unfitted s tones. While this f eature may b e c onsidered a kind of platform, i t i s unlike any o ther known f rom the s ite. Although I have presented the s implest explanation f or the juxtaposition of the two d istinct time periods represented by the hearth and the f irst cache in my discussion of TP59 ( that i s, that I s imply overlooked t he cut preceding the i ntrusive hearth), an i nteresting a lternative i s worth mentioning. I t i s possible that a Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic Maya f ound the c ache i n Testpit 5 9. P erhaps the vessels i n 5 9 were o riginally

6 4

c overed by upper bowls l ike those i n 6 0, and when the P reclassic c ache was d isturbed i n the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic, the upper vessels and the c ontents were removed. I f s o, the s lightly odd hearth might r epresent an a pology f or the disturbance. This would e xplain why the modern A-Horizon and the Preclassic midden a bove b oth the early cache and the l ate hearth are s o uniform ( no cut i s visible above the hearth) even though i t post-dates the cache by s ome 6 00 years. The Preclassic l ayer may have been c arefully replaced after exposure of the entire cache. Unfortunately, the question of why these 1 4 Preclassic vessels were c ached o n the ground surface and on a l ow c rude p latform cannot be answered. The l ip-to-lip c ache r esembles other architecturally a ssociated caches f ound i n the s ite center and below l arge palace-type s tructures i n the settlement, but n o s tructure was ever above the caches i n Testpits 5 9 and 6 0. Furthermore, the red vessels i n both c aches ( 13 of the 1 4 are i dentical S ierra Red cauldrons, 4 5-50cm in diameter ) are l arger than the cache vessels f ound e lsewhere on s ite. Painted F loors:

One K ilometer East

This area i s occupied l ess densely by much smaller p latforms than those a t the s ame i nterval to the s outh, n orth a nd east. The two p latform based structures tested were c lose together on s eparate p latforms and were not expected to yield evidence of high s tatus occupants. C onsequently, we were surprised to encounter a s eries of hematite painted f loors i n Structure 9 55. This pattern o f c onstruction i s unusual at Nohmul outside the s ite center. Usually, new f loors a re constructed above l ayers of f ill p laced o n preceding f loors, and add s everal centimeters of height t o their platform. In Structure 9 55, which provided the o nly example o f painted f loors f rom the s ettlement a rea, t hree or f our very thin l ayers of plaster were s uperimposed, each c overed with a l ayer of specular r ed paint. C learly, to c all the structures palaces on this basis a lone would be an exaggeration, but there i s s omething special a bout them, s ince their i nhabitants made u se of a substance o therwise known f rom e lite or ceremonial c ontexts, and because they had access to l abor f or f requent r efurbishing. Kramer ( 1979) has noted that the frequency o f house f loor r esurfacings may, i n s ome cultures, be r elated to the wealth of the occupants. The possibility of nonplatform occupation a ssociated with the visible mounds was i nvestigated i n Test trench TP 5 5 without s uccess. Bulldozing, p lowing and cane growing may well have eradicated any traces of shallow ephemeral f eatures. S tructure 9 94 was s hown by Testpit 5 4 to be a L ate C lassic construction that i ncorporates s ome Early C lassic material in i ts f ill and has a Terminal C lassic/Early 6 5

4 15

0

6 29 6 30

4 13 0

0155 9 55 T 53[3

C1922 r ---1 1 -2 1154 994

9 93 D

4 14

991 1 3

1 004

0

6 14 9 0i 7 47

e 748

2 1

7 49 t 1

F igure 4 .

P ainted

F loors:

One

Km East 66

Postclassic c omponent on top. S tructure 9 55, l ess than 1 0 meters away, was c onstructed entirely i n the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic a bove an A-Horizon with s ome Preclassic i nclusions, suggesting that the A-Horizon may have b een l eveled before the construction, r emoving the Late C lassic debris that o ne would e xpect to f ind near the Late C lassic Structure 9 94. Levelling and s oil r emoval would e xplain why t he burial below 9 55 i s s o shallow below the s urface, and how Terminal C lassic material came to be associated with what i s most l ikely a Chicanel burial. The burial involves modification of bedrock, and most bedrock a lterations are a ssociated with the L ate Preclassic period. Alternatively, the burial may have been an offering placed on the ground surface and i ncompletely covered before the c onstruction of the platform i n the Terminal Classic. Ephemeral O ccupation:

Two Kilometers East

T he intervals b eyond a bout 1 k ilometer to the east of Nohmul's central a cropolis are poorly known because the two modern settlements o f S an P ablo and S an Jose obscure archaeological configurations i n the e ast s ector. Many prehistoric f eatures have a ctually been destroyed by the Northern Highway that passes through San P ablo and San Jose at a d istance of between 1 .5 and 2 k ilometers f rom Nohmul's center. Looting o f mounds near permanent houses i s severe. E ast of the h ighway a nd houses of the two villages are agricultural f ields that have been deeply p lowed and severely a ltered by bulldozer a ctivity. I t i s impossible to t ell in this a rea whether the s carcity of obvious mounds i s r eally i ndicative of any prehistoric f actors. Very large termite hills r esembled small mounds i n s ome places, and e ven had prehistoric artifacts i n or near them. A f ew of these were trowel tested and f ound not to be cultural. In o ther p laces, s catters of surface material suggested that s hallow deposits of the type uncovered i n the north sector might have been present before bulldozing and plowing. T he north s ector excavations l ed me to suspect that shell was typically a ssociated with constructions i n very low wet areas. T estpits 2 5 and 5 2 were placed i n an area where ceramics a nd shell were s cattered i n the ground surface near an aguada with standing water. This area has the l owest e levation of any place tested by the project. T 52 was placed d irectly over the shell and artifact surface concentration and uncovered a marl l ayer that was probably a mangled l iving surface. Unfortunately the deposit i s so d isturbed that i ts origin must r emain speculative. T 25 w as dug a bout e ight meters away f rom T 52, in a n area where a s urface s catter s imilar to that a bove T52 i ncluded a small quantity of pieces of f ire-hardened clay that we thought might be daub. The results of T 25 6 7

T 25o oT 52

667 0

6tV

1

6 80

F igure

5 .

E phemeral

Occupation:

6 8

Two

Km East

were a s equivocal a s those f rom T52, f or the s ame r easons. Besides the i rregularity o f the s trata, naturally deposited fossil shell was f ound to be a bundant i n the bedrock below the f eatures tested. T he material that we tentatively i dentified a s daub probably r esulted f rom c ane burning i n the f ield where these two excavations were s ituated. When wet topsoil with small plant i nclusions i s burnt i n a f ield f ire, f ired reddish lumps of c lay that resemble daub are s ometimes produced. S imilar d eposits ( identified a s a burnt root) were d iscovered i n the context i n which they f ormed i n Testpit 6 9, making i t certain that the origin of the material in both T 72 and above T 25 was not cultural. Protoclassic/Early C lassic E lite Residences: One K ilometer North The area s ampled at this i nterval i ncluded what appeared to be two s ets of s tructures ( northwest group: Platforms 1 281 and 1 305; s outheast group: P latforms 5 61 and 562) f acing each o ther across about 1 00 meters of empty space. The actual orientation of the s tructures was not ascertained, but the s tructures were not originally designed as any type of unit, s ince those i n the more southerly group were f irst c onstructed i n the Protoclassic, while the more northerly buildings were f irst built i n the Late o r Late/Terminal C lassic. S ix testpits were dug i n this a rea: TP28, TP29, TP30, TP31, TP32, TP33. As were most t ested areas of the s ite, this area was occupied i n the Preclassic, evidenced by the presence of Mamom and Chicanel pottery on the buried A-Horizons and mixed into f ill l ayers. No s tructures encountered dated to the P reclassic, however. Testpits 3 1 and 3 3 showed that Platform 5 62 was probably originally constructed i n the Early Classic, then r emodeled and enlarged i n both the Late and Terminal C lassic eras. These l ater building episodes were c ontemporary with the construction of P latform 1 281 nearby. A mixed l ayer o f Early and Late C lassic midden f ill at the b ase of Testpit 3 1 contained an unusual amount of polychrome pottery and three exhausted obsidian cores and three blade f ragments. This i s a l arger s ample o f volcanic glass than f ound anywhere e lse at Nohmul outside the s ite center. Obsidian c ores are e specially rare at the s ite, and t hese were the only ones f ound in Nohmul's s ettlement. Rice ( 1987) has suggested that the distribution of obsidian in t he Maya Lowlands during this period demonstrates that its d istribution was i n the hands of the e lite ( although this pattern changes by the Terminal C lassic). The midden is n ot associated with the s tructures encountered i n the excavations at this i nterval, s ince they are above i t. Nevertheless, the presence of this unusual deposit suggested there may have been e lite residences nearby.

6 9

0

' 1 305

()

oT28

T 33

562

301 5 87 3 02

0

El 0 5 86 r, L . J

588

F igure

6 .

P rotoclassic/Early

C lassic

Km North

7 0

E lite

Residences:

O ne

T estpit 2 8 hit a primary Late/Terminal C lassic midden located halfway b etween the two groups. Testpit 3 2 uncovered a C ancanilla-Chicanel pit, perhaps originally the result of bedrock m ining f or l imestone or marl to c onstruct nearby P latform 5 62. Afterward, the hole may have s erved a s a chultun; i t was f illed with garbage and rapidly deposited soil l ayers. Early or L ate C lassic overburden i ndicates that t he s ite of the pit c ontinued to be used after the pit was r efilled, a lthough no evidence of a s tructure was present in the excavation. The s tratigraphy of this very damp excavation may have been affected by the natural formation process c alled " slicken-sides" ( MacDonald 1 978). Natural

E levations:

Three Kilometers Northeast

This area, s lightly over three kilometers north and east o f site center, gives the impression of i solation, since no other mound groups are visible f rom Structures 6 59 and 6 60. The nearest mound groups are about 3 /4 km away; Platform 6 84 to t he north, and P latform 6 62 to the east. The n onplatform o ccupation discovered i n TP61 i s s lightly closer ( by a bout 1 00 meters) than e ither platform group. S tructures 6 59 and 6 60 are approximately 3 00 meters west o f a modern bajo, which curves around the north edge of the site and contains r ecognizable raised f ields. Part of this bajo has been c leared f or cattle pasture, and may have been f illed with the use of heavy machinery i n recent times. Consequently, the s outhern extent of the swampy area i n prehistoric times i s unknown and the edges of the modern bajo were not mapped. I t s eems l ikely that the swamp was more extensive i n prehistoric times, s ince areas of s tanding water e xist today during the rainy s eason i n the pasture s outh o f the unreclaimed bajo areas. A modern aguada was dug a pproximately 5 0 meters north of Structure 6 59 t o serve a s a c attle tank. This tank held one to two meters of water throughout the dry s eason of 1 985, suggesting that the ground s urface i s c lose to the water table in this area. North of this tank, an narrow interrupted tongue o f bajo winds east f rom the main swamp area, s eparating the s lightly e levated area of the mound group from the s omewhat e levated area of nonplatform occupation around TP61. No prehistoric modifications of this bajo were recognizable e ither f rom the ground ( T. Patrick Culbert, p .c.) or the a ir. Two very straight parallel channels were discovered ( but n ot mapped) r unning e ast-west about a kilometer s outh of S tructures 6 59 a nd 6 60. These channels each appeared to be a t l east one k ilometer l ong, and perhaps 2 00 meters apart. Today they a re about . 3 meters deep, and noticeable only o n the ground d ue to waist high grass. Interviews with e mployees of B elize Sugar Industries ( which owns the land) revealed that the f eatures were not created i n the last 5 0 years. I f t hey are, a s I suspect, prehistoric agricultural canals, they connected a l ow wet area o f reclaimed bajo ( reclaimed i n modern times) with s ome

7 1

o T50 6 59

e

T 47

‘o T48

660 V T49

F igure

7 .

Natural

E levations:

Three

7 2

Km Northeast

unknown features to the west that have been i nterrupted by the b uilt-up bed o f the modern San Victor road. The elevation of the ground i ncreases a s the canals proceed west, so that, unless they became progressively deeper to the w est, they would have s erved to drain water away f rom rather than carry water to the l and west of the bajo. A total of f our one by one meter testpits was excavated i n the i mmediate vicinity of the mound group: one in e ach structure ( TP 4 7 and TP 4 9), one ( TP 4 8) halfway i n between the s tructures, and one ( TP 5 0) on the nearest natural elevation. Buried A-Horizons i ndicate that the area was occupied a s early a s the Late Preclassic. Both structures a ppear t o have been f irst constructed in the Late C lassic, and r enovated a s l ate a s the Terminal/Early Postclassic. The two buildings were built according to very d ifferent s tyles, TP49 uncovered an ordinary Terminal Classic limestone b lock and marl f ill platform. TP 4 7 revealed a s et of a t l east f our successive f loors, each plastered over a l ayer of f ossil shell, reminiscent of the shell placed i n f oundation trenches below Structures 2 48 and 2 49. Unfortunately, the f loors contained no datable artifacts; but as each was exactly l ike the l ast and a ll were constructed a bove a L ate C lassic deposit on the A-Horizon, I have tentatively dated them to the Late Classic. This i s f urther s uggested by the very different construction style o f the nearby Terminal C lassic building, Structure 6 60. All f our testpits s howed evidence of bedrock modification; TP 5 0 encountered a natural s oft s ascab l ayer containing small s herds i n i ts uppermost l ayer suggesting that the sascab had been exposed at s ome point. TP 4 9 revealed a shallow t rench dug i nto bedrock, and s everal small round holes i n i ts surface. I did not interpret these as postholes, s ince they were i rregularly s ized. They might have been the r esult of animal burrowing, but a s the b edrock was f airly hard, I suspect they were solution pits, caused by the puddling of rain water on the surface of e xposed bedrock. This could have occurred at the time the trench was dug, probably f or l imestone construction blocks. TP 4 8, dug between the two visible structures, encountered a ( probable) Late C lassic pit dug i nto bedrock containing what appeared to be a rock-lined hearth at i ts base. Bedrock i n s ome parts of Nohmul contains f ossil shell and f ossil c oral. Although we did not encounter natural marine deposits i n this area, s everal pieces of fossil coral were f ound i n the a shy matrix of the hearth. These pinkish and unmodified f ossils were strikingly anthropomorphic. The pink color may i ndicate burning. The odd e cofacts f ound i n a hearth over 2 .5 meters below the modern ground surface bring to mind s peculations about the association between Maya c eremonial and underground caves ( Mcleod 1 978, Mcleod and Puleston 1 979, Mercer 1 975, Pendergast 1 969, S chele and Miller 1 986). S ince other

7 3

bedrock pits at Nohmul c ontain hearths ( cf. TP1, TP64), the hearth i tself i s not unusual; a lternatively, the o dd corals might be accounted f or by children. Small quantities of pottery and bone f ound i n t he pit f ill above the hearth s uggest i t may have been u sed for a garbage receptacle. However s ome of the bone appeared t o be human, and we suspected that the Testpit had c ut into the edge of a burial. The area was l evelled o ver by a n A-Horizon containing Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds, so the pit was apparently f illed and unused by this period. One of the most i nteresting f inds in this a rea, and the reason f or the title of this s ection, r esulted f rom the excavation of TP 5 0, which yielded no evidence whatsoever of an occupation s urface. This was an i mportant f ind since the e levation of the A-Horizon below Structure 6 59 was 3 .57, while the e levation of the A-Horizon at the l ocus o f TP 5 0 was at about 3 .80. This means that e levation did not necessarily dictate the l ocation o f s tructures at Nohmul; Structure 6 59 was actually originally constructed o n a l ow spot, and built up by the a ccumulation successive f loors, while a nearby higher area went unoccupied. Such choices may have been a ffected by l and ownership or s pecific details of l ocal agricultural practices ( see below ).

ELEVATIONS:

TP47 STRUCTURE

TP48 6 59

TP49 STRUCTURE

TP50 6 60

Modern A-Horizon

4 .90

4 .49

4 .61

3 .96

Prehistoric A-Horizon

3 .57

4 .06

3 .50*

3 .80

Bedrock

3 .00

3 .86

3 .21

3 .53

( *

RELATIVE ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING AREAS i ndicates a f igure has been estimated)

Possible Evidence

f or a Termination Ritual: South

Three K ilometers

Excavations were done i n this area because i t coincided with the third k ilometer s outh interval of the " radial-stadial" s ampling design. Three excavations were dug i nto enormous p latform P latform 6 90 Group, approximately 7 4 meters i n diameter. The p latform supported f our s uperstructures of the e longated "range structure" type oriented approximately to the c ardinal directions. The western s ide o f the platform, a nd the westernmost s uperstructure had been damaged by bulldozing. The three i ntact s tructures were tested. The l argest s tructure was l ocated on the east s ide o f the platform i n Structure 6 85 and was tested with Testpit

7 4

4

,6 69

e l . . . . P r

6 7

0 674

6

T 60

\

o T 59

0

T 5t8 1 )6 9 00

4 (

1 I

i I

7

o

I t

I 1 689°

t

1

c z 1

1 56 6 85

1 57

F igure

8 .

Possible Km S outh

Evidence

f or

7 5

a T ermination

R itual:

Three

5 6. Testpit 5 7 was placed i n the s outhern Structure 6 89, and Testpit 5 8 was dug i n the n orthern Structure 6 86. Originally a ll three pits were p lanned a s one by o ne' s, but TP56 encountered a burial that I thought might offer special i nformation a bout the group, s o I extended this excavation to encompass the whole i nhumation. The skeleton was i n poor condition a nd no i nformation was gained by t he additional excavation a rea. The only i ntact buried A-Horizon that could be dated was f ound i n Testpit 5 7, placing the e arliest demonstrable occupation of the area at the L ate P reclassic. The sascab encountered a t the base of Testpit 5 8 was a pparently exposed during this period, s ince i t contained Chicanel sherds. Testpits 5 6 and 5 7 both encountered a 1 0-20 centimeter l ens of s terile marl d eposited directly on the prehistoric A-Horizon, suggesting an e arly n onplatform occupation. Above this marl l ayer we f ound that a second marl l ayer was deposited below the s tructure i nvestigated by i n Testpit 5 6. A burial was i ncluded i n this s econd marl l ayer. Above these marl l ayers i n both Testpits we encountered a r eformed A-Horizon, 2 5-28 centimeters deep, indicating a period of abandonment. This A-Horizon contained a mix o f Chicanel and Early C lassic pottery. Of i nterest i n this context are the two L ate Preclassic caches discovered a bout 2 20 meters northeast o f this unnumbered platform group. The period of a bandonment of the platform group c orresponds to the p eriod o f deposition of these c aches. I t i s possible that t he caches were created f or the o ccasion of the abandonment, which apparently continued i nto the Early C lassic. The s ituation encountered i n Testpit 5 8 was unusual. Although 5 8 encountered no buried A-Horizon and n o evidence f or a period of a bandonment i n the Preclassic, i ts stratigraphy does not c ontradict the s equence reconstructed from data f rom the other two excavations. The s oft sascab at the base o f TP 5 8 was exposed i n the Preclassic, s ince i t contained Chicanel sherds. An Early C lassic plaster f loor was placed directly on this l evelled s ascab. Testpits 5 7 and 5 8 encountered Early Classic structures and f loors above the r eformed A-Horizon. T he f loor i n TP 5 8 was resurfaced at l east twice, s uggesting extended occupation. TP 5 6 a lso r evealed f our e pisodes o f Late C lassic c onstruction and reconstruction. Testpits 5 6 and 5 8 gave evidence o f Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic structures; the one e ncountered i n TP56 i ncluded a Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic burial below f our s uccessive Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic building episodes. F rom a ll this e vidence of perpetual construction a nd remodelling, i t i s l ikely that this platform was occupied a lmost c ontinuously f rom the L ate P reclassic period, except during a s ingle extended period o f abandonment a fter t he i nitial s ettlement.

7 6

Mound and Nonmound Structures:

Two Kilometers West

A lthough most g roups excavated at Nohmul gave evidence of both p latform a nd non-platform based buildings, the nonplatform s tructures were usually l ocated under visible s tructures a nd did n ot necessarily date to periods when the immediate area a lso i ncluded platform-based structures. In the north s ector o f Nohmul, where the most extensive nonplatform s ettlement was discovered, the nonplatform structures a ppear to be c lustered i n a particular area, apart f rom p latform-based constructions. The group i nvestigated a t two k ilometers west included platform and nonplatform based s tructures dating to the Terminal C lassic period. F ive testpits were dug to i nvestigate the occupation history of the area a round P latform 7 72. TP38 was dug i nto Structure 7 74 and TP35 was dug i nto Structure 7 73, both s ituated d irectly on P latform 7 72. TP37 was dug directly i nto the e astern s ide of the platform i tself. TP36 was dug to test nearby P latform 7 77, about 2 0 meters north of 7 72, and the c losest visible s tructure to the platform. TP34 was dug to i nvestigate a s light natural rise about 2 5 meters s outhwest o f P latform 7 72, which proved to support a nonplatform f loor. The buried A-Horizon below P latform 7 77 encountered i n Testpit 3 6 i ndicates that the general vicinity was occupied a s e arly a s the L ate Preclassic. Very small amounts of Early C lassic pottery were f ound i n Testpits 3 8 and 3 5 below P latform 7 72, a nd a ll pits i ncluded s ome Late C lassic material. Testpits 3 4 and 3 7 d iscovered areas of bedrock that had been exposed and accumulated sherds during the Late to Terminal C lassic transition. S imilarly, TP 3 8 revealed mined bedrock with evidence of s ome type of structure built d irectly on i ts surface. Unfortunately this deposit l acked diagnostic ceramics, but was probably Preclassic l ike most bedrock f eatures at Nohmul. Despite these f indings, the bulk of the architecture r emaining i n this area was constructed i n the Terminal C lassic. TP 3 4 uncovered a Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic rock pile, perhaps a hearth or the corner of a s imple building r esting d irectly on bedrock. Many i nstances of bedrock modification are a ssociated with Preclassic materials, but this i s o bviously not a lways the case. A Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic midden accumulated above this rock pile a nd the natural A-Horizon reformed. A Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic marl surface was l aid directly i n this A-Horizon, and l ater e levated with a l ayer of marl f ill ( this was probably s urfaced with plaster, but the p laster i s now g one). Rapid a ccumulation of soils i n this area, s uch a s the buried A-Horizon above the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic midden i n TP34, i s not surprising, s ince the area i s between two aguadas. Only the aguada l ocated

7 7

7 9 C .0 7 9 !9I I I 7 9 5U 7 94r:3 7 9 C

7 9G

7 9 20

7 7

T 3 6

I r a

o T 3 4

7 8 E3

F igure

9 .

M ound

a nd

N onmound

7 8 9c a

S tructures:

7 8

Two

7 8

Km West

7 8 6

n orthwest o f the area i s on the map; the other i s l ocated a bout the s ame d istance to the s outhwest, near P latform 7 78. All s trata e xcavated i n this a rea were extremely wet a nd the vicinity i s probably i nundated f rom t ime to t ime. Remaining a rchitecture i n this group was constructed i n t he Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic. Structures 7 73 a nd 7 74 exhibit a t l east three r emodelling e pisodes e ach, a nd e xcavations e ncountered two burials. This s uggests the a rea was o ccupied i ntermittently before and c ontinuously t hroughout the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic. The P ort Mound Neighborhood:

Three Kilometers West

This area i s l ocated a pproximately 5 00 meters i nland ( due east) f rom the " port mound" excavated i n 1 975 by Pring a nd Hammond. Their excavations dated the bulk of the port mound architecture to the Terminal L ate Preclassic and E arly Classic periods with a r ich Protoclassic component. P ring and Hammond s tate that the use of the platform " continued i nto t he Terminal C lassic" ( 1985:528), but do n ot give the c eramic dates f or their s tratigraphic s equence. Consequently, i t i s not possible to tell whether t he mound was continuously i n use, or was s imply reoccupied i n the Terminal C lassic, a s i s o ften the case a t Nohmul. Excavations were done i n this area because i t c oincided with the three kilometer west i nterval called f or by the " radial s tadial" s ampling s trategy, a nd because I wanted to be s ure the west s ide o f the s ite was as c ontinuously occupied a s the r est of the s ite. An a lternative possibility was that during s ome periods the p opulation c lustered at the r iver's edge was spatially s eparate f rom the nucleus of Nohmul. This might suggest t he existence o f a n i ndependent c ommunity a round the " port mound". The prehistoric s tructures i n the area are a set of f our closely c onfigured immense platform groups with a s cattering of small s eparate s tructures. Three excavations were dug i n l arge platforms: Testpit 3 9 was dug i nto S tructure 4 81 on P latform 4 79; Testpit 4 1 tested a l arge s tructure on an unnumbered platform l ocated i n the north c enter of the group; and Testpit 4 2 was placed i n Structure 4 76 on P latform 4 77. TP40 was p laced i n small ancillary S tructure 4 84, which i s shown i ncorrectly on the map a s r ectangle. It s hould have been drawn a s a smaller l ow s quare platform. The e arliest o ccupation evidence recovered at this i nterval c ame f rom the buried A-Horizon below P latform 4 79 d iscovered by Testpit 3 9. This stratum contained a mixed d eposit that i ncluded s ome D zuluinicob-Mamom ( Middle P reclassic) material, a s well a s Late Preclassic and L ate C lassic. L ate P reclassic sherds were f ound i n f ill l ayers i n a ll f our excavations suggesting an extensive use of the a rea during this period. B elow Structure 4 76, Testpit 4 2

7 9

4 8 e 1 40 T 41

5

5 34 %

F igure

1 0.

1 3

The

Port

1 g1

Mound

%. •

484

Neighborhood: 80

Three

Km W est

e ncountered a s herd l ined Colmotz-Chicanel ( Late P reclassic) hearth s et i nto c leared bedrock. Above this were s everal Terminal Preclassic midden l ayers i nterspersed w ith p laster f loors. ( This hearth has a s imilar c onstruction to that described by Pring [ Wilk et a l. 1 975], a lthough Pring's hearth was on a p latform.) B oth Structures 4 85 and 4 76 contained mixed F reshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic) and Holpatin-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) components. Structure 4 76 appears to have h ad at least three s equential f loors constructed during t his period ( assuming that the Protoclassic and the Early C lassic o verlap at Nohmul). I t i s l ikely that Structure 4 81 and the unnumbered s tructure near P latform 4 83 a lso had c onstruction l ayers f rom this period, but most of the c eramics from the excavations of these buildings were p oorly preserved and undatable. All excavations revealed Z onauil or Noh Ukum-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) construction phases; Structure 4 81 showed two construction l ayers f rom this era. Structure 4 81 a lso h ad two Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) period c onstruction phases, while TP41 encountered three or f our l ayers of rebuilding f rom this time. Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic pottery was present i n the modern A -Horizon above a ll f our buildings tested. This suggests t hat a ll had an o ccupation at this period, s ince the s tructures are a ll t o tall to have l ater sherds displaced o n to t hem by natural processes. S urface D istributions Test:

One and One Half Kilometers South

Excavations a t this i nterval were outside the original r esearch design of the s ettlement pattern project, but were part o f a cooperative effort between two s egments of the Nohmul P roject. I n the 1 986 s eason, Arthur Joyce joined the Nohmul Project to develop a s ystematic surface s ampling d esign f or the project. His i ntent was to test the r elationship between s urface artifacts and subsurface f eatures. After making extensive s urface collections and p osthole testing s everal parts o f the s ite, Joyce l ocated a n area he f elt was promising f or subsurface testing a t 1 .5 k ilometers south. To help test his hypothesis that s urface d ensity was an indication o f the presence of subsurface f eatures, I put the r esources of the Settlement P attern P roject at his d isposal and s ix testpits were dug i n the n onmound areas he s elected: TP 6 6, TP 6 9, TP 7 0, TP 7 1, and TP 7 2. In the area where TP 6 9 was p laced, Joyce had l ocated what he believed to be d aub on the ground surface. This material resembled that described in the summary of TP's 5 2 and 2 5, s o I was skeptical of i ts cultural origin, but there was no way to d emonstrate conclusively whether the material was c ultural without d igging.

8 1

523 5 20 5 19

5 17

5 25

C 3

5 14

5 18

0

506[ 03 174

C I° 505

5 29

0 T 72 5 26 T 70 o T69

7 14 0 7 18 c)b 7 1

7 11 7 10,z 5 N

7 13

0 T 73

7 12

7 16 722 e

7 17

d e 7e.

7 20

7 19 c' '\

7 2 7 26

V

0

; : 2 ' 5

7 23

9 24

7 27 0

F igure

1 1.

S urface D istributions S outh 8 2

T est:

One

a nd

a Half

Km

These testpits did not yield much i nformation a bout Nohmul's culture history. None of the pits encountered subsurface cultural f eatures and the three pits that had any diagnostic ceramics had Colmotz-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and T epeu 1 and 2 ( Late C lassic) or Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) s herds: exactly the same as f ound on the surface. These excavations did, however, provide s ome interesting i nsights i nto l ocal natural s ite f ormation processes. The " daub-like" s ubstance i n TP 6 9 did turn out to be related to a deeply buried burnt root. TP 7 0 provided a very dramatic example of the process o f " slicken-sides" ( McDonald 1 978), which can mix natural a s well as cultural deposits that are not stabilized by l imestone or p laster. Presumably this process accounts f or the fact that most of the artifacts f ound i n these pits were located i n the top of the natural s ascab layer above bedrock, r ather than near the s urface. In numerous other excavations, artifacts were f ound i n the s ascab l ayer, or even in the s urface of bedrock i f i t was soft, with no evidence that these natural l ayers had ever been exposed. Excavations 7 3 and 7 4 were actually only shovel tests about 50 centimeters square and dug just to the f irst l ayer below the modern A-Horizon. These were p laced i n the platforms nearest the nonplatform tests at the 1 .5 k ilometer south interval to date the o ccupation of the immediate area. At l east they were i ntended to do so. TP 7 3 determined that S tructures 7 10, 7 13, and 7 16 are s ituated on a n atural outcrop r ather than a platform; no datable sherds were r ecovered. TP 7 4 was more successful. This test was p laced i n P latform 5 06 and s truck a dense Preclassic midden containing B laden, D zuluinicob-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic), and ( predominantly ) Colmotz-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) sherds. T he Early C lassic Neighborhood:

One Kilometer Northwest

The excavations i n this area were a ll within 2 00 meters of Structure 2 77 that was damaged in 1 940 and c ompletely destroyed i n 1 977. D estruction of the building produced the s pectacular collection o f Protoclassic vessels r eported by Anderson and Cook ( 1944). Immediately s outheast of S tructure 2 77, a cross the Douglas-San Pablo r oad, a s econd s maller s tructure was destroyed in 1 982 and a l arge surface collection of destroyed Protoclassic vessels was recovered f rom the area by members of the Nohmul project. These f indings l ed Hammond ( p.c.) to suspect that t his sector o f the s ite might have been heavily occupied i n e arly periods. I n order to i nvestigate this possibility f urther, s ix test pits were dug; one i n Structure 2 86 i n t he center of P latform 2 79, and f ive i n P latform 9 40. P latform 2 79 i s e xtremely l arge and was the basal platform f or Structure 2 77 a s well a s a t l east s ix other enormous

8 3

941

oT63 940 oT 67 oT64

929

c : 39 2 0 H9 2 1

F igure

1 2.

The

Early

C lassic

Neighborhood:

8 4

1 Km Northwest

j

r ange s tructures that were s till reasonably i ntact i n 1 983. These s tructures were continuously l ooted during the Nohmul P roject and i n 1 986 the l ooters trenches yielded massive s urface collections f rom the Lopez-Mamom ( Middle P reclassic) P eriod o nward. This description of s tructures a nd excavations may b e more e asily f ollowed i f the reader r efers t o the accompanying areal map of this part of the s ite. I n 1 983, Testpit 8 was dug i nto the small Structure 2 86 i n the very c enter of the huge plazuela group s till extant o n the east s ide o f P latform 2 79, i n order to get a complete construction s equence of the plazuela and to test the hypothesis that s uch s tructures are f amily burial s hrines. 2 86 d id turn out to be a Holpatin-Tzakol ( Early C lassic ) platform, which may be contemporary with Freshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic) at Nohmul. I t a lso c ontained at l east two burials, suggesting that i t may have been a burial s hrine, e specially s ince one of the burials was Holpatin-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) and the other was Tepeu 1 or 2 ( Late C lassic), i ndicating a very l ong use of the s tructure. S ince the excavation was only one meter square, I am a ssuming that o ther burials existed i n the f ill of the building that were not encountered. Besides the L ate C lassic burial, there was evidence o f use of the platform i n the T ecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) P eriod. B y the f inal s eason of excavations, when I returned to this p art of the s ite f or f urther i nvestigation, P latform 2 79 was so badly l ooted that I decided to move my testing across the s treet to P latform 9 40. 9 40 appears to be a s ingle enormous p latform with s ix s tructures spread widely around i ts edges. The s tructures on P latform 9 40 are much smaller and l ess i mpressive than those of P latform 2 79, but they may have actually had s ome architectural connection before the D ouglas- San P ablo road was constructed between them. The f ive excavations I did on P latform 9 40 showed that the P latform area h ad been occupied as early a s the B laden period, when a deep excavation i nto bedrock was made and used f or creating hearths and l ater to hold a Preclassic snail s hell midden. P omacea f lagellata i s a l arge edible land s nail r eported f rom s everal Maya s ites i ncluding Piedras Negras ( Coe 1 959), Pulltrouser ( Covich 1 983), Cuello ( Miksicek n .d.), B arton Ramie ( Willey et. a l. 1 965), and probably used prehistorically f or f ood and possibly to make l ime f or p laster ( Andrews 1 969, Pohl 1 986, Miksicek n .d..). T hree o f the t otal s ix excavations on P latforms 2 79 and 9 40 revealed evidence of mined or modified bedrock, which i s usually a component of Preclassic occupation a t Nohmul. TP 6 4 d emonstrated that the western edge o f Platform 9 40 was c onstructed i n the Colmotz-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) era. TP's 6 3, 6 4, 6 7, and 6 8 ( all on P latform 9 40) s howed that what a ppeared to be an enormous c ontinuous

8 5

platform was, i n f act, a s eries o f smaller f ill l evels that were apparently added at different times. Although t here was s ome evidence of occupation f rom a ll periods known f rom Nohmul on both p latforms ( except Xnoha Swasey ), Platform 2 78 was mostly built and occupied i n Holpatin-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), while 9 40 was extensively used i n both the Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), and then again later in the Tepeu P eriod ( Late C lassic), c ontinuing i nto the T ecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) era. L ike Structure 2 86 on P latform 2 79 ( TP 8 ), Structure 9 33 on P latform 9 40 ( TP 6 5) i s a small building in the center of a massive platform f lanked by l arge r ange structures. Although i t did not c ontain a complete burial, i t did have an unusual c ache of a jadeite pendant, a redware bowl and a small quantity of unidentifiable bone. This s eems to support the hypothesis of a special function f or such s tructures throughout the history o f the s ite l ocated at the end of this s ection. The Ridged F ield Neighborhood:

Three to Four Kilometers North

The s tructures at this i nterval are bounded on t hree s ides by swamp. Small f ingers of bajo jut out e ast/west to a point just south of Excavation 6 1, and several hundred meters west to east to P latform G roup 2 48. The land i s bisected north/south by the S an Victor Road; l ower ground with visible mounds i s west of t he road, and a n extensive area of " invisible s ettlement" l ies on the h igher ground e ast of the road. Excavations 9 , 1 0, 1 1, 1 2, a nd 51 tested visible mounds, 4 3, 4 4, 4 5, 4 6, 6 1, 6 2, 7 5, a nd 76 tested nonmound areas. Excavations i n this area were expanded i n 1 986, and were not confined to the kilometer i nterval restriction of the research design because they d efine an " edge" of the s ettlement a long the northern swamp and because of t heir unusual nature. Several nonplatform structures were l ocated i n this " neighborhood", a nd, s ince such structures are generally poorly known, I decided to investigate them f urther. The f irst nonplatform f eatures were uncovered in 1 985 ( TP's 4 3, 4 4, 4 5, and 4 6), and f urther i nvestigation of these f eatures was the major reason f or my r eturn to the f ield i n 1 986. Excavations i n this area were i ntended to address f our i ssues. I wanted to f ind out f irst whether nonplatform f eatures differed c onsistently f rom platform f eatures i n e ither date or f unction. Then I wanted to determine whether nonplatform houses might be a n i ndication of the relative s tatus of their i nhabitants. Third, I hoped that nonplatform o ccupations would tend t o be s ingle phase occupations and provide a ssociated middens that would help define various a spects of c ultural pattern that are obscured i n mixed deposits. F inally, I wanted t o f ind o ut i f excavating i n nonplatform areas would produce n ovel data, that i s, evidence of a ctivities not usually produced by p latform a ssociated excavations.

8 6

C 3

260

0 0 259

254 262 '0 . T 12

263 251

T9 91250

T 11

T 10 e i> 248 249 261 243

F igure

1 3.

The R idged F ield North ( continued

Neighborhood: on next page) 87

Three

t o

Four

Km

932

e

T 51 68

oT44

6 84

oT 43

01 46

oT45 o175 0T62 01 61

0176

662 661 663

F igure

1 3.

The

R idged

N orth

? '

F ield N eighborhood:

( continued

f rom l ast 8 8

Three

page)

t o F our

Km

Most excavations i n this group ( both mound and nonmound) i ncluded C hicanel artifacts on buried A-Horizons or in recycled f ill l ayers, but no actual Preclassic architecture was f ound. Most s tructures had Early C lassic material, and s everal had architectural components f rom this e ra. All excavations had Late C lassic components, except 9 and 7 5, both of which had unidentifiable C lassic Period sherds, s o they may have had L ate C lassic occupations. Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) also a ppeared i n most excavations ( several designations were a ctually given as " Noh Ukum-Tepeu" [ Late C lassic] or " Tecep" [ Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic]). So the area was i ntensively o ccupied f rom Colmotz-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) to Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic), and apparently without any s ignificant decrease i n the Early C lassic. I n general, the c onstructions uncovered do seem to be a response to the e levation of the ground. Buildings on lower a reas to the west a re on p latforms, those to the east in better drained areas a re not. Structure 6 82, the only platform-based building to the e ast of the S an Victor Road at this interval, i s actually i n the edge of the bajo. The secondary Structure 6 82 i s over one meter tall and i s placed on low P latform 6 84. The tallest point of this structure i s s till l ower than the absolute e levation of the nonplatform s tructures uncovered in TP 4 5 and TP 6 1. Nevertheless, excavation i n several parts of the s ite ( cf. the discussion o f excavations 4 7, 4 8, 4 9 and 5 0 at three kilometers n ortheast) has s hown that natural elevations were s ometimes i gnored i n s iting houses. The features at this i nterval vary f rom 3 .75 to 5 .53 in absolute e levation. Excavation TP 6 2, only about twenty meters from TP 6 1, r evealed a h igh point i n bedrock below a higher ground s urface than that below the i nitial structures i n TP 6 1. The earliest f loors f ound in excavations TP 9 and TP 1 1 ( both Early C lassic) west o f the road, and i n excavations TP 4 3 and TP 4 4 to the east, are the l owest i n this s ector. The f eatures in e xcavations 4 3 and 4 4 do not have l ater architecture above them and, a long with TP 46 and TP 7 5, are the most equivocal, s ince they have a lmost no a ssociated artifacts. This may be due to the f unction of the prehistoric s tructures, the economic status of their occupants, the l ength of their occupation, or to i nundation that d isassociated a ll surface artifacts. The nonplatform f loor below Structure 2 49 i s the l owest structure known f rom this i nterval; i t was built on the ground surface i n the l ower western area. C lay f loors, like those d iscovered i n TP 4 6 have been r eported f rom other Maya s ites i ncluding B arton Ramie ( Willey et a l. 1 965:162, 1 66) and A ltar de S acrificios ( Smith 1 972:271). I n all, e ight o f the thirteen excavations a t this interval disclosed nonplatform f loors built directly i n a leveled A-Horizon; f our of these were below l ater platforms. Excavation 6 1 r evealed at l east three and

8 9

possibly f our nonplatform s urfaces below what may have been a f inal l ow platform, r esulting i n part f rom the buildup o f e arlier material. Artifacts a ssociated with n onplatform f eatures i ndicate that t hese were i n use during the s ame t ime periods a s the p latform based s tructures; that i s, c ontinuously f rom the C olmotz-Chicanel ( Late P reclassic) P eriod to the Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) Period. than platform excavations, i n part because these were the o nly Nohmul excavations that i ncluded extramural areas, a nd i n part because these e xtramural a reas i ncluded primary middens. The i nhabitants o f N ohmul a pparently cooked outside, a t l east on s ome occasions, and made hearths i n middens. The i ssue o f r elative s tatus was not resolved by these excavations, s ince the f unction of s o many could not be determined. The mixed middens i n TP 6 1 contained obsidian, s ome polychromes, and a Tepeu ( Late C lassic) burial with bone e arflares a nd a small r edware bowl. The f loor i n TP 4 4 was s imilar i n s tyle to those f ound i n TP 6 1 and was c ompletely uncovered i n 1 986. A lmost no artifacts were a ssociated with i t. I t i s i mpossible to tell whether this r epresents a d ifference i n the s tatus of the occupants or the f unction o f the building. These f indings will be d iscussed f urther i n the c ontext of the rest of the s ettlement data presented i n C hapters F our and F ive. Conclusion The 7 6 excavations of the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project t ested 1 5 s eparate a reas a t kilometer intervals f rom s ite center. C hapter T hree has presented a descriptive account o f the d ata collected at e ach i nterval. Small-scale s tudies o f the influence o f microtopography, e xcavation p lacement, and excavation s ize were described i n c onjunction with g eneral descriptions o f the excavations and e xplanation f or the choice of e ach l ocus. These t ests l ed t o s everal i mportant conclusions. Excavations l arger than l m x l m do not s ignificantly a dd chronological i nformation. E xcavations dug through mounds o ffer better chronological i nformation than those p laced i n middens. P lacing e xcavations on the highest point i n an area i s not a guarantee of l ocating cultural a ctivity. The use of n atural e levations a s building s ites may have b een a g eneral trend, but was not a rule. Besides the particular problems i nvestigated i n e ach group, the excavations were d esigned to address general i ssues of the growth and development o f Nohmul a s a whole. The d iscussion o f s ite-wide patterns begins i n Chapter F our.

9 0

CHAPTER FOUR T IME/SPACE D ISTRIBUTIONS

Excavation D istribution

Instead of s tratifying the Nohmul s ettlement s ample according to variations i n Nohmul's s urface f eatures, I s tratified i t a ccording to types of variation that might be expected i n the s ettlement of a complex s ociety. As reviewed i n Chapter One, a basic vocabulary f or describing the settlement d istributions f ound i n complex s ocieties has been provided by cultural geographers. I predicted that s ettlement density, arrangement, a nd f orm should vary across s pace a nd t ime a s a result of both cultural i nfluences and f eatures of the natural l andscape. To test this hypothesis, I p laced excavations i n c lusters at one, two and three k ilometers f rom s ite c enter ( +/- 2 50 meters) at c ardinal points, and at s ite boundaries where they are determined by natural f eatures to the north ( bajos) a nd west ( the Rio Hondo). B oth mound a nd nonmound areas were tested. Excavation ended arbitrarily at approximately three kilometers s outh, where Nohmul's s ettlement blends with the s ettlement o f the smaller c enter of San Luis, and at 2 .4 kilometers e ast, where s ettlement diminishes and i s disturbed by modern o ccupation. As described i n Chapter Two, the excavation of major s tructures i n the c entral area was d one by Hammond ( in 1 984, Hammond e t a l. 1 985, Hammond et a l. 1 987). Housemounds i n the c entral k ilometer area will be treated i n a project d irected by D irk van Tuerenhout of Tulane University i n 1 989. A transect of o ccupation extending f rom the bajo north o f Nohmul to the c enter of San Victor was mapped and test e xcavated i n 1 985 by L aura Levi. Specific p lacement of the testpits was used to s eek variation i n s ettlement density and f orm, and was determined by posthole testing and judgment. The postholing was used to l ocate middens and nonplatform occupation. Judgment was used to determine the s tate o f preservation of the f eatures and include topographic variety i n the s ample, e .g., high s pots, l ow spots, small mounds, l arge mounds, f lat areas. In most c ases more than o ne s tructure within a s ingle mound group was tested to s ample possible variation within what appear s uperficially to be discrete units o f s ettlement. I f the group was f irst constructed i n the P reclassic and r eoccupied i n the T erminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic, i t i s useful to know whether the c onfiguration c hanged. The f ive e xcavations on P latform 9 40, f or example, s how variation i n the periods and c onstruction techniques o f the d ifferent structures o f a

9 1

s ingle platform. The f ourteen excavations at the one kilometer s outh i nterval, on the o ther hand, sample a wide variety of s tructures i n a l arge area o f dense occupation, mostly with only o ne or two testpits per p latform group. These buildings s how a s much consistency i n date a nd type of occupation a s the s tructures that s hare P latform 9 40. A f ew of the excavations u sed to test s pecific culture-historical and methodological problems do not conform to the k ilometer i ntervals. Excavations i n P latform 9 40 were done to test Hammond's hypothesis that i t had an important Preclassic c omponent. Excavations 6 6, 6 9, 7 0, 7 1, and 7 2 were dug to test Joyce's hypothesis ( see Chapter Three f or a complete d iscussion of these f indings, and Appendix E f or excavation s ummaries) that dense surface concentrations i ndicated subsurface f eatures. Excavations to test Hammond's hypothesis were done at 1 .5 kilometers northwest of s ite center, and excavations to test Joyce's hypothesis were done at about 1 .7 k ilometers south. Both sets of tests proved to be i mportant. Hammond's hypothesis was supported and s ome o f the e arliest material f ound by the settlement project was l ocated i n excavation TP 6 4 on P latform 9 40. Joyce's hypothesis was s trongly disconfirmed and f uture excavations may take advantage of this i nformation. This i ncreased s ample o f nonmound areas a lso helped confirm the " clustering" o f nonmound preserved f eatures at Nohmul by providing data f rom a vacant area topographically c omparable to the nonmound area around TP 6 1. ( All i ndividual excavation s ummaries and section drawings are presented i n numerical order i n Appendix E .) The testpit data, i ncluding exact distances f rom s ite center, are summarized i n the tables i n Chapter Three.* I f the s ite area outside the central k ilometer i s divided i nto three concentric parts with r ings drawn at 1 , 1 .5 and 2 .5 kilometers ( see F igures 3 and 1 2), the testpits are distributed f airly evenly between parts with 2 5 in the f irst i nterval between 1 and 1 .5 k ilometers, 2 5 in the s econd between 1 .5 and 2 .5, and 2 6 i n the third between 2 .5 kilometers and the swamp edge, or the arbitrary boundaries to the s outh and e ast ( see F igure 1 2 and Site Map, Appendix D ). Although the area of ground i ncluded i s larger at each i nterval and the number o f visible s tructures diminishes, i t i s i mportant to bear two a spects o f the research design in mind. F irst, the s ite map was under construction while the settlement excavations were being done, s o s tratification based on percentages o f visible features was not possible, even i f i t had been deemed desirable. Second, and more i mportant, the goal of the study was not just to test the a rchaeological f eatures of the settlement, but to test an hypothesis about the l iving c ommunity that created the archaeological f eatures. More i ndividual pits per s ite area were excavated i n the area with the densest visible s ettlement ( the c entral k ilometer), more a rea was uncovered i n the a rea with the l east visible s ettlement ( the outer kilometer). T able 3 s hows the number of the platform group, the k ilometer i nterval where it l ies, the

9 2

number of excavations dug to test i t, and the s izes of the excavations. Table 7 shows the d istribution of testpits and t he dates they provided by exact d istance. Table 8 shows the s ame data organized by even 1 00 meter i ntervals. Most excavations i n the central s ettlement k ilometer ( beginning one k ilometer out f rom s ite center) were clustered a t the f irst kilometer i nterval; exceptions are Testpits 8 and 6 6 that were part of the testing programs required by Joyce and Hammond. S imilarly, the original excavations were a ll within 2 50 meters of the second kilometer radius, but the bulk of the tests f or Joyce and Hammond only f all within this range i f the range i s expanded to i nclude the area between 1 .5 and 2 .5 kilometers. The outer kilometer i ncludes everything f rom the 2 .5 radius to the edge of the s ite on the north, west and n ortheast, and to the edge of the map i n the s outh. The a verage distance f rom s ite center of excavations i n each i nterval i s g iven i n Table 5A. F igure 1 shows the d istribution of Nohmul's 7 00 mapped mounds at i ntervals f rom s ite c enter. The counts were derived by counting each s tructure s eparately, regardless of whether i t s hares a platform with o ther structures. Nonmound f loors without visible mounds above them are not included i n these c ounts. B lank areas to the north, west and northeast are s wamp and r iver edges; s ome areas i n the northwest, and the b lank areas i n the s outh are unsurveyed ( See S ite Map, Appendix D ). D ata f rom testpits can be partially augmented by dates gathered i n posthole tests and f rom surface collections. Surface collections with many diagnostic sherds are f rom looters' trenches, s ince i n s itu collections have mostly been burnt i n cane f ires past the point of recognition. L ithic material i s not i ncluded i n the s urface collection data. Postholes do uncover chronologically diagnostic material about 2 5-30% of the time, but i t i s not possible to s tructure the s ample s o that 3 0% of e ach area tested i s diagnostic, and the range of i nformation provided i s very l imited. All that i s known f rom a posthole i s that ceramics with c ertain dates are present between ground surface and about 5 0cm below the ground s urface within the small circumference of the hole ( about 3 5cm i n diameter). In g eneral, these d ata f ollow the patterns suggested by the testpits and are presented a s part of the analysis. The posthole and s urface collection data are combined and presented i n Tables 1 , 2 and 1 3. The postholes are numbered 1 through 2 87, the surface collections 2 88-386. Postholes i nclude sherd counts, s ince these were s creened and the artifacts collected. Surface collection potsherds are not counted, s ince the Nohmul Project r esearch design ( under which these collections were made) directed the survey crew to c ollect 1 00 d iagnostic s herds when possible. No attempt was made to acquire a c omplete s ample; s ince most of the collections come f rom l ooters trenches, their origin i s mixed and their q uantity i s not meaningful. The tables 9 3

a lso s how the total postholes per i nterval or q uadrant. They a lso g ive the percentage o f the row t otal t hat i ndividual q uantities r epresent t o normalize the e ffect o f the uneven d istribution o f surface units ( my t erm f or postholes p lus s urface c ollections) with d iagnostic ceramics. The s ite was d ivided i nto north, s outh, east, and west quadrants by drawing a g iant " X" a cross s ite c enter ( the highest point o f the c entral a cropolis), with arms at a 4 5 degree a ngle to the s ite grid ( see F igures 1 a nd 1 1). T he most s erious problem with the s ettlement sample i s t he underrepresentation of the e astern quadrant. T his i s a r esult of the f act that the modern villages o f S an P ablo and San Jose and their adjacent f ields have destroyed a nd covered many o f the s tructures i n this part o f Nohmul. Cane harvests during the f our s easons o f settlement work were never l ocated at the s econd k ilometer interval east o f s ite center i n areas f ree o f modern s ettlement. Three excavations were p laced i n and near a damaged group at o ne kilometer e ast, and two more were d ug i n a nonmound area a t three kilometers e ast. Otherwise, the prehistoric f eatures at kilometer i ntervals were i naccessible. Posthole a nd surface c ollections i mprove the p icture of t he eastern s ector only s lightly. I t i s possible that, contrary to my original perception ( Pyburn 1 987), s ettlement does diminish sharply i n this d irection, s ince r econnaissance near t he three k ilometer e ast i nterval l ocated f ew mounds. However, i t i s not possible to be s ure whether this s ituation i s a r esult o f modern disturbance o r an i ndication of a prehistoric pattern, s ince the area s hows s igns o f disturbance by heavy machinery. F ifty-one o f the s eventy-six e xcavations were dug i nto visible mounds ( or the i mmediate vicinity), while 2 5 were placed i n a reas without visible c ultural features. T he excavations l ocated a total of 1 60 s eparate o ccupation f loors. ( The variable " floor" i ncludes p laster a nd packed marl s urfaces, and bedrock s urfaces that c ontained hearths. I t i s a ssumed that even i f the area of t he hearth was not a n o ccupation area, the h earth does e vidence a nearby o ccupation area, s eparate f rom and preceding f loors s tratigraphically " above" bedrock .) The s ample d iscussed here a lso r efers to 2 87 postholes and 9 9 surface collections c ombined i nto a s ample o f 3 86 surface units. The d ata under d iscussion i n this and s ubsequent chapters are presented i n a s et of tables at t he end o f this Chapter. As d iscussed a t l ength i n Chapter Two, there i s an i mportant d ifference between s tatistical s ignificance and cultural s ignificance. B ecause the Nohmul d ata s et makes no c laim to c onstitute a r epresentative s ample, i t c annot c laim a c orrelation between s tatistical s ignificance and cultural patterns. On the other hand, patterns represented by too small a s ample to s how s tatistical s ignificance may s till have i mportant cultural c orrelates. Therefore, minor variations i n d ata will be discussed here

9 4

alongside distributions that d isplay s tatistical significance, without g iving s pecial weight to s tatistical trends. Whenever the s ample permitted, Chi Square s ignificance tests were performed, however, and these are presented on the t ables themselves.

Part I :

Artifact D istributions:

C hronological

Summary

The f irst q uestion i s how the d ifferent periods o f Nohmul's occupation were r epresented at e ach i nterval and in e ach quadrant. Table 2 shows c ounts of the number of f loors discovered i n e ach excavation and the date of each f loor. In table 4 A.1 are s ummary counts of the total number of periods r epresented i n e ach excavation, each of which i s not r epresented by an i ndividual f loor, a s well a s an enumeration o f these dates f or e ach excavation. The Preclassic The earliest evidence f or occupation at Nohmul comes f rom the l atter part of the Early Preclassic Period ( Zact' an Xe 9 00-650 B .C.). D ata f rom this period c ome f rom P latforms 1 31, 9 40 and 5 06, a ll l ocated between 1 .6 and 1 .9 k ilometers f rom Nohmul's central acropolis. These p latforms are north, northwest, and south of s ite center, s o no early " area" was l ocated ( Figure 4 ). In two of these e xcavations, Testpits 1 ( Platform 1 31) and 6 4 ( Platform 9 40), the Early Preclassic material was f ound i n a ssociation with bedrock hearths, and i n a ll three cases the early material was mixed with Middle and Late P reclassic pottery. Excavation 7 4 was only a shovel test i nto the surface of a P latform 5 06, so the nature of this unusual deposit c annot be e valuated. Manufacture and use o f the Z act'an Xe ceramic style ( redesignated f rom the r ecent excavations at Cuello, H ammond p .c.) may predate the c onstruction of the central a cropolis by a s much as 1 000 years. Only small r edeposited q uantities of L ate Early Preclassic pottery were f ound i n t he central area ( Hammond et a l. 1 988), suggesting that t he point designated as s ite center by the Late Preclassic a cropolis may not have been the c enter of anything during t he Late Early P reclassic. One posthole and one surface c ollection at three kilometers west of s ite center and two s urface collections at s lightly under one kilometer n ortheast contained Late Early Preclassic material ( see F igure 4 ). Middle P reclassic ( Dzuluinicob Mamom 6 50-400 B .C. and P uncuy T zec Mamom-Chicanel Transitional 4 00-300

9 5

B .C.)[1]pottery i s more c ommon, occurring i n twelve of the seventy-six excavations, twelve surface collections, and one posthole ( Figures 5 ). F ive of the testpit occurrences are within the central k ilometer of the s ettlement excavations, f ive are i n the s econd i nterval, and two are over two and one half k ilometers f rom Nohmul's Late Preclassic s ite c enter. I n a ll but one of the twelve excavations ( Testpit 3 0), the Middle Preclassic pottery occurs with Late Preclassic pottery, suggesting a continuity of occupation. Ten s urface collections were f rom within the central kilometer r adius ( 1 - 1 .5 km) and two were f rom the outer kilometer ( >2.5 km ). The p osthole was dug a t three k ilometers north. F ifty-one of the s eventy-six excavations c ontained Late Preclassic ( Colmotz and Cancanilla Chicanel B C 3 00 to AD 3 00) pottery. Kosakowsky ( p.c.) has i nitiated f aceting Chicanel at Nohmul i nto Colmotz: 3 00 BC to 2 50 AD, and Cancanilla: 2 50 to 3 00 AD. Cancanilla was i dentified i n twelve l ots f rom s ix testpits ( 32, 3 3, 4 2, 5 1, 56, a nd 6 4), a ll of which a lso contain Colmotz. The discussion o f Nohmul's Preclassic d istributions i nclude both the C olmotz and the C ancanilla l ots, because there i s such a small quantity, the f aceting i s i ncomplete, and the descriptions are unpublished. However, C ancanilla d istributions w ill be discussed s eparately f or c omparison with the chronologically overlapping Freshwater-Floral Park Protoclassic l ots. The f ifty-one excavations containing Late Preclassic ceramics were s cattered over the s ite, with twenty-two i n the north, nineteen i n the s outh, e ight i n the west a nd two in the east ( which i s underrepresented, s ee Table 1 0). This uneven distribution can be s omewhat normalized by calculating each quantity a s a percentage of the total samples i n each quadrant. Normalizing these figures to neutralize the effect of the uneven d istribution s hows a s outhern concentration, with an a lmost equal concentration in the north. Combined, the absolute counts of postholes and s urface c ollections show a greater c oncentration i n the north, with f orty-five i n that s ector a s compared to f ourteen i n the s outh, twenty-one i n t he west, and n ine in the e ast ( Table 4B s hows this difference to be significant at the P=.05). This d istribution i s r elatively even when the counts are normalized a s a percent o f the total s ample units ( surface collections p lus postholes) per quadrant. The i nterval distribution of Chicanel i n testpits i s i rregular, with n ineteen i n the c entral kilometer, twelve i n the second, and twenty i n the third ( see F igure 6 ). This could be an artifact of s ample s ize, but the same p attern

1 . The small amount o f Mamom f rom Nohmul i s combined with material i dentified a s Mamom-Chicanel Transitional i n this discussion. 9 6

o f a drop in the c entral k ilometer i s i ndicated by the p osthole and s urface c ollection data ( Table 1 ) a nd c ompares with d ata f rom l ater periods. ( The c ontrast o f patterns will b e discussed i n the c oncluding s ection of this c hapter.) N ormalizing the d ata f rom s urface units by c alculating the p ercent o f the total c ollections r epresented a t k ilometer intervals s hould k eep the d ifferential s pread o f the c ollections f rom o bscuring a pattern. However, refiguring does not c hange the p icture o f Chicanel i nterval s pread much, c onfirming that the s lightly l arger concentration i s a way f rom s ite c enter ( Table 1 ). O f the 1 60 s eparate f loors i dentified i n the seventy-six excavations, f ourteen were dated to the L ate Preclassic ( Table 6 C s hows the d istribution to be s ignificant at P = . 01). Although this i s a very small total, i f the f loors are s eparated by i nterval, they f ollow the p attern s uggested by the posthole/surface c ollection data a nd the general occurrences o f L ate Preclassic i n the testpits. The d ata are probably not s trong enough to support an a rgument that s ettlement d ensity was actually lowest at the s econd k ilometer r adius during this period; it s eems l ikely t hat s ettlement was evenly s pread over the site a nd not concentrated around the c enter. This has interesting i mplications f or the P reclassic f unction o f the central acropolis, s ince a lmost a ll of i ts massive structures were c onstructed during this period. T en i nstances o f L ate Preclassic c eramics c ame f rom nonmound excavations, but only one o f these, TP 5 9, included a L ate P reclassic l iving s urface. This excavation encountered a g round s urface c ache containing f ive Colmotz-Chicanel c auldrons and i s a highly unusual configuration. The other f ourteen L ate Preclassic f loors were i nside l ater mounded c onstructions. Ten o f these, i f they h ad been l eft without benefit o f s ubsequent mounds and not d estroyed, would have been nonplatform " invisible" structures, s ix were a ctually bedrock surfaces i ndicated either by hearths or by p laster l ayers deposited d irectly on b edrock. At Barton Ramie, the s hortage o f P reclassic s tructures in c omparison t o the a bundance o f c eramics f rom e arly periods suggested to Willey ( et a l. 1 965) that Preclassic structures were n ot adequately r epresented i n his s ample. He t hought perhaps the e arliest s tructures had been ground surface dwellings. At Nohmul, the s ame pattern exists o f few P reclassic s tructures or f loors, but a bundant C hicanel ceramics. The known L ate Preclassic f eatures are not just " on" the ground, but f requently " in" the ground, i n bedrock. I do not i nterpret this to i ndicate a k ind o f " troglodyte" existence f or Preclassic i nhabitants. B edrock usage was apparently f airly c ommon, s ince twenty-eight

9 7

i nstances o f bedrock modification were uncovered in the 7 6 excavations, but these protected f eatures were probably d ifferentially preserved ( in c ases where bedrock modification was e vident, but not a ssociated with a hearth, i t was a ssumed to be mining f or construction materials a nd not c ounted a s a l iving s urface). Most l ikely, t he majority of e phemeral ground s urface s tructures have b een eroded away or r ecycled i nto the f ill of o ther buildings, whereas abandoned s tructures that s tood on p reexisting p latforms were s imply r eused i n s itu. Remodeling a bandoned buildings probably m eant t hat i nterior f loors had eroded away and that e arlier a nd l ater d eposits became mixed, making i t i mpossible for t he archaeologist t o determine the e arliest c onstruction d ate of the building. F or e xample, a house builder m ight l ocate a n a bandoned p latform a nd l evel i ts surface by knocking down what r emained o f the eroding s uperstructure a nd c overing i t with a l ayer o f midden f ill f rom n earby m ore r ecently occupied a reas. This would create o ne of t he typical Maya mixed s tructural f ill l ayers that commonly i ncludes bits o f building s tone, p laster and p ottery f rom s everal periods. I n s um, no c entralization i s e vident i n any phase o f the Preclassic, despite the f act that the m onumental architecture o f the c entral a cropolis was built a t the e nd of the L ate Preclassic. This l eads me to suspect that t he population d istribution probably c hanged over the 1 500 years i ncluded i n the P reclassic and may h ave been nucleated by the e nd o f the L ate Preclassic. This kind o f change would be o bscured by the l ength of the period. T he c lustering s uggested a t the i nner and outer k ilometer i ntervals may n ot r eflect a c ontemporaneous distribution. P opulations do s eem to be s omewhat c oncentrated i n a north/south l ine i n the Preclassic. Very f ew i ntact P reclassic l iving surfaces w ere f ound and a high percentage o f these were on the ground surface or i n bedrock. When viewed i n c onjunction with the f act that the period i s extremely well represented by r edeposited c eramics, this s trongly suggests that Preclassic f loors have r arely been preserved. They appear to have been predominantly ground-surface c onstructions, s o were probably vulnerable to destruction by natural processes and r ecycling. The Protoclassic Twenty-one or l ess than one third of t he Nohmul e xcavations c ontain P rotoclassic pottery, with e leven ( 50%) o f these o ccurring i n the north q uadrant, eight in t he s outh, two i n the west and none i n the e ast ( Figure 7 ). Normalizing these c ounts s till s hows a s light northern c oncentration. F ifteen postholes a nd surface c ollections c ontained P rotoclassic, with e leven i n the north and f our i n the west q uadrant; normalized s urface units shows a 9 8

similar c oncentration i n the n orth ( see F igure 2 ). A concentration north o f s ite c enter c onforms with what would be e xpected, s ince Structure 2 77, which yielded the Protoclassic material r eported by Anderson and C ook ( 1940), is i n this area. I t i s s urprising that neither TP 8 , that was d ug into a s tructure that s hared a p latform with Structure 2 77, n or any o f the excavations i n nearby Platform 9 40 y ielded Protoclassic pottery. Testpits i ndicate a decrease i n density between the inner ( lkm = 5 2%) and outer ( 3km = 3 8%) i ntervals, with a drop to 9 .5% at t he two k ilometer i nterval ( Table 5 ). 6 0% of P rotoclassic m aterial l ocated by postholes and s urface collections i s l ocated i n the i nner k ilometer, but this i s probably due to s urface c ollections made available by the looting of l arge buildings near the s ite c enter and the uneven distribution o f the c ollections. The s ample i s too small to make normalizing i t worth while. Only f our f loors ( excavations 1 4, 2 1, and 4 2) could be securely dated to this period, two were i n the groups excavated a t one k ilometer s outh, and the o ther two were both in TP 4 2 a t three k ilometers west ( Table 6 C excludes protoclassic f rom the Chi Square c alculation due to i nsufficient s ample s ize). As i n the Preclassic, these data are too f ew to s upport e laborate explanatory s chemes. However, they do s uggest a general s pread of population over the s ite a rea, with, perhaps, a c oncentration i n the north within a k ilometer of the 2 77 Group. S ince the f loors are s ignificantly outnumbered by the i nstances o f P rotoclassic i n r ecycled f ill l ayers, i t i s possible that the Protoclassic i s l ess well preserved and r epresented i n the Nohmul s ample than l ater periods. If the f loor a t the base of TP 1 4 i s a Protoclassic f loor, and I am i nclined to doubt that i t i s, then i t would h ave been i nvisible, s ince i t has no p latform. I t was d ated as Protoclassic, s ince there i s Freshwater-Floral P ark material i n the l ayer a bove i t, mixed with Chicanel. ( The f loor i tself a nd the l ayer below i t are s terile.) I t w as given the l ater date a s a c onservative e stimate. The o ther three P rotoclassic f loors were built above Preclassic s tructures, and would have been visible even without l ater a rchitecture a bove them. The Nohmul P rotoclassic has been described to overlap c hronologically with Terminal or C ancanilla Chicanel ( Laura K osakowsky p .c.); both date to 2 50-300 AD. However, in the s ix excavations where i t has been i dentified, C ancanilla o nly occurs i n t he s ame l ots with Protoclassic material t wice. B oth a re i nstances of mixed f ill l ayers, and the TP 4 2 stratigraphy i s i nteresting i n this r egard. The c onstruction begins with c lean C olmotz l ayers, then l ayers c ontaining a mix o f C olmotz and C ancanilla are deposited. T he next two l ayers o f s ubfloor f ill contain C ancanilla m ixed with F reshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic) and are s urfaced by a p laster f loor that c ontains only F reshwater. 9 9

In subsequent l ayers, Freshwater i s mixed w ith E arly C lassic and l ater s tyles. The i mplication of this sequence i s that Freshwater i s a s eparate phase that o ccurs a t the end of Cancanilla. An a lternative might be that Protoclassic material at Nohmul had a culturally restricted usage. T his would account f or the f act that, a lthough contemporary, Freshwater and Cancanilla rarely o ccur together i n the s ame l ots i n the s ettlement. Where they do, ( two cases) i t may be that f ill f rom different s ite a reas was mixed, as i n the case of TP 4 2, the Protoclassic " use" of the building c ame a fter i ts Cancanilla " use". This would also e xplain the f act that excavations near the l ocus of the s pectacular Protoclassic f inds of P latform 2 77 f ailed to d iscover a ny s imilar material. This might a lso explain why, although the central acropolis at Nohmul i s i tself a C ancanilla period construction ( obsidian hydration date: AD 3 00, Hammond et a l. 1 988), a relatively small proportion of Freshwater-Floral Park ( Protoclassic) material has been discovered i n the central precinct. In sum, the small amount o f Protoclassic d ata available suggests a s light c oncentration i n the north sector and a bimodal distribution between inner and outer kilometer i ntervals. Freshwater i s f airly well r epresented f or such a brief period, but very f ew l iving surfaces were f ound f rom this date. This may s imply r esult f rom use of most of the l arger buildings ( with which P rotoclassic pottery i s usually a ssociated) f or l onger than the 50 year period. Alternatively, Protoclassic f loors may be differentially preserved or underrepresented in t he Nohmul s ample. A f inal possibility i s that Protoclassic ceramics had a special f unction at Nohmul a nd were used o nly under particular c ircumstances, causing them to have a very l imited distribution. The f act that the Protoclassic h as been argued to l ast much l onger a nd to have a different cultural s ignificance at other s ites ( cf. Barton Ramie, Willey et a l. 1 965, Altar de Sacrificios, Adams 1 971) d oes not a lter the possibility of a restricted usage o r shorter chronological s pan at Nohmul. The Early C lassic Holpatin-Tzakol ( 300-650 AD ) c eramics were present i n 2 9 or 3 8% of the 7 6 excavations ( Figure 8 ). Quadrant distributions ( Table 1 0) s how a distinct c lustering in the north, with or without normalization. Surface units ( Table 2 ) s uggest c lustering i n the e ast, but the quantities ( a total of 1 7) are too small to be conclusive. The concentration of Early C lassic material d ecreases f rom 1 1 to 6 ( 17%) f rom the f irst t o the s econd k ilometer, then i ncreases to 1 2 ( 41%), reflecting the same p attern o f decreased settlement i n the central kilometer that i s present i n the data f rom the Pre- a nd Protoclassic ( Figure 9 ). The s eventeen surface units with Early C lassic data a re

1 00

mostly centralized w ith s ixteen i n the c entral kilometer, one i n the second, a nd none i n the outer interval ( Figure 1 ). O nly 1 5 f loors ( 9% o f the total f loors f ound, T able 1 1) were identified a s E arly C lassic, the s ame number a s attributed to the L ate Preclassic. These were concentrated in the northern quadrant, but e venly s pread through the kilometer i ntervals. F ive of these f loors were built directly on the a ncient A-Horizon and would have been invisible without l ater c onstruction. O nly f our o f t he 2 5 nonmound excavations contained Early C lassic pottery, and one of these ( TP 3 2) was a refuse pit that contained no evidence of structures, but was n ear at l east o ne visible Early C lassic s tructure ( TP 3 3). The Early C lassic deposit in TP 7 6 i s mostly determined by the presence of a Monkey F alls Striated jar found i n s itu in a hearth. The hearth was cut i nto a chronologically unmixed L ate C lassic l ayer, suggesting that the Monkey Falls type has a l ater occurrence at Nohmul than at B arton Ramie where i t was originally i dentified ( Kosakowsky, p .c.). This conclusion i s supported by the occurrence of a s econd Monkey F alls s triated jar, a lso placed in a cut that penetrated a purely Late C lassic F loor in TP 45. However , Early C lassic does occur i n s ome quantities i n l ater TP 4 5 excavation l ots. This amounts to a positive identification o f Early C lassic nonmound occupation i n the a rea, s ince no mounded s tructures are near enough to provide garbage. Early C lassic a lso o ccurs i n TP 6 1, and i s probably the d ate of the o riginal ground surface occupation o f the TP 6 1 area. So, t he existence of Early C lassic nonplatform occupation i s s ecure, even though the quantities f rom the present sample a re too small to make confident judgments about the extent o f an " invisible" Early C lassic population in N orthern Belize. I t i s possible that a l arger s ample of nonmound s tructures would diminish the apparent abruptness of t he Early C lassic population drop in Northern B elize. It i s certain that f our, or 1 4% of the i nstances of Early Classic would not have been uncovered at Nohmul i f nonmound occupation had not been s ampled. One third of the Early Classic f loors were ground surface constructions; this i s a higher percentage of i nvisible f loors than was f ound f or any other period e xcept the L ate Preclassic, i n which 6 6% of t he f loors were " invisible". In sum, the small quantity o f Early C lassic data suggests the s ame bimodal d istribution and c lustering i n the north sector a s i dentified i n e arlier periods. The l ow number of Early C lassic f loors may be the r esult o f actual population decline, s ample bias, use of a l arge percentage on nonmound ephemeral housing during this period, or any combination of these three f actors.

1 01

The L ate C lassic S antana-Tepeu 1 a nd 2 at Nohmul will be S antana-Zonauil and S antana-Noh Ukum, r espectively, but are currently s ubsumed a s L ate C lassic with the c ombined date o f AD 6 50-800. Thirty-three, or 4 3% of the Nohmul testpits contained L ate C lassic pottery ( Figure 9 ). T he density of occupation debris i s greatest i n the west sector, with a s econdary c oncentration i n the n orth q uadrant, reversing the trend s hown i n e arlier periods Table 1 0). Normalized s urface unit data ( Table 2 ) f ollow this pattern by s howing a s econdary c oncentration i n the west, but suggest a s hift i n the primary concentration f rom the north to the e astern quadrant. This i s doubtful, s ince so f ew collections are available f rom this a rea. C eramic densities i ncrease s teadily with d istance f rom s ite c enter, s tarting at e ight ( 24%) i n the f irst interval, and going through e leven ( 33%) a t the s econd to f ourteen ( 42%) i nstances a t the o uter d istance ( Table 9 ). This gradual i ncrease i s d ifferent f rom the patterns seen in other periods, when o ccupation d oes not show c lear t rends and may have been more even. Absolute c ounts of s urface units i ndicate a much greater concentration of L ate C lassic i n the i nnermost k ilometer. Normalizing these f igures by calculating them a s percentages o f the total s urface u nits at each i nterval does not change this pattern ( see F igure 1 ). So, a lthough only 1 8% o f the s urface units contained Late C lassic c eramics, the d ensity shows a d rop i n the center and a r ise i n the o uter k ilometer, paralleling the pattern i ndicated i n e arlier periods. Thirty-four or 2 1% of the 1 60 f loors in the N ohmul s ettlement s ample d ate to the L ate C lassic. These are concentrated i n the n orth s ector a nd the outer kilometer, with a drop i n the s econd kilometer interval. Recalculating these d istributions a s a percentage o f the total f loors f or e ach i nterval enhances this pattern, showing 2 7% i n the f irst k ilometer, 1 5% i n the s econd, and 3 5% i n the outer k ilometer. N ormalized quadrant f igures show L ate C lassic f loors to be e venly distributed, with a l ow point i n the s outh, which f ollows the distribution of data i n s urface units. S ix o f these Late Classic f loors were nonplatform surfaces. One o f these was l ocated a t the three k ilometer i nterval i n the west quadrant, the o ther f our were i n the north s ector; one a t two kilometers n orth, the o ther three at three k ilometers north. T hese l atter three were the o nly nonmound tests that produced recognizable L ate C lassic d ata. Although twenty-one o f the thirty-three excavations c ontaining L ate C lassic c eramics a lso contained E arly C lassic, only three o f the L ate C lassic f loors o ccur w ith e arlier f loors. I n a ll three c ases the e arlier f loors are E arly C lassic. This s uggests t hat a lthough L ate C lassic houses were built i n the vicinity of Early C lassic s tructures, there was a r elatively small d egree of 1 02

reoccupation of t he s ame p latforms. However, the thirty-four L ate C lassic f loors occur i n only s ixteen different t estpits. S ix excavations had a s ingle L ate Classic f loor, t en had two or more. This s uggests that reoccupation a nd r emodeling o f the s ame p latform or occupation area were f requent within the period. I n sum, L ate C lassic o ccupation s eems to s hift f rom clustering i n the n orth s ector to i ncreased density i n the west. Excavations a t k ilometer i ntervals s how a s teady increase i n population d ensity moving out f rom the s ite center toward t he periphery, a lso unlike e arlier periods. However, s urface u nits a nd f loors s how the s ame bimodal distribution a s e arlier o ccupations. The l ack of consistent reoccupation o f Early C lassic buildings by Late C lassic people s uggests that many Early C lassic s tructures may h ave been r ecycled i nto the f ill o f L ate C lassic buildings or l eft exposed to erode away i n the tropical atmosphere. The Terminal C lassic Forty-four ( 59%) o f the testpits produced Tecep ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic: AD 8 00-100) c eramics ( Figure 1 0). I t s hould be noted that twelve o f the excavations that d id not c ontain Terminal C lassic, contained no d iagnostic material whatever, other than unknown C lassic. I f the percent of T erminal C lassic i s calculated without these twelve p its, the percentage i ncreases to 6 9%. ( Similar i ncreases would occur f or earlier periods i f the twelve e xcavations were dropped. However, a s most o f these are i n nonmound areas and s everal contain f loors, I preferred not to exclude them f rom c alculations.) C learly, evidence f rom this period i s most c ommon a t Nohmul, a s would be expected, s ince i t i s the most recent. A ll f ive excavations i n the east quadrant yielded Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic pottery, but the s ample i s s o s mall i t i s probably n ot c orrect to a ssume a 1 00% Terminal C lassic o ccupation i n this s ector ( Table 1 0). However, normalized s urface unit data ( Table 2 ) a lso show a c oncentration i n the e ast quadrant. Surface unit c oncentrations i n the s outh and west ( normalized, s ee p ercentages, T able 2 ) a re s imilar, but there i s a notable d rop in the n orth. This apparent d ecrease i s probably meaningful, s ince the n orth s ector i s well r epresented i n the sample, even though the testpit data s how a more even d istribution. The r adial d istributions o f c eramic types ( Table 9 ) s how the s ame e venness a s the d istributions i n earlier p eriods, with a l esser drop i n the s econd k ilometer than i s present i n a ll p eriods but the L ate C lassic. Surface units p ercentages a re a bout e ven between the f irst and s econd i ntervals, but d rop by 1 4% i n the third ( Table 1 ). Table 1 1 s hows t he d istribution o f f loors. S ixty-nine o r 4 3% o f the f loors d ate to this p eriod. Unlike the Late

1 03

C lassic data, which s how a s teady i ncrease in n umbers o f f loors moving outward f rom s ite center, t he Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic f loors r ise moderately from the f irst to the s econd i nterval, and t hen decrease by a lmost 5 0% f rom the s econd to the third k ilometer interval. As noted, the d ata f rom testpits are e venly s pread over the i ntervals, but the d ates provided by s urface units support the density d ecrease a t the third k ilometer s uggested by the f loor c ounts. By quadrant, the f loors are v ery evenly d istributed. S eventeen or a bout o ne f ourth o f the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic f loors were ground surface constructions. Although only 8 e xcavations ( mound a nd nonmound) contained both L ate and T erminal Classic f loors, thirty-six excavations contained b oth L ate and Terminal C lassic c eramics. In a ll but f our i nstances L ate Classic f loors without Terminal C lassic f loors above did h ave Terminal C lassic pottery a bove the l ast remaining f loor, meaning that the f inal Terminal C lassic occupation f loor(s) had eroded away. The i mplication o f this i s that Terminal C lassic i nhabitants were l iving i n r oughly the s ame areas a s their L ate C lassic f orebears, occupying the s ame p latforms when they were available, but more f requently occupying new a reas without building new p latforms. S ince Terminal C lassic s tructures c onsistently reoccupy L ate C lassic s tructures, i n f act, i t i s t he surface l eveling o f e arlier c onstructions that creates many platforms, t he i ncrease i n ground s urface c onstructions may i ndicate a n a ctual population i ncrease. Only t hree Late Classic f loors were f ound to be built over f loors f rom e arlier periods; s eventeen Terminal C lassic f loors were built over earlier f loors. This i ssue i s d iscussed more f ully i n Chapter F ive. This i ncrease over the Late C lassic percentage i s i nteresting i n l ight of two excavations in t he north s ector: TP 4 5 and TP 6 1. Both encountered nonmound occupations that s panned both the E arly and the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic. The a rea around TP 45 was apparently i n u se during the Terminal C lassic, s ince pottery f rom this period i s a bundant a bove the L ate C lassic f loor, a nd a T erminal C lassic burial was p laced i n a hole dug through the L ate C lassic house f loors. However, t he house i tself does not a ppear to have been occupied in t he Terminal C lassic, s ince i ts a ssociated m idden i s exclusively f rom the L ate C lassic. TP 6 1, on t he other hand, exposed a s eries of nonplatform f loors f rom several periods s uperimposed i n a s ingle a rea. The f inal Terminal C lassic occupation of this s pot was a bove both E arly a nd L ate C lassic o ccupation l ayers, and had a ccumulated s ome height f rom the buildup o f e arlier f loors and cultural debris, a lthough i t i s s till n ot visible f rom t he ground s urface and I would not c all i t a p latform.

the

Another possible i ndication o f p opulation Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic may

1 04

i ncrease i n be in the

s uperposition of T erminal C lassic f loors. S ixteen o f the t estpits with Terminal C lassic f loors had more than one T erminal Classic f loor. I n f act, f ive excavations had two T erminal Classic f loors, three had three, s even had f our, a nd one had f ive. T his much r eoccupation within a 2 00 year period may i ndicate a s hortage of new building s pots, due e ither t o a change i n the s ystem o f l and tenure, a change i n the s ocial or e conomic r elations between g enerations, or both ( see Chapter F ive). A lternatively, i t might i ndicate i ncreased affluence. T hirty-one o f t he f orty-four testpits with Terminal C lassic pottery a lso c ontained L ate Preclassic pottery. This i s partly due t o the s imple f act that Chicanel and Tecep a re the most w ell r epresented types i n the s ettlement sample. It i s a lso p ossible that s ince there are more Terminal Classic s tructures, they are l ikely to i ncorporate more e arly material by i ncorporating a l arger overall volume of f ill. ( This could explain the shortage of i ntact Preclassic house f loors, s ince the e arlier a building was built, the more l ikely i t i s to have been reused.) A f inal possibility i s suggested by a comparison of the percentages of i nvisible f loors f rom the Early, Late, and Terminal C lassic. Of the three periods, ground surface o ccupations were m ost common i n the Early C lassic, and l east common i n the L ate C lassic. This pattern may r epresent an i ncrease in t he preference f or p latform based houses over time obscured by sheer population i ncrease i n the Terminal Classic. O ne explanation f or s uch a change i n preference has been s uggested by M iksicek ( p.c.), who l inks evidence of changes in s ea l evel with a r ise i n the s urface o f ground water that may have a ffected the r aised f ield s ystem i n Pulltrouser Swamp. Such a c hange could have resulted i n an increased area o f s tanding water i n bajos and i ncreased drainage problems. Emphasis on the occupation of high spots in local topography may f luctuate with ground water changes. F or e xample, TP 4 5 uncovered a Late C lassic nonplatform house a t an e levation of 5 .51. There i s no Terminal C lassic f loor a bove the Late C lassic building. The T erminal C lassic F loor i n nearby excavation TP 6 1 i s close to 4 0 c entimeters h igher, partly f rom taking advantage o f the h igher e levation provided by debris f rom earlier occupations. I n s um, Terminal C lassic o ccupation s eems to shift emphasis to the p oorly s ampled e astern quadrant, with a distinct drop f rom e arlier periods i n o ccupation of the north sector. P ottery f rom this period i s evenly s pread over the two i nner k ilometer i ntervals, but a ppears to decrease a t the o uter k ilometer. This may be r elated to the f act that nonplatform o ccupation i s concentrated i n the outer kilometer d uring this period. These ground surface structures are d ifficult to l ocate and do not produce surface s catters a s p latform s tructures do. The degree o f reoccupation of L ate C lassic and Terminal C lassic buildings

1 05

i n the Terminal

P art I I:

C lassic i mplies p opulation

Artifact D istribution:

i ncrease.

S ummary by S ite Area

The amount of data n eeded t o measure t he range of variation i n any a spect of the material c ulture o f a c omplex s ociety i s enormous. C learly, the sample discussed here, a s with most s ettlement s amples, i s very s mall. Still, this s tudy has s hown types of v ariation in prehistoric Maya population c oncentrations and in s ettlement f orm that are outside the domain of many s ettlement s tudies, by f ocusing o n o ccupational variables most s tudies i gnore. When data o f more than o ne type s eem to point i n the s ame d irection, some tentative generalizations a bout Nohmul's prehistoric c ommunity are possible. Quadrants The s ettlement d ata were d ivided i nto q uadrants to determine whether s ettlement around the c eremonial precinct was even, and, i f not, how s ettlement might b e a ffected by outlying f eatures such a s the c ommunities of S an Luis and S an Victor, the Rio Hondo, and t he northern bajos. I f, f or example, r elations with S an L uis were n ot friendly, s ettlement i n the s outh s ector m ight be expected t o be thin. Or, i f Nohmul's e conomy was f ocused on r iver traffic, the western s ector might be heavily o ccupied. Nohmul's mounded f eatures t hat have been mapped are not evenly s pread over the territory o f the s ite, but are concentrated i n f ive areas. F igure 2 s hows the l ocation of the areas with l arge c oncentrations of f eatures. Clusters have been outlined to s uggest groupings. ( The central k ilometer has not been i ncluded i n the groupings on the map, s ince i t was not i ncluded i n the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project.) A lthough this i s c learly an i nterpretation, the data do s uggest neighborhoods. T his point i s emphasized i n F igure 1 1, which p resents the average number o f mounds i n e ach quadrant. T he greatest density i s i n the north, w ith a n a verage of ten, while the west and s outh e ach have e ight, a nd the east s even. But did this type of s ectoring exist i n a ll periods and f or nonplatform s tructures? The Nohmul data s et i s i mperfect f or answering t his question f or two r easons. F irst, d ifferential p reservation of r emains i s not c ontrollable. Some features, l ike Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic house f loors and L ate Preclassic l imestone b lock p latforms are better preserved than Preclassic ground s urface f loors or L ate C lassic extramural hearths, and a re overrepresented i n t he sample. Second, the eastern q uadrant i s e specially underrepresented

1 06

due t o the modern o ccupations o f S an Jose a nd S an P ablo. Still, with these s erious qualifications, i t i s possible t o see s ome i nteresting patterns i n these data. T he north s ector has the greatest or s econd greatest concentration i n a ll periods, except a s s hown by T erminal C lassic concentrations i n s urface units ( see Table 2 ), which are c oncentrated i n the e ast and west. S ince these collections pertain to the l ast o ccupation of the s ite, they c ould i ndicate the areas l east densely occupied, where midden material was not c arted o ff or covered by the l ast phase of architecture. The a verage number of f loors per testpit i s greatest i n the west ( Table 5 B), but this i s undoubtedly due t o the c oncentration o f nonmound o ccupation i n t he north s ector i n which three excavations had only o ne occupation s urface. No s ingle ground surface f loors were l ocated i n the west, s o none were t ested. S imilarly, the s outh sector s ample i ncludes the unsuccessful r esults o f s ix n onmound tests i n a reas with s urface c oncentrations. Adjusting f or the s ingle f loor excavations i n the n orth a nd the f loorless p its i n the s outh, the north s ector a lso has the g reatest n umber o f f loors per testpit, suggesting that this area was the most c ontinuously occupied throughout Nohmul's history. According t o both s urface units and testpits, L ate Preclassic, Protoclassic, and Early C lassic are a ll most a bundant i n the north, and have s econdary concentrations s outh of s ite c enter. This l inear pattern takes on a more westerly emphasis i n the L ate C lassic, which continues i n the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic ( ignoring the e astern c oncentrations s uggested by the unreliable surface unit sample f rom this area). The highest e levations are i n t he south ( and, p erhaps, the e ast), which i ndicates that preferred o ccupation s ites were not determined s olely by e levation, a f inding echoed by s everal group excavations ( e.g., c ompare TP 4 9 with TP 5 0, s ee Chapter Three). Since these e arly o ccupations are present a ll the way t o the e dge o f t he bajos i n the north, they may i ndicate a s trong positive r elationship with the s ite of S an Victor. I n f act, L ate P reclassic artifacts are a s widespread a s T erminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic artifacts in a ll q uadrants ( though l ess a bundant). Surface collections f rom l ooters' trenches i n the S an Luis s ite c enter ( Leah Minc, p .c.) a nd test excavations o f the s ettlement of S an Victor ( Laura J . L evi p .c.) i ndicate that these s ites were o ccupied a s e arly a s Nohmul. As will be discussed i n t he n ext section, t his i mplies that r elations between the three s ettlements were a t l east f riendly, i f n ot dominated by N ohmul. The western s ector has by f ar the l owest e levation on t he site, e specially s ince a ll e xcavations ( which are the l oci of the e levation r eadings averaged to get the f igures i n Table 5 B) i n this s ector were p laced i n visible mounds. C oupled with t he f act that e xcavations i n the west were

1 07

deeper than those i n o ther s ectors ( meaning that d epth t o bedrock i s greater ), this f inding s uggests s everal possibilities a bout ground s urface f eatures. First, nonplatform o ccupation may not have b een f ound in p ostholes i n this s ector because they are too deeply buried. Alternatively, the l ow ground s urface may be s ubject t o f looding that e ither prevented ground s urface building i n this quadrant, or prevented l ow non-masonry s tructures f rom being preserved. Ground s urface f loors and bedrock hearths do o ccur i n this s ector, but were f ound only under l ater platforms. P ohl and B loom ( in press) have suggested the possibility of dramatic c hanges i n r iver l evel in t he Late C lassic. This would explain the l ack of i ntact unprotected nonplatform f loors on Nohmul's r iverine west s ide, but would not explain the i ncreased o ccupation of t he west sector during this period. I ncreased occupation o f the l ower western s ector i n l ater periods might mean e ither a greater o verall population being pushed i nto l ess desirable ( low a nd damp ) house s ites, or a greater emphasis on the r iver , e ither f rom trade or f rom r iverine r esources. These l atter i nclude not only f ish, but a lso agricultural f ields that are l ocated on the Mexican s ide o f t he Rio Hondo. The river may a lso have s erved a s a c onduit f or agricultural produce f rom Nohmul's northern r idged f ield areas, that border on the swamp, and produce f rom Albion I sland, where raised f ields are a bundant ( Pohl and B loom i n press, S iemens 1 982). S ince the r idged f ields a t Albion I sland are thought to have been i n use very e arly ( Puleston 1 977, B loom et a l. 1 983), i t would be extremely i nteresting to know i f population on the i sland drops during the period when Nohmul's s ettlement i ncreases to the west. Unfortunately, the s ignificance o f many o f these i ntrasite distributions will only become c lear i n the l ight o f data f rom neighboring s ites. K ilometer Intervals The s ettlement data were c ollected at i ntervals from s ite c enter to s ee i f proximity to cultural f eatures ( the central acropolis and the neighboring s ites of San Victor and S an Luis), or to topographic f eatures known t o have cultural s ignificance ( the Rio Hondo, the northern bajo containing visible r elic f ields, the n orth-south t rending r idge running the l ength o f most o f Nohmul through the central area)) affected the density o r character o f the settlement. The s eventy-six excavations of the settlement project are much too s mall a s ample of Nohmul's settlement to provide c onclusive answers to these q uestions, b ut they do s uggest s everal i nteresting patterns. S ome o f these f indings r elate to the characteristics o f settlements discussed i n C hapter One. B eginning with the proposition that the s ettlements o f complex s ocieties are o ften c haracterized by neighborhoods or d istricts that vary i n the density, d istribution, and

1 08

f orm o f the s tructures they c ontain, I hypothesized that Nohmul would s how evidence o f such enclaves. Then I developed a technique f or l ocating neighborhoods at Nohmul. I a lso a ssumed that d istance f rom Nohmul's c entral a cropolis would s how changes i n the occupational s tructure, a lthough not necessarily i n o bvious i ndications of s ettlement d ensity such a s visible mounds. F inally, i t s eemed l ikely that N ohmul's outlying f eatures, the r iver, neighboring s ites a nd r idged f ield areas, might have a " centrifugal" i nfluence on Nohmul's s ettlement, resulting i n outlying s ettlement enclaves. A glance at t he s ite map ( or the mound counts presented i n F igure 1 ) shows that Nohmul's visible s ettlement f alls o ff steadily a s one travels away f rom s ite center. D ata d epicted i n F igure 1 3 a lso s uggest " corridors" o f o ccupation that l ead d irectly to the a reas with i mportant outlying f eatures. These denser areas of settlement c onform to s ome extent with the h igher e levations of Nohmul's natural north-south r idge, especially i n the n orth, where the l ine of mounds that extends from s ite c enter to the edge of the northern bajo at 5 00 to 1 000 meters west of s ite datum i s not parallel with t he river but e xtends i n the d irection of the c entral precinct of S an Victor. P latforms may be preferentially s ituated on the r idge f or e levation; they are a lmost certainly differentially preserved due to better drainage and l ess l ikely to b e c overed by a lluviation. As discussed in C hapter Three, e levation i s not a s ure predictor o f the presence of s tructures ( see Table 2 ), but enhances visibility. A s imilar c orridor without corresponding natural e levation e xtends to the r iver on the west and ( probably) to S an L uis, a lthough the l atter area i s l ess completely mapped. The mound c ounts n orth of about two kilometers f rom s ite c enter a re complete, s ince this area i s s urrounded on three s ides by bajo. Another way o f d isplaying the unevenness o f mound distributions a t Nohmul i s presented i n Figure 4 .12, which presents the average number o f mounds at e ach kilometer interval. A c learly nucleated pattern i s i ndicated by the average of s eventeen per 2 50,000 meters square i n the central k ilometer, which drops to e leven a t the s econd interval and 6 i n the outermost area. I f the outer kilometer i s broken down by quadrant, there i s c lear sectoring i n the n orth, with an average of n ine structures per m apped square, while the s outh and west have s even and six r espectively. The underrepresented e ast has only s lightly more than one mound per square at this i nterval. The s haded a reas on F igure 4 .2 are areas where nonplatform tests encountered ground surface f eatures. Nonplatform f loors d iscovered under l ater c onstruction are not i ndicated, s o t his map s hows how f eatures that are completely i nvisible a bove ground today are s patially related to visible s tructures. This map a lone s uggests a reason f or the f act that nonmound areas are not l ocated by

1 09

mound oriented r esearch the edges of the s ite, mounds.

designs; t hey may be p reserved on i n a reas with f ew o r no nearby

What the s ite map does not s how i s whether t he degree o f nucleation i ndicated by mounds was c onstant o ver t ime. The s ettlement d ata i ndicate that i t was not. O n looking at the s ettlement data presented i n these f igures, Hammond noted ( p.c.) that the l ack o f monumental architecture i n the s ite's center between a bout AD 4 00 and 8 00 m ay actually i ndicate periods when Nohmul was not a population center, but an a rea with s cattered c lusters of o ccupation. The third column i n Table 5A g ives the average n umber o f periods per testpit per kilometer i nterval. These f igures summarize a s ituation mentioned a t the start of this chapter: that the o ccupation d ensity o f s everal p eriods, a s i ndicated by both surface units and t estpits, drops in the s econd k ilometer i nterval a nd t hen r ises again in the third. I n a ll but the most poorly r epresented p eriods, the c eramic type c ounts i n the third k ilometer r ise to a density s imilar to or h igher than i s s hown f or t he interior kilometer, s uggesting a b imodal d istribution. T his s uggests exactly the type o f c entrifugal s ettlement expected by the third hypothesis, p erhaps related to t he outlying areas of e conomic i mportance to Nohmul, or to " multiple nuclei". However, this generalization i s made on the basis o f counts o f the presence or a bsence of chronologically d iagnostic types o f pottery. When a bsolute c ounts o f s herds per posthole are tabulated ( Table 1 2), a similar drop i n the s econd kilometer i s a pparent, but t he counts s how a much greater density i n the c entral kilometer t hat i s suggestive o f more nucleation. S everal r easons f or t his c onflicting i nformation are possible. F irst, a s has been pointed o ut succinctly by many a uthors, beginning with J .O. B rew ( 1940), pots are n ot people, nor c an they be taken to s tand d irectly f or t he presence of people. Even i f p ercentages o f sherds correspond to percentages of people, these percentages n eed not be c onstant f or a ll periods. F or example, t he Maya a t Nohmul may have used more gourds a nd baskets i n s ome periods than i n others. Furthermore, i f i t were possible to date plainwares, many of these percentages m ight be r eversed. We know that the percentages of decorated wares versus p lainwares shifted over t ime and s pace, that i s, n o polychromes occur i n the Preclassic a nd f ew in the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic, while the r atio o f plainwares to polychromes a ppears to be h igher i n the m iddens o f nonplatform houses than i n the f ill l ayers of p latforms. The i mportant point here i s that differences in t he d istribution a nd density o f p lainwares m ay have chronological a s well a s f unctional or social s ignificance. The mounds o f undiagnostic potsherds present i n Maya s ites may s how occupation i n areas o r during periods when d ecorated ceramics, but not people, were

1 10

s carce. I t i s probably i ncorrect to a ssume that a ll the i nhabitants o f Nohmul had equal access to ( and need f or ) c eramics, much l ess a ccess to the decorated types that a re chronologically d iagnostic. S ettlement nucleation r efers n ot only to a centralized population, but probably t o the centralization o f s ocial and political power. As a rgued i n Chapter One, s ocial and political power may be symbolized i n the use of s pace. Even i n the i ntensely nucleated and centralized c ity o f Teotihuacan, the l argest, most s umptuous s tructures, and presumably t he most thinly occupied s ince they c ontain l arger and f ewer r ooms ( Millon et a l. 1 973), are i n the center of the s ite, and positioned i n relation to o pen areas a long the " Street of the Dead" so that their dominance i s proclaimed. S imilarly, Maya s ites c enter on huge buildings s itting i n conspicuously l arge empty s paces. Even i f t hese c entral p laces were f illed with markets or pageants, the s tructural arrangement s till i ndicates a c entralization of power. The o ther s ide o f this picture of nucleated power i s the existence o f d ispersed l ower s tatus housing, e ither c lustered a round t he dwellings of higher s tatus i ndividuals o r o n the o utskirts o f town. Visible s tructures i n Maya s ites ( including N ohmul) d o not n ecessarily become smaller a nd l ess i mpressive a s t he d istance i ncreases between them a nd their s ite's c enter, and this has c aused s ome d iscussion o f the p olitical and s ocial l inks between the i nhabitants o f l arge p lazuela groups and the l ocal rulers. S everal authors ( Adams a nd Smith 1 981, Haviland 1 981, Marcus 1 983b) have argued that the s pread of l arger s tructures the presence o f multiple c lusters of s tructures throughout a s ite c orresponds to the s pread of s ocial and political power i n k inship groups. Another way t o a pproach this i ssue would be to l ook c arefully i n areas where visible occupation stops near p latform groups a nd s ite edges. Nonplatform houses c lustered around the e dges o f l arger groups suggest a d ifferent type o f s ocial o rganization than that i mplied by s uch housing c lustered i n s eparate neighborhoods, or on the edges o f the visible s ettlement. The l atter, presumably, i s the i nverse c orrelate of centralized power, while the f ormer would be expected to occur where economic and political s tatus were primarily available through k in t ies. Preindustrial c ities probably i ncluded wide r anges o f variation i n these respects. As Giddens notes, " Although S joberg i s j ustified i n pointing to overall s imilarities that d istinguish traditional c ities f rom modern urbanism, t here i s no doubt he exaggerates their uniformity" ( 1987:37). When the l oci o f i nvisible f loors at d ifferent periods, i ncluding those buried by l ater buildings, are p lotted i n relation to s ite c enter and to platform-based f loors o f the s ame d ate, s ome i nteresting patterns emerge.

1 11

( Figure 4 .3 s hows the d istribution of e xcavations i n r elation to visible f eatures and s ite center; neither the s ize nor the number of excavations i s i ndicated by the s haded areas. This i nformation i s provided i n Table 3 ) The Early and Middle Preclassic are s hown on F igures 4 and 5 . The numbers represent the number o f i nstances o f Early a nd Middle Preclassic l ocated i n e ach 2 50,000 meter square area that were f ound by testpit e xcavations. As a lready n oted i n Chapter Four, i nstances o f t hese d ates s how no particular c lustering, a lthough the map s uggests a r ather l inear north/south d istribution. The numbers are t oo small to suggest actual nucleation or s ectoring. ( No ground s urface f loors were dated to e ither of these e arliest periods.) The f act that the s ite center was probably the most continuously occupied area throughout the habitation of the s ite may have r esulted i n better preservation f or e arlier f eatures buried by l ater buildings. F igure 6 shows the distribution of L ate Preclassic, with s tippled areas i ndicating the l ocations o f nonplatform f loors. Late Preclassic f loors are more widely s pread over the s ite than f inds f rom e arlier periods, and ground s urface f loors are i nterspersed, r ather than c lustered i n a particular area of the s ite. Unfortunately, the L ate Preclassic i s s o l ong i t i s not possible to tell whether i ncreased sectoring and nucleation o ccurred toward the end of the period. As a lready noted, this s eems l ikely, s ince the c entral acropolis was constructed a t the end o f the L ate Preclassic. The distribution of Early C lassic f loors s hown i n F igure 7 shows a l inear d istribution and s uggests s ome s ectoring i n the north, a s a lready d iscussed. The s ix i nstances of Protoclassic f ound at just under one k ilometer s outh of s ite center g ive a vague h int of nucleation, but the total counts are too small to s upport any conclusions. No ground surface f loors of this date were l ocated. The distribution of L ate C lassic f inds ( Figure 8 ) shows a l inear pattern s imilar to that o f the Protoclassic, but more pronounced. There i s a c oncentration i n the north, a lso resembling the Protoclassic. This pattern i s notably different f rom the widespread d istribution o f the L ate Preclassic, and shows no r eal i ndication o f nucleation. Ground surface f loors s eem to e cho the l inear pattern o f the mounded f eatures. F igure 9 shows a s trong Late C lassic pattern o f s ectoring i n the north, and no r eal n ucleation. The Late C lassic s eems s lightly more wide-spread than the Early C lassic. The f igures examined e arlier showed a greater density i n the s ite center by a dding t ogether a ll i nstances l ocated at the s ame i nterval. When the excavations are s hown by i nterval and quadrant, t he distributions l ook s omewhat more even with s lightly g reater c oncentrations a way f rom s ite c enter. I nterestingly, a ll nonplatform f loors dating to the L ate C lassic a re l ocated over two

1 12

k ilometers the s ite.

out

f rom s ite c enter,

near the

outer

edges

of

The Terminal C lassic data presented i n F igure 1 0 s till s how s ome clustering i n the north, but are widespread over the s ite. The l ocations of the Terminal C lassic f loors are r oughly the s ame a s the l oci o f the Late C lassic and ( perhaps even more) s imilar to the Late Preclassic d istributions, but s uggest a degree of nucleation. This c ontrasts with the d istribution of Protoclassic and ( especially) Early C lassic f inds, which show more s ectoring and l ittle nucleation. Invisible f loors dating to this period are clearly l ocated toward the edges of the s ite, i n c ontrast to those o f the Preclassic and Early C lassic, which s how a more general s pread. Although i t i s too s oon to make c laims about e ither the general occurrence or the f unction of Maya nonplatform s tructures, i t s hould be noted that, i n addition to the dated n onmound f loors, Nohmul f loors a ssociated with e ither no pottery, or none that was diagnostic, were a ll located on the edges of the s ite, to the north and east. It i s not possible to tell whether these s tructures had a special nonresidential f unction or were the houses of l ower status workers. They are l ocated near f ields, so they may be f ield houses used only s easonally, or the year round homes of laborers. One key problem i n i nterpreting the distribution and density of ceramic types i n both mound and nonmound areas i s that the periods o f t ime they represent are not of equal l ength. The L ate P reclassic s pans 5 50 years ( AD 3 00-250) during the Colmotz P hase, and 5 0 more i f Cancanilla i s not s eparated out. The E arly C lassic, on the other hand, only l asts 2 50 years ( AD 3 00-550). This means that Early C lassic ceramics represent 4 5% of the time s pan represented by Colmotz-Chicanel, a nd 4 2% of Colmotz and Cancanilla together. Obviously, a drop i n ceramic quantities f rom the Preclassic to the E arly C lassic could result f rom the shorter Early C lassic time s pan. A s imple correction f or this can be tested by calculating 4 2% o f the o ccurrences of Late Preclassic pottery, and comparing that f igure to the Early C lassic counts. By this method, the 5 1 i nstances of Late Preclassic i n testpits become 2 1, the s ame number of i nstances as r ecovered f or the 5 0 year Protoclassic period, and f ewer than the 2 9 i nstances of Early C lassic and the 3 3 from the Late C lassic. Reduced by 5 8%, the Late Preclassic i s represented by only 6 f loors, l ess than half those dated to the Early C lassic, and l ess than one f ifth of those dated to the Late C lassic. These f igures a lone suggest a steady r ise r ather t han the population decline or " hiatus" that has been s uggested f or Nohmul and other Northern Belizean sites during the C lassic Period ( Hammond 1 981:163-4). The l ack o f monumental architecture at Nohmul and other northern B elizean s ites c onstructed during the

1 13

Early C lassic may c orrelate with p opulation with s ociopolitical c hanges i n the r egion.

d ecline,

o r

B ecause the L ate P reclassic p eriod i s so l ong, it may well i ncorporate changes i n r esidence patterns that a re undetectable. F or e xample, s ince t he c onstruction of the c entral a cropolis a t Nohmul dates to the Late P reclassic, i t would be l ogical i f s ettlement w as denser a round s ite c enter during this period. The b imodal distribution o f Late Preclassic pottery s hown i n T able 9A may actually record a change f rom s ettlement c onnected to outlyers l ike the agricultural f ields i n the n orth or the r iver on the west, to an emphasis on the s ite c enter toward the end o f the 5 50 year period. Other f actors a ffecting r elative e stimates o f population density amount to changes i n visibility due to variation i n cultural behavior. As a lready noted, 3 3% o f the ( admittedly f ew ) f loors d ated to the Early Classic qualify a s " invisible", i .e., without l ater platforms a bove them, and would not have been mounds, and, perhaps, would not have been preserved. I f the L ate Preclassic f loors a re decreased by 5 8%, this i s the l argest percentage o f i nvisible f loors f rom any period. The numbers i nvolved a re too small to argue f or percentages, but do s uggest that more testing i n nonmound a reas a t N ohmul a nd e lsewhere i n Northern B elize might r esult i n a l arger percentage o f Early C lassic house f loors. I will r eturn to this i ssue i n my d iscussion o f population e stimates i n C hapter F ive. The e astern s ettlement a rea i s badly d amaged a nd poorly known, a s a lready d iscussed. This i s particularly unfortunate, s ince there i s s ome r eason to suspect that the 2 .5 kilometer e ast i nterval does a ctually represent the eastern s ite e dge. The two e asternmost e xcavations, TP 2 5 and TP 5 2, were p laced near t he edge of a s mall bajo resembling the bajo near excavation TP 6 1. The eastern excavations l ocated ground s urface marl f loors s imilar i n e levation to those d iscovered i n the north s ector ( the eastern e levations were l ower, but the e astern f loors were l ess deeply buried than those i n t he north sector). If, a s I s uspect, these f loors do i ndicate the eastern edge o f Nohmul, they provide f urther evidence of the e ffect o f distance f rom s ite c enter on o ccupation form. They a lso suggest " neighborhoods" or d istricts of o ccupation types. F igure 1 s hows that average e levation falls steadily a s one moves away f rom s ite c enter, while the average d epth of the excavation i s greatest i n t he third kilometer. This i s e specially i nteresting s ince the third kilometer i ncludes s everal shallow e xcavations into n onplatform f loors that were l ocated i n w ell drained a reas. The i mplication of this i s that the e levation of buildings i n the s ite c enter i s partly a matter o f topography and partly due to culture. I n general, s tructures toward the center of Nohmul ( but s till outside the c enter by a kilometer) a re taller. This s uggests nucleation of a kind o f

1 14

architecture; a nother i ndication of possible neighborhoods or d istricts o f o ccupation. That i t i s not s imply the result of the c entral s tructures being more f requently reoccupied and r ebuilt i s i ndicated i n F igure 1 0, which shows both the a bsolute c ount a nd the percent of f loors per interval a ctually d ecreases moving toward s ite c enter. I n general, v ariation i n the s ettlement f eatures of Nohmul correlates w ith d istance f rom s ite c enter and, to some extent, s ite quadrant, and the d ensity of s ettlement in d ifferent i ntervals and q uadrants a pparently changed over time. E vidence s upports the existence of " neighborhoods", nucleation o f l arger s tructures and population, and c entrifugal f actors affecting s ettlement placement. Although the s ample s ize o f the Nohmul settlement i s too s mall f or these f indings to be considered conclusive, i t i s s ufficient to substantiate the c laim that such f actors should be a ddressed i n the s ampling design f or a Maya s ettlement. I n the f inal chapter, a r econstruction of N ohmul's demographic patterns will be considered i n the l ight of these f indings.

1 15

CHAPTER F IVE POPULATION D ENSITY AND S TRUCTURE

"As i s s o often the case i n archaeology, a s traightforward calculation will i nevitably be wrong , while a calculation more s ensitive to the realities of human behavior a nd the archaeological r ecord will be c ontroversial." Gair Tourtellot, Jeremy Sabloff, and Michael P . Smyth ( n.d.)

Part I :

Problems with Population Estimates

The set of f igures presented in Appendix B showing the distribution of mound and nonmound s tructures ( Figures 4 1 0) suggests not only the existence of s ectoring and nucleation, but a lso changes i n the p atterns of s ettlement distribution over t ime. The general c onclusion that can be drawn f rom this i s that mounds v isible today do not necessarily reflect the distribution o f settlement during periods prior to the f inal occupation of the site. So, a test of visible mounds may provide a 9 7% sample of Terminal C lassic s tructures, but a much smaller s ample of the Early Classic s tructures actually present i n the s ettlement, i f the tests do not happen to hit the Early C lassic " neighborhood". The r esult of this will be an underestimate of the Early C lassic presence at a site. This s ituation will be exacerbated i f, as at Nohmul, a s ignificant portion of Early C lassic f loors are nonplatform f loors. Conversely, a test of the visible mounds may well produce Late Preclassic and Terminal C lassic i n every excavation, s ince s ettlement i n these periods was evenly spread over the s ite and not c lustered a s much a s in the Early C lassic. This does not mean that the L ate Preclassic had a population density equal to that of the T erminal C lassic, when a ll mounds were o ccupied, but that, over a much longer period of time, the Late Preclassic population had a s imilar distribution to t hat of the T erminal C lassic. Widespread distribution i s not the s ame a s density, and population c lustering s hould not be mistaken for population decline. One more point concerning population visibility must be considered. This i s the i ssue o f excavation p lacement in mounds versus excavation placement i n middens. Table 1 in Chapter Three shows the result o f tests conducted a t Nohmul to determine which type of e xcavation provided the most complete chronological i nformation. As a lready discussed i n Chapter Three, mound excavations provided more i dentifiable s herds, more s ingle phase deposits a nd more chronological periods per excavation.

1 16

T hese results c ontradict the f indings of Fry ( 1969) a t T ikal. Fry's conclusions were based on the s ame small s ample a s that t aken f rom Nohmul ( three excavations i n mounds versus three e xcavations i n middens), so e ither one of us c ould be working with a biased s ample. However, s everal logical a rguments s uggest the pattern detected a t Nohmul i s correct a nd may e xplain the conflicting f indings o f o ther excavators. F irst, s ince the garbage in f ill l ayers i s probably c ollected f rom around the s tructure i t f ills, i t should i nclude a wider r ange of occupations than that o f the s tructure i tself. While this i s confusing f or dating particular s tructures, i t i s advantageous to s ettlement analysis which only needs to reconstruct the o ccupation sequence o f the general area. C ulbert e t a l. ( n.d.) s uggest that the f ill used i n l arge s tructures may have been brought i n from distant areas a t Tikal. Where this i s the c ase, i t poses a problem f or t he use of s tructural f ill to reconstruct l ocal s equences. However, this does not s eem to be true at Nohmul, where the amount o f garbage i n f ill l ayers appears to be d irectly proportional to the d ensity of occupation i n the a rea. A s imilar s ituation was noted at the adjoining s ite o f S an Victor ( Laura L evi, p .c.). This may be due to the f act that l ocal d eposits o f f ossil s hell i n Northern Belize provided an a lternative f ill material i n areas where garbage was s carce, making i t unnecessary to haul garbage l ong d istances. T he key to conflict between my f indings and those of Fry may be i n the i dentification o f actual middens. I n general, i f a deposit o f cultural debris contains mixed periods, it i s not what I would call a midden, s ince middens presumably c orrespond to the f inal occupation of the s tructure or s tructures with which they are s patially a ssociated. I t does not s eem l ikely that the i nhabitants of e lite residences l et garbage build-up on or near their house p latforms o ver periods o f hundreds of years, while their p latforms were being r ebuilt. Besides the unpleasant smell a nd attraction f or vermin and s cavengers, garbage was probably in enough demand f or c onstruction that i t was l ikely to get used. The lack of d irect a ssociation between garbage and housing was underscored by Joyce's f indings at Nohmul ( see Chapter Three), which showed conclusively that piles of surface garbage d id n ot c orrelate with the existence of residential f eatures. Hayden and Cannon ( 1983) have s hown that e ven in s mall modern h ighland villages, garbage i s not a llowed to build up i ndefinitely near homes, but i s s orted and material without r ecycling potential i s hauled away a t regular i ntervals. Most prehistoric garbage f rom heavily populated areas was probably e ither used i n construction or hauled a way f airly q uickly. A s discussed i n C hapter Three, middens near platforms a re d ifficult to r ecognize a s s uch, s ince they may be below

1 17

f allen wall s tones and are a lmost i nvariably m ixed with eroding platform f ill. Any artifact c oncentrations l ocated on the s ides o f p latforms a t Nohmul a re mixed with platform f ill and so contain a c eramic s equence s imilar to mound pits. I t i s unlikely that a midden n ear a range s tructure would normally contain a 2 500 year trash buildup that h ad r emained i n s itu f or the whole period. I f this i s c orrect, then t hese " middens" are n ot really middens at a ll, despite the f act that they o ften contain what a ppears to be a broad s pectrum o f garbage, i ncluding sherds, broken chipped s tone or g roundstone tools, l ithic debitage, animal b one, and p lant remains ( Miksicek n .d.). I nstead, the deposits most a uthors r efer to a s middens are a ccumulations o f debris f rom eroding platforms and s ome types of garbage f ormed by a c ombination of natural and cultural f ormation processes that need n ot accurately r epresent the o ccupation s equence of a particular s ite area. This would e xplain why t he " midden" excavations at Nohmul were l ess s uccessful than the mound excavations, i n that middens do not produce as many periods of occupation a s mounds. Midden material at N ohmul ( and probably at most tropical l owland s ites) that has been exposed f or hundreds ( or thousands) o f years, i s n ot usually chronologically d iagnostic, s ince i t has been severely eroded Pyburn and Levi ( 1988). P latform f ill i s protected f rom erosion by s tone walls and plaster f loors, as demonstrated by the midden - mound comparisons i n Chapter Three, Table 1 . I s uspect t hat most pottery that i s over 5 00 years o ld a nd r etains i ts s urface decoration was protected a s p latform f ill f or much of the time s ince i ts original deposition. I f most midden material i s f rom p latform f ill, then nonplatform o ccupations may be under-represented by excavations i nto midden deposits. This i s especially t rue i f garbage i s not a llowed to a ccumulate; n onplatform houses would be recognizable only a s f loors, or i n the f ill l ayers of nearby p latforms that r ecycled their n eighbors' garbage. The s ame would be true f or garbage a ccumulation l eft exposed; the remaining c eramics would be unidentifiable. Several nonplatform f loors at Nohmul were associated with only small quantities of unrecognizable potsherds and a f ew l ithics ( e.g., TP 4 3, TP 4 4, TP 4 6, TP 7 5). B esides missing nonplatform o ccupation, mound-associated midden excavations are l ikely t o miss s ome periods, e specially e arlier ones. Culbert et a l. ( n.d.) note a " slightly l ower f requency" of Preclassic and Early C lassic s herds i n excavations with f ewer deposits. S ince, at l east at Nohmul, midden excavations were s eparable i nto f ewer d iscrete s tratigraphic deposits, these periods w ill be under-represented by midden excavations. The i mport of this argument i s that midden e xcavations under-represent s ome periods o f o ccupation, not o f

1 18

particular s tructures, but of the areas around the s tructures. So, f or e xample, the a brupt nucleation of population Fry ( 1969) f ound a round Tikal i n the Early C lassic might a ppear more gradual with data f rom mound e xcavations, s ince most middens f rom the s tart of the period may have b een r ecycled i nto f ill. S imilarly, F ord ( 1986:61, n .d.:6), d igging middens, f ound a dramatic d ecrease i n E arly C lassic density i n her Tikal-Yaxha transect, while R ice ( 1978:44), d igging mounds i n a transect between Y axha and S acnab, f ound a s ignificant population i ncrease i n the Early C lassic. What this means f or Nohmul i s that midden excavations would under-represent periods l ike the Early C lassic that have a s ignificant nonmound c omponent, or that are deeply buried under l ater architecture and whose middens were r ecycled l ong before the s ite was a bandoned. Culbert et a l. argue that t he r epresentativeness of Fry's midden tests i n the Tikal periphery i s s upported by the f act that the population c urve c alculated f rom these data i s exactly the s ame a s the population curve produced by mound excavations i n t he c entral a rea o f Tikal. Data on s ectoring a nd nucleation at Nohmul might be used to argue that midden excavations a ctually f latten variation between the center and t he periphery, by excluding nonmound o ccupation and u nder-representing e arly o ccupation i n g eneral. At N ohmul, the population growth curve was probably not the s ame i n the c enter of the s ite as i n the periphery, but Nohmul i s undoubtedly a d ifferent type of s ettlement than T ikal.

P art I I:The Population F ormula

Demographic r econstructions o f prehistoric communities a re problematic. Where preservation i s excellent, s amples l arge a nd s ettlements small, skeletal r emains can be used with s ome success ( cf. Hinkes 1 984). Estimating the population s ize o f an enormous unbounded c ommunity with poor preservation, s uch a s Nohmul a nd other s ettlements i n the Maya L owlands, r equires s everal l ayers of deductive r easoning. Chapter Four summarized d istributions of structures and ceramic dates a t the s ite o f Nohmul, s uggesting s ome g eneralizations a bout s ettlement density and change, without a ctually d iscussing population counts. Mayanists ( see C ulbert a nd Rice n .d.) use a s tandard s et of procedures to t urn mound counts i nto population e stimates. These procedures may be more or l ess e laborated depending, i n part, o n how much i s known a bout a particular s ite, but t hey a lways i nclude f our o perations:

1 19

1 .

A percentage i s a dded to the mound count f or f eatures that were missed e ither because they were outside the s urvey or were h idden by a lluviation or vegetation.

2 .

A percentage i s s ubtracted f or the i nclusion of f eatures that were not houses a nd s o do not r epresent population i ncrements.

3 .

The total i s d ivided by the n umber of chronological periods and/or generations s panned by the occupation.

4 .

The total i s multiplied by a s tandard f igure f or number of o ccupants per dwelling.

the

The percentage o f i ncrease f or missed f eatures i s a s ite s pecific c alculation. At C opan, f or example, Webster and Freter ( n.d.), c alculate d ifferent percentages f or d ifferent s ite areas and d ifferent types of f eatures. They argue that some l ess f avorable occupation areas had l ower populations, while l arger f eature types are l ess l ikely to be missed. Other s tudies add f ew ( Tourtellot n .d.) or no missed f eatures ( Culbert et a l n .d.). Any decision a bout this dilemma ( including those made below ) i nvolves arbitrary a ssumptions a bout s ettlement variation, a ssuming that variation i n the percentage o f missed f eatures i s e ither nonexistent or i s a r esult of v isible variation i n archaeological f eatures and environment a nd c an be e stimated on the basis o f visible f eatures. Variation r esulting f rom c ultural patterning, s uch a s the nucleation or s ectoring o f particular types o f f eatures, would be d iluted by a pplying generalized a ssumptions a bout missed f eatures to whole s ites o r to whole e nvironmental z ones, or to whole groups o f s urface f eatures. Count r eductions f or nonresidential s tructures at different s ites r ange f rom 1 6% ( Haviland 1 970) to 1 0% ( Webster and Freter, n .d.). These a re a lso s ite-specific, but are usually c alculated at a f lat r ate f or whole s ites, and f or a ll periods. Again, this practice nullifies the e ffect o f cultural variation, s ince specialized manufacturing a reas, or markets, o r f amilies with extra r ooms might be i n particular s ite a reas. Webster and Freter ( n.d.) do vary their c orrection f actors a ccording to s tructure type, but their s tructure types a re based on a mound typology, a nd they s imply argue that the bigger the p latform, the more nonresidential s tructures i t will contain. This would underestimate population variation mirrored i n variations i n room c ounts. They e lect n ot to delete a ny s ingle mounds f rom their central core area, a ssuming that these would necessarily be r esidential. One might a lso expect the r everse, i .e., a higher percentage o f nonresidential s tructures such a s s hrines l ocated i n the core area. Compensating f or the total number of g enerations or periods r epresented i s an attempt to a djust f or two

1 20

problems. F irst, periods determined by c eramic chronology are o ften not o f equal l ength. For example, the L ate Preclassic period a t Nohmul i s twice a s l ong a s the Early C lassic. The s econd i ssue i s that even when ceramic chronologies c an be u sed to i dentify smaller i ncrements o f time, t he i ncrements s till s pan s everal generations and i t i s not possible to tell what percentage o f s tructures dating t o a particular phase were o ccupied a t the s ame time. F or example, two s tructures dating to the 5 0 year l ong C ancanilla Chicanel P eriod may have been i nhabited a t the s ame time by n eighboring f amilies, or s equentially by the s ame family l iving 2 5 years i n e ach. D ecisions about how to treat these i ssues vary, but are made on a s ite-wide basis. S o, f or example, a t both Seibal ( Tourtellot n .d.) a nd S ayil, Tourtellot ( et a l. n . d.) argues f or " gross c ontemporaneity" of s tructures dating to a particular c eramic phase, a s well a s contemporaneity o f o ccupation at the generational l evel. Webster and Freter ( n.d.), on the o ther hand, s ubtract 4 5% of their structure e stimate to a ccount f or the i nclusion o f structures f rom e arlier phases and 2 0% to account f or non-contemporaneity o f s tructures within the L ate C lassic to estimate the Late C lassic population of C opan. T hese generalized e stimates have a " flattening" affect on both intra- and i ntersite population variation. I f, f or example, the 5 50 year l ong C olmotz Chicanel period at Nohmul involves a movement o f population i nto the s ite center ( or vice versa), a population e stimate based on the contemporaneous occupation o f a ll Chicanel s tructures will be too large. Or, i f s ome chronological periods or segments of the p opulation i n a g iven period are characterized by more r esidential mobility than others, population e stimates will be i nflated i f e ach move i nvolves a platform, and under-represented i f e phemeral housing i s used. F amily s ize e stimates are based on e thnographic analogy, and may i nvolve s imple s tructure c ounts multiplied by a s tandard f igure such a s that proposed f or Chan Kom by Redfield and Rojas ( 1934) ( Culbert et a l. n .d., Smith 1 972, T ourtellot n .d., Wilk and Wilhite n .d.), or the f loor area e stimates devised by Naroll ( 1962). These may be applied to whole p latforms ( cf. Hammond 1 975) or to individual r ooms. Usually they are extended to a ll structures i n a s ite or e ven a r egion ( Culbert e t a l., Haviland 1 970, Tourtellot n .d., Tourtellot et a l. n .d., Webster and F reter n .d.). I f s ectoring or nucleation of a population were reflected i n variation i n f amily s ize or variation in the number o f persons per r oom, this type o f assumption would nullify s uch variation. M ost Maya a rchaeologists argue that this s et o f generalized e stimates i s a cceptable i f the s ame technique i s used for a ll s ites, because the r esult will be a ccurate relative f igures. Even i f we don't know the a bsolute

1 21

population s ize f or T ikal, f or e xample, we w ill k now whether i t was more d ensely o ccupied than C opan, a nd whether i ts d ensity changed over t ime. But Lowland s ites were not i solated polities or i ndependent primate centers; i f we a ccept that they were i nterdependent politically a nd economically, we s hould expect v ariations in d ensity n ot only between s ites but within s ites that may c hange o ver time. Generalized e stimates will c ause c ommunities w ith more i nternal variation to l ook smaller or larger than t hey really were, depending on how they were excavated. If, f or example, people crowd i nto the c enters of c ommunities ( population nucleation) during periods o f external threat, or move out n ear f ields ( population d ispersal) a s a result of l owered agricultural productivity, or decide that o nly f amilies with s pecial privileges ( regardless o f f amily s ize) s hould be a llowed to have p latforms larger than 2 5 meters a cross, what does the density o f extant archaeological f eatures tell us a bout Maya population density? These demographic f ormulae amount to a kind o f complex typological key. By manipulating data a ccording to t he prescribed s et o f variables, e ach s ite c an be a ssigned a number p lacing i t i n a hierarchy o f s ites intended to g ive s ome i dea o f the r elative political or economic prominence of d ifferent prehistoric Maya c ommunities. S kinner h as argued that s uch urban typologies are not meaningful, because the s pecifics o f urbanism a re extremely variable. The f act i s that the c onstructed-types a pproach a ssumes a c oincidence i n c ovariation among key variables that s eldom o btains i n the real w orld. In my view, a more productive approach to understanding phenomena within any domain i s to a sk what covaries with what. To what extent does a particular f unction vary with s cale? H ow do morphological f eatures change a long with the d ifferent types of urban f unctions? If we could a scertain which empirical and analytical f eatures of urban phenomena i n China varied together in t ime and s pace, we would be i n a better position to s ay s omething a bout c ause and e ffect, about the d irection o f change, a nd a bout s ystemic r elationships within the domain of C hinese c ities. We would f ind, f urthermore, that many propositions c oncerning c ovariation that hold for Chinese c ities would a lso hold, or on f irst principles ought to hold, f or analytically or geographically more i nclusive urban d omains. ( Skinner 1 977:5) The perspective here has been that outlining the c ovariation o f s ettlement variables at L owland M aya s ites i s an i mportant key to understanding the functioning and growth of prehistoric Maya communities. Applied to Maya s ettlement patterns, Skinner's point i s that hidden f eatures, s pecial f unction buildings, population structure

1 22

( e.g., nucleation, s ectoring, d ispersal), and f amily s ize are n ot random " noise" f actors i n a s ystem that c an be understood i f they a re held c onstant. I t i s variation i n these f actors, both within a nd between c ommunities, that defines the c haracter o f a c ommunity. By r egularizing a ll these types o f variation, we a re creating another i maginary culture: undifferentiated, egalitarian, " little communities". S ome of t hese i ssues may have to r emain imponderables. B ronson ( 1987), who d id the nonplatform excavations at T ikal ( n.d.), believes that s ome questions are t oo complex to tackle with archaeological data, because too many i ntangibles of culture l eave no trace i n the archaeological r ecord. Nevertheless, oversimplification i s not the a nswer. I ssues l ike the possibility that the number of people l iving i n a house may vary i ndependently of t he number o f r ooms might be a ddressed with measurements of q uantities o f refuse, or numbers of contemporary hearths. B earing i n mind these s ubstantial l imitations, data from Nohmul may be used to e stimate the populations of different periods w ith the s tandard population f ormula used by Mayanists. T his exercise i s worthwhile, because the Nohmul data begin to address s ome types of demographic variation hitherto i gnored by Mayanists. While the s ample collected f rom Nohmul i s undoubtedly biased, s ettlement data f rom o ther s ites a re equally skewed. None take the possible e ffects o f s ectoring or nucleation or nonplatform structures ( except f or S anders 1 960 and Wilk and Wilhite n .d.) on s ampling i nto a ccount e ither i n r esearch design or a nalysis. B ut Nohmul data a lso show that visible f eatures do not e ncompass the c omplete r ange of variation i n s tructure type, and that the p lacement o f excavations will affect the chronological r ange e stimated f or individual s tructures, a s well a s the population density estimated f or the s ite. C onsequently, the Nohmul population e stimates will he made both without and ( when possible) with i nvisible f eatures, to show the possible effect of nonplatform dwellings on more s tandard population estimates. The population e stimates r epresent the 2 2 square kilometer mapped a rea and a n additional unmapped kilometer near raised f ield areas where nonmound occupation i s l ikely. As noted e arlier, Nohmul's s ettlement probably covered a s much a s 3 5 square k ilometers. I f the unmapped ( excluding the square k ilometer of e stimated nonmound occupation d ensity) a reas had population densities equivalent to those e stimated f or mapped areas, each e stimate s hould b e i ncreased by 5 2%. However, s ince most of the unmapped areas are a t a d istance f rom s ite c enter and at i ntervals where density f luctuates, s uch a blanket i ncrease i s questionable. The r eader i s a sker to bear i n mind that the f ollowing e stimates pertain to approximately 6 3% o f the total s ite area and, perhaps, a s imilar portion

1 23

of Nohmul's total population. Most excavators r eport s ome a mount o f nonplatform occupation ( Bronson n .d., C liff 1 982, Harrison p .c., Smith 1 972, Tourtellot 1 983, Webster and F reter n .d., W illey e t a l. 1 965), s o i t i s not n ecessary t o defend the p osition that nonplatform s tructures e xist outside Nohmul o r outside northern Belize. I t has been s uggested that nonplatform s tructures are l ess c ommon a t T ikal ( Culbert et a l. n .d.) and o ther central P eten s ites ( e.g., C opan, Webster and Freter n .d.) than i n northern B elize, but this h as not been demonstrated. Excavations by B ronson ( n. d.) i n the central precinct of T ikal e ncountered numerous nonplatform s tructures. Other excavators have been unable t o l ocate what they considered to be s ignificant numbers o f nonplatform s tructures ( Tourtellot 1 983, Webster a nd Freter n .d., Willey e t a l. 1 965), but the Nohmul data s uggest that such evidence may be l ocalized i n untested s ite areas. Areas at a d istance f rom s ite c enter and without visible mounds usually f all o utside the research d esign o f a s ettlement project. Nonplatform f loors f ound below later platforms are s ometimes not n oted a s s uch, and have not been used to suggest that a c omplete c ount o f such f loors ( if they were a ll preserved a nd a ll l ocated) would affect the r econstruction of a c ommunity's population structure or density.

Part I II:Population E stimates

f or Nohmul

The Early and Middle Preclassic Community During the Early a nd Middle P reclassic there were people l iving i n the area o f Nohmul, but whether their s ettlement was c entered on the a rea o f Nohmul's eventual c entral acropolis r emains unknown. That they were not i solated f rom other Maya i s c lear f rom t he s trong resemblance between the Middle P reclassic pottery o f Nohmul and that o f the C entral P eten ( Culbert p .c.). R aised f ield d ates from nearby Albion I sland ( Pohl and B loom n .d., Puleston 1 977) suggest i ntensive agriculture may a lready have been underway i n the area. P opulation e stimates are i mpossible f or this period, because the s ample i s too small ( three excavations with Early Preclassic plus twelve with Middle Preclassic, a s defined i n Chapter Four), i ncludes n o f loors and may have no r elation to the s ite a rea defined by mounds built hundreds of years l ater. However, s ince t he Early and Middle Preclassic together r epresent a very long period ( over 9 00 years) i t i s possible to s ay that the population l iving i n the Nohmul s ite a rea during t his t ime was small. For Cuello, a predominantly Preclassic s ite a bout 3 0 k ilometers f rom Nohmul, population h as been estimated a s r ising f rom a t otal o f 1 79-224 persons i n the L ate Early Preclassic to 2 63-325 i n the L ate M iddle Preclassic ( Wilk

1 24

and Wilhite n .d.). The L ate P reclassic C ommunity T he Late Preclassic a ppears more a ccessible. 6 7% o f the 7 6 excavations yielded L ate Preclassic material, a lthough only 9 % o f t he i ntact f loors were f rom this date. The f irst s tep i n f iguring population density according to the s tandard model i s to add a percentage f or missed structures. I n the c ase of the L ate Preclassic, this means adding a percentage of s tructures that are not beneath tested visible mounds and not preserved or l ocated i n tested n onmound areas. This i s an extremely difficult e stimate to make, s ince the Nohmul s ample c annot c laim to be statistically r epresentative. T he obvious way t o a pproach such an e stimate would be to compare the f indings o f mound excavations with those of nonmound excavations, and e stimate the percentage of missed structures on the basis of the nonmound f indings. Unfortunately, this would g ive f alse r esults f or two reasons. First, n o nonmound excavation e ncountered an i ntact Preclassic f eature, which means that only one f eature ( in TP 5 9) f rom the Preclassic survived without the protection o f l ater a rchitecture. This s ituation i s underscored by the f act that only 1 5 f loors were f ound dating to this period, a very small percentage when considered i n the l ight of the f act that 6 7% of the excavations c ontained Chicanel r efuse ( even the Terminal C lassic was only r epresented i n 5 9). T he second r eason that a s imple comparison of the mound a nd nonmound e xcavations will not work i s that the pottery provided by e xcavations through mounds dates not only t he occupations of the mounds themselves, but a lso the surrounding a rea. M idden f ill l ayers collected f rom areas nearby to r ebuild p latforms may represent nonmound a s well as mound occupations, e ven though u ltimately deposited i n mounds. Although the study o f s ectoring at Nohmul suggests that n onmound occupation i n l ater periods was l ocalized on the e dges of the s ite, this was not the c ase i n the Late Preclassic, a s i ndicated by F igure 6 , Appendix B . U ltimately, i t i s not possible to know what percentage of L ate Preclassic s tructures has been destroyed, but minimally i t i s l ikely that a lmost a ll nonmound f eatures unprotected by l ater architecture will be r epresented i n the s ample only i n r ecycled f ill l ayers. Those at any distance from p latform s tructures ( where their refuse might be r ecycled) and those without l arge quantities o f durable garbage ( i.e., pottery a nd l ithics) will be excluded. T o summarize, Preclassic nonplatform f eatures are either preserved underneath l ater mounds, r ecycled i n mound f ill, or a re c ompletely gone. The small percentage o f preserved Preclassic f loors i n c omparison to the high r ate of i ncidence o f Chicanel r efuse i n excavations, and the

1 25

high ratio o f nonplatform f loors t o p latform f loors f ound i n the s ettlement excavations s uggest that a l arge proportion would be missing f rom both my sample and a mound-based s ample. Although the small number o f preserved P reclassic f loors s uggests that f ew s tructures f rom this p eriod h ave survived the s ubsequent o ccupation s pan o f the s ite, t he Late Preclassic s pans 6 00 years; a lmost twice a s long a s the Early C lassic, f our t imes a s l ong a s the L ate Classic, and three t imes a s l ong a s the period of t he Terminal C lassic. And, unlike s ome l ater periods, the L ate Preclassic s hows l ittle nucleation or s ectoring. In short, there are r easons to believe that d istribution of L ate Preclassic c eramics over-represents the size of the population at any particular p oint i n time d uring the period. Unfortunately, a ll the ways of rectifying t he under-represented architecture w ith the over-represented pottery i nvolve a rbitrary decisions. One possibility i s that the population of Nohmul grew a nd nucleated a round t he new central a cropolis during the L ate P reclassic. This i s the pattern that C liff ( 1982) has i dentified a t Cerros. Alternatively, the population may h ave changed f rom an e ven s pread to being been s trongly bimodal, s ince t he r idged f ields to the north may have been i n use and strong ceramic ties with the P eten ( suggested b y the virtual r eplication of C entral L owland pottery types a t Nohmul) may h ave been maintained by r iver traffic. B oth t hese f actors c ould h ave pulled s ettlement out to the bajos and the river on t he s ite periphery a t the s ame t ime i t was being pulled toward the acropolis by markets and urban advantages. Dividing the population e venly between periods o f equal l ength will not r esolve this problem, s ince p opulation would not h ave been equal throughout the Late Preclassic i n either case. However, a minimal population c an be made based on mound c ounts a lone. 7 8% of the mound excavations contain Preclassic evidence, which translates to a Preclassic d ate f or 5 46 o f Nohmul's 7 00 mapped structures, i f the s ample i s considered " random." Skipping t he f irst s tep in the equation, s ince i t i s not possible t o e stimate t he number of Chicanel s tructures missed, s tep 2 requires s ubtraction of a number o f s tructures not having a domestic f unction. I am e stimating population on the b asis o f the s tructures themselves, s o i t makes no difference that datable f ill l ayers are a ll f rom domestic middens. S ince I h ave l ittle d irect knowledge o f the f unction o f platform s tructures a t Nohmul, I will use a s tandardized f igure o f 1 6% o ften u sed e lsewhere ( cf. C ulbert e t a l., n .d., Haviland 1 970). Subtracting 8 7 ( 16% of 5 46) f rom 5 46 l eaves a t otal of 4 59 o ccupied dwellings i n the mapped a rea. The decision to equalize periods to r egular i ntervals i s based o n a ssumptions about the u selife of thatch-roofed housing and the f requency of r eoccupation o f building

1 26

plots. Culbert s uggests a 2 5 year s pan f or Maya pole and thatch structures ( 1982:21), while Wilk ( 1982), on the basis of his Kekchi r esearch, s uggests houses were moved about every 1 0 years. B oth a rgue f or a very high degree o f occupational r edundancy, s ince people moving f requently within a c ircumscribed a rea will reoccupy o ld house s ites. Haviland ( 1970) makes a s imilar a rgument f or Tikal, noting excavation e vidence f or houses being rebuilt s everal t imes on t he same s pot. The s ame s ituation existed at Nohmul ( see C hapter Four ). There i s no e asy s olution f or the problem posed by the long t ime s pan o f the Chicanel P eriod. I f the period i s subdivided i nto r egular periods o f 1 00 years, the number o f dwellings must be d ivided by s ix, r esulting i n a total of 7 7 d wellings per hundred year period. Multiplication by a standard f amily s ize o f 5 .6 ( the most common choice) produces the a bsurdly small population e stimate of 4 31 f or the L ate Preclassic at Nohmul. This f igure i s certainly too s mall f or the p opulation a t the end of the period, since it would n ot provide enough people to build the massive architecture o f the c entral a cropolis and a lso f eed themselves. The value o f the equalized calculation i s that it u nderscores the l ikelihood that the L ate Preclassic population was g rowing. Unfortunately, this f igure probably does not c orrespond to Nohmul's population s ize at any particular time, s ince i t i s s o artificially "regularized".

. 78 X 7 00 . 16 X 5 46 5 46 - 8 7 4 59/6 7 7 X 5 .6

= 5 46 = 8 7 = 4 59 = 7 7 = 4 31

( percent o f mounds i n u se) ( percent o f mounds not used a s dwellings) ( number o f mounds used a s dwellings) ( number o f mounds o ccupied/100 years) ( total population e stimate)

One way to e stimate the r ate of population growth during the L ate P reclassic would be to a ssume that the population density a nd s tructure at the end of the Preclassic was r easonably c lose to that at the beginning o f the E arly C lassic. This a ssumption would provide a target population s ize f or the end o f the Preclassic f rom which to extrapolate to e arlier periods. The possibility i s supported by the f act that the small number o f Protoclassic occurrences ( Appendix B , F igure 7 ), which probably overlap with the e nd of the L ate Preclassic, show a pattern s imilar to t hat of the E arly C lassic, and because there i s no reason to believe that the beginning of the Early C lassic was marked by drastic population changes. There are t wo r easons why this approach i s not worthwhile. F irst, the population during the Early C lassic s hows the s ame problematic characteristics a s that o f the Preclassic, i .e., a l arge percentage of the population was l iving i n nonplatform e phemeral housing i nterspersed with p latform s tructures. C onsequently, i t i s i mpossible to e stimate the n umber o f destroyed or unrepresented

1 27

s tructures, a lthough i t i s possible to manipulate the f igures f rom this 3 50 year period t o i ndicate p opulation r ise, decline, or s tability. These e stimates r equire a ssumptions a bout population s tructure that determine o ur picture of Maya prehistory. What the Nohmul d ata o n s ectoring, nucleation and nonplatform o ccupation h ave shown i s that s uch procedures a ssume population characteristics that i t i s s till crucial to test. Generally s peaking, Nohmul data s upport a s ignificant population i ncrease i n the L ate Preclassic o ver that o f e arlier periods. T hey d o not s upport population decline i n t he Early Classic, but suggest a decline i n visibility. S ince there i s no c orrect way to equalize the population of periods when the population s ize was undoubtedly changing, this s tep will be omitted f rom a ll f ollowing c alculations. This will r esult i n the a ppearance of a decline i n population i n the Early C lassic, which I d o not believe i s accurate, but which e stimates a Late Preclassic population o f 2 570, which i s much too s mall but i s within r eason f or the mapped a rea. ( This i s the e stimate provided by the f oregoing procedure, but o mitting the s tep d ividing the L ate Preclassic i nto 1 00 year periods.) The e stimate would be 3 906, i f 5 2% were added f or the unmapped a rea. I am not presenting e stimates f or the Protoclassic f or s everal reasons. F irst of a ll, the period i s poorly defined at Nohmul and a ppears to o verlap with both t he Late Preclassic and the Early C lassic ( Laura Kosakowsky, p . c.). Second, the period i s e stimated t o be s o s hort a t Nohmul ( see Chapter Four) that the l ikelihood of s ampling b ias ( in comparison to l onger periods) i s enormous. F inally, I s uspect that the F loral P ark a ssemblage at Nohmul i s not a n ordinary domestic a ssemblage but has a specialized f unction. My r easons f or this i nclude the e xtremely l ocalized pattern of i ts d istribution i n the s ettlement ( echoing Pring 1 977), the l ack o f P rotoclassic nonplatform f loors, the f act that the bulk o f the P rotoclassic m aterial f ound at Nohmul c ame f rom e laborate burial a ssemblages ( Anderson and C ook 1 944) a nd i ts a lmost i nvariable o ccurrence with c eramics o f o ther types ( i.e., other phases with which i t probably o verlapped chronologically while s erving a s pecialized f unction). I a m not arguing t hat the Freshwater Protoclassic c omplex had a s pecialized f unction everywhere i t o ccurs, but o nly s uggesting that the f unction of ceramic s tyles may have been d ifferent in d ifferent places. The Early C lassic Community The minimum Early C lassic population e stimate i s also based on mound excavations a lone. A total o f 26, o r 51% o f the mound excavations yielded E arly C lassic pottery . 5 1% of Nohmul's 7 00 mounds amounts t o 3 57 Early C lassic s tructures, l ess 1 6% l eaves 3 00 dwellings. Multiplied by a f amily s ize of 5 .6 e stimates a minimum Early C lassic

1 28

population of 1 680.

. 51 X 7 00 . 16 X 3 57 3 57 - 5 7 3 00 X 5 .6

= 3 57 ( percent of mounds i n use) = 5 7 ( percent of mounds not used as dwellings) = 3 00 ( number of mounds used as dwellings) = 1 680 ( total population e stimate)

T he apparent d ecline of 8 90 people f rom the Preclassic i s easily explained by the hypervisibilty of the earlier period a nd ( as mentioned i n Chapter Four, a lso s ee F igure 8 , Appendix B ) the f act that the Early C lassic has the h ighest percentage of nonplatform dwellings of any period. An additional 5 2% would raise this total to 2 554. The L ate C lassic Community The first period f or which i t i s possible to offer a r elatively accurate population e stimate f or Nohmul i s the L ate C lassic. The period i s relatively short ( AD 6 50-800). Nonplatform occupations a ppear to be sectored and therefore s eparable f rom the platform s tructures, and are well preserved without mound protection, while showing a high degree of c orrelation with the l ocations of l ater s tructures ( see Appendix B , F igure 9 ). T wenty s even p latform excavations, 5 3% of the total p latform excavations, contained Late C lassic pottery. Following the s tandard procedure provides a Late C lassic population e stimate very c lose to the Early C lassic e stimate, except f or the s horter time period involved:

. 53 X 7 00 . 16 X 3 71 3 71 - 5 9 3 12 X 5 .6

= 3 71 = 5 9 = 3 12 = 1 747

( percent of mounds i n use) ( percent of mounds not used as dwellings) ( number of mounds used a s dwellings) ( total population e stimate)

S ix ( 24%) of the 2 5 nonmound excavations produced Late C lassic pottery ( TP 3 2, TP 4 5, TP 4 8, TP 6 1, TP 7 5, TP 7 6); f our o f these had i ntact f eatures. Although the nonmound s ample i s not random, and suggests sectoring of nonplatform dwellings on the northern s ite edges, these data imply that Late C lassic population counts based on mound counts a lone could u nderestimate the population density i n some areas of the s ite. I t is possible to use information on s ectoring to provide a rough e stimate o f the quantity of nonplatform f eatures during the Late and Terminal C lassic. Testing in several site areas s uggested that nonplatform occupation during these periods i s c lustered i n well drained areas between the visible s tructures and the edge of wetlands, some o f which c learly contain prehistoric f ields. One area in p articular was i ntensively tested i n an attempt to locate a ll nonplatform s tructures. Data f rom this area can be u sed to extrapolate densities f or other comparable

1 29

areas. The nonmound area between 3 200 and 3 400 m eters north, and between 0 to 3 00 meters e ast o f the central acropolis datum was intensively posthole tested to l ocate n onplatform f eatures ( see S ite Map, Appendix D ). This i s a n area where nonplatform s tructures s eem to b e c lustered. F our L ate C lassic f loors ( TP 4 5, TP 6 1, TP 7 5, TP, 7 6) and a possible f ifth ( TP 4 6) were f ound i n this 6 0,000 square meter a rea. These s tructures are l arge enough ( some are 1 5 meters across) that i t i s possible to be r easonably sure all those i n the tested area were l ocated. Three other tested areas of the s ite have c lusters of nonmound f eatures. None of these areas was as i ntensively tested, but a ll contained more than one nonmound feature and a ll were l ocated i n well drained areas between the e dge of the s ite and an area of bajo ( see S ite Map, A ppendix D ). I e stimate that there are at l east ten other areas of c omparable s ize and with s imilar c haracteristics a long the northeast edge of the s ite, f ollowing the area o f bajo t hat eventually becomes Pulltrouser swamp. I suspect at l east another ten on the west s ide of the s ite in w ell drained areas near the bajos and drained f ields n ear Douglas Village, and f urther s outh near the port mound area. If these e stimated twenty " suitable" areas were o ccupied as densely as the area tested, 8 0 to 1 00 dwellings would be added to the calculation of Late C lassic population. T his amounts to a minimum i ncrease of 4 48 persons, a n a dditional 2 6% of the population e stimated o n the basis o f mounds a lone.

2 0 X 4 /5 = 8 0/100 ( number of n onmound dwellings) 8 0/100 X 5 .6 = 4 48/560 ( total nonmound inhabitants) S ince a ll the ground surface structures with any i dentifiable artifacts had c learly domestic assemblages, I am i nclined to add the minimal total of 4 48 persons to the population estimate, without subtracting for s tructures that do not represent households. This gives a n estimate of 2 195 i nhabitants f or Nohmul during the Late C lassic.

1 747

+ 4 48 = 2 195

An additional 5 2% this total to 3 336.

( mound plus minimum nonmound f or

The Terminal

the

unmapped

inhabitants

area would r aise

C lassic Community

Thirty s even, or 7 3% o f the 5 1 mound e xcavations, contained Terminal C lassic pottery. However, the o nly mound excavations that did not c ontain either Terminal C lassic or Unknown C lassic were the unusual Chicanel c ache f ound i n TP 5 9, and i n TP 7 5, which was a shovel test and not a c omplete excavation. Pottery f rom the u pper l ayers

1 30

of a n excavation at Nohmul has a lmost f requently been burned past recognition i n cane f ires. This means that the last occupation p eriod o f a s tructure i s l ikely to be hard to r ecognize unless i t was reoccupied and has more than one construction l ayer f rom the l ast period of use. Because the s ample s hows s uch a high degree of r eoccupation of earlier s tructures i n the Terminal C lassic ( see Chapter Four ), very c lose t o a ll of the visible s tructures were probably i n use. Subtracting TP 5 9 and 7 5 gives a 9 7% use rate, which equals 6 82 Terminal C lassic s tructures. 1 6% ( 109) of 6 82 subtracted f rom 6 82 to delete nonresidential structures l eaves 5 73 dwellings. Multiplying the total number of dwellings by 5 .6 gives an estimated Terminal Classic mound occupation of 3 209.

. 97 . 16 6 82 5 73

X X X

7 00 6 82 1 09 5 .6

= 6 82 = 1 09 = 5 73 = 3 209

( percent of mounds i n use) ( percent of mounds not used a s dwellings) ( percent of mounds used a s dwellings) ( total mound population e stimate)

The s ame i ntensively tested 6 0,000 square meter area on t he northern edge of the s ite that c ontained at least f our Late C lassic nonplatform f loors, a lso contained s ix Terminal C lassic ground surface f loors ( see Figure 1 0). Assuming that t hese 2 0 potential nonplatform s ites were occupied in t he Terminal C lassic would produce a nonplatform structure e stimate of 1 20 f or the Terminal C lassic. This would add an additional 6 72 people to the total estimate f or the Terminal C lassic. However, three of the s ix nonplatform f loors f ound i n the i ntensively tested area were overlapping and so cannot be contemporary. I f the number of T erminal C lassic nonplatform f loors i s estimated as t hree ( the l argest possible number of contemporary s tructures), the population e stimate i s only i ncreased by 3 60. This may be an underestimate, however, because the three juxtaposed f loors f ound i n TP 6 1 may represent an unusual s ituation, s ince a ll other nonplatform s tructures s eem t o have a s ingle component. Nevertheless, I e stimate the Terminal C lassic population minimum as f alling within a r ange of 3 569 to 3 881. An additional 5 2% ( unmapped area) would bring the upper total to 5 899. All these e stimates are minima. All underestimate the amount of invisible occupation, s ince not a ll these s tructures will l eave evidence even f rom the l atest periods. Another source of error i s i n the standardized s ubtraction of 1 6% of the structures a s nonresidential. I believe this percentage i s probably only applicable to some portions of the s ite, at any particular time. F inally, the f amily s ize e stimates are probably too l ow to be used a s an " average" f igure. The s tructures at Nohmul vary widely in s ize and undoubtedly i n the number o f people they housed. Ethnohistoric i nformation ( Hellmuth 1 977, Scholes and Roys 1 968, Stone 1 932) s uggests that the Maya i n s ome areas were l iving i n multiple f amily houses at the time of the c onquest, with a s many a s 2 5 ( Hellmuth 1 977:438)

1 31 ,

i ndividuals l iving i n a s ingle r esidence. This many people could not possibly f it i nto the i ndividual structures o n s ome platforms, but others were certainly l arge e nough f or s uch groups. S everal nonplatform h ouses were quite large, the Terminal C lassic s tructures i n e xcavation TP 6 1 were 2 0 meters i n d iameter. E stimates o f t he number of o ccupants per s tructure based on r efuse density and platform s ize could e asily triple the population e stimate f or a ny period. I n this chapter, I have tried t o s how that v ariation i n community s tructure will skew the r esults o f the s tandard techniques archaeologists use f or e stimating prehistoric Maya population s ize. The Nohmul d ata o n nonmound occupation i ndicate that t he s ectoring o f c ertain types o f dwelling c an have a s ignificant a ffect o n population e stimates. At complex s ites, even small methodological i ssues such a s the placement o f test excavations i n mounds or middens c an profoundly a ffect the representativeness of a s ample. Modern perspectives f rom cultural geographers s uggest that o utlining a reas o f variation i n population density a nd structure w ill b e fruitful f or demographic e stimates and an i mproved understanding o f Maya c ivilization.

1 32

CHAPTER S IX S ETTLEMENT PATTERNS AT NOHMUL

P art

I :

P roject Summary;

Research D esign and Goal

The goal of the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project was t o outline the population s tructure of Nohmul's prehistoric c ommunity and to i dentify changes i n that s tructure over t ime. M ost Maya settlement archaeologists have noted that c hanges may have o ccurred over time i n the configurations o f the communities they describe. However, none have c ollected data to s pecifically address s uch structural c hanges. Maya archaeologists e stimate periods of population increase o r decline, but have not determined how changes i n community structure might affect the basis f or these e stimates. The methodology of the Nohmul Settlement Pattern P roject was developed to recover a r ange of variation i n the t ypes of archaeological f eature present i n the s ettlement area of a l owland Maya s ite. Settlement pattern s tudies are usually based on the untested a ssumption that the boundaries of the target population are defined by the presence of mounds. These s tudies have uncovered a r elatively small r ange o f variety in s tructural types, which i s probably n ot representative of the actual variety o f structural f orms c reated by a prehistoric Maya community during a period of thousands of years. The difficulty i n attempting to outline variation i n c ommunity structure o ver t ime and s pace with archaeological data i s that communities s uch as Nohmul and other Lowland population centers e ndured a very l ong time and covered a very wide space. When reconnaissance i s l imited by time a nd money, as archaeological reconnaissance a lways i s, the i nvestigator must c hoose between a s tatistically valid s ample of visible f eatures, and a sample with unknown boundaries, which c annot be statistically valid. In order to question the cultural s ignificance of an archaeological s ample of " visible mounds," I s acrificed s tatistical s ignificance at Nohmul. C onsequently, I am now i n a position to argue that a s tatistical s ample of mounds i s only t hat, and not a s tatistical s ample of a culturally bounded population. A " purposive s ample" o f settlement data was collected from N ohmul to i nvestigate s tratified deposits f or chronological control, to explore unusual s tructures to better understand how these f it i nto the range o f settlement f eatures, and ensure variety i n the types of structures excavated. I n general, l imited resources were f ocused on areas with the promise of high i nformation content, that i s, areas with s uperior preservation.

1 33

Appropriate justification f or e lecting a purposive s ampling design i s d iscussed by Asch ( 1975) and Morris ( 1975), a nd a bove, i n Chapter Two. The Nohmul particular:

s ampling design

a ddressed two q uestions i n

1 . What i s the relation o f visible mounds to t he constellation of archaeological s ettlement features? 2 . What i s the r elation of archaeological f eatures to a prehistoric Maya community?

settlement

Tourtellot ( 1983) has a lready shown that mound s hapes often do not correspond to the shape or u se o f the prehistoric s tructures i n a nd on the mounds. The f irst goal of the Nohmul s ettlement project was t o i nvestigate whether visible mounds did i ndeed r epresent t he range of archaeological f eatures, by c omparing n onmound or " invisible" f eatures with mounded f eatures. Previous research a t Nohmul a lready described ( Hammond e t a l. 1 974, 1 975, Wilk e t a l. 1 975) s uggested that nonmound structures existed at Nohmul. S ince probability s ampling i s n ot a tool f or " searching" f or particular types o f data, the Nohmul purposive s ample was r ecovered by means of s everal types of judgmental s earching techniques, including postholing, s urface c oncentration t esting, and t opographic evaluation. The s econd purpose o f the s ampling program , to a ddress the r elationship between the archaeological remains a nd t he prehistoric c ommunity, was tested by s eeking s ome s ettlement c onfigurations c ommon to s ome degree to m ost complex s ocieties. These c onfigurations have b een described by urban geographers ( Chapter One), and the geographers' vocabulary has been employed here to f acilitate comparisons. I reiterate that I am not attempting to i dentify a " type" o f s ettlement a t Nohmul or to determine whether Nohmul was a " true c ity," s ince both these questions must be addressed with data from more t han a s ingle s ite treated i n i solation. The settlement characteristics i dentified by geographers are u seful f or tracing changes i n c ommunity pattern that bear on demographic r econstructions. The general program was t o s eek a rchaeological variation a long l ines c onsistent with the existence o f an urbanized s ettlement, r ather than consistent with the existence o f a modern Maya village, or with a model of prehistoric variation based on visible mound types. The most s traightforward characteristic of urban c enters i s centralization, a lthough, a s a lready noted, t his i s not s trictly a f unction o f the p opulation density o f the c entral precinct. C entralization may be v iewed a s a r elative c oncept, tempered i n a n urban s ettlement by s ectoring a nd c entrifugal f orces. 1 34

The s trategy o f the Nohmul s ettlement pattern project was t o sample cultural f eatures at kilometer i ntervals f rom s ite c enter, as a t est o f how o ccupation density and f orm ere a ffected by d istance f rom s ite center and proximity to outlying f eatures such a s raised f ield areas, the Rio Hondo, and the s ites o f San Luis and San Victor. Excavations c lustered at k ilometer i ntervals were placed i n a ll f our s ite quadrants, to l ook f or evidence of possible sectoring o f the c ommunity s tructure. Some testpits l ed to l arger areal excavation of selected f eatures. Posthole testing and surface collections were used to s earch f or nonplatform f eatures and to augment the excavation sample. The Nohmul S ettlement Pattern Project excavated a total of 7 6 testpits and 9 84 postholes. Forty-three pits tested visible mounds, uncovering 6 0 square meters of architecture. Twelve one meter square pits were dug on the outside edges o f platforms i n areas where postholes revealed sherd concentrations. Twenty-one s eparate excavations were placed in areas without surface indications. These excavations uncovered an area of 1 07 square meters. ( See Appendix A f or excavation summaries.) The s uccess of these strategies i s evaluated below.

Part I I:

P opulation Structure at Nohmul

Excavations a t Nohmul bring i nto question standard wisdom about the relation o f surface i ndications to subsurface f eatures at Maya archaeological s ites. Assumptions about these r elationships are usually the basis f or the r ationale used in deciding where to p lace excavations and what areas to map. These a ssumptions s eem to r esult f rom a s ort of " rough-and-ready" logic generated by the r ealities of tropical f ieldwork, buttressed by apparently successful r econnaissance based on these assumptions, but no actual testing of competing hypotheses. Excavation P lacement: Natural E levations, Nonplatform Structures

Mounds,

Middens,

Numerous authors have stated that Maya structures are built on natural ridges. While some structures were certainly built o n higher natural e levations, i t i s not true that a ll Maya structures were built on natural ridges, or e ven that the h ighest spot i n the l andscape was a lways used. Several e xcavations at Nohmul showed that l ower areas were sometimes artificially built-up, while nearby higher e levations remained uninhabited, at l east by s tructures that left traces. This s ituation was encountered during excavation of the 1 31 Group at two k ilometers north o f s ite center, and i n testing P latforms 1 59 and 6 60 at three kilometers northeast. Thus, the

1 35

Nohmul Settlement P attern P roject d emonstrates that a r esearch design f ocused on higher n atural e levations will miss f eatures built i n l ow areas, and may end up e xcavating only one " type" of f eature, s ince i t i s possible t hat the prehistoric Maya reserved natural e levations for s pecial f unctions or s pecial s tatuses o f people. S imilarly, a s d iscussed at l ength in Chapter F ive, the decision to excavate i n mounds or i n a ssociated middens may have a major i mpact on the " representativeness" o f the artifact s ample acquired f rom excavation. S everal a uthors ( Culbert et a l. n .d., Fry 1 969, Puleston 1 973) have argued that artifact concentrations l ocated on platform e dges a nd on the prehistoric ground s urface near platforms are middens ( garbage a ccumulated during the use o f the s tructure) and provide an acceptable s ource of i nformation on platform f unction and date ( although C ulbert e t a l. note that some periods may be underrepresented). Nohmul f indings do not s upport this position. Actual midden deposits that were exposed to natural processes f or many years before gradual burial are t oo badly deteriorated to provide artifacts useful f or e ither chronological o r f unctional analysis. Artifacts that were r apidly buried i n structural f ill received s ome degree of protection and provide a wider range o f r ecognizable types than midden deposits. This i s graphically i llustrated in T able 1 , which shows the relative productivity of mound a nd midden tests made at Nohmul. More i mportantly f or midden analysis i s the possibility that the tested artifact c oncentrations a re not actually middens, but are made up of s ome primary midden material mixed with r edeposited midden material eroding out of p latform f ill. This would a ccount f or the f act that middens f requently contain g arbage d ating to much l onger s pans of time than can be convincingly attributed t o midden accumulations. Considering the extremely clean i ndoor habits of the prehistoric Maya, a s well as p ertinent e thnoarchaeological material ( Hayden a nd Cannon 1 983), i t s eems unlikely that the i nhabitants of large range s tructures l iving i n c lose proximity to their n eighbors would a llow garbage to build-up i n t heir back yards f or hundreds of years, e specially when s uch garbage was i n demand f or building f ill. I f the artifact c oncentrations excavated a s i n s itu middens are not middens at a ll, but mixed midden and midden-fill material, then s ome p eriods of o ccupation ( especially e arlier periods) will be under-represented i n tests that r egard s uch deposits a s i n s itu m iddens. Culbert et a l.(n.d.) note that this may be true to a small degree i n the T ikal excavations, and i t might explain the c ontrasting r esults o f e xcavators digging i n s imilar areas, but with d ifferent choices o f excavation p lacement ( Ford 1 986, Rice 1 978). ( These points are p resented in d etail i n Chapter F ive.)

1 36

I n general terms, midden excavations are most l ikely to under-represent e arly periods during which o ccupation was s omewhat c lustered i nstead o f widespread over the entire s ettlement. Occupation phases that have a s ignificant nonmound c omponent or that are deeply buried under l ater architecture and whose middens were r ecycled l ong b efore the l ater p latforms ( visible mounds) were i nhabited will a lso b e under-sampled. Nonmound o ccupations may not offer a ttractive r eoccupation s ites, s ince they do not have platforms i nviting r euse. Middens a ssociated with nonplatform houses may be recycled i nto f ill, but only i f they a re not yet buried and are l ocated near an area where a later p latform i s t o be built. At Nohmul, and probably at many o ther s ites, midden excavations would underestimate the relative extent o f Early C lassic o ccupation, but overestimate the relative s ize o f Late Preclassic occupation. The Late Preclassic i s widespread over the N ohmul s ettlement area and, a lthough deeply buried under l ater o ccupation d ebris i n s ome areas and p oorly r epresented by i ntact house f loors, most o f Nohmul's monumental a rchitecture was originally built a t the e nd of the P reclassic. These enormous Chicanel platforms and s tructures were r eoccupied i n l ater periods and r efurbished or r ecycled i nto new s tructures. Erosion of large Preclassic p latforms provides a c ontinuous s ource of "midden" material a long p latform s ides and bases. Late Preclassic occupation was a lso widespread over the s ite area, s o that a lmost a ny l ater building was near recyclable debris f rom a L ate P reclassic occupation. T he Early C lassic, on the o ther hand, was l ess widespread and not a period of i ntensive construction o f monumental architecture. As i n the Preclassic, a s ignificant proportion of Early C lassic o ccupation s eems to have b een located o n the ground s urface, without benefit of platforms. Without the c onstruction of l arge buildings, midden f ill f rom this period i s s carce and l ittle occupation debris r eceived erosion protection f rom l ater platforms. Very s eldom does Early C lassic f ill erode out of a p latform to create or add to a midden. L ocalized deposits also mean that only l ater s tructures built near Early C lassic areas would r ecycle Early C lassic debris, and only e xcavations i n these particular areas would l ocate Early C lassic evidence. L ocalized o ccupation may actually r epresent a concentrated population and does not necessarily i ndicate a smaller population. P opulation concentration i nto s maller areas may even correspond to population growth. A r epresentative s ample o f Early C lassic material would r equire emphasis on deep platform excavations and well preserved nonmound habitation areas. Another methodological question c oncerning excavation placement addressed a t Nohmul was whether nonmound s tructures actually r epresent a type of occupation different f rom t hat r epresented by platform-based structures. I f p latform-based s tructures actually

1 37

encompass the entire r ange of f unctionally a nd socially distinct building types, then nonplatform occupations o nly i ndicate additional population, not different social groups, d ifferent e ras, or d ifferent building f unctions that must be i ncluded i n a holistic picture o f community s tructure. Excavations i n p latforms will give the s ame r ange of i nformation a s excavations p laced i n ground surface s tructures. C onclusive proof i n the f orm o f f unctional a nalysis o f artifacts a ssociated with mound a nd nonmound f eatures a t Nohmul i s not available. However, o ther l ines o f reasoning have i nteresting i mplications. F irst, s ome n onplatform occupations have a lmost no a ssociated artifacts whatsoever. This s uggests there i s s ome d istinction between platform a nd nonplatform construction, either f unctional or s ocial. Second, the l ocation of n onplatform s tructures i n r elation to p latforms and the s ite center s eems to change over t ime ( see Chapter F ive f or a complete outline of these pattern changes). This a lso s uggests that nonplatform s tructures may r epresent a d ifferent sector o f Maya s ocial s tructure, or at l east a different c ategory o f building. Population D istribution:

Neighborhoods

The visible s ettlement f eatures at Nohmul are n ot s pread evenly over the s ite, but are c lustered in f ive areas, a s i ndicated by F igure 2 . These areas suggest " neighborhoods" o f o ccupation. F igure 1 1 presents t he average number o f mounds i n e ach quadrant a nd shows a s imilarly uneven d istribution. These groupings notwithstanding, F igure 1 shows that Nohmul's visible s ettlement a lso decreases s teadily with greater distance f rom s ite c enter, a lthough corridors of denser o ccupation ( corresponding i n part to the " neighborhoods" shown i n F igure 2 ) l ead d irectly to areas with i mportant outlying f eatures, such a s the Rio Hondo, neighboring s ites, a nd raised f ield areas. Nonmound f eatures, or " invisible occupation", show a different type o f c lustering. F igure 2 s hows that neighborhoods of s trictly nonplatform s tructures ( those having no l ater s tructure built a bove them ) occur in the outer kilometer of the s ite. These are the o nly areas where I l ocated prehistoric f loors with a lmost no a ssociated artifacts. The analyses o f s ettlement densities a t different periods presented i n Chapter Four showed that the Nohmul s ettlement had a s lightly bimodal d istribution i n several periods, with denser population i n the k ilometers nearest and f urthest f rom s ite c enter. This pattern may be underdeveloped, s ince i t i s quite possible that the extant nonplatform f loors a ctually r epresent only a s mall proportion of a much denser but e xtremely ephemeral s ector o f the population. However, the existing data a lone g ive

1 38

tentative s upport to Drennan's ( 1988) hypothesis o f the centrifugal i nfluence o f i ntensive r aised f ield agriculture on a n o therwise nucleated c ommunity. S everal authors have a ttempted to define the n ature o f these types of Maya architectural groupings. Marcus ( 1983b) discusses Maya housing c lusters a s multiple nuclei in a n urban c ontext and r aises s ome i mportant questions about their s ocial s ignificance, i .e., do these groupings serve s pecialized f unctions, a s the nuclei in i ndustrial cities do, or does e ach r eplicate the s ocial hierarchy and functions of a ll o thers? F ash ( 1983) has developed a s imilar position on this i ssue. In his s tudy of r esidence groupings i n the C opan pocket, Fash employs the c oncept of a ldea or neighborhood developed f rom evidence Wisdom ( 1940) collected among the Chorti: Each a ldea o ccupies a s ingle geographical area, and i t considers a ll the l and and resources within that a rea a s i ts own. The l and i s made up of house s ites, milpa and garden l and, orchards, unused milpa l and which may or may not be l ying f allow at any g iven t ime, and l and which i s too rough or rocky to be used f or any purpose except grazing. ( Wisdom 1 940, a s quoted i n F ash, 1 983:268) These small groups are mainly i n-marrying s o most inhabitants of a n a ldea a re r elated a s e ither a ffines, consanguines or both. F ash believes these groupings may correspond to i ntermarrying l ineages; i n c ases where the l ineages i nclude r oyalty, they may be nucleated i nto the center of the community too c losely s paced to i nclude their own milpas. This reconstruction f ollows Marcus's ( 1983b) i dea o f multiple nuclei, i n that i t s uggests complete r eplication of t he means of production and a ll s ocial categories i n each a ldea. C enter-dwellers would presumably be craft specialists, have a ccess to the f ruits of other people's labor, or have to w alk very l ong d istances. Fash f ollows Willey ( 1981:397) i n h is c haracterization o f the C opanecos as f ailing to achieve complete urbanization. This i s not t he picture presented by Nohmul. The 7 00 mapped visible s tructures a lone l ie within an area bounded by bajos, r aised f ields, a nd o ther s ites that i s probably not l arge enough t o i nclude a small milpa f or every f amily, even i n outlying a reas. ( I suspect the s ame f or s everal o f Fash's a ldeas, but do not have i nformation on the c arrying capacity o f the type of a gricultural s ystem proposed f or the C opanecos.) At Nohmul, a t l east, i t i s f airly certain that many agriculturalists were i nvolved i n the r idged f ield systems l ocated a t the e dges of the s ite, n ot with milpas scattered t hrough the s ettlement area.

1 39

that i t l asted only f ifty years. B ecause Protoclassic material i s s parse, i t i s d ifficult to tell whether i ts usage was actually c ulturally r estricted, a s suggested by Pring ( 1977), or only brief. S ince the Nohmul Freshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic ) ceramic complex may overlap chronologically with the T erminal Preclassic a t Nohmul, i t i s possible that the F reshwater pottery a t Nohmul was a ssociated with s ome s pecial group or f unction. The Early C lassic P eriod i s a lso represented in a small number o f excavations, a lthough i ts time s pan ( 350 years) i s much l onger than that of t he Protoclassic. The extant data s uggest a mildly bimodal distribution and c lustering i n the north s ector ( see T able 9 and F igure 8 ). The l ow f loor count f or this period may be the r esult o f actual population decline, s ample bias, emphasis o n ephemeral occupation during the period, or a combination o f these f actors. The Late C lassic population a pparently s hifts f rom the c lustering i n the north s ector evident in preceding periods, to c lustering i n the west. Excavations a lso suggest a greater density o f occupation a long the outer edges o f the s ite. The westerly s hift may be r elated t o environmental changes, s ince the west sector i s the lowest and wettest a rea o f the s ite. A lternatively, the shift might reflect i ncreased emphasis on u ses of the r iver f or transport or export, or may s imply i ndicate a population i ncrease resulting i n more u se of l ess desirable s ettlement areas. The Terminal C lassic s eems t o shift o ccupation emphasis to the poorly s ampled e astern quadrant, with a n actual drop i n density i n the north s ector. This c ould b e related to changes i n r elations with S an Victor, to changes i n the agricultural s trategy employed i n the raised f ields, or to changes i n the l and tenure system; the possible explanations are i nnumerable. D ensity i s greatest i n the kilometer c losest to s ite c enter, and a t this time the s ite shows the c learest i ndication o f nucleation. A high percentage o f Terminal C lassic s tructures r eoccupy earlier platforms, s uggesting population i ncrease. The progression s hown i n Appendix B i n F igures 4 - 1 0 ( Appendix B ) f rom the Preclassic t o the Terminal C lassic d iscussed i n Chapter F our s how changes i n the l oci o f nonplatform o ccupation over t ime. As noted, most nonplatform o ccupation i s i n outlying areas near raised f ields, but this d istribution develops and i ntensifies over time. It i s possible that the e arliest occupation at a ny date i n new area i s n onplatform, i n which case this pattern could s imply r epresent periods o f population g rowth i n which new houses were built on the b oundaries of t he s ite. This i s probably not the c ase, however, s ince many of t he e arliest o ccupations known f rom particular areas ( such a s the 1 31 Group) were built o n l arge s ingle phase p latforms. Furthermore, a ll periods a re r epresented i n nonmound areas

1 40

on the n orthern s ite e dge s outh.

a nd

i n mound excavations to the

Concomitant with these changes i n c lustering and nucleation, population e stimates based on the r elative a bundance of c eramics i n excavations and s urface units r ecovered from each p eriod suggest a s teady population i ncrease. The f igures c alculated with the s tandard population f ormula u sed by Mayanists ( see Chapter F ive) s how an a bsolute population s ize o f 1 680 i n the E arly C lassic i ncreasing t o 3 881 i n the Terminal C lassic, which s uggests that during the period o f o ccupation, Nohmul's population more than d oubled. ( I omitted the Preclassic e stimate s ince the l ength o f the period makes this f igure problematic.) These f igures a re too small. An unknown but possibly s izeable proportion o f Nohmul's i nhabitants l eft no archaeological i ndications that c an be r eadily translated i nto population f igures. Not a ll prehistoric house f loors c an be e xpected to be a s o bvious a s those discovered i n TP 6 1 or TP 4 5. TP 4 6, f or example, d isclosed what was probably a d irt o ccupation surface a ssociated with f ew artifacts and with very ambiguous s tratigraphy. Such subtle f eatures would not even be r ecognizable i n posthole tests. Some ground s urface f loors, such a s TP 6 1, were a ssociated with a rtifacts which a ppear to have been d eposited after a bandonment. This s uggests that garbage f rom n eighboring houses was c ollected i n a bandoned buildings, even though no evidence o f i mmediate neighbors o f a l ater date was r ecognized i n i ntensive posthole testing. This h ints a t nearby housing that i s now c ompletely gone. F amily s ize d oes not a lways r emain c onstant under conditions of population growth or decline. Economic, political and s ocial c onditions i nfluence whether l arger f amilies will be housed i n more or l arger buildings ( Wilk 1 983), and these c onsiderations may have variable results within a s ingle c ommunity. Ethnohistorically based e stimates of f amily s ize go a s high a s 2 5 people per household ( Hellmuth 1 977), i nstead of the s tandard 5 .6. A wide r ange i n coresidential f amily s ize probably existed within a single s ettlement and a verage s ize s urely changed over t ime. B esides the e stimates based on mound c ounts used by Mayanists, there a re s everal o ther types o f population e stimate that would r esult i n very d ifferent f igures f or Nohmul. Redman's ( 1978) population e stimates f or Warka, f or example, are based o n the s ize o f the area covered by a s ettlement multiplied by a s tandard population density derived from modern population densities. Assuming a s imilarly dense population f or Nohmul would produce a population e stimate o f a bout 2 5,000. I f Nohmul i s a ssumed to have been a s d ense a s the modern population o f n earby Orange Walk T own, i ts population would be c loser to 1 0,000.

1 41

Unfortunately this type of e stimate a ssumes population density based on area c overed a nd e thnographic a nalogy with modern c ommunities. These a re t he variables that most s ettlement analysts want to r econstruct. S ite c atchment analyses have been attempted at o ther s ites i n Mesoamerica ( cf.Rossmann 1 976, Sanders 1 976). These depend on e stimates o f the f ood producing potential o f an area and a technological s ystem. Unfortunately, i t i s not possible to be s ure how much land was being exploited at a particular time f or u se at a particular Maya s ite. For example, were the r aised f ields north o f Nohmul s hared with S an Victor? Was t he s ettlement on Albion I sland producing a s urplus f or Nohmul? Was Northern B elize a s ource o f r iver transported s ubsistence goods f or the C entral P eten? F urthermore, the productivity of Maya agriculture, e specially r aised f ield agriculture, i s c ontroversial ( Siemens 1 982:220). Nevertheless, Denevan's ( 1982:190) minimal population e stimate f or the whole of Northern Belize based on the c arrying c apacity o f the r aised f ield s ystems a lone o f i s 3 6,500. Additional types o f agriculture a nd the use a dditional f ields i n Quintana Roo would s ignificantly enlarge this f igure ( Siemens 1 982:220). I f over 3 6,000 people were l iving i n Northern B elize, i t i s d ifficult to believe that Nohmul, t he l argest s ettlement, c ontained l ess than 4 000 people at i ts maximum. Neither of these two methods o f population e stimation i s more r eliable than the s tandard Mayanist housemound c ounts, but i t would be d ifficult t o s ubstantiate a c laim that they were l ess r eliable. The i mportant point i s that the two techniques just described suggest much l arger population f igures f or Nohmul t han those developed i n C hapter F ive. Therefore, the Nohmul estimates presented a bove s hould be c onsidered an a bsolute minimum.

P art I II: F indings

Contribution of the Research D esign and the

Returning to the two questions r eiterated a t the s tart of this chapter, the Nohmul d ata may be used t o provide s ome preliminary answers. F irst, there i s no s imple c orrelation between visible mounds a nd the constellation of archaeological s ettlement f eatures. Nonplatform s tructures have d ifferent characteristics and, at times, a different d istribution f rom mounded f eatures. Features not visible f rom t he modern ground surface a re abundant a t Nohmul, and a re noted at most o ther s ites, e ven when no nonmound r econnaissance strategy i s employed and despite the f act that they are l ikely to be ephemeral. F urthermore, s ince ground s urface o ccupations e xist i n the

1 42

Maya Lowlands t oday, i t i s c lear that there i s no ecological b arrier t o s uch housing. There i s no l ogical reason to r eject t heir e xistence i n the past; i n f act, i t is m ore logical t o a ssume that a type of s tructure f or which we have prehistoric, historic, and modern evidence was a ctually c ommon i n the past. At this point, the burden of p roof must be o n e xcavators who c laim to have discovered a s ite where no ground s urface f eatures exist, s ince this situation s eems to be without ethnographic or archaeological p arallel. Otherwise, the presence o f nonplatform f eatures at Maya s ites must be a ssumed and accounted f or i n the r esearch design of any s ettlement analysis. I t i s e ssential that research s trategies developed f or the L owland Maya r egion be r esponsive to the realities o f s ite f ormation processes i n a tropical environment. S econd, Nohmul's a rchaeological s ettlement f eatures do reflect s ome a spects o f the prehistoric Maya community. According to the a nalysis presented here, they may o utline the e xistence o f n ucleation, neighborhoods, and centrifugal forces affecting p opulation d istribution. These patterns are c onvincing because they c an be s hown to change and develop over time. P erhaps the most i mportant contribution of t he Nohmul S ettlement P attern Project has been to demonstrate the p ossibility o f tracing changes i n settlement d istribution a s a s ource of i nformation on community pattern a nd demographic c hange. P opulation was not e venly d istributed over the whole s ettlement of Nohmul at a ny given t ime a nd i ts d istribution was not c onstant over t ime. Neighborhoods or population aggregates changed during the l ife o f the c ommunity, and the changes i n the distribution o f n onplatform f eatures suggest a possible change in the nature o f these aggregates.

Part IV: Sites

I mplications

f or P opulation E stimates at Other

Until the matter has been more thoroughly s tudied, we i ncline to presume that the a pparent d ifference l ies i n varying degrees o f thoroughness o f observation ( and, of course, preservation) o f the humble vestiges of domestic dwelling units i n the d ifferent areas, or, perhaps, i n d ifferent manners o f i nterpreting the material on h and. ( Andrews IV, on the population density of D zibilchaltun, 1 965:38) As a lready n oted, the existence of nonmound f eatures has b een documented a t many o ther s ites i n the Maya Lowlands. What i s d istinctive a bout the Nohmul s tudy i s the a ttempt to d efine the r ange o f variation present i n structural types, r ather than a cquiring a r andom s ample o f

1 43

predetermined types ( the usual approach), or a r andom s ample of a ll nonmound areas. A brief s urvey of s everal o f these s tudies, a lthough f ar f rom e xhaustive, will s erve t o i llustrate the i mplications o f the N ohmul s tudy f or other areas. Usually, nonmound o ccupation i s r eported t o exist under l ater s tructures without any particular significance being a ttached. At both Mirador ( Matheny 1 980) a nd Altun Ha ( Pendergast 1 982), p lastered bedrock i s noted i n the c ontext o f excavation d escriptions, but not d iscussed f urther. S imilarly, Thomas's ( 1981) t ext and drawings o f excavations at B ecan d isplay f loors built d irectly on the buried A-Horizon or on very thin l ayers of subfloor f ill, but the potential i mpact of this on his population est imates i s not d iscussed. He s truggles with t he same i ssues o f Preclassic over-representation encountered a t Nohmul, caused by the extreme l ength o f the L ate Preclassic and r esulting , i n the a ppearance o f a p opulation decline i n the Early C lassic. S everal o f h is ground surface f loors date to the Early C lassic, but he d oes not suggest that these occupations might be under-represented in h is mound s ample. S ince of his excavations are not to bedrock , deep f eatures may have been excluded f rom his s ample i n some c ases. At Altar de S acrificios, Smith ( 1972) notes ground-surface occupations, but he d ates them a ll to X e ( Late Early Preclassic). Willey ( 1973) a lso n otes the existence o f these s tructures a t Altar, and r emarks o n the c oincidental l ocation o f these Xe f loors with later Middle Preclassic f loors. Wilk and Wilhite ( n.d.) note t he same s ituation a t Cuello and suggest that preservation o f early f loors may be c ontingent o n protection provided b y later c onstruction. S imilarly, I suspect that a t Nohmul later f loors were not a lways p laced over e arlier f loors, b ut that only f loors under l ater c onstruction were preserved from the e arliest periods. Of course o nly those under mounds would be f ound i n mound-biased excavation s amples. At the beginning of the B arton Ramie report Willey s tates " ...as i t i s not certain that a ll Maya d omestic s tructures were built on s uch mounds, i t i s quite p ossible that i mportant s ettlement evidence h as been passed o ver i n many i nstances." ( et a l. 1 965:12) When f lat tests uncovered no f loors, he c oncluded t hat most Barton Ramie s tructures had been on p latforms, though excavations through p latforms hit o ccasional ground-surface f loors ( cf. Willey et a l. 1 965:16, and profiles pp.43, 1 67, 1 90, 2 01, 2 36, a nd 2 66 f or possible e vidence of ground surface or very l ow f loors; the s ite map does not c larify the s ituation). Heavy a lluviation i n the a rea o f Willey's f lat tests could i ndicate a l ack o f preservation i n t he areas tested, the unsuitability of the s ix particular areas tested, or the unsuitability f or ground-surface o ccupation o f the entire s ite f or ground s urface dwellings. The l atter position s eems l east l ikely, s ince ground surface 1 44

f loors were f ound, notably below l ater protective s tructures that l eft v isible mounds. I n his s ummary o f d istributions by c hronological period, Willey f irst notes t hat i n 1 5 of the 1 8 i nstances o f Jenney Creek ( Late E arly P reclassic), the house s ites were probably p laced d irectly o n the g round s urface, but does not d iscuss the possibility o f bias i n his mound s ample. D espite data c ollected by C liff ( 1982) on the e xistence of ground-surface c onstructions i n the c entral p recinct of C erros, S carborough ( 1986) d id a mound s ample o f the s ettlement a rea. Ground-surface s tructures were f ound a t Seibal, but Tourtellot ( 1983) argued that these s hould not be a llowed to i nfluence population e stimates until ( n.d. : 8) " sampling design, i dentification of f orm, f unction, date, c ontemporaneity, s tatus, areal distribution a nd q uantity" c ould be a ssessed. Bronson ( n.d.) f ound n umerous "vacant terrain" s tructures, but his f indings d id n ot influence Haviland's ( 1970) L ate C lassic population e stimates since Haviland c oncluded f ew i nvisible f eatures d ated t o the L ate C lassic ( Culbert p .c.). I t i s d ifficult to generalize about what e ffect a c areful c onsideration of n onmound s tructures would have on t he c onclusions of t hese a uthors, s ince quantification i s s till b eyond the r each o f most projects. Searching f or f eatures in f lat a reas s eems very expensive when one c onsiders that there are f ar more visible s tructures than c an be e xcavated before they are destroyed by l ooters and modern l and use. As the Nohmul d ata s uggest, the h abitation of nonplatform s tructures probably varied f rom p lace t o place and f rom t ime to t ime. Nevertheless, i t i s t his t ype o f variation that may u ltimately explain ( or d issolve) some of the r iddles of the perpetually mysterious Maya. T he most l ikely c ontribution nonmound s tudies may make t o a g eneral picture o f Maya population e stimates i s a r eevaluation of the E arly C lassic. Several s tudies e ither d ocument ( e.g., Thomas 1 981) or d iscuss ( Bronson n .d., the Nohmul study, Wilk and Wilhite n .d.) the presence o f ground surface s tructures during this period. These s tudies suggest t hat Early C lassic population i s underrepresented i n mound s amples. Bronson's s tatement i s the strongest, O n a Tikal-wide d istribution map, i f one could be prepared, the e arlier and l ater periods would a ppear a s i slands ( and a f ew Late C lassic C ontinents) i n a n Early C lassic s ea. ( Bronson n .d. : 110) I f this assessment i s c orrect a t key s ites l ike T ikal, a s i t seems to be a t peripheral Nohmul, then the s harp population i ncrease d ocumented a t most s ites f or the L ate C lassic may have b een more gradual, and i ncluded an i ncreased emphasis o n p latform o ccupation i n the c entral 1 45

areas o f s ites. The L ate C lassic may s imply b e the f irst period a t many s ites during which e very central a rea within three k ilometers of the s ite c enter ) occupation became a r eoccupation, s ince a ll suitable s ites had been recently used or were i n use. The Nohmul d ata s et underscores t he i mportance o f d istinguishing between chronological periods at a particular s ite when attempting to r econstruct demographic variables. Other i mplications will probably be most i mportant on a smaller s cale. L ocal f luctuations i n population s ize, density and p lacement may help outline e xtra-site r elationships. For example, the d ecrease in E arly Classic visibility at Nohmul i s apparently n ot shared by the nearby s ite on Albion I sland ( Lewenstein a nd Dahlin n .d.), which has an obtrusive Early C lassic component. The p ossibility o f a r elationship between the two s ites s eems worthy of i nvestigation.

P art V :

D irections

f or F uture Research

The c onclusion o f the Nohmul Settlement Pattern Project i s a new s et o f questions a bout prehistoric M aya c ommunity development a nd demographic change. The possibility o f changes i n the n ature o f population clusters s uggested by tracing variation i n t he distribution of m ound and nonmound f eatures over t ime n eeds substantiation f rom o ther s ites. How do changes i n the r atio o f mound to nonmound o ccupation a t Nohmul c ompare to the c hanges at l arger s ites, s uch a s T ikal and M irador, or t o changes at nearby s ites, s uch a s San Victor, San Luis, or Albion I sland? How does the l ocation o f nonplatform s tructures change i n r elation to platform s tructures and s ite c enter at l arge d istant or smaller a nd nearby s ites? P erhaps the most i ntriguing f inding of the Nohmul Settlement P attern P roject i s that n onmound occupation may be s ignificantly different f rom that represented by s tructures visible a bove ground. Although i t i s n ot possible to i nterpret the meaning o f these differences, the possibility that d ifferent f orms of occupation may correspond to s ocial d ivisions and may i ndicate changes in these divisions over t ime i s worth f urther i nvestigation. I t has been the underlying theme o f this treatise t hat c hanges i n the relations between s ettlement variables, r ather than s itewide generalizations, hold t he greatest promise f or an understanding of prehistoric Maya community patterns. The Nohmul S ettlement P attern P roject has s hown t hat s ome l ong-standing questions a bout the ancient M aya may be a nswered with i mproved f ield methods and research designs. Implementing the methods d iscussed i n this monograph w ould

1 46

be a s mall s tep toward " demystifying" the Maya. At l east new r esearch designs may help us begin to s eparate the confusion i nadvertently c reated by i nvestigators f rom the real mysteries of t he past.

APPENDIX A TABLES

1 48

Table

Excay. No.

1 .

General

Meters Dist. to Site Cm. Ctr. Depth

Excavation Data

Bedrock No. Min- Buring ials

and Dates

Total Periods

EP MP LP FW EC LC TC UC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8

1 933 1 897 1 896 1 906 1 933 1 962 1 939 1 333 3 202 3 138 3 129 3 328 1 186 1 186 1 150 1 221 1 246 9 93

402 6 0 2 30 1 72 45 1 34 204 2 25 9 3 2 20 201 1 97 1 50 1 70 1 40 4 2 1 10 1 20

+ + + + + + + -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

5 5 4 6 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 2 2

+ _ -

+ + _ + + + -

+ + + + + _ + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + _ _ + + + + + _ + _

+ + _ + _ + + + + + _ + + _ _

+ + + + _ + _ + _ + + + _ + _ _ -

+ + + + _ + _ _ + + + + + + _ +

+ + + + + + + + + + + _ + + + + _ -

1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1

9 99 1 122 1 131 1 115 1 168 1 161 2 352 9 87 1 049 1 023 1 046 1 051 9 82

111 8 7 1 90 3 15 1 50 1 37 4 0 1 65 70 31 1 00 1 58 210

+ + + + +

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 2 2 5 2 5 1 2 1 1 2 3 4

-

+ + -

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + + _ + _ +

+ _ _ _ + + _ + +

_ _ + + + +

+ + + + + + + + _ _

+ + + + + + + _ + + +

3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2

955 9 83 2 036 1 983 1 988 1 955 1 980 2 966 2 994 3 073 3 044

212 1 92 9 5 1 76 1 58 1 75 2 39 2 60 1 37 1 87 2 04

+ + + + + +

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

5 4 1 4 3 1 2 3 5 3 4

-

+ + -

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + _

+ _ + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + +

Table 1. General Excavation Data and Dates (continued) Dist. to Excav. Site Ctr. Depth No.

-----43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

3591 3576 3126 3204 3107 3077 3069 3115 3731 2359 1036 1060 1134 2873 2899 2859 2689 2683 3024 3046 1604 1636 1647 1454 1625 1610 1735 1717 1675 1763 1851 1575 3085 3010

----155 100 79 113 270 258 177 85 215 85 170 110 40 352 235 275 72 140 135 40 143 265 115 65 72 35 90 70 120 87 40 35 70 90

Bedrock Min- Buring ials +

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+

0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0

Total Periods EP MP LP FW EC LC TC UC 1 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 4 3 4 2 2 6 1 3 2 2

- - - -

+ + +

-

-

-

+

+ + + + + + +

+

+

+

+ + +

2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3

+ +

-

+

-

+ -

+

+

+

+

-+

+ +

1

- + + ++ - ++ -+ ++ - - + + + + + - ++ - +- +- ++ ++ - + + + ++ -+ ++ -- ++ ++ + + + + + - ++ - ++ +- +- ++ - + + + - + + + - + - + - - - - + - + - +

+

-

+

+

-

+ +

Table

TP. No.

2 .

F loor Count

Excavation Data and F loor Dates

Meters Elev.

Mnd. or NonMnd.

Invis ible F loor Count

Km. Inter val

FLOOR DATES PC FW EC LC TC UC mm b

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 30 31 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 40 41 4 2 4 3 44

5 1 8 8 0 2 2 4 2 5 5 2 0 5 0 0 1 4 1 0 2 4 2 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 3 2 4 1 1 5 4 2 5 7 1 1

2 0.08 1 7.74 1 8.43 1 8.25 1 7.48 1 9.06 1 8.93 1 9.73 4 .74 5 .37 5 .05 3 .99 1 8.04 1 9.07 2 0.79 1 6.27 1 8.25 1 8.04 1 1.24 1 4.06 1 1.86 1 0.74 1 0.54 1 0.42 3 .44 8 .41 9 .92 8 .67 1 8.93 1 9.66 1 7.97 1 7.36 1 7.23 4 .54 4 .25 4 .55 5 .16 5 .10 5 .96 3 .99 5 .07 5 .66 3 .87 3 .90

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1

1 51

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

q

o

2 1

2 2

2

g lm r ea m

a .

m.

3 1 5 4

2 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1

3 1

1

1 1 1

2 1 3

3

1 4 1 1

1 4 2 3 1 2

1 2 3 1

1

2 2 4 1 1 4

4 1 4

1 1

2 1 1

4 1

# GP# ex»

4 4 4 4 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 5 1 1 1 0 2 3 3 2 0 2 6 6 0 3 0 0 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 5 3 0 0

1 31 1 31 1 31 1 31 0 1 36 1 31 2 79 2 50 2 48 2 48 2 63 3 03 3 03 3 17 0 3 27 3 06 3 06 3 13 3 19 3 13 3 20 3 20 0 3 06 0 0 5 56 5 56 5 61 0 5 61 0 7 72 7 77 7 72 7 72 4 79 4 85 5 42 4 75 0 0

Table

TP. No. 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 50 51 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 61 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 70 71 7 2 7 3 7 4 75 76

2 .

Floor Count 1 2 4 1 2 0 2 1 4 3 0 7 2 4 1 1 5 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Excavation Data and Floor Dates

Meters Elev. 5 .53 4 .96 4 .90 4 .49 4 .61 3 .96 4 .84 3 .38 1 6.65 1 7.09 15.30 1 9.11 1 8.81 1 8.00 1 8.86 1 8.83 5 .91 5 .41 1 2.02 1 7.73 11.51 1 7.50 1 7.50 1 7.00 1 7.70 1 8.00 1 7.81 5 .26 5 .39

Mnd. or NonMnd.

Invis ible Floor Count

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

1 52

( continued)

Km. IntFLOOR DATES er val PC FW EC LC TC UC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 4

3

1

1 1 1

2 4

1 1 1

4 1

2 3

1 1

1

# GP#

0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 4 3 4 1 1 0 0 8 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 6 59 0 6 60 0 6 84 0 9 95 9 94 0 6 90 6 90 6 90 6 76 6 76 0 0 9 40 9 40 9 40 0 9 40 9 40 0 0 0 0 0 5 06 0 0

Table

3 .

P latform Numbers,

Excay. No.

Meters Dist. to Site Ctr.

Km. Interval

Quadrant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 26 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 41 4 2

1 933 1 897 1 896 1 906 1 933 1 962 1 939 1 333 3 202 3 138 3 129 3 328 1 186 1 186 1 150 1 221 1 246 9 93 9 99 1 122 1 131 1 115 1 168 1 161 2 352 9 87 1 049 1 023 1 046 1 051 9 82 9 55 9 83 2 036 1 983 1 988 1 955 1 980 2 966 2 994 3 073 3 044

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

N N N N N N N N N N N N S S S S S S S S S S S S E S S N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W

Sizes

No. Mnds. in Gp. 4 4 4 4 0 0 7 6 0 2 2 5 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 2 0 2 6 6 0 3 0 0 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 5 3

Gp. No. 1 31 1 31 1 31 1 31 0 1 36 1 31 2 79 250 2 48 2 48 263 303 303 317 0 3 27 3 06 3 06 313 319 313 3 20 3 20 0 3 06 0 0 556 556 561 0 561 0 7 72 777 7 72 7 72 4 79 485 5 42 4 75

Meters Excay. Size 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table

Excay. No.

3 .

P latform Numbers,

D ist. to S ite Ctr.

Km. InterQuadval rant M

4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 51 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 71 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6

3 591 3 576 3 126 3 204 3 107 3 077 3 069 3 115 3 731 2 359 1 036 1 060 1 134 2 873 2 899 2 859 2 689 2 683 3 024 3 046 1 604 1 636 1 647 1 454 1 625 1 610 1 735 1 717 1 675 1 763 1 851 1 575 3 085 3 010

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

Sizes

No. Mnds. in Gp.

( continued)

Gp. No.

Meters Excay. Size

MM

N N N N N N N N N E E E E S S S S S N N W W W S W W S S S S S S N N

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 8 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 0 0 6 59 0 6 60 0 6 84 0 9 95 9 94 0 6 90 6 90 6 90 6 76 6 76 0 0 9 40 9 40 9 40 0 9 40 9 40 0 0 0 0 0 5 06 0 0

1 0 4 .7 8 .5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 .8 2 8 1 1 1 .75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 5 . 5 1 .2 1 .25

H

E l

i e i e

4 ) • O u )

I t A 3 I i n

E 1

I n

3

• I

O 4 )

I c o 0 1 . 4 . c h o E 4 I u

E 4 3

C o l e c t i o n s )

H

( 1 )

U t e ( 4 1 P

• H

V

C D 4 ) i t ;

e l

• I

I

U 4 3

•

•

H

v ) e

c n

% D e e N H

c o H

c o H

e

H

0

e

H

S

3 • I 0 P l u z i .

P 4

0

I

3

i o l

• I

H

0

0

1-

o

e

s H

. : 1 .

i n H

0 . 4 . ) P 4 0 d e E 1

I c n I n 1

u l H

V D

C N

e l C N

( a 4

I 0

U )

C f 1 C V

C T C O

4 3

I e

• I

0 4 )

i • c i .

1 2 4 0 I d e E 1 I ( 2 4

Z

0

c n

c n

I H

• 1 0 4 3 I H ( 2 4 0 I O f E I I f i t

I c n

F L 1

I

0

c n

0

H

o

H

c n

H

H

e

t N

r 1

M

n i H 4-) > ( 1 )

F 1

F t 4

s

H

m c o

e

I

n z $ H

c o e E 4

0 4 r 4 0

C . )

3

0 m o % C I

c o

0

C O

e l

E

c h o E 4

a ) E t

u 1 1

4 . )

T S

•

( 3

R I • 9 : 5 M I

.

0

r i

01

u l a l H

rd

• ( t i

U

C D 4 . )

( i )

4 -) a l

3 • 0 • 1 i P 4 0 d e H

U

4 . 1

> 1

A

O , 1 u ) z n n i 0 H ' .0

O r ) 0 • I

0

U

4 .) i i

1 . 4

P

I

0 4 41 1 4

n

0 1 1 • n : $ l t )

P 4

I 4

P 4 0 o v E I

1 3 4

.

•-I I


1 • H • I D

P H M I 4 1 I

H

-

d i

0 f I ( 1 ) U • r i 4 w 0 o I

a )g

4 1 4

( t i

' a

0

C z 4 c n U l a l

a )I

P O e r S g l 71 0

4 1 I

C I

0

C N I

• 4 '

n • es

I U ) I l r x i a s Q H U .

X

i 0 I

0 4 ) P 4 0

0 . i

C O H

• I

0 4 )

Z

C O

i

.

W I n

'H I d

3 m l i

l 0 N H

I P i

o

r Z oi r-)

( 1 ) a l

4

( N I f l

.

H

e

3 • I 0 4 ) I‘ 1 3

3

v : • e

. 4 . . 4,

d e H I

u i 4 )

c n e •

i n O

H

3 • I 04 ) I 0 ( 24 0 I

( c 1

CI

4

e i n

• I

0 . 1 -) I e r = 4 0 I e

, 1

• 0

I 0 i c o I

0 1 0 H In

H i t s

P 4

o. , H

H

H

C O e 4

I

E t

H P r 1

0

U r i c n U )

.

V

H

I N

ii n I n

4 )

I 0

C V

4) 0 U )

( 1 )

I e I H

•

P , 4

( N

•

0

o V, EI I

> 1

S u r f a c e

( P o s t h o l e s

I k o

I L O

d e Ei I

k J • • U U

0 C N

e

0

% . 0 m

i

C I

U )

0 i n

H

0 4 )

0 c A

EA

o

c n

O I

9 1 c i

0 e

0 H

) 1 0 4 i

H

c l

C N

H

O 4 . / i e i 2 4 0 1 N * H I

n i

C O

a l

•

i e I C N I

o

L C )

( N 1

I S 1

L a t

. 4 • 0 \ 0 0 c r )

4 -• ) d e 0 C I )

C O

-e l

Z

4 1

U l

U

I V

K s

1 -) n i

4

a 4

r i

2 0 3

Ei

Table

Table

5 .1

5 .

Testpit

Testpit

Data Averages

Interval Averages

Elevation

No. Depth Per.

No. Mnds.

Avg. Avg. Meter No. Dist. InviAvg. to sible No. Ctr. Floors Floors

Kilometer

1

1 5.36

1 39

2 .7

1 .8

1111

0 .1

1 .8

Interval

2

1 3.16

1 31

2 .3

2 .8

1 862

0 .5

1 .9

3

7 .55

1 68

3 .0

1 .3

3101

0 .9

2 .6

11.92

1 46

2 .7

2 .0

2039

0 .5

2 .1

ALL

Table

5 .2

Testpit Quadrant Averages

Elevation

Quadrant

No. Depth Per.

No. Mnds.

Avg. Avg. Meter No. Dist. InviAvg. to sible No. Ctr. Floors Floors

E

11.17

89

1 .6

0 .4

1 588

0 .4

1 .8

N

1 0.70

157

3 .1

1 .6

2 432

0 .8

2 .4

S

1 5.94

1 36

2 .3

1 .6

1 596

0 .2

1 .5

W

6 .16

162

2 .6

4 .0

2153

0 .6

2 .7

11.92

1 46

2 .7

2 .0

2 039

0 .5

2 .1

ALL

1 56

Table 6 . T able

6 .1

F loor Distributions

Floor Distributions by Interval

Invisible F loors

All F loors

5

4 4

2 8

Total

K ilometer

1

I nterval

2

1 3

3 4

4 8

3 0

3

2 3

6 1

6 8

4 3

ALL

3 8

1 00

1 60

1 00

C hi Square For I nvisible/Visible P = . 360

F loors,

T able

6 .2

2

Total

Floor Distributions by Quadrant Invisible Floors

Total

All F loors

Total

2

5

9

6

E Quadrant

N

6 .3

I nvisible

Square

7 4

4 6

1 1

3 9

2 4

W

8

2 1

3 8

2 4

1 00

1 60

1 00

3 8

Floor Distributions by Date

Floors

% Invisible

X = 1 1.34,

6 3

4

Visible F loors

C hi

2 4

S

ALL

T able

X = . 35,

LP

FW

9

0

5

4

1 0

0

3 7

6 4

EC 6

LC

TC

ALL

1 5

3 8

2 8

5 2

1 22

2 2

2 2

2 4

8

f or Floors Excluding Freshwater, DF = 3 ,

P = . 01

1 57

DF = 4 ,

Table

Meter Dist. to Site Ctr. 9 55 9 82 9 83 9 87 9 93 9 99 1 023 1 036 1 046 1 049 1 051 1 060 1 115 1 122 1 131 1 134 1 150 1 161 1 168 1 186 1 186 1 221 1 246 1 333 1 454 1 575 1 604 1 610 1 625 1 636 1 647 1 675 1 717 1 735 1 763 1 851 1 896 1 897 1 906 1 933 1 933

7 .

Pottery Types by Exact Distance Site Center

Excay. No. 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 6 1 8 1 9 2 8 5 3 2 9 2 7 3 0 5 4 2 2 2 0 2 1 5 5 1 5 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 7 8 6 6 7 4 6 3 6 8 6 7 6 4 6 5 7 1 7 0 6 9 7 2 7 3 3 2 4 1 5

EP + + + -

MP + + + + + + + + + -

LP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1 F8

FW + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

EC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

of E xcavation from

L C + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

TC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

UC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Table 7 .

Dist. to Site Ctr. 1939 1 955 1 962 1 980 1 983 1 988 2036 2 352 2359 2683 2689 2859 2873 2899 2966 2994 3010 3024 3044 3 046 3 069 3073 3077 3085 3107 3115 3126 3129 3138 3 202 3 204 3 328 3 576 3 591 3 731

Pottery Types by Exact Distance of Excavation from Site Center ( continued)

Excay. No. 7 3 7 6 3 8 3 5 3 6 3 4 25 5 2 6 0 5 9 5 8 56 5 7 3 9 40 7 6 6 1 4 2 6 2 4 9 41 4 8 75 4 7 50 4 5 1 1 1 0 9 4 6 1 2 4 4 4 3 51

EP -

MP + + + -

LP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1 59

FW + + + + + + + + -

EC + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

LC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

TC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

UC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ON.

+ + +

Table

8 .

Pottery Type Counts by

EP 4 I M,

D I S T A N C E T O S I T E C E N T E R

9 00 1 000 1 100 1 200 1 300 1 400 1 500 1 600 1 700 1 800 1 900 2 000 2 100 2 200 2 300 2 400 2 500 2 600 2 700 2 800 2 900 3 000 3 100 3 200 3 300 3 400 3 500 3 600 3 700 ALL

T0 TO TO T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 TO TO TO T0 TO TO T0 TO T0 T0 TO TO T0 T0 TO T0 TO --

* Instances

MP «0»

« 1 1 1 1 .

1 00 Meter Intervals*

LP

FW

EC

LC

IM M . MO

. M• r

elM b

I. M

.

MD

TC _-

UC « NU OM.

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

1 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0

6 2 9 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 7 0

4 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

4 2 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0

2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 5 0

3 4 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 7 1

4 4 9 1 1 0 0 6 2 2 7 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

1

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 0

3 2 5 4 2 1

1 1 3 2 1 0

3 1 2 3 1 1

1 2 5 4 0 1

3 1 4 5 0 1

2 2 8 5 2 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0 3

0 1 2

1 51

0 21

1 2 9

1 3 3

1 4 4

1 6 2

shown as

H

U

in Table 7 are added together here.

1 60

Table

9 .

Testpit D ate Distributions by Kilometer Interval

Table 9 .1 Testpit Dates by Interval

EP

MP

LP

FW

1

0

5

1 9

2

3

5

1 2

2

3

0

2

2 0

8

ALL

3

e M o 4. .»

K ilometer I nterval

1 2

5 1

1 1

2 1

UC

TOTAL EXCAV.

1 5

1 9

2 5

1 1

1 3

2 0

2 5

1 2

1 4

1 6

2 3

2 6

2 9

3 3

4 4

6 2

7 6

EC

LC

TC

4 . 1 1W

« M oe

M b

4M P O M

8

1 1 6

C hi Square for Late Preclassic, Early C lassic, Terminal C lassic x Distance, X = 2 .69, DF = 6 ,

Table 9 .2

K ilometer I nterval

Late C lassic, P = . 84

and

Testpit Date Percentages by Interval

EP

MP

I I » M O

N I » « a

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

UC

ff lI•

• IM P

TOTAL

1

0 %

4 2%

3 7%

5 2%

3 8%

2 4%

3 4%

3 1%

3 3%

2

100%

4 2%

2 4%

1 0%

2 1%

3 3%

3 0%

3 2%

3 3%

3

0 %

1 7%

3 9%

3 8%

41%

4 2%

3 6%

3 7%

3 3%

100%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

1 00%

ALL

1 61

H ( 11

40 / 1

N

e H

/ 4 1 0 N

0 0

• C 3 1

N / 4 1 0

e t o

N C O

V I

C T N

41 / 1 :0

H

N H

N e

0' r 4

o e

i v

c o

s

c o

P .4 -)

" C S 0

0

• N

t e i H

1 1 H

H H

o N

H / 4 1 1 : 0

• H

d i e

O S

. 4 .

0 1

N

H

a s N

C O e ' S

o

D i s t r i b u t i o n s

Q u a d r a n t *

N

•

H

t o

C O

. : 31

C s N

o

40 / 1

r 1

H r

e H

t o N

o

H

c o

i v

H N

0 e

H

N

N

e s

0 1 H

o H

H

N

( 1 3

c e P 0

• > 1 a l . C 1 gl

0

e l

e

H

H

0 U

0 0

C O

H •

• 4 J 4 -) O P 4 . )

e H

e H

4 )

N

N H

( 1 1

N

e

4 ) 4)

0

0 . ) U

r i

Z

t o

i

'

c o H

0

▪

4 . c 1

4

4 c

1 62

S e

40 / 1

N

0 1 H

0 0 H

c ) C3 U I L C I EI I

/ 4 1 1 ) i n

m P i n

I l l i n

0 0 H

d e 0 4

I e l I

C O t o

c v H

s c v

0 o H

1 c n I

L n C I

C O N

e H

0 0

O

c v i n

c o r

o H

0

Ot

« 3

N

H

R S $ 1 r d « 3

) . 1 O 0 4 1 X 0 )

0 ) 0 ) U o

I C O i

> I X I

F ri

e

. 4 )

0 0 • I • 4 ) O R S

I -) o

H ‘ ; ? '

r d

• = 31 e

e

H >▪ I a l a l I c h o U 1 s O X I E l 1I

U z

*

g .

I

P

L O

O 4 -) a l

A ° P 4 4

I d ' I

i n g i e

S e l

40 / 1

I ) r i l P 4 S i U I O H

c h o i l l Z

I 0 I

0 L C I

( 9 i n

S H

0 0 H

d e P 4 4 1

I 0 I

i n e l

i n i n

i n i n

o 0 . 4

H

n

N . o H O H . C 2 « I E4

F A

Z

I ' 0 i d

4 -)

Or

O i P

U )

Z

0 0 H

4 4 4

H H ( c 1 4 ) 0 O 0 E-1 d t ° g L i H ( d 4 ) • E 4 H ( 0

G ) 4 -3 • H

0 0 H 4 . 4

C O C V

0 C Y )

C N e

w e

C O

C O t l )

c o C V

i n v e i l

U E s

C O C V

C h H

0 1 t I D

1 C N I I C V

i n H

i n e l

K i l o m e t r

O 4

S

i n

r d •

E li

$ 3 . )

m n

IC V

I r t

H

H C O 4J • H

P 0 0 H

c n

0 i e i 4 1 I

i n

V D

t f l H

• H H

H . H H

( 1 ) H A

f r O H A

C O E 1

0 3 E t

. : 14

. z r C V

0 0

w e S

C T m

C O C I

0 t o

H w e

C T w e

C N w e

c l w e

0 e l

c A H

e H

i n % C s

4 . c N i

i n

c n c v

H

l

c o

e

C V H

C ' l

•

i n

H

i n

0

I n

1 0

e l

0

C s 1

( N 1

‘ z i e

i n

0 H

c o H

c n

S

1 )

H

C V

I

E l i O I 0 E l i d e O i 0 g l I

E li O l

C V

c r )

c h

E li

t r o . 4 .

I

E l i 0 Im E 1 I c n o e I • 4

0 H

O 1

i n

0

r

c e )

i ( . 1

0

c \ I

z r

E l i d e I

f i 4

4

0 1

0 i E l i

H C V

0 I c h E l i d e I

1 : 4

H H

/ 1 0 0 H PL 4

d o

0

H d e

I

• f x l

l 0 I

0 1

1

E l i O lin E l i d e I

e n H

C O

0

I C V

V)

S

1 4

I C V

( " )

H

0 1

1 . 2 F l o r s b y D a t e a n d Q u a d r a n t

D i s t r i b u t i o n s 0 ) 4 ) ( T i

U )

e e

E l i 0 I e H I w e

>1

A

S 1 O O H 4 4

0

c o C /

O Ir -E II C V d e I

P

n

0

E l i 0 I 0 EI I L r l c h o I

E l i

( 0

• P • 0 O 0 H d e r z 4

s a , ) H 4 . ) C O

>

H

O 1 Pi

0

4 4

4

. 4 '

I

H

I O W H 4 ) r 4 Q ) M g

H I O I 0 H I d e I

e h

a

U l 0 H 0 H . ( e 4 ) o t o 4 ) t i ) 0 0 E-4 P 4

H ( 0 e a ) 0

e V D

0 H

C I C V

0 0 H

H 43 C I S l 0 t o ( N I

0 e

0 c n

e c o e n

T s c o

O r

> 4

p e r K i l o m e t r

a )

c L i 43 0 EI

P o s t h o l e

c o H

L n

C V

o 0 H

( 1 3

o p4 )0

4 1 )

E i

P

t o C N I

c v

h a l F A

H C O

H•

c v e 4

s H

. 14 C V V )

C I % C I . 14 C V

H 0

CU 4 ) a ) 0 E i d )

E n C ' )

e n i n t o

% I D H

e

H

H

C V

e n

4

H

4 K C

K S 4 ) 0 E 4 c v . c v

g i

z

U )

C V H

1 : ) H

Q ) H

o w

H

r d t r i

M H

E A

01

i t E l

A t u E i

c h H

4

H

2

a )

1 64

i n e e c v

a ‘ N

e

4 4 04

C N I H

A

e n C O

0 0 H

S 4 O H 4 ) M I

.

C V ( N J

e

d )

t n e l . 4 ' " z e

P o s t h o l e H .

0

H

t o

U 3

l O 0 1 C I H

H i d 4 0 E i

t i H r c l

H

‘ 0 c o t n

n 3 4) 4 J Q ) 0 0 EIP 4

T s

t r i

r c i P

a ) . t r )

N t o

N

P o s

U ) . 1

M V P 0

f a 4

r — t

U ) C I ) H 0

0 0 H

t ; i S 4

Table 1 3.

Postholes

Excay. No.

Pot. Tot.

4-1W

M M, M e

w ir c m o

s Mm,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2

mm

1 5 26 5 4 15 5 1 4 3 3 2 9 3 1 2 27 1 9 10 1 4 3 2 3 1 7 7 3 11 1 7 2 2 6 1 9 3 8 1 21 1 3 6 4 4 2 3 3 4 6

and Surface Collections

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP 4 1» .

”

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

m mdm»

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

MP

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

+

+

+

1 65

LT

UC 4 1 1 1» MI P

1 ••• M M .

”

+

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

Pot. Tot. M M .

4 3 4 4 45 46 4 7 4 8 4 9 50 51 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 56 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 61 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 70 71 7 2 7 3 7 4 75 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 81 8 2 8 3 8 4

( CONTINUED)

MM

M IM

1 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 2 6 2 9 7 1 4 5 5 2 5 1 0 3 1 0 9 1 1 3 6 3 4 2 2 0 1 9 7 5 2 2 5 1 2 7 3 7 4 4 3 4 3

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP I M I .

”

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I M ..

.

MM

MP

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

« I M .. . Mb

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

+

1 66

LT

UC

4 . 1• 0 M M .

III« M I M

As a lready noted, I think topography had an i nconsistent i nfluence on s ettlement a t Nohmul. Occupation o ccurred i n l ow areas, s ometime culturally built-up and v isible today, s ometimes not. S ometimes higher e levations w ere l eft unoccupied. Due to a lluviation i n l ow a reas and d ifferential preservation a nd visibility of s ites on r idges, i t i s n ot possible t o tell how much a pparently r idge-related c lustering i s the r esult of cultural choice a s opposed to n atural f ormation processes. The Nohmul S ettlement P attern P roject data do trace movement o f p opulation c lusters over t ime and, o bviously, the natural t opography did n ot move to promote these changes. If the northern s ector grouping i s not s imply a result o f clustering at higher e levations, any of Nohmul's " neighborhoods" c ould c orrespond to F ash's a ldeas, s ince at p resent I have n o data to argue that they were f unctionally s pecialized or correspond t o s ocially d istinct s trata. H owever, the c lustered n onplatform o ccupation suggests a d ifferent i nterpretation. I f i solation f rom p latform-based s tructures, paucity o f material goods, and l ocation near a gricultural f ields a re i ndications o f s ocial d ifferences, t hen the nonmound o ccupation of the L ate and Terminal C lassic periods may r epresent a type o f neighborhood i n w hich a ll s ocial s trata a re not r eplicated. I n s ome p eriods, neighborhoods a t Nohmul may not e ach f orm a c omplete s ocial microcosm a s described by F ash f or the C opaneco a ldeas. The Nohmul d ata are sketchy on this point a nd only sufficient to s uggest this a s a f ruitful l ine f or f uture i nquiry. Change o ver Time The f act t hat not a ll Nohmul's " neighborhoods" seem to h ave been densely occupied a t a ny t ime before the Terminal C lassic s uggests that the l oci of population aggregates c hanged over t ime within the s ite i tself. The Early and M iddle P reclassic periods are s parsely r epresented, and s ettlement gives no i ndication of c lustering; at l east no c lusters of e arly o ccupation were f ound. P opulation i n the L ate Preclassic does s eem to be c lustered on a roughly n orth-south l ine through s ite c enter ( slightly denser north o f site c enter), which i s a lso an area of better drainage, a s Hammond has p ointed out ( Norman Hammond, p .c.). At this p oint, i t i s not possible to tell whether the s lightly i ncreased occurrence o f archaeological f eatures on high g round i s due to prehistoric preference or to d ifferential v isibility a nd preservation. There i s s till no c lear e vidence of nucleation around s ite c enter. I have argued ( Chapter Four) that the very l ong t ime s pan o f the L ate P reclassic Period ( 550 years) may obscure a trend toward n ucleation that i s s uggested by the massive monumental a rchitecture built i n Nohmul's s ite c enter during this p eriod.

w as

Although o nly a s mall recovered, t he period

amount o f Protoclassic material i s well r epresented, c onsidering

1 67

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot. WMO 4 M , I

8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 90 91 9 2 9 3 9 4 95 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 00 1 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 1 05 1 06 1 07 1 08 1 09 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP

M

1 4 2 3 6 1 3 4 9 7 1 3 3 4 1 4 9 5 1 0 1 2 4 1 4 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 5 6 1 0 7 6 1 4 4 2 6 3 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 7 9

,

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MP

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

L T

UC

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

« MM

S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

1 68

T. 1 11e 1 3.

Excay. No. ,

M 4 M

M

M I

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot.

MM P

1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1 32 1 33 1 34 1 35 1 36 1 37 1 38 1 39 1 40 1 41 1 42 1 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 1 47 1 48 1 49 1 50 1 51 1 52 1 53 1 54 1 55 1 56 1 57 1 58 1 59 1 60 1 61 1 62 1 63 1 64 1 65 1 66 1 67 1 68

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP « M

9 1 1 8 2 0 3 1 9 6 1 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 5 1 4 5 2 7 1 7 8 9 4 6 2 4 5 7 4 8 1 0 2 3 4 1 1 1 4 4 5 8 3 1 3

M .

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

M.

« M

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Y

MP « M I M.

LP «

M

M .

FW

EC

LC

TC

• M .

M OO

« M U

M IM

MD

+

LT

M

4

+

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ + +

UC

+ + +

+

MI

M

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+ + + +

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+ + + + +

+

+ + + +

+ +

+ +

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot.

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP

«o r a mo ra l ,»

1 69 1 70 1 71 1 72 1 73 1 74 1 75 1 76 1 77 1 78 1 79 1 80 1 81 1 82 1 83 1 84 1 85 1 86 1 87 1 88 1 89 1 90 1 91 1 92 1 93 1 94 1 95 1 96 1 97 1 98 1 99 2 00 2 01 2 02 2 03 2 04 2 05 2 06 2 07 2 08 2 09 210

9 4 6 2 7 6 5 2 1 2 1 5 9 7 2 5 3 0 1 1 1 5 4 8 4 4 6 0 3 9

7

6 1 5

W W• I f l O M

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

N N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

M»

MP

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

d aM

n f l .

« MIR »

« I IM

4 1 . f l OM IP

M IO

1

MM

LT

UC

+ + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+ + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

+

+ + +

+ + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

Table

1 3.

( CONTINUED)

Excay. No.

Pot. Tot.

M O

M

M M

M

211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

M

O M

11 4 10 1 3 15 31 9 7 5 8 1 8 2 4 6 10 10 11 1 2 4 4 3 5 4 3 1 7 11 3 3 2 1 7 7 22 1 1 3 3 40 37 50 3 3 7

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP M

M

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

M

M

M

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

M

M

M

M

MP M

M

LP

FW

EC

I M

I

M

MO

M

M

O

LC

M

TC

LT

M

M

O

M .

UC

M .

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+ + + + +

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot.

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP

4 1M 1 1,

2 53 254 255 2 56 257 2 58 2 59 2 60 2 61 2 61 263 264 265 266 267 2 68 2 69 2 70 2 71 2 72 2 73 2 74 2 75 2 76 2 77 2 78 2 79 2 80 2 81 2 81 2 83 2 84 2 85 2 86 2 87 2 88 2 89 2 90 2 91 2 92 2 93 2 94

3 5 1 2 1 7 5 1 6 2 9 3 2 1 5 1 5 4 4 5 1 7 4 2 3 6 1 2 4 4 2 6 4 9 1 5 3 8 4 7 3 1 1 5 3 1 5 3 3 1 8

”

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MP

« 1 »

E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N W S E E E E

LP

FW

EC

MIA

« RO A

O f l , « M

M I/

M .

LC

TC

L T

UC «1 1 1.

+

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + +

+ + +

+

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

+

+ + + + + + +

T able

1 3.

Excay. No.

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot.

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP «I »

2 95 2 96 2 97 2 98 2 99 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 3 09 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 3 20 3 21 3 22 3 23 3 24 3 25 3 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 31 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36

”

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 . 1 1W I M

«

E N N N N N N W W W W . W W S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W E W S S S W N N N S N S S E

” I U

« M, M , D

MP MI M

MW

LP O

FW

M I M.

+ + +

+

+

+

EC

LC

TC

LT

e lMW

«

M. W . M .

«

M•

M

M.

+ + +

+

+

+ + + + + +

+

W

M.

UC en. .. M 1,

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+

+ + + + +

+

+

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+

+

+ + + +

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

( CONTINUED)

Pot. Tot. 4 IM IM I MO a .»

3 37 3 38 3 39 3 40 3 41 3 42 3 43 3 44 3 45 3 46 3 47 3 48 3 49 3 50 3 51 3 52 3 53 3 54 3 55 3 56 3 57 3 58 3 59 3 60 3 61 3 62 3 63 3 64 3 65 3 66 3 67 3 68 3 69 3 70 3 71 3 72 3 73 3 74 3 75 3 76 3 77 3 78

Km. Inter- Quadval rant EP M M O

MP

LP

FW

EC

LC

TC

M MM

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

E E W W W W W W W E E W E E E E E E E E E E N E N N N E E N N S S S S W W W N W W N

+ + +

+ +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+ + + + + +

+

+

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ +

+

LT

UC

« M e M N

4 1 18• • ••

Table

1 3.

Excay. No.

Pot. Tot. 4 .. 1 3

3 79 3 80 3 81 3 82 3 83 3 84 3 85 3 86

( CONTINUED)

”

Km. Inter- Q uadval r ant EP MI M I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MP

M .

M

W N W N W N W N

M O

M.

MP 4 . 1 1. d. m

+

LP 4

”

FW N I MD

+

EC M. 1 1 1 .

LC

f lb

+

TC

LT

M el.R.

« M O M

+ +

+

+ + + +

+ + +

UC 1 , 4N M,

APPENDIX B FIGURES

1 76

Figure

3 0 40 ---

2 .

Mound Sectors

2 5 I M N f M . I MO

20 I M . M4

M

1 5

1 0

M

5 «O W M D

0 0

20 1 M

25- -20 1 5

M

.

M

MD

-

-

I M . M

u

M ala

M

M I

-

-

MIN N t O M 1 1 M I N IM

M

M IB

2 8

1 M .

4 1 .

5-___

2 0---

5

4 M 4

M .

M

M .

M

M

M

MI

M

M

M

M.

I M

M

MU

M

M

M

Me

M

«N IB . 1 • 1 1.

M PI

I M

M

MI I

M

M O

MI

M

« MD M M . M . I S M

1 3

1 8

2 4

1 3

1

1 3

3 5

1 0

4

6

0

2 0

2

2

1 8

2

1

I M

M .

M I

M

M

M

O RW

M

.

3

1 1

1

1 8

0

1 6

M

0

M

I I M

M .

M‚ M

M I

M PI

M

2

0

M

M

I

M

M. M.

a Mi

M

MU

MP

M

M

M.

M

M I O

4 10 ....» .. 1 14

M

0

0

4

0

«I »

7 «1 1 1 1 1• 1 1 . 1 1 1 1. MIP

4 1 MI

M

MI

--10 --15

M O 4 1 M

1 3

___5

0

0

MO,

M ,M

--10

-__0

M .4 1 1• B I I M

1 0

1 0 2 5 ---

M.

---5 2 4

M

O MI

M

1

1 ••• • W • 0 1 » . .. »

M

--20 --15

i M M M

MI. 1. 1 .

M

M

M N M IN I

1 8

4

M

M

en .

1 2

1

2

M I

8

1 2

6

M I

1

1 3

I M 1

--30 2 5

«lb 1 1« . M a r «WM

1 8

--40 --35

MID 4 1 .. 1 1 1 «BM ,

M .

M A

e. »

M

0

I M

M

M

2 9

2 1 M

M.

M

7

I M

M

4 . 1 1.

f n.» I N. , « 1 10 . 1 M

1 9

M-

7

26

1

. 1 M

25 « W

0 I MA

I M P I M

1 0 ---

O M « ND

1 1

2 9

M

«. . . 9 1 1. 1 .1 1 M

20

0

« MS ••• 1 M ,

0

8 5 0--- ---0 1 3 5--- ---1 15 1 0--3 16 1 5---

1 5

M

' M I. .

5 -

0

M

M ,

M el

3

M

3 -

• •••

6

1 9

M .

2 I BM

3 0 ---

1 0

I M

1 0

3 5 ---

5

IM P

M 1

I M

M I R

MI

M

M .

M

M

M D

--20

M •1 1

MO

M

M

--25

4 3 0 --30

M O

2 5

I M

M

2 0

1 5

M A

M .

M

1 0

M

I M

M O

5

M I

M4

M

" MI

M I « DI

0

M .

M./

5

1 = 250,000 square meters of site area

1 = area with nonmound occupation

X = site center

1 77

1 0

1 5

2 0

--30 2 5

Figure

1 .

Mound Count Distributions

25

30 40---

20

1 5 I M

M

1 0 M

5

0

M I

M IDA

M

M

•1 1•I I I MA I M Id

I M I

M

MDI

0

2

6

3

M

M AI

M

M

I M

M

M I 4 1 1 1 1.

I M

M I

M I

M

MI

MM

M

M U

M ID

I

M

M

I M O

M AI

I B M • I M Ma l, M I

4 M

5

0___-

M O

M

M ,

1 9

5

2 9 M I M R

7

1 3

M I. 1. 1 •A

M , M I

M I

4 1 M 4 1 1 1 1B

M a l

Men el l» M M . I n .

I •• • « M I en» • •• 1

1 2 I M O I M IA

1 3

4

I M O M

M e • M

1 8

2 4

1 3

2 4

1 3

1 6

2

2

0

3 5

« OM 1 1• 1 .

I I . M I I BM M I

MIR M P

1 0

M

M

M

3

1 0

1

11 M IM I I B M I MB 1 . 1.3

M O,

2 0

2

1 8

1

« IM O M

1 1 1.•

• •• •

0 «M I

_ __5 ___0 -__5

M

--10

M A

-15

M

-20

M

M

--25

M A

M

M N.

M

I M I ...

M

M A

M I AI

0

1 3 4 1 1 1 1.

--10

0

I M A

M I I M M

A

M I

1 6

0

« M I

7

1 0 M

0

1 . 1 1 1 1, M I M I

1 8 M

I

M I A M «I I I I M I

4

I MP I M I e M I I A I M

M A

1

6

1. • M I I I M I

1 8

--20 --15

1 2

6

0

0

-30 2 5

M I

4 1 M 1 «lb I M

1 5

-40

8

••• •

0

MI

M I

«B ID I I.» O NO

1 8 -

M

1

1 3

O M M .» « I I I « SP

1

M • 10

MI MB I

e M e 1 M M I

7

2 9 2 6

1 0 ---

M

0

M ID

M

M

2 8

5 M I

2 5 I

0

I M O A I M

3 20---

2 0

-35

1 9 25---

1 5

M I

20 3 0---

10

M

1 0 3 5---

5

M A

0

I M MI I

M

4

M I A

I M I A

M

0 -

I •••

4 M DI

3 0

25

M

20

1= 2 50,000

M

A

M A

1 5

« M I

1 0

5

0

5

square meters of site area

1 78

10

15

2 0

--30 2 5

X = site center

F igure 3 .

30 4 0---

Excavation D istribution*

2 5

2 0

1 5

M

M

M

M

M

3 5---

M

MI

M

M

M

3 0---

M

M

M

M

m

2 5---

M

I M IU

M

M

M M U M

2 0---

M I M

M

M

M

I M

1 5---

M

M I

M

1 0---

M

5 ____

I

U

M

M

M

O

M

MU

M

M.

u

MI

m

MW

M

M

M

M

M

I

1 5---

M

U

M

2 5---

M

M

25

M

O

M

2 0

M

M

M

MO

M

M

M U

M I

M

M I

MI

MI

M

M

M

M

M I

M

M .

I M

MO

M I

M

M

M

U M

M I

M

U

U

M

M

M

M

I M

M

O

M

M

M

M

MU

M

M

U

M O

0

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MI

M

M

M

I M

M

MI

M

M

M

M

M U

M

M

I M

U

M I

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

m

M

MO D

M

O M

MI I

M

I

M I

M

M

« W

M

1 M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

IM I

M

M I M M

1 5

I

MI

1 0

I M

MI I M

M

MO

5

1 0

2 0 M O

M

I M

M

M

M

M

O

M I

M

M

I M

M O

M

M

M

M

M

M I

M

M

-25

M

I M

M

MO

M

-20

M

M I

M

M IM

M

M

M

MI

M

M

M

O M

M I

M

m

M I

M

I M

MI

M I

M

M O

M

M

M

M I

M

M .

-15

M

M

-10

M

M

M

--5

MI

M

M

M

M

-10

I M

M I

M

M

-15

M U M

M

I M

M .

M

M

M

M

M

M

MI M

M

I M

M

M

M

M

0

5

5

M

MI

M

M.

U

0

I M

M

M

-30

M

M

M

M .

M

M

O

-35

M

MI

M

M

M

M

I

M O

M

-40

MI.

M I

M

2 5

M

M

I

M O

1 0

M

M I I

M

M

-20

M O

M

M

-25

M I

M

M

MO

I

1 5

2 0

-30 2 5

not sample sizes

square meters of s ite area

1 79

1 5

M

M

* shaded areas i ndicate areas s ampled,

1 = 250,000

M

M

M I

M

M O

U

5 M I

M

M

M

U

I

I M

I M

M

2 0---

3 0--3 0

I

M

M

M

5 ---1 0---

I M

5

M

m

M O

O M

1 0 M

X = s ite center

Figure 4 .

Zact'an Xe Distribution Late Early Preclassic*

3 0 25 2 0 MMM M M M OM M 40 --- M

1 5

1 0

( 900-650

5

0

BC)

5

1 0

1 5

m M M OMM M MMM M MMM M mMM M MMM M MMM

3 5---

mmm M MMM m

3 0---

I M MMM

2 5---

I M MMM M MM I M M MMM

20

2 5 --40

M MM IM M M IMM M MMM M mMM M MMM M M IMM M M O MM M M I MM M MMM M I MMM m b

--35

M M OMM M MMM

--30

M MMM

--25

M MMM M MMM M M DMM

--20

e l »M M MMM W MM DM I . I M O MM IM M M I MM M M IMM M e MM I M , MOM

--15

2 0---

M M M MMM

1 5---

M O M

M I MMM I M M I M PM 1

M MMM IMM

2

1 0---

M MMM M I M M IMM I e »M .M D

5____

M MMM M M UMM I MM IM M M M IMM I M MM I M

OI N I M I SMM

MMM X I M MMm MM O BM PM DM M I U M M MMM M MMM M O MMM M O M M A MMM

0

5----

M MMM m mmM M M M O MMM M M IMM • • I I .M • • • M I MMM M MMM M M IMM

5

1 0---

MMM M MMM M M IMM M e MMM , M MMM M

1 5---

M MMM M M I MM

20---

MMM OMM M MMM M M O M M MMM M

25---

« W M

3 0--3 0

I MM M MMM M MMM I M IMM

--10

M I MM I M M I M I M MMM

MMM MUM M MMM M I l eS I MI MM

U MMM M MMM M MMM M I M IMM M I MMM M MMM M

--15

MM IM I M I MM IM M MM I M M

--20

M MMM

--25

e MM I PM I P IMM I M M I M MM IM I M MMM M M I O M M I D M B M

M M A I MM 20

--10

1

MMM 0 M MM IM I M IMM M M IMM M M OMM M G M M

25

---5

1 5

1 0

5

0

5

10

1 5

20

--30 2 5

*each number i s a count of excavations containing Late Early Preclassic

= 250,000

square meters of site area

1 80

X = site c enter

F igure

30 4 0---

4 .

D zuluinicob Mamom and Puncuy Tzec D istribution ( 650-300 BC) Middle Preclassic*

2 5

2 0

1 5 « M g...

MO . 1 M

3 5___

1 0 1 4 14

M

ff l.

5 MVO

MM

0

”

5

«1 1. 0 I M O . M 1

”1 1 1 M

ff l. •

1 0

M

1M4 .44

”

4

”

4 14M

1 5 4 1M

M I.

”

I f l eI M M

”

20

2 5 -40

M

I

-35

M e

1 3 0---

. 14.

M

2 5---

‚ M k

04b

M

44. 1 . I M N

4 M ,

-30

« lb

IW O

M

4 .M.

-25

M

2 2 0--1 5---

1 . M .

1 .. »

« • 44 .1 M.

‘ M P1

M

M

M

M.

M OI MR0 4

Q . M.

”

4 1.4 4

M

-20

”

M

« O

-15

M

2 1 0---

4 f l e

f l.

I M I M4

”

5 ____

M

0 ____

M

. f l

« » 1 «.

4 1M .

I M D

5 ____

ff l.

f ln

”

4 I M.

” M IM P

IM ID M M I

”

. 4. 0

M

”

4 M I

-10 . 1 1. 1

1 M . I M O

O

”

e

M

4 WD 4 1 1.. 0 ... 1 4.4

M 1,

4 »

4 1 W4 W W

--5

”

”

M

OR IP

M.

M. DI WO

0

MD. M M

5

M

3 M

,M 14 4 1

I M IW

2 5 --3 0 --30

g

M a »d

M e

M

”. M O

1 M I

O 14 1. 4 1 M

I M .

O M

e M e

r n

”

* each number Preclassic

2 0

1 M.

MW

1 «.

W 1. « 1 04

”

1 . 1.9. M• 4 1 1 1 0..

f f l I M I W

”

4 ... 44.0

44 M

f l•

r e

M II M 1414 1

2 5

4= 1 ,

4.0 14 1 M.

M

1 5

1 0

-10

4 ... 044 4 ...

M W

5

”I

I f l e

M .

« M .I

M

M

4 .M.

«. •

«4 04. 1 »

M e

f lU

”

4M. 1 4 1.4

”

1 M.

M

1 4.b

5

1 0

”

-20

f l. ›

-25 gf l .

0 ... 4 ... 4 » 4 ...

0

-15

”1 • 0

1 5

r n

2 0

-30 2 5

i s a count of excavations containing Middle

= 2 50,000

square meters of s ite area

1 81

X = site center

Figure

3 0 40---

6 .

Colmotz and C ancanilla Chicanel Distribution ( 300 BC - AD 3 00) Late and Terminal Preclassic*

2 5 M

I

2 0

1 5

M

M O

M

M

1 0 M O

M

0

5

5

•• •

1 0

1 5 ‚ MI

20

2 5

M I

1 3 5---

M O

M

M

3 0---

I MO

M

M

I

M I

2 5---

I M

M

M

O

20---

4 1 1 M

M

M

1 5---

I M

M

« W

M

I M

M 0

I M

I M O

4 I M O

M

M

M

M .

M ,

I

3

3 I M

«ID M ID I M « M I

M

M

a I M I

6 MOI

M

M

MO

M e

5

2

M I

M I

M O

M

MO

M I

4 M

M PI

M U «I»

I O M

M

M

M I

3

= W

M

M O

M

M

O M

M

I M

O

M e

I

M

M

M

M P M I

2 4 M 4 M

I

2

1 I M IM I 1

M e

MO

MM

M

MO

M

O

1 0

M

4 1 1 1 1 13 I M I D M I6

3

2 I

I M

M I

M O

M

M o

M

2 al . MID

3 3 0 --3 0

M

2 5

2 0

O

M

1 5

IM P

1 0

5

0

5

1 0

1 5

*each number i s a count of excavations containing Late and/or Terminal Preclassic

= 2 50,000

square meters of s ite area

= area with nonmound occupation

X = s ite center

1 82

F igure 7 .

3 0 4 0--3 5---

F reshwater F loral Park Distribution Protoclassic* 2 5

M

.

M ,

M be

2 0

1 5

1 0

5 M . M D 1 M b r M I

M

5

M

d

1 0

M b

- 3 00)

1 5 M O M M

2 0

M M I MD

I M

M

”

MM O M

2 5 M

”

-40

MD

-35

MD

f i Me

1 M

M

I M ed

I M

M

-30

M

-25

1 M b

MW M»

I M

M e

M 0

M b M.D . «lb M a l

I M 1

2 3 0---

0

M I, M I, 1 1 1.•

( AD 2 50

«I M

MM e

M

M A

M IP • M

MDI

M

I M

2 5---

1

M

M ,

M O

”

2

MR 4 M 4

M

g

» ,

M

M ID •b l•

MI .

M b

Mb

I M

M. d

M .

M ,

MI

M e

4 M .

M b

M b4

4

M M 4 M eI

M4 M ,

M I.

2 2 0---

I M .

M .

1 5---

I M

M MI

« »

M

Mb

M.

M

M

0 ____

”

IM ID ‚ M I M I » MI•

M

M O . M h M D M e

M P

M

4 . M4

I M

M

M

4 M I

M I

‘ Mb l

1 eM Br

b

M4

M e

M%

Mg

”

M

M

W W4

a »

M

MO

k . MU. M IO M M

MM

X. I

M

M•

M D

M IM

5 ____

1 M 1d

f Mb

Mb

IMb

A M I

O M

Mb

MB.

M

M .

M

M

MOI

. »

IMP

d. »

M

MW M M

4 M M .

O MI

M

M b

M ,

”

b M e

M

d

M A

MO I

.

M e

M4

M

I M I

”

MM

-20 -15

Mf

M ,

-10

M I

M b

M M

M

e »

M ID

M• I

M

MM

M B

I MU

M

M O

M bI

M P

--5 _ __0 --5

e

0 4

M ,

1 M

M

”

I MU

M AI MU

M

6

M D

M

M ,

M e

4

M b

3

1 0--5 ----

MW

g

M

«N B

M MI

M D

M Or M

M O

1 M ,

M

I M •

M

MI M M

M O

” O

Mb 4 M

-10

M

MO P

M b M MI

M

-15 -20

M

O M

M.

M M4

-25

M W M 4 M

1

3 0 --3 0

« W

M b S1M

M

2 5

2 0

”

1 5

M bI MO

•••1

M

1 0

5

0

M 01

M b

l

.M M

5

1 0

M .I

M I b M

M O

1 5

M

I M O

2 0

M.

M 0

-30 2 5

* each number i s a count of excavations containing Protoclassic

= 2 50,000

square meters of s ite area

1 83

X = site center

Figure 8 .

3 0 4 0---

Holpatin T zakol D istribution Early C lassic* 2 5

2 0 M

I

M I

1 5 I M

MI M M

M

1 0 I M MI

M A

M

5

( AD 3 00 - 6 50)

0

M

5

-

MI A

M I» M I

M

1 0

1 5

I M M IO M

M

M

I M

MI

M

M

M

MI I

M

MO

M M

M

2 0

MIB M IO

M

O

M

I M MI

M

2 5 M M I

M

MO

M

-40

MO

M

M

-35

1 3 5---

« W

M

M

M

M

M

M

I MO

M

M

M M.. . O M M I D

MI. M I M I IM•

3 0---

I M

M

2 5---

O M

M

M

M

M

I MS

O

M

M

O M

I

M AI

M I

M

MI M M

M

3

4

M I » M

M

I

M. MOM

I M

M O

M

M

M O

M IO

M

-30

M

M

M

M

I M I

M

M

-25

M

M O

M

-20

M

M I

M

-15

M I

M

M

-10

IM M I

3 2 0--1 5---

I M

MI

M

M I

M

MI

M

M

« U

M I

M MO M

M

M M I

M

MI

M

I M I

M

MI

M

M I

M

M O

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M MM ,

MI

M

M

M I

M

3 1 0---

M

5_ ___

M

M M IM

M

M O MM O

M

M

M I

M

M

m M IM

M

M

M I

M

M

M

I

M I

I

c o m

I M

M O M O

M

I M

MI

M

MO

M

M

M

M

M ID

-

MOM

I M

1 1 1 1 M IM I O M

M

O

O M

M

M

M

M O

M

M

MI M M

M O

M

M I

1 5---

M

2 0--2 5--3 0--3 0

I

I M

IM M I

M

M

M

MI MO

M

I M

M

M

MO

M

I M I

M

M

M

M I

MI

M

M

M

MI

M

M

Ml b

2

1 1 0---

O M M O

M I

M

M

M.

M

I

MI . M . M

O M

1 M

M

I

4

1

0----

M

XI

M

MI

M

M

M

MI

M

M I

I M

MI

M

M

M

M

M I

M

I M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MI

M

M

M O

M

«IB

M

M

M

M

M

M

M O

M

M

M

MI

M I

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M D M O m e M I,

M

MI

M O

M

M

M

MI

M

M

M.

M e MM I

M

M

I M

M

M

M

M O

M

M

I M

MI

I

M I

M

M I P

M

M

M

_ __5 _ __0 _ __5

3 I MI MM

M

M

«

B

U

M

MI

M

M

M I

M

-15

M

M.

-10

M ID M I I MP M I

-20 -25

M

3 M

2 5

M O M

M

2 0

I M

M

1 5

I M

M O

M

M

M

1 0

5

0

I

M

5

M

M I

1 0

M O I

1 5

20

M

M

M

-30 2 5

*each number i s a count of excavations c ontaining E arly Classic

= 2 50,000 square meters of s ite area

= area with nonmound occupation IM O

X = s ite center

1 84

F igure 9 .

3 0 4 0 --3 5---

Zonauil and Noh Ukum Tepeu Distribution Late Classic* 25

M O

M

2 0 M

I

M e

M

M

1 5 I M

MO

M

M

1 0 M

A I M

5 M e M I N M O M

0

M AI M. M e M k

5

MI M

1 0

( AD 6 50

1 5

M M OM O M

- 8 00)

2 0 M

2 5 -40

OM ,

1 M

O M

MI

M

I M

M

M

M I D

M O

M

M

M

M

M

M a l IM IM P e l M e

3 3 0---

« O

2 5---

M

M

O M

M

IM MI

M

M

M O

M

O

M

M

M

«lb IM IM

M

M

M

O M O M

2

M O

M

M

' M e M I 1• 11 ,

O M

O M

M

M

M

MI

M O

M

--35

M

M

M

M

M

-30

M.

--25

M I

--20

M

-15

MO

--10

O »

--5

4 M

M e M e

O

I M I

M

M

M

M

I M

M I

M

M

M

O M

M

M

M

O

OO

M

5 2 0---

I M

1 5---

M

M

M I

M

M

M.

I M

M I

M

M

OO

M

M

M

O M

O IM

M

M

M

M O

I M

M

M

M

M

M O M

M O

M

M O

M

5 ____

M

O M

M

O

M

M

M

M

M I

M

MI

M

M

M

I I

I M O

M

I M

M

M

M

M

MI MO

M

« O

M , M O

5 ____

M

O

M e

M

M

1

O M

M e

M I

M

I

M I

MI

M

M

M

O »

« O

M

M

1 1 0---

I

I M

M I

1 1 1 1 1.

M

O M

M O

M

M I

M

M

M N M N

I MMI

M

M

M

I M

M

I M

M O M

M

M

M

M I

M

M O

M

M

M

M I

MI M M

M

M

M

M

M

« W

M

M

M

M I

MM

M

I M I

M

O

M

M

O M

M

I I

M

M

M

I

M I

---5

M

--10

2

1

MO M M O

M O M

M

2 0 ----

MI

3

5 1 0 ---

MI

M

I

M

M

M O

M

M

MO I M

M

--15

M

M

M OM A

M

-20

2 1 5---

M

2 0--2 5---

M

M

M O

M

M

M O

M

I M

M

M

MI

OM

M

M

MO

MI

M

M

M

M

M

M

M I

M

IMO

M

MI

M

M O

MO

M

M

IM O

M M I M

M

I M

O M

M

M I

M

M O

M

M

M

M

M

MI

M ,

M

M

MI I

M

M

M

OMO

MI

O

M

M

-25

O M %

1 3 0--3 0

M

25

M

M

M

2 0

M

O

M

1 5

I M

MI

M

M

1 0

M

M

M

M

M

5

M

M

M

O M MI.

0

I M

5

1 0

M

MO

M

M

1 5

O

M

M O

20

M

-30 2 5

*each number i s a count of excavations containing Late Classic

= 250,000

square meters of site area

= area with nonmound occupation

X = s ite center

1 85

Figure 1 0.

Tecep D istribution ( AD 8 00 - 1 000) Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic*

2 5

3 0 4 0---

2 0

1 5

1 0 M

M

5

MI M M

a » M .

M.

M I 1 . 1

0

1

3 5---

M

I M A

M

2 5---

▪

2 5

20

-40

M

M I

-35

M O

M

-30

3 « I I

M

1 5

1

2

'M O

1 0

1 . 1 1 1. M . 4 .

3

3 0---

5

-25

IW O . 1.

5 2 0---

M

1 5---

I M

O

M

M

M .

M

3

1 0---

M

M I .

M

M.

I M

M

-20

M

M A

-15

4 M I M OD W M

M

M

I

M

M e

M I

M II

-10

M

2

5----

M

M

M ,

M O

M

M

I I

MO

M

--5

MA

2

4

1

. 0 ___-

M O

M O

5 ____

M

IMO

M O

M

M

M

M

•

I M

M

I M

MI

M

M

M .

M

M

M

I MM ,

M

M

5

M

9

2

1 0---

4 1 1 1 1 .

M .

M M W

1

M

M

I M I

0

I MO

I

M AI

M

M ,

-10

M .

-15

M O

-20

M

-25

2 1 5---

M O

2 0---

M

I

I

M I

M

1

2 5---

M O

M

M I

M I

M M I

3 3 0--3 0

W IM

2 5

2 0

1 5

M

1 0

IM O MI »

5

0

5

1 0

1 5

20

* each number i s a count of excavations containing T erminal C lassic/Early Postclassic M . « W e

I M F

I

d M I I M A a l » I . .

I

= 2 50,000

square meters of site area

= area with nonmound occupation

X = site center

1 86

-30 2 5

Figure

11.

2 5

30 4 0 ---

Average Mounds Per Quadrant

20

1 5

1 0

5 M

M D. M.

”

M li

»

2 0---

M OI

M I

I f lU

f l e.

I M NI

i » AI

M.

Mb

MBI

M I

1 » ,

IMM I

M

» l e

Mb

4..

M .

M

M II

MO

8 4 1 MI M I

M

”

MO

M. 4

M O

»

M.

M

4 M

1 M

if l b

2 5

M

M 1.1

MO

M.

d

”

M

MO

M .

M

--25

M

M e

M

--20

20

= 2 50,000

--15

M

”

«. 0

1 5

”

O M .

M O

M

»

« M O

M

M MI MN

MO M M

IMO

MM

MM

M

M O

”

M UO I M D . M

M . M I MP

1 0

M. . »

M

MO

M M M M

M

0

5

square meters of site area

1 87

I

»

M M I

M

M O 4 MMA M.4

» ,

M IDI

5

--10

d » ,

---5

1 0

M

”

r n

---0 ---5

M. I M M

M O

M M4

4 . Md M I O M M »

7

M.

. M

--30

M l b

”

M. 0 4 »

--40 --35

”

MM

IMB .O .

30

. 1.B

MM

2 5

M

M M O MA

» . »

4 , »

t I MP

MO

20

1 0 4 1 M

M M

MM

M

1 5

4M.I

M

M. D . MI

1 0

M ,

' MU

”

”

5

M b e I MI M PI

M

M O

0

O »

--10

M

--15

. 1 1»

--20 4 I M

M O O M

1 5

--25

M

M. . »

20

--30 25

X = site center

F igure

1 2.

Average Number of Mounds Per Kilometer Interval

3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 4 0--- --I --I --I --I --3 5---

a ll

5

0

5

1 0

15

2 0

I ---

I ---

I - I---I---I----

in outer kilometer = 6

2 5 -40 -35

3 0---

-30 9 north

2 5---

-25

2 0---

-20

-I ---I--I---I---1

1 5---

-15

1 1

1 0--5___6 west

I

1 7

-10 1 1 I

1

--5 1 e ast

_ __0 --5 -10

I---I---I-- - I - I----

-15 -20

7 south

-25

-30 3 0--- ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1----1 ----1----I----1 ----1 ---- 2 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 5 0 5 1 0 15 2 0

= 2 50,000

square meters of s ite area

1 88

F igure 30 4 0---

1 3.

Average Number of Mounds Per Square Kilometer

2 5

20 M I

M

M

M

3 5---

1 5 M

I M

3 0---

M

MI

M

M

M

M O

M

MI

M

M

M O

M

MI

M

M

M I

M

M

M

1 0 I M

M I

M

M

5 MI I

M

1 1 0 I M

M

M O

I 20 ---10 M

M I

M

M

M

0 I I

M

M

M

I

5 M

MI

O I

M

M P 4 1.•

1 5 M

I

M ,

M

M

2 5---

0 I 26 1 1__-1 I 1 8 ---- 1 ----

5 ---5 - 1 9 2 9 I 6 8 5 0 ____7____ ----8---- ---14---0 I 1 3 7 1 0 1 1 18 I M I

M

M

M

MI

M

1 3 -

M

M

M

MI

-

I 1

-

1

1 2 M

---- ----

M

M

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

I 1 2 M

I

M

M

M

4 M

. 1 10

M

M

2 M e

M

M

M

M

M

M

-

I

- - .. .

- . . ..

-

M

M

M

MI

M

M

2 5

M

M

--20

MI

M

M

M

M e

M

MI

M

M I

M

M

2 0

= 2 50,000

I

M

M

M

M

M I

M

M

M

I

M

M

M

M.

-15

M O

M

M

--10

. 1B 1

---5

MU

1 I M

MO

« MD

MI N MI l e

2 2 ----2---2

M

M

M O

M

M

1 5

MO

M

---5 4 1 1 1 0 «M e l

1 0

M

M

M

M

--10

M

M

MI

M

--15

0 M

M

1 8 1 0 ____9_-_-

1 3

1

. »

0

0 M

7 I

M

4

M

--20

M

0

-25

4 1 1 1 1 1 1. e l l.

M I

M

___0

2

3 I 1 6

4

1 2 5

M D

M

--30

M

-

I 1 0 M

---6

-

3 5 I 1 0 ---14----

1 1 1 3

-40

8

1 3 I 1 8 2 4 20 ---17---- ---18 ---2 4 I 1 3 1 0 I 1 8 -

M

M

M

0 1 0 1 I 1 5 1 0---9---- ----0---2 0 1 6 M

M

I M

M

M

M

--35 6 I 3 ----2---- ---- ---O1 0 ___-1 ----

3 I 2 8 1 1 I 0 1 6---- ----5---5 I 2 9 7 1 1

1 0---

25 M

2

1 5---

30

20

M I

M

I 1 9

2 0---

1 0

M

M

5

M

M I I

M

I

0

4 M

M

MI

1 M

1 . 1.01 1

5

square meters of site area

1 89

1 0

M

M

M

«ID « n o

1 5

M e

20

-30 2 5

X = site center

APPENDIX C NOHMUL CHRONOLOGY*

Xnoha Swasey Zact'an Xe

( Early Preclassic)

( Late Early Preclassic)

Dzuluinicob Mamom Puncuy Tzec Colmotz

( Mamom-Chicanel

Chicanel

Freshwater F loral Holpatin Tzakol

( Terminal

Park

( Early Classic)

3 ( Terminal

( 1

BC

4 00-300 B C

BC - AD 250

Late Preclassic)

( Protoclassic)

and Noh Ukum Tepeu

Tecep Tepeu 1 000

3 00

BC

6 50-400

transitional)

( Late Preclassic)

BC

9 00-650

( Middle Preclassic)

Cancanilla Chicanel

Zonauil - 8 00

1 200-900

AD 3 00

and

2 )

AD 2 50

AD 2 50

- 300

- 6 50 ( Late Classic)

C lassic/Early Postclassic)

*The earlier dates are based ( Hammond and Andrews 1 989]

1 90

on

- 3 00

recent

work

a t

AD

AD

6 50

800 -

Cuello

APPENDIX D S ITE MAP

1 91

APPENDIX E EXCAVATION SUMMARIES [ 1)

1 . Excavation i llustrations are presented this section in numerical order.

1 92

at

the

end

of

Testpit 1 1 983 Coordinates:S 2142 / W 3 18 D istance from S ite C enter: 1 933m E levation NW 2 0.08, SE 2 0.16 One S ection Drawing Two by two meter pit excavated i n the northernmost structure of the 1 31 P latform Group to d etermine i ts occupation history ( especially i n comparison to that of nearby P latform 1 37 that was excavated in 1 974) and a s a test o f the results of different s izes o f test pits. Excavation was to bedrock, 4 02 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -32cm: Humus; b lack s oil with in diameter, a f ew l arger s tones soil begins to g et l ighter. included Terminal C lassic, some some unidentified C lassic.

white marl chunks, 1 - 2cm toward bottom of l ayer of C eramics f rom this l ayer possible Late C lassic, and

2 3 2-84cm: Rubble tumble; l arge s haped stones lying stepwise across excavation suggesting wall f all. Some of these s tones were burnt and, a long with some s maller r ocks are i n a matrix o f t opsoil mixed with marl and a mixture of Chicanel, Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic and, unknown C lassic pottery. 3 7 8-96cm: P laster f loor; l ayer o f burnt plaster on s outh s ide o f wall 6 and extension 4 ; probably the s urface of the platform exterior t o the structure during i ts last period of u se. No artifacts. 4 1 2-54cm: Wall a ddition; a course of shaped stones s et mortar north of ( inside) wall 6 and a bove f loor 5 .

i n

5 5 4-80cm: P laster f loor; l ayer o f plaster and marl f ill i nterior to the s tructure, that was damaged when 5 was added above i t, i .e. a small trench was cut i nto the surface of 5 , presumably to help " set" the s tones of 4 . Sherds f ound i n the f ill of 5 were C lassic. 6 2 8-76cm: Wall; two c ourses o f cut s tone b locks s et on f loor 7 and abutted by f loor 3 . The blocks seem to have been s et in a s oft gray mortar ( like that of 4 ). There was an i ndentation i n the upper course suggesting a posthole, but t oo badly preserved to be conclusive. Such a post would be consistent with r econstructions of Terminal C lassic buildings e lsewhere ( see Hammond et a l. 1 984). The possible Early C lassic pottery f ound in a ssociation with this wall s uggest i t was f illed with midden materials from an e arlier occupation. 7 8 4-100cm: P laster f loor; l ayer of burnt p laster, l ikely the o riginal f loor of the s tructure, extending below wall 6 , r eplastered with 5 , cut by a ddition 5 , and associated

1 93

with C lassic period s herds. 8 1 00-128cm: Fill; a l ayer of hard white marl subfloor f ill below f loor 7 and north o f ( inside) wall 1 4. No a rtifacts. 9 9 4-102cm: Midden f ill; black s oil with a concentration of artifacts dating to the Early and L ate C lassic periods. This i s not a primary midden s ince i t i s a ssociated with a Terminal C lassic s tructure; i t has been r ecycled a s a l ayer of platform f ill. 1 0 1 02-206cm: F ill; s terile l ayers o f white and yellow marl deposited as platform f ill north o f wall 1 4 beneath the i nterior of the s tructure. 1 1 8 8-136cm: Fill; hard gray and l oose yellow marl f ill with some rubble and C lassic period s herds. This l ayer was deposited s outh of wall 1 4 to raise the surface of the exterior P latform 1 31 s outh of the s tructure. 1 2 1 35-144cm: Surface; dark gray s oil mixed with marl chunks, an eroded surface from the s econd phase of platform 1 31 construction during which i ts original l evel was i ncreased 1 3 1 44-216cm: F ill; mixed l ayers o f gray and yellow marl with black soil and Terminal C lassic pottery i mmediately below surface 1 2. This material was l aid above s urface 1 5 during the Terminal C lassic to i ncrease the height of the exterior platform of the 1 31 group. 1 4 1 00-246cm: Wall; c onstruction o f l arge cut l imestone blocks l aid in s ix courses and f illed with l imestone rubble and loose white and yellow marl, s ome b lack s oil, and a ssociated with Terminal C lassic, ' L ate C lassic, Chicanel and unknown C lassic sherds. 1 5 2 16-220cm: F loor; Thin l ayer of yellowish marl, probably the original s urface o f platform 1 31 at the t ime of i ts construction; certainly the surface f rom which r etaining wall 1 4 was constructed. This l ayer c ontained no diagnostics, but i ts a ssociation with 1 4 and i ts position above 2 3 date i t s ecurely to the T erminal C lassic period. 1 6 2 20-230cm: F ill; topsoil below 1 5.

s ubfloor

l evelling

l ayer

o f marl

and

1 7 2 16-230cm: Wall f ooting; l ine o f s tones offset at the base of wall 1 4, presumably f or s tructural support while 1 4 remained a free-standing wall, a ssociated with C lassic and Chicanel s herds, but, nevertheless, dating to the Terminal C lassic. 1 8 2 28-236cm: S lump; a fter excavation 2 1 was f illed with 2 0, soil f rom the outside edges of the excavation e ither f ell or was washed or tracked above the l ayers o f f ill 2 0. 1 8 i s actually part o f 2 2, a lthough i ts r edeposition above

1 94

2 0 r epresents a s eparate event f rom the deposition of 2 2 or the e xcavation o f 2 0 i nto 2 2. I t contains the same mix of pottery types as 2 2. 1 9

2 36-246cm:

S lump;

s ame a s

1 0 but originating from 2 3.

2 0 2 46-288cm: F ill; l ayers of l oose s andy white and yellow marl with C lassic p eriod s herds. This marl was used to f ill trench 2 1 to provide stability and i mproved drainage to t he structure. 2 1

2 46-288cm:

Cut;

f oundation trench below the structure.

2 2 2 10-264cm: Buried A-horizon/midden; a naturally f ormed s oil l ayer north o f 2 0 containing l ots of charcoal with a dense mix of Terminal C lassic, Late C lassic, and Chicanel sherds; probably the s ame a s l ayer 2 3, but s eparated across the entire excavation by 2 0, and necessarily numbered s eparately. 2 3 2 30-272cm: Buried A-horizon/midden; same matrix a s 2 2, but l ocated s outh o f 2 0 and having only unknown C lassic period ceramic a ssociations. 2 4 2 72-300cm: B uried A-horizon/midden; a naturally deposited s oil l ayer s imilar to 2 2 and 2 3, but s ituated below both and containing predominantly Chicanel pottery, with s ome Mamom and possibly s ome Late C lassic sherds. 2 5 3 00-306cm: B uried A-horizon/midden; a naturally deposited s oil l ayer s imilar to 2 4, 2 2 and 2 3, but s ituated below them and c ontaining only Chicanel pottery. 2 6 3 06-364cm: Midden; very compacted gray brown containing Chicanel pottery, small s tones and snails.

soil

2 7 3 52-358cm: Surface; l ayer of s oft to brittle white marl above snail midden 2 8 probably f ormed accidentally as people walked over 2 8 and 3 1 to use 2 9 and tracked soft white marl f rom the exposed surface of 3 1 on to the black matrix of 2 8. Associated with Chicanel sherds. 2 8 3 58-402cm: Snail midden; deposit of densely packed snail s hells in a matrix of black and brown soil mixed with some burnt rocks and Mamom and Chicanel sherds. 2 9 2 96-352cm: Hearth; a l ayer of l arge Chicanel, Mamom, and B laden sherds l ining a rounded bedrock cut and containing quantities of charcoal, ash, and burned stones. 3 0 2 95-402cm: Bedrock trench cut; a deep trench cut i nto bedrock, possibly f or mining l imestone and s ascab, but used f or cooking and a s a midden deposit. 3 1

4 02cm:

B edrock;

white l imestone.

1 95

D ISCUSSION In the Late Preclassic, a pit 3 0 was mined i nto bedrock 3 1 and f illed with a midden 2 8 o f snail shells and cooking debris. A Chicanel sherd-lined hearth 2 9 was built into bedrock, and during i ts use 2 7 f ormed f rom d isplacement o f the exposed soft surface of the l imestone bedrock a bove and around the hearth. 2 7 may a ctually have been an i ntentional cap above 2 8, but the purpose of such a c ap would be obscure. 2 6 i s another l ayer of Chicanel s nail midden, probably mixed with cooking debris f rom 2 9 and other nearby cooking areas. 2 5 i s a natural A-horizon r eformed above 3 0 and i ts contents i n the Late Preclassic. 2 4, 2 3 and 2 2 are s uccessive deposits of black s ticky s oil that probably represent the reformation of A-horizons after periods o f f looding. 2 4 i s Preclassic with possibly s ome Late C lassic. 2 2 and 2 3 are probably the s ame l ayer, f rom the s urface o f which trench 2 1 was cut, but were separated by 2 0 i n the excavation and consequently had to be numbered s eparately. 2 3 contained only unknown C lassic material, but 2 2 yielded a mix o f Terminal and Late C lassic and Chicanel. 2 1 was cut into 2 2/23 and f illed with 2 0. Contrary to the description published by Hammond et a l ( 1985), 20 i s soft and loose yellow marl f ill, not " hard-packed". This f ill material would provide good drainage f or the superstructure ( especially i f l oosely packed), and a lso s tability, s ince, a lthough s oft, marl i s s till s table and not "fluid" l ike the black c lay of 2 2/23 and 2 5 and o ther natural A-horizons i n northern Belize. Above 2 0, l ayers 1 8 and 1 9 were deposited, either as a result of exposure of the surface o f 2 0 during a r ain prior to the construction of the superstructure, or simply due to s lumping of the walls of cut 2 1 during construction o f wall 1 4. A stone f ooting 1 7 was laid at the base of the construction of wall 1 4. 1 4 actually consists of a f itted cut stone wall, behind which marl, s tones and midden were piled. The construction f ill c ontains a mix f rom a ll periods except the Early C lassic, d ating i t to the Terminal C lassic period. 1 0, 9 , and 8 were dumped behind ( south of) 1 4, and surfaced with 7 to create a s econd platform level f or the base of a s tructure with l ow l imestone walls ( 4, 6 ) and probably a thatch s uperstructure. The surface of A-horizon 2 3 was l eveled with the d eposit o f 1 6 and plastered with 1 5 to create the original p latform surface of the 1 31 group. Presumably, 1 5 corresponds to 3 uncovered i n excavation 2 , a lthough 3 i s less s ecurely dated and not above a f ill l ayer. 3 and 1 5 have a bout the s ame absolute e levation. 1 3 i s a f ill the Terminal

l ayer f rom s ome c onstruction period l ater i n C lassic i n which the p latform around 1 4 was

1 96

raised. This new l evel was s urfaced with 1 2. A third period of r emodeling o ccurred with the deposition o f f ill layer 1 1, s urfaced w ith 3 . Atop t he platform created by 1 4 a l ow-walled s tructure 6 was b uilt, p lastered with 7 , and replastered with 5 , then remodelled with the addition of a new i nterior wall 4 . Eventually the building was abandoned and tumbled down 2 , and t opsoil 1 reformed over the top. Testpit 2 1 983 Coordinates:S 2105.5 / W 3 14 Distance from Site C enter: 1 897m Elevation NW 1 8.43; SE 1 8.34 One S ection Drawing Two b y two meter p it l ocated i n center of P latform 1 31 to determine the nature of the plaza construction and make a comparison between i nformation gained from pits dug into mounds, behind mounds, and i nto platforms. Excavation was to b edrock at 6 0 cm bs. 1 0 -16cm: Humus, dry black compact s oil f lecked with marl. Notably less rocky than humus l ayer of housemound excavation Tl on s ame p latform. Ceramic artifacts i ncluded a mixture o f Terminal C lassic, Late C lassic, and Chicanel. 4 1 6-36cm: Tumble; l ayer of gray-brown stony s oil with some marl c hunks and the same mixture of c eramic types as 1 . 3 3 6-40cm: P laster f loor; a small group of marl chunks i n southeast c orner o f excavation a ssociated with some Chicanel and s ome unknown C lassic sherds. 5 4 0-60cm: Buried A-horizon; l eveled l ayer of black sticky clay c ontaining C hicanel, Protoclassic, and Early C lassic pottery. 2 2 0-60cm: Structure; group of eroded marl l umps above a better preserved cut l imestone b lock appearing i n northeast corner of excavation; no artifacts. 6 6 0cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION The h eight of bedrock i n this pit i n comparison to the height of the surrounding l and surface at the base of the platform ( and the height of bedrock beneath TP1) s uggests that the prehistoric builders of the p latform took advantage o f a s light ' natural r ise which they enlarged as a base f or the 1 31 Group. At the s pot o f TP2, structure 2 was p laced on bedrock s ome t ime i n or a fter the Early Classic, a s i ndicated by the c eramics f rom the a ssociated A-Horizon 5 . 2 was probably p laced i n a shallow pit cut through 5 to the s urface of 6 , but s ince the cut was not

1 97

observed i n the f ield, no cut number has been a ssigned. P laster f loor 3 i s of ambiguous d ate, but was probably a ssociated with the use of 2 . I t was l ikely also a ssociated with use o f the s tructure immediately north on the s ame platform, but the f inal surfacing o f the p latform was n ot preserved i n the area of this excavation. 4 i s a l ayer o f tumble f rom the collapse of the s econdary platform below the nearby s tructure, which has a c onstruction d ate matching the Terminal C lassic material in this l ayer. 1 i s topsoil and contains the s ame mix o f pottery types as most topsoil a t the s ite o f Nohmul. The eroded remains of the s tructure labeled 2 a nd a ssociated with Early C lassic c eramics leave o pen t he question of whether the s tructure was i n use d uring t he f inal occupation of the platform during the Terminal C lassic. The presence of the structure i s n ot visible above ground today and was barely d iscernible i n section. Building materials may have been r obbed f rom this building f or later constructions ( Terminal C lassic l ots f rom other structures i n the 1 31 group have s ome Early Classic material mixed i n) or the structure may have functioned a s a shrine and been conserved and unused during l ater occupations of the platform, as seems to have been the c ase with the conserved s tructure o n nearby Platform 1 37 ( excavated i n 1 974). Testpit 3 1 983 Coordinates: S 2105/ W 314 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 897m E levation 1 8.43NW, 1 8.34 SE One Section Drawing Two by two meter pit l ocated i n the s outhernmost s tructure of P latform 1 31 to reconstruct the occupation s equence o f the group and i nvestigate the f unction of the structures on the platform. Excavation was to bedrock, 2 30 cm b s. 1 0 -24cm: Humus; dry b lack compact s oil marl, Terminal C lassic artifacts.

f lecked w ith

white

2 2 4-74cm: Tumble; yellow and white powdery marl m ixed with l oose brown s oil and s mall stones, a nd containing Chicanel and Terminal C lassic pottery, probably eroded p laster a nd s tructural f ill washed downhill f rom t he l ast s uperstructure. 3 5 0-62cm: Step; l ayer of yellowish-white compacted marl restricted to north area of trench s loping west; unknown C lassic ceramics. 4 6 2-66cm: F loor; white p laster west at a bout 3 0 degrees.

r e-surface

5 6 6-72cm: F loor; white plaster west at a bout 3 0 degrees.

s urface

1 98

of

5

s loping

above

6

sloping

6 7 2-76cm: Subfloor f ill; about 3 0 degrees. 7 7 6-80cm: pottery.

F ill;

s oft white marl

g ray s tony marl

s loping

f ill under 6 ,

west

at

Late C lassic

8 6 8-71cm: F loor; white p laster s urface covers entire exposure of excavation, s loping west with Terminal C lassic pottery in a ssociation. 9 1 6/88-80/92cm: F ill; thick white marl about 30 degrees, L ate C lassic ceramics.

s loping

west

at

2 8 1 0-170cm: Wall; Three courses of s haped f itted l imestone blocks with Late a nd Terminal C lassic ceramics associated. 1 0 1 66-212cm: blocks. 1 1

1 66-212cm:

F ill;

Cut;

white

and gray marl

and

l imestone

f oundation trench below the s tructure.

1 2 6 0/96-100/152cm: F ill; very s oft gravelly gray and white marl midden with a mix of Terminal Chicanel, Early C lassic, Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic s herds. 1 3

1 02-110cm:

F loor;

hard smooth white plaster.

1 4 1 10-118cm: S tructure; l ine of small ( 5-10 cm ) rocks associated with 1 3; L ate C lassic, Terminal C lassic pottery. 1 5 1 10-118cm: F loor; yellow marl, plaster surface Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic pottery.

absent;

1 6 1 19-136cm: F ill; gray and brown s oil with small s tones and T erminal C lassic, L ate C lassic, and Chicanel ceramics. 1 7 1 20-136cm: S loped s urface; original surface above and abutting 1 8, s loping s outh and e ast, most plaster i s missing, 1 7 i s mostly subfloor f ill containing unknown Classic sherds. 1 8 1 37-165cm: F ill; Classic pottery. 1 9 1 36-154cm: ceramics.

yellow marl,

F ill;

yellow

small

marl

20 1 54-185cm: F ill; brownish-gray charcoal and Early C lassic sherds.

rocks,

with

l oamy

Early

soil

and

Early

C lassic

with much

21 1 10-130cm: cut i nto wall

Posthole; small r ound hole 2 3 ( north edge).

( 18cm i n diameter )

2 2 1 10-135cm: cut i nto wall

Posthole; small 2 3, s outh edge.

( 25cm i n diameter)

r ound hole

1 99

2 3 1 10-188cm: Wall; s lightly curving l ine of l arge blocks ( some cut) f ive courses deep running a cross excavation f rom e ast to west; Early C lassic s herds. 2 4

1 70-215cm:

Cut;

f oundation trench below the

2 5 1 40-180cm: F ill; l ayer of yellow marl blocks mixed with Early C lassic pottery. 2 6 1 92-230cm: with Chicanel 2 7

2 30cm:

and

Buried A-horizon; brownish-black and Early C lassic pottery.

Bedrock;

s tructure. l imestone

s ticky

c lay

hard white l imestone.

2 8 2 20-230cm: B edrock s tructure; c urved l ine o f unshaped l imestone rocks. Each about 2 0-30cm i n diameter. D ISCUSSION Bedrock 2 7 was c leared and a curving l ine of stones 2 8 w as placed on i t, perhaps a s the base o f a s tructural wall. The f eature was abandoned ( probably i n the Preclassic) a nd the A-Horizon 2 6 had reformed above by the end o f t he Early C lassic Period. This A-horizon 2 6 was l eveled a nd raised with the addition of 2 5 i n or after the Early C lassic. Then a trench 2 4 was cut i nto 2 5. Wall 2 3 was s et in f ill 2 0 i n trench 2 4. F ill l ayer 1 9 was l aid behind ( south) o f 2 3 and surfaced with f loor 1 7. The l ater addition of l ayer 1 8, s till i n the Early C lassic, r aised the height of t he p latform outside ( north of) the structure. In the Terminal C lassic, the area n orth of the s tructure was l eveled with 1 6, then plastered with 1 5 and e ventually r eplastered with 1 3. L ater i n the s ame era, f oundation trench 1 1 was dug to bedrock, cutting through s urface 1 5 and f ill l ayers 1 6, 1 7 and 2 5, probably f or stability a nd drainage and f illed with 1 0. Above this, massive wall 2 8 was constructed, at f irst f ree s tanding to the n orth, then f illed with l ayers 1 2 and 9 and s urfaced and r esurfaced with plaster and subfloor f ill l ayers 7 , 6 , 5 , 4 , and 8 . 8 was apparently r esurfaced at l east three times, a lways a t a 3 0 degree angle s loping northwest. 3 i s a very t hick l ayer o f hard-packed white marl o f unknown use. Since 3 would have been at the " front" ( facing the i nterior of t he p latform ) entrance of the s uperstructure, Susan C ohen ( the excavator) i nterpreted i t a s a s tep. 2 i s the l ayer o f tumble f rom the eroded architecture o f the structure and 1 i s the modern A-horizon. Testpit 4 1 983 C oordinates:S 2115.9/ W 3 05 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 906 m E levation 1 8.25 NW, 1 8.15 S E One Section Drawing

2 00

Two b y two meter p it l ocated in southeast s tructure of P latform 1 31 to i nvestigate the s equence of occupation of structures on the p latform. Excavation was to bedrock, 1 72 cm b s. 1 0 -5cm: Humus, dry black c ompact s oil marl. No d iagnostic artifacts. 2 5 -46cm:

Tumble;

rubble

f rom

structure

4 4 6-64cm: Tumble; continuation of with s ome l arger s tones and Terminal Burning;

with

l arge l imestone blocks of wall

3 5 -46cm: Tumble; Classic ceramics.

5 4 6cm:

f lecked

collapse.

collapse,

6 5 4cm: F loor; thick l ayer of white plaster, Early C lassic, Terminal C lassic ceramics. F ill;

r ocks,

8 5 0-64cm:

Wall;

c ut

marl

and

7 2cm:

Burning;

1 1

7 2-75cm:

dirt

with

6 .

Chicanel,

L ate

C lassic

l imestone blocks.

9 6 4-72cm: F ill; rubble with marl Classic ceramics. 1 0

Late

3 , gray gravelly soil C lassic ceramics.

r ed and gray area on the surface of

7 5 4-72cm: pottery.

white

and

rocks

and

Terminal

r ed and gray and yellow on surface of 1 1.

F loor;

thick plaster l ens.

1 2 7 5-87cm: Subfloor f ill; white marl mixed with midden: some C hicane' sherds, mostly Terminal C lassic. 1 3 9 0-100cm: F ill; mix of dark brown soil and marl with some Chicanel, more Early C lassic, possible Late C lassic, and ( mostly) Terminal C lassic pottery. 1 4 8 8-100cm: Fill; l arge stones, yellow marl, and brown soil w ith s ome eroded ceramics dating Late Preclassic. 1 5

8 8-102cm:

Fill;

1 6 1 02-130cm: Fill; Classic pottery.

loose dark yellow marl. large stones,

soil

and marl with

Early

1 7 9 6cm: Rodent burrow; c ircular hole f illed with dark soil, Chicanel a nd Terminal C lassic sherds were i n the hole. 1 8 9 6cm: Posthole; marl Protoclassic ceramics. 1 9

9 6cm:

Posthole;

marl

and s oil bearing

Chicanel

and soil with no pottery.

2 01

and

2 0

9 6cm:

Posthole;

2 1 9 6cm: ceramics. 2 2

9 6cm:

Posthole;

Posthole;

2 3 9 6cm: sherds. 2 4

marl

marl

marl

Posthole;

9 6-101cm:

F loor;

and s oil;

no pottery.

and

and s oil

marl

s oil

bearing

Chicanel

b earing C lassic pottery.

and

s oil

without

a ssociated

eroded plastered f loor remnant.

2 5 1 04-134cm: Fill; l ight gray s oil rocks and some eroded Chicanel sherds.

with large limestone

2 6 1 10-135cm: Wall; l ine of shaped l imestone b locks two courses tall with Chicanel and Early Classic pottery between the stones. 2 7 1 35-155cm: matrix.

F ill;

l ayer

of

s tones

i n

soil

2 8 1 35-155cm: Cut; f oundation trench below 26, and f illed with 2 7. 2 9 1 01-128cm: and Chicanel, sherds.

F ill; small Late C lassic,

3 0 1 36-146cm: sherds.

Posthole;

3 1 1 36-152cm: Buried with Mamom, Chicanel, into i ts surface.

1 72cm:

Bedrock;

into

marl

3 1

l imestone rocks mixed with marl Protoclassic, Early Classic,

marl

and

soil without a ssociated

A-horizon; b lack s ticky c layey s oil Protoclassic, Early C lassic m ixed

3 2 1 52-172cm: Eroded bedrock; s eemed and l imestone with some unidentified C lassic into i ts surface. 3 3

c ut

and

cracking white sherds pressed

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Sherds ground i nto the surface 3 2 of Bedrock 3 3 suggest that i t may have been exposed sometime during t he C lassic period. Alternatively, the sherds might have e ntered this l ayer a s a result of natural processes i f soil mixing due mainly to plant growth and animal a ctivity. 3 1 d id a ppear to be a naturally f ormed A-horizon. 3 0 was a s mall ( about 1 0 cm i n diameter) s hallow hole d ug into the s urface o f 3 1 which may be a posthole f rom a n Early Classic ground surface occupation s imilar to the ground surface structure l ocated f urther north a t Nohmul. Unfortunately this diagnosis i s not s ecure s ince no o ther f eatures were f ound at this l evel i n the small excavation.

2 02

29 was deposited s ometime i n or a fter the Early C lassic period, perhaps a s t he f oundation l ayer f or a s tructure that i s no l onger preserved above. Sometime in or after the L ate C lassic, a f oundation trench 2 8 was dug through 2 9 into 3 1, and f illed with 2 7. Wall 2 6 was set with the addition of 2 5 and t he whole f eature was probably s urfaced with 2 4. 1 8, 1 9, 2 0, 2 1, 2 2, 2 3, a ll appeared to be postholes cut into f loor 2 4. Although they are too c lose together to pertain to a s ingle s tructure, they probably represent s everal r emodellings of that Early C lassic building. 2 4 was d isturbed by rodents that brought much later Terminal C lassic pottery to the depth of l ayer 2 4 inside their burrow 1 7. 1 4, 1 5, 1 2, and 1 3 a re a ll f ill l ayers dumped above 2 4 i n preparation f or f loor 1 1, which undoubtedly dates to the Terminal C lassic. 1 1 was r esurfaced with 9 then remodeled with t he construction of wall 8 , f illed with 7 and surfaced with 6 , a lso i n the Terminal C lassic period. After abandonment, the s uperstructure tumbled creating 2 , 3 , 6 , and 4 , and the modern A-horizon 1 was f ormed. Testpit 5 1 983 Coordinates:S 2152.5/ W 2 50.5 Distance f rom Site C enter: 1 933m Elevation NW 1 7.48, SE 1 7.39 No D rawing Two by two meter pit l ocated i n natural rise east of platform 1 31 to c heck f or hidden occupation. Excavation was t o bedrock 4 5 cm bs. 1 0 -20cm: Humus, dry black compact s oil f lecked with marl; eroded C lassic and Chicanel artifacts. 2 2 0-45cm: l ighter no a rtifacts. 3 4 5cm: Bedrock; inclusions.

gray

uneven

soil with marl

l imestone

white

f lecks continuing;

surface

with gray soil

DISCUSSION The e xcavation hit bedrock 3 and the modern A-horizon 1 with 2 transitional l ayer between the two. The marl f lecks in 2 might suggest a midden, but no artifacts were associated. Artifacts i n 1 were probably deposited by natural processes f rom nearby occupations. Testpit 6 1 983 Coordinates: S 2169.2/ W 3 27.8 Distance f rom S ite Center: 1 962 Elevation NW 1 9.06, S E 1 9.18 One S ection Drawing

2 03

Two by two meter pit l ocated i n Structure 1 36 immediately north of P latform 1 31 to determine the occupational s equence of the area of the 1 31 group.. Excavation was t o bedrock 1 34cm bs. 1 0 -18cm: Humus, s ized ( 10-20cm ) artifacts.

dry gray-black compact s oil with medium white marl rocks and eroded C lassic

2 1 8-36cm: Rubble; in dark gray s oil; 3 3 2-58cm:

l arge l imestone b locks up to no artifacts.

Overburden;

concentration o f pebbles

2 4 cm long

and s oil.

5 5 8-93cm: Overburden; continuation of 3 with C lassic, Late C lassic and Terminal C lassic pottery.

Early

4 3 6-108cm: Wall; crudely f itted l imestone blocks about e ight courses deep s et i n a gray marl matrix c ontaining Late and Early C lassic ceramics. 7 1 08-130cm: F ill; C lassic sherds.

densely

packed y ellow marl with eroded

8 1 24-132cm: Structure: small white r ocks and pebbles mixed in dark brown soil and white marl with eroded C lassic sherds. 9 1 24-132cm: marl. 6 1 19-134cm: artifacts. 1 0

1 34cm:

Surface;

Buried

Bedrock;

uneven

l ayer

A-horizon;

of

b lack

packed y ellowish

s ticky

c lay,

n o

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Sometime in or after the L ate C lassic, bedrock 1 0 was c leared and used f or s ome unknown activity, of which only some marl 9 , probably once part of a surface, a nd some small s tones 6 remain. Above this, s till in t he Late C lassic or l ater, a f ill l ayer 7 was deposited. Above this, a low but massive platform of a lmost s olid l imestone 4 ( the stone f ill now much deteriorated) was erected. Layers 5 and 3 are overburden deposited i n the T erminal C lassic showing that, a lthough the structure may have originally been built i n the Late C lassic, it w as not covered by s oil ( i.e. probably i n u se) i n the T erminal C lassic. 2 i s rubble f rom a tumbled superstructure, 1 i s the modern A-horizon. Testpit 7 1 983 Coordinates: S 2147.4/ W 3 18.4 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 1 939m

2 04

E levation NW 1 8.93, S E One S ection Drawing

1 9.52

One by two meter pit located on north edge of platform 1 31 north o f TP1. P it was dug to get a better understanding o f the c onstruction s equence of the platform and i ts superstructure. Excavation to bedrock, 2 04 cm bs. 1 0-4cm: Humus, dry b lack compact s oil marl. Terminal C lassic artifacts.

f lecked

with

2 4-16cm: Building tumble; l arge l imestone blocks soil w ith Terminal C lassic pottery.

white

i n gray

3 16-44cm: P latform tumble; s lightly darker s oil with more artifacts and smaller l imestone rocks mixed with Terminal C lassic and s ome Chicanel pottery. 5 44-76cm: Midden; d ark soil with charcoal, Terminal Classic s herds. 1 3 7 6-88cm: rocks.

Building tumble;

1 2

P latform s lump

8 8-114cm:

burnt rocks and

gray marl with s ome l imestone

; buff colored rocky soil.

1 1 1 14-124cm: Wall f ill; yellow marl Terminal Classic and Chicanel ceramics. 4 1 24-144cm: Wall; crudely shaped.

l arge

7 1 44-150cm: F ill; Chicanel ceramics.

yellow

1 4

f oundation trench below wall

1 14-150cm:

8 1 50-162cm:

Cut; F ill;

( 30

cm

marl

l ong)

and

with

rocks

l imestone

Terminal

with

blocks,

C lassic and

0 4.

l oose gray marl.

6 1 62-186cm: Buried A-horizon; black s ticky c lay with s ome Mamom, and more a bundant Chicanel and Terminal C lassic pottery. 9 1 86-204cm: Eroded bedrock; mix of l ight gray s oil, sticky and white l imestone chunks. 10

2 04cm:

Bedrock;

black

white hard l imestone.

DISCUSSION A l ayer of f ill 8 was l aid down above A-horizon 6 s ometime in t he Early C lassic or l ater. This l ayer may have been surfaced with plaster, but i f so, the plaster i s gone. This l ayer was cut by f oundation trench 1 4 i n the Terminal Classic and f illed with yellow marl 7 . Above this the Platform 1 31 retaining wall 4 /11 was constructed.

2 05

The surface of the platform s lumped 1 2 over t he top of 4 /11, and l ater s ome s tructural d ebris 1 3 a lso slumped during use of the platform. 5 i ncludes some A-horizon f ormed i n the period during which P latform 1 31 w as occupied a long with an a ccumulation of Terminal Classic trash, probably a primary midden. After abandonment, the platform eroded 3 , a s did the superstructure 2 , before the ground surface stabilized a nd the A-horizon 1 reformed above the rubble. Testpit 8 1 983 Coordinates: S 1251 / W 8 52 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 333m E levation: SE 1 9.74/NW 1 973 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n S tructure 2 86 i n center of platform 2 76. 2 76 i s a very l arge platform g roup, a nd extensive surface collections were made from looters' trenches dug i nto the platform and i ts structures. The s ize and l ocation of the s tructure tested in t his excavation suggest i t may have b een a shrine. It was chosen f or excavation s ince a shrine might r eflect the entire occupation s equence of the platform g roup, i ts l ocation suggesting i t was part of the plan of t he original construction, but not r emoved i n subsequent periods. Excavation to bedrock, 2 25 cm bs. 1 0 -12cm: Humus; l ight gray s oil, disturbed by trench about 2 meters away; eroded C lassic pottery. 2 1 2-27cm: Erosion l ayer; tan l oose soil i nclusions, eroded C lassic pottery. 3 2 7-30cm: F loor; ( Late?) pottery.

with

densely packed white marl;

looters

2 -4cm

marl

eroded Classic

4 3 0-33cm: Subfloor midden-fill; L ate C lassic a nd Chicanel sherds and pebbles in yellow and g ray marl matrix. 5 3 3-45cm: Fill; Possible Terminal C lassic and L ate Classic mixed with Chicanel sherds i n a yellow marl matrix. 6 5 0-55cm: Burial c ap; s oft chalky marl with rock i nclusions and eroded C lassic pottery.

l arge

h ard

8 3 6-92cm: Burial f ill; L oose tan soil with e roded L ate C lassic ( probably) pottery and r ed powdery inclusions, m ost l ikely hematite paint. D istribution of the red powder suggests that the body was painted, not the bones. 7 5 0-90cm: Burial; human bone, magnetic north, head e ast.

2 06

body orientation 2 80

degrees

9 3 6-92cm;

Burial c ut;

10 3 5-44cm: pottery.

F ill;

11 4 4-92cm; F ill; Classic pottery.

f rom 1 0 through 1 1 to surface of 1 2.

Compact tan marl

l arge

cut

marl

with

eroded

b locks

i n

1 0,

C lassic

eroded

1 2 9 0-95cm: F loor: s oft gray dirt with chunks of white marl becoming pale gray ( with yellow ) with depth, marl chunks becoming l arger, eroded C lassic pottery. 1 4 1 21-175cm: Burial Classic ceramics.

f ill;

l oose

tan

marl with

Early

16 1 65-172cm: Crypt; c ut, crudely shaped and roughly p laced limestone b locks a bove burial. 1 7

1 80cm:

Burial;

1 8 1 10-187: top o f 1 5. 21

3 5-42cm:

2 2

9 7-107cm:

s mall

Burial

quantity of human bone.

cut;

Midden f ill;

f rom 2 3,

through 1 3

and 1 4

to the

brown s oil with artifacts.

Subfloor f ill;

yellow marl.

1 3 1 10-121cm: F loor; pale yellow compact marl with traces of g ray and charcoal, and chunks o f white and dark yellow marl a nd occasional small stones. No cultural material. 1 9 1 21-175cm: P latform f ill; Classic ceramics.

l oose tan

marl

with

Early

15 1 75-226cm: F ill; l oosely packed gray marl with chunks of white and yellow and s ome charcoal; Early C lassic and possibly Protoclassic sherds. 2 3

1 85-226cm:

Cut

i nto bedrock.

20

1 85/226cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION Sometime i n or before the Early C lassic a pit 2 3 was dug into bedrock 2 0 and subsequently covered by 2 0. 1 5 appears to b e a f ill l ayer l aid directly on bedrock 2 0 in the Early Classic. The technique of building massive superstructures by f irst r emoving at l east s ome of the A-horizon down to bedrock i s known f rom other parts of Nohmul dating to several periods. The Early C lassic date f or the construction and o ccupation of the 2 76 group i s substantiated by c eramic collections f rom extensive looters' trenches i n other parts of the enormous 2 76 platform group. The s pectacular Protoclassic f inds made by Anderson and C ook ( 1940) i n the i ll-fated Structure 2 77, which was a lso built on P latform 2 76. These f inds l ed

2 07

Hammond to s peculate that the area 1 -2 km northwest o f site center might be the l ocation o f Nohmul's d ensest Protoclassic occupation. ( See excavations 6 2-65 for f urther data f rom this area of Nohmul.) Above 1 5, 1 9 i s a lso an Early C lassic f ill l ayer, s urfaced with p laster f loor 1 3. This would have probably been the original platform surface. 2 2 i s a l ayer of t ypical subfloor f ill, deposited to l evel and r aise the surface of 1 3, before replastering. E ither i ts p laster surface i s gone or i t was cut by the excavation 1 8 f or burial 1 7 before 2 2 was surfaced. The burial f ill 1 4 around the bones 1 7 and the s tones of the r ather disarranged crypt 1 6 are a lso Early C lassic i n date. After the burial was f illed, the area was resurfaced with 1 2, dated only a s C lassic by the eroded associated pottery. Layers 1 0 a nd 1 1 are a c ombination of some extant construction, building tumble, and r ubble f ill. A s with 1 2, these l ayers bear only eroded C lassic sherds. 1 0 may actually have been a s urface or a s ubsurface f ill, and 2 1 may r epresent an era o f brief abandonment, s ince this layer contains more c lay and humus than i s u sual f or structural f ill l ayers. During the Late C lassic period or l ater, 9 was e xcavated f or burial 7 and f illed with 8 bearing Late C lassic ceramics. The surface of this f eature was l evelled i n the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic or later with the deposition of 5 , f urther l evelled with 4 and surfaced with 3 . After abandonment, s ome structural erosion caused the accumulation of 2 . When the erosional patterns stabilized, the A-horizon 1 reformed. The two burials discovered by the small excavation s uggest that the s tructure may i ndeed have been, as H ammond suggested, a f amily s hrine. The r epeated use of the shrine over such a l ong period suggests s ome cosmological s ignificance f or the s tructure, a s well a s continuity o f usage f or the s tructure, f urther supporting i ts i nterpretation as a shrine. Testpit 9 1 983 Coordinates: S 3375 / W 6 25 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 3 202 m Elevation: S E 4 .70/SW 4 .74 One S ection Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n i solated Structure 2 50 i n the north s ector. Hammond s uggested that an i solated platform s upporting the r emains o f a s ingle s uperstructure may be a Preclassic pattern. A t est was made to d ate the s tructure. Excavation was to bedrock , 9 3 cm bs. 1 0 -16cm: Humus; b lack s ticky s oil eroded C lassic pottery.

2 08

w ith

some

stones

and

2 1 6-52cm: F ill; f ine gray compact s oil with i nclusions and eroded C lassic and Chicanel pottery.

marl

3 5 2-58cm: F loor; d ensely packed yellow and white marl with traces o f gray; e roded C lassic and Chicanel pottery. 4 5 8-66cm: Buried A-horizon; black s ticky s oil with chunks of marl and eroded C lassic and Chicanel pottery. 5 6 6-93cm: Eroded bedrock; Sticky gray s andy marl Chicanel, Early C lassic and Protoclassic ceramics. 6 9 3cm:

Bedrock;

with

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Above b edrock 6 was a l ayer of s oft marl 5 containing Chicanel, Early C lassic a nd Protoclassic ceramics. Despite the presence of cultural material, this was not i dentified a s a c ultural l ayer due to the l ack of s upporting evidence ( i. e. no f loor or o ther modification) and to the presence of an i ntact A-horizon. The pottery probably entered 5 f rom 4 due to bioturbation. 4 i s a buried A-horizon containing Chicanel a nd unknown C lassic period s herds. 4 was l evelled sometime i n the C lassic ( probably Early ) and a plaster f loor 3 was built on top. 2 appears to be a l ayer o f f ill pertaining to a l ater construction, but no trace o f a building was f ound i n TP9. After abandonment, the A-horizon 1 reformed. Testpit 1 0 1 983 Coordinates:S 3292.5 / W 6 30 D istance from S ite C enter: 3 138m Elevation: SE 5 .37/SW 5 .37 One Section Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated on north s ide of P latform 2 48 in center of Structure 2 48. Excavation was i ntended to date the s tructures on this p latform s ince a p latform containing only two superficially i dentical s tructures i s relatively unusual at Nohmul, and we thought the c onfiguration might be specific to a particular time period. D igging continued to bedrock, 2 20 cm b s. 1 1 5-115cm: Rodent burrow; humus f illed cavity running through most levels of excavation and containing Terminal C lassic pottery. 2 0-10cm:

Humus;

r ocky d ark gray s oil.

3 1 0-45cm: Tumble; l arge s tones eroded Late C lassic s herds. 4 2 5-40cm:

Tumble;

i n a l ight gray matrix with

1 2cm i n diameter burnt rock.

2 09

5 4 5cm:

Burnt s pot on f loor.

6 4 5-50cm: F loor; period ceramics. 7 5 0-80cm:

F ill;

rubbly,

8 8 0-85cm: F loor; a ssociations. 9 8 5-100cm: 1 0

F ill;

1 00-115cm:

eroded p laster

eroded

with

Classic

pebbly tan s oil. plaster

s urface without ceramic

yellow and gray s tony marl.

F loor;

white plaster s urface.

1 1 1 10-124cm: chunks.

Subfloor f ill;

1 2

F ill;

1 24-134cm:

s urface

dark gray soil with white marl

s oft white marl.

1 3 1 34-154cm: F ill; blackish s oil with chunks and possible Early and Late C lassic s herds.

of white marl

1 4 1 05-165cm: Wall; l ine o f crudely s haped stones running f rom northeastern corner of excavation to s outhwestern corner, set i n white chalky matrix. 1 5 1 34-150cm: wall 1 4.

F oundation trench;

1 6

F ill;

1 52-182cm:

cut

i nto surface 1 6

to s et

gray brown marl and soil mix.

1 7 1 82-220cm: F ill; compact tan s oil matrix concentration of f ossilized marine s hell.

with

1 8

t o 20.

1 70-220cm:

Foundation trench;

cut through

1 9 1 70-220cm: B uried A-horizon; b lack Early C lassic and s ome Chicanel pottery. 2 0

2 20cm:

Bedrock;

1 9

sticky

dense

soil with

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Sometime i n the Early C lassic or l ater, a trench was dug through the A-horizon 1 9 to bedrock 2 0 and f illed with f riable marine shell 1 7, probably mined from a natural outcrop of l imestone containing f ossil shell. An identical cultural deposit was f ound i n f oundation trench 2 3 discovered i n testpit 1 1 i n adjacent s tructure 2 49. Natural f ossil bearing d eposits exist within a f ew kilometers o f this part o f Nohmul ( Henry Truebe, personal communication). Above this, f ill l ayer 1 6 was d eposited. 1 3 may r epresent a l ayer that a ccumulated after a bandonment i n the L ate C lassic. L ater f oundation trench 1 5 was dug to s et p latform wall 1 4. P erhaps the builders of this wall 1 4 mistook 1 6 f or natural s ascab.

1 1 and 1 2 were dumped i nside the wall and s urfaced with 1 0, which was l ater r aised with 9 and resurfaced with 8 . By this time the successive s urfaces had no relation to wall 1 4, which had become a c ore wall. 8 , i n turn, was raised with 7 and r esurfaced with 6 . The ultimate T erminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic superstructure was burned, a s evidenced by the burnt rock 4 and the burnt plaster s pot 5 i n tumble l ayer 3 . 2 i s the modern A-horizon which f ormed a fter abandonment and after gravity was satisfied with 3 . 1 was an extended f amily dwelling f or r odents that enormously complicated the execution a nd i nterpretation of this excavation. Testpit 1 1 1 983 Coordinates: S 3277.5 / W 7 25 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 3 129m Elevation: SE 5 .05/SW 5 .05 One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated on s outh s ide o f P latform 2 48 in Structure 2 49. Excavation was i ntended to date the structures on this p latform s ince a p latform l ike this one containing only two s tructures i s r elatively unusual a t Nohmul, and we thought the configuration might be s pecific to a particular t ime period. D igging continued to bedrock, 2 01cm bs. 1 0 -13cm: pottery.

Humus;

r ocky dark gray

s oil

with

Late

C lassic

2 1 3-65cm: F ill; l arge s tones i n a l ight gray matrix with Terminal C lassic, E arly C lassic, and Chicanel sherds. 3 6 5-95cm: F ill; l ight gray s oil with many small s tones and Late C lassic, Early C lassic, and Chicanel s herds. 4 9 5-103cm: P latform surface; C lassic sherds. 5 9 5-103cm:

Fill/floor;

white

marl with Early

white marl.

6 1 03-120cm: F ill/recycled plaster chunk. 7 9 5-120cm: C ut; ( dedicatory cache a t

hard

p laster

trench i nto 7 , f oot of wall 8 ?).

f loor;

eroded

f unction

marl/

unknown

8 1 0-96cm: Wall; s ix c ourses o f l arge cut l imestone blocks with pebbly gray c ompact f ill and Early and Late C lassic ceramics. 9 8 5-100cm: gray marl.

Wall

f ooting;

concentration of rocks

2 12

i n l ight

1 0

9 5-100cm:

1 1

1 00-106cm:

F loor;

gray p laster s urface.

Subfloor f ill;

1 2 1 06-162cm: concentration of

F ill; f ossil

c ompact yellow marl.

gray s hell.

brown

s and

with

1 3 1 06-162cm: Foundation trench; c ut through 1 4, and 1 7 i nto 1 8, beginning o f 8 wall c onstruction. 1 4 9 2-126cm: A-horizon/abandonment; soil with Early C lassic pottery. 1 5 1 20-131cm: blocks.

Surface;

l ayer of

black

dense

1 5,

1 6,

sticky

l ayer o f yellow marl and yellow marl

1 6 1 31-144cm: Buried A-horizon; b lack Early C lassic and Protoclassic sherds.

s ticky

soil with

1 7 1 44-155cm: A-B transition; s ticky gray c lay with white marl chunks and Early C lassic c eramics. 1 8

1 55-201cm:

1 9

2 01cm:

Eroded bedrock;

B edrock;

mottled gray c lay.

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The sequence 1 9-18-17-16 i s typical of natural A-horizon f ormation i n very wet areas of N ohmul. A thick layer of soft sticky marl 1 8 l ies above bedrock 1 9, perhaps actually oil a l ayer of dissolved bedrock. Between 1 8 and 1 6, the s from the becomes gradually l ighter and i ncludes sherds Classic, earliest occupation of the i mmediate area ( Early through in this c ase) that have entered a n atural deposit and dry bioturbation, and the a lternate wet swelling cracking of s easonally i nundated s oils. 1 6, the original ground s urface below Platform 2 49, contained Early and Protoclassic sherds, providing a terminus post quem f or the c onstruction of 1 5. 1 6 was probably l evelled before 1 5 was l aid directly on i ts surface. The f unction of 1 5 i s unknown as a result of the small exposure of TP 1 1, but i t a ppears to have been a l ow building that was abandoned f or s ome time during the Early C lassic a llowing the A-Horizon 1 4 to build-up above it. 1 4 may be a f ill l ayer made of r edeposited A-horizon, but this s eems doubtful given the unstable water-retaining nature o f such soils i n this area. More l ikely, 1 4 i s a water-lain deposit r esulting f rom f looding of the swampy r aised f ield area that i s within 2 0 meters of S tructure 2 49 t oday. In f act, during much o f the excavation o f 2 48 and 2 49, i t was necessary to use wooden p lanks to get onto the platform over water that s tood 2 0-30 cm deep a t the base o f Platform 2 48.

2 12

Foundation trench 1 3 h as no a ssociated ceramics in i ts f ill 1 2, but was built to s tabilize wall 8 , so probably dates to the L ate Classic a s d oes 8 . 1 2 i s c omposed o f f ossil shell from n earby natural d eposits. S imilar shell deposits were found i n foundation trenches and below f loors of other structures in wet areas of Nohmul, but are usually dated Terminal Classic. The trench 1 3 seems to have been l eveled with s ubfloor f ill 1 1 and c apped with a plaster f loor 1 0 before 8 was built. Presumably 1 0 and 1 1 are part of a f loor that extended outside wall 8 ( i.e. outside the excavation perimeter ). 9 i s a f ooting at the base of wall8 that m ay have originally connected to f loor 4 . Cut 7 , the purpose o f which might be c learer i f TP 1 1 was larger , was f illed with a recycled r emnant of a plaster f loor 6 , and a l ayer of white marl, and surfaced with plaster f loor 4 . 4 may r epresent the occupation surface at the t ime of c onstruction of 8 , despite the f act i t i s associated with Early C lassic s herds. 3 i s a l ayer of mixed f ill containing Late and Early C lassic and Chicanel sherds and was probably deposited to e levate the platform surface south of 8 . 2 i s s tructural tumble f rom the l ast occupation of the building before a bandonment, which was Terminal Classic o r l ater judging by the a ssociated ceramics. 1 , the modern A-horizon, i s not the black s ticky soil c ommon over most of Nohmul, because the i mproved drainage afforded by the platform has impeded i ts formation. Testpit 1 2 1 983 Coordinates:S 3460 / W 8 15.5 Distance from S ite C enter: 3 328 m Elevation: SE 3 .99 One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated i n west edge of P latform 2 63 in western s ide of n orth sector. Excavation was done to estimate occupation s equence of this p latform, s ince i t i s near a n area o f Prehistoric r aised f ields. In f act, the platform, which i s very l arge, i s a lmost i n the swamp. Excavation was to bedrock, 1 97 cm bs. 1 0-26cm: Humus; Classic pottery.

black s ticky

2 2 6-61cm: Overburden; Classic pottery.

rocky

soil

with

gray

; 26-61cm: Rubble; gray marl with Late and C hicanel pottery. 61-134cm: F ill; d ark gray c lay with shells and Terminal C lassic c eramics.

Late

marl

and

and

with

Early

small

Early

Terminal

C lassic

stones

and

6 1 10-124cm: F ill; more c ompact dark gray c lay mixed with white marl with s ome c harcoal and Early and Late C lassic

2 13

ceramics. 5 1 24-130cm: burnt rocks,

F ill; dark gray c lay with l ots of c harcoal a nd and E arly and Late C lassic c eramics.

7 1 15-134cm: gray.

Eroded b lock?;

8 1 34-197cm: Shells; bedrock; s terile. 9 1 97cm:

Bedrock;

s oft

d eposit

white

o f

marl marbled w ith

f ossil

s terile gray marl with some

shells

a bove

shells.

D ISCUSSION Above bedrock 9 was a deposit of f ossil s hell 8 . I t was n ot possible to be s ure that the shell deposit 8 below Platform 2 63 was cultural, because the s hell l ayer c ontained no artifacts and blended with the n atural s ascab l ayer 9 below i t. However, a rtifacts and shell do migrate downward i nto natural l ayers a t Nohmul, and t here are at l east three other c lear cases of the use o f shell for f oundation trenches at the s ite. 7 may be a partially dissolved l imestone block ( the soil i n this area i s very wet). 5 i s a t he f ill layer on which P latform 2 63 was built; 6 may b e the r emains o f a plaster f loor a ssociated with the f irst o ccupation of t he platform. Associated ceramics d ate the original o ccupation to the Late C lassic. 4 was deposited i n the Terminal C lassic/Early P ost Classic, presumably to e levate and enlarge P latform 2 63. 3 i s a l ayer of platform s lump, 2 i s t umble f rom the c ollapse of the f inal s uperstructure after a bandonment in t he Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic. 1 , the modern A-horizon, i s f ormed partly f rom material t umbled from i nside the platform that was originally deposited before t he Terminal C lassic superstructure, and l ater re-exposed b y erosion. The l ast two l ayers f ormed are c onsequently r eversed, 1 containing e arlier Late and Early C lassic ceramics. Testpit 1 3 1 984 Coordinates:S 9 01.81 / W 3 18.98 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 186m E levation 1 8.04 One Section Drawing One by one meter p it located on s outheast edge o f Platform 3 03 at place where s herd d ensity s uggested possible p latform-associated midden. Excavation to bedrock, 150 cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -14cm: Humus, dry black compact s oil f lecked w ith marl. Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic artifacts.

2 14

white

2 1 5-66cm: S tructure tumble; s imilar to 1 i n color but with larger limestone r ocks ( up to 5 cm ) and l arge number of ceramics dating to t he Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic mixed with a f ew C hicanel s herds. 3 6 7-95cm: Eroded p latform f ill; dense-packed dark brown clay mixed with l arger grained l ooser s oil, gravel and s ome rocks. No d iagnostic artifacts. 4 9 6-130cm: Buried A-Horizon; grayish-brown sticky c lay with l arge well-preserved sherds and s ome l ithic debris; sherds were Late P reclassic with one piece of Protoclassic and one piece o f Middle Preclassic. L ithic material included chalcedony and " Colha" banded chert i n the f orm of debitage and a broken " ax". 5 1 03cm: Bedrock; s oft uneven l imestone surface with s ome sherds in i ts upper l ayer dating to L ate Preclassic and Protoclassic. 6 1 30-150cm: Cut i n l imestone i n s outheast portion of pit, cut n ot entirely e xposed, but squarish corner suggests i t was n ot a natural f eature. DISCUSSION Bedrock 5 was mined ( cut 6 ) f or s ascab sometime prior to the Chicanel/Freshwater deposit of 4 . Several Nohmul excavations disclosed s imilarly a ltered bedrock, usually below Chicanel o r Mamo-Chic middens. 4 probably i ncluded some primary midden dumped on the exposed bedrock a s the A-Horizon r eformed; this i s s upported by the presence of sherds ground i nto the surface o f bedrock. The condition of t he sherds i n 4 , which were well preserved, suggests the midden was covered r apidly by protective soil. The presence of numerous l ithics i n the deposit may i ndicate that the artifacts were " unselected", i .e. f ill deposits at N ohmul o ften a ppear to have f ewer l ithics than primary middens, and refuse dumps near l iving quarters probably do not i nclude indiscriminate l ithic d isposal ( Hayden and Cannon 1 984). The s urface of 4 was probably the ground surface during o ccupation o f P latform 3 03; this i s corroborated by t he dark " sticky" matrix of the deposit typical of buried A-Horizons i n the region ( Darch 1 983), and by the nature of the 3 l ayer above interpreted as rubble tumble f rom P latform 3 03. That layer 2 was also s lumped p latform f ill f rom 3 03 i s suggested by the chronological mixture and condition of i ts ceramics. This s lump may c ome f rom a l ater period o f construction on 3 03 during the Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic ( see TP 1 4 f or f urther details of the construction sequence of 3 03). 1 i s t he modern A-Horizon currently planted i n cane and much disturbed by burning. Testpit 1 4 1 984 C oordinates:S898.43/W330.63

2 15

D istance f rom S ite C enter: E levation 1 9.07 One Section Drawing

1 186 m

One by one meter pit excavated o n top of P latform 303 d ue west of the s uperstructure. L ocus was selected f or c omparative data with pit 1 3 on s outheast edge of s ame p latform to address i ssue o f relative v alue o f chronological data f rom the two c ontexts. Excavation w as to bedrock, about 1 70 cm bs. 1 0 -15cm: sherds.

Humus;

dark gray s oil with s ome Terminal

Classic

2 1 6-40cm: Rubble; l ighter gray humus with l imestone pebbles and s ome l arger l imestone r ocks containing L ate C lassic pottery. 3 4 0-45cm: F loor; l ayer of white p ebbles, probably subfloor f ill, though no p laster remained. L ayer contained mixture of Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) a nd Terminal Classic artifacts. 4 4 5-56cm: ceramics.

Fill;

l oose

gray s oil c ontaining no d iagnostic

5 5 7-59cm: F loor; small patch o f plaster remaining northeast corner o f pit and c ontaining no artifacts. 6 5 9-65cm: F ill; l ayer c ontaining no a rtifacts.

of

yellow

marl

subfloor

i n

f ill

7 6 6-74cm: P latform; L ayer of yellow and w hite c ut l imestone blocks with s omewhat eroded surface merging with l ayer 6 above. Cut s tones were s et in a tan matrix which yielded a mixture o f Terminal C lassic and Chicanel c eramics. 8 6 5-69cm: P laster patch; l ayer o f white p laster, probably originally part o f 5 but caved i n a bove the fill o f cut 1 9. 9 6 9-76cm: F loor; l ayer of gray eroded p laster , probably originally l aid c ontiguous to l ayer 6 as a patch o ver f ill 2 3, and l ater replastered with 8 ; yielded Late/Terminal C lassic sherds mixed with Chicanel. 1 0 7 5-94cm: F ill; l oose C lassic period sherds. 1 1

9 5-106cm:

1 2

1 07-139cm:

F ill; F ill;

gray dirt c ontaining Chicanel

white marl

a nd

f ill without artifacts.

yellow marl with Chicanel

ceramics.

1 3 1 40-144cm: Abandonment l ayer; d ark gray clay l ens with no artifacts, possibly a natural d eposit a ccumulating after a bandonment o f 1 4.

2 16

1 4 1 45-149cm: F loor; Chicanel ceramics.

plaster

yielding

15 1 50-168cm bs: F ill; l oose gray f ill with mixed Freshwater and Early C lassic c eramics.

Chicanel

16

1 69-173cm:

yellowish broken-up

White p laster f loor,

17 1 74-182cm: Buried A-Horizon; sticky clay without artifacts; A-horizon upon which the various were built. 18

1 82cm:

Bedrock:

no artifacts. l ayer of probably phases of

l eveled black the l eveled platform 3 03

very hard pinkish l imestone.

19 6 5-150cm: Burial cut f rom l ayer 7 through 1 0, 1 1, 1 2, 1 3, 1 4, and 1 5. Burial pit was 4 5 cm wide and extended across the eastern s ide of the excavation f rom the north wall 9 0cm s outh. S ince the cut originates f rom the top of 7 , a l ayer containing a mixture of Terminal C lassic and Chicanel ceramics, the burial must date to the Terminal Classic or l ater. 20 1 25-145cm: Bones of burial i n cut 1 9; l ong bones were very poorly preserved and skull was not within the boundaries of the t estpit. 21 1 28-143cm: Crypt; l arge oblong l imestone rock placed at base of burial a long e ast central edge of burial cut; rock was a bout 1 0cm i n d iameter and i ts l ength was bisected by the n orth s ection wall. 2 2 1 30-140cm: Crypt; two roundish l imestone rocks ( 5 X 8 cm and 1 0 X 1 5cm i n d iameter r espectively) placed a long the west edge of the burial cut, probably part of a crypt with 21. 2 3 6 5-150cm: F ill; yellowish brown l oose marl burial matrix containing Chicanel ceramics s uggesting that the burial fill was mined f rom a midden that was much o lder than the burial itself. 2 4 6 6cm: of 7 .

P osthole;

c ircular cut

i nto s oft l imestone blocks

25 6 6cm: P osthole; c ircular cut i nto s oft l imestone blocks of 6 ,about 1 8cm west o f 1 5. Exact depth of neither cut could be determined even with s ectioning. The two postholes are s o c lose together that they may not have been exactly contemporary, and one may represent a " remodelling" episode. 2 6 6 6cm: Fill Classic sherds.

o f

2 4,

tannish s oil

containing

Terminal

2 7 6 6cm: F ill o f 2 5, tannish s oil with no artifacts; two small f lat, oblong s tones ( about 5 cm X 2 cm X 3 cm ) were

2 17

placed a long the edges of this posthole, one on t he northwest edge and one on the s outheast edge, s uggesting that the post i n this hole was " chinked". 2 8

6 6-74cm:

Mortar;

f ill between b locks of platform.

D ISCUSSION The A-horizon 1 7 a bove bedrock 1 8 w as l eveled and a plaster f loor 1 6 was l aid directly on i t. The technique o f plastering d irectly over a natural s oil horizon i s known from several areas o f Nohmul and was practiced i n several periods. Although no artifacts a re a ssociated directly with 1 6, i t necessarily precedes l ayer 1 5 above, which contained a mix o f Chicanel a nd Freshwater ( or Early C lassic) sherds. As noted i n the d iscussion o f TP 1 3, bedrock modifications are f requently a ssociated with Preclassic deposits at Nohmul. Whether or n ot ground surface occupation tends to be chronologically i ntermediate between the Preclassic and Terminal C lassic, these f indings do suggest the the existence of a r ange of o ccupational types f rom bedrock to ground s urface to e levated p latforms ( see discussions to TP 4 3, TP 4 4, TP 4 5, TP 46, T P 61, a nd TP 7 6 f or f urther examples of non-mound occupation . See TP 1 , TP 3 , TP 4 2, TP 4 8, and Wilk 1 974-75 f or further examples of bedrock modification ). S ince f loor 1 6 was placed above a very high natural b edrock outcrop, ( compare with bedrock e levation i mmediately s outheast ( at b ase of TP 1 3) drainage may not have presented the problem t hat called f or platforms i n s ome l ower areas. Above 1 6, f ill l ayer 1 5 was deposited sometime i n or after the Freshwater period and surfaced with f loor 1 4. The c lay l ens 1 3 above this s econd f loor ( 14) i ndicates a period o f abandonment prior to the deposition of three f ill layers: 1 2, 1 1, 1 0 which contained Chicanel, no artifacts a nd Chicanel mixed with C lassic period sherds respectively. Above these f ill l ayers a Late/ Terminal C lassic c ut s tone pavement 7 was l aid that s till c ontained some recycled Chicanel material. The preceding f ill l ayers may actually date to the construction o f t his pavement s ince they s upport i t and g ive no i ndication o f having been otherwise s urfaced. S ince the burial c ut 1 9 began f rom the surface o f layer 7 , i t must post-date this Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic deposit, even though i t contains only Chicanel sherds. Although the burial c ontained n o f ormal crypt, several s tones, contexts 2 1 and 2 2, were l aid around the outside edges of the pit at the base of the cut. No g rave goods were recovered and the partial s keleton 2 0, was extremely poorly preserved. Some l ong bone f ragments were c onserved; the individual was an adult, and was oriented north/south. Above the burial a nd the l ayer of l imestone b locks f rom which i t originated was 6 , a s terile l ayer of y ellow m arl f ill s urfaced with p laster f loor 5 . Two postholes were c ut

. 218

into f ill l ayer 6 , a nd probably originated f rom f loor 5 , but 5 was i n too poor condition to make i t possible to tell whether the f loor h ad been damaged by having been cut, or from s ubsidence o f the f ill l ayers 2 6 and 2 7, i n the postholes. 9 does r epresent a s egment of 5 that broke through above the b urial f ill 2 3, probably a s a result of compaction o f the b urial matrix a s the body deteriorated. The b reak s eems to h ave been r eplastered to no avail ( the fill s till c ontinued to subside) with patch 8 . Above this broken f loor was another f ill l ayer 4 below Terminal Classic f loor 3 ( again, mixed with r ecycled Chicanel sherds). This f looring probably was the platform surface during its l ast o ccupation. Rubble tumble 2 f rom the higher construction l ayers of Structure 3 03 to the west of the t est pit l ies o ver f loor 3 and immediately below 1 , the modern A-Horizon. Testpit 15 1984 Coordinates:S877.92/W268.92 Distance f rom Site C enter: 1 150m Elevation 2 0.79 One S ection Drawing One b y one meter p it l ocated on s outh edge of i solated Platform 3 17 at p lace where s herd density i n posthole tests suggested possible platform-associated midden. Excavation revealed that the s herds i n the upper l ayers were probably from construction f ill o f the building p latform, e . g. recycled midden m aterial not d irectly a ssociated with utilization of Structure 3 17. Excavation s topped 5 0cm below the s urface of bedrock, 1 90cm bs. 1 0 -30/50cm: Humus, dark brown l oose s oil with l imestone rocks and pebbles; o ne Mamom ( Middle Preclassic) sherd. 2 3 0/50-70cm: Structure Tumble; s imilar matrix to 1 with large limestone b locks ( some cut and shaped) f allen at odd angles. Terminal C lassic sherds were present i n this l ayer of r ubble tumble f rom the c ollapsing s tructure above. 3 7 0-97cm: Fill; l oose gray s oil with blocks and Terminal C lassic pottery.

l arge

l imestone

4 9 7-127cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky soil with some clay and a high s ilt content which yielded a mixture of Chicanel, E arly C lassic and Terminal C lassic sherds. This layer probably i s t he original ground surface upon which structure 3 17 was b uilt. 5 1 27-190cm: Sascab; l ayer 4 grades gradually i nto s terile gray and then to white s ascab. Excavation was continued to sterile white t o make certain this was a ll naturally deposited.

2 19

D ISCUSSION Unlike Structure 3 03 nearby, 3 17 may have b een f irst constructed i n the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic, s ince Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic s herds a ppear in the buried A-Horizon 4 upon which 317 w as built. Alternatively, TP 1 5 may s imply not have hit deposits dating to the earliest phase of S tructure 317, s ince the pit did not penetrate the s tructure i tself. Even i f deposit 3 i s an i n s itu f ill l ayer, i t c ould be a platform extension rather than the original construction. TP 1 4 went through Structure 3 03 and u ncovered early deposits protected by l ater c onstruction. TP 1 3, a bout a s close to P latform 3 03 a s TP 1 5 i s to 3 17, d id yield e arly ceramic materials i n i ts l ower l evels even though they were n ot protected by l ater construction. However, t he lighter color of the Chicanel bearing l ayers in TP 1 3 makes i t difficult to be sure that any o f them r epresent a buried undisturbed A-horizon. B edrock modifications i n TP 1 3 suggest upper l ayers may have been d isturbed and mixed e ven though they do not c ontain mixed c eramic dates. Above the A-horizon 4 , 3 i s probably s lumped platform f ill f rom 3 17 and 2 i s rubble tumble f rom the collapse of the structure i tself. These two l ayers are rather mixed, as the section i ndicates and a s would be expected in the natural process o f the erosion o f the structure. B oth yielded exclusively Terminal C lassic pottery that dates at l east the l ater construction phase o f the building. Modern topsoil, 1 , f ormed a fter the stabilization of t he eroding structure. Testpit 1 6 1 984 Coordinates: S 955.28/W249.74 D istance f rom Site C enter: 1 221m Elevation 1 6.27 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n a rea that appeared to b e a low mound but turned out to be a natural s lope. The excavation was about three meters e ast of a natural modern drainage channel. The pit was excavated to 50 c m below the modern ground surface, e ight cm i nto bedrock. 1 0 -40cm: Humus, s ticky, plastic, dark brown s ilt mixed with some c lay and s ome l oam. A s parse concentration of white marl f lecks and l imestone p ebbles o ccurred evenly at about 2 5 cm bs. This type of marl concentration i s commonly a ssociated with middens and i n this case d id contain s ome very poorly preserved sherds, probably dating to the Late C lassic. Either a s hallow ground surface midden subject t o weathering and r edeposition by sheetwashing could a ccount f or the presence of t his eroded material.

2 20

2 4 0-48cm:

S oft white sterile bedrock.

DISCUSSION Cultural material i n this pit could c orrespond to a Late Classic non-mound occupation of the type much better documented i n Nohmul's north s ector ( see T 45, T 46, T61). Pure Late C lassic deposits are unusual i n architectural contexts at Nohmul, they are usually mixed with earlier and later material. S ome exceptions to this generalization occur in non-platform deposits, e .g. T 61. Testpit 1 7 1984 Coordinates:5956.38/W346.00 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 246m Elevation 1 8.25 One S ection Drawing One b y one meter p it placed on the e ast central edge of the Platform 3 27 northeast of Structure 3 29 i n an attempt to date the c onstruction and occupation of that building. Excavation c ontinued 1 15 cm below the modern ground surface, 5 cm i nto bedrock. 1 0 -43cm: Humus; b lack s ilt Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) ( Protoclassic) artifacts.

with s ome c lay; yielded and s ome Freshwater

2 4 4-81cm: P latform wall; three courses of s haped l imestone blocks; probably the r etaining wall of the platform supporting S tructures 3 28 and 3 29 on P latform 3 27. 3 4 4-81cm bs: Tumble; l ayer of l ight brownish-gray dry s oil mixed with white marl chunks; rubble tumble f rom erosion of Structure 3 27 which f ell down over the outside ( east) of low p latform wall 2 ; yielded Chicanel sherds. 4 4 3-81cm bs: P latform f ill; yellowish gray marl piled "behind" ( west of) p latform wall 2 ; no ceramics present. 5 8 1-110 cm bs: B lack s ticky s ilt and c lay typical of buried A-horizons i n the r egion and l ikely the original ground surface upon which the P latform 3 27 was built; small poorly preserved n on-diagnostic ceramics. 6 1 10cm bs:

Bedrock;

s oft white l imestone.

DISCUSSION Test pit 1 7 revealed no particular e levation of the underlying bedrock below P latform 3 27, s o whether i t took advantage o f a natural e levation a s d id nearby P latform 3 03 and s everal o ther p latforms at Nohmul, i s unknown. The A-horizon 5 may have been l eveled i n preparation f or the construction of p latform wall 2 and c onsequent f ill 4 during or a fter t he Freshwater or Protoclassic period. If

2 21

the a ssociated ceramics do i ndeed date the construction of 3 27, i t may have been c ontemporary with P latform 3 03. No trace of p laster f loor r emained above the w all 2 a nd platform f ill 4 . The Chicanel s herds i n the rubble tumble l ayer 3 s uggest that the s uperstructure o n the p latform w as a lso constructed i n the L ate Preclassic. Unlike 303, t he 3 27 test yielded no evidence f or Late/Terminal Classic occupation. This may mean that we hit only the l owest ( and earliest) course o f c onstruction. Alternatively, Hammond has suggested that s ome s acred P reclassic structures w ere treated a s s hrines a nd not reoccupied i n later periods. The s ize, e levation and complex configuration of t he s tructures on P latform 3 27 s uggest i t may have had s ome s pecial f unction. Testpit 1 8 1 984 Coordinates:S710.47/W284.69 D istance f rom S ite Center: 9 93m Elevation 1 8.04 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit dug i nto t op center of S tructure 3 07 to reconstruct the o ccupation s equence of that building. At l east f ive burials were encountered, but the b urial c uts could not be f ollowed adequately because the t estpit was too small, the cultural material was s eriously d isturbed by rodents, and the pit was vandalized during excavation. I decided that the amount of i nformation to be gained by excavating the pit completely to s terile was o utweighed by the amount of i nformation l ost by disarticulating five or more burials that e ach f ell p artly i nside a nd mostly outside the testpit provenience. A l arge scale excavation i s needed to r econstruct the burial s equence i n structure 3 07 and a broad areal excavation of this kind o f feature was outside my research design. Reluctantly , I l aid plastic over the exposed s urfaces at 1 40cm bs t o mark t he extent of our work f or f uture excavators and backfilled t he excavation. An areal exposure o f at l east f ive square meters i s r ecommended f or an adequate a ssessment of the depositional history of this s tructure. 1 0 -15cm: Humus, C lassic s herds.

black s ticky topsoil containing

Terminal

2 1 6-61cm: Tumble; l arge l imestone blocks in a matrix of grayish brown l oose s oil; probably collapsed material f rom Structure 3 07. Y ielded Terminal C lassic and o ne piece of Chicanel. 3 5 5-61cm: Hearth; small l ens of b urnt rocks directly a bove f loor 4 ; possible post-abandonment hearth but a ppearance i s i nconclusive. No a ssociated artifacts. 4 6 5/70-85/90cm: F loor; s loping , badly white p laster; no a ssociated artifacts.

2 22

damaged

lens of

5 6 5/75-85/90cm: S ubfloor f ill; c ompact marl and small rocks; probably f ill l ayer f or 4 . A gravelly sherd l aden subfloor f ill i s c ommon a t Nohmul i n Terminal C lassic contexts ( cf. testpits 1 - 7 ); Terminal C lassic sherds were present i n l ayer 5 . 6 5 8-66cm: F loor; s mall l ens of p laster contiguous to layers 4 and 5 , i nterpreted a s r emains of a patch above cut 1 2. N o artifacts. 7 6 7-72cm: Subfloor f ill; this l ayer i s the s ame a s 5 , but has s lumped beneath p laster patch 6 , perhaps the episode that r equired the patch o ccurred a s a result of subsidence of t he contents o f c ut 1 2. 8 5 8-75cm: F ill; l ens of white cobbles and dense Terminal Classic sherds c ontiguous with patch 6 and f ill 7 . Interpreted a s a s eparate a ttempt to patch the f loor which in t his area i s a bove a t l east three burials and undoubtedly s ubject to s lumping. 9 5 7-63cm: F loor; a nother small plaster l ens corresponding to o ne of the l evels o f f looring a lready described but not contiguous with any; s ituated directly above and i nside the edge o f cut 1 2. 1 0 5 3-58cm b s: artifacts.

F loor;

white

plaster

l ens;

no

a ssociated

11 5 8-65cm: F loor; white p laster l ens immediately below 1 0; both 1 0 and 1 1 r est on a c ontinuation of Terminal C lassic f ill l ayer 5 , and l ikely r epresent p lastering and patching episodes. 1 2 6 0-95cm: Cut o riginating f rom the top of l ayer 5 ; I t partially f ollows the cut o f 1 4 which may be an earlier or a c ontemporary pit. 1 3 6 0-95cm: F ill o f cut 1 2; gray-brown soil with pebbles and c obbles, f lecked with yellow marl and charcoal and bits of b one. L ayer c ontained mixed Chicanel and Late/ Terminal Classic sherds. 1 4 ? -120cm: P it c ut with origin point i nterrupted cut 1 2. 1 4 i s probably the e arlier cut.

by

pit

1 5 9 5-120cm: F ill; d ense, hard-packed, dark brown, s lightly sticky soil; f ill o f cut 1 4. L ike 1 3, 1 5 yielded Chicanel and T erminal C lassic s herds and bone f ragments. The bone in 1 5, which i ncluded a jaguar tooth, was below disturbed crypt 2 4 s et at t he base of the cut. The matrix that was vaguely circumscribed by the s tones was i ndistinguishable from the f ill o f the cut, so i t was not numbered separately. 1 6 7 6-81cm: Patch; s mall l ens of white plaster placed over cut 1 7. I t i s c ontiguous with the surface of l ayer 1 9 and

2 23

appears to have s lumped

i nto the pit c ut;

no artifacts.

1 7 7 1-140cm: P it cut originating f rom the s urface of 5 , predating cuts 1 2 and 1 4 which are dug i nto it ( see west section drawing). 1 8 7 1-140cm: F ill; subtly distinct ceramics. 1 9 7 1-140cm: F ill C lassic ceramics.

s imilar to that o f 1 4 texture: contained

l ayer,

yellowish

a bove, but with a Terminal C lassic

s oil

with

T erminal

2 2 7 1-118cm: Burial f ill; thick l ayer and matrix i nto which the a forementioned pits were cut. The l ayer was o f soft grayish marl with f lecks of charcoal. No artifacts were i n this l ayer, but human l ong bones f ound at i ts base s uggest i t may have been the f ill of yet a nother burial c ut with a perimeter outside the testpit. Alternatively, the d eceased may s imply have been l aid down below a construction layer ( see T 56 f or an example of this type of i nhumation ). 2 0 1 18-140cm: Burial; deepest l ayer e xposed; soft d ark gray soil containing three small skulls, probably t hose o f children. Skulls may have been p laced prior to b uilding construction or deposited i n a pit whose c ut was obliterated by l ater pits and vandalism of t he south section wall during excavation. One skull was vandalized, the other two were covered i n s itu with plastic and reburied. L ayer yielded Chicanel s herds. 2 1 8 7-121cm: P it cut originating f rom l ayer section drawing).

1 9

2 2 8 7-128cm: F ill o f cut 2 1; powdery, pebbly mottled with gray; contained bone f ragments, vandalized, and a s ingle Early C lassic sherd. 2 3

8 0-95cm:

Crypt top;

( see

east

white which

marl were

cut l imestone b lock a bove

2 4 9 5-120cm: Crypt bottom; base of cut 1 4, below 1 5.

cut

l imestone blocks

f ill

1 5.

of c rypt a t

D ISCUSSION Interpretation of the s tratigraphy o f mound 307 must b e tentative f or reasons a lready described. A layer of f ill 1 9 containing human bone, but without ceramic associations, was placed a bove Chicanel deposit 2 0, which also c ontained human bones. P it 2 1 was cut f rom the top of layer 1 9 a nd f illed with 2 2 sometime i n or a fter the Early C lassic Period. P it 1 7 was a lso cut f rom l ayer 1 9 penetrated f ill l ayer 2 2, and was f illed with 1 8 i n or after the T erminal C lassic Period. The pit f ill surface 1 8 was r eplastered with 1 6. Above this f loor 1 6, 5 was built and surfaced 4 i n the Terminal C lassic or l ater. Two p its, 1 2 filled with 1 3, and 1 4 f illed with 1 5 1 2 and 1 4, were dug through this

2 24

f loor 4 o r from the f ill 5 below i t; both pits contained C hicanel sherds mixed with Terminal C lassic sherds. The f loor 4 was patched a nd r eplastered several times ( 6, 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0, a nd 1 1), probably due to the compaction of the burial c ontents below . A small f ire was built above the f loor l eaving a l ens o f burnt s tones 3 that may be the r emains o f a crude hearth. Architectural tumble 2 f rom the e rosion of the s uperstructure accumulated above the a bandoned f loor and t opsoil 1 r eformed a bove the rubble. Testpit 1 9 1 984 C oordinates: S 710.98/W303.48 D istance from S ite C enter: 9 99m E levation: 1 1.24m One Section Drawing One by o ne meter pit e xcavated on the southern edge of P latform 3 33 between P latform Group 3 07 and P latform Group 3 33. P osthole.testing s uggested a midden at this l ocus. Excavation to surface of bedrock, 1 11 cm below the modern ground s urface. I 0-10cm: Humus, dark brown s ticky topsoil; L ate/ Terminal C lassic sherds. Severe disturbance due to deep plowing f or c ane. 2 1 1-55cm: D ark brown s oil, more compact than 1 and l ess d isturbed by p lowing and root action; Chicanel ( Late P reclassic), Early C lassic, and Freshwater ( Protoclassic) c eramic a ssociations. 3 5 6-111cm: B lack s ticky s ilty c lay marks this layer as a buried A-horizon, upon which the p latform was built; Chicanel and undetermined C lassic period sherds were f ound i n it. 4 1 11cm : Dry, veined, eroded bedrock, eroded c lassic period s herds were ground i nto i ts upper layer. D ISCUSSION The only layer of i nterest i n T19 i s 2 , resting above the buried A -horizon 3 a nd below the modern ground surface 1 . 2 i s of i nterest s ince i t may e ither be a midden or a f ill l ayer. The s omewhat l arger average s ize of s herds f rom 2 than t hose f rom 3 s uggests a primary deposit, i .e. a midden, but the depth o f l ayer 2 suggests an intentional f ill l ayer, rather than a casual exposed dump s ite. Also, proximity to i mposing s tructures with more than a domestic f unction makes a l arge deep trash accumulation s eem unlikely in this this area. Accepting 2 as a f ill l ayer, a p latform was built d uring the Early C lassic ( or l ater ) over a Chicanel ( or l ater ) o ccupied l and s urface. The area was reoccupied i n the L ate/Terminal C lassic. This sequence i s s upported by the r esults of excavation T 18 dug i nto s tructure 3 07. I f this part o f the p latform had a p laster

2 25

surface, plowing.

a s

i t probably d id,

i t has been

destroyed by d eep

Testpit 2 0 1 984 Coordinates:S873.85/W147.10 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 122m E levation: 1 4.06m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit excavated on the west s ide o f Platform 3 15 i n an area where posthole testing suggested a midden. Excavation stopped s lightly below the surface o f bedrock, 6 6-90 cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; dark Terminal C lassic sherds.

brown

modern

A-horizon

layer;

2 1 1-45cm: Buried A-Horizon; black s ticky c lay f lecked w ith white marl ( as are most middens), the ground s urface u pon which P latform 3 15 was built. Y ielded mixed C hicanel a nd Late/Terminal C lassic c eramics, s ome l ithics and s ome burnt rock. 3 4 6-65cm: Very b lack s ticky c lay, denser than marl f lecks, f ewer sherds, sherds unidentifiable. 4 1 11cm:

Dry,

b lack veined,

2 ,

f ewer

eroded bedrock.

D ISCUSSION All the ceramics f rom this pit were i n very bad condition and probably represent recycled trash f rom eroding platform f ill or s heetwashed midden material. The f ew s herds i n 3 and 2 might s imply be A-horizon a ccumulations from the occupational periods of P latform 3 15, s ince t hey date to the s ame periods. 1 i s s imply the f ormation of a n ew A-horizon f rom 2 mixed by plowing with platform s lump a nd tumble f rom Structure 3 16. Testpit 2 1 1 984 Coordinates: S 8 16.58 / W 3 99.85 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 131m E levation 1 1.86m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit dug into small mound of S tructure 3 10 north of P latform Group 3 03. Goal was to date this s mall s tructure which s eemed to be a lone on a small p latform n ot s patially a ssociated with other platforms. Excavation was to bedrock a t 2 15cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Brown humus, disturbed by L ate/Terminal C lassic s herds.

2 26

r oots

a nd

plowing;

2 1 0-50cm: P latform f ill; L oose dry gray s oil limestone pebbles and c obbles suggesting rubble ; contained no artifacts. 3 5 0-77cm: sherds.

F ill;

l oose dry gray

marl;

Terminal

with l ayer

C lassic

4 7 7-104cm: P latform base; cut and s et l imestone blocks with r ubbly, pebbly l imestone f ill between the blocks; mixed Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and L ate/Terminal C lassic sherds. 5 1 04-108cm: Eroded white plaster possibly Terminal C lassic sherds. 6 1 08-121cm:

surface;

Late

and

Course of cut l imestone blocks.

7 1 21-202cm: Buried A-Horizon; black sticky c lay with very small and eroded Chicanel, And Early or Late C lassic . sherds This was l ikely the original ground surface upon which Structure 3 10 was built. 8 1 04-108cm:

White l imestone bedrock.

9 Rodent burrow a ffecting l ayers

1 ,

2 ,

and 3 .

D ISCUSSION Structure 3 10 was built s ometime i n or after the Terminal Chicanel/ Freshwater P eriod. A l ayer of cut stone 6 was placed on the l eveled A-horizon 7 and eventually p lastered 5 . S omewhat l ater, another l ayer of cut blocks 4 and several l ayers o f p latform f ill ( 2 and 3 ) were added to build up a small p latform by the Terminal C lassic. It i s interesting to n ote that the cut and s et l imestone blocks are d efinitely part of the platform c onstruction, a part of the f ill i tself r ather than just a f oundation or r etaining wall f illed with marl or midden. This l abor-intensive platform construction technique a lso occurs in Structure 1 36, i nvestigated by Testpit 6 , and i n the s ite center; the function of the non-central small s tructures with cut block bases i s enigmatic. Testpit 2 2 1 984 Coordinates: S 8 68.32 / W 1 31.19 Distance f rom S ite Center: 1 115m Elevation 1 0.74m One S ection Drawing One by one meter pit excavated on the north center f ront of mound 3 16 of p latform group 3 15 to determine the occupation sequence of the s tructure. Excavation was continued into a pit m ined i nto bedrock that went to a depth of 3 15cm bs. 1 7 5-85cm: Rodent burrow with mixed contexts; Late C lassic c eramics

2 27

Chicanel

and

2 0 -10cm: Humus, thin l ayer of d ark brown to b lack s oil with f requent r ocks and root d isturbance; Terminal C lassic sherds. 3 1 0-25cm: L ight gray-brown humus with small white marl chunks ( 2-5cm i n d iameter), s ome root d isturbance; L ate/Terminal C lassic sherds. 4 2 5-70cm: Gray s oil, d arker than 2 , with white m arl f lecks and one f airly well cut l imestone b lock in the s outh a rea of the testpit. This l arge b lock was a ssociated with s ome small burnt rocks. Probably architectural tumble; Mixed Terminal C lassic and Chicanel sherds. 5 7 0-160cm: F ill of upper pit; very l oose gray p owdery s oil containing mostly Chicanel, with s ome Late/Terminal Classic ceramics. 6 5 0-166cm: Cut of upper pit; l ayers of earlier construction.

excavated

through

several

7 7 0/72-72/94cm: Badly eroded plaster f loor with patchy preservation and s evere bioturbation and a concatenation of snails around i t: Late C lassic ceramic associations. 8 9 4-98cm: Eroded f loor f ill; l ayer of white plaster Chicanel and Late/Terminal C lassic pottery, s hell and rocks. 9 9 8-105cm: Fill/Abandonment; a containing Late C lassic ceramics. 1 0 1 05-108cm: eroded.

F loor;

l ens

l ayer of loose brown s oil

of crumbly white plaster,

badly

1 1 1 08-130/133cm: F ill; very l oose l ight Chicanel, Late C lassic ceramic a ssociations.

g ray

1 2 1 30/133-113/135cm: F loor; l ayer of white marl with Chicanel and L ate C lassic s herds.

h ard-packed

1 3 1 13/135-140cm: Subfloor f ill; dense mixture of sherds: Mamom, C lassic, Terminal C lassic.

medium brown s oil with a Chicanel, L ate/Terminal

1 4 1 40-173cm: F ill; l oose brown s oil with small Mamom, Chicanel, Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic. 1 5 1 60/173-192cm: Buried A-horizon; with Chicanel ceramics. 1 6 1 92-214/260cm: Chicanel pottery.

Cap o f

f irst pit;

s herds

of

dark gray c ompact s oil

white compact marl with

1 7 2 14/260-286cm: F ill; l oose gray-brown s oil w ith Chicanel, and Freshwater ceramics.

2 28

s oil;

Mamom,

1 8

2 86-296cm:

F loor;

1 9 2 86-296cm: marl c hunks.

Wall

2 0 2 96-304cm: s oil.

F ill;

2 1 2 10-315cm: bedrock.

Cut

l ens o f hard gray burnt marl.

f all;

c ompact

n atural

o f

gray

deposit

f irst

pit;

of

gravelly dirt with

l ight brown s andy

deep excavation

2 2 3 04-315cm: F ill; L ens of very l ight gray with C hicanel pottery.

a shy

i nto

material

2 3 3 05-315cm: F ill; very c ompact gravelly gray matrix with Chicanel and Early o r Late C lassic sherds, charcoal, and bone a ssociated. 2 4

2 10/315cm:

Bedrock;

f riable white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Sometime in or after t he L ate Preclassic ( but not l ater than t he Early C lassic) a pit 2 3 was dug i nto bedrock 2 4. During s uccessive periods up to the Early C lassic ( assuming 2 3 i s c orrectly i dentified a s Early C lassic), the pit was f illed i n with l ayers of garbage ( 22, 2 1, 1 7) s ilt ( 20), l imestone rubble f allen f rom the s ides of the pit ( 19, 1 8), and c apped with a l ayer of marl 1 6. The A-horizon 1 5 through which this p it was cut s lumped down above the c ap 1 6 and then was covered by l ater construction i n or before the T erminal C lassic. This construction began with two f ill l ayers, 1 3 and 1 4, that were surfaced f irst with 1 2, then r esurfaced with 1 0 ( 11). Although 1 3 and 1 4 contained Terminal Classic s herds i n the l aboratory, i t s eems l ikely that t his material i s the result of mixing with l ater material in the f ill l ayer 4 . I suspect that the abandonment (9 ) a nd subsequent remodelling episode represented by l ayers 7 and 8 occurred i n the L ate C lassic. Above 9 , a nother l ayer of f ill 8 was deposited, presumably to remodel the s tructure and raise the f loor ( which may have sunk a bove cut 2 1). 8 was surfaced with 7 , both d eposits are a ssociated with Late C lassic and e arlier materials. Above s urface 1 0, a l ayer of l oose brown soil 9 suggests a natural accumulation, but was definitely l evelled may have been d eposited i ntentionally a s subfloor f ill below subfloor fill l ayer 8 and p laster surface 7 . These l ayers continue to have primarily Late C lassic a ssociations; the Late/Terminal C lassic material i dentified i n 8 probably came f rom the rodent burrow 1 that plows through this badly damaged layer. Through 7 a s econd, l ater pit 6 was dug, penetrating l ayers 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0, 1 1, 1 2, 1 3, 1 4, 1 5 to the surface of 1 6. S ince A horizon 1 5 had s lumped a bove cap 1 6, the excavators

2 29

probably thought they had hit bedrock when the white h ard surface of 1 6 appeared below the d ark A-horizon s oil of 1 5. 6 was f illed i n the Terminal C lassic with l ayers o f garbage 5 and 4 . Layer 3 i s l argely humus, but contains s ome s tructural tumble. L ayer 2 i s the modern A-horizon. As mentioned, 1 i s a rodent burrow that disturbs several l ayers, e specially 7 and 8 . In f act, the animal in t his burrow may account f or some of the mixing in deeper layers, s ince he refused to vacate his d en and r ebuilt i t every night after we went home. I n the process of d en r econstruction, he undoubtedly k nocked Terminal Classic material i nto the excavation. Although we tried to k eep the f loor of the testpit c lean, this became e xceedingly complicated a s the hole became very deep and a s caffolding was constructed f or s afety. Testpit 2 3 1 985 Coordinates: S 7 66.59 / W 5 84.68 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 168m E levation 1 0.54 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n s tructure 3 24 on n orth e dge of platform 3 20 to i nvestigate date and c onstruction s equence of occupation of this a rea. Excavation c ontinued to bedrock 1 50 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -12cm : Humus, C lassic sherds.

b lack

c ompact

s oil

containing Terminal

2 1 2-52cm: D isturbed surface; l ight gray clayey l oam, m ix of subfloor f ill and humus due t o deep plowing. L ayer contained Late/Terminal C lassic c eramics. 3 3 0/50-32/52cm: platform, Terminal

P laster f loor; surface C lassic sherds a ssociated.

of

4 3 0/50-145cm: F ill; s oft gray s ilt s tructural addition 1 3: Chicanel, C lassic ceramic a ssociations.

between C lassic

5 3 0/50-97: 1 3 are s et;

i nto which

P latform wall f ill; s oil Terminal C lassic s herds.

enlarged

wall 1 4 a nd and Terminal

s tones

o f

6 3 0/50-97cm: P latform wall; cut l imestone b locks placed near pre-existing wall 1 4 to enlarge platform. 7 4 5-141cm: 1 4 are s et, 8 1 32-145cm:

P latform wall f ill; s oil Early C lassic sherds. P latform wall;

into which

s tones

o f

cut l imestone blocks.

9 9 7-147cm: Midden f ill; yellow marl matrix with many Early C lassic and Late/Terminal C lassic a rtifacts.

2 30

1 0 1 29-142cm: probably from platform f ill. 1 1 1 45-168cm: Late/Terminal 1 2 1 45-150cm: limestone. 1 3

1 50cm:

L imestone block; l arge l imestone block, earlier architecture i n the area recycled a s

Buried A-horizon; black s ticky C lassic c eramic a ssociations. Eroded

Bedrock;

bedrock;

lumpy,

brittle,

soil with

porous

h ard gray surface.

DISCUSSION Sometime in or after the Late/Terminal C lassic period a platform was constructed on A-horizon 1 1. A l imestone block 1 0, r obbed f rom a n e arlier building, and a l ayer of recycled midden 9 were l aid down over exposed bedrock 1 3 and A -horizon 1 1. Bedrock may have been exposed intentionally before the deposition of the platform f ill to facilitate drainage and stabilize the superstructure ( see TP1 f or another example of this technique), unfortunately, evidence f or excavation through the A-horizon i s unclear. The o riginal platform wall 8 was l aid down i n several courses; 8 i s made o f l arge shaped l imestone blocks. The f ill 7 of wall 8 dates i ts construction to the Early Classic or l ater, but the buried A-horizon dates the construction to i n or after the Late/Terminal C lassic period. At s ome later period during the Terminal C lassic a s econd wall 6 was built adjacent to wall 8 . Wall 6 was a lso built of c ut limestone b locks and had Terminal C lassic sherds i n its f ill 5 . A f ill l ayer 4 , c ontaining a mixture of Chicanel ( Late P reclassic), unidentified C lassic and Terminal C lassic c eramics was deposited between the two abutting buildings to create a s ingle platform. This platform was then s urfaced with plaster f loor 3 ( also with Terminal Classic i nclusions). 2 may represent a l ater construction event, s ince i t does not i nclude l imestone rubble from building tumble, but looks more l ike a marl f ill l ayer. If i t was a l ater raising and surfacing of the platform, i ts p laster surface has been plowed away. 2 contained Late/Terminal C lassic ceramics, the modern A-horizon 1 contained only Terminal C lassic. Testpit 2 4 1 985 Coordinates: S 7 63.47 / W 5 76.13 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 161m Elevation 1 0.42 One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated on s outheast edge of platform 3 20 i n area where surface sherd density suggested a midden. P urpose w as to compare architectural with midden

2 31

excavations f or data output. Excavation 1 37cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: sherds.

Humus;

b lack

s ticky

c lay

was to b edrock,

with Terminal C lassic

2 1 0-22cm: P latform f ill; l ight brownish-gray s oil l aid " behind" ( west) of p latform wall 2 , c ontains Late/Terminal C lassic ceramics. The original s urface of this l ayer has been plowed away. 3 1 0-37cm: Overburden: dark brownish-gray soil d eposited " outside" ( east) of platform wall 2 with a mixture C hicanel and Terminal C lassic sherds. This l ayer i s the r esult o f platform s lump, deep-plowing disturbance, and r eformation of the A-horizon. 4 2 2-27cm: above 6 . 5 2 2-45cm:

P laster f loor;

F ill;

remnant o f

loose gray marl

a

p laster

s urface

and rubble platform f ill.

6 1 0-40cm: P latform wall; l ine of cut l imestone blocks running north-south across east s ide o f excavation. Largest block uncovered was 5 0 by 3 5 by 3 0 c m. Fill between the blocks contained Terminal C lassic a nd Early C lassic ceramics. 7 3 8-70cm: F ill; C lassic sherds.

l oose dark gray s oil bearing Late/Terminal

8 4 3-68cm: P latform wall; cut stone containing a mixture of Chicanel, C lassic, Terminal C lassic ceramics. 9 6 8-70cm: 1 0

7 0-73cm:

P laster f loor;

blocks Early

set b elow 2 , Classic, Late

surface r emnant protected by

1 0.

Subfloor f ill.

1 1 7 5-130cm: P it f ill; loose dark s oil c ontaining Freshwater and Early C lassic or L ate C lassic ceramics. 1 2 1 03-128cm: Rock; the base of cut 1 3.

unshaped f lat s tone placed

" on e nd"

a t

1 3 7 5-130cm: P it cut; prehistoric cut through o riginal A-horizon 8 i nto bedrock 1 2; possible f oundation t rench f or an earlier s tructure. 1 4 7 8-103cm: A-horizon; b lack s ticky s oil o f natural conformation containing Late/Terminal C lassic pottery. 1 5 1 03-137cm: Eroded bedrock; s oft w et gray marl w ith s ome Chicanel, L ate C lassic, and possible Early C lassic sherds pressed i nto i ts s urface f rom the l ayer above.

2 32

1 6

1 37cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION Above the ancient A-horizon 1 0 which b lends i nto the eroding bedrock o f 1 5, a Terminal C lassic s tructure was built. The construction was begun with a s tabilizing foundation trench 1 3 f illed with porous s oil 1 1 and surfaced with 1 0/9. Above the plaster surface 9 , a limestone wall 8 was c onstructed, probably a structural wall, but perhaps the base of a platform. Later i n the s ame c eramic period, the platform surfaced by 9 was enlarged to the west with the addition of a f ill layer 7 outside the edge of wall 8 and over i ts surface. A second course of wall s tones 6 was l aid above 7 and rubble f ill l aid on the west s ide of the new retaining wall 6 . 7 was s urfaced with p laster 6 , and then l ater f illed at l east up t o the l evel o f the top of 6 and probably resurfaced. This p latform may h ave been taller than i t i s today, with the c onstruction materials being robbed prehistorically. Testpit 25 1 985 Coordinates: S 849.77 / W 2282.89 Distance from S ite Center: 2 352m Elevation: 3 .44 One S ection Drawing Test t rench . 6 meters wide by 2 meters l ong dug 8 .2 meters northeast of TP51 to f urther i nvestigate an extensive shell and s herd surface s catter. Surface scatter i n this area included some r eddish lumps o f burnt s oil with plant f iber inclusions, which we s uspected were daub. Excavation continued i nto bedrock 4 0 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -15cm: Humus, dry black compact soil with white marl f lecks, lithics, a nd s hell. Ceramic artifacts were poorly preserved and a ll unknown. 2 0 -10/20cm: Surface; powdery white discontinuous l ens with lots of shell, probably disturbed by plowing; unknown Classic period s herds. 3 1 8-27cm: yellow.

Surface;

continuation of 2 ,

but s hell deposit i s

4 1 0-30cm: Buried A-Horizon; black sticky soil with shells, similar to 1 but below 2 and 3 . Much disturbed by plowing and a nimals; may a ctually be r odent burrows. 5 8 0cm:

Bedrock;

t an and yellow l imestone with s hells.

DISCUSSION

2 33

B edrock 5 in this area contains abundant f ossil shell. The l ayer m ade up of 2 a nd 3 appears to be a surface made of this s hell deposited d irectly on A-Horizon 4 and partly c overed a fter abandonment by modern humus l ayer 1 . As i n TP52, t his f eature i s s o shallow and not on a protective p latform , it has been badly disturbed by plowing, and has mingled with the modern A-Horizon 1 . None of the sherds r ecovered was more chronologically d iagnostic than s imply " Classic", meaning not Preclassic or Postclassic. Other s hell d eposits are associated with Terminal C lassic c onstruction ( see TP 1 2, TP 4 7). Testpit 2 6 1 985 C oordinates: S 7 04.17 / W 2 84.24 D istance from Site C enter: 9 87m E levation 8 .41m One Section Drawing One by o ne meter p it l ocated on edge of P latform 3 07 i n area where posthole t esting suggested the presence of a p latform related midden. Excavation was to bedrock, 1 30/165cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus, dry black compact soil marl. N o diagnostic artifacts.

f lecked with

white

2 1 0-40cm: Rubble; a rchitectural tumble of l imestone rocks a nd s ome shaped blocks; no artifacts. 3 4 0-52cm: F ill; probable l ayer of construction f ill deposited to resurface and r aise platform 3 06, a lthough the s urface of the platform created by this l ayer i s missing. The l ayer contained Terminal C lassic sherds. 4 5 0-55cm: P laster no artifacts.

f loor;

eroded patches of white plaster

5 5 2-110cm: Fill; dark gray s oil pebbles and rocks, but no artifacts.

with some

l imestone

6 1 10-130/160cm: Ancient A-horizon: black sticky c lay with a mix o f Chicanel and Terminal C lassic ceramics. 7 1 30/160cm: 8 1 30cm :

Cut

Bedrock;

i n bedrock;

shallow s loping trench.

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION B edrock 8 was mined 7 or at l east disturbed at any time before the Terminal C lassic period and the ancient A-horizon 6 gradually reformed above the pit. A deep l ayer of marl f ill 5 was deposited over 6 i n or after the Terminal C lassic period and surfaced with plaster 4 to create P latform 3 06. Later, 3 06 was resurfaced and enlarged with t he deposition o f 3 . After abandonment, the surface of

235

3 eroded away and the architecture tumbled down over 3 . The A-horizon 1 rubble. The apparent midden tested here turned platform f ill.

2 standing o n r eformed above

out

to

be

3 06 the

e roded

Testpit 2 7 1 985 Coordinates: S 7 37.5 / W 3 75.03 Distance f rom Site Center: 1 049m E levation 9 .92 One Section Drawing One by two meter pit l ocated on west e dge of l inear f eature running south from near the s ite center of Nohmul. This f eature was believed to be a s acbe. Excavation was to bedrock, 4 0-70cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -20/30cm: Humus; hard black compact s oil with l imestone inclusions, Terminal C lassic pottery. 2 2 0/30-38/70cm: Eroded bedrock; hard brittle chunks o f l imestone penetrated by root and animal disturbance and some Terminal c lassic sherds. 3 3 8/70cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The l inear appearance and narrowness o f this f eature ( 3-4m wide) a long with apparent placement c onnecting site center with southern areas of the s ite convinced us i t was a s acbe. Excavation, however, showed i t to be a n atural l imestone ridge. Testpit 2 8 1 985 Coordinates: S 1259.10 / W 66.19 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 023m Elevation: 1 7.41m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit in area that posthole t esting i dentified a s a midden a ssociated with P latform 1 281. Excavation s topped at bedrock 3 1 cm bs. 1 0 -30cm bs: Humus, s ticky, plastic, dark brown very compact s ilt with powdery yellow and white marl f lecks and pebbles. Much root disturbance and many Late to T erminal C lassic sherds. 2 3 1cm: Hard uneven white bedrock with s oil through surface.

2 36

veins

running

DISCUSSION 1 i s a primary midden accumulated a long with the development of the natural A-horizon s ometime during or after the L ate/Terminal C lassic P eriod. Testpit 2 9 1 985 Coordinates: S 1283.32 / W 20.87 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 046m Elevation: 1 8.93 One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated south of of the s uperstructure on P latform 1 281 a t p lace where s urface artifacts suggested possible s tructure-associated midden. Excavation to bedrock, 1 00 cm bs. 1 0 -12cm: Humus, burnt topsoil overlying l ayer of brown sticky soil f lecked with white marl and many undiagnostic sherds and l ithics. 2 1 2-43cm: Same matrix a s 1 but with larger marl and eroded powdery marl; Terminal C lassic ceramics a ssociated. 3 3 8-53cm: Layer o f gravelly hard-packed s oil with f lecks of white plaster with Chicanel Sherds. 4 5 3/86cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

5 3 8-86cm: Channel-shaped cut to s outheast.

i n bedrock running northwest

6 4 3-71cm: L ight gray hard-packed and T erminal C lassic ceramics.

soil

with l arger rocks

7 7 1-86cm: Layer of hard-packed soil i n base of trench 5 with mixture of Terminal C lassic and Chicanel sherds. 8 4 3-53cm:

Tumble;

l arge eroded l imestone rocks.

DISCUSSION Structure 1 281 was s ituated to take advantage of a natural elevation o f the l and s urface. A l ayer of f ill 3 was placed above exposed bedrock 4 in the Chicanel period. Bedrock does not a ppear to have been l eveled but must have been e ither naturally o f culturally exposed prior to 3 , since 3 i s not a natural a-horizon. In the Terminal Classic trench 5 was cut through 3 into 4 . The trench was filled with 7 , which appears to have been naturally deposited by water draining into the pit f rom the higher elevation of the mound immediately north of the area of the testpit. 6 , the l ayer of f ill above 7 , may have been intentionally deposited, s ince i t contains s ome l arge rocks that are packed together. 8 i s probable tumble f rom the structure o n the p latform north and above the area of TP29.

2 37

2 i s overburden f rom this s ame s tructure and a ppears t o contain s ome p ieces o f displaced p laster a lso eroded f rom above. 1 i s the modern a -horizon t hat has been burned r epeatedly by c ane f ires. Consequently, the c eramics i t contains are not i dentifiable. Testpit 3 0 1 985 Coordinates: S 1288.20 / W 11.89 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 1 051m E levation: 1 9.66m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n north edge of S tructure 1 281. Excavation was i ntended to date and interpret the f unction of a small i solated building with possible relation to nearby p latforms 5 61, 5 62, and 1 305. E xcavation was to bedrock, 1 58cm bs. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; small r ocks; ceramics.

burnt l ight brown gravelly soil with many contained unidentified C lassic Period

2 1 0-20/105cm: Tumble; mottled brown soil with l imestone blocks and tumbled s tones; Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic and unknown C lassic sherds. 3 2 0-50cm: Large cut white l imestone b locks with marl containing Late C lassic ceramics.

f ill

4 5 0-70cm: L ayer of white marl rocks, some burnt, set i n l ight brown s oil bearing Late C lassic and unknown C lassic sherds. 5 7 0-74cm:

F loor;

6 7 2-96cm:

Layer of

7 7 2-96cm:

Trench cut

8 7 4-80cm: marl.

L ayer of black sticky soil with

9 8 0-85cm:

F loor;

1 0

8 5-120cm:

eroded plaster surface. l oose dark gray f ill. i nto edge of p latform. f lecks o f white

very eroded p laster surface.

Cut l imestone blocks

set

i n gray

fill.

1 1 1 20-150cm: Buried A-horizon; black sticky clay b earing a mixture of Middle Preclassic, Early C lassic, a nd Late C lassic sherds. 1 2

1 05cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The A-horizon 1 1 f ormed above bedrock 1 2 and the general area was o ccupied i n the Middle Preclassic and in t he Early

2 38

C lassic, since ceramics f rom these periods occur i n 1 1. The A-horizon was covered by a l ayer of p latform f ill s ometime in the L ate C lassic. This p latform was surfaced with 9 and then a bandoned f or a period i n which an A-horizon 8 began to r eform. The edge o f this a bandoned platform was c leared away w ith cut 7 probably f or r emodelling which began with the d eposition of 6 w hich enlarged the platform and was surfaced with p laster f loor 5 . 3 and 4 are two upper t iers of p latform construction dating to the L ate C lassic. Occupation o f the platform c ontinued i nto the Terminal-Early Postclassic, s ince this l ater material i s contained in the rubble tumble l ayer 2 that eroded f rom the ultimate superstructure of the building. 1 i s the natural A-horizon, reformed a bove the s tabilized platform. Testpit 31 1 985 Coordinates: S 1205 / W 175.32 Distance from Site C enter: 9 82m Elevation: 1 7.97m One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated one km north of s ite c enter i n east e dge o f P latform 5 62. Excavation was i ntended to outline the o ccupation s equence o f this platform and was located on outer e dge o f mound i n an attempt to uncover a midden. Excavation was to bedrock 2 10cm below the modern ground surface. 1 6 0-70cm:

Rodent holes.

2 0 -5cm: Humus; dry gravelly s oil below thin burnt l ayer, has d eep plow s cars, Chicanel and unknown C lassic ceramics. 3 5 -22/56cm: Overburden; l oose beige white marl; unknown C lassic sherds. 4 2 2-52cm: pottery.

F ill;

5 5 2-66cm: F loor; Classic ceramics.

powdery white marl;

l ayer

o f

soil

with chunks of

Early and Late C lassic

hard-packed

white marl;

Early

6 6 3-82cm: Subfloor f ill; Gray and white gravelly s oil with Early and Late C lassic sherds. 7 8 2-90/102cm: Fill; Classic pottery.

s oft powdery

yellow

marl

with

1 9 9 7-162cm: P latform wall; L arge cut marl b locks yellow and gray marl with C hicanel, Early and Late sherds. 8 8 5-97cm: S tructure; l arge s tones bearing Late C lassic pottery.

2 39

s et

i n l ight

Late

s et i n C lassic

gray

marl

1 0 1 05-118cm: Abandonment or f ill; l ayer of dark s oil with charcoal, Late C lassic c eramics, a nd white marl f lecks. 9 1 02-105cm: F loor; hard packed y ellow and white gravelly marl with Early and Late C lassic s herds. 1 1 1 18-120cm: F loor; hard-packed Early and Late C lassic pottery.

grayish

white marl with

1 2 1 20-155cm: Midden f ill; gray s oil with charcoal, white marl f lecks and Freshwater, E arly and Late Classic c eramics. 1 3 1 55-160cm: Wall f ooting; grayish-white compacted "hump" of s oil f ollowing a long the edge o f wall 1 9 and bearing Freshwater, Early and Late C lassic s herds. 1 8 1 30-160cm: P latform f ill; mottled yellow, gray and white marl with Chicanel, Early and L ate C lassic sherds. 1 4 1 47-161cm: Midden f ill; Late C lassic sherds.

l oose g ray soil with

E arly

a nd

1 5 1 61-193cm: F ill; white marl, charcoal,

yellowish-brown soil with f lecks o f and Early and Late C lassic pottery.

1 6 1 93-205cm: Midden C lassic pottery.

f ill;

1 7

2 05cm:P Bedrock:

yellowish gray soil with Early

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Bedrock 1 7 was c leaned and l eveled and covered with a f ill l ayer 1 6 taken f rom an Early C lassic midden. Above this a second f ill l ayer 1 5 was deposited containing a mix o f Early and Late C lassic middens. A platform retaining wall 1 9 was constructed during the L ate C lassic on top of l ayer 1 5, and a l ayer of midden 1 4 was d eposited nearby. 1 3 i s e ither an accumulation of debris a t the base o f exposed wall 1 9, or a small buttress meant to stabilize the structure during construction. The retaining wall 1 9 was f illed w ith 1 4. On the o utside o f the wall a l ayer of f ill 1 2 was deposited and surfaced with 1 1 i n the Late C lassic, presumably to create an exterior platform. Above this a l ayer of d ark soil 10 a ccumulated or was i ntentionally deposited, a lso in the Late C lassic. 1 0 may be an abandonment l ayer s ince dark sticky soil i s rarely used as structural f ill. 1 0 may, however be a construction layer, s ince i t i s surfaced with f loor 9 , a nd l evels out a surface extending f rom the top of wall 1 9. 8 i s a ruined Late C lassic s tructure built on t op of the p latform created by 1 9. I t was c overed with f ill layers 6 and 7 that were s urfaced with t hick f loor 5 . 4 i s a f ill l ayer supporting a l evel o f c onstruction that i s n ow gone.

2 40

3 i s o verburden f rom a s lumped s uperstructure. 2 i s the modern A-horizon. None of these l ayers yielded c eramics from a fter the L ate C lassic. Testpit 3 2 1 984 Coordinates: S 1158.46 / W 262.57 Distance f rom S ite Center: 9 55m Elevation: 1 7.36m One S ection Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated on small i solated mound southeast of p latform 3 1. Excavation to determine occupation s equence o f apparent s tructure with possible relationship with P latform 3 1. D igging s topped at bedrock 212 c m bs. 1 0 -7cm: Humus, b lack burned s oil of modern Sherds mixed: Chicanel and unknown C lassic.

cane

f ield.

2 8 -10/15cm: Sticky gray soil with s ome l ight gray and s ome small white marl f lecks; s herds mixed: Chicanel, Freshwater, Early C lassic, L ate C lassic.

patches Ma i nom,

3 1 0/15-50/70cm: Light gray s ticky c lay with f lecks of white and yellow marl; s herds present were Mamom, Chicanel and p ossibly Early C lassic. 4 1 0/72-70-90cm: White s ticky c lay, c oncentrated i n north area of pit; thins to a n arrow l ens i n s outhwest and southeast, s herds c oncentrated i n top 1 0 cm: Chicanel and unknown c lassic. 5 8 5-170cm: B lack s ticky c lay l ens with Chicanel and unknown C lassic s herds.

marl

f lecks

and

6 9 7-107cm: B lack s ticky c lay with f lecks of white marl, obsidian f lake, a nd s ome sherds, possibly Early C lassic. 7 1 90-127cm: Alternating thin l enses of black and white clays in s outheast corner o f pit; Chicanel, possible Terminal Chicanel, and possible Early C lassic sherds, otherwise s terile. 8 8 5-170cm: Gray c lay mottled with b lack sticky, pebble sized marl i nclusions and s ome s herds: Chicanel and o thers too e roded to i dentify. 9 1 55-212cm: Very b lack c lay: Chicanel s herds o r Early C lassic. 1 0 7 3/212cm:

P ossible

" cut"

Chicanel

and

Terminal

i n bedrock 1 1.

1 1 7 3/218cm: B edrock; s oft wet white marl, mined affected by g eological process o f " slickensides" below ); surface c ontained Mamom and Chicanel sherds.

2 41

and ( see

1 2

1 27-158cm:

Chunk of s oft white marl,

1 3

1 48/172-195cm:

Loose gray marl,

s terile.

s terile.

D ISCUSSION S tratigraphy o f this excavation was complicated by a geological process c alled " slickensides" that commonly d isturbs the c lay deposits i n northern Belize ( see McDonald 1 978). Due to drying and rewetting o f s oils the c lays crack and swell c ausing a type of pedoturbation called " heaving". The result i s a very confusing mix o f archaeological and geological s trata. The probable s equence of events outlined by this t est p it i s a s f ollows: bedrock 1 1 was mined 1 0 during the Chicanel period, e ither to produce marl f or construction or to create a pit ( or both). The pit was f illed in r apidly t o the surface of bedrock with l ayers 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 2, and 1 3, and the A-horizon 6 had reformed o ver the bedrock and the pit by the Early C lassic period. The nature of 4 i s unknown, but i t may have been a f ill l ayer t hat was partially robbed out and then r eplaced by another f ill l ayer 3 . I f this area was built up to s upport a s tructure, no trace of i t was f ound i n this excavation. 2 i s a n A-horizon, and 1 i s s imply the extremely damaged upper l ayer of this s ame A-horizon. Testpit 3 3 1 985 Coordinates: S 1205.55 / W 182.32 D istance f rom S ite Center: 9 83m E levation: 1 7.23 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n a rea of post-hole located s herd concentration, thought to be midden for S tructure 5 62. Excavation continued to bedrock 1 92 cm b elow t he modern ground surface. 1 0 -22cm: Humus, brownish-gray s oil with root and f lecks of white marl, undiagnostic sherds.

d isturbance

2 2 2-42cm: Tumble; soft dark tan s oil, e asy t o chert and Early C lassic and Late C lassic sherds.

screen,

3 4 2-50cm: F loor f ill; l arge l imestone block set i n gravelly marl with Chicanel, Late C lassic or Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic pottery. 4 5 0-53cm: Midden f ill; yellow marl with Chicanel and possibly L ate C lassic. 5 5 3-68cm: F loor; thin C lassic or Terminal a ssociations.

many

sherds:

white s oft plaster l ens; L ate C lassic/Early P ostclassic

2 42

6 6 8-92cm: F ill; dark gray l ayer with C lassic/Early P ostclassic a nd unknown sherds. 7 5 2-92cm: the surface

Cut; trench cut of 1 0.

Terminal

f rom s urface of 8 through 9 to

8 5 2-75cm: Wall; one c ourse o f cut s et l imestone blocks s et i n gray f ill bearing a nd undiagnostic sherds. 9 7 5-88cm: F loor; grayish-white plaster c ontaining Chicanel a nd possibly Early C lassic pottery. 1 0 8 8-93cm: Midden f ill; lumpy yellow and gray a bundant Chicanel a nd Early C lassic artifacts.

marl

with

1 1 9 3-147cm: P latform base; yellow marl s treaked with gray c ontaining large shaped l imestone b locks and Early C lassic artifacts. 1 2 1 47-177cm: Fill; grayish and Floral Park pottery.

yellow marl;

Terminal

Chicanel

1 3 1 77-192cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky c lay with Chicanel, Terminal Chicanel, a nd possible F loral Park ceramics associated. 1 4

1 92cm:

Bedrock;

hard white

l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Above b edrock 1 4 a nd an ordinary A-Horizon 1 3, a 3 0 centimeter deep l ayer o f midden f ill 1 2 was deposited s ometime in or after the Protoclassic period. Above this a platform 1 1 was built in the Early C lassic of cut l imestone blocks a nd marl f ill. The f ill 1 2 and the platform 1 1 appear to be part o f the s ame construction event, and they may be, since the P rotoclassic ceramics i n 1 2 might have been c ollected during the Early C lassic or the use of these Protoclassic types may overlap with the Early C lassic s tyles a t Nohmul. Above 1 1, a thin l ayer of s ubfloor f ill 1 0 ( at Nohmul this i s typically a l ayer of yellow marl with much recycled garbage) was surfaced with thick p laster f loor 9 . A l ow wall 8 consisting o f only one course of cut l imestone blocks was s et on 9 ; 8 may have been edge of a secondary platform. Sometime in the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic period, Structure 5 62 was r emodeled and r eused. A trench 7 was dug i nto t he surface o f 8 , through 9 to the s urface of 1 0, then refilled with midden material 6 and resurfaced with a thick layer o f plaster 5 . Above this, a l ayer of midden f ill 4 was p robably surfaced with p laster but the plaster i s gone. 3 midden f ill c ontaining l arge l imestone b locks, probably robbed or r eused f rom n earby e arlier construction and u sed, i n this c ase, to f urther e levate the surface of

2 43

the p latform below Structure 5 62. tumbled 2 a fter abandonment and humus s tructure.

The superstructure 1 reformed over the

Testpit 3 4 1 985 Coordinates: S 120.29 / W 2 020.09 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 2 036m E levation: 4 .54 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated on i solated mound road, two k ilometers west of s ite center, to nature of what appeared to be a l ow structure a ssociated with platform group 7 72. Excavation 2 5cm i nto bedrock, 9 5cm bs.

near c ane ascertain spatially continued

1 0 -9/15cm: Humus, hard, black, c layey, sticky s oil with a f ew poorly preserved Terminal C lassic/Early Post classic sherds. 2 1 0/16-13/20cm: Gray s ticky marl-flecked soil with badly eroded sherds dating to s ome part of the C lassic.

f ew

3 1 4/21-30cm: Thin l ens of s terile white s ticky marl, o nly i n northwest and s outhwest parts o f pit; yielded Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic Sherds. 4 3 1-55cm:

B lack s ticky c lay,

no artifacts.

5 5 6-70cm: B lack s ticky s oil, but with dense Late/ Terminal C lassic or Early P ost C lassic s herds and marl f lecks, e specially in s outhwest corner. 6 6 0-70cm: C ircular f eature o f l arge l imestone rocks i n s outhwest portion of pit, s tones a ppear to interlock, s ee plan. Terminal C lassic sherds a ssociated. 7 7 0cm: Bedrock; white s ticky c lay with some Late/ Terminal C lassic sherds mashed i nto s urface. D ISCUSSION B edrock 7 was c leared of topsoil and a pile o f limestone rocks 6 was piled on top of i t, f or an unknown reason during the Terminal C lassic/ Early P ostclassic. A layer of s oil 5 with a dense Terminal C lassic/Early Post Classic midden content accumulated above this f eature l ater i n the s ame time period. 4 probably corresponds to a period of abandonment of the immediate area, s ince i t looks like an ordinary A-horizon and i s s terile. The period need not have been very l ong, e ven though deposit i s 2 0-25cm deep, s ince the area s eems to be a ffected by water-caused erosion and heavy a lluvial deposits. I t i s l ower t han much s urrounding l and and n ear two aguadas. The soil was wet throughout our excavations.

2 44

3 i s a marl s urface of the type i dentified a s non-platform based occupation i n the north s ector of the s ite. Although in t his case 3 r ests a bove e arlier cultural activity f rom the s ame phase, t here i s no r eason to suggest that i t was in a ny way related to the f eatures below i t, s ince a sterile l ayer i ntervenes. The 3 s tructure, a ssuming that this was not an e xtramural f loor, was probably l ocated to take a dvantage of what a ppeared to be a small natural r ise, which, in f act, was partly the r esult of a build-up of cultural debris. 2 i s probably a Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic f ill l ayer with s ome recycled midden, but whatever i t s upported i s g one; 1 i s the modern A-horizon. Testpit 3 5 1 985 Coordinates: S 156.78 / W 1 968.88 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 1 983m Elevation 4 .25m One S ection Drawing One b y one meter p it dug i nto c enter of mound 2 kilometers east o f site center i n S tructure 7 73. Grouping i ncludes TP34, TP35, TP36, TP37, and TP38. P it was placed to get chronological i nformation a bout the group. Excavation was to b edrock, 1 76 centimeters below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -8cm: sherds.

Humus;

l ight brown l oose s oil

2 8 -24cm: L ight brown s oil unidentified sherds.

with

r ocks

with

Late

and

C lassic

Chicanel

and

3 2 4-65cm: Tumble; l ight gray s oil containing burnt rocks, large stones and t ipped b locks, and a mixture of Chicanel and Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic pottery associations. 4 6 5-90cm: Destroyed surface; l ight gray soil containing many burnt pebbles, rocks, and l arge s tones that may have been the remains of p laster, charcoal and Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic pottery a ssociations. 5 8 0-93cm:

Hearth f ill;

l ayer o f burnt rocks.

6 8 0-93cm: Hearth; burnt s aucer-shaped plaster f loor 7 f illed with burnt rocks 5 . 7 7 8-90cm:

F loor;

impression

i n

pocked white p laster surface.

8 9 0-130cm: Midden f ill; gray s oil with marl f lecks and charcoal a nd much midden material: Chicanel, Early C lassic, Late Classic, a nd Terminal C lassic /Early Postclassic pottery. 9 1 30-140cm: F loor; hard-packed marl or plaster i n base cut 1 0, presumable a type o f f loor or pit l ining.

2 45

of

1 0 7 8-140cm: P it cut; hole e xcavated f rom 1 1 1 3 to the surface o f 1 6.

through

1 2

a nd

1 1 9 0-130cm: F loor; hard white p laster over deep layer o f hard-packed white marl and l imestone cobbles; surface s hows evidence o f burning. Associated sherds were unidentifiable. 1 2 9 3-100cm: F ill; gray hard-packed matrix with p ebbles a nd cobbles; Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds. 1 3 1 00-115cm: Structure; C lassic, Late C lassic, Postclassic sherds.

l ayer and

o f cobbles w ith Early Terminal C lassic/Early

1 4 1 15-120cm: F ill or surface; l ayer of gray Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic pottery. 1 5

1 00-120cm:

Cut;

s hallow pit

i n s urface of

marl

with

16.

1 6 1 00-164cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky soil with f lecks of white marl and many Early C lassic, Late Classic, and Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic sherds. 1 7 1 64-176cm: Sascab; s oft gray soil with Late C lassic a nd Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic c eramics in i ts upper surface. 1 8

1 76cm:

Bedrock;

p inkish l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Ceramics probably entered the s ascab 1 7 above bedrock 1 8 by natural processes; the dampness o f deep l ayers i n this a rea suggests that " slickensides" may be o ccurring. S ometime in the and Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic period, a midden l aden A-Horizon 1 6 was trenched 1 5 f or the construction of some s ort of s tructure ( 14). From excavation TP35, all we know about this construction i s that i t i ncluded a cobble l ayer 1 3 and probably a marl f illed f oundation t rench 1 4. Above this structure, f ill l ayer 1 2 was l aid and surfaced with a thick l ayer o f white marl a nd plaster 11. A hole was then dug through 1 1 and 1 2 to the surface o f 1 3, and a hard-packed white marl f loor was c onstructed i n the p it, presumably to protect the pit's c ontents from moisture or pests. The pit was f illed with m idden 8 and the whole s tructure was r esurfaced with plaster 7 . The s urface 7 f ollowed an i ndentation i n the surface of 1 1. This shallow p lastered hole 6 was l ined with s tones 5 a nd used f or burning, probably c ooking. In a f inal r emodeling e pisode, 7 a nd p lastered with 4 . After a bandonment, tumbled f orming 2 and 3 , and the reformed.

2 46

6 were f illed a nd the superstructure modern A -Horizon 1

Testpit 3 6 1 985 Coordinates: S 236.24 / W 1 975.45 D istance from S ite C enter: 1 988m E levation: 4 .55m One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it excavated i n the c enter of Mound 7 77, an individual s tructure on i ts own p latform l ocated about 1 0 meters north of P latform 7 72. Excavation was to bedrock, 1 58cm b elow the modern ground s urface. 1 0-4cm bs: white marl. artifacts.

Humus, d ry b lack compact s oil f lecked with L ayer c ontained Chicanel and Terminal C lassic

2 4-52cm: Tumble; l arge r ocks and brown matrix containing Chicanel pottery.

smaller c obbles in a and Terminal C lassic

3 5 2-63cm: P laster plaster surface.

eroded,

4 6 3-100cm: 5 1 00-119cm:

F ill; F ill;

f loor;

thick,

white marl,

crumbly pinkish

s terile.

t annish pink s terile marl.

6 119-158cm: Buried A-horizon; thick b lack s ticky s oil with some unidentified bone f ragments, and a mix o f Chicanel and Terminal Classic pottery. 7 1 58cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION A burial ( human?) may have been p laced on the ground surface 6 ( above bedrock 7 ) immediately prior to the construction of P latform 7 72 i n the L ate/Terminal C lassic. ( Similar practices a re suggested e lsewhere on s ite, e . g. see t estpit 5 3.) The A-horizon 6 was partially l eveled with f ill l ayer 5 ( this may have s erved a s a protective layer above the burial s ince i t i s unusual f or an ordinary f ill layer to be of s terile pinkish marl), and then raised with fill l ayer 4 . 4 was s urfaced with p laster f loor 3 . After abandonment, the a rchitecture s upported by the platform tumbled down over 3 f orming 2 , and the A-horizon 1 reformed. Testpit 3 7 1 985 Coordinates: S 181.67 / W 1 942.02 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 955m Elevation: 5 .16 One S ection Drawing

2 47

One by one meter pit l ocated i n unnumbered mound on northeast s ide o f P latform 7 72 a pproximately two kilometers west o f s ite c enter. Excavation was i ntended to outline construction s equence o f the p latform group and was dug to the s urface o f bedrock, 1 75cm below the modern g round s urface. 1 0 -24cm: Humus; gray s ticky s oil with root d isturbance. Some sherds, but no d iagnostic artifacts. 2 2 5-27cm: F loor; white powdery marl lens of uneven thickness, f ew Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds. 3 2 8-58cm: Midden f ill; dark gray c layey material with many artifacts ( sherds, charcoal, chert) and small c obbles and f lecks o f white marl. Sherds a re Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic. 4 5 9-75cm: Midden f ill; l ighter gray artifacts and l arger marl cobbles than i n Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic.

clay with 3 . S herds

many d ate

5 7 6-145cm: F ill; dark gray s ticky ( wetter than a bove) c lay with many artifacts, s till Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic. 6 1 46-175cm: S ascab; l ight gray wet marl grading to white with f ew small non-diagnostic s herds i n the upper surface; bedrock. 7 1 75cm:

B edrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The f act that s ascab 6 had s ome small s herds g round i n to i ts surface suggests that i t was exposed prior to the deposition of midden-f i ll l ayer 5 . 5 i s not dark enough to be a natural A-horizon. 4 a nd 3 are both subsequent midden-fill l ayers, probably deposited r apidly i n preparing the platform which i s s urfaced with f loor 2 . 1 i s the modern A-horizon. Testpit 3 8 1 985 Coordinates: S 180.78/ W 1 966.64 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 1 980m E levation: 4 .25 One Section Drawing One by one meter excavation p laced i n unnumbered mound on west s ide of P latform 7 72 a pproximately two kilometers west of Nohmul's c entral precinct. Excavation was i ntended to outline c onstruction s equence o f t he platform group; i t was dug i nto the s urface o f bedrock, 2 40cm below t he modern ground s urface.

2 48

1 0 -10cm: Humus; gray hard-packed soil d isturbance and f ew L ate C lassic or Terminal P ostclassic s herds.

with r oot C lassic/Early

2 1 0-35cm: Overburden; collapsed superstructure,

eroded

f rom

C ocos-Chicanel

( Late

3 3 5-87cm: Preclassic)

Tumble; pottery.

gray r ocky s oil unknown c eramics.

l arge r ocks and

4 8 7-126cm: F ill; gray and white marl with a small amount of Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) pottery mixed with Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic). 5 1 03-127cm: Crypt and f ill; white l imestone s labs, originally f itted a t edges to f orm s tone box, crypt only entered excavation o n northern edge. End of s tone crypt and skull was r emoved, f eline c anine f ound i n burial matrix with R ancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) sherds. 6 1 27-132cm: F loor; gray a nd white packed marl with Late C lassic or Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic c eramics. 7 1 22-130cm: F ill; compact brown s oil containing C lassic/Early Post C lassic s herds. 8 1 30-165cm: F ill; gray and white mottled s oil; ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic) ceramics.

Terminal

Rancho

9 1 50-165cm: Structure; l arge c ut and s et l imestone blocks and s maller yellow s tones with Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) pottery. 1 0 1 65-170cm: C lassic/Early surface.

F loor; p laster with some Rancho ( Terminal P ost C lassic) sherds and charcoal on

1 1 1 70-180cm: F ill; white marl and small stones with Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic) and possibly s ome Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) pottery. 1 2 1 52-188cm: or marl.

F loor;

hard

white and yellow packed plaster

1 3 1 80-195cm: Midden; gravelly tan c lay with rocks and many Cocos-Chicanel ( Late P reclassic), Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic), and R ancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) sherds. 1 4 1 80-195cm: Midden f ill; l arge rocks and Santana-Tepeu ( Late Classic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) sherds i n g ray matrix with charcoal. 1 5 1 95-240cm: Buried A-Horizon; dark brown s oil with f lecks o f white marl a nd s ome charcoal; Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic), and a s mall amount o f e ither Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic)

2 49

or Santana-Tepeu

( Late C lassic)

1 6

1 75-185cm:

Structure;

1 7

2 00-240c,:

Cut;

1 8

2 00-240cm:

Sascab;

1 9

2 40

cm:

Bedrock;

pottery.

l ine o f r ocks.

trench dug i nto s ascab

1 8.

very wet.

l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The area of this excavation was occupied a s early as the Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) P eriod, but no construction was encountered that dated to earlier t han the Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic P eriod. In some period the A-Horizon was r emoved and a trench 1 7 was dug through the s ascab 1 9 to the s urface of bedrock 1 9. A l ine o f unshaped s tones, 1 5-20 cm i n d iameter were p laced d irectly on bedrock, perhaps as the base o f a structural wall s imilar to the one discovered a t the b ase of Testpit 3 . The TP 3 structure dated to the Late Preclassic Period, and the f eature at the base of TP38 may have a s imilar date, s ince Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) s herds were mixed i nto layer 1 5 that was a bove both 1 6 and 1 8. 1 5 may actually be a partly r eformed A-Horizon, s ince i t was dark brown ( unlike most f ill l ayers). Natural or c ultural redeposition might account f or the mixture of c eramics occurring i n 1 5. Above 1 5, two l ayers 1 3 and 1 4 o f Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) f ill were d eposited and surfaced with plaster f loor 1 2. Another f ill l ayer 1 1 was created and surfaced with p laster f loor 1 0. A structure o f some sort was constructed on 1 0 a s i ndicated i n this excavation by the l ine of cut and f itted l imestone blocks 9 . Two more f ill l ayers 7 and 8 were deposited above structure 9 and f loor 1 0, and s urfaced with yet another plaster f loor 6 . A s tone-slab crypt 5 was built i n this f loor 6 and covered with f ill l ayer 4 . 4 may have been s urfaced; if s o a ll traces of p laster are gone. 3 i s a l ayer of S tructural tumble f rom an eroded s uperstructure outside the s cope o f the excavation. L ayers 1 and 2 are humus l ayers, 2 has a somewhat higher content o f architectural debris f rom the eroding s uperstructure. At l east f our, and perhaps a s many as s even construction e pisodes were u ncovered by t his pit, a ll except the f irst s tructure definitely o ccurred in the Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) P eriod o f occupation a t Nohmul. Testpit 3 9 1 985 Coordinates: S 1 104.41 / W 2 633.12 D istance f rom S ite Center: 2 966m E levation: 5 .96m

2 50

One S ection Drawing One by o ne meter pit l ocated i n Structure 4 81 on P latform 4 79. Excavation was i ntended to outline occupation s equence of this a rea west o f s ite c enter. Excavation was to bedrock, 2 60cm below t he modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus, l oose dry b lack s oil with marl near surface. L ate C lassic ceramics.

gravelly

white

2 1 1-50/60cm: Rubble tumble; medium gray soil with white l imestone cobbles a nd l arger rocks. Eroded C lassic s herds. 3 5 1-65cm: s tones.

Rubble

tumble;

l ine

o f

f allen architectural

4 6 2-65cm : Root disturbance; dark s oil i n northeast corner of the p it. Roots probably f ollowed original platform s urface, so, a lthough 4 occurred sometime after 2 and probably 1 , it corresponds to the missing plaster surface above 5 , a nd i s p laced in the Harris Matrix accordingly. 5 5 1/61-75cm: F ill; l ight gray s oil with pebbles and rocks; Late C lassic sherds. 6 7 6-82cm: F ill; gray-brown s oil with badly eroded L ate C lassic s herds. 7 8 0-83cm:

Patch

i n

1 0;

small

8 8 0-83cm :

Plaster f loor and f ill.

small

stones

c ircle of plaster over

and

1 0.

9 8 4-115cm: Eroded p laster f loor and subfloor f ill; hard white plaster s urface with evidence of burning and dense packed marl and l imestone f ill - no artifacts. 1 0 1 15-120/135cm: Subfloor f ill ( plaster surface missing?); l ight gray soil with pebbles and a f ew rocks and s ome C lassic period sherds. This l ayer appears to " level-out" the surface of the crypt below i t. 1 1 1 21/136-160cm: C rypt and burial f ill: This l ayer i ncludes the d isarranged pile of partially shaped l imestone b locks a nd unshaped r ocks ( covering the human bone of 1 2) a nd the s oil matrix a round the bones, under the stones. The s oil matrix contained C lassic period sherds. 1 2 1 36-160cm: Burial; r esting o n surface 1 3,

badly preserved human below crypt and f ill 1 1.

1 3 1 21-160cm: P latform extension with some darker soil i nclusions.

f ill;

long bones

s terile gray s oil

1 4 1 21-160cm: P latform edge; l ine of stones running n orth-south through c enter of testpit. White hard matrix i nto which the s tones are s et s uggests mortar. The s tones

2 51

o f the s econd c ourse o f 1 4 are s haped on their west f ace, abutting f ill l ayer 1 3. The matrix c ontained Classic period s herds. 1 5 1 61-210cm: F ill; c ompact, no artifacts.

gray

s oil

m ixed

with white

marl,

1 6 2 10-214cm: P ossible surface; a thin s terile lens l ight s oil that may have been deposited to " level-off" below. 1 7 2 10-260/280cm: Buried charcoal sherds of Mamom,

A-horizon; dark brown soil with Chicanel and Late C lassic dates.

1 8 2 60-280cm: Cut i n bedrock; i ndicate quarrying. 1 9

2 60cm:

Bedrock;

of 1 7

small trench i n bedrock,

may

hard white surface.

D ISCUSSION I t i s not possible to tell whether 1 8 was cut i nto bedrock 1 9 by humans or was the r esult o f natural processes. Quarrying i s known f rom other parts o f the site, and i t i s reasonable that s tone would be quarried near the construction s ite i f possible. 1 7 had the earmarks o f a natural A-horizon, a lthough i t may have been r edeposited after quarrying, which would help a ccount for t he ceramic mixing and i ts s lightly l ighter color than most A-horizons ( presumably i t would be mixed with s ome quarry d ebris a s i t was redeposited ). The L ate C lassic s herds in 1 7 date the construction of P latform 4 79 to that period or l ater. 1 6 was probably a surface, but may have been d eposited to " level-out" the surface of 1 7 i n preparation f or building. 1 5 was a l ayer of p latform f ill that may have b een plaster surfaced at one time. 1 4 i s a stone p latform c onstruction that was s et on top of 1 5. P latform 1 4 appears t o have been widened with the addition of a series of f ill l ayers a long i ts west edge, beginning with 1 3. 1 4 i s not likely to have been i ntended a s a r etaining wall f or this f ill from the time of i ts original construction, s ince they are faced on the s ide abutting the f ill. A body was placed on the surface of 1 3 and covered with a crypt of partly shaped s tones. Sherds f rom the matrix of the burial are only datable to the C lassic period. 1 0 i s another f ill l ayer, appearing to " level-out" the surface of 1 1, and may originally h ave been surfaced with plaster. Again, a ssociated ceramics date it o nly to the C lassic. 9 was a p laster s urface a nd a thick layer of s terile f ill. 7 and 8 were patches i n f loor 9 . 6 was a f ill l ayer deposited i n preparation f or another reflooring. Although i ts p laster s urface i s gone, the s urface i s i ndicated by the presence o f root disturbance 4 that appeared to f ollow such a surface. L ayers 3 , 2 , and 1 contain rubble tumble f rom f allen a rchitecture i n a matrix

2 52

of reforming A-horizon containing some L ate C lassic c eramics.

s ome unknown C lassic and

Testpit 40 1 985 Coordinates: S 9 52.35 / W 2 735.60 Distance from S ite C enter: 2 994m Elevation: 3 .99m One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated 3 km west of s ite center i n Structure 4 85. E xcavation was i ntended to date and interpret the f unction of a small i solate ( alone on a small platform 5 0-60m f rom the nearest s tructure). Excavation was t o bedrock, 1 37cm bs. 1 0 -10cm: Humus, dry black c ompact soil with white marl and cobble i nclusions; C hicanel, Late C lassic, and Terminal C lassic ceramics. 2 1 0-30cm: F ill/tumble; gray matrix with l arge l imestone rocks and l arge s herds: Early C lassic, Late C lassic, Terminal Classic. 3 3 0-46cm: F ill; s ticky gray c lay with many and s mall Late and T erminal C lassic sherds.

small

4 4 6-57cm: F ill; gray matrix with marl f lecks, f ewer and f ewer smaller s herds: L ate and Terminal C lassic. 5 5 8-65cm: Classic.

F ill/floor;

white marl

l ens;

7 6 6-80cm: F ill; gray s oil s imilar to 4 , Freshwater and Early C lassic sherds.

artifacts

9 1 13-137cm: Eroded bedrock; color to white. 1 0

1 37cm:

Bedrock;

rocks

unknown

but with Chicanel,

6 6 6-80cm: Retaining wall; l ine of cut stones east-west a cross the s outh half of the excavation. 8 8 1-112cm: Buried A -horizon; Freshwater c eramics.

stones

running

black s ticky c lay containing

tan

sticky

c lay

grading

i n

h ard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION A r etaining wall 6 was built on leveled A-horizon 8 and f ill 7 was dumped b ehind ( north) of the wall to build a low platform i n the F reshwater or Early C lassic period. The platform was s urfaced 5 , probably during i ts original construction. L ayers 4 , 3 and 2 represent architectural tumble mixed with p latform f ill f rom later Terminal Classic/Early Post C lassic construction phases that are now obliterated by deep plowing. 1 i s the modern A-horizon.

2 53

Testpit 4 1 1 985 Coordinates: S 1 001.57 / W 2 800.12 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 073m E levation: 5 .07m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n unnumbered platform between Structure 4 85 and and Structure 4 82, in a heavily occupied area three kilometers west o f site center. Excavation continued to bedrock, 1 87cm below t he modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus/tumble; Terminal C lassic pottery.

l ight

dry

gravelly

s oil

with

2 1 0-50cm: P latform wall and overburden; l arge s tones ( cut and uncut) i n a white marl matrix mixed with topsoil bearing Late/Terminal C lassic ceramics. 3 1 0-50cm: sherds.

P latform f ill;

packed white marl,

unidentifiable

4 5 0-75cm: P it f ill; dark brown soil with small s tones a nd no artifacts. ( Cut was not numbered s eparately, s ince this may s imply have been a s eparate dump l oad in the platform f ill, a lthough the configuration o f the different colored soil resembles a pit i n s ection.) 5 5 0-72cm: Base of platform wall and f ill; l arge blocks ( as 2 ) i n white-flecked gray marl f ill. 6 7 2-100cm:

F ill;

f ine,

s terile,

tan,

s andy soil.

7 9 0-118cm: F loor and f ill; uneven white f lecked with gray; Unknown C lassic pottery. 8 1 18-139cm: F ill; l arge unknown C lassic sherds.

l imestone

marl

surface

l imestone r ocks and c obbles with

9 1 18-138cm: Buried A-horizon; black s ticky clay c ontaining Chicanel, L ate/Terminal C lassic ceramics. 1 0

1 38-142cm:

F ill;

very s oft white mottled marl;

s terile.

1 9 1 38-152cm: F ill; l arge l imestone r ocks and c obbles with unknown C lassic sherds. 1 8

1 42-150cm:

Fill/A-horizon;

1 1 1 50-157cm: F ill/surface; unknown ceramics. 1 2

1 57-159cm:

1 3 1 59-162cm: grained marl.

P laster; F ill

black s ticky soil. gray

s ticky

marl

bearing

whitish-beige s ticky clay material. ( subfloor);

2 54

h ard-packed

t an

f ine-

1 4 1 62-167cm: s terile s oil.

Second A-horizon

( abandonment?);

1 5 1 67-185cm: F ill ( surface eroded away?); medium-sized l imestone r ocks. 1 6 1 85-187cm: s terile s oil.

Ancient

1 7 1 87cm: B edrock; 2 0 1 18-157cm: P it of 1 1 and 1 2.

A-horizon

( leveled);

black s ticky

white marl with

black

s ticky

s ascab grading to hard white l imestone. dug through 9 , 1 0 and 1 8 to the surface

D ISCUSSION The a ncient A-horizon 1 6 was l eveled i n preparation f or the construction of a l ow p latform begun with f ill l ayer 1 5 and probably surfaced with p laster, but this surface i s now gone. The s tructure was abandoned and a thin l ayer of topsoil 1 4 f ormed o ver the top. L ater, a s hallow f ill l ayer 1 3 was d eposited and plastered with 1 2, then resurfaced with 1 1 a nd a bandoned, a llowing 1 8 to reform above. Once more the a rea was s urfaced, this time with s oft white marl 1 0, a nd then a bandoned f or a considerable time, judging by the depth of A-horizon 9 . This i s the f irst deposition with datable artifacts; they date i t to the L ate/Terminal C lassic, or l ater. The A-horizon 9 was excavated by cut 2 0 that a lso penetrated 1 0 and 1 8 down to the surface of 1 1/12 which may have l ooked l ike bedrock to the builders. Excavation 2 0 was f illed with l arge s tones and cobbles 1 9, and was probably a f oundation trench o f the type common e lsewhere at Nohmul ( see Testpit 1 ) made to support a l arge superstructure. 7 i s a l ayer of platform f ill and an eroded f loor l aid over 8 . 6 i s another building episode of platform f ill, a s a re 6 and 5 ( including 4 ). 2 i s a tumbled Terminal C lassic p latform wall; 3 i s the platform f ill i nside 2 . 1 i s the modern A-horizon. Testpit 4 2 1 985 Coordinates: S 1 128.80 / W 2 707.68 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 5 .66 E levation: 5 .66 One S ection Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated on west edge of s tructure 4 76. Excavation was i ntended to l ocate staircase of the s tructure to date i ts original construction and reconstruct i ts o ccupation s equence. Digging continued i nto bedrock, 2 04-230cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -24cm: Humus; dry b lack compact s oil marl; unknown C lassic period a rtifacts.

2 55

f lecked with

white

2 2 4-54cm: Rubble tumble; c obbles i n a l ight gray Terminal C lassic c eramics.

many l arge dry matrix;

and small l imestone L ate C lassic and

3 5 4-87cm: Overburden; l ight gray s oil " outside" ( west) o f 5 containing Chicanel c eramics and a s ingle Early C lassic s herd. 4 5 4-90cm: F ill: s oft powdery white marl with l imestone cobbles and Terminal Chicanel and F reshwater ceramics. 5 6 7-87cm: P latform retaining wall; l ine of l arge ( 60 by 2 0 by 3 0cm ) cut l imestone blocks r unning north-south near western edge of excavation. 6 8 8-103cm: Cut s tone s tructure: s haped and rough l imestone rocks f itted with smaller s tones a ppearing i n s outheast c orner of excavation. The s tones a re set i n a gray matrix that contains Freshwater ceramics. 7 9 6-106cm: Fill; gray s oil with small rocks and F reshwater and Early C lassic c eramics. 8 8 6-87cm: surface. 9 8 7-118cm:

P laster

Marl

f ill;

f loor;

hard white and

gray

mottled

s oft sterile gray marl.

1 0 1 18-122/127cm: F loor or f ill; s herds and white hard marl.

gray soil with F reshwater

1 1 1 22/127-134cm: P laster f loor; patches of hard packed white smooth plaster mixed with p inkish tan s oil, gravel, and Terminal Chicanel and Freshwater ceramics. 1 2 1 34-136cm: Midden f ill; gravelly brown s oil with many small s tones and much c harcoal i n a hard packed matrix containing some Terminal Chicanel and s ome Freshwater c eramics. 1 3 1 36-150cm: Midden f ill; soft l ight brown soil with s ome charcoal near i nterface with 1 2; Terminal Chicanel and Chicanel pottery. 1 4 1 50-155cm: P laster f loor; ceramics a s 1 3 a bove.

white

rubbly

l ens with s ame

1 5 1 55-175/185cm: F ill; l ight s oft brown soil grading to beige and then gray a t the base o f the deposit; Terminal Chicanel and Chicanel pottery. 1 6 1 75/183-180-188cm: F ill; marl with Chicanel ceramics.

pinkish

tan

gravel and beige

1 7 1 85-190cm: Midden; gray s ilt with charcoal, Terminal Chicanel pottery.

2 56

Chicanel and

1 8 1 76-188cm: F ill Chicanel ceramics.

o r s urface;

hard packed white marl

1 9 1 78-192cm: Eroded l imestone rock; three rocks ( 13cm. i n d iameter). 2 0 1 85-200cm: Midden; rocks, dense charcoal sherds.

with

dense white marl and

dark brown hard-packed s oil, burnt and Terminal Chicanel and Chicanel

2 1 1 95-200cm: sherds.

Ashy midden;

2 2 1 95-230cm: pottery.

F ill;

a sh,

l oose

gray

charcoal,

2 3 1 95-230cm: F irepit l ining; a dished circle.

soil with Chicanel

burnt rocks,

l arge Chicanel

Chicanel

sherds s et

i n

2 4 1 95-220cm: Hearth collar; burnt c lay around outside edge of h earth s herd l ining, may be natural f ormation of s oil surrounding hearth f ired by heat f rom hearth f ire. 2 5 2 20-230cm: F irepit cut; base o f hearth.

shallow dished cut into bedrock

2 6 1 95-225cm: Buried A-horizon/midden; gray brown s oil with gray and white a sh, charcoal, burnt rocks, pink pebbles and Chicanel sherds. 2 7

2 04/230cm:

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The A-Horizon 2 6 was c leared away and a small c ircular pit 2 5 was dug i nto the s urface of bedrock 2 7 during the Late Preclassic. This d epression was l ined with Chicanel sherds 2 3 a nd used a s a f irepit, use of the f eature caused the damp c lay outside the sherd l ining to be heated with the effect of " firing" i t and creating the hearth collar 2 4. During use, the hearth gradually f illing up with burnt rocks and a sh 2 2, and 2 1, and then became the receptacle f or d ebris 2 0 f rom other c ooking areas. 1 9 a nd 1 8 are enigmatic due to the small area of exposure, but appear to be the remains of s ome sort of s tructure, dating to the end o f the Preclassic period. 1 7 i s a midden probably accumulated after the abandonment of the structure. 1 6 may be a l ater occupation of the area during the s ame period. 1 5 i s a l ayer of p latform f ill surfaced by 1 4 during the Terminal Chicanel e ra. 1 3 i s yet another f ill l ayer f rom this period that i ncreased the height of the p latform; the surface of this l ayer i s missing. 1 2 may represent a period of a bandonment, s ince the matrices are darker than usual f ill l ayers a nd contain much charcoal and s omewhat

2 57

l ater sherds ( Freshwater) than preceding l ayers. Abandonment would explain the absence of a plaster s urface above 1 3, s ince i t might have eroded due to exposure. 1 1 i s a Protoclassic p laster f loor, r esurfaced by 1 0 during the s ame period. 9 i s a s terile l ayer of marl f ill s urfaced by plaster f loor 8 , a lso s terile. 7 and 6 are the f oundation trench and cut s tone base-wall of an Early C lassic s tructure, cut i nto, but probably a ssociated with 8 . 4 i s a l ater f ill l ayer ( still with Terminal Chicanel and Freshwater c eramics) supporting the l ater Structure 5 , which unfortunately yielded no diagnostic ceramics. This construction may have been as l ate a s the Terminal C lassic period, since sherds f rom 2 , a l ayer of architectural tumble probably f rom the s ame s tructure date to the L ate and Terminal Classic. 3 i s a l ayer of overburden with Chicanel and Early C lassic pottery, covered by 1 , the modern A-horizon. Testpit 4 3 1 985 Coordinates: S 3810 / W 3 54.42 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 591m E levation: 3 .87m One Section Drawing A one by one meter pit placed i n an area where posthole testing turned up an unusual concentration of f ossil shell about 3 0 centimeters below the modern ground surface. The unique nature of the deposit persuaded me to e xtend the excavation with two 5 0cm wide trenches, one 9 .6m north of the northern edge of the original 1 x 1 i n test square, and the other 6 .26m west of the western edge of the original pit. Excavation of the original pit was to bedrock, 1 55cm below the modern ground s urface. The western trench s topped at the surface of the shell deposit. The northern trench was excavated to over 1 meter i n depth. 1 0 -30cm: Humus; black s ticky s oil with a few t iny chert f lakes and some tiny undiagnostic bits of ceramic. 2 3 0-160cm: Shell; sterile l ayer o f f ossil shell i n s andy matrix. Very l ittle matrix was present. Shell i ncluded a variety of marine s hells, e .g. c lams, oysters, f ighting conch, and s ome small pieces of c oral. The s ize of the shells r anged f rom l Omm to about 2 5 centimeters, most shells f alling at the l arger end o f the spectrum. 3 3 0-75cm: Shell; i n original pit o nly, s ame a s 2 but with b lack s oil matrix; bioturbation, probably r oots. 4 7 0-92cm: Shell; i n original pit o nly, yellow e larl matrix; bioturbation.

s ame as

5 9 2cm: Solid s oft white s ascab with s ome upper edge, but d iminishing with d epth.

2 58

2 ,

shell

but with

i n

the

6 7 6-92cm:

Shell

i n t an matrix.

7 7 0-80cm: L ens o f black sticky soil with one sherd ( "Z-Angle"), probable Early C lassic. 7 i s i n north trench only. 8 1 0-75cm: L ens of f ossil s hell 2 but s eparated f rom 2 by 7 .

i n white matrix;

s imilar to

D ISCUSSION It i s n ot possible t o tell whether this shell i s a natural deposit. The difference i n characteristics between very ancient fossil s hell and shell that i s one to three thousand years o ld i n this sort of deposit i s unknown. Fossil shell does o ccur naturally in this vicinity ( Henry Truebe, p .c.), and many o f the s hells are much too small to have been collected f or f ood. On the other hand, there i s a lmost no matrix o f s oil between the shells. What there i s, a t least i n the upper portion of the l ens, i s s andy, not t he limestone s ascab the s hell i s embedded i n i n natural deposits e lsewhere on s ite. Shell does mix with the b edrock s ascab i n the bottom o f the pit, but thins out quickly with depth, s o this mixing could have occurred after the l ayer o f shell was deposited. There are no similar deposits n ear TP43, and the deposit i s l ocalized. Test p it 4 4, l ocated only about 4 0 meters away, had no shell a t a ll. Shell i s used e lsewhere o n s ite a s a f oundation material, presumably to promote s tability a nd drainage. This area, within 2 5 meters o f r aised f ields, would probably need drainage. Even i f t he deposit i s natural, i t has been modified by humans, s ince a sherd was f ound i n 7 . I f the shells were i mported f rom the coast, they may have been brought in by boat, s ince there i s s aid ( by modern local inhabitants) to be a navigable channel through the raised f ields immediately n orth o f the s hell deposit. Assuming that the s hell deposit i s cultural, the s equence of e vents was a s f ollows. Topsoil was removed above bedrock 5 and a d eep l ayer of shells 2 was deposited. Another layer 8 was l aid n earby a bove unremoved topsoil 7 . Over t ime, p lants g rew i nto the s hell causing black 3 , and yellow 4 d iscolorations o f the s hell. Gradually the l ower levels received percolated chemicals f rom above and became darker tan 6 . After the a rea was a bandoned, the A-Horizon 1 reformed above the t op o f the shells. One Early C lassic sherd i s not enough to d ate these events. A f ew other sherds from l evels d isturbed areas of the surface of deposits 2 and 3 were dated unknown or either Late or Terminal C lassic. Testpit 4 4 1 985 Coordinates: S 3788.97 / W 4 01.36 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 3 576m

2 59

E levation: 3 .90m One Section Drawing A one by one meter p it p laced i n a n area where posthole testing turned up an unusual d eposit of s ascab only 1 0 c entimeters below the modern ground surface. T he unique nature of the deposit persuaded me t o extend the e xcavation with three 5 0cm wide trenches, one e xtended 2 .4 meters f rom the northwest corner of the original 1 x 1 m t est square, another 3 meters e ast f rom the e ast edge of the original pit, and the o ther 2 meters s outh o f the s outhern edge o f the original p it. Excavation o f t he original p it was t o bedrock, 1 00cm below the modern g round s urface. The e ast trench went to bedrock, but the o ther two stopped at t he surface of the s ascab deposit. 1 0 -15cm: Humus; b lack s ticky s oil with very f ew badly eroded sherds ( mostly unidentifiable, but possibly Late or Terminal C lassic) and a f ew t iny f lakes of chert. 2 1 5-25/45cm: F loor; l ayer of s ascab or f inely ground shells. The surface of this d eposit was d isturbed by plowing, but the bottom of the d eposit showed a c lean contact with the l evelled A-Horizon below. The f loor was deepest i n the center and became t hinner a t the e dges. 3 2 5/45-90cm: Buried trace o f a potsherd. 4 4 5/90-102cm: 5 1 02cm:

A-Horizon,

Buried A-Horizon,

Bedrock;

b lack c lay with one small

g ray s ticky c lay

s oft sterile s ascab.

D ISCUSSION Above bedrock 5 i n this l ow w et area, the process o f " slicken-sides" has c aused the b uried A-Horizon to l ook mottled. 3 and 4 are the r esult o f this process. The surface of the A-Horizon was l eveled and f loor 2 was deposited s ome time during the C lassic period. 1 reformed after a bandonment. Complete exposure o f the s urface o f 2 i n 1 986 s howed that the f loor was a pproximately r ound a nd about 3 .5 meters i n diameter. The surface was t oo d isturbed by plowing to h ave postholes preserved, but was s urely the f loor o f a house or f ield house. Despite the absence o f artifacts, the s tructure i s too f ar f rom o ther h ouses to be a n ancillary s tructure. I s s eems a l ittle l arge to be a f ield house a nd the f loor i s a b it l abor i ntensive f or a temporary s tructure, but the f eature i s adjacent to an area of r aised f ields. I f this i s the r emains o f a year-round dwelling, the i nhabitants were probably v ery poor, d epending on perishable materials s uch a s baskets and gourds and very l ittle pottery. The l ithic t ools they had ( suggested by the t iny f lakes f ound i n 1 ) were probably taken when t hey l eft the area. I f the f loor i s t he remains of a temporary

2 60

structure, I would expect there to be s ome evidence of i ts use, in the f orm of p lant or animal processing debris or manufacturing d ebris. The a lmost c omplete absence of artifacts a ssociated with the f eature makes i t unusual at Nohmul and i n the Maya L owlands. Testpit 4 5 1 985 Coordinates: S 3348.12 / W 294.64 Distance f rom S ite Center: 3 196m Elevation: 5 .53m One Section Drawing A o ne by one meter pit was dug i n an area where posthole testing turned up a dense deposit of sherds and other cultural material c onsistent with a primary midden only 1 0 centimeters below the modern ground surface. The deposit was unusual s ince the nearest platform based structure i s over 50 meters away on the other s ide of a swamp that holds standing water during the rainy s eason. The unique nature of the deposit persuaded me to extend the excavation with two 5 0cm wide trenches, one extended 1 0.5 meters f rom the n orth edge of the original 1 x 1 m test square, and the o ther extended 4 .5 meters west of the western edge o f the original pit. Excavation of the original pit was to bedrock, 7 9cm below the modern ground surface. The north trench s topped at the l evel of f loor 1 1, except where the f loor was penetrated by burials. The other trench s topped a t the surface o f midden deposit 8 . 1 0 -10cm: Humus; b lack s ticky s oil i ncluding l arge s herds dating to Terminal/Early P ost C lassic.

with many the Early,

artifacts Late and

2 3 2-50cm: Infant burial; l arge ( 45 by 4 0cm ) pot sherd over l ayer of gray s oil ( mix of 2 and 1 1) and a f ew small poorly preserved unrecoverable bones; vessel dated to the l atter part of the Early C lassic ( Type: Monkey Falls Striated; o ccurs l ater a t Nohmul than at Barton Ramie, Laura Kosakowsky, p .c.) 3 3 2-50cm: Burial placement of 2 .

cut;

hole

dug

through

f loor

1 1

f or

4 3 0-70cm: Crypt and burial f urniture; jumbled l ayer of 1 cut and uncut p ieces o f l imestone, the cut block was 6 0 by 2 0cm and had been placed directly above the human bone 6 . The smaller s tones were about 1 0cm i n diameter and did not a ppear shaped. Among these at the east end of the burial was a smashed L ate C lassic redware bowl above the head of the body. 5 3 0-70cm: Burial f ill; r oots and rodents.

l oose gray soil much

2 61

disturbed

by

6 6 0-70cm: Human unrecoverable. 7 3 0-70cm:

Burial

bone;

cut;

badly

c rushed

and

hole dug f or p lacement of

mostly

5 a nd 4 .

8 1 0-25cm: Midden; dense deposit o f medium s ized sherds, f airly eroded and i ncluding a l arge proportion o f unidentifiable p lainwares, a s well a s Early C lassic, Late C lassic, and Terminal/Early Post C lassic ceramics. 9 2 0-30cm: sherds.

Ashy s oil;

l ight gray

soil

with

Late

C lassic

1 0 2 1-34cm: Midden; dense concentration of charcoal, burnt rock, chert and l arge Early and Late C lassic potsherds. The deposit a lso i ncluded many unidentifiable plainwares. 1 1 3 2-48cm: artifacts.

F loor;

hard-packed l ight gray

1 2 3 0-40cm: F ire cracked rock; l ayer burnt mano f ragment, a shy matrix.

o f

soil

burnt

w ith

r ocks

no

and

1 3 3 2-47cm: Hearth l ining; l ayer of L ate C lassic p otsherds in base of cut 1 4 holding a sh, charcoal, and burnt r ocks. 1 4 2 6-47cm: F irepit; cut i nto midden l ining 1 3 and f ire cracked rock 1 2.

f illed

with

sherd

1 5 3 5-60cm: Midden; black s ticky A-Horizon type clay matrix with white marl f lecks and a dense a ccumulation o f Late C lassic pottery and o ther artifacts, i ncluding the f inely modeled head of a woman, perhaps the broken f igure of a household god. 1 6 2 3/60-50/80cm: Buried A-Horizon; s ame matrix a s 1 5, but a lmost s terile, only a f ew L ate C lassic sherds were collected f rom this depth. 1 7 6 0/80cm: Bedrock; sterile grayish wet s ticky s ascab. D ISCUSSION Bedrock 1 7 may have been mined f or marl, but there i s no s ecure evidence f or this besides the d ip in bedrock below A-Horizon 1 6. Sometime i n the L ate C lassic period, f loor 1 1 was created directly on A-Horizon 1 6 and midden 1 5 accumulated nearby. 1 1 was not a hard p laster surface, but a soft marl l ayer that over t ime has mingled with t he black subsoil to f rom a dry f riable s terile g ray l ens. A f irepit 1 4 was dug and l ined with s herds 1 3 a nd rocks 1 2. Another l ayer of midden 1 0 accumulated between the f loor 1 1 and midden 1 4. This midden l ayer c ontained some Early C lassic material, s uggesting that an e arlier occupation existed nearby. Ashy l ayer 9 was a ssociated with the j uncture between midden l ayers 1 5 and 1 0.

2 62

Two burials were a ssociated with f loor 1 1. I n cut 3 about one t hird o f a l arge j ar 2 was p laced above small bones that had a lmost c ompletely perished before d iscovery. The interment was i nterpreted a s a baby burial and may date to the e arliest o ccupation of the f loor, s ince the jar dates to t he latter part o f the Early C lassic. When the burial was o riginally l ocated i n 1 985, i t a ppeared to predate the deposition of f loor 1 1. When the T 45 excavation was expanded i n 1 986, t he e dge of a dark c ircle was visible i n the s urface of f loor 1 1 a bove the western edge of the burial where the e vidence had not been disturbed. Either decay of the burial had c aused the s oil 2 0 centimeters above to discolor, o r the burial had been cut through the shallow f loor, and t he marl of the f loor f airly carefully replaced. The pot ( 2) was i dentified a s Monkey Falls Striated ( Kosakowsky, p .c.) and i s i n the same stratigraphic position a s the pot of the s ame type f ound i n the h earth i n TP 7 6. In both cases the pots were set into layers with definite L ate C lassic dates. It seems a lmost certain that Monkey Falls Striated i s a Late C lassic type at N ohmul. 7 was definitely cut through 1 1 i n the Late C lassic. The bones were badly preserved, but the person appeared to have been partially f lexed, lying on the r ight s ide, f acing north with the head to the east. A smashed Late C lassic bowl 4 was a bove the head 6 surrounded by f ill l ayer 5 and topped by a l ayer o f s haped and unshaped rocks, a lso l abelled 4 , that were much d isturbed by plowing and l ooked more l ike a c airn than a crypt. Another midden l ayer, 2 , accumulated above the hearth. This l ayer c ontains s ome Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds, and may pertain to occupations in the vicinity that occurred after a bandonment of the occupation f loor 1 1. The reformed A-Horizon 1 a lso contains Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic sherds. Testpit 46 1 985 Coordinates: S 3412.86 / W 4 12.62 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 3 204m Elevation: 4 .96m One S ection Drawing An 8 0cm by one meter pit was dug i n an e levated area where posthole testing l ocated an unusual yellowish c lay deposit near the modern ground s urface i n an e levated area near excavation TP 4 5. The nearest platform based s tructure i s over 5 0 meters away on the other s ide of a swamp that holds standing water during the rainy season. Excavation continued i nto bedrock 1 30cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; b lack s ticky c lay with Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic) ceramics.

2 63

2 1 0-30cm:

Possible

s urface;

yellowish gray clay l ens.

3 3 0-60cm:

Surface;

white marl with ground shell.

4 6 0-98cm: Gray c lay; probably a n atural l ayer, but origin i s unclear; contained a mix o f Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), unknown, and possibly Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) pottery. 5 5 8-70cm: Rodent Burrow or P osthole; sticky s oil penetrating 6 .

round column of b lack

6 5 8-70cm: Surface; yellow and white marl with s ome sherds, possibly Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic). 9 6 2-78cm: Surface; yellowish c lay l ens a ssociated w ith Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) pottery. 7 8 0-103cm: Buried unknown sherds. 8 1 03cm:

B edrock;

A-Horizon:

b lack

s ticky

s oil

with

s oft white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Bedrock 8 below this excavation i s uneven, but a ppears to be undisturbed. Above the buried A-Horizon 7 , l ayers o f yellowish 9 and white 6 c lay were deposited; both were a ssociated with Chicanel c eramics and 9 also had s ome Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) period pottery. These layers were s oft and mottled, but were probably cultural deposits, as they do not have the " heaved" appearance o f " slickensides." 5 i s a hole dug vertically through 6 , a nd I suspected i t was a posthole. However, very s oft marl deposits, l ike 6 are attractive to burrowing animals, s o 6 might be a rodent burrow. 4 i s a l ayer of gray c lay, perhaps a shallow f ill layer or an eroded marl s urface, containing Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and possible S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) pottery. 3 i s a lmost definitely a packed marl and s hell surface. 2 i s another possible s urface, but I am inclined to think this l ayer may be the r emains of d ecayed a nd homogenized wattle and daub walls. 1 i s the modern humus l ayer containing Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) pottery. Testpit 4 7 1 985 Coordinates: S 3317.48 / W 421.50 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 3 107m E levation: 4 .90 One Section Drawing

2 64

One by one meter p it l ocated i n the center of Structure 6 59, a small i solated building on i ts own platform a f ew meters northeast o f S tructure 6 60. The purpose of the excavation was to r econstruct the o ccupation s equence of the a rea. Excavation was to bedrock, 2 70cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -7cm: Modern l and s urface; marine shells and Terminal sherds. 2 7-15cm:

dark gray s oil with many C lassic/early Post C lassic

L ight gray s oil mixed with shells.

3 1 5-20: P laster f loor; evidence of burning. 4 2 0-40cm: Subfloor f ill; marine shell. 5 4 0-45cm:

F loor;

6 4 5-70cm:

F ill;

7 6 5-93cm: shells.

Cut F ill;

8 6 5-93cm:

Cut

white

surface with

dense l ayer of crushed and

s ome

whole

s mooth white p laster. crushed and whole shell. gray marl mixed with crushed and whole

i nto l ayer 9 .

9 7 0-105cm: some s hells.

F ill;

1 0

F ill/floor;

1 05-125cm:

hard

mix of gray s oil,

marl,

and

s oil

with

mottled gray plaster.

1 1 1 25-133cm: F ill; D ark gray s oil with chunks of yellow and white marl; gravel, unknown ceramics and charcoal. 1 2 1 33-190/270cm: B uried A-Horizon; black s ticky s oil with white and yellow marl f lecks; mix o f Chicanel, Early and Late C lassic ceramics i n top o f this l ayer. 1 3 1 05-115cm: period sherds.

Rodent

burrow

1 4

1 90-270cm:

Cut i nto bedrock.

1 5

1 90/270cm:

Bedrock;

with

unidentified

C lassic

s oft white s terile sascab.

DISCUSSION Bedrock 1 5 was mined 1 4 a t an unknown date. Sometime i n the L ate C lassic period, a l ayer of f ill 1 1 was deposited directly on the A-Horizon 1 2, then covered with another thick f ill l ayer 1 0 which may have been plastered or used directly a s a surface. Above this, another l ayer of f ill 9 was d eposited and c ut by a small trench 8 f or s ome unknown reason. This trench was s ubsequently f illed 7 and another construction l ayer 6 was deposited and surfaced 5 . The

2 65

8 2 15-230cm: 9 2 35-256cm: hearth.

Wall

F all;

Hearth

c hunks of white l imestone. l ining;

l imestone

rock

l ining

o f

1 0 6 0/256-62-258cm: P it l ining; greenish white f inegrained c lay that s eems to l ine e ntire pit, i ncluding hearth. May be natural precipitate r esulting from exposure of l imestone bedrock to moisture, o r may be a cultural deposit. 1 1

6 0/257cm:

Cut of bedrock pit.

1 2 4 3-60cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack Chicanel, Late C lassic and Terminal Postclassic pottery. 1 3 6 0-63cm: Sascab; s oft with unknown pottery. 1 4

6 3/257cm:

B edrock;

matrix

s ticky s oil with C lassic /Early

a bove bedrock a ssociated

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION A natural A-Horizon 1 2 a bove s ascab 1 3 and bedrock 1 4 accumulated debris during the Chicanel and Late Classic periods. Although 1 2 contained s ome Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic pottery i n the l ab, I believe this was a n excavator's mistake. I think the l ater pottery was mixed i nto 1 2 f rom the adjacent but l ater l ayer 2 , since the t wo were not c learly distinct i n the f ield, and the d ecision t o s eparate them was partly arbitrary. This possibility i s supported by the presence of two Late C lassic bearing l ayers in the pit, and the a bsence of any l ater g arbage i n the pit. I f this i nterpretation i s correct, 1 2 was cut b y 1 1 i n the Late C lassic and l ined, e ither naturally or by natural processes ( no l ining l ike this was found in a ny other bedrock pit) with 1 0. In this l ined pit, a hearth 9 was c onstructed, before a s ection of the pit wall 8 f ell i n near the hearth. Probably s ome of this debris was c leared away a nd rearranged before the hearth was l ined with small s tones 7 and used f or a f ire. Among the s tones, i n the c enter i f the hearth i n the a shes o f the f ire(s), 4 or 6 small pieces of f ossil coral were f ound. These were pinkish, perhaps f rom burning, and s everal were anthropomorphic, although not culturally modified. One l ooked l ike a t iny human f igure, another l ike a human hand. Above the hearth was f ill l ayer 6 that may have been a natural accumulation i n the L ate C lassic, or it may h ave been deposited to l evel the s urface of 7 . At a ny rate, a l ayer of s oft marl 5 c ontaining a f ew very poorly preserved bones 4 was l aid above 6 , and covered with the rapidly deposited 3 i n the L ate C lassic. A s econd period of rapid deposition o ccurred i n the T erminal Classic/Early

2 66

height of 5 was i ncreased with the deposit of f ill l ayer 4 , surfaced with 3 . Y et another s urface i s i ndicated by 2 , but the f inal plastering i s gone, probably p lowed away, and has been r eplaced by the reforming A-Horizon 1 . 1 i s f orming s lowly because the area i s so e levated f rom the 4 ( or more) c onstruction phases of the s ubstructure, and because the drainage provided by the shells used i n the f ill makes i t d ifficult f or p lants to get e stablished. The Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic s herds i n the upper stratum suggest the area was o ccupied during this period, but I s uspect at l east s ome of the building phases date to the L ate Classic, the date of the buried A-Horizon. The lack of ceramics i n the f ill may be explained by the shortage of middens i n the area, s ince no other mounds are visible from the mound group c omposed of Structures 6 59 and 6 60. Alternatively, the i nhabitants may s imply have preferred shell f or i ts drainage properties. Testpit 4 8 1 985 Coordinates: S 3289.10 / W 4 07.96 Distance from S ite C enter: 3 077m Elevation: 4 .49 One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it dug between Structures 6 59 and 6 60 to determine whether a p latform c onnected the two. Excavation was to bedrock 2 58cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -20/44cm: Modern l and surface; marl f lecks and unknown, L ate Classic/Early Postclassic pottery.

b lack s ticky soil with C lassic and Terminal

2 2 0/44-42/157cm: F ill; gray-brown s oil with greater concentration of white marl chunks and f lecks and a mix of Late C lassic and Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic pottery. 3 1 57-204cm: F ill; s ame matrix a s 2 , but arbitrary division to attempt to catch ceramic change, s herds are a ll Late and unknown Classic, no more Terminal/Early Postclassic. 4 1 87cm: Burial; small quantity o f bone ( toe bones?) f ound in s outh section o f pit ( bones a re actually i n 3 and on 5 ). 5 2 04-220cm: F ill; l ight grayish with a few unknown p otsherds.

white

soft

smooth

marl

6 2 18-235cm: Fill; l ight gray s oil with marl chunks and charcoal. Associated c eramics dated to the L ate C lassic or were unknown. 7 2 35-256cm: Hearth f ill; b lackish a shy gray matrix with white marl chunks, charcoal and unknown C lassic pottery. This l ayer a lso i ncluded 4 or 6 marine " ecofacts" ( see DISCUSSION ).

2 67

postclassic, when 2 c ompletely f illed the pit and e levated the l and s urface a bove s ome 2 0 c entimeters. The natural A-Horizon 1 f ormed gradually above 2 . Testpit 4 9 1 985 Coordinates: S 3281.05 / W 404.09 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 069m E levation: 4 .61 One Section Drawing One by one meter pit dug i n Structure 6 60 to determine i ts type of construction a nd occupation s equence. Excavation was to bedrock 1 77cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -14cm: Humus; b lack s ticky s oil with marl f lecks gravel; Late C lassic a nd unknown c eramic a ssociations. 2 1 4-22cm: Surface; C lassic pottery.

powdery

white

plaster

a nd

with unknown

3 2 2-40cm: Tumble; gray s oil with marl f lecks and much animal disturbance. L ayer contained unknown Classic pottery and one Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherd. 4 4 0-87cm: Decayed s tructure; l arge articulating l imestone blocks s et i n l ight brown matrix. 5 8 7-107cm: F ill; c ontinuation of b locks black s ticky s oil and with L ate C lassic, unknown pottery a ssociated. 6 1 07-177cm: a ssociated. 7 1 40-177cm: 8 1 77cm:

F ill;

l ayer

of

marl

cut

of 4 , but set i n unknown C lassic,

with unknown

sherds

Cut i n bedrock.

Bedrock;

hard white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Bedrock 8 was mined 7 a t an unknown date and covered with a l ayer of f ill 6 . I n the L ate C lassic ( probably) a structure was built 5 and then 4 was added. The s uperstructure was demolished i n the Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic, l eaving rubble l ayer 3 , and r esurfaced with 2 . 1 reformed a fter abandonment. Testpit 5 0 1 985 Coordinates:S-3330.87/W-380.56 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 115m E levation:3.96 One Section Drawing

2 68

One by one meter p it l ocated on edge of e levated area near Structures 6 59 and 6 60. P urpose of the excavation was to determine i f this area had been culturally modified. Excavation was c ontinued 4 2cm i nto bedrock, 8 5cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -16cm: Humus; b lack s ticky s oil with root disturbance. Some unknown sherds and one Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherd. 2 1 6-43cm: Midden; s ame matrix a s 1 but with concentration of white marl f lecks, small pebbles, shell, and s ome C hicanel and unknown C lassic s herds. 3 4 3-85cm: Sascab bedrock; Chicanel and unknown s herds its s urface. 4 8 5cm:

Bedrock;

dense s ome

s oft white matrix with s ome and some shells pressed i nto

hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION The naturally occurring s oft s ascab 3 above hard bedrock 4 may have been c leaned o ff and used a s a surface during the Late Preclassic. After abandonment, l iving debris, probably f rom n earby o ccupations accumulated with the reformation of the n atural A-Horizon 2 . Some time l ater, above this debris l ayer, a l ater a ccumulation l ed to the formation o f 1 . Testpit 5 1 1 985 Coordinates: S 3966.92 / W 95.51 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 3 731m Elevation: 4 .84m One Section Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated on east edge of Structure 6 82 in i solated mound g roup 6 84 near raised f ield area 4km north of s ite c enter. P urpose of the excavation was to ascertain the d ate and nature of the construction. Excavation continued 2 5cm i nto bedrock, 2 40cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -5cm: Humus; medium brown l oose s oil f lecks and Chicanel, Early C lassic, sherds.

with white marl unknown C lassic

2 5 -39/54cm: Overburden; l ight gray l oose gravelly soil with marl f lecks, s mall r ocks and cobbles and some l arger rocks; large s herds, s hells, roots. C eramics are Early Classic, Late C lassic, Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic, and unknown C lassic. 3 3 9/54-73/137cm: diameter).

T umble;

l arge

2 69

l imestone

rocks

( 25cm i n

4 7 3-137cm: P latform wall; L arge c ut and set l imestone b locks s et i n t an matrix with L ate C lassic and unknown C lassic s herds. 5 1 10-130cm: Midden f ill; C lassic/Early P ostclassic,

grayish white marl with Terminal and unknown C lassic pottery.

6 1 45-150cm: F ill; l ight gray s oil w ith white marl and Early C lassic and unknown C lassic c eramics. 7 1 28-140cm; s herds.

F ill;

concentration

o f

shell

f lecks

with unknown

8 1 38-155cm: P latform s urface; hard white p laster surface over cut l imestone b locks s et i n s terile gray matrix. 9 1 50-162cm: Midden; b lack s ticky s oil with white marl f lecks, charcoal s hell and l arge Terminal C hicanel, Early C lassic, Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic sherds. 1 0

1 60-175cm:

F loor;

thin l ens o f white marl.

1 1 1 63-207cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky soil with L ate C lassic, Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic, unknown C lassic s herds, charcoal and small burnt rocks. 1 2 2 07-240cm: unknown s herds. 1 3

2 40cm:

S ascab;

B edrock;

s oft

gray-green marl with

a

f ew

dense beige with white f lecks.

D ISCUSSION The natural l ayer of s ascab 1 2 a bove bedrock 1 3 may have been exposed at s ome time, or e lse t he f ew unidentifiable s herds i n i t may have entered i t by s ome natural process such a s s oil creep. The buried A-Horizon 11 h ad a ccumulated a l ot of midden materials when a f loor 1 0 w as c onstructed directly on i t, probably i n the Late Classic. The Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds in this l ot were probably mixed f rom the midden l ayer 9 above. Above the midden, a s tone platform 8 was built a nd plastered i n the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic. A platform wall 4 was constructed a nd f illed with s everal l ayers of f ill: 5 , 6 , and 7 . The s uperstructure o f t he building c ollapsed a fter abandonment, s pilling b locks 3 and creating a layer o f overburden 2 . 1 i s reforming s lowly due to the well drained c onstruction which makes i t d ifficult for grass t o grow. I t i s c lear that e arlier s tructures e xisted i n the vicinity o f this Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic building. These s tructures and their middens were m ined to provide f ill l ayers f or Structure 6 82. When these l ayers eroded out o f the p latform a fter a bandonment, they created a s ituation that l ooked a lmost l ike r everse s tratigraphy in testpit 5 1.

2 70

Testpit 5 2 1 985 Coordinates:S-847.36/W-2290.73 Distance from Site C enter: 2 359m Elevation: 3 .38m One S ection Drawing One b y one meter p it l ocated i n nonmound area near an aguada, two k ilometers e ast of s ite center to test a s hell and s herd surface s catter. Excavation was to bedrock at 85cm b elow the modern ground surface. 1 0-12cm: Humus, dry black c ompact soil with white marl flecks and s hell. C eramic artifacts were poorly preserved and a ll unknown. 2 0 -20cm: Surface; powdery white discontinuous lots o f shell, probably d isturbed by plowing. 3 7-70cm: Buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky s oil, but b elow 2 ; unknown sherds. 4 5 0-80cm: bedrock. 5 8 0cm:

Sascab;

Bedrock;

s oft s terile s ticky

white

gray

l ens with

s imilar to

soil

1

above

l imestone.

DISCUSSION The n atural s ascab l ayer 4 a bove bedrock 5 appears to have been mined, but the cut was not numbered s eparately, s ince evidence of human a ctivity i s s o equivocal. Probably the soft s ascab was mined and 3 , the original ground surface, was r eplaced and l eveled to f ill the hole. Then the s ascab 4 was used to c reate l ens 2 to be used as a surface, perhaps a house f loor. B ecause the f eature i s so shallow and n ot on a protective platform, i t has been badly disturbed by plowing, and has mingled with the modern A-Horizon 1 . None o f the sherds recovered was chronologically d iagnostic, but the f act that such a shallow ephemeral f eature i s preserved suggests i t dates to the l atter part o f t he o ccupation of the s ite. The use of shell in f loor c onstruction suggests a Terminal C lassic date ( see TP 4 9). Testpit 5 3 1 985 Coordinates: S 28.70 / W 1027.21 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 1 036m Elevation: 1 6.65 One S ection Drawing One b y one meter p it l ocated i n the c enter of Structure 9 55 in mound group one k ilometer e ast o f s ite c enter. Purpose of t he excavation was to a scertain the date and s equence o f the c onstruction. Surface had been d isturbed by heavy road-building machinery. Excavation continued to 1 70cm

2 71

below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; dry brown l oose s oil with c obble a nd pebble-sized white marl i nclusions, pieces o f broken plaster and marine shell, T erminal C lassic/Early Postclassic ceramics. 2 1 0-50cm: Tumble; l arge rocks, c obbles and gravel in l ight brown matrix with bits o f p laster, Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic, and unknown pottery t ypes. 3 7 8-117cm:

F ill;

yellowish beige powdery marl.

4 6 8-105cm: Fill; l arge unfitted r ocks i n dark brown matrix with Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic a nd unknown sherds. 5 1 05-113cm: F loor; eroded plaster surface painted w ith specular hematite with rubble f ill containing Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic and unknown pottery f ragments. 6 1 13-123cm: F loor; red painted p laster, l ayer o f charcoal and crushed snails on surface with unknown Classic sherds. 7 4 7-119cm; P latform wall; a lignment of cut limestone blocks, unknown C lassic ceramic s herds a ssociated. 8 1 19-139cm: and Terminal sherds.

F ill; dark c layey s oil with f ist-sized stones C lassic/Early P ostclassic and unknown Classic

9 1 19-139cm:

Foundation trench below wall 7 ,

1 0 1 17-136cm: F ill; rocky gray C lassic/Early Postclassic s herds. 1 1

1 36-139cm:

1 2 1 17-139cm: 1 1.

Surface; Cut;

gravel

f illed with 8 . with

Terminal

l ens of hard-packed white marl.

excavation i nto

1 3,

f illed with

1 0

and

1 3 1 17-156cm: Midden on buried A-Horizon; b lack s ticky l ayer with many rocks, l ithics, a nd a mix of C hicanel a nd Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic s herds. Layer 1 3 covers contents of cut 1 5. 1 4 1 56-170cm: Burial; human bone s et in matrix stones under l arge cut block, unknown ceramics. 1 5

1 56-170cm:

Burial cut;

of

s mall

excavation into bedrock .

1 6 1 70cm: Bedrock; hard white l imestone, probably f rom burial. D ISCUSSION

2 72

unknown

s herds

Bedrock 1 6 was c leared and a s hallow hole 1 5 was dug i nto i t to receive burial 1 4. The body was c overed with small rocks and then a t l east two l arge c ut s tones 1 7 and 1 8. The A-Horizon 1 3 was r eplaced a bove this. The date of the burial i s unknown, but may have been Preclassic, s ince there i s a small q uantity of C hicanel i n l ayer 1 3. Artifacts i n 1 3, h owever, a re mostly Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic, s o the s ubsequent construction i s a ll f rom the l ast occupation o f the s ite. A s hallow hole 1 2 was dug i nto 1 3, and the bottom of the depression was s urfaced with 1 1. The depression 1 2 was then completely f illed with 1 0; 1 0 was i n turn cut by f oundation trench 9 , that was f illed with 8 and wall 5 . A s eries of f loors numbered 6 a nd 7 ( although there was evidence of many thin l ayers o f painted p laster, one over another) were constructed a butting wall 7 a nd wall f ill 8 . The p latform was e nlarged with the additions o f 4 a nd 3 , probably originally surfaced with 5 . After a bandonment, the superstructure was bulldozed, creating l ayer 2 . 1 i s the humus layer r eforming s lowly over the top o f the f eature. Testpit 5 4 1 985 Coordinates: S 23.79 / W-1050.45 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 1 060m Elevation: 1 7.09m One S ection Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated i n the c enter of Structure 9 94 in a s ettlement a rea o ne k ilometer e ast o f s ite center. The purpose of the excavation was to a scertain the date and sequence of the c onstruction. Surface had been disturbed by heavy r oad-building machinery. Excavation continued to 1 10cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; unusual A-Horizon,dry l ight brown s ilty loose soil with c obble and pebble-sized white marl inclusions, f ire-cracked r ock, pieces of broken plaster and marine shell, unknown C lassic ceramics. 2 1 0-65cm: Tumble; f ist-sized s tones,

l ighter brown and yellowish s oil with unknown C lassic pottery.

3 2 7-55cm: F ill; l ight gray l oose dry s oil, disturbance, Late C lassic a nd unknown sherds.

much

animal

4 7 -55cm: S uperstructure; l arge f itted cut l imestone blocks in a l ine with Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic and unknown s herds i n the matrix. 5 6 2-68cm:

F loor;

burnt p laster s urface.

6 6 8-73cm:

F loor;

p laster s urface.

7 7 3-81cm: F loor; white p laster s urface with Late C lassic and unknown c eramics i n a ssociation.

2 73

8 5 0-60cm: Rodent burrow or with unknown sherds.

disturbance;

dark

9 5 0-90cm: F ill; dry f riable tan s oil with marl Early C lassic, L ate C lassic and unknown sherds.

gray

s oil

f lecks and

1 0 7 7-110cm: Fill; l ight tan s oil with marl f lecks and f ist-sized rocks, s ome s hell, s ome bone, possibly f rom rodent-disturbed burial that l ies mostly outside e xcavation area. 1 1 5 0-99cm: F ill; l ight gray C lassic and unknown pottery.

l oose

dry

s oil

with

L ate

1 2 9 9-153cm: F ill; D ark gray sticky c lay with Late C lassic and unknown c eramic i nclusions.

E arly

and

1 3 5 0-152cm: P latform l imestone b locks.

l arge

cut

wall;

f ive courses of

1 4 1 50-180cm: Foundation trench f ill; and cobbles; Late C lassic c eramics. 1 5

1 50-180cm:

Foundation trench;

1 6 1 30-167cm: Buried A-Horizon; artifacts and charcoal. 1 7 1 67cm: Bedrock; white l imestone.

l oose marl pebbles

excavation into 1 6. black s ticky clay with s ome

s ticky s terile s ascab

overlying

hard

D ISCUSSION Sometime during the L ate C lassic period, a f oundation trench 1 5 was dug i nto the A-Horizon 1 6 ( above bedrock 1 7) and f illed 1 4 with l oose marl, pebbles and a rtifacts. Trench 1 5 was made to reinforce the f ive course cut block platform wall 1 3 built above i t. The platform was built up behind the p latform wall 1 3 with l ayers of f ill 1 2 and 1 1. 1 3 may have been f ree-standing on i ts west s ide f or a t ime, but the west area was eventually built up with s uccessive Late C lassic f ill l ayers 1 0 and 9 . The platform c reated by 1 0 and 9 was surfaced with a l ayer o f p laster 7 , and then resurfaced twice: 6 and 5 . A s uperstructure or s econdary platform was constructed a bove 9 by l aying f ill 3 i nside a wall 4 created by s etting f our c ourses of cut l imestone blocks. The relationship between t he superstructure and the successive p laster f loors 5 , 6 , a nd 7 , i s unknown, s ince there i s a break between the two f eatures a bove the uppermost b lock of 1 3. 2 i s a l ayer of tumble that began a fter abandonment, but that has been enhanced due to bulldozer d isturbance of the mounds i n the area. Nicho Pech, a resident of the nearby settlement of San Jose, told us he thought Structure 9 94 had been considerably taller before i t was damaged and may have had a s uperstructure o f l ater d ate. I f s o, 2 may actually be a

2 74

fill l ayer made o f r ecycled building materials. All ceramics from undisturbed contexts i n 9 94 date to the Late Classic. However, a rodent burrow i n the upper part of context 2 produced T erminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds, suggesting that the l atest occupation of the structure may have b een during this period. I t seems more likely that the rodent would s imply drag i n pottery f rom higher layers of the s ame s tructure ( that are now gone) than that he would bring i n material from other structures. 1 , the c urrent A-Horizon, has not taken on the dark c olor and stickiness that are characteristic of the Nohmul settlement a rea, perhaps because i t was only recently exposed. Testpit 55 1 985 Coordinates: S 53.24 / W 1131.16 Distance from Site C enter: 1 134m Elevation 1 5.30m One S ection Drawing Test t rench . 5 meters wide by 3 .9 meters l ong dug about 1 00 meters northeast o f T P53 and TP54 to f urther i nvestigate an area with s urface a rtifacts and visible marl. Excavation continued i nto bedrock 4 0cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -15cm: Humus; dry black c ompact s oil with white marl flecks and a f ew marl chunks. C eramic artifacts were poorly preserved a nd a ll unknown C lassic, except f or one tiny C hicanel sherd. 2 1 5-20/40cm: Humus; s ame a s 1 but containing white, lithics land snails a nd s ome broken marine s hell and more unknown Classic period s herds. 3 2 0/39-40cm: Humus; dense marl pebbles pottery. 4 4 0cm:

Bedrock;

continuation of 1 and 2 , but with and cobbles; unknown C lassic period

eroding hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION Deposits in this a rea have been badly d isturbed by plowing, and h ave mingled with the modern A-Horizon 1 . None of the sherds recovered was more chronologically d iagnostic than simply "Classic", meaning not Preclassic or Postclassic. The c oncentration o f artifacts i n 2 s uggests this l ayer was probably the ground surface during the major occupation of the a rea. 1 , 2 a nd 3 are basically three l evels of the A-Horizon a bove bedrock, and except f or the f act that fossil shell i s not a natural i nclusion of A-Horizons at Nohmul, there i s no d irect evidence of cultural modification of the d eposits.

2 75

Testpit 5 6 1 985 Coordinates: S 2 625.39 / W 259.74 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 2 873m E levation: 1 9.11m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated in c enter o f range structure on eastern s ide of l arge P latform 6 90, Structure 6 85. Excavation was done to determine occupation a nd construction s equence of p latform group, and was continued to s terile s ascab, 3 40cm below t he modern ground surface. Excavation was expanded 1 20cm s outh by 7 0cm w ide in an attempt to recover the the burial f ound i n context 14. T he skeleton was i n poor c ondition a nd l ittle information w as added by the additional d igging. 1 0 -8cm: Humus, Sherds mixed: unknown.

b lack burned s oil of modern c ane f ield. Terminal C lassic/ Early Postclassic a nd

2 8 -59cm: Tumble; l imestone b locks a nd cobbles i n a brown matrix with s ome bone marine shells and Classic period sherds. 3 3 4-73cm: Superstructure; north-south a lignment o f cut a nd f itted l imestone b locks i n a gray matrix ( mortar?) containing Late C lassic and C lassic period pottery. 4 7 3-82cm: F loor; eroded and uneven C lassic period c eramics. 5 8 2-83cm: Tread l ayer; thin l ayer possibly r epresents a brief period r esurfacing 4 .

plaster

l ayer

w ith

of dark g ray s oil; of a bandonment before

6 8 3-91cm: F loor; eroded p laster s urface with C lassic a nd Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic pottery in i ts matrix. 7 9 1-92cm: Tread l ayer; thin layer of dark g ray s oil; possibly r epresents a brief period of a bandonment before resurfacing 6 . L ate C lassic and Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic ceramics date the deposit. 8 9 2-103cm: F loor; hard white, s omewhat uneven plaster surface with C lassic, Late C lassic and Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic pottery i n association. 9 1 03-110cm: Subfloor f ill; yellow, white and gray marl a nd l imestone pebbles, s ome evidence o f burning. 1 0 8 3-120cm: f lecks. 1 1 1 10-115cm: and rocks.

Rodent

F ill;

burrow;

l oose gray soil

s oft gray s oil mixed

2 76

with

with

m arl

w hite

marl

1 2 1 15-120cm: Surface; c ompact white and marine shells, c hert and C lassic, Classic/Early P ostclassic pottery.

gray and

marl with Terminal

1 3 1 20-126cm: Midden f ill; white and yellow marl mixed with gray s oil and c obbles a nd chert, o bsidian, charcoal and abundant C lassic a nd L ate C lassic sherds. 15 1 26-137cm: F ill; tan yellow and white marl deposited above burial with L ate C lassic and Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic pottery, and s ome f ragments of painted plaster. 1 4 1 30-160cm: Mortuary f urniture and human bone of burial; layer rocks and c obbles i n a gray matrix c ontaining bone and C lassic and Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic sherds, and a smashed Terminal C lassic vessel over the head of the deceased; charcoal was f ound near the skull. 16 1 40-150cm: F ill; l ight gray s oil with s ome charcoal Late C lassic polychrome sherds.

and

1 7 1 25-146cm: Crypt; two l imestone rocks, 2 0-30cm diameter set on e dge o n f loor 1 9 at base of burial 1 6.

in

1 8 1 40-160cm: Crypt; three l imestone rocks ( 10cm diameter) s et on e dge o f f loor 1 9 a t base of burial 1 6.

in

1 9 1 60-162cm: F loor; evidence of burning.

hard

gray

p laster

surface

with

20 1 62-165cm: Subfloor f ill; r ocky tan matrix with many Early C lassic, L ate C lassic and C lassic period pottery. 21 1 65-185cm: F ill; yellow l oose Late C lassic sherds.

marl

with

C lassic

and,

22 1 73-198cm: Tumble; l ayer o f l arge disarticulated blocks probably f allen f rom s uperstructure a bove 2 6. 24 1 85-200cm: F ill; d ark gray c lay c ontaining marl and c harcoal and C lassic a nd L ate C lassic c eramics.

cut

f lecks

26 1 80-300cm: F ill of f oundation trench; l oose gray marl below two courses o f cut and s et l imestone blocks. 35 1 80-300cm: Foundation trench; hole cut f rom surface of 2 3 t hrough 2 5, 2 7, 2 8, 2 9, 3 0 and i nto 3 2. 23 1 90-200cm: F ill; l ight gray compact matrix with charcoal and C lassic and L ate C lassic pottery. 25 2 00-215cm:

F loor;

27 2 15-230cm: F ill; Classic sherds.

uneven white plaster surface. mottled gravelly marl with a

2 77

f ew

Late

2 8 2 30-242cm: Midden; gray f riable s oil with white a nd yellow marl f lecks, charcoal, burnt r ocks and C lassic a nd L ate C lassic pottery. 2 9 2 42-270cm: Abandonment, buried A-Horizon; black sticky s oil with s ome c harcoal, burnt r ocks and pinkish gravel; Chicanel, Terminal Chicanel, Early C lassic and C lassic c eramic f ragments were a bundant. 3 0

2 70-290cm:

Surface or f ill;

3 1

2 80-290cm:

Skull;

3 2

2 90-310cm:

F ill;

3 3

3 10-360cm:

Buried A-Horizon;

3 4

3 60cm:

Sascab;

wet gray c lay.

human bone visible

i n s ection.

s terile grayish green wet clay. s terile b lack sticky clay.

s terile green s ticky c lay.

D ISCUSSION Some time during the Early C lassic or e arlier, a l ayer o f s terile marl f ill 3 2 was l aid down on a s terile A -Horizon 3 3 above a wet bedrock l ayer 3 4. A human body 31 was placed on 3 2 and covered with s terile l ayer 3 0. A thick A -Horizon 2 9 reformed a bove the top o f 3 0 a long with some c ultural debris during the Early C lassic. During the L ate C lassic period or l ater two l ayers o f midden f ill, 2 7 and 2 8, were deposited and surfaced with plaster f loor 2 5. L ayer 2 3 may have been subfloor f ill f or a l ayer that eroded away, or a l ayer o f midden f ill that eroded out of a degrading s uperstructure not encompassed by the excavation. Probably f rom the s urface of 2 3 ( although possibly f rom the s urface of 2 5) a f oundation 3 5 t rench was dug and a platform wall 2 5 was built above a l ayer o f f riable f ill. 2 2 represents a l ayer of Late C lassic s tructural tumble f rom the s uperstructure supported by 2 6 or a l ayer of p latform f ill made f rom recycled l imestone blocks. 2 1 and 2 0 are f ill l ayers s urfaced by Late C lassic f loor 1 9. In the Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic an human b ody was placed directly on f loor 1 9 i n an extended position with the head to the north covered by, a Terminal Classic bowl 1 4. The body was s urrounded by a stone crypt 1 7 a nd 1 8 and covered with f ill l ayer 1 3 and 1 5 t hat were then s urfaced with plaster f loor 1 2. These and a ll s ubsequent construction e vents took p lace i n the T erminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic period. 1 2 was refurbished with two f ill l ayers, 1 1 and 9 , and then r esurfaced with plaster f loor 8 . 8 was a llowed to a ccumulate d irt 7 , p erhaps i t was briefly abandoned or s imply heavily used. 8 was resurfaced with 6 , that s imilarly was a llowed to a ccumulate a thin l ayer o f s oil 5 . 4 provided a new s urface a bove which some s ort o f

2 78

l ow-walled superstructure 9 s tood which tumbled a s 2 after a bandonment. 1 r eformed a s a s hallow l ens above the area d escribed here, but the c enter o f the plazuela group has a ccumulated enough t opsoil to be used by a present day f armer a s a protected g arden s urrounded by the huge humps o f prehistoric s tructures. T estpit 5 7 1 985 C oordinates: S 2 651.19 / W 257.97 D istance from S ite C enter: 2 899m E levation: 1 8.81m One Section Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated i n range s tructure on s outh s ide o f very l arge P latform 6 90, S tructure 6 89. Excavation c ontinued to bedrock 2 35 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0-5cm: Humus; brown dry s oil with root disturbance and f lecks o f white marl, Chicanel, Early C lassic, and Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic s herds. 2 5-32cm: Tumble; a rtifacts, r ocks, and eroding plaster i n a gravelly matrix with Chicanel and C lassic pottery. 3 3 2-53cm: Superstructure; l arge cut l imestone blocks and small r ocks s et i n a c ompact eroding gray mortar, a lignment of stone running e ast/ west, parallel to the axis of the s tructure and may be the r emains o f a s et of s tairs. The matrix of the construction c ontained chert, marine shells and undiagnostic sherds. 4 5 3-140cm: marl f lecks

F ill; f riable tan s oil with and no artifacts.

white

and

5 1 40-155cm: Fill; greenish gray s ticky wet Chicanel and one Early C lassic s herd. 6 1 55-180cm:

Buried A-Horizon;

7 1 80-190cm:

Surface;

8 1 90-235cm: Buried Chicanel pottery. 9 2 35cm :

Bedrock;

yellow

marl

with

s oil

with

b lack sticky c lay.

thin uneven gray marl A-Horizon;

b lack

l ens.

s ticky

wet l imestone.

DISCUSSION A Late Preclassic midden a ccumulated on the A-Horizon 8 ( bedrock is 9 ) and was c overed by a l ens 7 of white marl. This l ens may be the r emains o f a non-platform s tructure of the t ype f ound n orth o f Nohmul's s ite center. The extremely moist c onditions o f this depth at the present time c ould a ccount f or the f eature's l ack of c lear definition ( it grades i nto the l ayers above and below ).

2 79

The s tructure was a pparently a bandoned f or long e nough f or a deep A-Horizon 6 to a ccumulate a bove i t. Two l ayers of f ill, 5 and 4 were deposited above 6 ( probably) i n the Early C lassic. 4 was probably surfaced with marl or p laster that i s g one now, s ince i t has t he yellowish tinge o f s ubfloor f ill. 3 was constructed a bove 4 , perhaps a s a s taircase that has become dislodged f rom i ts original position. 2 i s tumble from a f allen superstructure. 1 i s the modern A -Horizon. The f act t hat 1 contains Terminal C lassic/Early postclassic pottery suggests that the l ast period o f use o f the structure corresponds to the l ast period o f use of the structure i nvestigated i n Testpit 5 6 on the s ame platform. Testpit 5 8 1 985 Coordinates: S 2 612.5 / W 240 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 2 859m E levation: 1 8.00m One Section Drawing One by one meter pit l ocated i n S tructure 6 86 of P latform 6 90. Excavation c ontinued to below the modern ground s urface.

on n orth s ide bedrock 2 75cm

1 0 -55cm: Humus; gray-brown s oil with root disturbance a nd f lecks of white marl, chert, unknown and Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic s herds. 2 5 5-70cm: Structure; top l ayer o f p latform construction; unknown and Terminal C lassic/ E arly P ostclassic s herds. 3 7 0-78cm: Surface; mortar f or setting 2 .

grayish

white packed marl,

5 7 8-92cm:

Posthole;

hole cut

i nto s urface of

4 .

6 7 8-92cm:

Posthole;

hole cut i nto surface of

4 .

4 7 8-164cm: blocks.

P latform wall;

7 1 64-166cm: Tread l ayer; textured soil.

f our

c ourses

may

be

of cut l imestone

thin l ens of powdery

g ray

8 1 66-173cm:

F loor;

burnt p laster s urface.

9 1 73-193cm:

F loor;

p laster surface over thick f ill

l ight

layer.

1 0 1 93-220cm: F ill; s oft dry gray marl f lecked w ith white and yellow and containing chert, c harcoal, and F loral P ark and Early C lassic pottery. 1 1 2 20-222cm: charcoal and pottery.

F loor; thin powdery white lens w ith s ome small r ocks; Chicanel and Early Classic

2 80

1 2 2 22-275cm: S ascab; gray s ticky white sherds in the topmost l ayer: Chicanel. 1 3

2 75cm:

B edrock;

marl

with

s ome

s terile damp greenish white s ascab.

DISCUSSION The s ascab 1 2 above bedrock 1 3 was e xposed s ometime i n the Preclassic, and then s urfaced with a l ayer of plaster 1 1 i n the E arly C lassic. 1 1 was r efurbished with a l ayer of f ill 1 0 a nd a new l ayer of plaster 9 . 9 was redone with 8 . For some r eason, 8 was a llowed to accumulate dirt 7 . A massive platform 4 was c onstructed a bove 7 and a perishable structure was built on top a s i ndicated by postholes 5 and 6 . 3 , either a f ill layer or a s urface, was l aid above the postholes and a Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic structure 2 was built above i t. A deep l ayer of A-Horizon 1 a ccumulated above 2 a fter abandonment. No d ates are available f or l ayers 3 through 9 , but judging from the c onstruction s equences r evealed by excavations 5 6 and 5 7 in s tructures on the s ame platform a s Testpit 5 8, some of the c onstruction probably dates to the Late Classic. Testpit 5 9 1 985 Coordinates: S 2 448.01 / W 154.03 Distance f rom S ite Center: 2 689m Elevation: 1 8.86m One S ection Drawing, One P lan Drawing One by o ne meter pit l ocated on s outh s ide of very l ow elevation designated 6 76 on map, 1 50 meters northwest of Testpit 5 6. Excavation was placed i n an area where a well-preserved P reclassic sherd was f ound on the ground surface and was i ntended to define the nature of the s light e levation that d id not s eem to be a typical platform. D igging continued to bedrock 9 2cm below the modern ground surface. D iscovery of two f eatures on the prehistoric ground-surface l ed to the widening of the excavation another 1 .65 square meters; the extension trenches were excavated only to the surface o f the buried A-Horizon, 7 2cm below the modern g round surface. 1 0 -20cm: Humus; brown dry soil with root disturbance and f lecks of white marl, l arge quantities of marine shell, s ome obsidian and tan chert f lakes; Chicanel, and Terminal C lassic /Early P ostclassic sherds abundant. 2 2 0-50cm:

Replaced midden;

s ame a s

5 below.

3 4 0-65cm: Hearth; rectilinear a lignment of f ists ized burnt stones, s oil matrix i s s lightly l ighter than 2 and c ontains charcoal; f eature contains a mixture of Chicanel a nd Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic sherds.

2 81

4 ? -65cm: Cut; hole dug f or p lacement undetected during excavation.

of

hearth;

origin

5 2 0-50cm: Midden; s oil l ighter colored and f iner- grained than 1 , f lecked with white marl, c ontains charcoal, chert f lakes, burnt l imestone, many marine shells and C hicanel s herds. 6 5 0-72/80cm: F ill; dark gray damp s oil with small cobbles, and Chicanel pottery.

marl

f lecks,

7 6 0-72cm: Cache; f ive c omplete but broken C hicanel cauldrons ( 35-40cm i n d iameter) placed i n a s emi- c ruciform pattern ( see plan ) on the prehistoric ground surface. 8 7 2-92cm: Buried Chicanel sherds. 9 9 2cm:

A-Horizon;

black

sticky

s oil

with

Bedrock.

D ISCUSSION The s equence of events l eading to the cultural d eposits uncovered i n this excavation was difficult to reconstruct, owing to the homogenization of t he s trata a bove the f eatures. This may be partly the result of the shallowness of the deposits, and partly the result of perpetual human activity i n the area. The reconstruction that f ollows i ncludes some s trata that are l ogical constructs, a s well as those that were actually visible; I have endeavored t o c learly distinguish between the two i n the text. Sometime during the Late Preclassic , f ive very large bowls 7 were placed on the ground s urface 8 , and covered with a l ayer of f ill 6 and then a midden 5 . About 6 00 years later, during the Terminal C lassic /Early P ostclassic p eriod, a shallow hole 4 ( about 6 5cm deep) was dug, and a hearth 3 o f small stones and sherds was created i n the bottom of the hole. When the hole was dug, the earlier Chicanel m idden 5 was disturbed, and s ome of the pottery f rom this d eposit was mixed i nto the hearth. The hearth excavation also encountered the edged o f two o f the C hicanel cache v essels; i n f act, some of the hearth s tones were wedged u nder the edges of these two Preclassic vessels. The hearth w as used briefly and recovered r apidly, probably intentionally, with the s oil of 5 that had been removed, now labeled 2 t o i ndicate that i t was r eplaced. The modern A-Horizon 1 contains a mixture of Chicanel and T erminal Classic/Early Postclassic pottery f rom the two periods o f use o f the area. Neither the cut 4 , nor the f ill 2 were distinguishable from 5 during e xcavation. The deposits a bove the cache 7 and the hearth 3 appeared c ompletely uniform, although we s ectioned and resectioned the area carefully t o find evidence o f such a cut, s ince we knew that the hearth materials were Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic a nd that

2 82

the hearth was Preclassic. Most troubling was the f act t hat t he lips o f two c ache vessels a ctually overlapped the n orth a nd east edges of the hearth. It i s possible that the hearth was c onstructed i n the Preclassic and reused i n the T erminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic, but a hole must s till h ave been dug a bove i t, s ince the cache i s covered with two layers of purely Chicanel f ill. The f inal problem i s that the l ayer a bove the hearth contained only C hicanel. O bviously several s cenarios may account f or the juxtaposed e lements described here. I n an area that was occupied and used i ntensively by t he Maya f or 2 500 years, i t i s l ikely that l ater Maya would continually encounter f eatures c reated by earlier Maya. That i s undoubtedly what happened to produce the deposits i n Testpit 5 9; though the exact nature of the prehistoric encounter i s unclear, I have tried t o suggest the s implest one. Another scenario i s d iscussed in Chapter Three. Testpit 6 0 1 985 Coordinates: S 2 442 / W 1 50.25 D istance from S ite C enter: 2 683m E levation: 1 8.83 One Section Drawing, One P lan Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated on north s ide of very low e levation designated 6 76 on map, 1 50 meters northwest of Testpit 5 6. Excavation was p laced i n an area where a posthole test encountered what a ppeared to be a plaster f loor a nd a c ache s imilar to the one uncovered i n Testpit 5 9 ( located 3 meters s outh of 6 0). D igging continued to sterile sascab 1 40cm below the modern ground surface. Bedrock was a scertained at 1 60cm with a posthole test placed i n the bottom of the excavation and dug through the sterile sascab l ayer to make certain that the s ascab was not a c ultural deposit ( marl f ill). D iscovery of a second cache l ed to the widening of the excavation another . 63 square meters; the e xtension areas were excavated only to the s urface of construction l ayer 6 , 4 5cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0-8cm: Humus; brown dry soil with root disturbance and f lecks o f white marl, s ome chert, small rocks and shell, a f ew C hicanel and unknown sherds. 2 8-30cm: Primary midden; dark gray marl mottled s oil with chert artifacts and many l arge Chicanel and unknown sherds. 3 30-43cm: C ache; e ight red s lipped ( Sierra Red) Chicanel cauldrons ( 45-50cm i n d iameter ) p laced i n a cruciform pattern in s ets of two ( lip-to-lip) around a small ( 15cm i n diameter) unslipped, a nd probably unfired, badly eroded, cream c olored bowl. All n ine vessels were complete but crushed by the weight o f the topsoil. The f our l ip-to-lip

2 83

s ets were e ach ordinary marl.

f illed with

a

white

substance

resembling

4 4 3-65cm: Stone a lignment; a r ow o f l arge ( 15-20cm in diameter) unshaped s tones running north south a long the east s ide of the e xcavation. 5 4 3-81cm: cobbles.

Rock

l ayer;

eroding

l imestone

6 8 1-99cm: Midden; l ayer of dark gray stones, l ithics, and Chicanel pottery. 7 9 9-140cm: Buried A-Horizon; marl f lecks, s ome charcoal f ragments. 8 1 40-160cm: 9 1 60cm:

Sascab;

B edrock;

soil

r ocks

w ith

a nd

s mall

black sticky soil with white and some Chicanel ceramic

s terile gray s ticky c lay.

white l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Above the A-Horizon 7 ( 8 and 9 a re undisturbed natural l ayers) a Chicanel midden 6 a ccumulated; the c eramics in this deposit date to the e arly part of the Late Preclassic and may be a transitional s tyle between Mamom and Chicanel. Above this midden 6 , a l ayer of r ocks 5 was deposited, and a row of l arger s tones 4 was p laced on top of the smaller rocks. The purpose o f this construction i s unknown, i f i t was a s tructure i t i s the crudest one k nown f rom Nohmul. Above the s tones o f 6 and 4 , i n a matrix of tan c lay, f our l arge vessels 3 were l aid out i n the shape of a c ross around a small cream colored bowl. The vessels were f illed with s omething that now a ppears t o be ordinary white m arl, and capped with a s econd vessel i nverted over the t op of each. All e ight c auldrons are exactly the same: Sierra Red type with a s imple outcurving r im, white fireclouding on the exterior base, and a s ingle i ncised line a round the exterior of the vessel, a bout 1 0cm f rom the l ip. T hese vessels are a lso a ll exactly the s ame a s the f ive cauldrons discovered i n Testpit 5 9. Above the cache 3 described above, a l ate Preclassic midden 2 f ormed. Two sherds f rom this c ontext may possibly d ate to the Late C lassic period; i f s o, they were probably displaced f rom nearby occupation by an animal, since 2 appears to be a primary deposit and not a recycled midden-fill l ayer. 1 i s an ordinary modern humus layer. Excavation 6 1 1 986 Coordinates: S 3252.33 / W 214 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 3 024m E levation: 5 .91m

2 84

One P lan Drawing This 2 8 square meter excavation was done to i nvestigate the function a nd o ccupation s equence of a s et of non-platform features. The c oncentration of f eatures was l ocated by posthole testing a long the north edge of a small channel that runs e ast/west, not quite c onnecting with the main bajo to the east. No r aised f ield construction or other or human modification of this channel could be detected f rom the a ir ( Hammond p .c.), or f rom the ground ( T. Patrick Culbert, p .c.). Excavation continued to bedrock ( 92-135 cm below the modern g round surface) i n f our places, but only defined horizontal f eatures i n most areas. The centimeter depths are not very useful s ince the deposits i n this excavation were a ll within a meter of the surface, mostly falling between 3 0 and 5 0cm bs, and had been churned by plowing a nd r odents. Even when s ome f eature definition remains, the ceramic a ssociations are i nvariably mixed. 1 0 -5cm: Humus; b lack s ticky modern A-Horizon with eroded Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), and R ancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Post C lassic) sherds. 2 5 -20cm: Midden; continuation o f humus-type matrix but with dense artifact concentration i ncluding Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), Rancho ( Terminal Classic/Early P ost C lassic), and unknown C lassic pottery; also shell, charcoal, chert and o bsidian. 3 1 5-21cm: Midden; s ame a s 2 , but s herds s omewhat smaller with small r ocks a ppearing; Cocos-Chicanel(Late Preclassic), Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic), unknown C lassic and possibly Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) c eramics. 4 1 2-18cm: Abandonment? l ayer of l ighter pavement; small a mount of Cocos-Chicanel(Late and Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic)

s oil above Preclassic) pottery.

5 2 1-25cm: Surface?; f irm gray brown soil with white f lecks and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) artifacts. 6 1 5-20cm: Pavement; l ayer of small ( >10 cm in diameter ) stones with S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) ceramics. 7 1 5-20cm: Buried A-Horizon; outside ( north ) of pavement C lassic) c eramics. 8 2 1-31cm:

Surface;

dark brown s oil located 1 5; Santana-Tepeu ( Late

l ayer of s oft white marl.

9 2 0-35cm: L ayer o f gray s oil below s tone pavement with Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and small quantities of L opex-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic) and

2 85

Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic ) ( possibly ) ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) s herds.

Rancho

1 0 3 1-33cm: Layer o f s oft white marl with Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) o r Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) pottery. 1 1 3 3-46cm: L ayer o f s oft white ( Late C lassic) period ceramics.

marl

with

Santana-Tepeu

1 2 3 5-40cm: Midden; gray s oil with many artifacts i ncluding a pair of bone e ar f lares and sherds f rom t he Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), a nd Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) or Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) periods. 1 3 4 0-60cm: Burial; human bone i n garbage, no cut visible; immediate ceramic garbage dates t o Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic); layer directly above bone contained r ound bone ear f lares. 1 4 4 0-60cm: Small concentration of burned trash, i ncluding Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), and a small amount of Freshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic). 1 5 5 6cm: Posthole; through f loor 4 0. 1 6

5 6-60cm:

F loor;

round

hole

yellowish marl

a bout

2 5cm

in

d iameter

s urface.

1 7 5 0-55cm: F loor; patchy eroded yellow marl surface, stratigraphically a ligned, but not c ontinuous with 31, 3 2 and 3 6. 1 8 5 8-63cm: F loor; yellowish marl of wall 2 5 with C ocos-Chicanel possibly S antana-Tepeu ( Late association.

s urface a long b oth s ides ( Late Preclassic) a nd C lassic) sherds i n

1 9 5 6-61cm: F loor; yellowish Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) C lassic/Early Postclassic) sherds.

marl surface with or Rancho ( Terminal

2 0 4 5-56cm: Wall; s ingle c ourse o f eroded r ectangular l imestone blocks s et i n a s traight l ine running e ast/west across excavation. 2 1 6 0cm: Buried A-Horizon; gray s oil with mix o f CocosChicanel ( Late Preclassic), and Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) or Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic) pottery. 2 2

6 0-90cm:

P it;

cut

i nto A-Horizon.

2 3 6 3-70cm: Hearth; Cocos-Chicanel ( Late

l ayer of burnt r ocks a nd Preclassic), Nuevo-Tzakol

2 86

burnt ( Early

Classic) and posibly a very small Tepeu ( Late C lassic) sherds. 2 4

7 0-72cm:

Trash?;

s oil

quantity

of

Santana-

l ayer with unidentifiable sherds.

2 5 7 5-80cm: Hearth; l ens of burnt s tones and Cocos-Chicanel ( Late P reclassic) and S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) s herds. 26

8 0cm:

Soil

l ayer;

no artifacts

recovered.

2 7 5 0-90cm: S ascab; s oft s terile white 6 0-100cm: Bedrock; hard white l imestone.

l imestone.

2 8

DISCUSSION The o riginal i ntent o f this excavation was to recover a complete assemblage f rom the midden o f what I hoped would be a s ingle phase o ccupation. Not only did this turn out not t o be the case, the excavation turned out to be a stratigraphic nightmare f or s everal r easons. F irst, the ceramic chronology i s currently " under construction" by Dr. Laura Kosakowsky. This means that a lthough the general outlines of the chronology are available, many of the specifics of the Nohmul s equence r emain to be determined. Consequently, many l ayers were given designations such a s Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal Classic/Early Post C lassic). 4 2 of 6 5 original contexts contained material that was e ither unknown, inconclusive, or unidentifiable. A s econd problem with the ceramic chronology i s that, a s with most l owland typologies, most diagnostics i n the northern Belize typology are decorated wares. In general, Testpit 61 produced a h igher percentage of p lainwares than most o ther excavations. This may be partly a result of the fact that most o ther excavations gave s amples of platform f ill, whereas TP 6 1 was at l east partly, made up of primary midden layers. The t hird problem presented by the s tratigraphy of TP 6 1 was a result of the s ame natural f ormation processes that caused me to decide sealed mound deposits are generally more i nformative than midden deposits ( see the discussion of t he excavations done at one kilometer s outh). Nonmound occupation, l ike primary middens, i s more vulnerable to natural e lements and rodents than the deposits inside plaster f loors and masonry. In f act, because the natural A-Horizons around Nohmul are so hard to dig through, rodents seem to prefer to dig through middens and s oft marl surfaces. They a re s topped by plaster and l imestone, but they a re actually a ttracted to marl. So, not only are the artifacts i n primary middens l eft exposed to wind heat and rain a nd badly e roded, they have been l iterally " stirred" by b urrowing animals. None o f these i ssues would have been o f much consequence i f this had been a s ingle phase o ccupation. The big surprise

2 87

was that the 2 8 square meter area uncovered three or f our f loors, s everal middens, s everal possible hearths, a l ow wall, a pit and a burial, and was occupied in t he Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) a nd Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic). F urthermore, s ubstantial debris f rom e arlier periods i ncluding, Lopex-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic), C ocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) a nd Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic), was i ncorporated i nto t he deposits. The f ollowing s cenario i s the one I c onsider to b e the m ost l ikely explanation f or the deposits I excavated i n TP 6 1. I have assumed that deposits 1 3, 1 9 a nd 2 1 designated by t he ceramic analyst a s either Late or Terminal C lassic were actually a ll Late C lassic, s ince this makes the b est s tratigraphic s ense. Alternative explanations, however, are possible. The area was occupied i n the Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) through the Freshwater-Floral P ark ( Protoclassic), and Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early Classic), a nd debris f rom these periods accumulated on the A-Horizon 2 1. Sometime in the Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) period, a p it 2 2 was dug through the A-Horizon 2 1 i nto natural s ascab 2 7 above bedrock 2 8. This pit was f illed with layers of s oil 2 6 and debris 2 4 and i ncluding two i rregular c lumps o f a f ew burnt s herds, pomacea shells, and small burned stones ( 23 and 2 5) that may have been small cooking hearths. Another possibility i s suggested by the intact hearth uncovered i n nearby TP 7 6, which g ave evidence o f a cooking technique called " stone boiling". I f f ood i s c ooked i n this way ( hot rocks are added to the s tew pot until i ts contents are sufficiently boiled), a t the end o f the m eal there will be a f ew burned rocks and other inedible objects such a s bones and snail shells l eft i n the bottom of the pot. I t s eems l ikely that these small c lumps o f shell a nd stone f ound i n the pit were dumped out of the s tew pot at the end of a meal a long with sweepings f rom a round t he actual hearth where the s tones were heated. Most o ther hearths at Nohmul were s herd-lined. If the cooking technique was s tone-boiling, the s herd l ining might h elp keep the s tones f rom getting covered with dirt. Garbage was accumulating on the A-Horizon near p it 2 2 a s well a s i n i t. 1 2 was a f airly s parce Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) midden, which i ncluded e arlier garbage from the buried A-Horizon, and a human burial 1 3 complete with b one ear f lares. Sometime a fter pit 2 2 was f illed with garbage and s oil l ayers, i t was partly covered with a S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) f loors 1 6 and 1 7 ( probably separate patches of the s ame f loor ) made of packed marl. A layer of burned rocks and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) sherds 1 4 was deposited directly above the p it area and was probably a c ooking hearth a lthough c ontinual use and reuse o f the a rea disarranged i ts components e nough to make t his questionable. F loor 1 6 probably c overed midden 1 2 a nd burial 1 3, and must have been constructed soon a fter the

2 88

burial, s ince the b ody was o nly a bout f ifteen c entimeters below the ground s urface. 1 6 was badly e roded and had been damaged by burriwing a nimals but i t d id have one r ound vertical c ut ( 14) t hrough i t that was a r easonably convincing posthole. N o o thers were s ecurely l ocated. D espite i ts chronological mixing and i ts position below a f loor, midden l ayer 1 2 i s definitely not a f ill l ayer, s ince the a rtifacts i t c ontains a re i n s parce c lumps and the s oil matrix i s t he b lack hard c lay with the drainage characteristics t hat f ill l ayers were presumably i nvented to a void. 1 8 a nd 1 9 a re probably a lso patches o f f loor 1 7, s ince they are a t the s ame e levation, but they were not a continuous surface when e xcavated. Their exact chronological relationship with m idden 1 2 and f loor 1 7 i s unclear a s i s i ndicated on the H arris Matrix. 1 8 a nd 1 9 l ie on both s ides of 2 0, a wall that r an e ast/west a cross the excavation. The p urpose o f this wall i s unclear, s ince was only about ten c entimeters tall ( made o f a s ingle course of thin l imestone b locks) a nd i ts western end s eemed to stop without connecting to a nything. L ater l ayers d id s eem to be d ivided a bove t his f eature, but were s everal centimeters a bove it. Above the area o f these f loors and t o the s outh o f the bisecting wall 2 0 was a nother l ayer o f marl f orming another Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) s urface 1 1. This s oft l ayer was resurfaced twice ( 10 and 8 ) with Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) marl f loors. Above and to the north of the wall 2 0 was a thin gray l ayer 9 with very mixed ceramics s upporting a pavement o f small s tones 6 . 6 and 9 were actually mixed together s omewhat, 9 being only a bout ten centimeters thick, but 9 c ontained only S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) s herds, s uggesting i ts r efuse a ccumulated during use, whereas 9 was a f ill, or a t l east a l evelling l ayer ( it i s s till not made of marl l ike a ll o ther " fill" l ayers a t Nohmul, but i s too chronologically mixed to be a primary midden ). 7 , a l ayer r ecovered north of the e dge o f t he s tone pavement s uggests that most o f these deposits were made on a S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) A-Horizon, s ince i t i s the only s ingle period l ayer f rom the excavation. L ayers of l ighter gray s oil 4 and 5 , bearing mainly Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) pottery were deposited a bove the pavement 6 a nd the marl f loors 8 , 1 0, and 1 1. Above this were two l ayers o f very dense and very mixed midden. Originally, I believed that these l ayers were d eposited a fter a bandonment when the house was used a s a trash receptacle by the neighbors. However, this e xplanation does n ot a ccount f or the extreme chronological mixing of the d eposits, which i nclude material predating the house i tself b y s everal c enturies. I t i s possible that these l ayers were d eposited a s p latform f ill and the p latform s urface w as d estroyed by e xposure and plowing or

2 89

e lse were never c ompleted. D estruction usually l eaves s ome trace of the original s urface behind, a t l east i n the f orm of a l ighter c olored A-Horizon. In t his case, layers 2 and 3 are mixed i nto the A-Horizon i n t he manner of a primary midden and have no marl matrix. Also, although the artifacts are very dense i n these l ayers, i n fact, denser than i s normal i n a f ill l ayer, they a re not deep. The top of l ayer 4 , which i s at the base of l ayer 3 , is o nly f orty c entimeters below the modern ground surface. I f these l ayers were deposited to construct a platform a bove the e arlier three marl f loors, i t would h ave been only about twenty to thirty centimeters tall sans its u ltimate surface. Testpit 6 2 1 986 Coordinates: S 3272.70 / W 238.66 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 046m E levation: 5 .41m One Section Drawing One by one meter p it l ocated between e xcavations 4 5 and 6 1 to i nvestigate the nature o f a l oose white material occurring within 2 0 cm of the modern ground surface. This material could have been e ither culturally deposited marl or natural s ascab. Excavation continued to 6 0cm b elow the modern ground surface. 1 0 -20/40cm: Humus; black s ticky modern A-Horizon with badly eroded S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) pottery, and possibly a small amount of Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic). 2 2 0/40cm: S ascab; a ssociated artifacts.

very

uneven

s ascab

l ayer

with

n o

D ISCUSSION The unevenness o f the s ascab l ayer i s probably due to deep plowing, a s i s s uggested by the r idges visible in the s ection drawing. The ceramics i n l ayer 1 are probably s cattered garbage f rom the nearby housefloors uncovered i n TP 6 1. I t i s i nteresting to note that the location of the houses at the TP 6 1 l ocus d id n ot take advantage of the highest natural e levation i n the i mmediate area. A higher and probably better drained e levation was discovered not t o have been used a s a building s ite by TP 6 2. Testpit 6 3 1 986 Coordinates: S-1127.50 / W 855 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 604m E levation: unknown One Section Drawing

2 90

O ne by o ne meter pit l ocated i n Structure 9 41 on east edge o f P latform 9 40. E xcavation to determine occupation s equence o f apparent s tructure with possible r elationship t o nearby P latform 2 77. Excavation c ontinued to bedrock, 1 43 cm b elow the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -26cm : Humus, b lack s oil, not burnt recently because a rea i s c urrently u sed a s a c ocal; i dentifiable ceramics were S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic). 2 2 6-45cm: Tumble or f ill; l oose brown ruble s tones a nd Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) sherds. 3 4 7-60cm: p ossibly p ottery.

Fill; l ight gray dense soil with Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early

4 4 2-63cm: c eramics.

Fill;

dark gray s oil with

s ome

with

small

C lassic and Postclassic)

C lassic

period

5 6 0-73cm: Midden f ill; yellowish marl with heavy s herd c oncentration i ncluding S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and R ancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) material. 6 6 3-73cm: a rtifacts.

F ill;

dense

b luish-gray

soil

with

f ew

7 7 3-143cm: F ill; packed s oil with Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and a small amount of Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) p ottery. 8 7 3-143cm: Cut i nto bedrock: excavation i nto the surface o f limestone. 9 7 3/143cm: Bedrock: hard white l imestone. D ISCUSSION At some period i n or before the Santana-Tepeu Late C lassic, bedrock 9 was c leared o f topsoil and mined with trench 8 . We only f ollowed this trench to the edge of the one by one meter e xcavation s o the extent to the trench i s unknown. I f it i s as deep a s the one i nvestigated in Testpit 6 4, i t may have been f irst dug i n the Preclassic. The upper l ayer o f trench f ill 7 that we encountered contained a mix of S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ost C lassic). F our l ayers o f f ill were deposited above bedrock: 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 i n the Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) period, probably to create a r aised platform. The d ifference between these l ayers i s most l ikely s imply the r esult o f successive dump-loads of dirt being deposited. An a lternative explanation i s that l ayers 4 and 6 represent an earlier platform a nd the juncture between these l ayers and l ayers 3 and 5 i s actually a cut created to expose bedrock and l ater f illed. The ceramic evidence does not f avor e ither possibility over the other.

2 91

2 may be another f ill l ayer, i f s o the f inal surface i s gone. The stones i n i ts matrix are probably t oo small to be building tumble. 1 i s the modern natural A-Horizon; this i s more l oamy and l oose than most A-Horizons at N ohmul because this area i s not used f or c ane. Testpit 6 4 1 986 Coordinates: S 1087 / W 972.5 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 636m E levation: 1 2.02m One Section Drawing 1 .75 meter square pit excavated on southwest edge of P latform 9 40 to determine i f this was a P rotoclassic " neighborhood", s ince s everal bulldozed s tructures i n the area yielded F loral Park-style c eramics. Excavation was continued into bedrock, 2 70 cm. below the modern g round surface. 1 0 -17cm: Humus; black s ticky modern A-Horizon with e roded C lassic and Cocos-Chicanel ( Late P reclassic). Soil b etter drained than usual and not burnt, s o much looser. 2 1 7-33cm: Tumble; l oose brown s oil with marl f lecks, pebbles and s ome l arger r ocks a long with Lopex-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic), Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic ), and C lassic ceramics. 3 2 0-33cm: Cut l imestone block; probably a wall a long the north s ide of the p latform.

r emnant

o f

a

4 3 3-46cm: P latform; matrix s imilar to 2 , but with l arge cut and f itted l imestone blocks. The associated pottery was a mix of Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) and unknown C lassic. 5 4 6-48cm: Mortar; f ine gray s ilt-like soil with a f ew Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) a nd other unknown sherds. 6 4 8-90cm: P latform blocks; l arge f itted limestone b locks s et i n a matrix with s ome Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and s ome unknown C lassic pottery. 7 9 0-95cm: F ill; a l ayer of pebbly s oil placed directly on bedrock, probably to l evel i t's surface with the s urface above cut 2 9; contained Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) and unknown C lassic pottery. 8 9 5-105cm: Abandonment?; l ayer of black containing Lopex-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic) Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) pottery. 9 1 01-105cm:

Hearth?;

s ticky s oil and C ocos-

concentration of burnt s tones.

1 0 1 15-130cm: Surface; dark gray gritty layer with s ome f iner s ilty s oil and white s tones below hearth 9 , contained

2 92

Lopes-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic), Cocos-Chicanel Preclassic) and Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic).

( Late

1 1 1 15/130-208cm: P it f ill; gravelly black s ticky s oil with some yellow l imestone i nclusions, abundant Pomacea f lagellata, and a mixture of Middle Preclassic, Late Preclassic, Terminal P reclassic and s ome unknown C lassic Period pottery. 1 2 1 96-208cm: Abandonment l ayer; with T erminal Preclassic sherds. 1 3

2 08-213cm:

Wall-fall;

l ayer of black sticky soil

l ayer of small yellow stones.

1 4 2 13-235cm: Hearthfill; gritty with P omacea f lagellata shells.

brown

hard-packed

dirt

1 5 2 35-242cm: Southeast hearth; sherd-lined shallow pit containing charcoal, P omacea f lagellata and bone; sherds were Early Preclassic ( Bladen), Late Preclassic and possibly ( although probably not) Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early Classic). 1 6 2 35-242cm: west.

Southwest hearth;

duplicate of

1 5

about

1 5 cm

1 7 2 42-251cm: Hearth c ollar; amalgum of burnt s tones and burnt surface of bedrock, c ontained Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) c eramics. 1 8 2 51-267cm: below hearth,

F ill; s oft, s terile yellow and brown may be eroded s urface natural l ayer.

1 9 2 20-270cm: Cut; deep pit cut hearths and a s nail midden. 20

2 70cm:

B edrock;

marl

i nto bedrock containing two

yellow l imestone.

DISCUSSION A s tandard one by one meter testpit was started at this locus. At a bout 9 0 c entimeters below the modern ground surface, the excavation encountered a very hard l ayer o f bedrock that appeared to be mined, a s i t f ell away sharply in the s outheast corner. Several other pits had encountered s imilar evidence of bedrock modification, but usually the extent of the mining was outside the provenience of the t estpit ( note excavations TP 1 3 and TP 6 3). In this c ase, I decided to expand the pit to investigate f urther. As I wanted to f ollow the edge of the cut i n bedrock and not excavate any more than necessary ( since the deposits promised to be deep), I expanded the pit b y 3 /4 directly o ver the area of the bedrock cut. Sometime i n the P reclassic, perhaps as early as the B laden Period, a deep pit 1 9 was dug i nto bedrock 2 0. The pit was dug w ith a small s tick ( or s omething s imilar), s ince c lear

2 93

s tick-marks are visible i n the walls o f the p it. The portion o f the base o f the pit uncovered by the e xcavation ( one meter square) was s haped i nto a s hallow s tep a f ew c entimeters a bove and north of two c ircular hearths ( 15 a nd 1 6) that were built i nto the base o f the pit with a l ayer o f f ill 1 8, a l ayer of small s tones 1 7, and a l ining o f l arge s herds. The " step" was o bserved during e xcavation but not numbered; i t had a thin l ayer of b lack s ticky s oil on i ts s urface that was probably a tread l ayer d eposited by prehistoric d irty f eet. These hearths c ontained a c ombination o f Late P reclassic and B laden ( Late Early Preclassic). The c eramic analyst, L .J. Kosakowsky, a lso s uspected a small a mount o f Nuevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic) i n h earth 1 5, but I question this a ssessment f or three r easons. F irst, neither Hammond nor myself noticed material o f this date in t he f ield, a lthough we took an i nterest i n this unusual s et o f deposits. Second, this a ssessment i s i nconsistent with t he r est of the s tratigraphy, which i s a ll Terminal P reclassic or e arlier up to l ayer 1 0. The C hicanel f rom these hearths i s at the e arlier end of the Chicanel temporal s pectrum, a type that has been r eferred to a s Mamom-Chicanel transitional, or " Mamo-Chic". E ither the s ample was contaminated or the s ample was too small f or acurate a ssessment or the questionable s herd(s) may r epresent an unusual Preclassic type. F inally, o ther bedrock hearths, i ncluding the one f ound by TP 1 below a Pomacea midden, dated to the Late Preclassic. Above the hearths l ayer 1 4 may r epresent the f irst instance of the use of the pit a s a g arbage receptacle. 1 3 w as deposited when a small amount o f the s oft friable i nner l ining of the prehistoric pit c aved i n and c reated a natural l ayer. 1 2 i s an a ccumulation of ordinary A-Horizon that probably washed i nto the o pen pit while i t w as not i n direct use s ometime i n the Terminal Preclassic. 1 1 i s a combination o f garbage ( evidenced by Pomacea f lagellata) imilar layer, although and natural deposition. 1 0 i s a s i ts upper s urface c ontained s ome whitish inclusions a nd s upported a hearth 9 , s uggesting that i t was a l iving a rea during t he E arly surface, or at l east an a ctivity C lassic. The area would have been a shallow depression a t this time. 8 i s another accumulation of b lack s ticky soil, probably deposited naturally during a period o f d isuse. A l ayer o f midden 7 was deposited a bove this to l evel the area i n preparation f or the c onstruction o f a p latform w ith mortar 5 a nd l arge cut b locks 4 . 3 i s e ither a portion of a w all a long the p latform e dge, o r a r emnant of a superstructure that tumbled down hill. 2 i s d efinitely a l ayer o f architectural tumble c overed by the modern humus l ayer 1 . I t i s s urprising that n one o f t he c onstruction l ayers encountered i n this p latform c ould be confidently dated to l ater than the C ocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic ) Period,

2 94

e specially s ince nearby S tructure 9 33 yielded S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and a small amount of Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early P ostclassic) pottery. This i s probably because the p latform i tself was c onstructed i n the L ate Preclassic and r eused without r ebuilding i n l ater periods. Several upper l ayers d id contain sherds that appeared to date t o the C lassic Period, but could not be dated more specifically. Testpit 6 5 1 986 Coordinates: S 1110 / W 960 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 647m E levation: unknown One Section Drawing: 2 s ections One by one meter pit l ocated i n s tructure 9 33 of P latform 9 40 t o investigate the s equence o f o ccupation in this area. Excavation c ontinued to bedrock 1 15cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -8/12cm: Humus; well drained brown, l oamy A-Horizon with Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and ( Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic) pottery.

modern Rancho

2 8 /12-20cm: Midden; dark brown l ens with many C lassic and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) ceramics.

unknown

3 8 -27cm: Tumble; tan s oil with l arge rocks and C lassic and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) pottery.

unknown

4 8 -35cm: Crypt; unshaped stones.

l arge shaped l imestone blocks and smaller

5 3 5-64cm: Burial and S antana-Tepeu

f ill; l oose gray s oil with ( Late C lassic) ceramics.

6 5 0-60cm: 8 .

Complete L ate C lassic bowl

7 6 0-64cm:

Bones;

three small bone

s ome

i nverted over

C lassic

7

and

f ragments.

8 5 5-64cm: Jadeite pendant; polished rectangular grayishgreen s tone about s even centimeters in diameter, pierced longitudinally. 9 2 3-64cm: 1 0

2 7-53cm:

Cut;

burial

excavation through l ayers

P latform f ill;

1 0

and 1 1.

pebbly yellow lens.

1 1 2 6-66cm: P latform; cut and s et l imestone blocks with C lassic and S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) pottery in f ill. 1 2 5 3-58cm: F ill; C lassic sherds.

thin l ens

o f dark gray

2 95

soil with unknown

1 3

5 8-65cm:

F loor;

burnt and eroded p laster surface.

1 4 6 5-76cm: Subfloor f ill; dark brown soil with many S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) s herds. 1 5 7 6-86cm: F ill; yellowish-brown mottled possible Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic), C lassic sherds. 1 6

8 6cm:

Posthole;

1 7

8 6-88cm:

F loor;

1 8

8 8-91cm:

Subfloor f ill;

marl with a nd unknown

round hole through 1 7. burnt eroded p laster f loor. l oose yellow marl.

1 9 9 1-105cm: Midden; dark gray wet c layey soil with charcoal, burnt r ock, s ome l ithics and Santana-Tepeu C lassic) pottery. 2 0

1 05-111cm:

Rocks;

2 1

1 11-115cm:

Buried A-Horizon;

2 2

1 15cm:

Bedrock;

e arly

l ayer of small

much ( Late

s tones.

d ark s terile

l ayer.

hard dark gray l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The A-Horizon 2 1 above bedrock 2 2 was l evelled and a l ens of rocks 2 0 was created f or an unknown reason. Above this, two l ayers of f ill 1 8 and 1 9 were deposited a nd surfaced with plaster f loor 1 7. 1 9 i s the f irst datable layer, i t places the earliest s ubstantial c onstruction on this s ite at Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic). This was s omething o f a surprise, s ince I had expected the p latform f ound in nearby TP 6 4 to a lso be the base below the s tructure i n TP 6 5. Apparently, the TP 6 4 platform ( which i s definitely Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic)) was s imply a Preclassic extension on the s outhwest edge o f a natural e levation. This natural e levation was not used f or platform construction until much l ater i n the L ate Classic. A posthole 1 6 was dug through f loor 1 7, presumably as part of a perishable s tructure. Above this, two l ayers of Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) f ill, 1 5 and 1 4, were deposited and s urfaced with p laster f loor 1 3. Above another f ill l ayer 1 2, a r etaining wall of cut l imestone blocks 8 was built i n the Late C lassic and f illed with a layer of d irt 5 to create a p latform. This s tructure was penetrated by a burial cut 9 which i ncluded a very small quantity of unidentifiable bones 7 under a L ate C lassic redware bowl 6 with a s imple polished uncarved r ectangular jadeite pendant 8 . The burial was f illed with 5 and c apped with several l arge cut s tones 4 , perhaps o nes dislodged f rom the p latform when the burial was dug. The abandoned superstructure tumbled 3 and a l ayer of S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) midden 2 a ccumulated a bove the area before the A-Horizon 1 r eformed. Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early

2 96

P ostclassic) ceramics i n the A-Horizon 1 show general area was o ccupied i n this l ater period.

that

the

Testpit 6 6 1 986 C oordinates: S 1215 / W 60 D istance f rom S ite C enter: 1 454m E levation: 1 7.73m One S ection Drawing This one by one m eter testpit i s one of several dug i n l ocations identified by Arthur Joyce to test the s ignificance o f s urface artifact concentrations. Excavation was c ontinued into s ascab, 6 5 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -38cm: Humus; b lack s ticky modern A-Horizon with eroded unidentifiable s herds a t base of l ayer. 2 3 8-65cm: to white.

S ascab;

gray s oft wet c lay above bedrock,

f ades

D ISCUSSION The only i nteresting a spect of this excavation i s the f act that the pottery w as f ound concentrated at the base of the A-Horizon. In o ther parts of the s ite we f ound evidence of utilization of b edrock f or activities ( especially cooking) a nd perhaps habitation. It i s unlikely that a s imilar s ituation accounts f or the TP 6 6 deposition. More probably, the c eramics have been displaced downward by deep p lowing ( this p it i s l ocated i n a c ane f ield), and by the p rocess c alled u slickensides" that was more c learly active i n TP 70. T estpit 6 7 1 986 C oordinates: S 1097.50 / W 940 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 625m E levation: unknown O ne Section Drawing T his one by o ne meter testpit was dug i n a midden i dentified by posthole testing on P latform 9 40. Excavation w as continued i nto sascab, 7 2 cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -38cm: Humus; black s ticky modern A-Horizon with S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and unknown C lassic sherds in a h eavy midden l ayer. 2 3 8-48/65cm: E roded bedrock; s lightly yellower s oil with d ense midden continuing; Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and R ancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) period ceramics p resent.

2 97

3 4 8cm:

B edrock;

s oft yellow and uneven.

D ISCUSSION The pottery i n TP 6 5 was f ound c oncentrated i n the A-Horizon 1 . However, the c eramic concentration did continue i nto the l ayer of eroding b edrock 2 that s howed no trace o f human a lteration, so presumably the same processes are at work i n the two areas. Some " slickensides" m ust be occurring despite the f act that the area of TP 6 7 i s higher, much better drained, and n ot subject i n r ecent times to deep p lowing. Testpit 6 8 1 986 Coordinates: S 1057.5 / W 970 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 610m Elevation: 1 1.51m One Section Drawing This one by one meter testpit was d ug on s outhwest s ide o f P latform 9 40 to i nvestigate the surface of bedrock i n this area immediately below the deeply mined area encountered i n TP 6 4. Excavation was c ontinued to b edrock, 3 5 cm below the modern ground s urface. 1 0 -15cm: Humus; brown l oose, well-drained modern A-Horizon with Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) and unknown C lassic sherds i n a dense midden layer. 2 3 8-48/65cm: Eroded bedrock; yellower soil with midden continuing; S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) period c eramics present. 3 4 8cm:

Bedrock;

soft yellow and uneven.

D ISCUSSION This excavation was s ituated o ff t he southwest e dge of P latform 9 40 and midden f ill f rom the p latform has eroded over the area. C onsequently, the l atest construction layer of the platform eroded f irst, then the penultimate layer eroded out. The result of this f ormation process i s the reverse s trategraphy o f the excavation, with Late C lassic i n the top humus l ayer 1 and Terminal C lassic in L ayer 2 . Testpit 6 9 1 986 Coordinates: S 1497 / W .40 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 735m E levation: 1 7.50m One Section Drawing This one by o ne meter testpit w as dug to t est the s ignificance o f artifact concentrations on the ground surface i dentified by Arthur Joyce. Excavation was

2 98

c ontinued s urface.

into

s ascab,

9 0

cm

below

the modern

1 0-20/40cm: Humus; b urnt b lack s ticky s oil a mount o f unidentifiable s herds.

with

ground

a

2 2 0/40-60cm: Sascab; gray s ticky c lay with unidentifiable pottery, a piece of chert, burnt r oots.

small

s ome

3 5-23cm: Burnt root: yellowish-brown s oil with s ome gray mottling in a gray matrix; no pottery. 4 60-70cm: Sascab; wet with s ome ceramics ( possibly CocosChicanel (Late Preclassic)) and burnt roots. 5 70cm :

Bedrock.

D ISCUSSION As in T P 66, 6 9 encountered c eramics mixed into the natural s ascab l ayers. D espite the decisions depicted i n the s tratigraphic drawing o f this excavation, the junctures between all the l ayers were gradual and i ndistinct; definitely natural. The yellowish brown deposit was originally thought by Joyce to be daub, but c areful i nspection showed i t t o be the natural result of l arge tree roots b eing burned i n a cane f ire. The d ensity o f the sherds i n this test pit suggests that habitation may have b een nearer the s pot than the nearest platform mound, but this was not demonstrated. Pottery could h ave been moved s ome d istance by plowing and by natural processes s uch a s a lluviation. Testpit 70 1 986 Coordinates: S 1480 / W .42 Distance from S ite C enter: 1 717m Elevation: 1 7.50m One S ection Drawing: 1 s ection This o ne by one meter testpit was dug to test the significance of artifact concentrations on the ground surface identified by Arthur Joyce. Excavation was continued i nto s ascab, 7 0 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -20cm: Humus; burnt b lack unidentifiable sherds.

s ticky

s oil with a f ew small

2 2 0-45cm: Sascab; g ray s ticky c lay with some unknown and Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) or Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/ Early P ostclassic) p ottery. 3 4 5-60/70cm: S ascab; l ighter gray-white c lay, chert, one t iny s herd.

2 99

one piece of

4 7 0cm:

Bedrock;

s oft white

sterile l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The l ayers uncovered i n this excavation are all n atural a nd undisturbed. Not enough pottery was recovered t o suggest that any ordinary prehistoric o ccupation was in t his i mmediate vicinity. Testpit 7 1 1 986 Coordinates: S 1435 / W 90 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 675m E levation: 1 7.00m One Section Drawing This one by one meter testpit was dug to test t he s ignificance of artifact concentrations on t he ground surface i dentified by Arthur Joyce. Excavation w as continued into s ascab, 1 20 cm b elow the modern ground surface. 1 0 -25/120cm: Humus; burnt black s ticky unknown C lassic period sherds.

s oil

w ith

a

f ew

2 6 5/75-95/120cm: Sascab; gray, white and black mottled s ticky c lay with s ome unknown and s ome Cocos-Chicanel ( Late Preclassic) pottery. 3 5 2-64/120cm:

Gray sascab.

4 6 4-68cm/120:

White s ascab.

5 6 8-120cm:

B lack sticky c lay.

D ISCUSSION As i n TP's 6 6, 6 9, and 7 0, TP 7 1 e ncountered ceramics mixed i nto the natural s ascab l ayers. Unlike the junctures between the l ayers i n earlier n onplatform excavations i n this area, those i n TP 7 0 were s harp and distinct. T he " stirring" of natural deposits by the " slikensides" process was very pronounced i n this pit. Testpit 7 2 1 986 Coordinates: S 1525 / W .43 D istance f rom S ite Center: 1 763m E levation: 1 7.70m One Section Drawing This one by one meter testpit was dug to test t he s ignificance o f artifact concentrations on t he ground s urface i dentified by Arthur J oyce. Excavation w as c ontinued i nto s ascab, 8 7 cm b elow the modern ground s urface.

3 00

1 0 -30cm: Humus; burnt b lack sticky s oil with a f ew small unidentifiable sherds and chert f lakes. 2 3 0-87cm: Sascab; Classic pottery. 3 8 7cm:

Bedrock;

gray

s ticky c lay with

some

unknown

s oft gray sterile l imestone.

DISCUSSION The l ayers uncovered i n this excavation are a ll natural and undisturbed. Not e nough pottery was r ecovered to suggest that any ordinary prehistoric occupation was in this immediate vicinity. Testpit 7 3 1 986 Coordinates: S 1587.50 / W 300.00 Distance from Site C enter: 1 851m Elevation: 1 8m No S ection Drawing This s mall s hovel t est was dug i n the east edge of what appeared to be a p latform between Structures 7 10, 7 13, and 716 t o date the s tructures due west of excavations 7 1 and 72 t o determine their period of o ccupation. Excavation was to b edrock, 4 0 cm b elow the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; burnt b lack s ticky s oil with a f ew small unidentifiable s herds a nd chert f lakes. 2 1 0-40cm: pottery. 3 4 0cm:

S ascab;

Bedrock;

b lack and

gray

mottled

soil

with

no

hard white l imestone.

DISCUSSION The l ayers uncovered i n this excavation are a ll natural and undisturbed. No d iagnostic pottery was recovered. The visible structures in this group are apparently clustered on o r around a naturally e levated area. Testpit 7 4 1 986 Coordinates: S 1306 / W 303 Distance f rom S ite C enter: 1 575m Elevation: 1 7.81m No S ection Drawing This small shovel t est was dug i nto Structure 5 06 to obtain a d ate. Excavation was to 3 5 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; burnt b lack s ticky s oil with a abundant pottery including E arly Preclassic ( Bladen), Lopex-Mamom ( Middle Preclassic ), and ( predominantly) Cocos-Chicanel

3 01

( Late Preclassic). 2 1 0-35cm: 3 3 5cm:

Midden;

continuation of

1 ,

s ame pottery .

Eroded c onstruction l ayer o r bedrock outcrop.

D ISCUSSION The layers i n this excavation are poorly understood due t o the tentative n ature of the test. I t i s unusual to f ind s uch a dense Preclassic midden so c lose to the ground s urface and i t i s unfortunate that there was no t ime left to i nvestigate f urther. Testpit 7 5 1 986 Coordinates: S 3308.92 / W 274.77 D istance f rom S ite Center: 3 085m E levation: 5 .26m One Section Drawing This one by 1 .40 meter testpit was dug to t est the s ignificance of a white marl l ens l ocated near the ground surface by posthole testing. Testpit was enlarged o ver o ne meter square due to an e rror during excavation that caused the south ( most i mportant) section t o collapse. E xcavation was continued i nto s ascab, 7 0 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0 -10cm: Humus; burnt black unidentifiable s herds.

s ticky

s oil with a f ew small

2 1 0-25/50cm: F loor; white marl l ens with s ome marl " lumps" that were probably stones before softened by being exposed and wet. 3 5 0-70cm:

P itfill;

4 5 0-70cm: Cut; white sascab.

excavation

Sascab;

soft were

black sticky c lay.

5 1 0-45cm: Buried A-Horizon; C lassic period c eramics. 6 4 7/70cm:

v ery t hey

i nto buried A-Horizon a nd

soft

black s ticky s oil with unknown

soft white eroded l imestone.

D ISCUSSION Sometime i n the C lassic period ( probably Late Classic, due to the proximity of nonplatform s tructure uncovered in T P 4 5) a pit 4 was excavated through the A-Horizon 5 i nto l ayer 6 to mine s ascab f or marl. The pit 4 w as then r efilled with A-Horizon s oil 3 , creating a shallow dip i n the ground surface above the s pot where the sascab h ad been removed. Sascab was then placed a bove this depression a nd l evelled to create f loor 2 , which s eems to have b een edged with s ome small l imestone rocks. T he A-Horizon 1 r eformed

3 02

a bove t his

f loor a fter abandonment.

T estpit 7 6 1 986 C oordinates: S 3236.88 / W 220.55 D istance from S ite C enter: 3 010m E levation: 5 .39m O ne Section Drawing: 3 sections, 4 p lans T his one by one meter testpit was dug to test the extent of t he occupation uncovered i n excavation 6 1. TP 7 6 was placed a bout 1 0 meters south of TP 6 1 and downslope. Excavation was expanded by 2 5 square c entimeters to i nclude the hearth d iscovered in the c ourse of excavartion and continued i nto s ascab, 9 0 cm below the modern ground surface. 1 0-10cm: Humus; burnt b lack s ticky s oil with unknown C lassic, Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), and possibly some Rancho ( Terminal C lassic/Early Postclassic) sherds. 2 1 0-25/50cm: F loor; white s oft marl " lumps" that were probably stones before they were s oftened by being exposed a nd wet, or e lse a p acked marl s urface badly disturbed by weather and animals; c ontained C ocosChicanel ( Late P reclassic) pottery. 3 40-76cm: F ill; gray l oose s oil with Cocos-Chicanel(Late Preclassic), Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic), and NuevoT zakol ( Early C lassic). 4 3 8-56cm: Retaining wall; e ast s ide of excavation. 5 31-46cm: Striated.

Complete

Early

two cut l imestone blocks a long

C lassic

Jar:

Monkey

Falls

6 4 7/70cm: Hearth l ining: e ight f lat rocks, roughly 1 0-15cm i n diameter, s et on e dge i n a c ircle holding 5 jar. 7 24-58cm:

Cut;

8 55-65cm:

Buried A-Horizon;

9 76cm :

Sascab;

circular hole dug to set hearth. l oose gray with s ome sherds.

soft white eroded l imestone.

D ISCUSSION The s tratigraphy of TP 7 6 i s reasonably s traightforward, unfortunately, the c eramic chronology i s not. A retaining wall 4 was built o n A-Horizon 8 s ometime i n or before the Santana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) period and a f ill l ayer 3 e ither a ccumulated n aturally or was dumped behind i t. This f eature was s urfaced with marl l ayer 2 . Subsequently the f loor 2 and f ill l ayer 3 were cut by excavation 8 and a hearth o f f lat s tones 6 was built in the hole. A whole vessel 5 ( broken when recovered) was placed i nside this ring o f stones. N o charcoal was f ound underneath the

3 03

vessel, but s everal burnt rocks were f ound i nside i t, suggesting a c ooking technique c alled " stone b oiling" a lso i dentified a t K ichpanha ( Eric Gibson p .c.). T he A-Horizon 1 f ormed r apidly a bove this a bandoned f eature s ince i t i s downslope f rom the l arge habitation area uncovered i n TP 6 1. The d ifficulty with this s cenario i s that a ll f ill l ayers above and below the hearth c ontained S antana-Tepeu ( Late C lassic) c eramics, while the hearth vessel is N uevo-Tzakol ( Early C lassic). C learly, the d eposition of t he vessel c annot predate the s trata upon which i t sits. Careful rethinking o f the s tratigraphy h as not s olved t he problem, s ince the vessel was s itting i n a cut that b egan a bove l ayer 2 . I t i s possible that the vessel w as not i n a cut but that a portion o f l ayer 2 d irectly a bove the hearth h ad e roded away downslope before the hearth was r ecovered with a r eformed A-Horizon. I f this w ere the case, it s eems unlikely that the vessel and hearth would have remained complete. This s cenario s till d oes not s olve t he problem, s ince, a s a precaution, the s oil i mmediately below the hearth was r emoved a nd i ts s herds s aved separately. T his material a lso contained L ate C lassic! I have no explanation f or this s ituation. This excavation and o thers, s uch a s TP 5 9 s uggest that the ceramic typology developed f or Nohmul remains somewhat problematic. The s implest explanation f or the hearth i s that t he striated jar i t holds l ooks e arlier, but r eally dates t o the L ate C lassic. Exactly the s ame s tratigraphic s ituation occurred i n TP 4 5 with a Monkey F alls S triated jar used as burial f urniture i n a grave cut through a L ate C lassic f loor. TP 7 6 i s d iscussed with nonplatform f eatures even though i t revealed a masonry construction retaining w all. T his decision was based on the e levation of TP 7 6, which i s downhill f rom the nonplatform f eatures i n TP 6 1.

3 04

Testpit

1 :

West Section

2 0c t o

3 05

Testpit 1 :

Harris Matrix

2 0

3 06

Testpit 2 :

East Section,

Harris Matrix

4 5

2 0cm

3 07

Testpit

3 :

West Section

. .

1 2 1 3

2 7

20ca i

308

Testpit 3 :

Harris Matrix

3 09

Testpit 4 :

West Section

2 0c r i

3 10

Testpit 4 :

Harris Matrix

n a a a a i

a a a f i n C

I D I E i l

3 G U I I I

3 11

Testpit

5 :

Harris Matrix

n n a

312

Testpit 6 :

North Section and Harris Matrix

2 0cr i

3 13

Testpit 7 :

East Section

2 0cm

3 14

Testpit 7 :

Harris Matrix

-

14

3 15

1 2

••• •0

1 0cm

Testpit 8 :

2 0

North Section

3 16

Testpit 8 :

Harris Matrix

317

Testpit 9 :

North Section and Harris Matrix

1 CZ /

C 2 ,

C > ,

5 6 1ücr ,

3 18

Testpit

1 0:

North Section

2 0

3 19

Testpit

1 1:

Harris Matrix

u m a a 0 0 0 U a I C 3 1

r a I E 5 : 1

5 3 5 3 5 1 J I E I C

3 20

Testpit

1 1:

East Section

1

1 8

1 9

l Oc i n

3 21

Testpit

1 0:

Harris Matrix

a m 1 1

E l I M I 1 5

1 6

1 8

-

ä 19

3 22

Testpit

1 2:

North Section

1 0e n

3 23

Testpit

1 2:

Harris Matrix

a a a c i a

3 24

Testpit

1 3:

North Section and Harris Matrix

1 •

• a 2

c D

• Z ,0

3

•

0

• 0 5

3 25

Testpit

. Z 1 1

1 4:

.

North Section

2

3 1

4

7

1 0

1 2 3 1 2 1 9

& 1 4

20

1 3

1 5 1 7 1 8

10ca l

3 26

Testpit

1 4:

Harris Matrix

3

3 27

Testpit

1 5:

North Section

3 28

Testpit

15:

Harris Matrix

n a a a a

3 29

Testpit

1 6:

North Section and Harris Matrix

1

2 l Ocr i

3 30

Testpit

1 7:

West Section and Harris Matrix

1

3

5

6 l Oc i n

3 31

Testpit

1 8:

West Section

1

2 0

1

8

1 3

20 1 8

10cm

3 32

Testpit

1 8:

Harris Matrix

E D

I n

O n

I n

3 33

Testpit

1 9:

North Section and Harris Matrix

n n n 1 3

1

2

b

F r

a •'

C l2 :3

pi . . . _ : _ _ _

_ _ • _ _ _ ___ _. 4 1 0cm

3 34

Testpit

2 0:

North Section and Harris Matrix

E t E i

1 0cm

3 35

Testpit

2 1:

North Section

l Oc i n

3 36

Testpit

2 1:

Harris Matrix

I E l 1 3

3 37

Testpit

2 2:

West Section

2 3

4

1

1 3

1 4

1 5

2 4

4 ,2 3

1 7

1 ' )

3 38

Testpit

2 2:

Harris Matrix

i i a a a a a a a m m m m m m 1 1 5 2

3 39

Testpit 2 3:

North Section

1

2

3

6 .. •. 5.' ..

9

1 0

1

1

1 3

3 40

Testpit 2 3:

Harris Matrix

n r i a a n n a n a 1 0

I n I E t r i

3 41

Testpit

2 4:

North Section

1 0cm

3 42

Testpit 2 4:

Harris Matrix

8

I0

3 1

M E 5 1 5 3 I D 5 3

3 43

Testpit 2 5:

South Section and Harris Matrix

1 0cm

3 44

Testpit 2 6:

West Section

1

3

0

C>

0# 0 Ai

CD