sleeping next to the giant - School of Natural Sciences

SLEEPING NEXT TO THE GIANT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
LAS CUEVAS SITE,
CHIQUIBUL RESERVE, BELIZE
A SITE REPORT OF THE 2011 FIELD SEASON
By
Holley Moyes, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Merced, California
Mark Robinson, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge
Laura Kosakowsky, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson
Barbara Voorhies, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara
Rafael Guerra, Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize
Fabrizio Galleazi, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Merced, California
and
Josue Ramos, Galen University, Belize
Submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History,
Belmopan, Belize
April 16, 2011
Introduction
Preliminary investigations began in the summer of 2011 at the site of the Las Cuevas
located at the Las Cuevas Research Station in the Chiquibul Reserve in western Belize.
Originally referred to as "Awe Caves," it is a medium-sized center, likely dating to the end of
the Late Classic period, consisting of a number of buildings including temples, range
structures, a ballcourt, and long linear structures that at first glance appear to be sacbes or
causeways, but do not appear to function as such. On the surface it seems to be typical of
many other Late Classic sites found in Belize such as Baking Pot, Floral Park, Blackman
Eddy or Minanha (Iannone 2004). However, this site has something that these other sites do
not—a large cave system that runs directly beneath the main plaza. The cave entrance sits
directly below the eastern pyramid, which is significant because in Maya site plans, eastern
pyramids are typically ritual structures used for ancestral burials.The cave entrance chamber
is massive, cathedral-like, and architecturally modified. At the center of the room is a sinkhole
with a natural spring. Platforms and stairways surround the sinkhole and are stepped upward
creating an amphitheater-like space, suggesting that the cave was used for large and wellorganized ceremonies and that could be viewed by large numbers of participants.
The cave also has an extensive dark zone tunnel system that runs directly beneath the
site core. The opening of the cave is at the base of a large natural depression. The surface site
is located on top of the cave and surrounds the depression. While it is not unusual for Maya
sites to be directly associated with caves, we rarely see such a direct connection, or such an
extensive tunnel system beneath a site core (Moyes and Brady, in press). Not only this, but
there is a cenote with a natural spring at its base located just inside the cave's entrance. The
cenote is ringed by architectural constructions including terraces, stairways,walls, and
plastered platforms.
To understand the importance of the layout of this site, one has to comprehend the
ancient Maya cosmology and sacred geography that consists of a mountain/cave/water
complex. To the Maya, the landscape is at the heart of their cosmology. It is sacred and
animate and must be acknowledged and honored (Brady and Ashmore 1999:126). In manyof
their constructions, the Maya refer to and replicate the sacred landscape, constructing temples
that represent mountains and rooms at their summits to replicate sacred caves (Vogt and
Stuart 2005). Natural caves are the most sacred cosmological features, particularly those that
contain life-giving water. They are considered to be entrances to the Underworld and the
home of deities associated with fertility, rain, and the sacred earth. This helps explain why
natural caves were and continue to be used exclusively as ritual spaces among the Maya
(Christenson 2008; Prufer and Brady 2005; Moyes and Brady 2012). As a path to power,
ancient Maya rulers linked themselves to cosmological forces, ideologically or quite literally
by coopting the natural landscape through cave ritual or creating artificial caves in their site
constructions (Brady and Veni 1992;Moyes 2006; Moyes et al. 2009). So, we can appreciate
the cosmological symbolism inherent in the Las Cuevas site layout and its evident importance
in Late Classic ritual life.
By understandingthe temporal dynamics and practices of cave ritual itis then possible
to explore the ritual life of the larger community. At Las Cuevas we have an opportunity to
investigate ritual performance at the end of the Late Classic period, just prior to the site’s
abandonment. This single case study provides insight into the process of societal collapse and
illustrates how ritual performance may have been one of the strategies implemented by elites
or lesser elites to encourage social cohesion during times of stress. Elsewhere, Moyes and her
colleagues (2009) suggested that cave use in Western Belize dating to this period constituted a
Late Classic drought cult undertaken by lesser elites as a response to weakening apical elite
power and hegemony. The erection of a massive ritual complex at Las Cuevas may also be
part of the story of how people reacted to a crumbling traditional political system.
Las Cuevas was first investigated in 1958 during a seven-week field season by British
archaeologist Adrian Digby and then Commissioner of the Belize Department of Archaeology
A. H. Anderson, but has received no further attention until our 2011 project. Yet it is one of
the closest centers to the mammoth polity of Caracol (Figure 1). Diane and Arlen Chase have
mapped, excavated and published on Caracol for upwards of 20 years, and have amassed a
significant body of data. However, despite its proximity to Caracol, very little is known about
Las Cuevas. Our investigations at the site were undertaken to better understand the
relationship of the two sites. We ultimately expect to be able to elucidate the nature of Maya
political organization in this area of west-central Belize.
Figure 1. DEM of Belize showing location of Las Cuevas.
In Moyes’ dissertation (2006) she maintained that caves are not just ritual spaces but
are also political tools used by elites to establish and maintain hegemony. Rituals conducted
in caves established ties to the land by propitiating earth-based deities, thus bolstering an
elite’s right to rule and solidifying his relationship with the local spirits of the land itself.
What has proved difficult for cave archaeologists to investigate is the nature of the political
organization in which caves operated. Through necessity, Moyes has argued her case through
general models but an intensive integrative case study aimed at this specific issue is necessary
to test the idea.
Work at Las Cuevas will take a “cave centric” approach in that we will try to
understand the role of the cave in the establishment of the site at this particular place in the
landscape and its consequent use over time. This begs the question—was the site established
by the Caracol elite and was the cave coopted by Caracol’s ruling elites or sub2
elites?Alternatively, was Cuevas established as an independent polity that oversaw an
important ceremonial site? These questions have implications for models of ancient Maya
political organization and particularly those proposed by the Chases for Caracol.
The Nature of Maya Political Organization
There is considerable debate among archaeologists regarding Classic Maya political
organization. Models that have been proposed include 1) centralized bureaucratic units
(unitary states), 2) decentralized (segmentary states), 3) galactic polities, or some combination
of these. Most archaeologists agree that the Classic Period Maya were ruled by divine kings,
so the debate focuses on the primacy of 1) the role of lineages, kinship, and factionalism, 2)
the role of bureaucracy or 3) the role of ideology, as the most salient features that structure
political organization.
Unitary states are those characterized by large, dense populations, social stratification,
bureaucracy, and differentiated economic activity (Fox et al. 1996: 797). This position is
argued strongly by Arlen and Diane Chase (1996) using data from the site of Caracol. They
contend that the archaeological record itself should be the primary data source as opposed to
imposing the ethnohistoric record on archaeological findings and their investigations support
this model.
Segmentary states are characterized by successively smaller and less powerful
replications of a core polity as onemoves outward from the capital. They tend to have unstable
peripheries that lead to the shrinking or expansion of states. These states arise from enduring
lineage alliances and factionalism, and have analogs among the Postclassic Maya. Lineage is
the most important organizational component and some lineages may be more important than
others. This model has been argued for by John Fox (1996) who applies it to the highland
Postclassic sites.
Fox and his colleagues(1996: 823) give consideration to the model of galactic polities
based on Southeast Asian kingships. Although the Asian polities are not organized along lines
of kinship, they resemble segmentary states in that there is hierarchical redundancy. The
galactic-polity model stresses the dependency of a state's unity on a leader's power,and on
theater-state ritual and ideology as opposed to infrastructural bureaucratic control.
Fox and his colleagues point out (1996:824) that there is no reason to think that all
Maya states were organized in exactly the same way, particularly over long historical
temporal periods and in different climatic and environmental zones. They suggest that
socio/political dynamics need to be investigated in different areas and that these may change
over time. The nature of political organization is a difficult question to approach and many
archaeologists avoid it altogether once they contemplate the enormity of the task and the
considerable disagreement among their peers. However, it is one of the questions worth
investigating because of its implications for the rise and subsequent collapse of eastern Maya
Lowland political systems.
Considering the competing proposed frameworks for Maya political organization,
investigation of small or mid-sized sites along the Caracol periphery would be expected to
provide pertinent information regarding Caracol's relationship to its neighbors and potentially
introduce new data for evaluating the area's political organization. Joyce Marcus (1993:170)
argues that not only is such a regional approach necessary but a pan-Lowland view is needed
to really understand political dynamics.
3
The Chases offer rigorous archaeological evidence to address the issue for the site of
Caracol, but do not present a regional picture. Perhaps their emphasis on central authority, and
the argument that the polity appears to have well-defined geographic boundaries, suggests to
them that it is politically well-bounded. However Caracol does have some very close
neighbors. The nearby site of Mountain Cow (Hatzcap Ceel) has clear and specific
connections to Caracol, particularly in the Late Classic period. John Morris (2004) argues that
the site was initially independent but was later coopted by Caracol during this later time
period. This is evidenced by a sacbeor road leading from Caracol to Mountain Cow and the
presence of a stela that boasts the Caracol emblem glyph. Caracol’s relationship to its other
near neighbors is less clear. Caledonia, another near neighbor investigated by Jaime Awe
(1985) appears to be an independent site. In a rare mention of Caledonia,the Chases refer to it
as a "…noncauseway-connected lower-tier site…" (Chase and Chase 1996:808).However, it
is never integrated into their models of political organization though clearly they acknowledge
a close connection.
Las Cuevas is located a mere 4 kilometers from the eastern terminus of a Caracol
causeway. According to Arlen Chase (Chase and Chase 2001; Arlen Chase personal
communication 2010) who has access to a LIDAR image for Caracol and its immediate
surroundings, no causeway leads to Cuevas. Additionally, no stelae have been located at the
site that would directly tie it to the Caracol polity. This suggests that the site is not wellintegrated into the Caracol political system, though it is unimaginable that there would not be
some sort of relationship to its larger neighbor. But, what it that relationship? We cannot
satisfactorily understand the nature of Las Cuevas, its temporal and spatial characteristics,
without understanding its relationship to Caracol. Data that we collected during the 2011 field
season began to address this issue through chronology building, excavation and mapping.
Modeling Connectivity- 3-Year Plan
We planned to investigate connectivity between Las Cuevas and Caracol by comparing
architectural layouts, ceramic assemblages, chronology, ritual practices and settlement
patterning between the sites. Chronology is one of the most important facets of the program,
so it was important to discover when the area around Las Cuevas was initially settled, when
constructions of monumental architecture commenced, when the architectural modifications
to the cave took place, and when the cave received its first and last use. One would expect to
find building programs to be contemporaneous at both sites if they were intricately politically
linked.
Mapping was expected to provide information regarding the site layout so that it could
be compared to architectural layouts at Caracol. If the two sites were closely related, we might
expect to find similarities between cotemporary site core,or even terminus structure layouts at
the two sites. Additionally, the Chases argue that plazuela groups from Caracol are quite
unique. These are groups of small structures, typically arranged around a patio (A. Chase
2004:142; Chase and Chase 2004:142).
Future settlement survey is expected to assess the landscape in the area between
Caracol and Las Cuevas. If Las Cuevas is an independent socio/political unit, we might
expect to find both settlement dropoff and unused space between it and the eastern terminus
group at Caracol. Alternatively the entire area may be characterized by terraced, agricultural
fields, suggesting continuity between the sites. Extensive survey and Lidar mapping at
4
Caracol has not produced any evidence to suggest that the sites are connected by causeways
(Chase and Chase 2001; Arlen Chase personal communication 2010), though none of the
investigations has extended all the way to Las Cuevas. Four kilometers separates the end of
the Caracol surveys with Las Cuevas. This is the area of interest for future settlement work
and Lidar survey.
Excavations conducted in both the cave and surface contexts are expected to produce
datable material, ceramics, and possibly ritual caches or tombs. We proposed an extensive and
rigorous program of radiocarbon dating and chronology building to understand when the site
was occupied, when construction phases occurred, and when it was abandoned. Linking these
data to those recorded at Caracol provides some of the best evidence for connections or
independence between the two sites. One would expect that Las Cuevas' fortunes should
mirror those of Caracol if their connection is strong, whereas they should be opposed if the
connections are weak or possibly hostile. We know from Maya epigraphy that smaller polities
associated with larger states can break free of their influences from time to time, such as the
situation between Copan and Quirigua when the king of Copan was beheaded by his
neighboring vassal state in the Late Classic period (Martin and Grube 2000:205).
Relationships between neighbors are not always friendly.
Comparisons of excavated materials, particularly of ceramic assemblages between Las
Cuevas and Caracol are expected to be informative. Similar assemblages would be expected if
connections were close. However, if unexpected types are found, it could suggest that Las
Cuevas was engaged in trade networks different from those at Caracol and therefore, looser
connections to the larger site. This could also change over time, suggested changing political
alliances.
Excavations that produced ritual caches or tombs are expected to provide excellent
comparative data. Not only would the ceramics contained within a burial or cache be
indicative of connections or ethnic affiliations, but the Chases(A. Chase 2004:142; Chase and
Chase 2004:142) suggest that there are specific identity markers associated with Caracol,
which include cache vases with faces on them and small bowls containing finger bones.
Burials covered by large numbers of eccentric cherts are not found at Caracol but are better
indicators of Belize Valley burial practices, whereas eccentric obsidian blades are expected at
Caracol. No doubt there are other indicators as well.
Cave use provides direct archaeological evidence for the duration and character of the
ritual life of a Maya community (Moyes 2006a, 2006b; Prufer and Moyes in press). In karstic
areas almost all Maya sites are associated with nearby ritual caves, but the few caves located
near Caracol's site core produced little evidence of usage (Feld 1994; Ishihara 2003). This is
highly unusual for a site of Caracol's size and importance. Emblem glyphs present at the
magnificent Naj Tunich Cave located in Guatemala,approximately 50km distant,indicate that
the rulers of Caracol visited this site on pilgrimages but models of ancient cave use suggest
that there should be a local cave or cave(s) closer to the site core. Because of its close
proximity and clearly elite use as evidenced by the construction of monumental architecture in
the cave, it is possible that Las Cuevas was the local ritual venue for the rulers of Caracol,
though there is no epigraphic evidence to confirm this. However, connections may be made
via ritual caching and similarities in the ceramic assemblages. The Chases (A. Chase
2004:142; Chase and Chase 2004:142) have noted that ritual caches at Caracol have
distinctive characteristics, particular the use of bowls with skeletal remains of fingers placed
in them and the use of "face" caches placed in special ceramic containers. Although these
5
were not specifically found in caves, there could possibly be linkages if not in the cave then in
surface contexts.
While it will not be possible to address all of these issues in the first field season,our
goals can reasonably be met within a three year plan.In this 2011 season, we began basic
chronology building, bracketed the dates of cave use, mapped the site core architecture, began
the cave map, and conducted reconnaissance of the immediate surrounding area.
History of theLas Cuevas Site
As mentioned above, Las Cuevas has received little investigation, but there has been
one notable project. In 1957, working for the British Museum, Adrian Digby (1958)and then
Commissioner of the Belize Department of Archaeology A. H. Anderson conducted
excavations at the site and produced a sketch map (Figure 2). Digby wrote a brief articlefor
the London Newsdescribing his excavations, and Anderson mentions a 1938 visit to Las
Cuevas in his 1962 paper for the International Congress of Americanists. No other reports
have been located, but some of Digby's correspondence, as well as his artifact collections, are
housed in the British museum, though they are currently not accessioned (Marieka Arksey,
British Museum, personal communication 2010).
Figure 2. Sketch map created by Adrian Digby (1958)
According to Digby’s letters, due to disagreements with Anderson, the site was
divided. Anderson worked on the surface contexts and Digby worked in the cave. Anderson
cleared and mapped the site (although Digby published the map) and conducted one
excavation in Structure 2. In his London Times article, Digby reported the presence of seven
6
structures including temples, a ball court, a residential structure and several long platforms or
possibly roadways. The "long low banks of stonework" consisted of two tiers, suggesting to
him that they are "viewing stands" for the plaza. This interpretation is quite unusual, though
not impossible. He does not report finding stela but did find three round uncarved "altars."
The largest temple (Structure 1) was reported to be positioned directly on top of the entrance
to an extensive cave system. A small structure (Stucture 2) to the west of Structure 1 was
excavated by Anderson. He noted that a four stone hearth and Late Classic or Postclassic
incensario sat atop the structure on the surface.A trench was excavated into this structure but
there is no mention of his findings, other than to say that the building was "unusual."
Digby considered the cave entrance to be “cathedral-like.” Near the entrance were
what were assumed to be ancient stone stairs that descended into a sinkhole with an active
natural spring at the bottom. "Three platforms with dry stone pediments" (Digby 1958:274)
surrounded the sinkhole and assorted walls and plastered floors were noted. According to
Digby the cave floor was strewn with "broken urns and bowls." I assume that these "urns" are
in fact jars or ollas found in virtually every Late Classic Maya cave site.
Digby excavated one of these platforms where he reported cutting through the plaster
floor. He noted that a thick layer of ash covered the floor, and brown earth mixed with
charcoal,and a red clay wasobserved below the plaster before encountering bedrock. He
considered the pottery sherds found in the excavation to be Late Classic in age. He also
removed a burned cylinder vase that he interpreted as a cooking vessel. Archaeologists of this
era typically assumed that cave deposits were habitational and interpreted their assemblages
as such (Brady and Prufer 1995), although Digby did recognize the importance of ritual
performance in the cave as evidenced by the numerous platforms.
Digby described other artifacts from the excavation, such as shell and bone jewelry,
grinding stones, a spindle whorl, awls, and bone needles. He went on to puzzle over why the
variation was so limited and interpreted these objects as utilitarian household goods of
"impoverished" people. These are in fact quite typical items found in various cave
assemblages and are reminiscent of the artifact collection excavated from the terraces at
Actun Chapat in the Macal Valley (Ferguson 2000). He also reported finding incensario lids
similar to those reported from nearby Actun Cabal in the Chiquibul cave system (McNatt
1996), and noted the presence of a jar containing ash. He interpreted this as burned bone and
made the assumption that it contained a human cremation. Cremation burials are not unusual
in the Maya highlands, but they are quite unusual in Belize. The find lead Digby to speculate
thatin future excavations, more human remains would be found, and provided the basis for the
sub-title of his article-- An Underground Necropolis Revealed.
We were able to confirm many of Digby's observations, though his interpretations are
subject to revision. Both the surface and cave architecture reported by Digby could be readily
relocated. The surface architecture included the seven structures described by Digby and
additionally, an aguada or water hole in the western area of the site. Thepair of "long low
banks of stonework" interpreted as"reviewing benches" were also apparent, and an additional
similar structure that appeared to lead from the archaeological site into the research station
yard is now clearly visible.
Digby's descriptions of the cave architecture were fairly accurate and one does find a
huge sinkhole or cenote with a natural spring at the base that is still flowing. In fact, the
spring is providing the water for the research station today. Unfortunately, the plethora of
ceramics noted by Digby is no longer observable. Digby reported the presence of large bowls
7
and "urns" (jars), andtoday, there are indeed surface scatters of ceramic sherds both in the
entrance and throughout the tunnel system, but these are fragmentary and would not be
described as intact.
2011 Investigations
The first season of the Las Cuevas Archaeological Reconnaissance consisted of a fiveweek field seasonbeginning in May of 2011 and culminating on June 26th. The project
includedsurvey and mapping of the surface site and cave, excavations and reconnaissance of
nearby landscape features and sites. Beginning in May the surface site was cleared, and
mapping began in early June. Our goal was to produce a map of the architecture and
topography. We also planned to produce a planview map of the cave as well as a profile of the
tunnel system with the goal of eventually producing a three dimensional map to illustrate the
relationship between the site core and the cave beneath. Thearchitecture and topography of
the surface site was surveyed,and the data were displayed and organized using a Geographic
Information System. Justine Issavi and Lauren Phillips produced maps and profile drawings
for the project.
We conducted excavations both on the surface site and within the cave. Eight test units
were placed in surface contexts and a trench spanning the ballcourt was selectively excavated.
Anderson’s trench in Structure 2 was relocated and profiled. Two test units and nine shovel
test pits placed in the cave were important in locating sub-surface deposits and buried
features.
Plaster samples and background data (bedrock samples) were collected from both the
cave and surface contexts for use in a study of ancient plasters. The project is designed to
investigate the geochemical and physical properties of prepared plaster. In many instances, it
is difficult to determine if plaster is present at surface sites since it often does not preserve
well. Additionally, wet soils in the tropics do not encourage preservation so that plaster
remnants may be ephemeral. Because plaster is composed primarily of burned limestone, to
the naked eye limestone pebbles and cobbles altered by natural forest fires can also mimic
disintegrating plaster. The plaster project plans to investigate the makeup and processing of
ancient plasters and to determine if they changed through time. It will also investigate whether
there are “high” and “low” quality plasters. At Las Cuevas we would like to know whether
plasters from the cave and surface contexts were produced using identical methods and
whether what we suspect are ephemeral remnant plasters found in surface contexts are in fact
from prepared plasters, as opposed to naturally burned limestone.
Mapping Surveys
During the course of the 2011 field season of the Las Cuevas Archaeological Reconnaissance
Project commenced survey of the site core and settlement area of the Las Cuevas site. The
purpose of the survey was to verify previous site core mapping done by Digby (1958, See
Figure 2) and to clearly define the site core area and settlement zone of the site. In addition
the survey served to tie in the surface site to the cave that lies directly below the center of the
site core.
Methods
8
For the purpose of the site core mapping two permanent site datums were established at the
edge of the cleared zone that encompasses the Las Cuevas Research Station grounds. These
monuments were setup at exactly five (5) meters apart , aligned to magnetic north, and labeled
as LCS0 and LCS 1 the latter being the northernmost datum. A GPS reading, using a
handheld GPS unit, was taken at the southernmost point. Using this point, the exact location
of LCS 1 was calculated by adding five (5) meters to the northing coordinate of LCS 0. This
process allowed for an overall error to be carried throughout the whole site survey.
Additional site datums include two concrete markers, placed at the northern and southern
footings, along the western support columns, of the main structure at the research center. Two
additional site datums were placed in Plaza A of the site core (LSC 8 and LSC 9). The
coordinates of these four (4) datums were established in relation to LCS 0 and LCS 1 (Table
1.0). Once the site core survey is closed and completed, the site map will be realigned to Grid
North using the Magnetic Declination at the time. This will also allow for the survey to be
later incorporated into a Geographical information system (GIS) Project for later settlement
analyses.For the 2011 season surveya Sokkia 650X 6" reflectorless total station on loan from
the University of California, Merced, and a GTS 230W Electronic Total Station on loan from
Lisa Lucero were used to conduct the site core mapping.
Site Core Survey
The surface site core consists of 19 buildings, including temples, a range structure, a
ball court, and linear structures arranged around a large dry sinkhole or cenote (Figure 3).
The structures are arranged on an east/west orientation around two open plazas: Plaza A and
Plaza B. A small plazuela group with an additional five structures arranged in a U-shape, sits
on a constructed platform about 85m west of Plaza A.
Figure 3 Plan view of the Las Cuevas Maya site as remapped in 2011.
9
Plaza A, located to the west of the cenote, consists of Structures 1-4. The eastern
structure measures 23m on its N/S axis and 19.5m E/W, and stands 8m in height. An apron
and possible stairway measuring 11m x 4.5m extends from the west side into the plaza. Its
western counterpart, Structure 4, measures 23m x 23m, and stands 10.6m in height, with a
central staircase facing the plaza. Structure 3, the northern range structure, measures 21.6m
E/W and 10.4m N/S with a height of 5m, and also has a central staircase that facing into the
plaza. Immediately to the east of Structure 3, is Structure 2--a small square 8m x 8m mound
and 1.4m in height. The mound adjoins the range structure by what appears on the surface to
be a cut stone walkway. The mound, constructed of dry-laid medium-sized boulders, is the
onepreviously excavated by A. H. Anderson and described as “unusual” (Digby 1958: 276).
It is unclear as to whether he discovered any artifacts within the structure, but as we
mentioned henoted that a four-stone hearth and sherds from an unslipped “spiked” vessel, that
we assume was an incensario was on top of the mound. Anderson’s excavation remained open
so we were able to clear the north wall, but we found no artifacts that allowed us to date the
structure or aid in establishing its function.
Bounding the south side of the plaza is a long, low, linear structure that stands
approximately 0.7m in height that Digby (1958) referred to as a “low bank.” There are a total
of 10 of these structures at the site, over half of which ring the south side of the cenote and
enclose Plaza B. Digby argued that these structures had a step facing the plaza, suggesting
that they were used as “viewing stands” for spectators watching events that occurred there. A
trench placed across the north end of Linear Structure 11, did in fact reveal a step on the
southwest side facing toward the ballcourt. Arlen Chase (2011 personal communication)
suggests that these structures may have been associated with market activities, and also notes
that in the Caracol site core, similar constructions may have been platforms used to support
perishable structures, possibly for housing soldiers.
The ballcourt sits to the west of the cenote, dividing Plaza A and Plaza B. It was built
atop a constructed platform that appears to level out the undulating natural landscape. The
platform measures approximately 50m x 50m and stands roughly 1 meter in height. The two
ballcourt structures, Structures 5 and 6, are orientated at 209˚ along the north-south axis with
a 5m wide alley separating them. Structure 5 measures 17.5m N/S x 9.3m E/W and 3m in
height. Structure 6, the eastern structure serves as the western boundary of Plaza B. It
measures 17.5m N/S x 12.9m E/W and 3m in height. A trench excavated across the ballcourt
revealed an inset staircase on the east side of Structure 6 that faces onto Plaza B.
Plaza B is bounded on the north by six linear structures that follow the curvature of the
cenote, and terminate to the east of Structure 1, on the surface above the cave’s mouth. Three
additional linear structures set parallel to these bound the south side of the plaza. Two 7m to
10m gaps between these three structures provide access to the site from the south and an
aguada is situated south of Linear Structure 18. Structure 7, a pyramidal construction,
measuring 29m N/S x 16m E/W and standing 4m in height, bounds the eastern side of the
plaza.
Transects
Two transects were cut through the tropical forest to serve as baselines for
investigating the area beyond the site core. Each transect commenced at Datum LSC-8, was
approximately 1 meter wide, and extended approximately 500 m. One transect was oriented
due north and the other due west from the datum (Figure 4).
10
Small subsurface tests were made at regular intervals along each of these main
transects. Each subsurface test unit was excavated using a post-hole digger, with a diameter of
30 cm. The subsurface tests were made at 20 m intervals starting from LSC-8 (Fig 6.0 and
7.0). These test units were made in order to identify any hidden structures that may be found
along each transect. For each test unit detailed notes were made about soil characteristics,
artifacts recovered and matrix composition. These data were assembled in a spread sheet
(Tables 2.0 and 3.0). Additionally each unit was recorded using a handheld GARMIN 76CSX
GPS unit for use in a Geographic Information System. In addition to the main transects, five
sub-transects, running north to south, were made along the west transect at 50 m intervals, in
order to identify possible structures west of the site core.
Figure 4. Map of Transects and Sub-transects with Test Units
North Transect
We dug 25 test units at 20 m intervals along the north transect to a depth of either
bedrock or the extent of the post-hole digger’s capabilities. With the exception of LSC-8,
which is located in Plaza A, no other test pit yielded archaeological material (Table 2.0). A
reconnaissance of the area did not identify any structures.
West Transect
We dug 25 test units at 20 m interval along the west transect, to a depth determined by
the capability of the post-hole digger or until bedrock was reached. A total of six
units(T.P.1,2,6,7,8 and 10) contained archaeological materials (Table 3.0). Reconnaissance in
the vicinity of the transect identified two parallel terraces that surrounded a small plazuela
group to the east of the main plaza but no other structures. As a result five sub-transects were
opened along the west transect.
11
Figure 5. Map showing sub-transects along the west transect
Sub Transects West
Five sub-transects were cut in a north-south direction along the western transect at intervals of
50 m (Fig 8.0). Each transect extended to 100 m north and south along the west transect, with
the exception of W.T. 1 that only extends to the south for 100 m. Reconnaissance along these
sub-transects did not identify any additional buildings.
Monkey Tail Site
Matthew Bols informed us of a large site between Las Cuevas and the Monkey Tail River. It
is about a one hour hike from Las Cuevas,four kilometers east on the Monkey Tail river road
(Figure 6).We initially referred to it as the Unnamed Site and later found out that it was
previously investigated by Arlen Chase and Brian Woodeye (personal comm. 2011) and is
registered as the Monkey Tail site. The survey team investigated the site and drew a sketch
map (Figure 7). The site consists of sixteen structures surrounding a single plaza. These
include a ballcourt, eastern, western and northern temples, a small structure located south of
the western structure, two linear structures that connect the ballcourt with the eastern
structure, and eight linear structures that enclose the plaza. Two excavation units were noted
by project members. One is located at the apex of Structure 1 and one abutts the center of the
west side.
Figure 6. Location of Monkey Tail Site (Unnamed).
12
Figure 7. Sketch map of Monkey Tail Site.
Cave Investigations
A large cave with an extensive dark zone tunnel system lies directly beneath Structure
1, and runs directly beneath Plaza A. Not only this, but located directly inside the cave's
cathedral-like entrance is an additional cenote with a natural spring at its base (Figure 8).
The cave mouth is massive, measuring 28m in width, and opens into a cathedral-like
entrance chamber measuring 108m in length and 40m in width that is heavily modified with
monumental architectural constructions such as terraces, retaining walls, stairs and platforms
covered with thick plaster. The cave’s cenote, measuring 32.4m in length x13m in width,is
ringed by a rectangular, cut stone retaining wall and stairs that lead down to the water at the
cenote bottom. A system of stairs and platforms ascend upward from the retaining wall to the
inner cave walls creating a raked amphitheater-like space. Fifty-two separate platforms, many
of which still have intact plaster floors, have been noted thus far in the entrance. One eroded
platform clearly exhibits two stages of plastering and in our excavations we encountered
additional constructions. The extensive constructions suggest that the cave was used for large
and well-organized ceremonies and that could be viewed by many participants.
At the rear of the Entrance Chamber a dry-laid wall with a constructed entryway
restricts the entrance to the cave’s tunnel system (See Figure 6 map). The tunnels form a loop
that comes back into the Entrance Chamber, opening into a window high on the southwest
wall, at an elevation approximately 15m above the cave floor. Charcoal covers the floor at
the lip of the window suggesting that in antiquity ceremonies or burnings occurred there that
would have been viewed from the chamber below.
13
Figure 8. Map of Las Cuevas Cave illustrating Entrance, Chambers 1, 2, and 3.
Mapping the Cave
The cave at Las Cuevas was originally mapped in 2003 by Moyes and a team of
cavers including Allen Cobb as the sketcher. Baselines were run throughout the site and data
were collected over a two day period using standard station to station methods practiced by
spelunkers. This involves sketching cave walls off of the baseline and estimating most wall
points. Cobb was given the raw data but he never produced the map. Therefore, it was
necessary to map the cave in 2011.
There were a number of considerations concerning the best methods to employ to
produce the map, one of which was the degree of accuracy. The Entrance Chamber was
particularly problematic because of its vast size and large amount of architectural
modification. Using traditional cave mapping techniques, multiple baselines would be
required to accurately map the site and long sightings would need to be taken to reach the
cave walls. Cavers also run into problems taking long sights because of the falloff of light
sources over long distances. Therefore, we elected to map the cave using a combination of
sketching and surveying with the Sokkia 6” Total Station, which was intended to increase our
accuracy and precision. While the original datums could still be located, we chose to set our
own datums based on where we were able to set up the Total Station. Sketching cave features
is a much faster method of working and many more features and much more detail can be
included in a sketch map given a limited amount of time. However, accuracy and precision
tend to suffer. Holley Moyes and Justine Issavi laid out baselines in the cave tunnels and then
sketched the cave features and the positions of archaeological units. The tunnels were
mapped and specific points were located in the cave (tics) using flagging tape, placed
approximately 10m apart. Datums at each end of the baseline, as well as the tic points were
later mapped with the total station. For each chamber these points were then used to
georeference the paper mapsin a GIS. This in effect “rubber sheeted” or distributed
14
discrepancies between the paper map and points collected with the total station over the entire
chamber to reduce error. To our delight, there was a very small error range of only 3 to 15 cm,
between the paper map and total station.
We chose to map the cathedral-like cave entrance with the Total Station. Though
caves are typically mapped only with tape and compass, the cave entrance contains extensive
architectural features, so we felt it would be important to map it with greater accuracy and
precision. We were able to complete a partial map of the space, as well as Chambers 1, 2, and
3.
Cave Shovel Test Pits
There were nine shovel test pits (STPs)placed in the cave, three in the entrance, one in
the first chamber, two in the second, two in the third, and one in the fourth chamber (Figure
8). We hoped to achieve an understanding of how deep the bedrock was and if any cultural
evidence could befound beneath the surface. The location of STPswere chosen by using a flag
pin of approximately 40 cm long as a probeto locate the deepest deposits. The average depth
of the STPs was 37.44 cm below surface floor of the cave. STP 1, located in the back of the
Entrance Chamber adjacent to the northeast wall, was very interesting because we collected
charcoal samples and ceramic sherds. A feature also appeared in the STP that appears to be a
posthole. In the future a large excavation unit will be placed in the area to determine if it is
indeed a posthole.
STP 2 had no features, but produced ceramic sherds and charcoal. STP 3 was placed in
the back of the Entrance Chamberalong the southern wall. The first 20 cm of the STP was
light brown silty clay,below which was a 3cm layer of brown silty clay. Below this clay layer
we encountered a plaster floorwith superficial burning. A bone was associated with the plaster
floor. The bone was retrieved and the STP was closed at 33 cm below surface. The other units
produced ceramic sherds and some carbon samples were collected. STPs 5 and 9 had no
cultural features.
15
Figure 8. Placement of shovel test pits 1-6 (map is unfinished).
Cave Excavations
Three small excavation units were placed in the cave. Unit 1 is located in the Entrance
Chamber, near the cave mouth; Unit 2 is located in Chamber 2 of the tunnel system, within
the dark zone; and Unit 3 is located in the back of the Entrance Chamber near the south wall
(Figure 9).
Figure 9. Map of Las Cuevas illustrating placement of Units 1, 2, and 3.
Cave Unit 1was excavated by Barbara Voorhies, Reem Yassine and Stacia Fine. The
objective of this excavation within the first chamber (closest to cave entrance) is to explore
16
the subsurface stratigraphy and to collect charcoal samples to be used to determine the
chronology of site formation within this chamber. Holley Moyes selected the location of the
unit, which is onthe eastern side of the stairs (See Figure 9). The unit was placed within a
rectangular area, approximately 3.75 x 1.80 m that was delimited by boulder-sized rocks on
three sides. The floor was carefully plastered within this area and was designated Platform 1.
The plaster floor has been removed in a suspiciously straight line along the north side (Is this
Digby’s excavation, perhaps?) and if there had been an alignment of rocks along this side they
have now been removed. The unit was placed in the SW quadrant of the architectural feature
so as to abut a very large rock on the northern wall of the unit. Unit dimensions: 1.2 m on the
N-S axis and 1 m on the E-W axis. We chose the SE corner for the datum because this is the
highest corner of the unit. We excavated in arbitrary levels of 10 cm within each stratum. It
was excavated to bedrock and the unit was backfilled.
A description of the site formation process follows and begins with the earliest
discernible event (Figure 9).
1)The stupendous cavern at Las Cuevas formed by solution within the karst
topography at some unknown time in the geologic past.
2) Subsequently, a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay began to form in the
interstices among the limestone bedrock floor of the cave. Presumably this stratum results
from the weathering of bat guano and limestone. During this process a long bone from an
unknown animal was deposited by nonhuman biotic agents. No evidence of human agents of
deposition was noted (i.e., there was no cultural material or charcoal particles).
3)Excavation of a small hole in the NE corner of the unit (Feature 5) with evidence of
burning on adjacent rocks. The hole is 15 cm in diameter and 16 cm deep. This feature
contains charcoal (CS 510). This may have been a ritual burning event during the first human
occupation of the cave as evident in our unit.
4)Accumulation of dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2) clay containing fine grain-sized particles
of limestone, pottery sherds and charcoal particles. This stratum also contains a small piece
of slate, a spherical pebble perhaps used formerly as a polishing stone, and a chert biface.
Humans were one agent of deposition responsible for the formation of this stratum. There is a
small lense of lime (?) and burned rocks within the stratum that is apparent on the south and
west sidewalls of the unit. It does not extend very far into the unit. This has been designated
Feature 6. Perhaps limestone was made here but the data are severely limited.
5)Deposition of flat-lying sherds on the upper contact of the dark brown clay stratum.
This was observed only in the area underlying Feature 2.
6) Formation of Feature 2, an activity surface found in the SW quadrant of the unit.
This is a compact surface of Pale Brown (10 YR 8/3) clayey loam about 4 cm thick. It
probably results from activity on its upper surface, which hardened the stratum. The stratum
was formed primarily by the natural processes of cave sediment deposition (bat guano,
limestone weathering), along with trampling by humans. The stratum contains abundant
small particles of charcoal, also a testament to torches being used in the cave for illumination.
7) Deposition of a stratum of Brown (7.5YR 6/2),sandy clay loam with very fine
particles in the matrix, this stratum was formed by biotic, geologic and cultural processes
(evidenced by charcoal and sherds). This stratum contains the highest frequency of sherds, as
well as wood ash in varying frequencies throughout, and other evidence of burning such as
occasional burned limestone pebbles and cobbles.
17
8) Construction of prepared floor consisting of three discernible microstrata:a) layer of
cobble-sized rocks with matrix of loam and loose plaster particles, b) a layer of pebble-sized
rocks with the same matrix as the underlying cobble layer. These two layers constitute the
subfloor of the single construction event,and c) a final well constructed layer of fine plaster
with a level upper surface (upper contact) and a more irregular lower contact. The plaster
appears white but according to Munsell it is Pinkish White (7.5 YR 8/2).
9) Finally, above the plaster a Brown (7.5 YR 6/2) sandy clay loam with inclusions of
mostly fine and very fine particles of limestone and fine flakes of charcoal. The main
constituents of the matrix are bat guano and limestone particles. A chert prismatic blade
fragment was found in this upper stratum. Diagnostic sherds dated to the Late part of the Late
Classic Period.
Figure 9. Profile drawing of Unit Cave Unit 1 drawn by B. Voorhies, digitized by H. L.
Phillips.
Cave Unit 2, which islocated in Chamber 2within the dark zone of the cave,was
excavated by Barbara Voorhies and Christine Clarkson (Figure 10). The unit was located in
an alcove that has a large imposing stalagmite positioned in front of the narrow passageway
that leads into the alcove from the direction of the cave’s entrance. Unit 2 (1 x 1m) was
located on the east side of a protruding rock that was surrounded by abundant flat-lying
sherds, suggesting that this might be a locus of ritual activity. This rock is adjacent to the
west sidewall of the unit, and is roughly triangular in appearance when viewed from the
entrance (the east side). It stands about 45 cm above the present day surface. A few
centimeters from the base on the side facing the entrance there is a natural hole, with a slight
linear depression descending downwards.
A pin flag probe suggested a deep deposit in this location. We chose the spot because
of the abundant surface sherds, the evidence of a deep deposit, and the presence of the
protuberant stone. The cave ceiling directly over the unit is non-active and bulbous in texture.
Slight water seepage in this location. Just south of the unit is an area with active soda straws.
The datum was set at SW corner of the unit.The 1 x 1m unit was excavated in both
natural (cultural) and arbitrary levels. That is, excavators used 10 cm arbitrary levels within
18
each cultural/natural stratum. At approximately30 cm in depth we reduced the unit size to .40
x .40 m in the SW corner. This is referred to as the subunit on theproject forms. Maximum
excavation depth was 50cm in SW corner of the unit (i.e., in the subunit). Plans were drawn
and unit was photographed at the conclusion of each level. The entire excavation was scanned
(see below).
The sequence of formation in chronological order from early to lateis reported as
follows. Stratum 6 and Stratum 5 consist of clay matrices that vary from Dark Brown (7.5
Y/R 3/4; Level 5) to Brown (7.5 YR 4/4; Level 6). Stratum 6 is culturally sterile. In places
near its upper contact it has become stained post depositionally due to leaching from the
overlying charcoal rich stratum. The dark stain is Dark Brown (7.5YR 3/3) and occurs in
places as lenses but has also followed dessication cracks, producing some thin vertical lines
that are shown on the unit profile. We call this Stratum 5. The stain obviously was produced
after the deposition of the overlying stratum. (This is the lowest stratum of the excavation. It
may have formed directly on bedrock but this has not been established with certainty).
Stratum 3 and Stratum 4 involved the deposition of a charcoal-rich stratum of Black
(5YR 2.5/1) clayey loam (Stratum 3) along with Feature 1 (Stratum 4), that is Very Dark Gray
(5YR 3/1) in color. Stratum 3 is compact, has abundant sherds, and charcoal. Feature 1 is a
shallow depression where a thermal event took place (fire basin). The feature is lined with
several large, flat-lying pottery sherds, with abundant charcoal on their upper surfaces. This
feature abuts the protruding rock and is interpreted as a ritual burning associated with the
stone. Stratum 3A is a thin lense of compact, hardened gritty sediment that is found only in
the northern portion of the unit. It is Pink (7.5 YR 8/3) with sand-sized particles. This is
clearly an activity level that is probably coeval with the deposition of the charcoal rich layer
but possibly could be earlier.
Figure 10. Profile of Cave Unit 2, north and west walls. DrawnB. Voorhies, digitized by
H. L. Phillips.
Stratum 2 is a Reddish Brown (2.5 YR 4/4) clay. It contained sherds and charcoal but
fewer than in the underlying strata (Stratum 3 and Stratum 4).Stratum 1 is a Dark Reddish
Gray (5YR 4/2) clayey loam at the present day surface of the cave deposit. The surface had
abundant flat-lying sherds, a few small cobbles, and a couple of small soda straw fragments,
as well as charcoal flecks. It was very disturbed due to present day trampling. All diagnostic
19
ceramics belonged to the Tepeu 2/Spanish Lookout Ceramic Complex pertaining to the Late
Classic Period (A.D. 700-900).
Cave Unit 3, located in the rear of the Entrance Chamber in the twilight zone, was
excavated by Barbara Voorhies and Mark Kyle (Figure 11). The location was chosen to
incorporate Shovel Test Pit 3 that had revealed a buried plaster floor and associated scapula.
The 1 x 1 m unit was oriented so that a protruding large rock was aligned with the north side
of the unit, rather than aligning it with STP 3 (cardinal directions). This was because it
appeared possible that the rock marked an edge of a platform indicated by an alignment of
standing rocks adjacent to the north wall of the unit. Ultimately, the solitary rock and the rock
alignment may not be associated at all but this was not clear at the start of excavation. The
unit datum was located in the NW corner, which is the highest of the four unit corners. The
unit was reduced in size to .70 x .30 m at around 30 cmbd (Level 6). This subunit runs N-S
and is adjacent to the unit’s east wall. Our maximum depth of excavation is approximately50
cm—but this depth was reached only in the subunit. We did not reach the bottom of sediment
in this location due to time constraints. A pin flag probe suggests that there is about 30 cm
below the 50 cm excavation bottom where sediment occurs. However, the lowest 10 cm
excavated appears sterile. The unit was covered with a tarp before backfilling so that we may
uncover it easily next season so that we can use it as a control unit in continued excavations.
The depositional sequence from early to late is as follows:
 After the deposition of unknown sediment in this location (unexcavated), an apparently
thin crust of calcite formed, including a rimstone dam located at the southern end of the
subunit. The bottom of Level 9 is the upper contact of this natural stratum and its
thickness is only speculative.
 A dark reddish brown heavy clay was deposited apparently by fluvial action. This stratum
has almost no cultural material and I believe that it formed exclusively by geologic
processes. However, we found and collected three charcoal fragments (CS 566, CS 567,
CS 568) and one sherd (110572). I interpret these as SECONDARY in deposition. (They
do provide evidence that people were somewhere in the cave dropping stuff at the time of
the fluvial deposit.) This stratum is approx. 10 cm thick.
 This was followed by a stratum of dark gray clay with ash and abundant particles of
charcoal, as well as some sherds. It extends over the entire unit. The base of a broken
groundstone object rests within this layer. It was not collected or accessioned because it
remains in the east wall of the subunit at its south end. It appears to be a broken metate.
On the eastern side of the unit there is a distinct concentration of ash ringed by an
abundance of charcoal (Figure 12). This feature was not given a feature number and was
not associated with any cultural material. Eventually it became apparent that this could be
designated a fire pit. A mammalian scapula was recovered in this stratum in STP 3. It
came from just under the floor as evidenced by both the photo of the shovel test pit and
the brown clay matrix still clinging to the scapula.
 Construction of floor.
o The architects began this construction by laying down a layer of cobbles in an
area between a N-S alignment of granite (?) waterworn boulders and a parallel
alignment of thick slate slabs. This subfloor also included two pieces of a
broken mano (ll0564) reused for construction.
20


o Plaster was then poured over this prepared subfloor, as well as east of the slate
slabs (the slabs are covered with plaster), but NOT west of the alignment of
boulders, which clearly were used to provide an edge to the plaster floor.
o During the first plaster pour a bone tool was placed in the wet plaster at the
north end of the slate slab alignment and just above it. Simultaneously, a
vessel or part of it and a small boulder were jammed into the plaster
immediately east of the bone tool. This boulder was not directly above the
bone tool but only a few centimeters to the north of it and at a higher level.
o Second pour. This is visible only at the east side of the unit where there is a
clear bedding plane between the two plaster layers (i.e., the area without
cobbles). Only one layer of plaster is present in the area between the two
parallel rock alignments. It would appear that little time transpired between
the two pours as there is no evidence of accumulation of cultural material on
the contact between them (or else the lower one was swept clean). Near the
NE corner of the unit there is a circular feature that seems to be a mold for a
circular post with a diameter of approx. 10 cm. It penetrates the upper and
lower plaster layers.
Directly on top of the plaster there is a layer of flat-lying sherds with abundant charcoal.
It is as though when the floor was abandoned, ritual burning and vessel smashing may
have been a termination event, or this may have been a part of regular floor use. Burning
is heaviest on the eastern side of the unit and when we had a good cross section on the east
wall, it seems clear that a fire pit was present on the east side. Thus we have evidence of
two thermal events in the same location but at different levels—one prior to the
construction of the floor and the other after it.
After the terminal use of the floor about 25 cm of fluvial clay with varves accumulated.
This is a sterile deposit. Interestingly, there are lateLate Classic sherds on the surface
close to the location of this unit but tucked under the overhang south of the unit. There
were no sherds on the surface at the unit location. This would suggest that during the late
Late Classic water was flowing in the area of the unit and depositing sediment, at the same
time humans were depositing potsherds elsewhere, but nearby.
Figure 11. Unit 3, rear of cave entrance, south and west wall profiles. Drawn by B. Voorhies,
digitized by H. L. Phillips.
21
Fig
gure 12. Cavee Unit 3, Levvel 6 illustraates cultural features.
Surface Siite Excavatiions
T excavations of the suurface site were
Test
w initiatedd to aid in buuilding chronnology, definne
architectuural featuress, and determ
mine the deptth to bedrockk.A total of 8 units weree excavated
throughoout the site co
ore. Unit 3 was
w a trench across the ballcourt
b
(See Figure 3).
Unit 1 – Training Exercise
U 1 was a 5m x1m testt unit,supervvised by Dr Barbara
Unit
B
Vooorhies,withinn the open
area of thhe research station
s
as a trraining exerrcise for undeergraduate students
s
in esstablishing a
unit and recording
r
daata. The unitt was placed adjacent to the south ennd of Structuure 8 to assesss
if the hum
mic layer con
ntained artiffacts. Surface collection recovered tw
wo non-diaggnostic
ceramic sherds.
s
The top
t grass layyer was remooved to a change in matrrix to small pebbles
p
inbeddedd in a silty cllay matrix suuggesting thiis area may have
h
floodedd on occasioon. With the
training exercise
e
com
mplete, the exxcavation was closed to focus activities on achieeving the
primary goals
g
of the research prooject.
C
Unit 2 – Ballcourt Centre
A 1 x 1m unitt was laid ouut in the centtre of the ballcourt and aligned
a
with the ballcourrt
orientatioon. The balllcourt consissts of two paarallels structtures, with thhe long axis running
north-souuth, labelled Structure 5 and Structurre 6 (west annd east struccture respectiively) by
A.H. Andderson. The ballcourt is built atop a constructed platform thaat can be seeen to the souuth
and westt and appearss to functionn to level outt the undulatting natural landscape.
l
T centre off
The
the ballcoourt was dettermined bassed on measuurement of thhe two ballccourt structurres and
orientated at 209˚, along the nortth-south axiss, parallel wiith the orienttation of the structures.
Recent trree growth dominates
d
thee unit, causinng extensivee root intrusiion throughoout the unit.
T primary purpose
The
p
of thhe unit was to
t locate a possible
p
central dedicatorry cache or
ballcourtt marker to aid
a in understanding material culturee, chronologyy, ceremoniaal activities
and possiible ties to other
o
urban centres.
c
A secondary goaal was to undderstand the stratigraphicc
constructtion history of
o the ballcoourt playing alley and itss relationshipp to the consstructed
platform on which th
he ballcourt was
w built. Work
W
on the unit
u was supeervised by Mark
M
Robinsonn and the maajority of thee excavation was compleeted by Chrisstine Clarksoon and
Makennaa Chambers. All levels were
w dry scrreened with ¼ inch screeen.
22
The top 11 cm of the unit is a very dark brown humic layer (10YR 2/2) containing
roots, some angular pebbles, and three ceramic sherds, one of which can be attributed to the
Classic period. A large root running from the middle of the south end of the unit towards the
north-west corner is present through all levels and causes considerable disturbance. The next
7.5 cm consists of loose very dark brown clay (7.5YR 2.5/2) with marl, a few cobbles, and
two ceramic sherds. Extensive root disturbance is present. Small pebbles of angular, chalky
limestone are scattered throughout the bottom of the level, which appears to be a heavily
bioturbated level of recent soil accumulation. The next level consists of 9cm of loose, black
clay (5 YR 2.5/1) with plaster inclusions and and limestone fill, ranging in size from pebbles
to small cobbles. This level appears to be the transition zone between recent soil accumulation
and the remnants of a highly bioturbated plaster floor and includes two non-diagnostic sherds.
The next level (9cm) is the top of the construction fill for the ballcourt alley floor,
consisting of small and large pebbles and cobbles within very dark brown clay (7.5 YR 2.5/2).
Plaster fragments are also present. Two ceramic sherds, including a Classic Period
monochrome black Jar body are present. Floor construction continues for 10cm below this
with larger cobbles and small boulders forming the bulk of the floor construction. A few
pieces of slate were found in the northern end of the unit. Three ceramic sherds were
encountered including a late Late Classic Cayo Unslipped body sherd. The boulders of the
construction fill are positioned atop limestone bedrock. The bedrock is highly eroded and
resembles plaster in its physical characteristics. Excavation through the soft bedrock surface
to harder rock with quartzite inclusions confirmed the designation of bedrock (Figure 13).
In sum, the ballcourt alley reveals a single major phase of construction in which
gradated fill, from small boulders to small pebbles, were laid atop the natural bedrock to form
a flat playing alley. The surface of the alley appears to have been plastered. Few artifacts were
recovered during excavation. Of the 14 sherds encountered, one in level 4, the lowest level,
was diagnostic and can be attributed to the Cayo Unslipped ceramic group, dating the alley
construction to the Spanish Lookout/Tepeu II periods. All other sherds were non-diagnostic.
No cache or ballcourt marker was found.
Figure 13. Unit 2 completion, center of the ballcourt.
Unit 3 - Ballcourt Trench
A trench was laid across the ballcourt, perpendicular to the parallel structures that
form the ballcourt alley. Digby and Anderson numbered the structures 5 and 6, for the west
23
and east structures respectively. The ballcourt is close to cardinally aligned, with a bearing of
209° along the long axis. The purpose of the excavation was to determine the last construction
design of the ballcourt. The ballcourt is on an artificially constructed platform that appears to
create a level surface over the non-uniform natural topography. The two structures are
approximately the same height and length. Structure 6 is considerably wider than structure 5.
The eastern side of structure 6 appears to have an indented form in the centre, which
suggested a possible inset central staircase. A 1m wide trench was laid across the ballcourt,
aligned with the break in architecture on the eastern side of structure 6 to assess the
architectural form and reveal the actual nature of the architecture. The trench began 1m to the
west of the start of the platform and continued over the two ballcourt structures, ending 3m to
the east of the base of structure 6. To maintain context of any artefactual finds, the trench was
divided into 10 Sections that represent breaks in architectural form (Figure 14). The Sections
are numbered sequentially, beginning in the east. Section 1 is off the platform. Section 2 is on
the platform to the base of structure 5. Section 3 is the western side of structure 5. Section 4 is
the top of structure 5. Section 5 is the eastern side of structure 5. Section 6 is the playing
alley. Section 7 is the western side of structure 6. Section 8 is the top of structure 6. Section 9
is the eastern side of structure 6. Section 10 runs from the base of structure 6 for 3m.
Figure 14. Ballcourt trench (Unit 3) was divided into 10 Sections that represent breaks in
architectural form.
Three Sections were excavated: 5, 6, and 9. Sections were excavated, screened and
collected separately. All excavated material was dry screened using ¼ inch screens. The unit
was laid out by Mark Robinson, Lauren Phillips, and Julie Hoggarth. Excavations began in
Section 6, the ballcourt alley, and continued into Section 5 and Section 9.
Unit 3 – Ballcourt Trench - Section 6
Excavation of the ballcourt trench began on 5 June 2011, in Section 6, the ballcourt
alley. The excavation was supervised by Mark Robinson and excavated by Robinson, Lauren
Phillips and Justine Issavi. The goal of the excavation was to find the last playing surface and
to determine how the surface articulated with the architecture of the two ballcourt structures.
The excavation was guided by Unit 2, a 1x1m unit in the centre of the ballcourt that revealed
a plastered cobble floor above larger cobbles and small boulders atop bedrock.
24
Section 6 was excavated following natural/cultural levels. Two levels were excavated,
the surface and Level 1, which ended on the surface of the playing alley, as determined by the
presence of plaster fragments and a cobble fill layer. The surface level (2cm) is a humic layer
of decomposing organic material and recent leaf litter. No artifacts were encountered in the
surface level. Level 1 was a clay matrix with abundant root material (10YR 3/2, very dark
grayish brown). Two ceramics were collected from level 1 and lacked diagnostic form. Level
1 followed the ancient playing alley floor with an average thickness of 15cm. Plaster
fragments are present, but highly eroded. The level and the surface of the ancient playing
alley are highly disturbed by root action.
Unit 3 – Ballcourt Trench - Section 5
Section 5 covers the playing surface of the western structure (east side of structure 5).
The excavation was extended into Section 5 from Section 6 to uncover the architectural
construction of the ballcourt interior and to understand how the plaza floor articulates with the
structure. Section 5 was excavated by Mark Robinson and Lauren Phillips.
The excavation utilized the uncovered plaza floor of Section 6, tracing the floor
toward the structure with the aim of picking out the front edge of the structure. A large
amount of collapse was encountered that obscured the true edge of the structure. Defining the
front edge was further complicated as it appears that the structure was crudely made, without
a cut stone facing, making the distinction between collapse and in-situ structure difficult. Due
to the lack of clarity of the front of the structure, Section 5 was continued as a trench into the
structure to understand the internal construction and define the structure in the profiles. The
trench extended approximately 90cm into the structure, following the same level as the
playing alley. The internal construction of structure 5 consists of small to large boulders laid
as dry fill. The top of the construction fill is layered with small cobbles and then plastered to
create a flat and smooth playing surface. The playing surface is at an angle of approximately
28°.
A break in architectural line at the top of the playing surface hinted at a possible upper
bench. Removal of collapsed material to a distinct change in matrix to a continuous level of
small cobbles within a lighter clay matrix confirmed the presence of a flat upper bench, which
ended with a vertical back wall.
The profile reveals a complicated view of collapsed material and a lack of a definitive
front edge. However, a change between construction fill, collapsed material, and soil
accumulation in the plaza can be identified to within 20cm. The floor construction also
matches the profile view, with a change from the plastered cobbles of the playing alley, to the
boulders of construction fill. Deeper excavation is required to more fully understand the
relationship between the playing alley, structure 5, and the platform construction. The profile
reveals a playing alley of 5.5 – 6m wide. A short vertical rise of approximately 30cm, starts
the ballcourt structure. A 28° sloped playing surface ends in an upper bench that extends
approximately 1m to the vertical back wall, which rises approximately 1.5m. The top of the
ballcourt structures are flat, with no evidence of masonry superstructures.
Few artifacts were encountered in the excavation. Level 1 produced a single, faunal
bone, and a small number of ceramics. One jar rim was identified as a Cayo Unslipped, dating
to the late Late Classic period.
Unit 3 – Ballcourt Trench - Section 9
25
Section 9 is the eastern side of structure 6. Based on the change in surface elevation,
the structure side appeared to have an inset central staircase. Unit 3 was aligned to take into
account the break in architecture. Section 9 was expanded 1m to the south to create a 2m wide
unit to facilitate a clearer view of the architecture. The Section was excavated with the
objective of understanding the terminal architectural form. All material was screened with ¼
inch mesh. The excavation was supervised by Mark Robinson and excavated by Robinson,
Lauren Phillips, Makenna Chambers, and Reem Yassine.
The unit was excavated in two levels, surface and Level 1. The surface consisted of
humic material. Level 1 was composed of architectural collapse within a clay matrix that was
thick with roots. Where tree growth and fall has not destroyed or jumbled the structure, a
change in architectural matrix can be discerned. This change was followed to reveal the
architectural surface.
The excavation confirmed the presence of an architectural break, with what appears to
be an inset staircase (Figure 15). The remaining architecture consists of 5 steps with tread and
riser. Approximately 8-10 stairs are present. Disturbance, especially in relation to tree growth
and fall, does not allow a full view of the staircase.
The front edge of the structure is constructed of cut limestone slabs. Cut limestone
characterizes the front of the risers. The tread is made of small cobbles on top of the boulders
of the structure’s construction. The steps of the staircase are primarily made of small cobbles,
with a limited number of cut stones included. The ground in front of the structure may be
leveled via a constructed floor of small cobbles; however, not enough of the area was exposed
for confirmation. Ceramics were encountered throughout the excavation. Most sherds were
located in the southern half of the unit on the inset staircase, with far less material on the
risers. Ceramics were identified to the Spanish Lookout phase, with characteristic Belize Red,
Silver Creek Impressed, Garbutt Creek Red and Mount Maloney sherds, as well as unit
stamped sherds.
Figure 15. Inset steps, east side of Str. 6.
26
Figure 16. Ballcourt profile drawn by Moyes and Robinson, digitized by L. Phillips.
Unit Summary
The ballcourt profile reveals a playing alley that conforms to the range of variability of
ballcourts (Figure 16). The north-south alignment matches the dominant orientation of
ballcourts within the region, including those of the Belize Valley (except Cahal Pech). The
inset staircase on the east side of Structure 6 suggests a difference in function and access
between the two ballcourt structures for viewing events. The relationship of the staircase to
structures, open areas and the cave to the east requires further exploration. The ballcourt
appears to be a Late Classic Spanish Lookout/Tepeu2 construction on top of a Late Classic
platform, as identified by excavation in Unit 2 and Unit 4.
Unit 4 –OnPlatform South of Ball Court
A 1 x2.5m unit was laid along a north-south axis on the southern end of the ballcourt,
4.5m behind Structure 6 at a bearing of 209˚. The unit was placed to include the south wall of
a low platform that is defined by the presence of upright cut limestone blocks that runs eastwest, located between Structure 6 and the lower platform wall. The stones divide the unit into
two sections, Section A and Section B. Section A is 1m long from the north end of the unit
and is on the low architectural platform, Structure 16. Section B is to the south and off of the
structure. Section A is approximately 23cm higher in elevation than Section B. The unit was
excavated by Makenna Chambers, Stacia Fine, and Christine Clarkson. Mark Robinson
supervised the excavation.
The unit was placed with the goals of: 1) uncovering chronology, 2) understanding the
construction history of the platform, 3) understanding the form of the low platform structure
and how it related to the larger platform, 4) understanding the relationship of the constructed
platform to the natural landscape, 5) and to tie the unit to the excavated Unit 2 in the centre of
the ballcourt.
27
Six levels were excavated - the surface and five additional natural/cultural levels.
Section A and Section B were excavated and screened independently to maintain provenience
and better understand the form and function of Structure 16. The surface was 1.5cm in
thickness with some roots amongst the humic sediment (10YR 2/1). Level 1 was excavated to
a thickness of 2.4cm and composed of black silt loam (10YR 2/1) around pebbles and cobbles
with plaster fragments present. A greater proportion of plaster was found in Section A.
Level 2 was excavated solely in Section A (6.4cm) to make it level with Section B.
The excavated material was composed of densely packed pebbles and cobbles with some
plaster fragments. Level 2 appears to have been the primary construction fill of Structure 16
that was built on top of the larger constructed platform. Level 3 was excavated in both Section
A and Section B to a thickness of 14cm, consisting of loose pebbles and cobbles amongst
small boulders in a black silty clay matrix (7.5YR 2.5/1). Five ceramics were recovered from
Section B, with only one sherd coming from Section A, identified as a Late Classic Yalbac
Smudged Brown bowl rim. The base of Level 3 evened out the two sections to the same
continuous construction below the low platform of Section A. Subsequent excavations
continued only in Section B to maintain the integrity of the south wall of the low platform.
Level 4 is the largest level in the unit with an average thickness of 61.5cm. This level
consisted of mostly small and medium boulders with some clay in and around the rocks
(10YR 2/2), which appears to make up the bulk of the platform construction. Cultural
material is all but absent from the level.
Level 5, the lowest level went to bedrock around 120cm below ground surface.
Charcoal was collected from 104cm below datum (approx 74cm below ground surface). A
jute shell and ceramic sherds were encountered. The top of the level was composed of
approximately 15cm of clay, with pebble and cobble inclusions. The remainder of the level
was composed of a single layer of small boulders, with cobble fill, on top of a thin layer of
sterile soil, which sat atop bedrock. The clay/pebble layer appeared to be a buried floor.
A total of 61 ceramic sherds were recovered from Unit 4, the majority of which were
excavated from Level 5 (solely in Section B). Twenty-two of those found in Level 5 were
diagnostic of the Preclassic Period. Analysis of the ceramics from this level revealed the
presence of diagnostic Late Preclassic bowls and jars of the Sierra Red group.
Unit Summary
Unit 4 revealed two construction phases to the large platform on which the
ballcourt is built (Figure 17). The low architectural platform was placed on top of the large
platform, probably as a separate construction event at a later time. Specific dating of the
construction of the low platform in relation to the construction of the large platform cannot be
achieved at present. The earliest construction in Unit 4 consisted of the placement of boulders
and cobbles on top of the natural ground surface. A probable tamped floor was laid on top of
the construction fill, likely as a leveling event. The top of the floor was similar in height as the
top of bedrock in the centre of the ballcourt playing alley and the ground surface off the
platform to the south. As such, the early construction could have leveled off the natural
landscape. While the majority of the sherds were too eroded to identify time period, the
lowest levels above bedrock included some well-preserved types from the Sierra Red Group
suggesting an earlier construction phase at the site dating to the Late Preclassic. This was the
only in situ material found during this preliminary season dating earlier than the late Late
Classic period. A later construction event occurred in the Late Classic Spanish Lookout/Tepeu
28
2 in whicch the large platform
p
was constructed. Large bouulders were laid
l as dry fiill to form thhe
bulk of thhe constructiion. The topp surface wass leveled using cobbles, then plastereed. The Latee
Classic platform
p
may
y have been built specifically for thee construction of the balllcourt. The
low archiitectural plattform was addded to the top
t of the larrge platform
m to the southh of ballcourrt
structure 6. Upright cut
c limestone blocks werre laid to deffine the edgee of the struccture. The
interior of
o the low platform is constructed off small cobblles and pebbbles. The surfface was
plasteredd. The functio
on of the low
w platform and
a how its construction
c
altered the ballcourt
b
remains unknown.
u
Figure 177. Profile of North
N
Wall of Unit 4 (4bb).
Unit 5 – Plaza centrre
A 1x1m unit was opened in the centree of the plazza and excavvated to bedrock, to
understannd constructtion history, the degree and
a type of laandscape moodification, and
a to recovver
datable material.
m
Thee excavation was conduccted on the 8th and 9th Junne 2011, andd was
superviseed by Mark Robinson
R
annd excavatedd by Robinsoon and Laureen Phillips. The
T unit wass
located inn the centre of the plaza relative to structures
s
1, 3, and 4 (thee eastern, noorthern and
29
western structures of the main plaza, respectively); the southern range structure was not used
as it skewed the centre away from the alignment with centre of the staircases of the dominant
structures. The unit was aligned to the plaza orientation.
Unit 5 was excavated in five levels, following cultural and natural stratigraphy, to the
underlying limestone bedrock at 100cm below datum (51cm below ground surface). The top
7cm is composed of humic material. Level 1 is characterised by dark brown clay (10YR 3/3)
and was excavated 14.8cm, to the top of the ancient plaza floor, as determined by the presence
of plaster fragments and small cobbles. Level 2 (10cm) consists of small cobbles, densely
packed in clay (10YR 3/3) and was excavated to a change in construction fill from small
cobbles and pebbles to small boulders. Level 3 (5cm) is a single layer of small boulders set
atop a homogenous clay matrix (10YR 3/3). Level 4 is characterized by sterile, hard packed
clay on top of an undulating limestone bedrock formation. The bedrock is lower in the north
than the south; the average depth of the clay (10YR 3/3) is 13.6cm. The clay in the northern
quarter of the unit, at the lowest depths (119cm below datum) gradated into a lighter colour
(10YR 4/4). Cultural materials are scarce. Ceramics are only present in Level 1 and 2 (one
sherd from each level). No other artifact classes were encountered. All excavated material was
dry screened using ¼ inch mesh.
Figure 18. Profile of Unit 5, drawn by M. Robinson, digitized by L. Phillips.
Unit Summary
The unit reveals a single major construction phase for the plaza that consists of the
placement of small boulders atop a shallow natural clay surface above bedrock (Figure 18).
Small cobbles were laid on top of the boulders to form a flat surface that was then plastered
for the finished plaza floor. Multiple plastering events may have occurred; however, plaster
preservation is severely limited. The lack of cultural material in the construction fill limits
temporal assessment of the plaza construction. The presence of a Late Preclassic level in Unit
4, to the south of the ballcourt, as determined by distinctive ceramic assemblage, would
suggest more than one phase of occupation for the site. The plaza, as a central focus of the site
would likely have been one of the first areas to receive constructions. Excavation of the major
architecture of the plaza may reveal multiple construction phases, or confirm the apparent
single construction phase as identified through Unit 5.
30
Unit 6 & 6 extension –Plaza/ Structure 4
Unit 6 is a 2x1m unit placed at the western edge of the plaza, abutting the centre of
structure 4. The unit is aligned to the front edge of structure 4. The unit was placed with the
purpose of understanding how the plaza construction articulates with the structure, to locate
any dedicatory cache that could provide chronological information and cultural ties, and to
understand the underlying natural topography and how the landscape was modified. Unit 6
also provided a comparison to Unit 5, a 1x1m excavation in the centre of the plaza, which
revealed what appears to be a single major construction phase for the plaza. Structure 4 is the
second tallest structure on site and appears to be a five stepped pyramid with a central
staircase and a masonry superstructure. Structure 4 has suffered extensive disturbance through
bioturbation, but has not been looted. The centre of structure 4 was determined through
measuring the visible central staircase and the door in the collapsed masonry superstructure.
The unit was located to include cut limestone blocks that may be the front of the original
structure. Collapsed construction stone was also present.
Unit 6 was excavated by Lauren Phillips, and Mark Robinson, and supervised by
Robinson. Further help with excavation and screening was provided by Erin Ray and Reem
Yassine. The unit was excavated as surface and 4 levels following natural/cultural
stratigraphy. All material was dry screened in ¼ inch screen. The surface consisted of 5cm of
humic material that was absent of artifacts.
Level 1 (8cm) included abundant roots and some structural collapse within a clay
matrix (10YR 2/2, very dark brown). Any limestone that was assessed to be possibly in-situ
was left in place throughout the excavation. A small number of ceramics were recovered in
level 1. The base of level 1 consisted of a subtle change from highly bioturbated material and
roots, to a more consistent layer of small cobbles and remnant plaster.
Level 2 is a transition zone atop the actual construction fill of the plaza floor. Level 2
consists of small cobbles in a clay matrix (10YR 3/3, dark brown). Level 2 ended with a
change to a consistent layer of cobbles. Level 1 and 2 appear to be a highly disturbed
transition zone between the actual plaza floor and post abandonment site formation. A single
chert piece was collected as possible debitage (no working was evident). A handful of
ceramics were also recovered.
Level 3 (approximately 12cm) consists of small and large cobbles and small boulders
atop a distinct clay layer. This level appears to be the construction fill for the plaza floor
placed on top of the natural soil ground surface. A few non-diagnostic ceramics were
recovered from this level, as was a single charcoal sample at 87cm below datum, associated
with the base of the level.
Level 4 is a sterile layer of hard packed clay above eroding limestone bedrock. The
clay follows the natural topography of bedrock, with an average depth of 10cm, creating a
level surface atop which the plaza was constructed. Bedrock was encountered at 102cm below
datum. Due to limited room the unit was extended to the east, creating a 2x2m unit. The unit
extension also had the purpose of expanding the area covered to locate any possible
dedicatory cache along the centre line of structure 4.
Unit 6 Extension
The 2x1m extension to Unit 6 was excavated following the natural/cultural levels as
determined in the original Unit 6. All material was screened using ¼ inch screen and the unit
was recorded separately. The unit confirmed the observed stratigraphy of Unit 6. Less
31
collapsed material was encountered in the unit, as was to be expected with increased distance
from the structure. Bedrock was encountered at 105cm below datum. Bedrock is eroding, but
deeper test excavation through the material confirmed the designation of bedrock (Figure 19).
A limited amount of non-diagnostic ceramic material was encountered during the excavation.
Figure 19. Unit 6 south wall profile.
Figure 20. Unit 6 west wall profile.
Unit Summary
Unit 6 reveals a single construction for the plaza in line with the stratigraphy if Unit 5
(Figure 20). A cobble and small boulder construction fill was plastered to create the plaza
floor. The construction fill was laid atop a layer of natural soil on top of limestone bedrock.
Post abandonment site formation processes have resulted in the accumulation of material
above the plaza floor and extensive bioturbation. The actual front of the building is probably
obscured beneath some slumped construction (both cut facing stones and construction fill);
however, the architecture was not penetrated. Excavation into the structure is required to
confirm the relationship of the plaza construction to the building’s construction. Recovered
ceramic material is non-diagnostic.
32
Unit 7 – Linear Structure – north of ballcourt
A 7x1m trench was excavated through the linear structure north of the ballcourt with
the objectives of ascertaining chronology, construction form and construction technique
(Figure 21). The unit runs perpendicular to the long axis (east/west) of the structure and
exploited natural disturbances to the architecture in the form of tree fall and collapsed walls,
with the intention of picking up the architectural form from the east and west profiles. The
structure forms part of a series of low, linear structures that run along the south and east rim
of the depression that leads into the cave. Each platform appears to have a slightly different
form in height, length, width and the presence/absence of a step/bench. The excavated
platform is one of the shortest platforms at 13m long. The platforms are built over the lip of
the depression and typically display a tall vertical wall on the north (cave) side. The south side
of the structures are low to the ground surface and on some structures suggest the presence of
a step/bench. The excavation was supervised by Mark Robinson and excavated by Robinson,
Lauren Phillips, Reem Yassine and Makenna Chambers. All excavated soil was screened in ¼
inch mesh.
The unit was excavated in 3 levels. The surface humic material was removed and
screened for surface artifacts. Level 1 excavated through the construction of the structure to
reveal the profile of the structure. To maintain provenience of artifactual remains, the trench
was divided into 3 sections for Level 2. Section 1, 2m at the north end of the trench, covers
the ground outside of the structure from the structure’s edge. Section 2, encompasses the
majority of the structure (3.5m). Section 2 was not excavated any further and is believed to be
construction fill that was laid atop the natural ground surface. Section 3, at the south end of
the trench, is 1.5m long and extends off the structure into the area toward structure 6 of the
ballcourt. All material excavated from Level 2 was screened and collected separately.
The surface level contained a few ceramic artifacts, with Classic period monochrome
red and monochrome black sherds. Level 1, primarily consisting of the structure’s
construction fill and collapse, contains a higher density of ceramic artifacts than found
anywhere else from construction fill on the surface site. Ceramic waste appears to have been
incorporated into the buildings construction as the ceramics are indicative of midden waste
rather than primary deposition from a social or ceremonial event. The recovered ceramics are
characteristic of the Late Classic Spanish Lookout phase, including sherds of Cayo Unslipped,
Dolphin Head, Mount Malony, Belize Red, and distinctive unit stamping. A chert flake was
also recovered from Level 1. There are no obvious signs of modification to the flake.
Sections 1 and 3 were excavated through Level 2, to bedrock. Section 1 contained an
abundance of ceramic artifacts within what appeared to be a limestone marl matrix (possible
broken from bedrock). The density of ceramics in this matrix is the highest encountered on
the surface site. The matrix is atop bedrock and appears to fill the voids in the undulating
bedrock to create a flat surface. Atop this level is collapsed limestone construction fill from
the structure. The rubble is surrounded by a clay matrix (10YR 2/3, dark brown). Ceramic
artifacts are present in the collapsed material and are likely from the construction fill. Future
excavations in less disturbed areas of the linear structures should seek to determine if artifacts
are deposited off the back of the structure, or if all the artifacts are from construction fill.
Section 3, Level 2, was excavated to an average 30cm until bedrock was encountered
in the south part of the section. Large limestone boulders in the rest of the section prevented
deeper excavation and total clearance to bedrock. A small pit dug for army training purposes,
5m to the east, hits bedrock 20cm below ground surface and the undulating bedrock is
33
assumed to be at a shallow depth below the level of excavation. The matrix at the base of the
unit was sterile. Some ceramic artifacts were recovered from section 3, although far fewer
than from the construction fill of Level 1 and the abundance of sherds from Section 1. A
cobble layer, on top of bedrock may be present to level the ground surface in front of the
structure. An expanded excavation is required to confirm this as disturbances obscured clear
stratigraphy.
The building appears to have been a single phase construction that incorporated a
bench and an upper platform. The bench is approx 50cm high and the upper structure 1m
high. The back side is 1.5m high from the ground surface. The structure is 13m long. The
natural landscape was leveled, probably in line with protruding bedrock, to create a flat
surface off the edges of the structure. The building’s location and association with the other
linear structures that ring the top of the depression, suggests an audience function for viewing
activities that occur in the cave and the cave mouth. The association with a number of linear
structures, running parallel to the south, also suggests a boundary function to the structures,
enclosing the area to the south, between structure 7 and structure 6. The space between the
two sets of low linear structures may also be an area for performance for which the linear
structures could function as viewing platforms.
The breaks between the linear structures create discreet individual linear structures
that follow the natural direction of the lip of the depression, and may also function to allow
water drainage. The presence of a possible pole and thatch superstructure is presently
unknown. To the north of the linear structure is the depression to the cave. A series of
apparently natural terraces, following bedrock outcroppings, descend to the cave. Future
excavations are required to address questions regarding the modification and use of these
terraces. The leveling of the land at the base of the linear structure to the north, suggests a
degree of modification and utilization of the terraces.
Figure 21. Profile of Unit 7 trench across Str. 7. Drawn by M. Robinson, digitized by L.
Phillips.
Structure 2 – 1957, A.H. Anderson trench – clearance and profile
Structure 2 is located in the north-west corner of the main plaza. Str. 2 is the only
formal structure outside of the four structures that define the cardinally aligned plaza. The
34
structure is approximately 6.7m along its east-west axis and 9m along the north-south axis. A
staircase may be present on the southern side that is 3m deep, making the actual structure 6m
along the north-south axis. The structure is approximately 1.3m tall. The west and north sides
appear to be straight vertical walls and the corners are squared off. Collapse and root action
has obscured the east side; although a single step/riser may be present that is approximately
60cm high. An upper level may be present that forms a short platform as a superstructure. A
bench may also be present on the top of the structure; Anderson’s excavation and bioturbation
cause difficulties in confirming the bench’s presence and dimensions. Low platforms are
present to the east and west of structure 2. The platform to the west is 2.6m wide and runs
toward the front edge of structure 3, the northern structure of the plaza. The low platforms
may end 1-2m short of structures 2 and 3, forming a discreet structure; further excavation is
required to confirm the relationship between the structures.
A. H. Anderson, excavated a trench into Str.2 in the 1957 expedition, led by Adrian
Digby of the British Museum. The trench into Str. 2 was the lone surface excavation at the
site until the 2011 LCAR project. The trench enters the structure from the western side and
penetrates approximately 3m into the structure. The excavation was levelled off when bedrock
was encountered. Digby reports the presence of an incense burner on top of the structure as
well as what he calls a “four stone hearth”. During the 2011 field season the trench was
cleaned to exploit the previous excavation to allow profiling of the structure and to search for
any artifacts that could reveal structure function and chronology. The cleaning was supervised
by Mark Robinson and undertaken by Lauren Phillips and Robinson.
Cleaning the profile revealed the bulk of the structure to be of a single construction
phase (Figure 22). Large boulders and cobbles were placed on top of protruding bedrock and
the natural ground surface. Smaller cobbles were laid on top of the construction fill to create a
flatter surface that is believed to have been plastered. Plaster fragments were collected from
close to the surface of the structure. The south profile shows an extra layer of cobbles that
appear to be part of the upper platform construction. Cut tabular limestone on top of the
cobbles may be part of the low bench. Few artifacts were encountered during cleaning.
Structure function remains ambiguous.
Figure 22. Profile of interior of Str. 2. Drawn by M.Robinson, digitized by L. Phillips.
35
Unit 8, Las Cuevas, Plazuela Group Plaza
Unit 8 is a 1 x 1m test pit that is located in the plaza of the Plazuela Group excavated
by Barbara Voorhies and Mark Kile.The purpose of the excavation was to get a first peek at
the construction history of this architectural complex. The Plazuela Group of constructed
platform mounds is situated on top of a rise that has two distinct terraces or tiers below the
uppermost platform upon which the mounds are situated. These terraces are bounded by dry
laid retaining walls. It is likely that a natural hill constitutes the core of the rise, which was
modified by the ancient Maya to form the lower two terraces. The uppermost platform is
presumably artificially constructed and is in remarkably good condition. Large boulders were
used in the construction of this platform, especially in its lowest course. These boulders are
as much as 1.4 m long. In some places as many as four courses of boulders have been used to
retain the platform. Many of the boulders are roughly rectangular, although always with
rounded edge angles. I think that these are not cut stone but that the builders quarried the
rocks from a location where they were able to appropriate rectangular shaped building blocks
by taking advantage of the natural fractures and bedding planes of the limestone. It is
interesting that there is chinking in the interstices between some boulders, but we observed no
evidence of plaster.
The unit location was chosen by PI Holley Moyes and is in the approximate center of
the plaza. This plaza is formed by mounds that circumscribe a U-shaped area, which is open
to the west. We did not clear or investigate the mounds but it appears that three mounds are
arranged on the north side of the plaza, one on the east, and two on the south. There is a
standing stone visible at the plaza facing edge of the larger, elongated mound on the south
side of the plaza. This could be part of the mound’s retaining wall but also could be a stela. It
is well eroded. The excavation reached a maximum depth of .70 m and terminated when
bedrock extended over the bottom of the entire unit.
A description of the site formation process follows. The construction project in the
plaza began when the builders added construction fill directly on top of an outcrop of
bedrock. This bedrock was not modified in any visible way—the builders simply added
construction fill directly upon it. Soil, containing only a few sherds, and boulders were added
in the lowest levels of the construction. The same basic soil matrix with rocks that become
smaller in size continue up the stratigraphic section until approximately the .30 m level (plans
Levels 3 and 4) where the first layer of what appears to be two subfloors was constructed of
medium-sized cobbles. This was overlain by a well-constructed layer of small cobbles (plan
Level 3) that remains only in the north half of the unit due to disturbance by a burrowing
animal. These two layers of cobbles are the subfloor of the earlier of two superimposed
floors. No plaster surface was detected. Another layer of medium-sized cobbles overlies the
subfloor of the lowest floor (plan Level 2), and this is overlain by a layer of small cobbles
(plan Level 1). I interpret these two cobble layers as the subfloor of the upper, later floor of
the plaza. The surface of this floor would have been at or above the present day ground
surface. It is entirely eroded away.
In summary, this excavation penetrated construction fill topped by two constructed
floors (Figure 23). The only cultural material recovered consisted of small, eroded sherds,
and in the upper levels a few univalves. I have drawn three strata on the profile of two
sidewalls of the excavation unit but the reality is that there are only barely perceptible
differences among these strata. That is, the stratigraphy actually suggests that construction of
the platform fill and the earliest floor were one event, and that a second floor was constructed
36
sometime thereafter. All diagnostic sherds are Late Classic in age according to the project
ceramic analyst. No charcoal or datable material was observed.
Figure 23. Profile of Unit 8, north and south walls. Drawn by B. Voohies and digitized by L.
Phillips.
Digital Archaeology at Las Cuevas: New Methodologies for 3D Documentation and
Preservation in Archaeology
This research aims to define new methodologies for the 3D documentation and
preservation of archaeological sites. 3D archaeological surveys are becoming more common
in archaeology, but this can become problematic because researchers have yet to integrate
these technologies to develop a complete and coherent methodology for 3D documentation of
sites. The proposed work is intended to completely document aspects of an archeological site
using different 3D survey technologies to find the most appropriate methods based on diverse
environmental conditions and light exposures, and with varied surfaces. The final product will
be the creation of a 3D application that will be used for both scientific research and the
creation of models and digital objects for heritage preservation and outreach activities.
In the month of June 2011 the 3D documentation methodology was tested at Las
Cuevas (Figure 24). We began to produce 3D documentation and reconstruction of this site,
which is of particular interest because a large cave with an extensive dark zone tunnel system
resides directly beneath the largest temple in the site core. This archaeological site is a perfect
case study to test the different 3D documentation techniques and to integrate them in a precise
working plan. The most interesting aspect of this site, for the 3D documentation, is the
heterogeneity in its parts. It consists, in fact, of a number of buildings including temples,
range structures, a ballcourt, and what appear to be sacbes and causeways. These
characteristics represent a perfect test for the understanding of which 3D survey technologies
are more appropriate for each structure category and how they can be integrated. Because of
the complexity of the site, it has a wide range of environmental conditions  dark recesses of
caves, areas in shaded sunlight under the jungle canopy, and areas of more direct sunlight in
areas that have been cleared of brush or exposed by treefall. Thus, we have structures,
variability in lighting, and other kinds of features in close proximity.
37
Two units in the cave wererecorded using two different approaches, the triangulation
laser scanner (Minolta Vivid 910) and the photogrammetry technique (See Figure 4). Unit 1
was located inside the cave entrance area and contained 9 levels, and Unit 2 inside the second
chamber of the cave in the dark zone contained 8 levels. The entire excavation process was
scanned.
The goal of this test is the understanding if it is possible to plan the 3D documentation
of an archaeological site using the cheaper and more portable photogrammetry, instead of the
more expensive laser scanner technology. Can photogrammetry technique give the same
result of the laser scanner in term of level of detail, or is the gap that exists between these
technologies not filled yet? This aspect is one of the most debated in archaeology today. The
possibility of recording in 3D the site just taking picture can represent a revolutionary change
in the discipline, raising an unprecedented dissemination of 3D representation in the
archaeological documentation.
Aligning all the levels of the unit, it was possible to obtain the complete
documentation of the excavation process in 3D (Fig. 27). This project aims to demonstrate
how these technologies can be a powerful tool for the site survey and data analysis. They give
the possibility to preserve the information digitally through time. In this way archaeology can
be revisited over the long-term and, thanks to the following of new discoveries, analyzed by
multiple experts and subjected to new analytical techniques.
Figure 24. Fabrizio Galeazzi scanning constructed wall in cave Entrance Chamber.
38
Figure 25. 3D model of the Unit 1, Level 5, unit1, cave entrance area, obtained through the
triangulation laser scanner (Minolta Vivid 910).
Figure 26. 3D model of the surface, Unit2, Chamber 2, obtained through the triangulation
laser scanner (Minolta Vivid 910).
Fig. 27. 3D model of Unit 2, Level 5, mesh without texture, aligned to level 6 with texture
applied (unit1, cave entrance area, obtained through the triangulation laser scanner, Minolta
Vivid 910).
39
Summary
This work is important for a number of reasons. First, the area immediately
surrounding the site is little known and information about Las Cuevas is limited to one brief
report from a short-term expedition by the British Museum in the late 1950's. The site has not
been mapped in detail and neither has the cave. Additionally, there is no established
chronology for the surface or the cave site. In terms of Maya history, although much is known
about the dynastic history of Caracol, little is known about its relationships to smaller local
polities.
Based on test excavations conducted in the 2011 field season we tentatively suggest
that, as per the ceramic cross-dating, the surface site and cave architecture was erected in the
late Late Classic period between AD 700-900, though people were present in the area during
the Late Preclassic (300 BC-AD 300). Although we have not excavated into the larger
structures, what we have found is that the structures associated with cave use and performance
aspects were constructed at this time-- the linear structures surrounding the cenote and
bounding the plazas were late Late Classic single constructions coeval with cave
modifications. This is an interesting finding because the cave is in such close proximity to the
site of Caracol (only 14km from the site core and 4km from its eastern terminus structure).
Caracol was one of the largest polities in the Maya lowlands, settled as early as the Middle
Preclassic Period (600BC) (Chase and Chase 1987:13 Table 1), yet it does not appear to have
incorporated the Las Cuevas cave site early on in its history, nor is it clear to what degree
Caracol exerted its influence during the late Late Classic.
In the Late Classic period, Caracol‘s settlement was at an all-time high and there are
indications of its expansion northeast to the site of Mountain Cow (Morris 2004) where a road
was constructed connecting the two sites, and a stela was placed bearing Caracol‘s emblem
glyph.Although Las Cuevas is an obvious contender to be incorporated into Caracol‘s
expansion, there is no evidence to suggest that the site was under its authority. Data collected
thus far indicate that there were no roads leading from Caracol to Cuevas, no epigraphic or
iconographic indications of apical elite use of the cave such as glyphs or cave drawing like
those at Naj Tunich, and no stela at all, much less one with the Caracol emblem glyph. Diane
and Arlen Chase (Iannone et. al. in press) suggest that, although Caracol is thriving
economically at this time, a different form of government replaced the earlier system of divine
kings following the death of K‘an II in AD 680. The proximity of Cuevas to the Caracol site
core may further evidence the weakening of the traditional kingship at Caracol or even
political upheaval and fragmentation during this period. This may have opened up an
opportunity for lesser nobility or political upstarts to break from Caracol, or possibly even an
aspiring elite from further afield to create the ritual complex at Cuevas.
Aside from its regional relationships, Las Cuevas has its own story to tell. There can
be little doubt that settlers selected that particular spot because of the location of the cave, and
that the eastern structure was deliberately built over the cave entrance. One reason for this
choice may have been that there was a constant and reliable water source (the spring in the
cave). This may have been a salient issue when we consider that the site was likely
constructed in the Late Classic period. Based on paleoenvironmental data, we now know that
western Belize suffered a series of droughts beginning around AD 780 (Webster et al. 2007).
Long-term drought was likely to have been the proximal cause for the political collapse and
40
could explain why the area was depopulated never to return to its Classic period populations
or social organization.
Alternatively or perhaps concomitantly, our models of Maya settlement choice, as
outlined by García-Zambrano (1994), suggest that there were cosmological underpinnings for
choosing to build over a natural cave. The settlers were most likely not just attracted to a
reliable water source, but also wished to establish a cosmological referent, and to create a
profoundly sacred landscape for their Late Classic performances and ceremonials. The
incorporation of the natural landscape into the site‘s architecture created a cosmologicallycharged space that reified the mountain/cave/water complex at the heart of Maya ideology,
and was clearly designed to sanctify the rites and ceremonies that occurred within those
precincts. From a Durkheimian perspective, the massive ceremonials at Las Cuevas may well
have been an attempt to create social solidarity and a sense of community in a time of stress.
As noted by Inomata and Coben (2006:24), it is the co-presence, the gathering of both
performer and audience together, that creates these social effects. David Kertzer (1988:76)
reminds us that solidarity is produced by people acting together, not thinking together; so
during times when social dissent is in the air, performance and spectacle have the ability to
reduce social tension, even in dissenters. The ritual elaborations and massive ceremonials at
the Las Cuevas site were likely to have served the elite leaders in this capacity.
Preliminary data collection at Las Cuevas initiates a research program aimed at
addressing larger questions by beginning to understand the social and political connections
with its larger neighbor. Analyses focused on the political organization of Maya sites and the
relationships between them we can begin to chisel away at bigger questions regarding the
articulation between the environment, socio/political systems, and ideologies. While it is one
thing for individual leaders to fail, failure of an entire political system is quite another and
represents a much more catastrophic scenario. From a comparative historical perspective, this
research is relevant to issues confronting our own society. Civilizations are constantly
threatened with disintegration due to unanticipated circumstances or unintended consequences
of history and human decision-making. Rarely do we stop to consider how fragile they are.
The Maya case brings this fragility into focus for us and provides us with cautionary tales of
the relationships between ideology and the environment, demographics, politics, and
economies.
41
Aimers, James, 2007, What May Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya
Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:329-377.
Anderson, A. H., 1962, Cave Sites in British Honduras. In Akten des XXXIV Internationalen
Amerikanistenkongresses, Wein. Pp. 326-331. Vienna: Verlag Ernest Berger.
Awe, Jaime, Cameron Griffith, and Sherry Gibbs, 2005, Cave Stelae and Megalithic
Monuments in Western Belize, In In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican
Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, pp.69-88. Boulder,
University Press of Colorado.
Becker, Marshall J., 2003, Plaza Plans at Tikal: A Research Strategy for Inferring Social
Organization and Processes of Culture Change at Lowland Maya Sites. In Tikal:
Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 253-280.
Santa Fe, School of American Research Press.
Brady, James E., 1989, Investigation of Maya Ritual Cave Use with Special Reference to Naj
Tunich, Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Brady, James E. and Wendy Ashmore, 1999, Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Landscapes of the
Ancient Maya. In Archaeologies of Landscapes: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by
Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 124-145. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Brady, James E. and Pierre R. Colas, 2005, Nikte Mo' Scattered Fire in the Cave of K'ab Chante:
Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence for Cave Desecration in Ancient Maya Warfare. In
Stone Houses and Earth Lords: Maya Religion in the Cave Context, edited by Keith M. Prufer
and James E. Brady, pp. 149-166. Boulder, University Press of Colorado.
Brady, James and George Veni, 1997, Settlement Configuration and Cosmology: The Role
of Caves at Dos Pilas. American Antiquity 99(3):602-618.
42
1992, Man-Made and Pseudo-Karst Caves: The Implications of Subsurface Features
within Maya Centers. Geoarchaeology 7(2):149-167.
Chase, Arlen F., 2004. Polities, Politics, and Social Dynamics: "Contextualizing" the
Archaeology of the Belize Valley and Caracol. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize
Valley: Half a Century of Archeological Reseach, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 320334. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase, 1987, Investigations at the classic Maya city of Caracol,
Belize:1985-1987. San Francisco, Precolumbian Art Research Institute, Monograph 3.
__1994 Maya Veneration of the Dead at Caracol, Belize. In Seventh Palenque Round
Table, 1989, edited by Merle G. Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, pp. 55-62. San
Francisco, Pre-Columbian Art Institute.
Christenson, Allen J., 2008. Places of emergence: Sacred mountains and cofradía ceremonies.
In Pre-Columian landscapes of creation and origin, edited by John Edward Staller,
pp. 95-121. NY, Springer.
Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, 2004, The Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands: Assessing Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. In The Terminal Classic in the
Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest,
Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 545-572. Boulder, University Press of Colorado.
Digby, Adrian. 1958. A New Maya City Discovered in British Honduras: First Excavations at
Las Cuevas, An Underground Necropolis Revealed. The Illustrated London News,
Feb. 15, 1958.
García-Zambrano, Angel J., 1994, Early Colonial Evidence of Pre-Columbian Rituals of
Foundation. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, edited by Merle Greene
43
Robertson and Virginia Field, pp. 217-227. San Francisco Pre-Columbian Art
Research Institute.
Gifford, James C., 1976, Prehistoric Pottery in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University.
Helmke, Christophe and Dorie Reents-Budet, 2008, A Terminal Classic Molded-Carved
Ceramic Type of the Eastern Maya Lowlands. Research Reports in Belizean
Archaeology, Vol. 5, pp. 37-49. Belmopan, Institute of Archaeology.
Iannone, Gyles, 2004, ‘Minor Centers’ in Maya Archaeology. In The ancient Maya of the
Belize Valley: Half a century of archaeological research, edited by James Garber, pp.
273-286. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
Iannone, Gyles, Arlen F. Chase, Diane Z. Chase, Jaime Awe, Holley Moyes, George Brook,
Jason Polk, James Webster, andJames Conolly, in press, An Archaeological
Consideration of Long-Term Socio-Environmental Dynamics on the Vaca Plateau,
Belize, edited by Gyles Iannone, Boulder, University Press of Colorado.
Inomata, Takeshi, and Lawrence S. Coben, 2006, Overture: An Invitation to the
Archaeological Theater. Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power,
Community, and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence S. Coben,pp. 1144. NY, Alta Mira Press.
Kertzer, David, I, 1988, Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven, Yale University Press.
LeCount, Lisa, 1999, Polychrome Pottery and Political Strategies in Late and Terminal
Classic Lowland Maya Society. Latin American Antiquity 10(3): 239-258.
44
Morris, John, 2004, Archaeological research at the Mountain Cow sites: The archaeology of
sociocultural diversity, ethnicity, and identity formation. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Moyes, Holley, 2006, The Sacred Landscape as a Political Resource: A Case Study of
Ancient Maya Cave Use at Chechem Ha Cave, Belize, Central America. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Moyes, Holley and Jaime Awe, 2011, Climate Change and Ritual Response in Western
Belize, 44th Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference: Climates of Change, The
Shifting Environments of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Moyes, Holley and James E. Brady, (expected 2012), Caves as Sacred Space in Mesoamerica.
In Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, edited by
Holley Moyes, Boulder, University Press of Colorado.
Moyes, Holley, Jaime J. Awe, George Brook, and James Webster, 2009, The Ancient Maya
Drought Cult: Late Classic Cave Use in Belize, Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 175206.
Moyes, Holley and Keith M. Prufer, 2009, Kayuko Naj Tunich: A Foundational Shrine at
Uxbenká, Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6 Belmopan, Belize.
Moyes, Holley, Mark Robinson, Laura Kowsakowski, and Barbara Voorhies, 2011, Sleeping
Next to the Giant: Results of the 2011 Field Season at Las Cuevas. Belize Institute of
Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize.
Smith, Robert E., 1955, Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Vols. I and II. Middle
American research Institute, Publication No. 28. New Orleans, LA Tulane University.
45
Stone, Andrea, 1995, Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition of Maya
Cave Painting. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Webster, James A., George A. Brook, L. Bruce Railsback, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards,
Clark Alexander, Philip P. Reeder, 2007, Stalagmite evidence from Belize indicating
significant droughts at the time of Preclassic Abandonment, the Maya Hiatus, and the
Classic Maya collapse. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 250: 1–
17.
Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E.W. Adams, 1967, Maya Lowland Ceramics: A
Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32: 289- 315.
46
Appendix A
Table 1.0: Datums Established for Site Core Survey
Datum
Northing
Easting
Elevation
Type
LSC0
1851086.192
288213.302
565.874
Permanent
LSC1
1851075.583
288213.567
566.315
Permanent
LSC2
1851095.978
288188.003
566.114
Permanent
LSC3
1851101.000
288188.000
566.000
Permanent
LSC4
1851119.240
288137.876
566.721
Temporary Stake
LSC5
1851142.463
288090.067
567.554
Temporary Stake
LSC6
1851155.509
288071.077
567.957
Temporary Stake
LSC7
1851167.018
288055.713
567.815
Temporary Stake
LSC8
1851203.052
288047.738
567.098
Permanent
LSC9
1851219.182
288047.569
567.090
Permanent
LSC10
1851154.816
288098.818
568.257
Temporary Stake
LSC11
1851156.003
288177.356
564.114
Temporary Stake
LSC12
1851131.439
288221.196
563.435
Temporary Stake
LSC13
1851171.084
288137.492
554.000
Temporary Stake
LSC14
1851192.512
288114.927
554.221
Temporary Stake
LSC15
1851195.467
288100.321
552.061
Temporary Stake
LSC16
1851200.475
288104.538
553.986
Temporary Stake
LSC17
1851195.330
288100.398
567.440
Temporary Stake
Table 2.0: Test Pits along the North Transect
TP
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Easting
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
Northin
g
1851523
1851303
1851323
1851563
1851243
1851203
1851403
Transec
t
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
Levels
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Termina
l Depth
79
40
40
96
34
29
45
47
Termination
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Artifacts
Recovere
d
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Cultural
Remains
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
8
9
288048
288048
1851423
1851443
North
North
2
3
50
52
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
288048
1851643
1851463
1851583
1851343
1851363
1851383
1851503
1851263
1851283
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
100
53
96
41
41
41
72
35
37
19
288048
1851543
North
2
95
20
21
22
23
288048
288048
288048
288048
1851663
1851623
1851728
1851483
North
North
North
North
2
2
3
2
100
99
102
60
24
288048
1851683
North
2
100
25
288048
1851603
North
2
96
Bedrock
Bedrock
Maximum
Depth with
Post Hole
Digger
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Maximum
Depth with
Post Hole
Digger
Maximum
Depth with
Post Hole
Digger
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Maximum
Depth with
Post Hole
Digger
Maximum
Depth with
Post Hole
Digger
None
None
Negative
Negative
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
None
Negative
None
None
None
None
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
None
Negative
None
Negative
Table 3.0: Test Pits along the West Transect
TP
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Easting
288047.738
288027.738
288007.738
287987.738
287967.738
287947.738
287927.738
287907.738
287887.738
Northing
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
Transect
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
10
11
12
13
14
15
287867.738
287847.738
287827.738
287807.738
287787.738
287767.738
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
West
West
West
West
West
West
Levels
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Terminal
Depth
43
42
56
60
34
38
55
28
29
3
2
2
2
2
2
46
37
24
32
44
28
48
Termination
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Encountered
Large Rocks
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Artifacts
Recovered
None
Ce
None
None
None
Ce, Cb
Ce
Ce
None
Ce, Cb, L,
Sh
None
None
None
None
None
Cultural
Remains
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
287747.738
287727.738
287707.738
287687.738
287667.738
287647.738
287627.738
287607.738
287587.738
287539.000
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
1851203.052
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
West
49
2
2
2
2
25
33
36
41
2
2
2
2
2
41
25
30
51
38
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
na
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
None
None
None
None
na
None
None
None
None
None
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
na
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
APPENDIX B
Preliminary Report on the Ceramics of the Las Cuevas Site,
Chiquibul Reserve, Belize: 2011 Season
Laura J. Kosakowsky
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
December 2011
[Not to be cited without permission of author]
50
I Introduction
The Las Cuevas Archaeological Reconnaissance Project (LCAR), under the direction
of Dr. Holley Moyes, conducted preliminary work at the Las Cuevas site in 2011, the first
since it was investigated by British archaeologist Adrian Digby and A. H. Anderson, then
Commissioner of the Belize Department of Archaeology (Digby 1958a & b). The site, also
known as “Awe Caves,” is a small to medium sized center, located in the Chiquibul Reserve,
in the Mountain Pine Ridge area of Belize, Central America, approximately 14km eastof
Caracol. The site (see Figure 1) consists of two large temples sitting on the eastern (Str. 1)
and western (Str. 4) sides of an open plaza, a southern ballcourt (Strs. 5 & 6), as well as a
series of low platforms that ring a natural depression in which sits the entrance (below Str. 1)
of a large cave directly beneath the site.
Figure 1: Map of the Las Cuevas Site
Investigations in 2011 focused on test excavations at the surface site (Units 1-8);
excavation in the cave (Units 1-3); shovel test pits (as part of the area reconnaissance) both
above ground and in the cave; and mapping of sherd scatters within the cave. The sherd
scatters will be included in the GIS mapping of the cave by Dr. Holley Moyes, however, this
report will document the ceramics from the excavations, and outline some very preliminary
thoughts on the site’s ceramic typology, it’s ties with other sites and regions based upon the
ceramics, and some thoughts on future ceramic research. Given the extremely small sample
51
size from excavation and shovel test pit contexts (N=1728), of which a significant number are
eroded and not identifiable, these are indeed limited and preliminary comments.
II Prior Ceramic Research and Methodology
There has been little ceramics-focused research in the Chiquibul region of Belize
despite the long history of ceramic research elsewhere, especially in the Belize Valley
(Gifford 1976). The largest site in the region, Caracol, has a well-documented archaeological
record and ceramic history (see the many articles by Arlen Chase and Diane Chase:
http://www.caracol.org/).
In his early archaeology reports on Las Cuevas, Digby (1958a & b) illustrates
ceramics that are clearly Late Classic incensarios and jars from the cave and excavations in
collaboration with A.H. Anderson. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, David Pendergast, under
the auspices of the Royal Ontario Museum, conducted research in some of the caves in the
region, and published excellent reports that document the ceramics from Anderson’s work in
Rio Frio Cave (Pendergast 1970), and his own at Actun Balam (Pendergast 1969) and
Eduardo Quiroz caves (Pendergast 1971). Pendergast’s monographs include excellent ceramic
illustrations, although he does not utilize the standard type: variety mode descriptions that
would make easier inter-site comparisons, as were developed for the Belize Valley by Gifford
(1976).
North of Las Cuevas on the Vaca Plateau there has been a great deal of archaeological
reconnaissance and excavation. Decades-long research at the site of Minanha (Iannone 2005)
has reported extensively on the architecture and site history with little reference to the
ceramics in any detail. Research at the site of Mountain Cow and the nearby region (Morris
2004) provides some comparative ceramic information. By far the most extensive ceramic
research in the area was conducted by Awe (1985) for his master’s thesis at the site of
Caledonia (see also Healy et al. 1998), providing excellent vessel form illustrations for
comparative purposes.
South of the Chiquibul, three regions have received both archaeological attention as
well as ceramic research—the Toledo District, the Xibun and the coast—with reports
demonstrating some ceramic similarities to the site of Las Cuevas. Early work in the Toledo
District at the site of Lubaantun (Hammond 1975) produced an excellent site ceramic
typology for the Late Classic. Subsequent work in the region at Lubaantun (Braswell 2011),
Pusilha (Braswell et al. 2008), and Uxbenka (Prufer et al. 2011) has yet to publish detailed
ceramic research. McAnany’s regional project in the Xibun
(http://www.bu.edu/tricia/reports/index.shtml) has produced a number of reports that include
ceramic data useful for comparative purposes, principally Harrison-Buck’s (2007) thesis on
the Terminal Classic. Finally, Graham’s (1994) work in the Stann Creek District and
McKillop’s (2002; 2007) extensive research on salt production and trade along Belize’s
southern coast and cayes, has documented a ceramic typology that also demonstrates regional
similarities with Las Cuevas and the sites of the Toledo District and the Chiquibul.
52
Most ceramic research in the southern Maya Lowlands has attempted to work within
the frameworks and typologies created for three major sites/regions, due to the fact that their
publication came early in the history of Maya archaeology and the extensive descriptions
provided. These include the ceramics from Uaxactun in the Petén (Smith 1955; Smith and
Gifford 1966); the ceramics from Seibal in the Pasion region (Adams 1971; Sabloff 1975);
and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley (Gifford 1976). The identification of
site specific ceramic complexes utilizing standard type: variety designations for Maya pottery
(Gifford 1976; Willey et al. 1967), i.e. the identification of ceramic types, varieties, and
modes, has the advantage of informing on the temporal placement of the occupation and
construction history of a site, as well as allowing one to place it in a regional and interregional context. However, type: variety designations are based on surface characteristics,
and it becomes less useful as a tool when analyzing eroded material. In the absence of wellpreserved surfaces, modal characteristics such as rim and lip shape, vessel form (see
Thompson 1939), and visual paste and temper characteristics are also extremely useful in
pottery identification.
The small sample of ceramics from the 2011 LCAR Project was analyzed using
standard type: variety designations largely in line with the Belize Valley (Gifford 1976),
however final assessments will be discussed in the concluding comments of this report (see
section V below). All ceramics were washed, counted, and weighed for each excavation lot.
Ceramics were laid out in stratigraphic sequences, beginning with the lowest levels of the
excavation and moving upward, keeping all lots un-mixed. All lots were pre-sorted into
sherds with identifiable surface finish and decoration (separated from eroded and unslipped
body sherds), and were assigned vessel form designations (for rims and identifiable body
sherds), as well as preliminary type names, with the assistance of Ms. Jenny Smedra (Galen
University). The results are presented in the following report along with complete tables (see
Appendices I & II) and counts for all excavated units.
III Ceramics from Surface Site Excavations
Unit 1 (Str. 8)
Chronology unknown.
This unit was a test excavation placed along the southern end of Str. 8 (see Figure 1)
as a training/ teaching excavation for the undergraduate field students, to learn how to lay out
their units as well basic digging techniques. It was only a surface level, producing a total of
two eroded unidentifiable sherds. (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 2 (Ballcourt Alley between Strs. 5 & 6)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
Unit 2 was placed in the center of ballcourt alley (see Figure 1) to identify the
chronological sequence of the platform on which the ballcourt was built. It produced only 14
sherds, of which one, in the lowest level (4), was identifiable as a Cayo Unslipped jar rim.
53
Chronologically this places the construction to Spanish Lookout (Gifford 1976) or the Tepeu
2 (Smith 1955) ceramic sphere, in the late Late Classic. (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 3 (Trench across Ballcourt & Str. 6 clearing)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/Tepeu 2
Unit 3 is a shallow trench across the ballcourt, and included cleaning of Str. 6 (see
Figure 1), the eastern mound of the ballcourt. A total of 141 sherds were recovered, of which
only 14 are identifiable to type. These include Cayo Unslipped jars, and bowls and dishes of
the Garbutt Creek Red, Belize Red (including Platon Punctated Incised), and Dolphin Head
Red (including Silver Creek Impressed). One sherd with S-unit stamping on the exterior of a
bowl is either an example of Pantano Impressed or Remate Red. (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 4 (Str. 16 and Platform, south of Ballcourt -Str. 6)
Str. 16- Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
Ballcourt Platform- Late Preclassic: Barton Creek/ Mount Hope/ Chicanel through
late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
This unit was placed just south of Str. 6, the eastern mound of the ballcourt, in an
attempt to provide better chronological control for the construction of the platform underlying
the ballcourt and the ballcourt itself. Additionally the northern end of the unit (4A) was placed
to date Str. 16 (see Figure 1), as well as the ballcourt platform in its uppermost levels. A total
of 61 sherds were recovered from both 4A and 4B. The southern portion of the unit (4B)
continued through the platform on which the ballcourt sits to the bedrock below. (See
Appendix I below.) While the majority of the sherds were too eroded to identify time period,
the lowest levels above bedrock included some well-preserved types from the Sierra Red
Group suggesting an earlier construction phase at the site dating to the Late Preclassic. This
was the only in situ material found during this preliminary season dating earlier than the late
Late Classic period.
Unit 5 (Center of Main Plaza)
Chronology Unknown
This excavation unit was placed in the center of the main plaza of the site in the hope
of uncovering a chronological sequence for the construction of the plaza. However, it proved
to be a fairly shallow unit, before hitting bedrock, and produced only 8 sherds that were
completely eroded, making it impossible to date. (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 6 (Str. 4)
Chronology Unknown
54
Unit 6 was placed along the eastern edge of Str. 4 (see Figure 1), the large pyramidal
structure that bounds the west side of the main plaza of Las Cuevas. While it was not intended
that the unit excavate into the major architecture of the structure, it was hoped that catching
the eastern edge and the plaza beneath would provide some chronological information.
However, the excavation produced only 37 sherds and they were all highly eroded. It was
impossible to date precisely the material. though it is likely that it dates to the Classic period.
(There are two jar necks that may be Cayo Unslipped.) (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 7 (Str. 12)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
Unit 7 was placed in the northern end of the long structure 7 (see Figure 1), one of the
low platforms that rings the edge of the sinkhole and cave entrance. A total of 535 sherds
were recovered, of which 164 are identifiable to ceramic type. The excavation appears to have
uncovered both architectural fill as well as re-deposited midden material on the backside of
the platform. While there may be one sherd from the Late Preclassic Sierra Red Group
(tentative identification due to the eroded nature of the sherd in question), the majority of the
ceramics date to the late Late Classic period and include jars of the Cayo Unslipped Group;
monochrome red bowls and dishes of the Garbutt Creek, Belize Red, Vaca Falls Red, and
Dolphin Head Red Groups; monochrome bowls of the Mt. Maloney Black and Yalbac Brown
Groups; and a small number of Petén Gloss wares including Tinaja Red , Achote Black, and
Tialipa Brown. (See Appendix I below.)
Unit 8 (Plazuela Group)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2 (& Unknown Classic)
Excavations in the plazuela group northeast of the Las Cuevas site center (see Figure
1) produced 89 sherds but most were unidentifiable. One sherd of the Garbutt Creek Red
Group was in the uppermost level, however it was impossible to date the lower levels to a
more specific time period than Unknown Classic. (See Appendix I below.)
Anderson Trench (Cleaning Str. 2)
Unknown Classic
A single sherd was uncovered during cleaning of the open trench left in Str. 2 (see
Figure 1), presumably during the excavations in the 1950’s by A.H. Anderson and Adrian
Digby. The sherd was an eroded ring base, which dates to the Classic period though it is
impossible to date it more securely than the Classic Period. (See Appendix I below.)
Shovel Tests (West Transect)
Five shovel test pits (2; 6-8;10) along the west transect from site center produced
ceramics, most too eroded to identify but confirming occupation in both mound and non55
mound areas of the Las Cuevas site. Two sherds from STP10 are tentatively identified from
the late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2. (See Appendix I below.)
IV Ceramics from Cave Excavations
Cave Unit 1 (Platform 1, Cave Entrance)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
A total of 316 sherds were excavated from seven levels within this unit of which 62
are identifiable to type. Although there were redeposited sherds from the Late Preclassic
(Sierra Red Group) and Early Classic periods Petén Gloss wares, the construction of Platform
1 within the cave dates entirely to the late Late Classic Period. Ceramics from this time period
include Cayo Unslipped Jars, monochrome red bowls and dishes from the Garbutt Creek,
Dolphin Head, and Vaca Falls Groups, monochrome black bowls of the Mt. Maloney Group,
and Petén Gloss Wares. Rather than representing a unique cave assemblage, the ceramics in
the fill of the platform are typical of mixed fills from surface sites excavations. (See Appendix
II below.)
Cave Unit 2 (Chamber 2, South Wall)
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
A total of 268 sherds were excavated from five levels within this unit. However only
36 sherds were identifiable to ceramic type, all from the late Late Classic. These include Cayo
and Humes Bank Unslipped jars, monochrome red bowls and dishes of the Garbutt Creek,
Dolphin Head, and Vaca Falls Groups, monochrome black bowls of the Mt. Maloney Group,
and Petén Gloss Wares. Although the ceramics resemble typical fill for this time period, 38
sherds exhibit burning and may have been utilized in cave ritual prior to their incorporation as
fill. (See Appendix II below.)
Cave Unit 3
Late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2
A total of 135 sherds were excavated from eight levels within this unit. While there is
one redeposited sherd that possibly dates to the Late Preclassic Sierra Red Group, the
remaining pottery dates to the late Late Classic. Only 28 sherds are identifiable to ceramic
type including Cayo Unslipped jars, monochrome red bowls and dishes of the Belize, Dolphin
Head, and Vaca Falls Groups, monochrome black bowls of the Mt. Maloney Group, one
example of Daylight Orange, and Petén Gloss Wares. The pottery resembles typical fill for
this time period, however a number of sherds from levels 5 & 6 were covered with an ash
residue, again suggesting a burning event in the cave prior to their deposition as fill. (See
Appendix II below.)
56
Cave Shovel Tests
Six shovel tests (1-4; 7; 8) in the cave produced ceramics. Only those from STP 1-4
were identifiable to ceramic type and all date to the late Late Classic: Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu
2 time period. (See Appendix II below.)
V Concluding Comments
The exceedingly small ceramic sample from the 2011 LCAR limited excavations
makes it difficult to discuss anything more than very preliminary observations. The
excavations produced only minimal in situ Late Preclassic ceramics, and even smaller
quantities of Early Classic pottery that was redeposited in fill. There were only three
identifiable Late Classic Tiger Run/Tepeu I sherd in any of the excavations. The vast majority
of the pottery dates to the late Late Classic Spanish Lookout/ Tepeu 2 time period, and it is
unclear yet whether occupation continues into the very end of the Terminal Classic Spanish
Lookout/ Tepeu 3. Given the small sample it is not yet possible to identify site specific
ceramic complexes.
The twenty-two sherds from the Late Preclassic (300 BC- AD 250), encountered in
situ in the bottom levels of the Unit 4 surface excavations, are all typical examples of the
Sierra Red Group, including the Sierra Red and Laguna Verde Incised types (there are four
additional sherds redeposited in later fills). Sierra Red pottery is ubiquitous throughout all
lowland Maya sites in the Late Preclassic. The Las Cuevas sample is similar to Barton Creek/
Mt. Hope pottery from the Belize Valley (Gifford 1976), and Chicanel Sphere sherds from
other Maya sites (Smith 1955; Smith and Gifford 1966).
There are only eight sherds from the Early Classic (AD 250- 600), all redeposited in
later fills. These include examples of a Hewlett Bank Unslipped jar, and Petén Gloss Wares
from the Pucte Brown, Balanza Black, and Minanha Red types. The types and forms fit well
within those described for the Early Classic Hermitage Complex at Barton Ramie (Gifford
1976) and the Tzakol Complex defined at Uaxactun (Smith 1955; Smith and Gifford 1966).
As Gifford (1976) notes for the Belize Valley, monochrome and polychrome bowls are fairly
uniform throughout the Tzakol Sphere.
The three identifiable sherds from the early Late Classic (AD 600- 700) are also
redeposited in later fills. They include one example of a Mountain Pine Red bowl, and two
sherds from the same vessel, probably an eroded Saturday Creek polychrome. These types
are typical of the Tiger Run Complex, first identified at Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley
(Gifford 1976). Saturday Creek Polychrome in particular appears to be a local Belize copy of
the more ubiquitous and finely made Saxche Orange polychromes manufactured in the Petén
(Smith 1955; Smith and Gifford 1966). The Tiger Run Complex at Barton Ramie is the
beginning of a more local Belize Valley tradition, with a minor representation of Petén types
(Gifford 1976; Willet et al. 1967). Gifford (1976) describes the Tiger Run Complex as being
peripheral to the Tepeu Ceramic Sphere. Based on the small sample from the 2011
excavations it is impossible to say anything significant about this time period.
The late Late Classic (AD 700- 900) is the first time period at Las Cuevas with a large
enough sample size to begin any meaningful discussion of the ceramic sequence at the site,
and even then these are very preliminary comments, as the sample consists of only 299
sherds. These include typical examples of the Spanish Lookout Complex in the Belize Valley
57
(Gifford 1976), such as the monochrome red groups: Dolphin Head, Garbutt Creek, Vaca
Falls, and Belize Red. The Belize Red Group, with its soft, sandy volcanic ash paste is a
particularly useful regional diagnostic for the Belize Valley and southern Belize, as is the
presence of two sherds of the Chunhuitz Group. The Las Cuevas sample also includes
monochrome black bowls of the Mt. Maloney Group, monochrome brown of the Yalbac
Group, a sherd from the Daylight Orange Group, as well as numerous examples of unslipped
jars of the Cayo Group. Additionally there are a number of scored incised incensario
fragments and censer prongs (see Figure 2 below). Digby (1958a & b) reported finding these
censers in the early excavations at Las Cuevas, and similar material has been found at other
sites in the Chiquibul. Awe (1985: 311-316) describes this material as “Chiquibul ScoredIncised.”
Figure 2: Examples of “Chiquibul Scored Incised” incensarios and incensario prongs.
However, there are also sherds from the Achote Black, Tialipa Brown and Tinaja Red
Groups, all classified as Petén Gloss Wares from the Tepeu 2 Complex (Smith 1955; Smith
and Gifford 1966). As has been noted for the Belize Valley (Gifford 1976; Willet et al. 1967)
the Spanish Lookout Complex appears to be a local manifestation marking increased
regionalization in the late Late Classic period. While the Tepeu Sphere ceramics maintained
their importance at Petén sites, the Spanish Lookout Complex, and perhaps Sphere, appears
slightly peripheral to it in terms of the major content of its ceramic types. This is certainly the
case at Las Cuevas where there is a similar combination of Belize Valley ceramics and Petén
Gloss Wares (only 89 sherds are Petén Gloss Wares).
58
Of particular interest to any discussion of Las Cuevas’ role in regional ceramic spheres
is the presence and identification of unit stamping on late Late Classic pottery. Unit stamped
pottery was first identified as the Pantano Impressed: Stamped Variety in the Tinaja Group at
Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971: 47). It is also found at the site of Seibal in the Pasion
River drainage (approximately 150 sherds), along with the Chaquiste Impressed: Stamped
Variety in the Subin Group (Sabloff 1975: 164-174). Pantano Impressed is mentioned as
occurring at Tikal in minor quantities and Culbert (personal communication) suggests that
they are trade pieces. Unit stamping represents approximately 200 sherds of the Remate Red
type, in the Remate Red Group at Lubaantun (Hammond 1975: 301- 309). It is an important
part of the ceramic repertoire in southern Belize along the coast (McKillop 2002, 2007), and it
is present at the site of Caracol where it is called Pantano Impressed (see Chase and Chase
2001: Figure 16bb), although it is unknown in what quantity. Unit stamping also is reported
as present at Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley (see Adams 1971: 47), but it does not appear
in the published volume, although vessel forms are similar to those of Kaway Impressed
(Gifford 1976: 237- 240. Similar unit stamped pottery is reported at Mountain Cow (Kidder
1954), and in the cave excavations by David Pendergast (1969, 1970, 1971).
Hammond’s (1975: 304- 305) lengthy discussion of unit stamping summarizes well
the dilemma faced in naming these ceramics, and more importantly identifying from which
region it originates. Hammond notes that the unit stamping on the ceramics from the Pasion
sites of Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal are less complex, usually quadripartite and abstract in
design, than those from Lubaantun, , where more complex dot and S-designs, and monkeys
and birds are found. Hammond also discusses unit stamping in the Chiquibul region (see also
Awe 1985), where the designs are more commonly “S” stamps, as found on the Las Cuevas
material (see Figure 3 below). While unit stamping and comb stamping appear to be minor
decorative features of pottery in the Petén, they clearly a more important design choice in the
Pasion region, and even more so in southern Belize, although their origins of manufacture are
still unknown. Additionally, while Adams (1971) dates unit stamping to the late facet of the
Boca Complex (Terminal Classic/ Tepeu 3) at Altar de Sacrificios, as does Pendergast (1969),
it appears earlier at Lubaantun (Hammond 1975: 305) beginning in the late Late Classic
(Tepeu 2). Unit stamping co-occurs with Tepeu 2 material at Las Cuevas and would seem to
confirm the Lubaantun data, based on a very small sample. It might be useful to consider
utilizing the ceramic system (Aimers 2007) in describing this material, and future work at Las
Cuevas and may help to highlight the inter-regional connections of sites of the Chiquibul.
Finally, one of the most important questions that a bigger sample size and future
ceramic research at Las Cuevas may answer is the role that the large site of Caracol played in
smaller communities in the region (see Moyes 2010) through a thorough examination of
ceramic similarities and differences. While Las Cuevas is only 14 km. from the large polity of
Caracol, the nature and extent of Caracol’s control (or lack thereof) over a site such as Las
Cuevas remains to be determined. The Las Cuevas ceramics provide the unique opportunity to
examine its interactions with and the role of larger centers, both near and far, in the
development of the site.
59
Figure 3: Examples of unit stamped pottery from Las Cuevas. Similar to Pantano Impressed
(Sabloff 1975) and Remate Red (Hammond 1975).
60
Sources Cited
Adams, Richard E. W.
1971 The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology, Vol. 63, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Aimers, James J.
2007 The Curse of the Ware: Using Ceramic Systems in Belize. In Research Reports in
Belizean Archaeology, Papers of the 2006 Belize Archaeology Symposium, Vol. 4.
Edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, and Christophe Helmke, pp.
101-110. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History,
Belmopan, Belize.
Awe, Jaime J.
1985 Archaeology Investigations at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. Unpublished MS
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.
Braswell, Geoffrey E., Nancy Peniche May, Megan R. Pitcavage, and Kiri L. Hagerman
2011 Revisiting the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: New Investigations at Lubaantun.
In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Papers of the 2010 Belize
Archaeology Symposium, Vol. 8. Edited by John Morris, Jaime Awe, George
Thompson, and Melissa Badillo, pp. 115-126. Institute of Archaeology, National
Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan, Belize.
Braswell, Geoffrey E.. Cassandra R. Bill, and Christian M. Prager
2008 Exchange, political relations, and regional interaction: The ancient city of Pusilha
in the Late Classic Maya world. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology,
Papers of the 2007 Belize Archaeology Symposium, Vol. 5. Edited by John Morris,
Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, and Christophe Helmke, pp. 51-62. Institute of
Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan, Belize.
Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase
2001 Continued Investigation Into Epicentral Palaces: Report Of The 2001 Field Season
At Caracol, Belize. Report Submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan,
Belize. (http://caracol.cos.ucf.edu/reports/2001.php)
Digby, Adrian
1958a A New Maya City Discovered in British Honduras: First Excavations at Las
Cuevas, An Underground Necropolis Revealed. The Illustrated London News, Feb.
15, 1958.
1958b Excavations at Las Cuevas. Unpublished Paper, read to the Royal Anthropological
Institute, February 13, 1985. Department of Ethnography, British Museum,
London.
Gifford, James C.
61
1976
Prehistoric Pottery in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Graham, Elizabeth A.
1994 The Highlands of the Lowlands: Environment and Archaeology in the Stann
Creek District, Belize, Central America. Monographs in World Archaeology 19,
Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.
Hammond, Norman
1975 Lubaantun A Classic Maya Realm. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Harrison-Buck, Eleanor
2007 Materializing Identity Among The Terminal Classic Maya: Architecture And
Ceramics In The Sibun Valley, Belize. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department
of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston.
Healy, Paul F., Jaime J. Awe, and Hermann Helmuth
1998 An Ancient Maya Multiple Burial at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. Journal of
Field Archaeology, Vol. 25, No. 3: pp. 261-274
Iannone, Gyles
2005 The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Maya Petty Royal Court. Latin American
Antiquity Vol. 16, No. 1: pp. 26-44.
Kidder, A.V.
1954 Miscellaneous Archaeological Specimens from Mesoamerica. Carnegie Institution
of Washington, Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology, no. 117,
Washington, D.C.
McKillop, Heather
2002 Salt: White Gold of the Ancient Maya. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2007 GIS of the Maya Canoe Paddle Site, K'ak' Naab'. Research report to The
Foundation For The Advancement Of Mesoamerican Studies.
(http://www.famsi.org/reports/05032/index.html)
Morris, John Michael
2004 Archaeological Research at the Mountain Cow Sites: The Archaeology of
Sociocultural Diversity, Ethnicity and Identity Formation. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Moyes, Holley
2010 “Sleeping Next to the Giant: Preliminary Investigations of the Las Cuevas Site,
Chiquibul Reserve, Belize.” Grant Proposal Submitted to the Alphawood
62
Foundation. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of
California Merced.
Pendergast, David M.
1969 The Prehistory of Actun Balam, BritishHonduras. Occasional Paper 16. Royal
Ontario Museum, Art andArchaeology. Toronto.
1970
A.H. Anderson’s Excavations at Rio FrioCave E, British Honduras (Belize).
Occasional Paper 20. RoyalOntario Museum, Art and Archeology. Toronto.
1971
Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave,British Honduras (Belize).Occasional Paper
21. Royal OntarioMuseum, Art and Archaeology. Toronto.
Prufer, Keith, Holley Moyes, Brendan J. Colleton, Andrew Kindon, and Douglas J.
Kennett
2011 Formation of a Complex Polity on the Eastern Periphery of the Maya Lowlands.
Latin American Antiquity Vol. 22, No. 2: pp. 199-223.
Sabloff, Jeremy A.
1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Petén, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 13, no. 12. Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
Smith, Robert E.
1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Vols. I and II. Middle American
research Institute, Publication No. 28. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, Robert E., and James C. Gifford
1966 Maya Ceramic Varieties, Types, and Wares at Uaxactun: Supplement to “Ceramic
Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala.” Middle American Research Institute
Publication No. 28: 125-74. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Thompson, J. E. S.
1939 Excavations at San José, British Honduras. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 506. Washington, D.C.
Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E.W. Adams
1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference.
American Antiquity 32: 289- 315.
63
Appendix I: Ceramics from LCAR Surface Excavations
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
STR 8
1
11003
STR 8
1
AREA
FEATURE
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
11003
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11000
SURFACE
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11000
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11001
1
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11001
1
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11002
2
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11002
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11007
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11007
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11009
4
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED?
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
CAYO
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11009
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
ALLEY
2
11009
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
FEATURE
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11011
1
SECTION 5
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11011
1
SECTION 5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11008
1
SECTION 6
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11008
1
SECTION 6
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL RIM
PLATON
PUNCTATED
INCISED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
BELIZE RED
BRITISH
HONDURAS
VOLCANIC ASH
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL BODY
BELIZE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
BELIZE RED
BRITISH
HONDURAS
VOLCANIC ASH
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
DISH RIM
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD RED
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN
GLOSSWARE
FEATURE
64
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL RIM
DOLPHIN HEAD
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD RED
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
JAR NECK
MT MALONEY
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT
MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
BOWL BODY
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UNKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
FOOT
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
FOOT
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
TRENCH
3
11031
1
SECTION 9
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
STR 6
3
11034
SURFACE
SOUTH
WALL
CLEANING
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
STR 6
3
11034
SURFACE
SOUTH
WALL
CLEANING
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
STR 6
3
11034
SURFACE
SOUTH
WALL
CLEANING
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
BALL COURT
STR 6
3
11043
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
NE
CORNER
CLEANING
FEATURE
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4A
11013
1
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4A
11013
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4A
11026
3
BOWL RIM
YALBAC SMUDGED
BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
YALBAC
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11025
3
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11025
3
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11025
3
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11025
3
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
65
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11025
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11027
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
HERMITAGE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
RED/BROWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
LAGUNA VERDE
INCISED
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR NECK
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
JAR BODY
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
BOWL RIM
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
SOUTH BALL
COURT
4B
11028
5
BOWL BODY
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
PLAZA
CENTER
5
11015
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZA
CENTER
5
11016
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
STR 4
6
11017
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
6
11019
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
6
11020
3
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
FEATURE
FEATURE
66
STR 4
6
11020
3
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
6
11020
3
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
6
EXT
6
EXT
6
EXT
6
EXT
11022
1
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
11022
1
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
11022
1
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
11022
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
6
EXT
6
EXT
11021
2
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
11021
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
6
EXT
11030
3
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
STR 12
7
11037
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11037
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11037
SURFACE
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11037
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
RING BASE
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT
MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
JAR RIM
VACA FALLS
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
VACA FALLS
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
BOWL RIM
DOLPHIN HEAD
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD RED
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
BOWL RIM
YALBAC SMUDGED
BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
YALBAC
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11017
1
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11017
1
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 4
STR 4
STR 4
STR 4
STR 4
FEATURE
67
STR 12
7
11017
1
JAR NECK
VACA FALLS
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
VACA FALLS
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
INCENSARIO
UNAMED CENSER
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL RIM
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL BODY
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
BELIZE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
BELIZE RED
BRITISH
HONDURAS
VOLCANIC ASH
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL BODY
MARTINS INCISED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
BELIZE RED
BRITISH
HONDURAS
VOLCANIC ASH
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
INCENSARIO
SCORED INCISED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR NECK
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL RIM
DOLPHIN HEAD
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD RED
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
UNKNOWN
RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
VACA FALLS
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
VACA FALLS
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
VACA FALLS
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
VACA FALLS
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT
MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
ACHOTE BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
ACHOTE
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
SIERRA RED?
BARTON
CREEK/MT
HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABALLO
WAXY WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR RIM
TIALIPA BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TIALIPA
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
TIALIPA BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TIALIPA
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
JAR BODY
TINAJA RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11018
2
SECTION 1
BOWL BODY
CUBETA INCISED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
ACHOTE
PETEN GLOSS
WARE
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
RING BASE
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
68
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
DISH RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
STR 12
7
11019
2
SECTION 3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
FEATURE
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11200
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11200
1
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11201
2
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11201
2
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11201
2
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11201
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11201
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11205
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11205
3
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11205
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11206
4
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11206
4
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11206
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11207
5
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11207
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11208
6
DISH RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11208
6
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11208
6
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11208
6
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
PLAZUELA
GROUP
8
11209
7
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
FEATURE
69
STR. 2 ANDERSON
TRENCH
11035
CLEANING
BOWL BASE
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
VESSEL
FORM
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
WEST
TRANSECT
STP 2
11066
2
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP 2
11066
2
BOWL BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP 6
11067
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP 7
11068
2
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP 8
11069
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP
10
11070
2
DISH RIM
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD RED
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
WEST
TRANSECT
STP
10
11070
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP
10
11070
2
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
WEST
TRANSECT
STP
10
11070
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
FEATURE
70
Appendix II: Ceramics from LCAR Cave Excavations
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
1
110505
1
FEATURE
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
SURFACE
VESSEL
FORM
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
110506
1
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110506
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110509
2
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110509
2
JAR RIM
PUCTE BROWN
HERMITAGE
PUCTE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110509
2
BOWL RIM
HEWLETT BANK
UNSLIPPED
HERMITAGE
HEWLETT
BANK
UNSPECIFIE
1
110509
2
BOWL RIM
MEDITATION
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MEDITATION
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110509
2
BOWL RIM
DOLPHIN HEAD RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
DISH RIM
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABA
WAXY WAR
1
110509
2
DISH BODY
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
BOWL
BODY
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110509
2
VASE FLAT
BASE
TIALIPA BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TIALIPA
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110509
2
DISH RIDGE
MT PINE RED
TIGER RUN
MT PINE
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
BOWL
BODY
SATURDAY CREEK
POLYCHROME
TIGER RUN
SATURDAY
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110509
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
71
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
1
110509
2
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110509
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110510
3
BOWL RIM
CHUNHUITZ
ORANGE
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CHUNHUITZ
VINACEOUS
TAWNY
1
110510
3
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110510
3
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110510
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110513
4
DISH RIM
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110513
4
JAR NECK
DOS HERMANOS
RED
HERMITAGE
DOS
HERMANOS
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110513
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110513
4
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110513
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110517
5
DISH RIM
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110517
5
DISH BODY
DOLPHIN HEAD RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110517
5
UNKNOWN
BODY
SIERRA RED
BARTON
CREEK/MT HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABA
WAXY WAR
1
110517
5
JAR BODY
DOS HERMANOS
RED
HERMITAGE
DOS
HERMANOS
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110517
5
BOWL RIM
RUBBER CAMP
BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110517
5
BOWL
BODY
RUBBER CAMP
BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110517
5
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
72
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
1
110517
5
BOWL
BODY
BALANZA BLACK
HERMITAGE
BALANZA
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110517
5
BOWL RING
BASE
PUCTE BROWN
HERMITAGE
PUCTE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110517
5
GRATER
BOWL
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110517
5
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110517
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110517
5
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
RED-ORANGE
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110517
5
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110517
5
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110519
6
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110520
6
GRATER
BOWL
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110520
6
BOWL
BODY
PUCTE BROWN
HERMITAGE
PUCTE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110520
6
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110520
6
UNKNOWN
BODY
MINANHA RED ?
HERMITAGE
MINANHA
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110520
6
BOWL
BODY
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110520
6
JAR BODY
CANOA INCISED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TIALIPA
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110520
6
BOWL RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110520
6
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110520
6
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONONCHROME
RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
73
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
1
110520
6
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110525
7
GRATER
BOWL
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110525
7
BOWL
BODY
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110525
7
BOWL
BODY
SATURDAY CREEK
POLYCHROME
TIGER RUN
SATURDAY
CREEK
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110525
7
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110525
7
DISH RIM
ROARING CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
VACA FALLS
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110525
7
TECOMATE
BOWL RIM
UNNAMED TAN SLIP
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110525
7
BOWL RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110525
7
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110525
7
DISH BODY
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110525
7
BOWL
BODY
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110525
7
OVOID
FOOT
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
1
110525
7
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110525
7
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110525
7
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110531
7
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110531
7
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110524
7
3
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
74
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
CAVE
ENTRANCE
PLATFORM
1
AREA
1
110524
7
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110524
7
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1
110529
7
4
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
1
110529
7
4
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
1
110529
7
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
FEATURE
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110538
SURFACE
VESSEL
FORM
BOWL RIM
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
2
110538
SURFACE
BOWL RIM
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110538
SURFACE
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110538
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110538
SURFACE
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
2
110538
SURFACE
BOWL
BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110538
SURFACE
BOWL RIM?
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110538
SURFACE
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110538
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110538
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110538
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110540
1
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
2
110540
1
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110540
1
BOWL
BODY
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110540
1
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110540
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
75
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110541
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110541
2
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110541
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110541
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110543
2/3
JAR RIM
MT MALONEY
BLACK?
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110543
2/3
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110543
2/3
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110543
2/3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110543
2/3
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
2
110543
2/3
JAR BODY
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
2
110543
2/3
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
RED/MAROON
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110543
2/3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110543
2/3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110545
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110546
4
DISH RIM
SILVER CREEK
IMPRESSED?
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110546
4
JAR RIM
CAYO UNLSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
2
110546
4
JAR RIM
HUMES BANK
UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
HUMES BANK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110546
4
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110546
4
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110546
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110546
4
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110546
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2
110546
4
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
76
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
2
110551
5
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
2
110551
5
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 2/
SOUTH
WALL
AREA
2
110551
5
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
FEATURE
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
VESSEL
FORM
UNKNOWN
BODY
BELIZE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
BELIZE
BRITISH
HONDURAS
VOLCANIC A
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR RIM
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR RIM
SIERRA RED
MT HOPE
SIERRA
PASO CABA
WAXY WAR
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
ERODED
POLYCHROME
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
RED-ORANGE
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
FLAT BASE
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
CAVE
3
110557
3
FLOOR
SURFACE
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110562
5
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110562
5
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110561
5/5A
UNDER
STONE
LINING
UNDER
STONE
LINING
IN FLOOR
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110563
6
CAVE
3
110568
CAVE
3
CAVE
3
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
6
AT
CONTACT
W/ FLOOR
DISPERSED
JAR NECK
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
110568
6
DISPERSED
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
110568
6
DISPERSED
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
77
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
BOWL RIM
DOLPHIN HEAD RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DOLPHIN
HEAD
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
JAR RIM
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110568
6
DISPERSED
OVOID
FOOT
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110571
7
DISPERSED
BOWL
BODY
DAYLIGHT ORANGE
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
DAYLIGHT
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
3
110571
7
DISPERSED
BOWL
BODY
ERODED
POLYCHROME
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CAVE
3
110571
7
DISPERSED
JAR NECK
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CAVE
3
110571
7
DISPERSED
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
3
110572
8
FLOATING
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN ERODED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
AREA
UNIT
LOT
LEVEL
FEATURE
TYPE
COMPLEX
GROUP
WARE
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
VESSEL
FORM
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
JAR BODY
TIALIPA BROWN
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TIALIPA
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CAVE
STP 1
110591
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110592
2
BOWL RIM
GARBUTT CREEK
RED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
GARBUTT
CREEK
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
STP 1
110592
2
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
STP 1
110592
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BROWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110592
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110593
3
INCENSARI
O PRONG
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110593
3
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 1
110593
3
JAR BODY
MT MALONEY
BLACK
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
MT MALONEY
PINE RIDGE
CARBONATE
CAVE
STP 1
110593
3
JAR RIM
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
CAVE
STP 1
110593
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
78
CAVE
STP 2
110594
2
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
BLACK
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CAVE
STP 3
110595
3
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110597
SURFACE
DISH BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME
ORANGE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110597
SURFACE
BOWL
BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110597
SURFACE
UNKNOWN
BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110597
SURFACE
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110597
SURFACE
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR RIM
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR BODY
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
BOWL RIM
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
TINAJA/
REMATE
PETEN GLOS
WARE
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR BODY
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
PANTANO
IMPRESSED/
REMATE RED
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
GRATER
BOWL
CAYO UNSLIPPED
SPANISH
LOOKOUT
CAYO
UAXACTUN
UNSLIPPED
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
BOWL
BODY
UNNKNOWN
MONOCHROME RED
UNKNOWN
CLASSIC
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR NECK
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 4
110598
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 7
110599
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
CHAMBER 3
STP 8
110600
1
JAR BODY
UNKNOWN
UNSLIPPED
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UKNOWN
79