February 18, 2011

Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase

University of Central Florida

The 2008 field season of the Caracol Archaeological Project ran from the end of January through the middle of March. Twenty-four individuals were formally involved in the production of the archaeological data reported on within this report (Table 1). The research undertaken at Caracol during the 2008 field season was designed to build on the results of the 2007 field season in which significant ritual variation was uncovered in both epicentral Caracol and in an outlying residential group. While appearing to be a fairly normal residential compound before investigation, excavations in the GRB Group proved otherwise. The southern building, Structure I5, was a finely constructed stone building, which had once been vaulted. Rather than a rubble-filled platform supporting a perishable construction, a formally constructed stone room (Structure I1) was situated on the western side of the northern pyramid (Structure I2). Usually only associated with eastern buildings, a face cache was found within the steps of the northern pyramid. Excavations in the eastern building, Structure I5, uncovered a series of stratified face caches, many of them associated with eccentric obsidians and other small items; both the number of face caches and their associated artifacts presented an anomalous situation in comparison to the vast majority of other residential compounds that had been excavated. All of these ritual and construction features were interpreted as being related to the status and/or occupation of the residents of the GRB Group. Given the fact that other patterned cache variation also had been documented in residential groups to the northwest of the epicenter, the 2008 field season sought to determine whether other unusual residential complexes existed elsewhere in close proximity to the epicenter. Towards this end, two residential groups in close proximity to the South Acropolis were tested during 2008 in order to ascertain if other ritual and/or household variation could be defined for Caracol. These two groups were nicknamed the “Culebras Group” and the “Palmitas Group.” Both groups did produce archaeological materials that amplified known residential group patterns for the site (e.g., D. Chase and A. Chase 2004a).

Background: Excavation of Maya Residential Groups

The characterization and composition of Maya households has comprised a basic research question for Maya archaeologists for more than half a century. While the archaeological identification of Maya residential units as small platforms distributed over the landscape was established on the basis of the principle of abundance at the turn of the twentieth century (Thompson 1897), only limited excavations of house mounds were undertaken by the Maya archaeologists (e.g., Wauchope 1934) until the onset of more formal settlement pattern studies by Gordon Willey in the Belize Valley (Willey et al. 1965). Most early archaeological programs of excavation in the Maya area focused on the large structures and buildings that comprised the centers of most Maya sites. This initial focus on central monumental Maya architecture led to equivocation over the nature of Maya settlement. Were the temples and palaces at the center of vacant ceremonial centers (Willey 1956)? Or, were these constructions the nucleus of true urban settlements (Becker 1979)? The block mapping of 16 square kilometers of settlement surrounding the center of Tikal, Guatemala (Carr and Hazard 1961) eventually tipped the balance toward a general agreement that the Maya had urban centers, but debate about the nature of Maya cities is still ongoing (A. Chase and D. Chase 2007; D. Chase et al. 1990; Fox et al. 1996; Sanders and Webster 1989). Archaeological investigation of Maya residential groups has grown exponentially since the publication of the Tikal map, but exactly how such groups are constituted and situated in terms of an urban center is poorly defined. The research undertaken during 2008 sought to gather data that, when conjoined with previous investigations, helps refine our understanding of Maya residential settlement at the urban site of Caracol.

The site which has seen the most amplification of settlement pattern definition is perhaps Tikal, Guatemala. There, Marshall Becker (2003) analyzed the 2,500 mapped residential structures and defined some 690 residential groups. He then analyzed these 690 groups for repetitive architectural patterning and was able to define a series of 10 distinct plaza plans (Becker 1971, 1982). Becker (2003, 2004) has argued that each of these plaza plans can be identified through both architectural arrangement and material archaeological signatures. While Becker (2004) frames the discussion of residential groups at Tikal in terms of an “architectural grammar” for 10 plaza plans (PPs), only four of his plaza plans relate to residential groups and these can be recast in terms of two dichotomies. These contrastive features are, first, formal (PP2, PP3, PP4) and informal (PP5) layout based on group integration and directionality. These arrangements are then further differentiated based on the presence of ritual (PP2, PP4) and non-ritual (PP3, PP5) architectural features (Becker 2003:258-264). The ritual features consist of either a central altar (PP4) or an eastern shrine / mausoleum (PP2). At Tikal, 14-15% of the recorded groups exhibited eastern shrines (Becker 2003:259); less than 1% exhibited a central altar.

Thus, the most common residential layout for Tikal is a formal non-ritual residential group. At Caracol, in contrast, the formal ritual residential group comprises the most common layout. The limited ritual focus found at Tikal contrasts with settlement data from Caracol, which demonstrates that the east-focused residential groups constitute over 60% of all recorded plazas (A. Chase and D. Chase 1996). As at Tikal, central shrines occur infrequently at Caracol. Given the widespread distribution of east-focused shrines groups at Caracol (A. Chase and D. Chase 1987, 1994; D. Chase and A. Chase 1998), it may be expected that archaeological data would permit elaboration on the diversity in the “architectural grammar” that can be seen in such groups.

Archaeological investigations into these eastern shrines at Caracol have helped define patterning in the general function and use of these structures. Similar to Tikal, the eastern structures in Caracol’s residential groups generally functioned within a mortuary realm; but, there are significant differences from the Tikal sample. Becker (2004:129) speaks of a “grammatical rule” at Tikal “involving an ‘intrusive interment and covering’ dyad” where the initial interment was placed into bedrock and then covered by the shrine – with each subsequent refurbishment “preceded by the intrusion of another high status burial” through the existing architecture. Whereas excavation into the Tikal PP2s primarily yielded burials, the Caracol east-focused groups contain a mix of both burials and caches. The Caracol interments were usually not placed into bedrock, but instead were situated in tombs in the cores of the eastern shrines. Many Caracol tombs were additionally associated with entryways that permitted easy access to the chambers for an extended period of time. Even without a formal entryway, Caracol’s tombs were re-entered, sometime accidentally, but also presumably for both social and political purposes (D. Chase and A. Chase 2003).

For Caracol it also has been possible to define both a generalized pattern of deposition and a temporality for these deposits (D. Chase and A. Chase 2004b). A tomb was placed first in the core of the building and then may have been used for the temporary placement of interments that were eventually buried elsewhere. Eventually, one or more bodies were placed within a tomb and re-entry was denied to the chamber through engulfment in a subsequent rebuilding. Once the tomb was inaccessible, the next interment would be placed at the base of the frontal step. Later, another burial may have pierced the frontal step and/or have been placed in the associated plaza on axis to the eastern construction. The sequencing of these events in Caracol eastern structures indicates that they followed a rhythm that was not tied to individual life cycles, but rather to Maya temporal cycles (D. Chase and A. Chase 2004b:220-221), indicating that these eastern constructions functioned to integrate Caracol’s residential groups into broader ritual arenas (D. Chase and A. Chase 2009). They were not simply individual ancestral shrines. While ancestors may have been buried in these buildings, only a small percentage of a group’s inhabitants actually were interred within the residential group (D. Chase 1997).

Of even more interest in terms of the architectural grammar of these groups is the conjunction of the eastern interments with caching practices at Caracol. Special cache containers, termed “finger bowls” and “face caches” (D. Chase and A. Chase 1998) were often placed to the front of the eastern shrines. Occasionally, the caches were incorporated into the building itself by being placed beneath front steps. And, in unusual circumstances caches were placed in the core of constructions, but this was not the normal practice. However, in at least two cases, face caches were located within the core of an eastern construction and in one case multiple caches were placed without the expected tomb. Thus, differences occur in the patterning associated with some of Caracol’s eastern buildings. But, why? And, are these differences patterned? And, can such differences be predicted from surface remains?

The Problem: Variations in the Pattern

Over the past twenty-three years, a number of residential plazas have been investigated in the immediate vicinity of the Caracol epicenter. For the most part these residential units have exhibited patterns traditionally associated with east-focused residential units, although informal structure groupings (2000 field season) and non-ritual residential groups (2006 field season) have also been purposely excavated. Two epicentral acropolis groups have also been tested, the Northeast Acropolis and the Central Acropolis. Both of these architectural complexes may be considered to be high status residential groups; and, investigations in both groups replicated site-wide ritual patterns, emphasizing the shared nature of the rituals by Caracol households of varying statuses. In the Northeast Acropolis, the single eastern pyramid, Structure B34, contained face-caches, burials, and tombs (D. Chase and A. Chase 2003). The Central Acropolis mimicked the summit of Caana in having both northern and eastern pyramids. While the northern building in the Central Acropolis revealed a royal tomb beneath its stairway, excavations into the eastern buildings in this residential group revealed tombs, caches, and burials that reflect patterns found in residential groups throughout Caracol (D. Chase and A. Chase 1996).

While there is widespread uniformity in ritual patterning throughout Caracol in east-focused structural groups, variability does occur in some of the residential groups in the immediate vicinity of the epicenter. Several of these groups display variations from the repetitive archaeological signatures found in the eastern buildings within the outlying settlement. For instance, although associated with burials, Structure D9 lacked both a tomb and caches. Structure I5 was similarly lacking the axial tomb that is typical of Caracol eastern shrines, but this construction had a series of caches and eccentric obsidians deposited within its core. The eastern construction Structure F4 contained neither tomb nor cache; instead, its western counterpart, Structure F2, contained a tomb that was the locus of a complex re-entry and re-deposition event (D. Chase and A. Chase 2003). While Structure J8 exhibited both a tomb and caches, this residential group was also associated with a low central altar that yielded over two dozen lip-to-lip “finger” caches. Thus, distinct archaeological variations do exist within Caracol’s east-focused residential groups and it should be possible to gain further information on (and, perhaps, “understand”) these variations by contextually examining proximate groups.

Research Undertaken During 2008

Toward the goal of understanding the compositional differences in ritual patterning, two residential groups were selected for excavation during the 2008 field season, the C20 or “Culebras” group and the D29 or “Palmitas” group (Figure 1). The groups are neighbors, being divided from each other by the Pajaro-Ramonal Causeway. Both groups are also close to the South Acropolis, which has witnessed considerable investigation, and their proximity to this complex may be taken to imply that some interaction took place between these units. Thus, the archaeological data recovered from these two groups can be situated in terms of information from the South Acropolis (www.caracol.net ). As a result of the 2008 investigations, five structures were investigated within the Culebras Group and three structures were excavated within the Palmitas Group. The ritual deposits that were recovered fit other residential patterns recovered from Caracol – except for the Early Classic Period cache recovered in association with Structure C21. Importantly, certain architectural constructions within these two groups also indicate that there was significant variability when compared to general residential groups elsewhere at the site: Structure C17 yielded a well-constructed frontal shrine room; Structure D32 produced a vaulted-room building complete with an exterior façade decorated with stucco pseudo-glyphs; and, Structure D27 appears to have been a formally constructed sweatbath. Thus, while the research goals of the field season were met in terms of finding variability within residential groups in the immediate vicinity of the Caracol epicenter, the features that were encountered have raised new questions about the composition of residential groups that need to be tested in the future.

Culebras Residential Group: Structures C17-C23 and D22-D26.

The first residential group selected for investigation is set amidst terraces approximately 150 meters east of the South Acropolis and was nicknamed “Culebras” (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The western side of this group is set on a higher terrace level than the eastern side. Single buildings define the southern and northern edges of the lower eastern plaza. What was originally thought to be a possible plain monument located at the southwest corner of Structure C17 was shown to be a cornice stone from a vaulted building (although no vaulted buildings are in evidence in this group as a result of the 2008 investigations). The eastern edge of the Culebras Group is bounded by four separate constructions, two of them (Structures C20 and C21) resembling small square raised shrines; both of these buildings were excavated during 2008. A small “altar” construction (Structure C22) is set in the center of the lower plaza on axis with the northern building but intermediate between the two eastern shrines. This small platform was also excavated. Thus, the 2008 field excavations within Culebras focused on all three constructions that were considered to have had ritual usage based on surface considerations. The western (Structure D25) and northern (Structure C17) buildings in Culebras were also investigated during 2008.

Structure C20 (Figure 4)

Structure C20 is the northernmost eastern shrine building in the Culebras Group. It rose just some 1.10 meters above the plaza. Very badly defined base-walls and a possible door jamb were visible on the summit of the structure (Figure 6). The latest frontal stair or stair-balk could also be discerned without excavation.

Operation C179B (Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12) was assigned for an axial trench placed over Structure C20. This excavation was 1.50 meters wide and was eventually 8.40 meters long. As a result of this investigation, it is possible to define at least two different phases of construction for Structure C20. The latest upper phase consisted of a single room construction that was bedded on large dry-core boulders. This upper construction was placed over an earlier construction that included finely cut stone facings and plastered floors (Figure 7). This earlier construction apparently sealed S.D. C179B-5, S.D. C179B-6, and S.D. C179B-7; vessels recovered in S.D. C179B-6 date to the transition between the Early and Late Classic Periods. As S.D. C179B-6 is stratigraphically the latest deposit associated with the earlier version of Structure C20, S.D. C179B-5 and S.D. C179B-7 should precede it in time. The earlier version of Structure C20 was pierced by S.D. C179B-3, which can be dated to the early Late Classic Period. S.D. C179B-2 is located almost directly above S.D. C179B-3 and is probably of a similar date. Thus, the earlier version of Structure C20 antedates the early part of the Late Classic Period, as this is the time when the later version of the building was constructed. Construction fill for the latest version of Structure C20 includes pieces of painted stucco decoration stripped from a stone building, indicating that such a construction may once have existed in the Culebras Group or that these decorations were carried in from presumably demolished epicentral construction. The latest deposits recovered in Operation C179B were S.D. C179B-1 and S.D. C179B-4; these were placed in front of the final stairway and date to the late Late Classic Period. Of the seven special deposits recovered in this trench, two were caches and five were burials. The rear tomb shown in Figure 5 was neither excavated nor formally entered; it will be dug in 2009. At the end of the field season, the entire excavation was backfilled, including the area above the uninvestigated tomb.

S.D. C179B-1 (Figures 5, 9, and 10) was located at a level below the lowest basal level of the front step, but squarely on axis to the structure. The deposit was badly crushed, but consisted of a lidded face cache (Figure 10a) and a lip-to-lip cache (Figure 10b) that had presumably been placed within the face cache. A total of 8 human phalanges can be associated with S.D. C179B-1; two of them were found within the lip-to-lip cache and the other six were intermixed with and under the sherds that made up the face cache. Additionally, two slate bars (Figures 8e and 8f) and a slate pendent (Figure 8b) were found in the general area and same level of the face cache and possibly may be associated with this deposit. The barble decoration associated with the S.D. C179B-1 face cache is generally associated with caches from within and near the epicenter; barbled face caches have only been recovered in this Culebras deposit, in the GRB Group dug in 2007, in the Central Acropolis, and in the Northeast Acropolis. Thus, this decorative mode may be taken to be indicative of the status of the individuals who occupied this group in the Late Classic Period.

S.D. C179B-2 (Figures 5 and 11) was located approximately 50 to 60 cm directly above the capstones for S.D. C179B-3. It consists of the skull of a single individual and could possibly be referred to as a “skull cache.” The atlas and hyoid were present along with 1 cervical vertebrae; no axis recovered. There are no clear cut marks on vertebrae. The sex of the skull cannot be determined; the mandible resembles a female, but the skull characteristics are more like a male. Some carries are in evidence in the associated teeth. The individual would have been approximately 25 years of age at death. Below the skull in the fill above the captstones for S.D. C179B-1 were faunal remains (small and large, including deer), a ceramic pipe (Figure 8d), and an obsidian tool (Figure 8j). All of this material may be associated with S.D. C172B-2 and some kind of ritual activity for the deposition of S.D. C179B-3.

S.D. C179B-3 (Figures 5, 13, 14, 15, and 16) was an interment placed within a small crypt covered with capstones. The crypt penetrated an earlier floor. The skeletal remains of a single individual, probably and older male, were recovered in the crypt. As the bones were not articulated, this was certainly a secondary burial that was re-interred in this location. The shape of the mandible is consistent with that of a male; however, teeth were not present because of ante-mortem tooth loss and resorption in the mandible. There was also an extra growth on the left fibula, indicative of a potential pathology. Artifactual materials in S.D. C179B-3 included two complete vessels and a jadeite earring assemblage. The vessels have been used to date this interment in the early Late Classic Period. The single jadeite earring assemblage (Figure 16c and 16d) is more expectable from a cache than a burial (for instance, see earlier deposits in Structure A2 and A8; A. Chase and D. Chase 2006) and may indicate the broader ritual roles of these deposits (Becker 1992; D. Chase and A. Chase 2004b).

S.D. C179B-4 (Figures 5, 17, 18, and 19) consisted of an interment placed in a crypt constructed just above bedrock in front of and below the front steps for Structure C20. S.D. C179B-1 was located directly above this burial. The crypt contained two individuals and two pottery vessels. Both of the individuals were determined to be males based on an in situ examination of preserved sciatic notches. Along the north-south axis of the crypt, a fully articulated, older adult male had been placed in a prone position with his head to the north. No teeth were recovered with this individual; his mandible had complete ante-mortem tooth loss and resorption. Arthritic lipping appeared on this individual’s vertebrae. In the extreme southeastern corner of the crypt a secondary interment had been placed. This individual was disarticulated and had probably been placed into S.D. C179B-4 as a bundled burial. This male individual was approximately 21 years of age based on the 6 teeth that could be associated with him. Filing was noted on his left lower lateral canine and incisor; hypoplasia and tartar were also in evidence on two lower premolars. The vertebrae with the secondary individual were billowed. Artifactual materials included in the interment were two pottery vessels. A small footed plate had been located northeast of the primary individual’s head and a polychrome figural cylinder had been located east of the primary individual’s lower leg and above the secondary individual’s long bones. The part of the cylinder that protruded from the dirt matrix covering much of the burial was well-preserved (Figures 20 and 21); however, the back of the cylinder that was embedded in the lower dirt matrix had largely disintegrated.

S.D. C179B-5 (Figures 5, 10, and 22) was designated for a lip-to-lip cache that had once been set on the western edge of the capstones that covered S.D. C179B-5. This cache was sealed by a floor in the core of the earlier version of Structure C20.

S.D. C179B-6 (Figures 5, 23, 24, 25, and 26) was assigned to a collapsed tomb that probably constituted the latest deposit intruded within the earlier version of Structure C20. The large boulder fill for the final version of Structure C20 had caused the roof of the chamber to collapse on its northern end, resulting in the infilling of the chamber. The floor of the chamber does not appear to have been disturbed; the tomb’s contents are still in situ. The southern end of the chamber had not collapsed and still exhibited an intact capstone (Figure 24). On the floor of the chamber the remains of a single adult individual were recovered; the sciatic notch was identified as being male in the field. The full interment could not be exposed because of the large collapsed boulders that filled the northern end of the tomb. This unexcavated section of the chamber probably contained the skull and torso of the individual as well as additional artifacts. Two ring-based ceramic dishes (Figure 26a and 26b) were recovered in the southern part of the chamber and a complete mano (Figure 26c) was positioned to the west of the body.

S.D. C179B-7 (Figure 5) was the appellation given a tomb that was found in the eastern extent of Operation C179B. The chamber was not excavated during 2008 because of time constraints. The exposed capstones were drawn (Figure 12) and a central one was lifted to obtain dimensions for the chamber. The chamber is minimally 1.1 meters wide by over 2.2 meters long; 0.70 meters of airspace runs the distance of the chamber and there may be an entryway at the chamber’s southern end. After measurements were taken, the capstone was replaced, the capstones were covered with a tarp, and Operation C179B was backfilled. This chamber is scheduled for excavation during the 2009 field season.

Operation C179C (Figures 27 and 28) was assigned for an areal excavation of the alley between Structures C20 and C21. The excavation measured 3.1 meters north-south by 3.5 meters east-west. It was hoped to be able to define the corners and building sides of the two shrine constructions, but this did not prove to be the case. Nor was intact trash recovered. The excavation was backfilled at the end of the field season.

Structure C21 (Figure 29)

As part of the attempt to understand the ritual patterns in the Culebras Group, the second eastern shrine building, Structure 21, was also investigated. Like its companion Structure C20, the southern Structure C21 rose 1.10 meters above the Culebras plaza. However, Structure C21 was far less defined in terms of surface architecture. As a result of investigations into Structure C21, two versions of the building were found and two deposits were recovered.

Operation C179D (Figures 30 and 31) was designated for the 1.50 meters wide (north-south) by 6.20 meters (east-west) long axial trench that penetrated Structure C21. The construction fill for the latest building was continuous from the ground surface down to an earlier plaza floor. Within the upper core of the latest building, a spondylus valve (Figure 38a) was recovered; it is believed to have been redeposited within Structure C21 as a result of earlier demolition activity. That such demolition took place at the Operation C179 locus was clear from the recovery of a formally constructed step on the southern side of the excavation, resting directly on the lowest plaza floor recovered in the core of the building. Thus, it appears that an earlier construction at this locus had been removed when the latest construction was erected. The removal of this earlier building had also disturbed the upper portions of an earlier burial, S.D. C179D-2, dating to the later part of the Early Classic Period. Excavation in the western portion of Operation C179D also recovered three stones (one forming a corner) of an even earlier construction that had had been engulfed in the plaza. Refuse, including carved bone (Figure 34d, 34e, and 34f) and potentially reconstructible ceramics, abutted these stones; the ceramics were all Early Classic in date. A green obsidian blade fragment and point (Figure 38l) were found in the same fill level, but south of the wall. Also encountered in the core of the plaza at the same level as the Early Classic trash and adjacent to it was a very impressive cache, S.D. C179D-1, which contained the first flint eccentrics recovered at Caracol after 24 seasons of excavation. The two deposits recovered in association with Structure C21 clearly establish this locus as important during the Early Classic Period and indicate that the earlier version of the demolished building likely preceded the use of the Structure C20 locus in terms of ritual.

S.D. C179D-1 (Figures 32, 33, and 34) was a very impressive cache deposit placed within the earlier plaza fill in front of Structure C21. Even though placed directly into the dirt plaza fill, the artifacts were embedded in what is colloquially referred to as “cache dirt;” this cache dirt was full of small chips of valuable materials. In the case of S.D. C179D-1, the cache dirt consisted of 747 jadeite chips and 4751 spondylus chips. Also recovered within the cache dirt were 23 chert chips, 32 quartz chunks, 4 obsidian blade fragments, 2 unworked shells, and 138 slate mirror pieces; the scattered distribution of the slate mirror pieces suggests that they did not constitute a single artifact. The central elements of the cache consisted of a jadeite bead (Figure 34aa), a hard stone ball (Figure 34z), and a lump of brain corral (Figure 34g) overlaid by 3 chert eccentrics (Figure 34a-c). Distributed about the chert eccentrics were 8 obsidian eccentrics, 2 obsidian lancets, 6 complete spondylus shells, and 3 stingray spines. As 52 “fish vertebrae” were also recovered, it may be that the 3 stingray spines really represented 3 complete rays, as is noted for other caches at Caracol (Teeter and Chase 2004). S.D. C179D-1 dates to the Early Classic Period and contains the first chert eccentrics recovered at Caracol in 24 years of research.

S.D. C179D-2 (Figures 35, 36, and 37) was designated for a burial that was found intruded into the lowest floor recovered in the Operation C179D locus. This floor level had possibly once sealed S.D. C179D-1, thus making the interment slightly later in date than the plaza cache, but still Early Classic. The upper portion of the burial had clearly been disturbed by renovation activities, probably accounting for some of the missing skeletal bone and certainly for the missing olla rim from one of the two vessels placed in the burial. A single supine individual with head to the north had been placed within the cist grave. The individual was probably a young adult aged 18 to 21; no third molars are present and all epiphyses are joined. Sex was indeterminate, even though the mastoid processes suggested the possibility of a male. Slight cribra orbitalia was present on the skull. The recovered mandible was only partial. The upper left central incisor was inlaid with jadeite and is either very worn on nearly filed flat; no inlays were recovered from the mandibular teeth or from the upper premolars or molars (other upper incisors were not present). The lower right second incisor is also either worn or filed. Two Early Classic ceramic vessels (Figure 37) were set above the individual’s feet. No other artifacts were associated with this interment.

Structure C22 (Figure 39)

Structure C22 was the designation given to a low line-of-stone platform that had been mapped in the center of the Culebras plaza. The platform was originally selected for investigation as a possible ritual structure; as mapped, the group appeared to conform to Tikal Plaza Plan 4, designating residential groups with low central shrines; investigations in such constructions at Tikal had recovered skull caches (Becker 1982). As a result of the 2008 investigations in the Culebras Group, it does not appear that Structure C22 was on axis to any of the buildings in the plazeula. The construction proved to be almost equidistant from the Structure C20 and Structure C21 central axes – and, although initially thought to possibly be on axis with Structure C17, the investigation of Structure C17 resulted in the recovery of architectural features that make this unlikely. Exactly what purpose Structure C22 served is unclear, although a single interment was recovered in its southern core.

Operation C179E (Figures 40 and 41) was designated for the areal excavation that largely encompassed Structure C22. The investigation measured 3.75 meters (north-south) by 3.25 meters (east-west). The humus was removed within this excavation and then a deeper 1.50 meter wide trench, running east-west, was placed over the center of the structure and excavated down to an earlier plaza floor (Figure 39). The central part of the platform that comprised Structure C22 was made up of fire-stone that had been encased within a single line of formally cut limestone that made up the edges of the platform on all sides. The formal platform facing was not well preserved. The rear stones of a buried facing that rested on the earlier plaza floor was recovered on the southern side of the excavation. A single burial was recovered in the upper core for Structure C22 in the deeper axial penetration.

S.D. C179E-1 (Figures 42 and 43) was designated for a secondary human interment that had been placed directly within the core of the western end of Structure C22. The recovered bones were not articulated, but the long bones and skull were located within a relatively small area, indicating that they may have once been bundled together. While it was initially believed that all of the skeletal material related to a single individual, analysis showed otherwise. Only four teeth were recovered; the teeth represent 1^st and 2^nd molars for an 8 years-old individual. The mastoid on the skull was also very small. However, all the post-cranial remains appear to come from an adult male. The epiphyses on the long bones are fully fused and the pelvis was identified as male in the field based on an intact sciatic notch. Thus, analysis demonstrated that the remains of two individuals had been placed within the interment, the postcranial skeleton of one adult male and the skull and teeth of a subadult. Since these bones had been re-interred within the fill for Structure C22 from another location and assuming that the intent had been to re-deposit the bones of a single individual, this would indicate that the wrong skull was selected for re-interment with the adult bones.

Structure D25 (Figure 44)

Structure D25 was set at the western extent of the Culebras Group, atop a 2 meter high terrace that bisected the residential area and was probably accessed by a stairway that once existed over this terrace. A series of smaller constructions were to the north of Structure D25. Structure D25 was selected for excavation because of its dominant western position in the group and because of a continued interest in western buildings at Caracol to determine if they held Terminal Classic burials in accord with patterns from the southeastern Peten of Guatemala (Laporte 1994, 2004). While isolated human bones were recovered in the excavation, no formal burials were found on the axis of Structure D25.

Operation C179F (Figures 45 and 46) was assigned to an axial excavation through Structure D25 that measured 9.00 meters (east-west) by 1.50 meters (north-south). At its western extent, the trench was set directly over a terrace facing composed of large boulders. Before excavation, it was possible to discern the outlines of the structure that had once been set on the platform (Figure 46). The basal extent of the building platform was evident on its northern side, but the southern side probably had been uprooted by a large collapsed tree. More central facings indicated that the building rose from above the plaza in three distinct levels. Excavation confirmed that Structure D25 had been built in a single effort and that it was set directly upon bedrock; no earlier constructions were recovered. Human remains were encountered in the plaza fill east of Structure D25, but were not given a burial designation because they were not recovered in association and isolated human bone is quite frequent in Caracol fills and on the floors of Terminal Classic palaces at the site. In the eastern end of the trench, a single tibia (set east-west) was found beneath a laja, a patella was recovered near bedrock (not in association with the tibia), and pieces of a human skull were also recovered over a meter away from the tibia in plaza fill. Although both the front and rear of Structure D25 were excavated to bedrock, no formal deposits and only a few artifacts were recovered. Recovered artifacts of interest included a green obsidian blade fragment (Figure 48j), a partial limestone bar (Figure 48i), and pieces of an effigy burner (Figure 47), possibly of Terminal Classic date. The burner pieces were recovered in the fill immediately above bedrock in the eastern structure core. Two drilled oliva shells (Figure 48a) and a broken shell artifact (Figure 48c) were recovered to the rear (west) of the building. A series of chert artifacts were found in the various building fills (Figure 48h, k, m, o, and p) and a large chert biface (Figure 48g) was recovered in the humus on the structure summit.

Structure C17 (Figure 49)

Structure C17 is the most massive construction located in the Culebras Group. The building rises 2.20 meters above the lower plaza and dominates the northern end of the plazuela group (Figure 3). Even before excavation, a lower frontal terrace was in evidence for the building platform. Structure C17 was selected for excavation because of its size and in order to gain comparative data to excavated northern buildings in other residential groups (e.g., Structure B40 excavated in 2005 and I2 excavated in 2007).

Operation C179G (Figures 50, 51, 52,and 53) was designated for the excavation that penetrated Structure C17. The trench was centered on the lower frontal terrace and succeeded in bisecting a doorway feature for what appears to have been a basal shrine room (Figure 52). The excavation measured 10.45 m (north-south) by 2.00 m (east-west) and was dug to bedrock in the center of the construction and beneath the shrine room. In an attempt to define the eastern side of the frontal feature, an additional areal excavation was made. It was located 0.80 m north of southern excavation and ran 1.08 m north-south by 0.80 m east-west; it exposed the interior of the shrine room, but did not encounter the eastern doorjamb. At minimum, two different construction phases were found in Operation C179G. The earliest consisted of a stone paving running north and raised approximately 60 cm above the shrine room floor. An earlier floor was found in the core of the building at approximately the same level as the paving surface. An earlier southern facing was also encountered, which had been covered over by the walls to construct the shrine room (at least on the western side of the excavation). The latest version of Structure C17 was associated with the basal shrine room and must have had a stairway that rose an additional meter above the earlier paving to a raised plaster floor. This floor was associated with features at the summit of the building, which may have included a bench (Figure 51). No formal deposits were associated with Structure C17, although a ceramic lens in dark soil was found immediately above bedrock in the center of the excavation; these pottery materials dated to the early Late Classic Period. A figurine fragment (Figure 48f) in the fill immediately above the interior stone paving may date the latest construction episode to the late Late Classic Period; also found in this fill were a thick-walled jar (Figure 54a) and a broken point (Figure 48r). Another figurine fragment (Figure 48b) was found to the front of the shrine doorway and a worked shell (Figure 48d) and partial bowl (Figure 54b) were to the side of the upper bench.

Summary of Culebras Group

The Culebras Group appears to have been established in the Early Classic Period. A buried platform that was used at this time was found in front of Structure C21 and the initial construction of Structure C21 dates to the Early Classic Period based on the single burial on that building’s axis. The cache found in plaza fill in front of Structure C21 is one of the most elaborate located at Caracol for this temporal era. It is likely that other low platforms dating to the Early Classic Period remain buried within the lower plaza fill of the Culebras Group. Based on the series of burials deposited on the axis of Structure C20, this edifice became the most important ritual structure in Culebras during the Late Classic Period. All of the excavated buildings on the lower plaza of Culebras were minimally modified, if not totally rebuilt, during the late Late Classic Period. The single building investigated in the upper plaza appears to have been constructed directly on bedrock during this same time, if not later, based on the ceramic burner recovered in its fill. In summary, Culebras appears to have founded in the Early Classic Period and to have peaked it terms of architecture and use during the late Late Classic Period. The archaeological data demonstrate that this residential group was occupied for at least 400 years.

The entire group was backfilled during the last week of the field season.

Palmitas Residential Group: Structures D27-D35.

The second residential group selected for investigation during 2008 is located approximately 100 meters southeast of the South Acropolis and 100 meters southwest of the first group (see Figure 1). The largest construction in the group is the western building (Figure 56). A small squarish pyramid forms the east side of the plaza (Figure 55). Two long and low constructions are located on both the northern and southern sides of the plaza. Three “outbuildings” also appear to be associated with the group, one slightly south and two off the southwest corner of the plaza. Investigations in this residence group focused on Structures D27, D29, and D32, as well as a stone feature in the center of the plaza. Excavations revealed that Structure D27 had been a vaulted stone building with exterior stucco decoration that included a pseudo-hieroglyphic text (that likely ran along the exterior cornice of the edifice). Structure D29 was demonstrated to be a shrine building and produced deposits consistent with those found in other east-structure-focused residential groups. Structure D27 proved to be a small sweat-bath, located slightly behind and northwest of the larger Structure D28 that anchored the northern side of the Palmitas plaza.

Structure D29 (Figure 55)

Set in isolation on the eastern edge of the plaza, Structure D29 could be identified as a ritual construction even before excavation demonstrated this fact. The substructure platform for the building rose slightly more than a meter above its associated plaza, had a squared plan, and had good evidence for a frontal stairway. Two single course summit facings for a construction were in a bad state of repair (Figure 66). They were located on either side of an open and looted chamber that crowned the summit of Structure D29. The chamber had been re-excavated by the Tourism Development Project prior to 2003, but no associated artifacts had been recovered. The TDP had, however, left a blue tarp covering the chamber. This tarp had subsequently fallen into the tomb and clearly demarcated the extent of their investigations. A constructed screen was also recovered on the southern side of the substructure. Based on the investigations undertaken in 2008, Structure D29 appears to have been built in a single construction effort on top of plaza flooring bedded on dry-core fill. The recovered artifactual materials indicate that the building was constructed and used in the Late and Terminal Classic Periods.

Operation C180B (Figures 56, 57, 58, and 59) was designated for an axial trench that was placed over Structure D29. The trench measured 7.50 meters east-west by 1.50 meters north-south. It encompassed the looted chamber, which was designated as S.D. C180B-3. A thin overlay of humus was cleared in the excavation to the east of the open tomb. The humus on top of the stair and summit of the structure was also cleared. No new deep penetration of the building itself was undertaken during 2008, primarily because of the time involved in excavating a tomb, S.D. C180B-2, which was discovered immediately in front of and below the stairs for Structure D29. The plaza area in front of (west of) the lower step for Structure D29 was more intensively investigated. The removal of the humus from in front of the building resulted in the recovery of six partial vessels (Figure 61a-f) that can be dated to the Terminal Classic Period. It is suspected that the rest of the reconstructable vessels that are illustrated, as well as additional ceramic pieces, would have been recovered if the front of the building to either side of the stairway had been cleared. Clearing beneath the level of the plaza floor associated with the lower step of Structure D29 resulted in the discovery of capstones in front of this step and of a cache, C180B-1 (Figure 59). Fill material from below the plaza floor included a human incisor and premolar in the vicinity of the capstones, burnt faunal material, an obsidian inlay (Figure 76c), a large chert biface (Figure 76i), and a stalagtite (not illustrated) presumably from a local cave.

S.D. C180B-1 (Figures 58, 59, 60, and 61) was assigned for a “finger cache” located in the southwestern corner of Operation C180B. Two small lip-to-lip bowls (Figure 61g) had been placed directly into the plaza fill and had once presumably been covered by a plaster floor. The contents of this sealed cache consisted of two human finger digits (Figure 60). The association of a finger cache with an eastern shrine building is consistent with other Caracol contexts (D. Chase and A. Chase 1998).

S.D. C180B-2 (Figures 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, and 65) was assigned for a tomb that was located in front of and partially under the front step for Structure D29. The lower half of the open-air chamber was filled with a densely packed matrix that resembled a soft concrete. This hard matrix completely enveloped 33 vessels that were not warped or crushed, suggesting that the matrix had been purposefully deposited around the ceramics, artifacts, and bone in the chamber. That the bone and ceramics had been placed in a single depositional effort is strongly suggested by the context of a Belize Red footed dish (Figure 64t); half of it is located on the very bottom of the deposit (Figure 63 Plan 4) and half of it is located on the very top of the deposit (Figure 63 Plan 1). Additionally, one of the large dishes (Figure 64z) rested near the top of the deposit (Figure 63 Plan 1) and on the floor of the burial chamber (Figure 63 Plan 3). The vessels (Figure 64) included in the tomb are all of Late Classic date, although some can be seriated into the early part of the Late Classic (Figure 64d, q, s, u, ee) and others may actually be Terminal Classic (Figure 64a, g, m, o, w). That the vessels forms indicate some temporal span in terms of their use suggests that they – and the mixed human bone – in the chamber may have been stored elsewhere before final deposition at the Structure D29 locus. This is also suggested by the concentration of cylinders along the western wall of the chamber (Figure 63 Plan 1). Sherds in the surrounding matrix from a partial cache vessel (Figure 64aa) and from a face cache (not illustrated) also suggest some movement. Thirteen cylinders and thirteen plates/dishes were recovered in this deposit, suggesting a paired relationship between these items, in which one individual would have been accompanied by one cylinder and one plate/dish. The seven additional bowls recovered in the chamber could represent another component form for this pairing. Haviland and his colleagues (1985) have noted that single individuals buried at Tikal were frequently accompanied by one cylinder, one plate, and one bowl in the Late Classic Period.

Artifactualy materials accompanying S.D. C180B-2 include two limestone spindle whorls (Figure 65a, b) and two shell labrets (Figure 65c, d). At least three sets of shell earrings (Figure 65k-p) were recovered in the tomb, as well as one set of small jadeite earrings (Figure 65q, t). The jadeite earrings suggest that at least one of the individuals within the tomb was of fairly high status. Jadeite (Figure 65r) and shell (Figure 65f-h, s, x) beads were also encountered. Careful screening of the tomb dirt also recovered malachite and three jadeite inlays (Figure 65u-w).

Incoming search terms:

• Mayan symbols
• ceremonial and sacrifice in the maya
• aztec laws
• Ancient AZTEC SCHOOLs
• aztec law
• Caracol stela
• aztec mayan
• twenty digits AND palenque
• household items Mayan and Aztec
• special cache

• Maya Prehistory and Caracol
• Interpreting the Maya Collapse 2009
• About Caracol
• History of Caracol

Interpreting the Maya “Collapse”:

Continued Investigation of Residential Complexes in and near Caracol’s Epicenter:

2009 Field Report of the Caracol Archaeological Project

Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase

University of Central Florida

The 2009 field season of the Caracol Archaeological Project ran from late January through the middle of March.  The project was staffed by 32 people (Table 1).  The research undertaken at Caracol during the 2009 field season had three specific field objectives.  The first goal was to complete the axial excavation of Structure C20, started in 2008.  The second goal was to begin a new program of settlement research focusing on the use of LiDAR to attempt to document Caracol’s outlying settlement.  The third, and primary, archaeological focus for the 2009 field season was to begin a three-year program to analyze residential and status differences among Caracol’s elite inhabitants at the time of the Maya Collapse; these excavations focused exclusively on the Northeast Acropolis during 2009.

Goal 1: Continuation of the 2008 Research

During the 2008 field season, Structure C20 was axially trenched and yielded a series of special deposits that included 3 interments and 2 caches.  These excavations and deposits are fully detailed in the 2008 Season Report for the Caracol Archaeological Project (www.caracol.net).  Also recovered in the course of the axial penetration of Structure C20, however, were the capstones for another interment.  The central capstone was lifted, revealing an open-air space that dropped 0.7 m down to a dirt surface; although no one went inside the chamber, it was estimated that the rough-walled tomb minimally measured 2 m from north-to-south by 1.2 m east-to-west.  Because multiple deposits were in the process of being excavated and so as to not rush the investigation, the capstones were replaced and the trench was backfilled in 2008 in anticipation of proper excavation in the future.  During the 2009 field season, this tomb was in fact excavated and the results of its investigation are reported below.

Goal 2: Lidar Mapping and Ground Checking of Caracol’s Settlement

In conjunction with Dr. John Weishampel of the UCF Department of Biology, funding was awarded through a NASA/NSPIRES grant both to gain biological information for the Caracol area and to attempt to document the settlement, terraces, and other constructed features that form ancient Caracol’s landscape through the use of remote sensing information (IKONOS imagery and LIDAR radar).  Because the funding transfer  took longer than was projected – and due to the need to undertake LiDAR flights at the end of the dry season, the project ran behind the original schedule developed for the grant proposal.  Prior to the 2009 field season, IKONOS imagery had been acquired and analyzed by Dr. Weishampel, but had not yielded significant results.  In February 2009, the collection of on-the-ground tree and canopy data commenced with a biology graduate student who was housed with the archaeological project; this data collection will continue during the 2010 field season.  The National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping undertook over-flights of Caracol in late April, after the 2009 archaeological excavations had been completed; these flights produced LiDAR DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data for both the treetop canopy and the ground level for 200 square kilometers of the site.  The point data and DEM were provided to the project in early June and are in the process of being analyzed.  It should be noted, however, that the LiDAR over-flights provided data that was far beyond original expectations.  These data have resulted in the identification of 11 new causeways, 5 new termini, and thousands of new residential groups and terraces (Figures 1 and 2).  While the validity of the LiDAR data could be confirmed through comparison to pervious mapping, additional ground testing will be undertaken during the 2010 field season.

Goal 3: Caracol’s Northeast Acropolis: Primary Focus of 2009 Field Season

The Northeast Acropolis, an elite complex located in the site epicenter immediately adjacent to Caana, constituted the main focus of archaeological research undertaken during the 2009 field season (Figures 3 and 4).  The research in this complex was funded by the Alphawood Foundation and constituted the first year of a three-year project to investigate elite residential complexes in order to garner more information about artifactual subcomplexes at Caracol at the time of the “collapse.” During the 2009 field season, both Structures B32 and B33 in the Northeast Acropolis were areally excavated and penetrated.  The northern side of Structure B31 was also cleared for architectural detail and exterior testing was carried out in the vicinity of Structure B30.  The southern base of the platform supporting the Northeast Acropolis was also tested.  Previously, the eastern building, Structure B34, had been excavated, yielding a series of deposits that spanned the Late Preclassic through Terminal Classic Periods.  These earlier archaeological investigations had suggested that the elevated plaza in the Northeast Acropolis had been raised approximately 2 m during the late Late Classic to Terminal Classic Period.  Thus, the Northeast Acroplis was deemed to be a logical locale for the further investigation of late occupation at Caracol.  By cleaning out what were expected to be stone buildings in this raised architectural complex, it was hoped that in situ refuse would be recovered that could be compared with material from other epicentral palaces.  This did in fact turn out to be the case.  However, the magnitude of Terminal Classic modification to this architectural complex only became clear with the deeper penetration of Structure B32 and the discovery that the entire western portion of the Northeast Acropolis was a very late addition that accompanied the raising of the plaza.  The 2010 field season will attempt to determine the full extent of the Terminal Classic building effort at this locale and to define the earlier architectural form of the Northeast Acropolis in order to see how the function of this group may have been altered by Caracol’s latest inhabitants.  Basal clearing of Structure B33 and B34 during 2010 is likely to recover new Terminal Classic refuse.  All of these data should help further our understanding of Caracol’s Terminal Classic Period and the events leading up to the final abandonment of the city.

Interpreting the “Collapse”: Background for 2009 Research in Northeast Acropolis

Despite almost two centuries of research, the factors resulting in the Classic Maya collapse remain unresolved.  Originally defined in terms of a cessation in the creation and erection of stone hieroglyphic monuments, conjoined with a stoppage of the construction of massive stone temples and palaces in the lowland areas of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, the collapse occurs primarily in the 9^th century A.D.  However, its timing varies substantially from site to site throughout the Southern Maya lowlands.  The Maya collapse has additional import when viewed in relation to the contemporary turbulent political climate, with scholars and lay public alike wondering if ancient situations may have modern parallels – or, more far afield, even provide “warnings” for our own society.  Archaeological investigations at Caracol, Belize have provided tantalizing clues to this transition, documenting dramatic changes in the site’s socio-political and economic systems between the Late Classic (A.D. 550-780) and Terminal Classic (A.D. 780-950) Periods.  Contemporaneous differences exist in the ceramic assemblages utilized by Caracol’s highest epicentral elite as compared to other segments of the Terminal Classic society.  Non-epicentral, secondary elite, even those living in palaces, appear not to share in the use of the epicentral subcomplex.  Thus, further investigation of both epicentral and non-epicentral elite residential compounds is expected to shed light on what transpired just before Caracol’s collapse.  In order to gain a comparative sample from an elite epicentral complex, excavations during the 2009 excavation season were directed toward recovering appropriate materials from Caracol’s Northeast Acropolis.  While the eastern building in this group had been trenched in the 1990s and had produced some materials dating to the Terminal Classic Period, none of the other structures had been investigated.  Thus, the Northeast Acropolis was deemed to be an appropriate locale for gathering the data that could aid in detailing the significant changes in Caracol society that occurred between the Late and Terminal Classic Periods.

The Problem: Understanding the Nature of the Maya Collapse

The Classic Maya collapse is among the most debated enigmas in modern archaeology.  New proposals claiming to explain the Maya denouement appear yearly, usually receiving substantial newspaper and television coverage.  The end of Maya civilization has been publically portrayed as either due to drought (History Channel Ancient Apocalypse: The Maya Collapse) or due to destructive warfare and sacrifice (USA Today and New York Times November 17, 2005; Discovery Channel Explorer: Last Days of the Maya); the collapse of the Maya has also been linked to prophetic “end-of-the-world” scenarios correlated with December 21, 2012 (History Channel Mayan Doomsday Prophecy).  These are intriguing postulations that play well for the media and public, but they are based on archaeological data that are open to other interpretations.  Academically popular single-cause explanations for the Classic Maya collapse include a host of factors (Aimers 2007), but often center on discussions of internal and external warfare (A. Chase and D. Chase 1989; D. Chase and A. Chase 2002, 2003; Demarest 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Sabloff and Willey 1967 [but see Binford 1968]; Willey 1990), drought (Hodell et al. 1995, 2001; Gill 2000, Gill et al. 2007), and environmental degradation (e.g. Copan, Webster 2002; Webster et al. 2004 [but see Fash et al. 2004]).  It is apparent, however, that the collapse was a more complex phenomenon that both spanned a substantial period of time and had a variety of impacts among and within individual sites.

Previous archaeological investigations at Caracol, Belize have shown that the site contains abundant Late and Terminal Classic (collapse-related) remains (A. Chase and D. Chase 2007; D. Chase and A. Chase 2000).  This research has suggested that the leaders of Late Classic Caracol utilized a distinct management strategy characterized by symbolic egalitarianism (A. Chase and D. Chase 2009; D. Chase and A. Chase 2006), resulting in a shared identity and prosperity throughout Caracol’s population (D. Chase and A. Chase 2004).  Through symbolic egalitarianism, the majority of Caracol’s Late Classic population had access to material and ritual items that were normally restricted at other Maya sites.  In the Terminal Classic Period, however, this strategy appears to have been abandoned.  Rather than having a relatively homogenous archaeological distribution of material culture (as occurred in the Late Classic), it appears that social differences were emphasized during the Terminal Classic.  The uppermost elite appear to have used a distinct ceramic subcomplex, as well as to have had access to goods that were no longer available to the general populace (A. Chase and D. Chase 2004, 2005a).  This move away from symbolic egalitarianism is perhaps the catalyst for the ultimate collapse of Caracol.

Key to understanding the collapse at Caracol, then, is greater exploration of Terminal Classic deposits to outline changes in management strategies and social access to material and ritual items, as well as to determine the areal extent of the high status ceramic subcomplex at Caracol and the degree to which these remains are associated with royal, as opposed to other elite, occupation.  To this end, two different locations were selected for archaeological investigation over the course of a three year period from 2009 through 2011 (Figure 3).  Both are residential groups.  One likely represents high status, possibly non-royal, occupation and is the Northeast Acropolis.  The other residential area is located west of the site epicenter (Structures F30-F42) and likely housed high status members of Caracol’s secondary elite.  Taken together and placed within the context of previous long-term work at Caracol, these two groups should provide sufficient detail to elucidate the changes that occurred and the variability that existed in pre-collapse Caracol social, political, and economic organization.

Northeast Acropolis: Structures B30-B34

The Northeast Acropolis is situated on a raised platform immediately east of Caana (Figure 3).  The acropolis commands the northern end of a broad plaza that is bordered by Caana to the west and by the Barrio palace complex to the east (A. Chase and D. Chase 2001).  Six structures are located on top of this elevated platform (Figure 4); a tall range building, Structure B33, dominated the northern side of the complex; another range building, Structure B32, was located on the western side of the elevated plaza; the eastern side of the plaza contained an elevated pyramid, Structure B34, that functioned as the group’s residential shrine; two low constructions, Structures B30 and B31, defined the southern end of the plaza and a small low platform, Structure B150, was located at the southwest corner of the complex.  Based on the mapped plan, it was believed that any formal entryway to this raised acropolis area would have had to pass through one or more buildings, as represented by Structures B30 and B31; contrary to this expectation, the 2009 excavations demonstrate that entry to the raised acropolis was not achieved from its southern side and was, instead, apparently gained from the platform’s sides.

The Northeast Acropolis was selected for investigation for several reasons.  First, based on previous excavation of stone buildings elsewhere in the epicenter, investigation of the sizeable range/palace buildings on the northern (Structure B33) and western (Structure B32) sides of this complex was likely to be associated with Terminal Classic in situ refuse.   Second, excavation of Structure B34, the ancestral temple of the Northeast Acropolis, in 1994 and 1995 recovered a series of deposits ranging from the Late Preclassic (A. Chase and D. Chase 2005b) through the Terminal Classic Periods (A. Chase and D. Chase 2007), indicating that the group had a long occupation history and was occupied until the final abandonment of the site; thus, late remains could be expected.  However, the fact that no late royal tombs were recovered in the ancestral shrine for the Northeast Acropolis (unlike the Central Acropolis and Caana) suggested that excavations in this complex would supplement our understanding of non-royal elite variability at Caracol.  Third, the excavations undertaken in 1994 and 1995 indicated that a massive construction effort had raised the Northeast Acropolis plaza over 2 m in the late Late Classic to Terminal Classic Periods, indicating a substantial interest in this complex at that time.   Finally, it was thought possible that excavations in the Northeast Acropolis could recover hieroglyphic texts that could shed light on the Late to Terminal Classic history of Caracol; stucco texts were recovered in association with buildings on both Caana (Grube 1994) to its west and on Structure B64 (bottom link in 1994-96 season report at www.caracol.net) to its east.

Structure B33

Structure B33 is the most massive construction of the Northeast Acropolis (Figure 5).  The interior rear floor of the latest building is situated some 5.4 m above the latest plaza floor and the terrace in front of the summit construction rose 4.8 m above this same plaza surface.  The final building that occupied the summit of Structure B33 measured 7.8 m in depth by an estimated 37.2 m in length and consisted of a total of 8 rooms.   The stone base-walls for this construction were presumably surmounted by a wooden building and roof; no vault stones were recovered in the excavation.  At each end of this palace, two transverse rooms were set – one looking west towards Caana and the other looking east towards the C Group.  Each of the excavated transverse rooms measured 2.0 m in depth.  The innermost western transverse room had an infilled and elevated floor that raised this surface 0.4 m above the underlying floor that formed the surface for the central front room; a 1.5 m deep bench was set against the rear wall of the outermost western transverse room.  When viewed from the south, Structure B33 would have revealed a façade with three doorways that all accessed the same front room.  Three other interior doorways penetrated the rear wall of this central room, entering three separate rear rooms.  The eastern central rear room was excavated and produced a small inner portico and that was fronted by a solid raised bench on its eastern, northern, and southern side; the stonework evident in the sides of the benches was truly monolithic.  Half of the central rear room was excavated during the 2009 field season; this 2.3 m deep chamber revealed a central bench set against the rear wall; the bench rose 0.73 m above the floor on which it had been built, but only 0.4 m above the floor with which it was finally associated; its final form would have measured some 5.0 m in width by 1.7 m in depth.  An opposing L-shaped bench dominated the eastern side of the central rear room.

While the latest palace on the summit of Structure B33 was used and modified during the Terminal Classic Period, portions of this building must date to the Early Classic Period.  An Early Classic tomb was found in the doorway area immediately below the summit floor associated with the building’s inner door jambs, possibly indicating that the medial wall of the structure in this locus was of Early Classic date.  However, the front room of the palace constituted a Terminal Classic addition as did the transverse rooms on the western side of the summit.  These construction efforts may have been accompanied the late building activity that raised the Northeast Acropolis plaza by over 2.0 m at approximately the same time.  The stratigraphy from the Structure B33 locus makes it clear that the edifice had already achieved its present height in the Early Classic Period; as such, it would have been a much more impressive building than its Terminal Classic counterpart, when it was fronted by a much lower plaza level.

Operation C181B (Figures 6, 7, and consisted of an axial trench to Structure B33 and the excavation of the interior of the eastern portion of the central rooms of the palace.  The trench measured 16.3 m north-south by 2.0 m east-west and the interior front room extended 10.25 m east of the eastern interior doorjamb and was 2.1 m wide.  Besides exposing the outlines of the Terminal Classic building and its frontal platform, Operation C181B was recovered in situ floor refuse and significant Early Classic construction activity, including a tomb.  Terminal Classic ceramic and artifactual remains were encountered in the original trench on axis to the building (Figures 9, 10, and 11) and included pieces of five vessels.  In the central portion of the front room, against the step-up for the interior stair were found an olla (Figure 10a), a footed cylinder (Figures 10b), a small jar (Figure 10e), and a pyrite mirror piece (Figure 11j); positioned against the inner step and the western jamb were portions of a burner (10f), the remainder of which is probably within the unexcavated portion of the room.  Approximately 2 m into the eastern front room a ceramic spouted jar (Figure 10d) and a large lithic (Figure 11d) were encountered on the floor.  Pieces of another footed cylinder (Figure 10g) were found on the front terrace and part of a late modeled barrel (Figure 10c) and figurine (Figure 11i) were found on the front slope of Structure B33 in the trench.  Also located on the front summit terrace were pieces of burnt shell (Figure 11e-h), probably part of the same artifact, and a badly burnt and shattered large biface (Figure 11c).  On top of the L-shaped bench in the inner central room (Figure 12), the remains of a mirror were recovered, based on the recovery of multiple pieces of a worked slate backing (Figure 13a-e) and four pyrite mirror pieces (Figure 13f-i).

Penetration of the core of Structure B33-1^st yielded deeply buried architectural remains (Figures 14, 15, and 16), all dating to the Early Classic Period, based on sherd material from within sealed fill (Figures 19 and 20).  The upper stairway for the latest building was not preserved, but this stair was set approximately 2 m above a ripped-out earlier summit stair.  Half-way down the southern slope of Structure B33, the basal course of what must have been a stair balk was recovered with an associated floor.  The materials in the fill overlying the earlier steps at the summit of Structure B33 consisted of mixed sherd material dating from the Preclassic through the late Late Classic, 3 partial green obsidian blades, and several chert artifacts (Figure 11a and 11b).  Excavations at the base of Structure B33 found an exceeding disturbed late stair.  The limestone that made up this stair was extremely soft and had largely disintegrated; yet, vertical stones were evident in the section, indicating three possible latest steps, only the lowest of which could be recorded (Figure 14).  As with the steps deep under the summit fill, the earlier steps at the base of the substructure had been largely removed, but were still very much in evidence (Figure 17).  As with the plaza fill excavated in 1994 and 1995, the dirt fill over these ripped out steps was full of refuse.  The majority of the pottery refuse that was situated directly over the ripped-out earlier steps dated to the late Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods (Figures 21 and 22); other artifactual garbage was also well represented (Figure 23).  Excavation into the core of the deeply buried ripped-out steps produced only material dating to the Early Classic Period (Figure 20).

The buried architectural remains on the summit of Structure B33 were also penetrated to the south of the tomb, revealing a complicated construction sequence (Figure 18).  The Early Classic tomb had been placed behind a slight step that was appropriately placed to form an exterior plinth for the medial building wall.  This step was abutted on its south side by a floor that extended 2.4 m to the south where it turned down over a 0. 7 m high stair-balk.  This stair-balk in turn was set 0.6 m in front of an ealier stair-balk.  This earlier stair-balk was abutted by a floor that ran for 2.8 m and articulated with the upper course of the buried earlier steps in the summit of Structure B33; the fill beneath these constructions contained more dirt than stone.  Penetration of these surfaces and that fill, all of which must have dated to the Early Classic Period, in turn revealed at least two earlier stages of construction activity, associated with ripped-out steps and floors.  In one of the ripped-out floors, a circular pit (Figure 16) was uncovered that had been dug though the floor to a depth of some 0.5 m; as it was sealed by upper floors, the pit must have been intentional and its contents were either perishable or were robbed in antiquity.  The earliest construction at this locus was comprised of a fill of large soft limestone blocks.  There are undoubtedly other constructions buried deep within Structure B33, probably of Late Preclassic date.

S.D. C181B-1 (Figures 24, 25, 26, and 27) was assigned for an Early Classic tomb that was located on axis to Structure B33 directly beneath the central rear doorway area.  While the western central door jamb was not located over the tomb, the eastern central jamb was directly over the tomb’s capstones.  The tomb was sealed by the same floor that was associated with the door-jambs and upon which the central rear bench rested.  The chamber had been dug into a pre-existing structure and its northern, eastern, and, western walls consisted only of the cut fill; the southern wall was more formally constructed of stone.  It is suspected that the interior of the chamber may have once been plastered, but that this thin surface did not survive the ravages of time.  The roughly oval chamber that was created in the fill of the earlier building measured 1.55 m in height by 0.95 m in width and 2.05 m in length (Figure 25).  The chamber contained the disintegrated remains of a single adult individual with head to the east.  The teeth show evidence of tartar; no hypoplasia is present.  Three pyrite inlays were also present in the teeth, all located in premolars (both upper and lower).  The bones were extremely poorly preserved meaning that no definitive sex identification is possible; however, as the recovered bones are relatively slight, and given the jewelry that was present, it is suspected that the individual may have been female.  Areas of red cinnabar could be detected on the floor of the chamber in the area of the skull and the feet.  Four ceramic vessels were included in the interment, all located in the vicinity of the feet and legs; these consisted of a polychrome basal-flanged bowl (Figures 29a and 30), a dark brown pedestalled bowl (Figure 29c), a dark brown spouted bowl (Figure 29d), and an unslipped cup (Figure 29b).  The cup was located within the pedestalled bowl.  The polychrome bowl portrays a hummingbird on its interior and evinces two human portraits on its exterior wall (Figure 30).  Two large spondylus shells (Figures 31a and 31b) were located to either side of where the head had once been.  The individual had also worn a spondylus shell necklace, consisting of 54 beads (Figure 28 and 31c-dd).  One other shell disk (Figure 31ee) was also recovered in the vicinity of the head.  Three small pyrite mirror fragments were recovered south of the left arm and may indicate that a mirror had once been present in the tomb.

Operation C181C and Operation C181D (Figures 32, 33, and 34) both investigated the western portion of the palace on the summit of Structure B33.   Operation C181C was located 6.5 m west of Operation C181B and encompassed both the western part of the interior front room for the palace and half of the two transverse rooms at the western end of the building; the excavation measured 4.4 m north-south by 9.9 m east west.  Operation C181D was originally designated to encompass a looters’ pit into the southern wall of the structure, but was extended to include all materials to the south of this wall, as well as a 1.2 m excavation extension to the west and a 2.0 m by 2.0 m excavation south to the summit edge.  The westernmost outer wall was not present, having collapsed over the edge of the substructure.  The excavations indicated that the inner doorway to the interior transverse room must have been offset to the north, possibly to better highlight the rear bench in the outer transverse room, which would have been centrally accessed.  The fill within the walls consisted of finely powdered bedrook, which did not do a good job of providing the necessary binder for long-term preservation; the eastern wall of the inner transverse room had collapse west over the interior floor of the building.  Two floor levels were encountered south of the transverse building wall, in the area disturbed by the looters.  The lower floor level was consistent with the surface levels elsewhere in Structure B33; the upper level was approximately 0.5 m above this floor and possibly indicates the existence of an exterior bench to the building, similar to the jaguar throne noted to the west of the Structure B19-1^st stairway.   However, trees, looting, and slope had caused the almost complete disruption of whatever this feature once was.  The floor of the front central room for Structure B33 was heavily burned and a carbon sample was taken for future radiocarbon dating.  That this portion of Structure B33 was constructed and used in the Terminal Classic Period can be established by the context of the ceramics recovered here.  Portions of a censer (Figure 35a) were recovered from within the bedrock fill of the rear transverse wall.  Pieces of a flat-based Belize Red plate (Figure 35d) were recovered on the floor of the inner transverse room and late ceramic materials (Figure 35b and 35c) were recovered from the fill of the elevated floor in the inner transverse room.

Structure B32

From its surface configuration, Structure B32 appeared to be a range building situated on the western edge of the Northeast Acropolis plaza (Figures 36 and 37).  Upon excavation, the substructure for Structure B32 measured 23.7 m north-south; its east-width width can be estimated to be slightly less than 11.0 m.  No indications were found that the substructure was surmounted by a formally constructed stone building.  Instead, the edifice that graced the multi-level summit was probably perishable.  The interior rear floor for Structure B32 rose approximately 2.25 m above the plaza floor for the Northeast Acropolis.  The building itself was minimally bi-level; the rear of the construction has collapsed and the exact dimension are problematic.  What remains of the building consists of a lower eastern surface 1.25 m broad and a higher western surface2.1 m broad; each of these levels rose approximately 40 cm above the associated floors.  This rear bi-level construction was in turn fronted by a 2.3 m wide terrace, the upper portions of which formed the fourth, and uppermost, step for an 8.5 m wide stairway that protruded into the Northeast Acropolis plaza.  Extensive burning was found on the plaza floor to either side of this stairway and along the front terrace walls.

Operation C182B (Figures 39 and 40) was an axial trench into Structure B32.  The excavation measured. 11.9 m east-west by 2.5 m north-south (except for a 2 m wide section in the plaza); materials overlaying the front step area included a Sahcaba Modeled-Carved sherd (Figure 47j), part of a colander (Figure 47i), and pieces from a large olla (Figure 46d).  Deeper penetration was made only in a 2.0 m by 2.0 m area tangent to the northern section and set behind the intial summit step (Figure 38).  This deeper penetration revealed that the core of Structure B32 consisted of a packed dirt matrix that was similar to that recovered from other plaza excavations, such as those in front of Structures B33 and B34; as in these other deep excavations, this dirt fill contained refuse (Figure 47a, c-e) and pottery (Figure 46c) that dated from the Late Preclassic through the late Late Classic and Terminal Classic Periods.  However, whereas the deeper excavations in StructuresB33 and B34 found earlier architectural features, none were recovered in the Structure B32 excavations.  Instead, it would appear that Structure B32 was constructed at the same time and as part of the same effort as the final plaza elevation for the Northeast Acropolis.  This implies that a massive construction effort was undertaken in the Northeast Acropolis in the early portion of the Terminal Classic Period, presumably in the early 9^th century A.D.  As Late Classic Period deposits were recovered within earlier constructions in Structure B34, it can also be deduced that the platform for the Northeast Acroplis was extended to the west during this late construction effort and that the remains of any earlier western buildings are presumably buried under the present plaza surface.

Operation C182C (Figures 41, 42, and 43) was set 1.4 m north of Operation C182B and originally measured 5 m north-south by 5.5 m east-west; a later extension to the north, measuring 3.0 m east-west by 5.1 m north-south, resulted in an excavation that was 10.1 m in length and that exposed the entire northeastern facing of Structure B32.  Heavy burning was noted for the entire floor along the terrace wall and samples were taken for future radiocarbon dating.   Ceramic artifactual materials recovered during the clearing of this part of Structure B32 included a modeled dog’s head (Figure 47l), a drilled sherd (Figure 47g), and an eye from a modeled vessel (Figure 47k).

Operation C182D (Figures 44 and 45) was placed 0.9 m south of Operation C182B and exposed the southeastern portion of Structure B32; the excavation measured 3.8 m east-west by 9.4 m north-south, at which point the excavation merged with Operaction C183F.  As in Operation C182C, extensive burning was again recorded for the floors that abutted the terrace facing.  Portions of three pottery vessels were recovered during the clearing of this area, two small bowls (Figures 46a and 46b) and one large bowl (Figure 46e) located near the southeast corner.  The small, presumably footed, bowl is similar to others recovered in association with Structures A6 and B64; the other bowl is similar to burial vessels found in a residential group adjacent to the Conchita Terminus and in a residential group a kilometer northeast of the Puchituk Terminus.  Artifactual materials from this excavation included a partial green obsidian blade (Figure 47b), a broken biface (Figure 47f), and numerous stone fragments that appeared to come from the same metate.

Structure B31

Architecturally, Operations C183E and C183F showed that Structure B31 measured approximately 17 m in length (Figures 48 and 53).  Extrapolating from Structure B30, Structure B31 was probably approximately 5.5 m broad.  While it is unlikely that a stone construction graced the summit of Structure B31, the two excavations undertaken on the front of this building revealed substantial architectural detail.  The lower platform of this construction contained two inset terraced areas with elevated borders set amid what must have been three elevated balks or benches.  The central bench would have measured 3.2 m across its front and been 1.50 m deep; the benches marking the extent of the front terrace would have been 2.1 m wide and 1.5 m deep.  The precise function of these architectural features is not known, but it is likely that they would have been covered by a perishable roof given the dimensions and form of Structure B31.

Operation C183E (Figures 49 and 50) was set over the mid-section of Structure B31 and measured 4.5 m north-south by 3.5 m east-west.  The investigation succeeded in finding architectural features associated with the lower terrace of Structure B31; the eastern side of the front terrace in this excavation formed a lower area that was set against a higher western balk or bench.  Apart from a burnt olive shell and some broken chert tools (Figure 52, the only diagnostic ceramic materials associated with this excavation included a composite lipped bowl (Figure 51b) and a possible piece of Daylight Orange: Darknight Variety (Figure 51d).

Operation C183F (Figures 54 and 55) was placed 2.0 m west of Operation C183E and exposed the entire front terrace of Structure B31, as well as portions of its elevated summit.  The excavation measured 4.5 m north-south by 8.6 m east-west and merged with the areal clearing undertaken in Operation C182D, exposing the southern facing for Structure D32.  A southwestern excavation extension, measuring 2.4 m by 0.5 m, exposed a plinth on the building’s western extent.  Based on surface topography, it is also possible that a short stairway accessed the Northeast Acropolis west of Structure B31 and east of a small platform situated on the southwestern corner of the Northeast Acropolis.  Artifactual materials recovered from this investigation included a partial olla with wavy incision at its neck (Figure 51a), three ceramic figurine fragments (Figure 56d, 56f and 56h), a pyrite mirror piece (Figure 56e), part of a marine shell (Figure 56g), and several chert tools (Figure 56a-56c).

Structure B30

Structure B30 was only cursorily investigated during the 2009 field season.  Its western extent was revealed in Operation C183D.  Operation C183C demonstrated that access to this construction would not have been possible from its southern side.  Operation C183H showed that there was an alleyway south of the edifice and that another building that faced south may have been located at the southeastern corner of the Northeast Acropolis.  The data from Operation C183D and surface features indicate that Structure B30 may have been 1.0 to 2.0 m longer than Structure B31 and had a width of approximately 5.5 m.

Operation C183C (Figures 57, 58, and 59) was designed to find the southern wall of Structure B30.  The excavation measured 3.0 m north-south by 2.0 m east west.  It was set over the rear slope of Structure B30 and extended south to the edge of the platform that comprised the top of the Northeast Acropolis.  While no clear-cut facing was found that would have formed the southern wall for Structure B30, a northern facing was located at the edge of the platform that was abutted by a plaster floor.  Although only one course in height, this facing may represent the rear wall of a construction that at one time overlooked the large plaza between the Northeast Acropolis and Barrio; alternatively, it may simply be a formal border for the alleyway behind Structure B30; work during the 2010 field season should answer this question.  A partial Belize Red tripod plate (Figure 46c) was recovered in this excavation.  Two interesting artifacts were also recovered from the floor near the southern facing: one was a spondylus bead (Figure 60a) and the other was a small chert point (Figure 60b).  Elsewhere in the Maya area, these small chert points are thought to be indicative of the use of the bow-and-arrow (Shafer and Hester 1988) and they are also often taken to be Postclassic in date.  However, it appears that this point – and several others at Caracol – date to the Terminal Classic Period, something also noted for similar points from Tikal, Guatemala (Moholy-Nagy 2008:14).  The specimen from Operation C183C is the third one of these points known from Caracol; another small point was found at the base of Caana and the third small point was recovered from within a residential tomb 1.2 km south of the epicenter.

Operation C183D (Figures 61, 62, and 63) was an excavation measuring 10.25 m north-south by 2.0 m east-west.  It was set in a depressed area between Structures B30 and B31 and was designed to find the central access to the Northeast Acropolis.  Instead, the investigation found the western extension of Structure B30 and demonstrated that there was no central access to the Northeast Acropolis plaza from the southern side of the platform.  Artifactual materials recovered from within this excavation included an large incurved bowl (Figure 46d) and a number of chert tools (Figure 64).  The space between Structures B30 and B31 appears to have been less than 1.0 m in width and does not appear to have been designed to provide entry to the Northeast Acropolis.  Thus, there was no central access to the Northeast Acropolis on its southern side, which is very unusual given its articulation with the large southern plaza that was also fronted by Barrio.  Structures B30 and B31 both faced north; their rear walls would have shielded the interior plaza of the Northeast Acropolis from being viewed from the south.  These two buildings were clearly situated so as to provide an aspect of privacy to the inhabitants of the Northeast Acropolis.  Thus, the architectural constructions indicate that the Northeast Acropolis would have been a very private area.

Operation C183H (Figures 65, 66, and 67) was not actually set over Structure B30, but instead bounded the southeast corner of this structure.  Operation C183H encompassed both an original trench that measured 2.0 m east-west by 6.8 m north-south and an additional areal excavation 4.0 m in width (north-south) by 6.0 m in length that straddled a 1.4 m wide wall that was uncovered within the original trench (and that ran to the west).  This wall had remnants of an interior floor on its southern side, presumably from a formal room; however, the southern wall for this room had collapsed in antiquity.  However, this construction apparently served as the rear wall for a formal building that had been situated above the large southern plaza between Barrio and the Northeast Acropolis.  The wall had more courses on its northern side and also evinced a plinth; with the plinth, the northern side was set at a slightly deeper level that the southern facing for the wall.  Besides being the rear wall of a southern facing building, this same feature also formed the southern side of an alleyway running to the west behind Structure B30.  Indeed, this facing may eventually prove to be linked to the facing that was recovered in Operation C183C; however, alleyway steps should exist if this was in fact the case.  No formally constructed step-up onto the plaza surface of the Northeast Acropolis was recovered in Operation C183H, although it is suspected that one existed.  Ceramic materials from this excavation included Terminal Classic sherds (Figure 68 and 68c).  Artifactual materials included the usual chert tools (Figure 69d-69f), part of a limestone barkbeater (Figure 69a) and an elaborately carved burnt bone portraying a human face (Figure 69c).

Acropolis Platform Base

The acropolis upon which the Northeast Acropolis was situated rose approximately 5 m above the broad plaza to its south and defined the entire northern extent of the plaza.  Two excavations were therefore placed against the base of the acropolis so that central stairs could be located that would have led upwards from the plaza to the acropolis summit; neither excavation appears to have found any evidence for such features.  Instead, it would appear that the Northeast Acropolis was not formally accessed from this plaza and that its access must have been from its sides.

Operation C183B (Figures 70, 71, and 72) was set at the rise of the acropolis platform and was designed to find any basal architectural features.  The excavation measured 2.0 m east-west by 3.8 m north-south.  While two facings were located within the investigation, the construction core to the north indicated that no stairway was possible in this location.  Artifactual materials recovered in Operation C183B included one worked bone and a number of worked chert tools (Figure 73).

Operation C183G (Figures 74, 75, and 76) was placed 9.9 m east of Operation C183B and was also designed to search for basal architectural features.  Like Operation C183B, Operation C183G also measured 2.0 m east-west by 3.8 m north-south.  Unlike its sister operation, Operation C183G did not recovered any definitive facings nor any indication that a stair could have existed at this locus.  Artifactual materials recovered in this excavation included a circular shaped ceramic, a large chert tool, and a ceramic censer appliqué (Figure 77).

Summary of Northeast Acropolis

The Northeast Acropolis was occupied from the Late Preclassic through the Terminal Classic Periods.  The 2009 investigations of this complex demonstrated several things.  First, the massive core of Structure B33 was constructed by the Early Classic Period and was then extensively modified during the Terminal Classic Period.  It in fact appears that Terminal Classic peoples directly reused at least part of an Early Classic stone building and that they incorporated earlier walls from this structure into an extensive Terminal Classic palace.  Second, Structure B32 was a single phase construction effort that was undertaken at the same time that the plaza surface at the summit of the Northeast Acropolis was raised over 2.0 m in height; the dirt fill that formed the hearting for this building was the same matrix as that used to build up the plaza.  Third, late Late Classic and Terminal Classic refuse was directly deposited on top of ripped-out Early Classic constructions before and as the plaza was elevated.  Fourth, as a result of the late construction efforts, the Northeast Acropolis became a very private plaza; only people on the summit of Caana would have had a view into the Northeast Acropolis plaza; no direct access or view was possible from the south side of the platform; entry may have only been possible from the southeast and southwest corners of the Northeast Acropolis, indicating that access would have been very controlled.  Fifth, burials recovered during the 1994 excavation of Structure B34 indicate that this building received late Late Classic and Terminal Classic interments, indicating that the people who resided in the Northeast Acropolis at this time participated in traditional Caracol burials patterns and were presumably local elites.  Finally, the earlier Late Classic form of the Northeast Acropolis was completely obscured by the Terminal Classic modifications.  It is suspected that excavations within the central plaza would yield buried constructions of this date on the western and southern sides of the Northeast Acropolis.

Culebras Residential Group

The Culebras Residential Group (Figure 78) is located to the southeast of the South Acropolis on the eastern side of the Pajaro-Ramonal Causeway.  The group straddles a set of terraces on a hillside that leads up to the Caracol epicenter.  This residential group was one of the primary foci for excavation during the 2008 field season and a report of these archaeological investigations is available on the internet (www.caracol.net).

Structure C20

Structure C20 is the northernmost of two eastern shrines associated with the Culebras Residential Group.  During the 2008 field season, this building was penetrated by an axial trench and produced a number of special deposits.  One special deposit, a rear chamber, was not excavated during 2008, but was rather backfilled so that it could be investigated during the 2009 field season.

Operation C179B and Operation C179H were both used during the 2009 field season.  Operation C179B (Figure 79) was an axial trench on Structure C20 that was excavated during the 2008 field season.  Seven special deposits were encountered in this trench, including the capstones for a large open air chamber at the eastern end of the excavation.  Because of the size of the tomb and the fact that the chamber was recovered toward the end of the 2008 field season, it was not excavated and was, instead, backfilled intact so that it could be properly exposed in the future.  At the beginning of the 2009 field season, the eastern 1.5 meters of Operation C179B was reopened to re-expose the capstones over the chamber.  Upon entering the tomb, it was determined that the structural fill had shifted to the point that complete excavation of the chamber could cause a collapse.  In order to ensure that conditions were safe for the excavation, a southern extension was made directly over the chamber and its capstones.  This extension was labeled Operation C179H and measured 2.2 m north-south by 1.5 m east-west (Figure 80).  Below the humus, the disturbed remnants of the interior rear wall for Structure C20 were recovered in association with pieces of the last interior floor of the building.  Beneath this latest flooring, the capstones for the chamber were found 55 to 65 cm below ground surface, as were pieces of an earlier floor that was presumably cut to construct this chamber.  The extension also exposed an entryway for the tomb on its south side that consisted of a narrow passage and steps; this entryway had been sealed within the fill of the last construction effort associated with Structure C20.

Also within the fill for the latest version of Structure C20, and sealed by the latest floor, was a smashed concentration of ceramic sherds that was precisely centered on the tomb axis.  These ceramic materials were located approximately 12-20 cm above the capstones for the chamber.  Although not in specific order in the ground, when reconstructed in the laboratory, they formed half of a ring-based dish; the other half of this dish was recovered from the floor of the chamber (Figure 85m), sealed under other pottery vessels to the side of the bench.  Thus, the interment of half of the vessel above and a half of the vessel within the tomb was purposeful.  This fortuitous find is also relevant to other burial practices recorded from Caracol.  Partial vessels are occasionally recovered within tombs (A. Chase 1994), leading to questions about their purpose and origin.  Were they accidently included in the chamber?  Had the other part of the vessel been purposefully removed?  Had a ceremony been carried out somewhere else and only part of that ceremony placed in the chamber?  The C179H/C179B vessel indicates the purposeful use of a single vessel relative to the construction and consecration of an interment chamber.  Complete vessels have been noted in a number of cases as occurring within fill above Caracol’s tombs; in some cases, single vessels were complete and in situ , smashed above capstones; in other cases, one or more reconstructable vessels were broken and included haphazardly in fill above a chamber (A. Chase and D. Chase 1987); in still other cases, complete censers and vessels were placed on floors directly above interments.  Thus, while we may perceive single contexts archaeologically, the ancient Maya used material culture to ritually interrelate multiple contexts.

S.D. C179B-7 (Figures 81, 82, 83 and 84) was assigned for the contents of the chamber uncovered in the rear of Structure C20.  The chamber contained an L-shaped bench with a lower alley in the northwestern corner.  The chamber measured roughly 2.1 m north-south by 1.15 m east-west; it was 1.0 m from the upper bench surface to the bottom of the capstone.  The alleyway measured 1.5 m in length by 0.3 m in width by 0.2 m in depth.  The entryway was 0.5 m wide and ran along the eastern side of the chamber; two steps led down to the bench surface.   Thirty centimeters of dirt covered the vessels and bones that were set on the broad bench; several ceramic vessels were intact and upright.  Skeletal remains were distributed throughout the chamber and none were clearly articulated.  The skeletal remains were very fragmentary, although all the remains appear to have been from adults.  No sex identifications are possible, although one of the pelvises may be female.  Based on lower premolars, 7 individuals were present in the interment, matching the 6 skull concentrations and one mandible noted by the excavator.  Most of the individuals in this interment had evidence of substantial tartar, although several also had caries.   The teeth of one individual had hypoplasia; those from two other individuals had evidence of having been filed; and, one other individual displayed pyrite inlays in both lower left premolars.  Including the vessel (Figure 85m) found both above and within the chamber, sixteen pottery vessels were recovered from within the tomb.  Four are footed plates (Figure 85i-85l); four are ring-base dishes (Figure 85m-85p); four were cylinders (Figure 85a, 85c, 85g, and 85h); two were bowls (Figure 85e and 85f); and two were pedestalled “brandy snifters” (Figure 85b and 85d).  One of the cylinders evinces dark brown designs on a buff background (Figure 85c); it is similar to other cylinders noted from Tayasal in the Peten (A. Chase and D. Chase 1983: 145) and, more recently, from the vicinity of Cancuen (based on photographs of that site’s ceramics).  Another polychrome cylinder evinced three human figures and an eroded band of hieroglyphs (Figures 85h and 86).  The central figure dwarfs his two attendants and is probably seated on a throne; his elaborate headdress is splayed over more than half of the cylinder.  The brown modeled-carved cylinder (Figure 85a and 87) is perhaps the most unusual ceramic piece.  This vessel portrays the Sun God with a jaguar headdress within a shell cartouche.  The shell cartouche is framed to the left by a corporeal serpent from whose mouth emerges God K with a water-lily headdress. To the right of the shell cartouche, facing the God K serpent, is a skeletalized serpent from whose mouth a foliated gourd emerges.  This modeled-carved cylinder is similar stylistically to three other recorded vessels, none of them from known context.  Justin Kerr  has posted photographs of two cylinders (K2292 and K8242) and one bowl (K8257) that contain imagery and texts that closely resemble the Caracol vessel.  The head of the sun god on one of these vessels (K2292; Kerr 1990:230) is almost an exact duplicate to imagery shown on the Caracol vessel.  The origins of this style cannot be determined at this time, but this style dates to the Late Classic Period and is antecedent to the later modeled-carved vessels that appear during the Terminal Classic (albeit with more warlike imagery).  A large number of small artifacts were also recovered from within the S.D. C179B-7 chamber.  One of the ring-based dishes (Figure 85n) contained: 8 partial obsidian blades (Figure 88a-88h); 4 bone needles (Figure 88v-88y); 1 bone “bead” (Figure 88i); 1 burnt bone fragment (Figure 88j); 10 worked shell objects (Figure 88k, 88l, and 88n-88u), 1 chert flake (Figure 88m), 3 olive shells (Figure 88aa-88cc), and 1 river snail (Figure 88z).  Other materials recovered from within the tomb included: 18 fragmentary obsidian blades (Figure 89a-r); 1 obsidian core fragment (Figure 89u); 1 green obsidian point tip (Figure 89v); 10 chert tools (Figure 89s, 89t, 89w-89dd); 1 jadeite bead (Figure 90o); 1 spindle whorl (Figure 90m); 1 hematite inlaid labret (Figures 90j and 91); 1 bone awl (Figure 90n); 2 bone pins/needles (Figure 90a and 90e); 9 other pieces of worked bone (Figure 90b-90i, 90k, and 90l); 1 shell adorno (Figure 90r), 3 marine shells (Figure 90p, 90s, and 90z), 1 pomacia shell (Figure 90q), 6 riverine shells (Figure 90t-90y); and, 1 worked stone (Figure 90aa).

The excavation of S.D. C179B-7 during the 2009 field season yielded a substantial tomb containing items that date to the late Late Classic Period.  Given the seven individuals interred within the chamber, the 16 vessels indicate an adherence to typical patterns regarding numbers and kinds of vessels that accompanied the dead; while normally one cylinder, one plate, and perhaps one bowl, there was clearly some flexibility in these pairings. The materials within this chamber are also significant because they demonstrate that the inhabitants of the Culebras residential group had access to a multitude of items, some of them tradewares from outside the Caracol area.  The artifacts from within the chamber also suggest that the inhabitants of this group minimally worked (spindle whorl), wove (bone awl), and sewed (needles and pins) cloth.  The Culebras excavations provide an excellent example of the material remains that can be associated with the inhabitants of a non-elite Caracol residential group.

Significance

The 2009 field season was significant for a number of reasons.  First, the Structure C20 tomb added to our understanding of ancient Maya ritual behavior at the site by archaeologically demonstrating the unity between materials overlaying a chamber with those within the chamber.  Second, the LiDAR data from Caracol produced accurate imagery of 200 square kilometers of Caracol’s ancient landscape modifications and architectural constructions, potentially revolutionizing settlement archaeology within the Maya area.  Finally, the investigations begun in the Northeast Acropolis of Caracol during the 2009 field season are particularly important to understanding Terminal Classic variability in coeval Maya material culture and in identifying changes that immediately preceded the Classic Maya Collapse.  Upon the conclusion of the 2010 field season, the excavations in the vicinity of the Northeast Acropolis should help elucidate late burial ritual, craft specialization, and the special role that this architectural complex played within the Caracol site core.  Investigations in the F33/F39 Complex in 2010 and 2011 will provide comparative material and aid in defining the latest occupation, ritual patterns, and ultimate abandonment of Caracol.  Previous research at Caracol suggests that some of the answers to the Maya collapse lay in understanding the internal dynamics of Maya socio-political and economic structures and the changes in these dynamics between the Late and Terminal Classic Period.  Thus, the research that is being undertaken from 2009 through 2011 should ultimately have implications for wider interpretations of the Classic Maya Collapse.

Acknowledgements

The bulk of the drafting for this report was undertaken by Lucas Martindale Johnson with parts also being done by Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase; all figures, however, were assembled and finalized within Photoshop by Arlen F. Chase.  The Field Drawing represented within the drafted figures were recorded at Caracol by senior staff members of the project listed in Table 1.  As with past field seasons, the Belize Institute of Archaeology has substantially facilitated the project; without the aid of Jaime Awe, John Morris, George Thompson, and Brian Woodye, the field camp and project at Caracol would not have functioned successfully, especially in terms of camp start-up and final extraction.  Funding for the 2009 field season was provided by the Alphawood Foundation, the Geraldine and Emory Ford Foundation, the Harrison Fund, NASA Grant NNX08AM11G in conjunction with the UCF-UF Space Research Initiative, and the Trevor Colbourn Endowment at the University of Central Florida.

References

Aimers, James J.

2007       “What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands,”  Journal of

Archaeological Research 15(4): 329-377.

Binford, Louis

1968       “Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology,” Southwestern  Journal of

Anthropology 24:267-275.

Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase

1983       La Ceramica de la Zona Tayasal-Paxcaman, Lago Peten Itza, Guatemala, distributed by The

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania (available at www.caracol.net).

1989       “The Investigation of Classic Period Maya Warfare at Caracol, Belize,” Mayab 5: 5-18.

2001       “The Royal Court of Caracol, Belize: Its Palaces and People,” in Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D.

Houston, Eds., Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya:Volume 2: Data and Case Studies, pp. 102-137,

Westview Press, Boulder.

2004       “Terminal Classic Status-Linked Ceramics and the Maya ‘Collapse:’ De Facto Refuse at Caracol,

Belize,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:

Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 342-246, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

2005a    “Contextualizing the Collapse: Hegemony and Terminal Classic Ceramics from Caracol, Belize,”

in S. Lopez Varella and A. Foias, Eds., Geographies of Power: Understanding the Nature of

Terminal Classic Pottery in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 73-91, BAR Monograph S1447,Oxford.

2005b    “The Early Classic Period at Caracol, Belize: Transitions, Complexity, and Methodological Issues

in Maya Archaeology,” Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 2:17-38.

2007       “’This is the End:’ Archaeological Transitions and the Terminal Classic Period at Caracol, Belize,”

Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4:13-27.

2009       “Symbolic Egalitarianism and Homogenized Distributions in the Archaeological Record at

Caracol, Belize: Method, Theory, and Complexity,” Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 6:15-24.

Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen F. Chase

1996       “Maya Multiples: Individuals, Entries, and Tombs in Structure A34 of Caracol, Belize,” Latin

American Antiquity 7(1):61-79.

2000       “Inferences about Abandonment: Maya Household Archaeology and Caracol, Belize,” Mayab

13:67-77.

2002       “Classic Maya Warfare and Settlement Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” Estudios de Cultura

Maya 22:33-51.

2003       “Texts and Contexts in Classic Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and

Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” in M.K. Brown and T.W. Stanton, Eds., Ancient Mesoamerican

Warfare, pp. 171-188, Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.

2004       “Archaeological Perspectives on Classic Maya Social Organization from Caracol, Belize,” Ancient

Mesoamerica 15:111-119.

2006       “Framing the Maya Collapse: Continuity, Discontinuity, Method, and Practice in the Classic to

Postclassic Southern Maya Lowlands,” in G. Schwartz and J. Nichols, Eds., After Collapse: The

Regeneration of Complex Societies, pp. 168-187, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Demarest, Arthur A.

1993   “The Violent Saga of a Maya Kingdom,” National Geographic 183(2):94-111.

1997a “The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project 1989-1994: Overview, History, and

Major Results of a Multidisciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse,” Ancient Mesoamerica

8:209-227.

1997b “War, Peace, and Collapse of a Native American Civilization: Lessons for Contemporary Systems

of Conflict,” in T. Gregor, Ed., A Natural History of Peace, pp. 215-248, Vanderbilt University

Press, Nashville.

2004   “After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the Terminal Classic in the

Western Peten,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 102-124, University of Colorado Press,

Boulder.

Fash, William L., E. Wyllys Andrews, and T.Kam Manahan

2004   “Political Decentralization, Dynastic Collapse, and the Early Postclassic in the Urban Center of

Copan, Honduras,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya

Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 260-287, University of Colorado Press,

Boulder.

Gill, Richardson B.

2000   The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Gill, Richardson B., Paul A. Mayewski, Johan Nylerd, Gerald P. Haug, and Larry C. Peterson

2007   “Drought and the Maya Collapse,” Ancient Mesoamerica 18(2):283-302.

Grube, Nikolai

1994       “Epigraphic Research at Caracol, Belize,” in D. Chase and A. Chase, Eds., Studies in the

Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, pp. 83-122, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7,

San Francisco.

Shafer, Harry and Thomas Hester

1988   “Preliminary Analysis of Postclassic Lithics,” in D. Chase and A. Chase, A Postclassic

Perspective: Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize, pp. 111-117, Mongraph

4, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Hodell, D.A., J.H. Curtis, and M. Brenner

1995   “Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization,” Nature 375:391-394.

Hodell, D.A., M. Brenner, J.H. Curtis, and T. Guilderson

2001   “Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands,” Science 292:1367-1369.

Kerr, Justin

1990   The Maya Vase Book, Volume 2, Kerr Associates, New York.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula

2008   The Artifacts of Tikal: Ornamental and Ceremonial Artifacts and Unworked Material, Tikal Report 27A,

University Museum Monograph 127, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Sabloff, Jeremy A. and Gordon R. Willey

1967   “The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: A Consideration of History and

Process,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23:311-336.

Webster, David

2002   The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse, Thames and Hudson

Ltd, London.

Webster, David, AnnCorine Freter, and Rebecca Storey

2004       “Dating Copan Culture-History: Implications for the Terminal Classic and the Collapse,” in A.

Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 231-259,

University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Willey, Gordon R.

1990   “General Summary and Conclusions,” Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala

17(4), Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Cambridge.

Incoming search terms:

• mayan artifacts
• Cayo Culebra Mexico
• 1967 kohunlich looters arrested
• summary of aimers james j 2007 what maya collapse? terminal classic variation in
• M K Brown and T W Stanton
• maya ceramics
• mayan serpent headdress
• hierapolis–pamukkale 1988
• mayan civilization
• temples at north acropolis tikal 550 ad

• Maya Prehistory and Caracol
• Caracol Archaeological Project 2008
• History of Caracol
• Description of Words

May 18, 2010

For a quarter of a century, two archaeologists and their team slogged through wild tropical vegetation to investigate and map the remains of one of the largest Maya cities, in Central America. Slow, sweaty hacking with machetes seemed to be the only way to discover the breadth of an ancient urban landscape now hidden beneath a dense forest canopy.

Even the new remote-sensing technologies, so effective in recent decades at surveying other archaeological sites, were no help. Imaging radar and multispectral surveys by air and from space could not “see” through the trees.
Then, in the dry spring season a year ago, the husband-and-wife team of Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase tried a new approach using airborne laser signals that penetrate the jungle cover and are reflected from the ground below. They yielded 3-D images of the site of ancient Caracol, in Belize, one of the great cities of the Maya lowlands.
In only four days, a twin-engine aircraft equipped with an advanced version of lidar (light detection and ranging) flew back and forth over the jungle and collected data surpassing the results of two and a half decades of on-the-ground mapping, the archaeologists said. After three weeks of laboratory processing, the almost 10 hours of laser measurements showed topographic detail over an area of 80 square miles, notably settlement patterns of grand architecture and modest house mounds, roadways and agricultural terraces.
“We were blown away,” Dr. Diane Chase said recently, recalling their first examination of the images. “We believe that lidar will help transform Maya archaeology much in the same way that radiocarbon dating did in the 1950s and interpretations of Maya hieroglyphs did in the 1980s and ’90s.”
The Chases, who are professors of anthropology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, had determined from earlier surveys that Caracol extended over a wide area in its heyday, between A.D. 550 and 900. From a ceremonial center of palaces and broad plazas, it stretched out to industrial zones and poor neighborhoods and beyond to suburbs of substantial houses, markets and terraced fields and reservoirs.
This picture of urban sprawl led the Chases to estimate the city’s population at its peak at more than 115,000. But some archaeologists doubted the evidence warranted such expansive interpretations.
“Now we have a totality of data and see the entire landscape,” Dr. Arlen Chase said of the laser findings. “We know the size of the site, its boundaries, and this confirms our population estimates, and we see all this terracing and begin to know how the people fed themselves.”
The Caracol survey was the first application of the advanced laser technology on such a large archaeological site. Several journal articles describe the use of lidar in the vicinity of Stonehenge in England and elsewhere at an Iron Age fort and American plantation sites. Only last year, Sarah H. Parcak of the University of Alabama at Birmingham predicted, “Lidar imagery will have much to offer the archaeology of the rain forest regions.”
The Chases said they had been unaware of Dr. Parcak’s assessment, in her book “Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology” (Routledge, 2009), when they embarked on the Caracol survey. They acted on the recommendation of a Central Florida colleague, John F. Weishampel, a biologist who had for years used airborne laser sensors to study forests and other vegetation.
Dr. Weishampel arranged for the primary financing of the project from the little-known space archaeology program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The flights were conducted by the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping, operated by the University of Florida and the University of California, Berkeley.
Other archaeologists, who were not involved in the research but were familiar with the results, said the technology should be a boon to explorations, especially ones in the tropics, with its heavily overgrown vegetation, including pre-Columbian sites throughout Mexico and Central America. But they emphasized that it would not obviate the need to follow up with traditional mapping to establish “ground truth.”
Jeremy A. Sabloff, a former director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and now president of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, said he wished he had had lidar when he was working in the Maya ruins at Sayil, in Mexico.
The new laser technology, Dr. Sabloff said, “would definitely have speeded up our mapping, given us more details and would have enabled us to refine our research questions and hypotheses much earlier in our field program than was possible in the 1980s.”
At first, Payson D. Sheets, a University of Colorado archaeologist, was not impressed with lidar. A NASA aircraft tested the laser system over his research area in Costa Rica, he said, “but when I saw it recorded the water in a lake sloping at 14 degrees, I did not use it again.”
Now, after examining the imagery from Caracol, Dr. Sheets said he planned to try lidar, with its improved technology, again. “I was stunned by the crisp precision and fine-grained resolution,” he said.
“Finally, we have a nondestructive and rapid means of documenting the present ground surface through heavy vegetation cover,” Dr. Sheets said, adding, “One can easily imagine, given the Caracol success, how important this would be in Southeast Asia, with the Khmer civilization at places like Angkor Wat.”
In recent reports at meetings of Mayanists and in interviews, the Chases noted that previous remote-sensing techniques focused more on the discovery of archaeological sites than on the detailed imaging of on-ground remains. The sensors could not see through much of the forest to resolve just how big the ancient cities had been. As a consequence, archaeologists may have underestimated the scope of Mayan accomplishments.

Incoming search terms:

• mayan terraces
• mayan cities
• lidar in agriculture
• caracollidar
• terraces in mayan culture
• picture of the caracol ruin in belize
• remote sesning caracol
• mayan terraces about
• mayan tropics
• measurements of caracol

• Maya Prehistory and Caracol
• Description of Words
• About Caracol
• History of Caracol